Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Jung on Ni

  1. #1
    Alomoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    TIM
    LIE ENTj
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Jung on Ni

    The introverted intuitive type, like the extraverted intuitive, has an uncanny capacity for smelling out the future, the notyet-manifest possibilities of a situation. But the intuition is directed within, hence they are primarily found among seers and prophets, poets, artists; among primitive peoples they are the shamans who convey the messages of the gods to the tribe. On a more mundane level, persons of this type tend to be mystical day-dreamers. They do not communicate well, are frequently misunderstood, lack good judgment about both themselves and others, and never accomplish anything. They move from image to image, writes Jung, "chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious," without establishing any personal connection.108 This type is especially liable to neglect ordinary physical needs. They often have little awareness of their own bodily existence or its effect on others. It often appears (especially to the extravert) that reality does not exist for them—they are simply lost in fruitless fantasies. Jung counters this by describing the value of this type to the collective community: The perception of the images of the unconscious, produced in such inexhaustible abundance by the creative energy of life, is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility. But since these images represent possible views of the world which may give life a new potential, this function, which to the outside world is the strangest of all, is as indispensable to the total psychic economy as is the corresponding human type to the psychic life of a people. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel.109 Introverted intuitives are characteristically vague about details in the "real" world. They easily get lost in strange cities; they misplace possessions, forget appointments, seldom turn up on time, arrive at airports at the very last minute. Their working environment is usually chaotic; they can't find the right papers, the tools they need, clean clothes. There is seldom anything orderly or tidy about them. They tend to muddle through life, dependent on the tolerance and good will of sensation-oriented friends.


    Oh look, it's Einstein.
    Figured it out. LIE. I'm extraverted, which is incredibly counter intuitive for a person who doesn't tend to go out much. Don't know how often I'll be on, but don't expect me to respond often. Only option I'm willing to debate is Si vs Ni right now. Mission accomplished.

  2. #2
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,317
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung is dead on.

    "On a more mundane level, persons of this type tend to be mystical day-dreamers. They do not communicate well, are frequently misunderstood, lack good judgment about both themselves and others, and never accomplish anything. They move from image to image, writes Jung, "chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious," without establishing any personal connection.108 This type is especially liable to neglect ordinary physical needs. They often have little awareness of their own bodily existence or its effect on others. It often appears (especially to the extravert) that reality does not exist for them—they are simply lost in fruitless fantasies."
    I hear these “fruitless fantasies” all day long from my IEI-Ni 4w5 sx/sp. It makes for lots of play. A typical example:

    Her: Baby, I’m a Hollywood star inside. Inside me there’s marlene dietrich, Audrey Hepburn, a little bit Marilyn Monroe but the bigs of all them you know who, Joan Crawford mixed with Bettie Davis, I have both inside me burning burning consuming my soul. I am a diva, I am a diva!

    Me: Heh.

    Her: And you don’t understand that that I need to pursue my dream to stardom. I want to go to broadway one day. To see shows not to perform. with a rich old bald man with a pocketful of money and then I want to travel with him to monte carlo because I’ crazy to visit monte carlo. it s a place where all big stars start and you don’t’ understand this because you’re 2 eggs 2 bacon 2 sausage and you’re a guy who likes to go to starbucks because you feel more rich. NOOO you’re rich if you take coffee in Portugal, if you take coffee in Lisbon. Then you are rich. “I like starbucks” Noooo. You’re suspposed to say you like the coffee they serve in Chiado, Portugal. I love chiado coffee. It’s the best coffee in the world.

    Me: Disneyland?

    Her: NOOOO, no Disneyland man. I don’t talk about plastic. I talk about things 200 years old. don’t come with plastic words like you americans like.

    Me: You can seduce your rich man in Disneyland.

    Her: No no theres no Disneyland. I want to go to monte carlo. Monte carlo. That’s what I want. How come you don’t take me to monte carlo. Its not that expensive. We should go. Its beautiful there. Its quiet, beautiful a lot of people visit. You should take me there.

    Me: Just don’t forget I’m the star.

    Her: You’re the star for what, starbucks, mcdonalds star Donald. Dunkin Donalds!

    Me: Cut the crap.

    Her: Cut the crap. I’m going to name our kids Cut the Crap. Cut the crap. Cut the crap!

    ***

    there's never a dull moment, though....the other night around eleven o'clock she just comes up with this plan to ride her bicycle around the city looking for a dresser somebody left on the street for trash day. "I have to go now because if soembody put something out tomorrow it will be gone." it took me a half hour to convince her to let me drive her instead. she didn't lose hope that there would be a dresser just waiting for her on one of the streets. of course there was nothing there.

    she excels at driving people crazy. i am already crazy so I get a kick out of it.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 07-01-2019 at 03:09 AM.

  3. #3
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    282
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alomoes View Post
    Oh look, it's Einstein.
    No it isn't.

  4. #4
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    220
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes to all your posts.

  5. #5
    Dalek Caan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I kind of wonder if Einstein was INTp as well. From the few things I've read about him, he enjoyed learning math and physics, but was apparently a bad tutor and had a hard time getting an academic job and was kind of screwed up until he got a job in a patent office that his father helped recommend him for. His Fe seemed lacking; in my experience, Ti/Fe types usually do okay career-wise because they put on that Fe to get people's favor. And he was only well-known by people after his theory of relativity became prominent. Apparently he was also a bad lecturer when his theory of relativity got him into academia. People that had classes with him said he'd often just talk to himself and write things on a board. He was hard to follow and mostly inside his head apparently.

    But he used what he called "thought experiments" to come up with his ideas and tried to come up with a unified field theory, though I don't think he ever did. His theory of relativity was lacking the necessary mathematics to back it up and was almost taken by a colleague as a result. I don't think Ti was his priority, but rather his intuition. He seems to have spent a large amount of time in his head trying to work out his intuition and frequently isolated himself from other people to do it. I know the Russians think he was ILE and maybe he was, but he seemed a lot more introverted like an ILI.
    Androgynous Robot Dreamer - Not really human, but good at pretending.

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    blame the merry quadras

  6. #6
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,052
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Caan View Post
    His Fe seemed lacking
    Einstein cracks joke

  7. #7
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,479
    Mentioned
    190 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    OK, take a look at all the 8 types first before giving labels. It seems like Jung has put lots of eggs into one basket for each type instead of two which is socionics approach.

    In my experience Ni type's physical needs: lack of proper body mass, non appropriate clothes or make up for events.

    That is their lack of body consciousness. IEI's have problem with time (which they might might have common with their super ego type SLI) where as this not clearly problem with ILI. Like I said he put eggs into one basket when the other one was also available. IEI's tend to also share in common with SLI's certain appreciation of colors and stuff regarding aesthetics

    Whereas Ne type would be more oblivious to what is in front of their nose. Lack of tuning into a present moment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  8. #8
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    282
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Caan View Post
    But he used what he called "thought experiments" to come up with his ideas
    As has everyone in physics and philosophy since time immemorial.

    His theory of relativity was lacking the necessary mathematics to back it up and was almost taken by a colleague as a result.
    Actually it was based on a number of priors that had been well-known for decades.

    Minkowski & Born worked out the mathematics for it a few years after Einstein's 1905 publication—nobody 'stole' anything. This is typically how science works.

    I know the Russians think he was ILE and maybe he was, but he seemed a lot more introverted like an ILI.
    The Russians are correct.

    If you want examples of ILI contemporaries, check Niels Bohr. Solid exposition of Te vs. Ti between him and Einstein.

    Max Born is another ILI.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,401
    Mentioned
    239 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    If you want examples of ILI contemporaries, check Niels Bohr. Solid exposition of Te vs. Ti between him and Einstein.
    It only has to do with their philosophical differences of Realism vs. Antirealism. Basically, Einstein the Realist was interested in the role of explanations in science. He wanted to explain how things worked. That's why he had "thought experiments" to attempt to come up with explanations for certain phenomenas and resolve apparent contradictions in known theories and science at the time. While Niels Bohr attempted to "bypass" having to explain things by coming up with the probabilistic "interpretation" of quantum mechanics. You don't need to deal with the "Many-Worlds theory" explanatory nonsense, because you can't see or feel any multiverses, anyway.

    You might say that's the difference between Ti and Te, but Einstein wasn't always a Realist, and he wasn't always interested in the role of explanations.

  10. #10
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    282
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    It only has to do with their philosophical differences of Realism vs. Antirealism.
    Philosophical differences tend to imply functional differences.

    That's why he had "thought experiments" to attempt to come up with explanations for certain phenomenas and resolve apparent contradictions in known theories and science at the time.
    Everyone in science has been doing this for centuries. Stop pointing it out like it's something special.

