vote
pedro
vote
Fe Ni fo fum.
third time's a charm :wink:
so i'm assuming that is 5 for alpha, 2 for beta, 2 for esfj, 3 for intj, 2 for enfj, and 1 for intp and 3 (including myself) for "i voted all because i could"
who voted intp?
Fe Si fo fum
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Pedro gave me a dual vibe the other day! oOoOo.
Who voted that he's Delta???
I think three people voted for everything. LOL
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
no way is pedro delta. he's one of our classic intj's like mystic sonic.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
I don't think any Delta would be ready to submit their brain to "mental internet" or wuteva it was
I was just about to say the same thing.
If there is ever something like the mental internet, I would be inclined to do something to destroy it.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
EDIT: so its unlimited access to other's minds? Is that what is invasive? noone objects to the cyber internet.
who voted istj and who was the 3rd esfj vote?
@expat: you would only create a different one. interaction is the mental internet as is organization. the structure you create to destroy it will merely be a different form of the "all organisms of a particular class coming together for a common goal" thing. also, i would hope you would attack it so that it will adapt and become more refined. i doubt it will accomplish much though as we will be in your body, not to take control, not to dictate, but to observe and learn. we can use the knowledge found to stop your efforts as they materialize.
anywho, anyone interested in the subject can check this out: http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/contents.php so far i find it to be fairly entertaining but we shall see. i like how I have become synonymous (to an extent) with "mental internet"
what type is the mental internet?
Do you have to ask?
oh ashton, you know it entices you beyond the point at which you can merely exterminate it. it is like when someone says to an
nice theoryThis poll is frivolous. Joy is doing her usual crap of calling into question the type of anyone she feels is confrontational towards her. Are people picking up on this yet or not?
the last one was that I wanted to retype all of the "gammas" here so I could be gamma, right?
It's not exactly the people who are "confrontational" or whatever towards me, it's the people who catch my attention for any reason. This particular poll is actually the result of a conversation I had about pedro with another person.
who was the third person to vote for infj?
You could vote for more than one thing - I think three people voted for every single option to try to be funny.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
yes, i figured that out long ago (look at my post on the first page). there are 6 votes for infj however. 3 being vote for everything people, 1 being rick, 1 being someone else i spoke to whose name escapes me (stefana maybe? i remember it being someone from another country who was familiar with socionics before coming to this site), and the third one being ???
the second one could also be austy (the isfp with the bear avatar)
I voted for 'alpha' and 'intj'.
.
i've noticed supposed istps such as rocky to take criticisms of their ideas/themselves as a sort of "badge of honor" (eg. rocky's sig). this is a similar "tribute" of sorts
i find this definition to be sort of boring. i much prefer to imagine that i am speaking to a pistachio with a moustache (or a mustachio rather :wink
.
then this is you:
<3
I voted INTj. I too dislike the thought of a future as a bee-woman sharing a hive mind with all of civilization. I will not join my supervisors efforts though for I recall observations of a bee that abandoned its duties to the hive. Whatever its intentions were, it recieved only an unremarkable death by child for all of its efforts. To clarify, Rocky’s signature was praise, not criticism….I could not have asked for a better birthday.
IEIsubtype
this is lovely.
Yes, if that's what the system would mean, I agree.
They might if everything in their files was accessible to everyone else all the time - - now, if the mental internet would work like, say, I need to specifically read something in Russian, let me download knowledge of Russian from someone, that might be interesting as long as you keep control of the information flow.
However, I wouldn't like even that because it leads to laziness and personal stagnation.
Assuming laziness is not physically deprogrammable.
I believe that the trend in society is to greater liberalization of information. We will begin sharing more and more of "ourselves" because our personality will revolve about a greater and greater number of loci which will make threats against any particular one insignificant. It will be sort of like the exfp mindset imo, you will not be able to harm it because it is not so easily offendable. So, in time, privacy will become moot as it will not benefit you in any tangible way. Rather a collective and ever expanding knowledge base will be what everyone depends upon for "security."
i'm actually perfectly in agreement with you and ashton on this, especially the part regarding stagnation. i wouldn't really want to be able to know everything immediately, because i'd likely lose motivation to learn much of anything.Yes, if that's what the system would mean, I agree.
They might if everything in their files was accessible to everyone else all the time - - now, if the mental internet would work like, say, I need to specifically read something in Russian, let me download knowledge of Russian from someone, that might be interesting as long as you keep control of the information flow.
However, I wouldn't like even that because it leads to laziness and personal stagnation.
i must be the anti-technology, in some ways.
regarding pedro's personality type, i think it's obvious that he's all about technology overcoming the role of humans in society. some of the articles he references in his signature line have something to do with this, it's a bit of a recurring theme. and he supports and brings a lot of far out ideas to the table. he also has a habit of not wanting people to get too caught up in the details? if i were to put a slogan on pedro's personality it would be like, "technology will help us to overcome everything! even humans! and i am mildly depressed!"
why did you think you were ESTp?
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
that is not what encapsulates me, that is merely something i advocate. it would be like saying your personality is "I like languages."
In regards to more information stifling intellectual growth it is the opposite that is true. The more information we have available the more we see the defects in our current line of reasoning and are able to correct them. In addition different "fields" of knowledge begin to interact and blend and spawn new fields that are significantly more complex than either of the original fields. For example when biology started it was very "large" and though it contained a lot of information it was not very complex. It was a sort of trait 1 + trait 2 etc = this animal. With the introduction of the microscope however it became ever more complex and led to bioengineering which led to genetic engineering (the concept) which had effects on previous views of biology as different from machinery which led to biotech (the concept) etc etc. If you knew everything you would find yourself standing back in more awe and amazement than you could muster over the sheer insanity of all of it and eventually you would be compelled to discover more of it. We are barely beginning to understand as a human race that knowledge may potentially be infinite and that we are the means of its propogation by thinking it.
but it's the facet you most often show on this messageboard.
i am surprised that you feel confident enough that you can predict that much for the whole of humanity. surely a few people would at the least feel stifled and bored.In regards to more information stifling intellectual growth it is the opposite that is true.
i read that and i see your point, that we'd simply be finding new, even more specialized fields of information, that it's basically endless, and i can agree with that, but it's still not really something that i advocate for the reasons that expat and ashton outlined.words words words
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
you are in error. specialization merely continues until enough contradictions occur for people to realize that the system by which things are known itself is in error. once this occurs it is replaced with something that still explains the original material as well as much more. you have an increasing expansion of knowledge in all directions. the expansion set would be analogous to a derivative/anti-derivative relationship. to use the old example we originally had the concept of "natural numbers" which were insufficient to describe what we needed to describe but were the catalyst for the integers, the rational numbers, the irrational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, etc. these are not mere "additions" to be memorized in themselves but they change the nature of the whole of math. to use a more "concrete" example it is like how we once concieved of atoms as the "basic unit", then protons, neutrons, and electrons, then the list of fundamental particles we have currently. each addition was a revolution not only in the conception of the previous wholes they had created (atoms) but also in their absolute descriptive range (which portions of the universe they could describe). yet another example would be einstein's equations giving accurate solutions in situations that newton's equations could not be used or newton's equations being a generalization of kepler's laws in the first place.
I am not the only variable in that system. You can just as easily say that my means of expression is limited by the way in which a messageboard operates (which it in fact is).
it's strange because i feel like you just wasted a lot of words, explaining something you could have done more briefly? i'm still trying to figure out exactly what our interactions are. i do think that if you'd want to get more people on your mental internet train, you'd have to stop talking about derivative/anti-derivative relationships in order to convince a wider number of people who don't play with math all day. again, i don't disagree with you, but upon reading this i do wonder (in a sort of sincere/caretaking/gyugo-esque way) if maybe you should get out of the house.
point taken.I am not the only variable in that system. You can just as easily say that my means of expression is limited by the way in which a messageboard operates (which it in fact is).
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
