[Deleted].
Video trying to define an idea - what do I come off as?
[Deleted].
Last edited by rexsaurus36; 05-23-2020 at 02:06 PM.
a nerd with an obsession for unicorns?
I think you are confusing reality with beliefs.
Do elaborate? I want to improve my argument.Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Ni.
You said that reality changed when new ideas like the microscope came along, but reality did not change. Only our beliefs and understanding of reality changed.
If beliefs were reality, we wouldn’t be trying to understand nature because it would already conform to our beliefs. It would be turtles all the way down.
I'm not sure if reality really exists independent of our perceptions of it... sure, there's this wide thing out there called the world that we look at and extrapolate based on, but what is it if it isn't our perceptions? Note that I didn't use the word belief in my argument, I was talking about raw views of it, improved as time goes on.
Besides all the denial of scientific discovery that's evident that I could be using as proof here, reality is not what webelieve, but the verified, continually updated collective mental model we have of it (scientific). It's possible to draw a line of best fit and say this is probably real, but we don't know if what our metrics are measuring is actually "reality".
@safsom2 Yeah, you are definitely Ni ego, most likely leading.
I want to correct you, but I'm only going to copy/paste what I said before to multiples users, which is boring. I find myself repeating the same ideas and getting no reactions, so maybe you have to reach these conclusions by yourself. Read more on models, you clearly have a very shallow understanding. No one is going to call you out on it since you are still young, but please take the time to learn what others have written about the subject if you want to have a constructive discussion. You haven't even scratched the surface yet, any answer you are given now would be like throwing you into the deep end while making sure you don't drown, which is a hassle, because you will keep coming back with more questions.
I apologize, should've been in Type Me.
Yeah, is definitely Ni/Se
the way you see things, you are trying to converge on one ultimate idea/understanding of something.
and the beginning, when you take your glasses off.. how do i say it. when i've filmed things with my friends, they don't think about stuff like that and just go and say/do what they are supposed to for the video, they are rooted in the moment of what's happening. in contrast i am already thinking about how i see the end-product, and what impression it needs to make, so i am more particular on things that are along the same vein of you wanting us to be able to see your eyebrows while you speak. (because it is important, your goal is to impart a certain understanding and impression on us viewers, and everything in the video needs to be aligned towards that)
EII-Fi is your correct typing.
EIE-Ni, no way.
No, where do you see Fi?
Honestly, I feel ill agreeing with k4m on this one, but this video made me feel even more ill because of your expressionless face and breathless explaining. I just couldn't follow or even watch the video to the end. Not seeing any traces of EIE. *II type seems plausible.
Put constructive due to the 2nd paragraph (idk about his typing). My thinking exactly
I think it's very unlikely that Se is a place of least resistance. Perhaps IEI-Ni or ILI-Ni is more likely than LII or EII, just from what I know about Model A.
take all this with a grain of salt:
being IEI-Ni, I very highly doubt you are one. on camera, my Fe still leaks out so much. you have none of that. and i just don't see a lot of myself in you.
ILI-Ni actually could be a possibility.. now that i think of it you do remind of my ILI-Ni father a bit. you both have that awkwardness in presenting. and you both keep repeating "right?" when you present
maybe if you could post a video of you interacting with someone else. anyway, do you know your enneatype/instinctual stacking?
I know a few EIIs and although they seems inhibited irl/on camera, they still possess a smoothness you don't have.
ILI seems a strong possibility. @safsom2, you remind me a lot of an ILI that I know who went to MIT and who runs a business with a lot of help from an IEI-Fe. You seem more reasonable than he does, though. So ILI-Ni is a good typing.
take all this with a grain of salt:
being IEI-Ni, I very highly doubt you are one. on camera, my Fe still leaks out so much. you have none of that. and i just don't see a lot of myself in you.
ILI-Ni actually could be a possibility.. now that i think of it you do remind of my ILI-Ni father a bit. you both have that awkwardness in presenting. and you both keep repeating "right?" when you present
maybe if you could post a video of you interacting with someone else. anyway, do you know your enneatype/instinctual stacking?
I know a few EIIs and although they seems inhibited irl/on camera, they still possess a smoothness you don't have.