    While Niels Bohr attempted to "bypass" having to explain things by coming up with the probabilistic "interpretation" of quantum mechanics. You don't need to deal with the "Many-Worlds theory" explanatory nonsense, because you can't see or feel any multiverses, anyway.
    Bohr never championed multiverse theories. He's notable for the 'Copenhagen Interpretation'—effectively an instrumentalist take on quantum phenomena that tries to avoid getting mired in metaphysical assumptions beyond what can be measurably observed.

    Probabilistic interpretations aren't a way of 'bypassing' explanations. For all anyone knows, probability may well represent how reality actually works. As Max Born says:

    "The question of whether the waves are something 'real' or a function to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of taste. I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations… quite generally, how could we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and objective?"

  11. #11

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,401
    Mentioned
    239 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Philosophical differences tend to imply functional differences.
    The real cause of it is philosophical differences, and philosophies can be freely adopted and discarded by the exact same person. Einstein used to be an instrumentalist like Bohr for a little while, does that make them the same type?

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Everyone in science has been doing this for centuries. Stop pointing it out like it's something special.
    Yes, it's nothing new. Science has always been about explaining things and doing thought experiments ever since people could think about things. Until Empiricism and Instrumentalism and Positivism came along and said we should do away with those kinds of explanations and "thought experiments".

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Bohr never championed multiverse theories. He's notable for the 'Copenhagen Interpretation'—effectively an instrumentalist take on quantum phenomena that tries to avoid getting mired in metaphysical assumptions beyond what can be measurably observed.
    Well, that's the whole point. Explaining things would mean making "metaphysical assumptions". Instrumentalists like Bohr wanted to do away with explaining things because that would be making metaphysical assumptions.

    The problem is that we can't make any new knowledge, or even objective knowledge, without explaining things. And science has always been about explaining how things work.

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Probabilistic interpretations aren't a way of 'bypassing' explanations. For all anyone knows, probability may well represent how reality actually works. As Max Born says:
    Probabilities can't explain anything, at best it might predict things.

    The fundamental problem with probabilities is that it's subjective. Something isn't "probably" true, something isn't "probably" there, it's either there or it isn't.

    So subjectively, or from the perspective of our universe, the quantum mechanics might be probabilistic. But that's only because we can't "see" how the atoms might be behaving in the other universes. (The Copenhagen interpretation of) Quantum mechanics act as if atoms are interacting with other invisible atoms that we can never see or measure, but it really isn't. Well, that's just really crazy. But this craziness can be easily resolved, if we accept the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    But of course, Instrumentalists like Bohr would reject that, because apparently, we can't "see" or "measure" other universes.

  12. #12
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,479
    Mentioned
    190 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Caan View Post
    His Fe seemed lacking; in my experience, Ti/Fe types usually do okay career-wise because they put on that Fe to get people's favor.
    Fi is the most effective networking function. Fe is just all the show. You do not get behind the scenes with Fe aka making people to conduct favors of exchange.



    For example people might want me out not because I'm bad for atmosphere but because I do not respect their security seeking (like occupational unions). I give absolutely zero moral support so to say and I'm proud of it.

    That being said networking as in belonging to something is more of beta/delta thing.
    Last edited by Heretic 007; 07-02-2019 at 07:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  13. #13
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    282
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    The real cause of it is philosophical differences, and philosophies can be freely adopted and discarded by the exact same person.
    Nonsensical POV. People drift towards values/philosophies/ideologies conducive to their inborn makeup (heritability studies certainly evince as much).

    Einstein used to be an instrumentalist like Bohr for a little while, does that make them the same type?
    I've never heard this about Einstein. But assuming this is true, that he didn't remain one is telling in itself.

    Yes, it's nothing new. Science has always been about explaining things and doing thought experiments ever since people could think about things. Until Empiricism and Instrumentalism and Positivism came along and said we should do away with those kinds of explanations and "thought experiments".
    No, they still do them lol.

    Well, that's the whole point. Explaining things would mean making "metaphysical assumptions". Instrumentalists like Bohr wanted to do away with explaining things because that would be making metaphysical assumptions.

    The problem is that we can't make any new knowledge, or even objective knowledge, without explaining things.
    Your prescription of what constitutes an 'explanation' sounds more a matter of personal taste.

    And science has always been about explaining how things work.
    Causal explanations needn't extend any further than "under some given conditions, varying X can be observed to affect Y".

    Measure it, model it, make a theory about it, and the essential job of science is done.

    Probabilities can't explain anything, at best it might predict things.
    Science is primarily predictive, not expositive.

    The fundamental problem with probabilities is that it's subjective. Something isn't "probably" true, something isn't "probably" there, it's either there or it isn't.
    There's no onus for objective measurements to satisfy the demands of your metaphysical imagination.

    So subjectively, or from the perspective of our universe, the quantum mechanics might be probabilistic. But that's only because we can't "see" how the atoms might be behaving in the other universes.
    Little point trying to render scientific accounts of wholly unobservable universes. May as well jerk off about unicorns.

    (The Copenhagen interpretation of) Quantum mechanics act as if atoms are interacting with other invisible atoms that we can never see or measure, but it really isn't.
    Copenhagen Interpretation doesn't stipulate any of that. It's mostly a methodological heuristic—i.e., that it's pointless to make assertions about the state of unmeasured physical systems.

    Well, that's just really crazy. But this craziness can be easily resolved, if we accept the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
    Or one could just accept that things really do exist in probabilistic states when unobserved. Less crazy than postulating multiverses.

    But of course, Instrumentalists like Bohr would reject that, because apparently, we can't "see" or "measure" other universes.
    As they should.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    ILe-nE
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    Hermann Gottlieb ILI (character from Pacific Rim)
    Quote:
    "Numbers do not lie. Politics and poetry and promises, these are lies. Numbers are as close as we get to the handwriting of God."

    Ni Vs Ne = Battle Of The Bullshit


  15. #15

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,401
    Mentioned
    239 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Nonsensical POV. People drift towards values/philosophies/ideologies conducive to their inborn makeup (heritability studies certainly evince as much).
    You can say that people will eventually revert back to their "true selves", but this seems inelegant since you just can keep moving the goalpost. It's no different than me saying that the world will eventually one day. I could be one day right, and if I get proven wrong then I could just keep changing the date of doomsday.

    Basically, it's prophesying and not predicting. You are not explaining how and when will people revert back to their "true selves". That's the only way to actually predict things.

    What we are certain of is that everybody is wrong. And since everybody will eventually be proven wrong, no sane person would stick to the same values and ideologies forever.

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Science is primarily predictive, not expositive.
    As I said above, you can't predict anything without coming up with explanations, it's not possible. You also can't create any new knowledge without explanations. Because what exactly are we supposed to be predicting? We might want to see if an airplane that we build will fly or crash, but how are we supposed to build it by just predicting things?

    You also can't come up with a successor to quantum theory, which must exist since quantum theory and Relativity are in direct contradiction with one another, without coming up with a completely different mode of explanations.

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    There's no onus for objective measurements to satisfy the demands of your metaphysical imagination.

    Little point trying to render scientific accounts of wholly unobservable universes. May as well jerk off about unicorns.

    Copenhagen Interpretation doesn't stipulate any of that. It's mostly a methodological heuristic—i.e., that it's pointless to make assertions about the state of unmeasured physical systems.

    Or one could just accept that things really do exist in probabilistic states when unobserved. Less crazy than postulating multiverses.
    As you said, science has always been about speculating things. We've speculated cells, atoms and dinosaurs living millions of years ago, even though we could never see them. We can only indirectly say that the dinosaurs really existed through fossils. There's no fundamental difference between speculating that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and speculating that the multiverse really do exist.

    If a quantum computer does get built, then it will be using the power of atoms in other universes. How can it possibly do magnitudes of more calculations than the entire number of atoms in this universe, without the other multiverse existing?

    The successor to quantum theory, which will combine and resolve the contradiction between it and Relativity, will likely feature an explanatory framework of the multiverse really existing.

  16. #16
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    282
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    You can say that people will eventually revert back to their "true selves", but this seems inelegant since you just can keep moving the goalpost. It's no different than me saying that the world will eventually one day. I could be one day right, and if I get proven wrong then I could just keep changing the date of doomsday.

    Basically, it's prophesying and not predicting. You are not explaining how and when will people revert back to their "true selves". That's the only way to actually predict things.
    I've said nothing about "reverting to true selves", whatever that's supposed to mean.

    What we are certain of is that everybody is wrong. And since everybody will eventually be proven wrong, no sane person would stick to the same values and ideologies forever.
    People usually hone in on what works for them over time.

    As I said above, you can't predict anything without coming up with explanations, it's not possible. You also can't create any new knowledge without explanations. Because what exactly are we supposed to be predicting? We might want to see if an airplane that we build will fly or crash, but how are we supposed to build it by just predicting things?
    Accurate prediction clarifies what works. Then one applies that working knowledge to a desired end.

    You also can't come up with a successor to quantum theory, which must exist since quantum theory and Relativity are in direct contradiction with one another, without coming up with a completely different mode of explanations.
    There's a few edge cases in General Relativity where potential contradictions arise vis-a-vis QM. AFAIK these are still the subject of experimental scrutiny.

    As you said, science has always been about speculating things. We've speculated cells, atoms and dinosaurs living millions of years ago, even though we could never see them. We can only indirectly say that the dinosaurs really existed through fossils. There's no fundamental difference between speculating that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and speculating that the multiverse really do exist.
    Except you can like, actually see dinosaur bones.

    If a quantum computer does get built, then it will be using the power of atoms in other universes. How can it possibly do magnitudes of more calculations than the entire number of atoms in this universe, without the other multiverse existing?
    Nobody even knows if quantum computing can work at the projected scales required for these sorts of computations. It'd need 'quantum error-correcting codes' to smooth out the destructive noise inevitable from manifold qubit interactions, and in principle this looks impossible.

    Even if it does work, there's no reason to believe it's somehow operating via atoms from alternate universes.

  17. #17
    Dalek Caan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    As has everyone in physics and philosophy since time immemorial.
    That's probably true, but there's a lot of N types in those fields.

    Actually it was based on a number of priors that had been well-known for decades.

    Minkowski & Born worked out the mathematics for it a few years after Einstein's 1905 publication—nobody 'stole' anything. This is typically how science works.
    I was talking about Einstein's relationship with Hilbert and how Hilbert submitting Einstein's theory with completed field equations before Einstein did.

    And if that's true as well, then it kind of just proves my point that the math wasn't Einstein's priority.

    The Russians are correct.

    If you want examples of ILI contemporaries, check Niels Bohr. Solid exposition of Te vs. Ti between him and Einstein.

    Max Born is another ILI.
    I guess I just didn't find Bohr's idea of electron orbits all that interesting. It's probably not even true, given that probability densities show electrons don't exist in certain regions.



    It almost appears that the electrons pop in and out of "existence". Plus it doesn't hold weight against data that shows quarks also appear to jump in and out of existence inside the nucleus. Electron orbits seems like a way too 'perfect' explanation.

    Never heard of Max. I'll look into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilist 007 View Post
    Fi is the most effective networking function. Fe is just all the show. You do not get behind the scenes with Fe aka making people to conduct favors of exchange.



    For example people might want me out not because I'm bad for atmosphere but because I do not respect their security seeking (like occupational unions). I give absolutely zero moral support so to say and I'm proud of it.

    That being said networking as in belonging to something is more of beta/delta thing.
    I'm not sure what to say about that. But it has been my experience that Ti types do well in the corporate world where it's not so much about your relationships, but about making the interviewer and management feel good about you or something. Most companies could give two shits about forming legitimate bonds with their workers, except as a means to increase productivity and thus --> profit. It's kind of all a facade for what so-and-so in corporate wants and if you can put on a fake smile and make the right people happy and make it look like everything is fine, then it's all fine, even if most of the employees think you're a piece of shit.

    Maybe I need to stop working for big corporations and government contractors...
    Androgynous Robot Dreamer - Not really human, but good at pretending.

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    blame the merry quadras

  18. #18
    Dalek Caan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    Okay, he probably was ILE.
    Androgynous Robot Dreamer - Not really human, but good at pretending.

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    blame the merry quadras

  19. #19
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,052
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Caan View Post
    Okay, he probably was ILE.
    yes, I think he looks more ILE in that short video. But that's my only typing material so far.

  20. #20
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,479
    Mentioned
    190 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Caan View Post


    I'm not sure what to say about that. But it has been my experience that Ti types do well in the corporate world where it's not so much about your relationships, but about making the interviewer and management feel good about you or something. Most companies could give two shits about forming legitimate bonds with their workers, except as a means to increase productivity and thus --> profit. It's kind of all a facade for what so-and-so in corporate wants and if you can put on a fake smile and make the right people happy and make it look like everything is fine, then it's all fine, even if most of the employees think you're a piece of shit.

