Page 50 of 107 FirstFirst ... 4046474849505152535460100 ... LastLast
Results 1,961 to 2,000 of 4254

Thread: Your typing of forum members

  1. #1961
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,743
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don’t really have a problem seeing Sol as LSE. I think he’s trying to be helpful and productive, and I haven’t seen a lot of analysis of information, more the desire to implement it and an emphasis on whether it’s effective or not. And I’m not sure how well I think Fe comes across online so I wouldn’t use the issue of his role function to gauge it. Ymmv
    LSI: I still cant figure out Pinterest.

    Me: Its just, like, idea boards.

    LSI: I dont have ideas.

  2. #1962

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    I don’t really have a problem seeing Sol as LSE. I think he’s trying to be helpful and productive, and I haven’t seen a lot of analysis of information, more the desire to implement it and an emphasis on whether it’s effective or not.
    Se creative does that: effective implementation.


    And I’m not sure how well I think Fe comes across online so I wouldn’t use the issue of his role function to gauge it. Ymmv
    @Adam Strange 's Fe role for example comes across online fine (I mention him as an example since he was brought up already above)

  3. #1963
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Sx/Sp
    Posts
    3,320
    Mentioned
    212 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Se creative does that: effective implementation.
    Thats Te mate.

  4. #1964

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    Thats Te mate.
    Nah. Te is about efficiency / logic of efficient actions, not about implementing a Ti system in the tangible world to be effective / have influence with it on the real world.

  5. #1965
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,743
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Myst are you casting @Sol as Ti lead like you? The thing is, when does he break things down analytically? His way of using the theory amounts to “this is the way it is because this is the way it is.”
    LSI: I still cant figure out Pinterest.

    Me: Its just, like, idea boards.

    LSI: I dont have ideas.

  6. #1966

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    @Myst are you casting @Sol as Ti lead like you? The thing is, when does he break things down analytically? His way of using the theory amounts to “this is the way it is because this is the way it is.”
    When he talks about which parts of the theories (Jung vs Socionics) are to be prioritized and why.

  7. #1967
    Reyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    458
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    Thats Te mate.
    You're actually both right. Te does it more independently as a function, while a LSI's Se would require Ti: analysis+creation of a system (Ti) + forcing the outside objects to fit into the system (Se).
    @Sol's method in a certain way reminds me of a harsh version of Adam's typing method. Let me explain: @Adam Strange bases his typings on what has worked for him in the past. There's not a "perfect" system he's referring to. He just knows that when a person has X, Y and Z traits, he tends to be an ??? type. There's no craving for perfection. It's pure functionality.

    And despite Sol being a very direct person, he too doesn't pretend to have created a perfect system. He actually didn't create a system at all. He, like Adam, has developed a METHOD.

    Just look at his IR typing method. It works like this (I'm making a short summary. Please take no offence): watch all the videos of the types. Who are you attracted too? That's your dual.

    For a Te lead the method becomes the system. For a Ti the method consists of comparing the reality to his system.

    A Ti must first feel he has a global understanding of the subject, in order to create a system. An LII, after the creation of the system, will start speculating about the system and other weird stuff, or maybe will try to explain the system to others, without necessarily shoving it down their throat. A Se creative, as I said in the beginning of the post, would at that point force the system to the outer world.

    There can obviously be some differences, depending on the person, but this is it, mainly.

    Sol always used a method, and he has perfected his method, making it a system. Ti leads first perfect the system, and then start using it methodically.


    P.S. Pay attention. Dictionary definitions of "systematic" and "methodical" will probably place them as synonyms, but if you understand the root of the words, you'll get what I mean.

  8. #1968
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,743
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    When he talks about which parts of the theories (Jung vs Socionics) are to be prioritized and why.
    I thought of that but it doesn't seem like enough, it’s not active analysis, just “this one works and this one doesn’t.”

    Also where is the response to Fe? When I communicate with him I get like a sentence back. I maybe got two sentences once.
    LSI: I still cant figure out Pinterest.

    Me: Its just, like, idea boards.

    LSI: I dont have ideas.

  9. #1969

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reyne View Post
    You're actually both right. Te does it more independently as a function, while a LSI's Se would require Ti: analysis+creation of a system (Ti) + forcing the outside objects to fit into the system (Se).
    @Sol's method in a certain way reminds me of a harsh version of Adam's typing method. Let me explain: @Adam Strange bases his typings on what has worked for him in the past. There's not a "perfect" system he's referring to. He just knows that when a person has X, Y and Z traits, he tends to be an ??? type. There's no craving for perfection. It's pure functionality.
    I don't even know where to begin listing the differences in how Adam vs Sol do their analyses and typings.... Adam just lists some facts, correlations and anecdotes and @Sol breaks it down (even if with very shitty Ne).


    And despite Sol being a very direct person, he too doesn't pretend to have created a perfect system. He actually didn't create a system at all. He, like Adam, has developed a METHOD.

    Just look at his IR typing method. It works like this (I'm making a short summary. Please take no offence): watch all the videos of the types. Who are you attracted too? That's your dual.
    He did explain the logic behind the IR method in some post earlier. I'd have to find it...


    For a Te lead the method becomes the system. For a Ti the method consists of comparing the reality to his system.

    A Ti must first feel he has a global understanding of the subject, in order to create a system. An LII, after the creation of the system, will start speculating about the system and other weird stuff, or maybe will try to explain the system to others, without necessarily shoving it down their throat. A Se creative, as I said in the beginning of the post, would at that point force the system to the outer world.
    Sol hates, absolutely hates Ne speculation of LIIs lol

    Look at how he recently got at @thehotelambush about that stuff lol (ok I'd have to find the posts). And regularly rants against Gulenko, Reinin etc.

    And he did get pushy about his system against thehotel's (and others too).


    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    I thought of that but it doesn't seem like enough, it’s not active analysis, just “this one works and this one doesn’t.”

    Also where is the response to Fe? When I communicate with him I get like a sentence back. I maybe got two sentences once.
    It was more active analysis than that...

    Idk about Fe, I haven't seen your communication with him.

  10. #1970
    Reyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    458
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Myst

    I don't even know where to begin listing the differences in how Adam vs Sol do their analyses and typings.... Adam just lists some facts and anecdotes and Sol breaks it down (even if with very shitty Ne).
    Yeah, I agree they're very different. I honestly haven't read much type me threads, but the impression I got from the typings I saw from Sol was more like "You're E, N." kind of stuff. I honestly haven't seen much Ti style breaking down. But I repeat, I haven't read much typing threads, since until today I was still creating the roots for my system, so I thought it would have been useless reading them. Today is the first time I've replied to a few of them and it's quite funny.
    Sorry for derailing, but what I wanted to say is just that I mostly see from Sol a list of facts.

    He did explain the logic behind the IR method in some post earlier. I'd have to find it...
    I'd like to read that.

    Look at how he recently got at thehotelambush about that stuff lol
    I'de like to read that too.

  11. #1971

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,198
    Mentioned
    1012 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I don't even know where to begin listing the differences in how Adam vs Sol do their analyses and typings.... Adam just lists some facts, correlations and anecdotes and Sol breaks it down (even if with very shitty Ne).
    I may also use "facts, correlations and anecdotes", while Adam also uses VI.
    While my "very shitty Ne" allows to type people good enough so their behavior fited good to the theory. The efficiency is also the question of trained skills and good management of the means, besides what functions are strong.

    Unlike Adam, I have much more experience in typing and hence better skills by VI and common behavior anaylisis. Have better theory knowledge and understanding as Adam said bs about types, messing suggestive Fe vs Fi. The same mess in the heads I notice among other members, besides their hard heresy usage. The 99% of forums members have zero types understanding compared to me. Adam and you are just noobs to discuss what I do. Noobs which use heretic bs and studed typology by lame translated sources.

    You have a speculative mess in your mind about what happens and then on this base your conclusions. The same is the reason you have exotic opinions about types, which said before. I suspect about many things in the life you have the similar basis of baseless speculative illusions. Ground to the Earth.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  12. #1972

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reyne View Post
    Yeah, I agree they're very different. I honestly haven't read much type me threads, but the impression I got from the typings I saw from Sol was more like "You're E, N." kind of stuff. I honestly haven't seen much Ti style breaking down. But I repeat, I haven't read much typing threads, since until today I was still creating the roots for my system, so I thought it would have been useless reading them. Today is the first time I've replied to a few of them and it's quite funny.
    Sorry for derailing, but what I wanted to say is just that I mostly see from Sol a list of facts.

    I'd like to read that.

    I'de like to read that too.
    He does also "you're E (reasoning)". (Not saying it's necessarily very good reasoning though...)

    It's not derailing, it's the member type thread.

    Uh, if I can easily find the threads, I'll get the links for you later.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    I may also use "facts, correlations and anecdotes", while Adam also uses VI.
    While my "very shitty Ne" allows to type people good enough so their behavior fited good to the theory. The efficiency is also the question of trained skills and good management of the means, besides what functions are strong.

    Unlike Adam, I have much more experience in typing and hence better skills by VI and common behavior anaylisis. Have better theory knowledge and understanding as Adam said bs about types, messing suggestive Fe vs Fi. The same mess in the heads I notice among other members, besides their hard heresy usage. The 99% of forums members have zero types understanding compared to me. Adam and you are just noobs to discuss what I do. Noobs which use heretic bs and studed typology by lame translated sources.

    You have a speculative mess in your mind about what happens and then on this base your conclusions. The same is the reason you have exotic opinions about types, which said before. I suspect about many things in the life you have the similar basis of baseless speculative illusions. Ground to the Earth.
    Alright I get it if you are upset by my willingness to criticize some of your stuff. And especially my willingness to criticize in terms of your authority that you so wish to have here.

    It's just funny that you accuse me of speculating and then you do the speculation about what I do in my life.

    As for the rest of what you say here, it's all just your opinion without you being able to empirically prove it.

    You don't gain authority just by randomly (without proof) claiming that others have no expertise/understanding.

  13. #1973
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Reyne I agree. I said the same thing re. system vs method HERE for Sol, but you elaborated on it much more than I did.

  14. #1974
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,743
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crAck View Post
    lol. You sound mad, m8.
    Hell yeah, cap’n, I want all that attenshun
    LSI: I still cant figure out Pinterest.

    Me: Its just, like, idea boards.

    LSI: I dont have ideas.

  15. #1975
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think reyne did a good job on describing the process whereby a systemic understanding emerges as a consequence of a primary focus on developing a method that works. I think in strong thinking types it bears mentioning that it can go both ways, with Ti adopting this approach (lets experiment and see what works) if it is seen to have rigor and not be something thoroughly discredited in principle, like various pseudo sciences. Which in this day and age pragmatism and empiricism have all sort of been integrated into respected modes of generating knowledge. In the same way Te types will read manuals and can develop a systematic understanding directly, in fact such a thing is often necessary, such that to see a Te type engaged in this would not be inconsistent with strong Te at all (doing general research to broaden one's knowledge). I think there's a general proclivity when looking at Ti/Te approaches to oversimplify and make it an either/or, but that is more how ethical types would like to view the world with respect to their 1d thinking function. The reality is always more complex. Ultimately what distinguishes Ti from Te is not "what works" but "why it works." Deepening one's understanding is either valued for its own sake or in terms of the work it can do. The relationship between Ti/Te is such that that Ti subconsciously makes that knowledge "work" for the person. In other words, deepening for its own sake always does collateral work, even if its sheer enjoyment, which is how you can spend $10 on a movie or simply read the dual nature of man for the 100th time, or what have you (Jeopardy fans are not necessarily Te valuing, in fact quite the opposite I would bet). In a similar way, Te can be genuinely synthetic in how it casts a broader net in seeking out knowledge that does work and contributes to an overall stronger body of knowledge, and these interconnections are like a spiral that deepens by itself over time. Its funny because people often stereotype the ethical and physical qualities of a person, but if you think about it, thinking is no less stereotyped in its own way. And by this I don't mean anything malicious but a kind of low res reduction in order to get a handle on things, but what results is often a comparison or taking sides, when in reality the difference is most often a product of the stereotype itself. people who strongly emphasize the superiority of one are therefore almost always the statements of someone actively defending their own weak side, not really commenting on other people, although other people and traits happen to get caught up in this, and this is precisely the basis on which real tragedies can occur, like all the evils of racism and so forth. this is the power ethical types often unintentionally exercise over the world with potentially disastrous consequences
    Last edited by Bertrand; 07-28-2018 at 05:07 AM.

  16. #1976
    Haikus thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,113
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    @Myst are you casting @Sol as Ti lead like you? The thing is, when does he break things down analytically? His way of using the theory amounts to this is the way it is because this is the way it is.
    If that isn't Ne vulnerable I don't know what is.

    Yes, LSIs can be interested in logically analyzing things, but often once they've made their minds up, tend to view reevaluating their beliefs as a chore (or even threatening, in the worse cases).

    LSEs by contrast are enthusiastic about new ideas, information, ways of looking at things etc. It's a misconception that they're "just a different type of rigid", whatever that means. I guess it's partly based on MBTI.

  17. #1977
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    it probably has to do with if you hit LSE with some Ni they're going to resist it, primarily on rational grounds. which is what LSI does except with Ne. They're similar in the sense the like to keep the intuitive scope of their polr as constrained as rationality allows and it is in that narrowing they find their contribution to whatever field they're dedicated to. in other words they like to nail things down with a thinking process, and opening up a new front is likely to be considered a form of opposition, or at the very least perceived somewhat painfully to the extent it presents a legitimate claim. i've noticed this in law school, LSE is very good at thinking a few steps ahead, but if you take it even further and point out whichever path they take terminates in the same result they can get really frustrated. they like clamping the time axis to relatively near term and don't like to evaluate goals and aims in terms of things such as enantiodromia, or even large scale market forces naturally balancing certain efforts. they are believers in the ability of work to accomplish a goal, that is easily undermined by making it out to be more or less a chasing after the wind. they are very much not enthusiastic about those sorts of ideas, quite the opposite in fact. if you point out that cleverly constructing a law may just result in the market adjusting to compensate they tend to get pissed, because it makes apparent the futility of some of their approach. this often results in a flat refusal to broaden their perspective to incorporate this kind of information. what happens is they will deny in principle such counter balancing forces as speculative and in the absence of proof of their existence will proceed as if such a thing can't happen, leaving the decisive factor to the concrete and rational ones

  18. #1978
    Haikus thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,113
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    it probably has to do with if you hit LSE with some Ni they're going to resist it, primarily on rational grounds. which is what LSI does except with Ne. They're similar in the sense the like to keep the intuitive scope of their polr as constrained as rationality allows and it is in that narrowing they find their contribution to whatever field they're dedicated to. in other words they like to nail things down with a thinking process, and opening up a new front is likely to be considered a form of opposition, or at the very least perceived somewhat painfully to the extent it presents a legitimate claim.
    No. An LSE will respond to Ni not with "rationality" but with Ne. The basic conflict here is between Vulnerable and Mobilizing.

    Ni is about constraining, Ne is about expanding (possibilities). LSEs have a strong preference for the latter, as do ESEs. What you're saying is the exact opposite of this. Rationality has nothing to do with it.

  19. #1979

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I think reyne did a good job on describing the process whereby a systemic understanding emerges as a consequence of a primary focus on developing a method that works. I think in strong thinking types it bears mentioning that it can go both ways, with Ti adopting this approach (lets experiment and see what works) if it is seen to have rigor and not be something thoroughly discredited in principle, like various pseudo sciences. Which in this day and age pragmatism and empiricism have all sort of been integrated into respected modes of generating knowledge. In the same way Te types will read manuals and can develop a systematic understanding directly, in fact such a thing is often necessary, such that to see a Te type engaged in this would not be inconsistent with strong Te at all (doing general research to broaden one's knowledge). I think there's a general proclivity when looking at Ti/Te approaches to oversimplify and make it an either/or, but that is more how ethical types would like to view the world with respect to their 1d thinking function. The reality is always more complex. Ultimately what distinguishes Ti from Te is not "what works" but "why it works." Deepening one's understanding is either valued for its own sake or in terms of the work it can do. The relationship between Ti/Te is such that that Ti subconsciously makes that knowledge "work" for the person. In other words, deepening for its own sake always does collateral work, even if its sheer enjoyment, which is how you can spend $10 on a movie or simply read the dual nature of man for the 100th time, or what have you (Jeopardy fans are not necessarily Te valuing, in fact quite the opposite I would bet). In a similar way, Te can be genuinely synthetic in how it casts a broader net in seeking out knowledge that does work and contributes to an overall stronger body of knowledge, and these interconnections are like a spiral that deepens by itself over time. Its funny because people often stereotype the ethical and physical qualities of a person, but if you think about it, thinking is no less stereotyped in its own way. And by this I don't mean anything malicious but a kind of low res reduction in order to get a handle on things, but what results is often a comparison or taking sides, when in reality the difference is most often a product of the stereotype itself. people who strongly emphasize the superiority of one are therefore almost always the statements of someone actively defending their own weak side, not really commenting on other people, although other people and traits happen to get caught up in this, and this is precisely the basis on which real tragedies can occur, like all the evils of racism and so forth. this is the power ethical types often unintentionally exercise over the world with potentially disastrous consequences
    If you want to hear from a Ti lead type, I don't really do deepening of my understanding just to have it, it has to have an agenda in society other than just sitting on my ass and doing mental masturbation. That's how Ti as an Ego function works, having some use for it in society, i.e. it has an agenda, a Rational purpose to work towards with the thinking.

  20. #1980
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    No. An LSE will respond to Ni not with "rationality" but with Ne. The basic conflict here is between Vulnerable and Mobilizing.

    Ni is about constraining, Ne is about expanding (possibilities). LSEs have a strong preference for the latter, as do ESEs. What you're saying is the exact opposite of this. Rationality has nothing to do with it.
    lol this is exactly what im talking about. you're making Ne about unmitigated acceptance of expanding possibilities, when its more about perception of expanding possibilities, it can easily be perceiving possibilities and finding them threatening in that they don't fit into the model, which is what you're doing here. what you are demonstrating is a kind of sympatico with LSE because you view similar things as threats, which is essentially anything that contradicts the rational model in the form of Ni. your recourse is to define it out of existence and insist on the model. Ne has been wholly made a servant of the rational model and it is a joke to suggest then, as a consequence of the model, it is about absolute acceptance of possibilities, as if it weren't a slave because the model says it isn't. you are in fact the one who has turned things upside down. because like LSE the perception has been subordinated to the "order of things", except in your special case, you've defined Ne valuing as being above such petty weaknesses. which is ironic, but typical. the model doesn't make it real, it just makes them foolish inasmuch as they insist on it at the expense of reality. in any case ESE is the one who gets excited over possibilities for their own sake. are we really going to pretend base thinking types don't get caught up in the conception of things and the resulting formulas at the expense of the true situation, simply because they value Ne, as if Ne isn't precisely the pernicious servant to such a process, when in any position but the dominant one. this is just another mode of "Te is objective and therefore correct" except its "Ne is open and therefore not rigid"--it cuts out all the contextualizing factors that offset this ridiculously one dimensional statement. base rationality is irreducibly rigid. its a basic tenent of socionics right down to how they physically hold themselves. to say its not a different kind of rigid is like absurd on its face without even going into the details. its more rigid by definition in comparison to the perceiving types, thus they're all on the rigid side. what remains is only the distinguishing character of that rigidity. the fact that you happen to find that character agreeable does not objectively shift its position with respect to rigidity. although you have made an impressive effort to that end. rationality has everything to do with it. QED
    Last edited by Bertrand; 07-28-2018 at 08:27 PM.

  21. #1981

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    lol this is exactly what im talking about. you're making Ne about unmitigated acceptance of expanding possibilities, when its more about perception of expanding possibilities, it can easily be perceiving possibilities and finding them threatening in that they don't fit into the model, which is what you're doing here.
    Only Ti does that kind of modeling of systems, Te doesn't. I.e. facts and yes possibilities too have to fit the model. That's Ti, and I'm not going to repeat that again.


    the fact that you happen to find that character agreeable does not objectively shift its position with respect to rigidity. although you have made an impressive effort to that end. rationality has everything to do with it. QED
    QED lol...? Thehotelambush does not go by feelings like you do in forming conclusions.

    And go look at how real LSEs are actually open to Ne, not just ESEs.

  22. #1982
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    people are just thinking about it the wrong way, "rigid in a different way' is precisely that--try going into a situation where time is a constraint with LSE and tell me they're not rigid. people are presumably thinking about scenarios where LSI would be rigid and LSE wouldn't, but forgetting about all the other ones, because they're scenarios they tend to be comfortable with, which is more a product of ITR (by this I mean LII is precisely about managing time on their behalf). rigidity is associated with 2 things: rationality and norms. in the case of LSE if the time sense is inadequate the idea of "going by the clock" or the schedule, or the plan, is precisely the norm they fall back on "the gun should fire in the second act" is a Ne statement. the idea that only feeling types can be subjective or biased is antithetical to the most basic lesson of socionics. its precisely because people are subjective and biased that they can distort rigidity as only being a factor in situations they personally envision as being probable and unpleasant, which presupposes them at the center of it. to devise a whole system around it is nothing more than a gloss on "I personaly don't find LSE as rigid", when that is not the meaning on rigid. To say this bias is not in play is to assume that thinking is stepping outside of your perspective in a psychological sense, when thinking is really just a particular psychological state. its to short shrift the real insight to jung and socionics and replace it with a self aggrandizing structure based on one's own ego. to say "It's a misconception that they're just a different type of rigid whatever that means." is more like a statement of precisely this sort of guilt, which is to favor oneself and one's buddies and admit you don't even understand what's going on at the same time. As if the whole concept is somehow inconceivable. "whatever that means"--"x is like y, only distinguishable as a matter of perspective" is like the meaning of socionics itself, so its no wonder the bush devised an entire system to replace it, because apparently jettisoning this exact principle is the salient difference between the two models

  23. #1983

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

    Default

    @Bertrand you are still not about thehotel's actual point, which was about how Ni is limiting and Ne is expanding, and while Rationality takes the dominant role, you can get an LSI to accept intuitive ideas via Ni, but not directly via Ne and vice versa for LSE. In practice I find it plays out as LSE being open to play around with more ideas and overall being more noncommittal about what's true/correct (devalued Ti and Ni, Te and Ne not limiting at all in this area).

  24. #1984
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah exactly, you find. its %100 a product of the ideas you're running by them. do you think EIE finds LSE or LSI more open when it comes to exploring certain ideas. like I said this entire mode of analysis as to what constitutes rigidity is just ITR. the idea that you can't have got it wrong because mistakes arising out of bias are for feelers is just an annoying aside, as if possible bias didn't exist across every dimension including thinking itself, not to mention perception. in any case this argument is stupid precisely for this reason, how do you convince someone their personal way of looking at other types is a matter of perspective if they somehow think they're above it. if you want to reserve for yourself the godlike role of the "creator" as master of the model and not subject to it, the arrogance has already reached critical mass so I don't know why I bother (the great thing about Jung, which gave him real integrity is he didn't even "own" his own model in this way, in fact he routinely disowned it). these are precisely the kinds of judgements Singu is right to critique as being merely ultimately baseless, albeit well articulated, prejudice, not insight

  25. #1985

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    yeah exactly, you find. its %100 a product of the ideas you're running by them. do you think EIE finds LSE or LSI more open when it comes to exploring certain ideas. like I said this entire mode of analysis as to what constitutes rigidity is just ITR. the idea that you can't have got it wrong because mistakes arising out of bias are for feelers is just an annoying aside, as if possible bias didn't exist across every dimension including thinking itself, not to mention perception. in any case this argument is stupid precisely for this reason, how do you convince someone their personal way of looking at other types is a matter of perspective if they somehow think they're above it. if you want to reserve for yourself the godlike role of the "creator" as master of the model and not subject to it, the arrogance has already reached critical mass so I don't know why I bother (the great thing about Jung, which gave him real integrity is he didn't even "own" his own model in this way, in fact he routinely disowned it). these are precisely the kinds of judgements Singu is right to critique as being merely ultimately baseless, albeit well articulated, prejudice, not insight
    I simply said that you are mistaken if you think thehotel based the reasoning in feelings so that part of your response was very misguided.

    This is very different from claiming that only Feelers can be biased.

    I don't think what I said depends on ITR. Since Ni and Ti are limiting compared to Ne and Te, yeah LSI does take in fewer ideas.

    As for creating models, no one forbids you from doing so. Go on, enjoy.

  26. #1986
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,743
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    No. An LSE will respond to Ni not with "rationality" but with Ne. The basic conflict here is between Vulnerable and Mobilizing.

    Ni is about constraining, Ne is about expanding (possibilities). LSEs have a strong preference for the latter, as do ESEs. What you're saying is the exact opposite of this. Rationality has nothing to do with it.
    I can see what you’re saying, but I’m not sure why the LSE would respond with Ne when faced with Ni, versus respond with something else or just ... not respond. Could you explain why? I do think that people can compensate in general for their polr with the HA, just based on observation, but I’m not sure how this works in the specific instance where they are confronted with the polr IE.
    LSI: I still cant figure out Pinterest.

    Me: Its just, like, idea boards.

    LSI: I dont have ideas.

  27. #1987

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crAck View Post
    However, when we consider it's Sol, and definitionally Te Base has 'Limiting Ti', Sol marking his line in the sand and being firm with it perfectly fits LSE. That is: Sol claims to be a typing master, so because he has Limiting Ti, he's just not open to critical analysis.
    This doesn't say how this is different from the Ne PoLR version of marking the line in the sand and not being open to analysing more possibilities.


    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    I can see what you’re saying, but I’m not sure why the LSE would respond with Ne when faced with Ni, versus respond with something else or just ... not respond. Could you explain why? I do think that people can compensate in general for their polr with the HA, just based on observation, but I’m not sure how this works in the specific instance where they are confronted with the polr IE.
    I find I compensate way more readily with the Creative, which obviously makes sense as it's an easily accessible Ego function. Idk where you saw Sol respond with Ne to Ni?

  28. #1988

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crAck View Post
    I did not say it was definitely one-way-not-the-other. My comment was a mere caution signal. The quote fits Ne PoLR, but it isn't un-LSE either.
    Oh certainly I've seen LSEs not being open to input but I've seen differences in how they do that. Either peacefully going on with what they were saying, and sounding noncommittal in that way, or being loud and completely ignoring everything (usually I've seen the noncommittal polite side though). When Sol ignores things I don't see him being loudly emotional like that even if I have seen him lose objectivity in his judgments lol - nor noncommittal when he does respond.

  29. #1989
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's Ti that Sol is rejecting, not Ni or Ne. His method itself employs Ne and Fi in it's usage. In other words, you have to use both Ne and Fi to use his video-typing ITR test.

    And the rejection of Ti is more along the lines of just favoring Te over Ti rather than some kind of polr hit or something. In other words, he's saying, "Use my method for the best results" and "don't get caught up in useless theory and explanations"

  30. #1990
    Ragdoll Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    ISTp-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    2,731
    Mentioned
    331 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crAck View Post
    Who thinks Adam is an SLE? Vote: https://www.strawpoll.me/16168188
    not all the men who doesnt know how to treat women are SLE.

  31. #1991
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,743
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I find I compensate way more readily with the Creative, which obviously makes sense as it's an easily accessible Ego function. Idk where you saw Sol respond with Ne to Ni?
    I didn’t, my understanding was that hotel asserted an LSE or ESE would respond to Ni with Ne. I may have misunderstood, but anyway I was trying to figure out why and how that would work.

    My opinion is that in a long-term, general sense, development of the HA could mitigate the polr somewhat. But I don’t know how that would happen in a live polr situation and I had the thought that the ego is usually doing stuff so why wouldn’t it just keep going, why would someone revert to a less confident function?
    LSI: I still cant figure out Pinterest.

    Me: Its just, like, idea boards.

    LSI: I dont have ideas.

  32. #1992
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crAck View Post
    Who thinks Adam is an SLE? Vote: https://www.strawpoll.me/16168188
    I think I was the most outspoken, if not lone, proponent of this theory, but I don't think its worth pursuing anymore. whatever I was seeing, it does not seem to be so straightforward. im not saying adam can't be SLE, but just that, I honestly don't want to commit to anything because I am not sure base type is something you can just assign to someone, either yea or nay. I think I have come to understand Jung's theory of therapy, with type being a kind of subsidiary, which is you haven't found the truth until both patient and therapist are satisfied with the solution, because its only in that kind of acceptance will whatever plan or idea really have the potential to be acted on. in this way, we can assign types in our head as a form of provisionally getting our bearings on the situation, but we need to always be open to revising it and improving it in order to better the situation. this includes being willing to bring our understanding in line with that of the outer world, especially in the form of other people, if we want to meaningfully interact over time with them. this doesn't mean raw capitulation but it means integrating feedback is an indispensable part of moving forward and not stagnating. in that respect I think my typing of Adam was based on axioms I no longer really hold, and even though it means revising my sense of what gamma represents, perhaps that is good and proper. I think I had an overly idealized and crystaline image of quadra which was in turn distorting and displacing everyone that did not comport with that image. in effect there is a system wherein adam is SLE, but it may not be one that is useful for communicating with anyone because it is its own self contained, albeit internally consistent, system with the fatal flaw that it has no way to link itself to the current situation on the ground as other people see it. until there is something to break that stalemate via objective sensory means, there is no reason to die on that hill when so much progress elsewhere remains to be made. another way to think about it is, perhaps adam is so SLE it is now simply that SLE = LIE and it is mission accomplished, even gulenko seems to allow for this in incorporating certain mbti'sms and so forth in recognition of their sheer intractability and relative unimportance in light of what all there remains to accomplish. in essence ideological purity for its own sake can simply become an impediment to moving forward and there's no reason to get hung up on individual's type past a certain point. ultimately its the big picture that matters. the entire concept of a person having one type, sticking to it, and essentially representing that type, seems to me to be a flawed premise, but one that is anchored in assigning the types names and faces, that at the time may have been a necessary evil but has revealed itself to have certain and significant costs as well. in the final analysis there is room for anyone to claim whatever they want, because the label is just that, its the introspective process of development, of which the label is just a starting point, that really matters. and where one starts is somewhat trivial in light of actually getting started and undertaking the journey itself. socionics is often hung up on precisely this first step, when I think it is not as important as it has been believed, and I was mistaken for falling into that same trap. for some, that is a game they will spend their whole life preoccupied with, but that is not how I want to end up
    Last edited by Bertrand; 07-29-2018 at 01:39 AM.

  33. #1993

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    400
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Very easy to get caught up in typing to "git gud" in the beginning. It's acddictive to some, it's addictive to be right, we are looking for some truth to make the world fit and behave.
    World wants none of this.
    One can even push so far as to hurt relationships with assumptions, not being able to change subject and making people uncomfortable by trying to get in their head, asking too many personal questions.
    It becomes a challenge, a war to be right, yet which remains is what's left after the dust falls off, not the right.
    What purpose does it serve to be right anyway? No idea, but when two people who are right meet, they better have the same opinion!
    Beware of the clash of titans.

    Typing is difficult, takes time and understanding from both side, from the heart, the mind, for the relationship.

  34. #1994
    Ragdoll Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    ISTp-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    2,731
    Mentioned
    331 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    typing is easy, ppl are difficult.

  35. #1995

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    400
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's difficult about people?

  36. #1996
    Ragdoll Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    ISTp-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    2,731
    Mentioned
    331 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    That full grown adults take the forum and being typed so seriously.

  37. #1997
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Sx/Sp
    Posts
    3,320
    Mentioned
    212 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    No. An LSE will respond to Ni not with "rationality" but with Ne. The basic conflict here is between Vulnerable and Mobilizing.

    Ni is about constraining, Ne is about expanding (possibilities). LSEs have a strong preference for the latter, as do ESEs. What you're saying is the exact opposite of this. Rationality has nothing to do with it.
    An LSE will respond with Si and Te cuz those are his ego functions

  38. #1998

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,198
    Mentioned
    1012 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Aki is not "TIM EII-3Ne"
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  39. #1999
    Reyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    458
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    @Aki is not "TIM EII-3Ne"
    Yeah, she got no super-ego relationship with you.

    I'm kidding.

  40. #2000

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,198
    Mentioned
    1012 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reyne View Post
    Yeah, she got no super-ego relationship with you.
    she seems too agitated for EII. I do not exclude Fe types, including superego still.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

Posting Permissions

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