I'm fairly sure that I am 5w4 so/sp, 538 tritype.
I'm sure your type is EII-Fi and not ILI.
The presentation of your definition of an idea is too non-commital and convoluted for NiTe. Your language is imprecise and tangential. It lacks the quality of inner knowing and intuition counter to the mainstream; the dismissive nature in which Ni-lead can argue for a baseless position even in the face of clearly contradictory evidence...which is intrinsic to Ni-lead. Ne-lead does some of that too.
Either way, these are clear-cut disqualifiers for ILI and Ni-ego.
Furthermore, I can just tell that you would get "mowed down" in a debate with either an ILI or LII on what the definition of an idea is (or any topic in which we can find an ILI/LII who matched your interests)...if you were an ILI I would not be getting that sense.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 04-08-2020 at 05:46 PM.
Thinking more I think EII-Ne fits OP
Fi subtype would be more openly rigid IJ stuff
Anyone would get "mowed down" in a debate at that age. How is this a serious argument..
@safsom2 don't worry about getting typed, get to know yourself. You are too young to have explored every facet of your personality. You haven't experienced much.
Focus on what you are looking for in this theory and ignore the rest. Don't get caught up with useless stuff.
This isn't a formal argument, it was a typing video. Which means what I was saying was partially true, but partially also bullshit strewn up on the spot. What was imprecise about the language? I am sure I could systematize it if you were to give me words to work with and construct a coherent argument with; I am perfectly able to. If you would like to engage in an actual debate to practice arguing, I am more than happy to.
Why do you think IJ > IP? Curious.
oh, i don't think it was clear, at least not for me. i thought you made the video seriously and as an afterthought was like, oh let's post this here and see what they say.
the more i think about it the more i feel like fi/te or te/fi is possible.. maybe what they're seeing is Fi HA, if you are an ILI. i'm really starting to think you are one.
anyway, yeah what everyone is saying is right, you need to get to know yourself better.
even knowing myself as well as i do, i would have never initially thought i'm beta or irrational or a result type, although now i completely understand that i am..
i'll keep trying to help out though, because i've a lot of time on my hands these days c:
ILI, maybe.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
Yeah, a lot of Ni and Te in the video.
Ideas are the foundation of the world is most likely Ni, wheras I see ideas are extensions of the real, present world and everything tangible is sensing stuff.
Reality isn't only what can be observed, but reproducible. Existence/Verifiable reality and its main field of study - empirical science is based on the immutable, fixed “qualities” of the concrete world, more specifically, the "mental creations" we can all agree on so far.Through experimentation and observation, we can all experience and verify through the senses, and replicate everything that science has backed up so far. Everything that we know so far that our reality is comprised of. They are immutable because the value of a certain quality doesn’t differ from individual to individual. It always remains the same, therefore it can be experienced and agreed on equally by everyone, and reproduced. Even if you only have a microscope to fully understand it in 500 years.
Now I agree that there's sooooo much more to debate about the concept of absolute reality (is real a "quality" only of physical objects? etc etc), and that every individual has in some way their own version of reality tinted by their imagination, perceptions, biases and beliefs. This is the mutable part and the "realm of ideas" that can change over time. Here "lies" everything that you can control.
I understand what you're saying but you're wrong. Even if space-time is a lie, and our theories and measurements are wrong, the qualities of its existence are still immutable. Space-time, or atoms, or such and such still exist independently, they are a part of reality, ruled by the variables we do not yet understand. Reality comprises the totality of everything ever known and the unknown. The scientific model is just a reference manual.
You come across as very eager to build your own theory of everything and you're confident in sharing it with everyone else. You have a sensibility about how you would come across to others. The only thing preventing me to come to a type conclusion are those jazzy hands. I mean, what is that?
Last edited by CowboyBibimbap; 04-09-2020 at 11:21 PM.
I also think you have IJ temperament. You're moving your arms a lot but they're not flowing. Your stance is rigid af. But you could just be nervous.
Here's a brief description of both temperaments. The stereotypes online may go against the opposite, but personally as an ILI I identify a lot with IP temperament.