    Maybe I need to stop working for big corporations and government contractors...
    Corporate world = delta. Safe and sound. Social hierarchy hence aristocracy. So there might be beta go getters namely lots of LSI's and EIE's.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  21. #21
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,317
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    More "fruitless fantasies"....IEI-Ni is what I call the dark subtype of IEI, as follows:

    Me: So you are going to leave it to me.

    Her: Nothing

    Me: Why

    Her: Because my heiress is my sister Debra…my beneficiary. If I die everything I have goes directly to her. She paints my hair, she’s nice.

    Me: Unless we get married.

    Her: Going to marry me without nothing. Everything I got goes in the name of Debra….i will put it in her name automatically.

    Me: No, baby.

    Her: You’re going to marry me, everything we are going to have after we are married, then its yours. But everything i got in my own name before, no. Those things go to Debra. I will get my house. You will live in my house like a king forever, but the house will go to Debra.

    Me: I see the joking expression on your face.

    Her: No, there’s no joking expression. But if we are together, we are going to get another house. With my first house we are going to get a second house and maybe a third house and then boys and leave part to your family and part to mine.

    Me: Leave it to your husband.

    Her: No, you will kill me. You’re like a psychopath. No, you scare me. You will kill me. We will vacation in Brazil. I will fall into a lake full of crocodiles and then you will say it was an accident and cry, and the police in brazil will investigate nothing—

    Me: Hehehe

    Her: And then you will come back here. You will return to America and claim all the money and marry the bitch from the club, and then me in brazil in crocodiles, swamp, big area, people will never find my body. The crocodile will eat everything and poop me here and there. That’s not good. I know your plan. That’s why you want to go to a swamp in brazil.

    Me: To where

    Her: Swamp, because you take me to the swamp and then you throw me away in the water. I know your plan. First you are going to throw chicken to the crocodiles and then they become hungry. Then when they ask for me, you say “come baby, throw some chicken” and then you push me and I go for help. “help, help” and then the crocodile will come and kill me.

    Me: I would never.

    Her: You…hmmm…you …you descend from Genghis khan. You are going to do that.

    Me: Don’t give me ideas, baby.

    Her: You have these ideas already. I know you plan to go to the swamp and you read this in a book. You will throw me in water and say it was an accident. You will make a big show of it. You will cry. You will punch the wall and you make a scandal like it was the end of the world. After you come here, you date somebody, the bitch from the club, and then my siblings come after you like an eagle. You are in trouble, because something will happen. A crocodile will poop myself there or they will find a scratch on you. And people will say we fought in the hotel and then people will say I look scared, that I complained to them. They will put the puzzle together and you finish in the jail and everything will go to Debra!

    Me: Brazilian judges are easy to bribe.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 07-04-2019 at 11:36 PM.

  22. #22
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    220
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    It only has to do with their philosophical differences of Realism vs. Antirealism. Basically, Einstein the Realist was interested in the role of explanations in science. He wanted to explain how things worked. That's why he had "thought experiments" to attempt to come up with explanations for certain phenomenas and resolve apparent contradictions in known theories and science at the time. While Niels Bohr attempted to "bypass" having to explain things by coming up with the probabilistic "interpretation" of quantum mechanics. You don't need to deal with the "Many-Worlds theory" explanatory nonsense, because you can't see or feel any multiverses, anyway.

    You might say that's the difference between Ti and Te, but Einstein wasn't always a Realist, and he wasn't always interested in the role of explanations.
    I actually tend to agree with the realist interpretation of anything. I’ve often wondered if the many worlds conceptualizations said something about how differing human cognitions build their own mapped frameworks for reality. Not to say this is anything about socionics and Ne. Not saying that at all. Its something more about the way in which its common understanding everybody has their own unique perspective on each and every event. These perspectives create an infinite of imaginative variations of the interpretation of reality. Something similar is illuminated with wave particle function physics, where the probabilistic outcomes are observation dependent.

    I’m saying that in the end, maybe a unified theory is not possible as both many worlds and time dependent outcomes are both true depending on the varying frame of references.

    This is all somewhat mish mashed in my head. I cant really describe it well enough. I dont think the true implications of quantum mechanics have been fully realized in all sorts of applications in todays world yet.

Posting Permissions

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