The IJ temperament, or balanced-stable temperament
Typical characteristics:
- calm, balanced and inert
- "unflappable"
- rigid but not very fast gait
- may appear passive-aggressive
- usually very stable mood
- more reactive than active
- little inclination to fidget during long periods of inactivity
IJs are both static and rational, so they see reality as mostly not changing and when it does, it's in abrupt "leaps" from one state to another. An IJ draws inner stability from a stable reality, especially as seen through his leading function. That makes him confident that things will probably remain as they are despite what he sees as minor disturbances; periods of clear upheaval are very disturbing and the individual is anxious that things will "settle down" one way or the other soon enough.
As introverts, IJs tend to be calm and relaxed about initiating relationships with other people, mostly assuming that others will take the initiative, but will be more inclined to try to make sure a relationship is maintained once established.
IJs see IPs as unreliable and unwilling to take any initiative, with too low levels of energy.
The IP temperament, or receptive-adaptive temperament
Typical characteristics:
- relaxed
- go-with-the-flow
- movements are flexible, unhurried
- finds it easy to spend long periods of time in no activity, or at very low levels of energy
- little inclination towards fidgetiness when having to remain inactive for longer periods
IPs are both dynamic and irrational, so they see reality as in continuous, gradual, often imperceptible change. An IP is soothed by this, seeing reality through his leading function. This leads to a relaxed inclination to take things as they come and adapt to them.
As introverts, IPs tend to be relaxed and somewhat passive about initiating relationships with other people, mostly assuming that others will take the initiative.
IPs see IJs as boring and too concerned with stability.
Yes, they are ruled by variables we do not yet understand. But I think this can be used as justification that they do not epistemically "exist" yet; we have a good deal of extrapolation from our existing ideas and hypotheses (again, formulated entirely by our own perceptions) to go about; meaning that they are still very much mutable in the sense that we have yet to discover them and that we have yet to make them "real", make them understood. How do we know if something is "real" if it is not known in some capacity? It must be either logically or empirically demonstrable.
IP describes me much better, perhaps it's some subtype.
I don't think I can tell if you are Ij or Ip, I was going more by your thinking process being all over the place so more Ne than Ni to me.
lmao your tone is so weird to me, how you just start teaching people kind of condescending but also kind of adorkable nerd-like. If you were ILI you would have an undercurrent of being more bitter or snarky yet also 'grounded' and earthly relateable sorta. You're not really like that, the way ILIs are organically. If you were IEI or SEI , you would have the tone of being more comical and playful and your tone isn't like that either- even when you talk about unicorns barfing. It feels more academic. If you were EII or IEI or IEE you would sound more emotionally genuine and talk about ethical concepts more. You sound smart but also a bit autistic and not like you are trying to emotionally manipulate. Yet you seem to respond to Fe well internally from a safe distance, even if you don't really express it that well yourself.
Academic tone = LII.
I think this type of thing is very Se polr, so why not LII for you. You are Ne valuing all over the place really.
What crosses my mind is the thought that it’s nice you ponder reality. When I was younger I used to go through information rapidly and in a kind of contextless way. If someone asked maybe I would say I wanted to figure out how the world works but I doubt I would say I want to know what is real. Do you think it makes a difference to replace ‘real’ with ‘true’?
Maybe you want to check this out, which is one way to nonduality/advaita Vedanta: https://www.scribd.com/document/3187...rnal-world-pdf
(I found that if you c/p the random yellow parts elsewhere they show)
Last edited by Kalinoche buenanoche; 04-17-2020 at 07:56 AM.
A bit of a derail here, but worrying about the 'experience' you're providing other people in a visual presentation and the impression it's going to make can be argued to be Si+Fe rather than Ni.
Last edited by Rusal; 04-17-2020 at 08:46 AM.
It's not just any experience, it's a strong focus on every aspect of the video to cause ONE specific impression.
Anyway, you are probably right too. who knows
Change made for LII. Something stroke as particularly low Se but accepted but maybe we all can be flexible.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
4d ni but perhaps not valued
Consider ESI for that, that sounds really Ne PoLR-ish for the Ni focus and it would explain the high SF aspect the other poster pointed out.
trying too hard, seems EIE or some shit
EII
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote