Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 241 to 263 of 263

Thread: Attitudinal Psyche type system

  1. #241
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    @squark The thing that surprised me the most about Timur's typing is that he typed you as both LIE and VFLE. I understand there are two seperate systems based on different things. Just to note that, I am still not competent at attitudinal psyche type system yet. However, VFxx or FVxx seems very S. Right now to me it sounds like e7 xSI or e5 ESFx.
    I find it pretty hard to reconcile as well. I'm not sure how this part of 2F and Si polr make sense together:
    In everyday life, 2Physics is able to create comfort for himself and others by simple means, easily adapts to a variety of living conditions and the needs of others; he is able to take care of others carefully if he sees a request about it.

  2. #242
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RBRS View Post
    Both see squark values Se, has most visible & strongest Te (which if we take DCNH out would mean LSI is not possible as they are 3D Te)
    Well no, that's not actually true. Gulenko didn't mention Te at all. He used contact + terminal to determine subtype rather than the accentuations. Both of those qualites are present in psychosophy will.

    Quote Originally Posted by RBRS
    so the mixed result is either SLE or LSE, and both agreeing on the rationality dichotomy even points more towards LSE if we want to disregard both Timur & Gs views on behaviorism. I still think there's a strong possibility for her to be LIE with high V & F which would make her behaviorally resemble strong S (thus getting to LSI in other models).
    I wish Timur had given more reasoning in his response to see how he'd come to his conclusions. I'm not so sure whether he considered rationality, or even uses dichotomies. It sounds more like he leans heavily on element descriptions and looking for how they show up.

    In that light, I understand why he thought Te. It's based on how he defines Te
    BL (black logic), business logic, logic of actions, logic of facts, orientation to objective reality and rules by which it is arranged. Objective laws, proven data, natural sciences. The rules by which certain events occur and develop, the logic of actions and events. Pragmatism, practicality and efficiency, organization of any processes, objects, data, actions. Describes dynamic categories.
    I imagine my description of a trip or event - where I described Teotihuacan and its physical characteristics, changes through time, history and how they're still learning more about it, plus my answer to the mayor question - where I described the practical steps I'd take in that position, and the information I'd gather to better inform myself both could be described with that definition. Probably other of my answers as well could be described as dealing with objective reality.

    In contrast he defines Ti as something abstract, divorced from the objective
    WL (white logic) is subjective logic, abstract logic, orientation to subjective understanding of phenomena. Description of the meaning, internal structure and mechanics of any phenomena on the basis of abstract categories, models. Internal logical interrelation of elements in theories and concepts. Logic of abstract structures and schemes. Describes static categories.
    So, it's partially also a difference in definition of the terms themselves.

  3. #243
    aka Feathers, Penny Dreadful Suspiria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Behind your tonsils
    TIM
    EIE-C FINAL CONFIRM
    Posts
    1,196
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I got my results today too. FELV Borgia for psychosophy, so I can officially assert myself as the resident, decadent trickster-actor EIE here. I would have raised an eyebrow at F in a confident aspect, but I've read more about the "selfish" nature of 1F and I can say I relate quite well to it.
    "хотите —
    буду безукоризненно нежный,
    не мужчина, а — облако в штанах!"

  4. #244
    thought criminal shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ୧༼ಠ益ಠ╭∩╮༽
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    2,011
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I got into an argument recently and -.- it was painfully obvious that instead of trying to foster discussion I was extremely irritated at 2 other people's (one a EIE typed by G) weak logic and all I was thinking about was the irritation that they just didn't get it and how I could bash them over the head with logic so they would.

    :\ to me it seems speculation and opinion is irritating, I'm too rigid with logic, too strict and the need for precision, logical coherence does not leave much room for uncertainty & weird magical thinking or exceptions.

    .. I'm very 1L it seems. Combined with 3E aka inhibited emotion with low tolerance for negative emotional bombardment from the outside seems to leave only 2 options on the table:

    LFEV or LVEF. It seems Zeke was wrong. but he did note 2V accentuation and results physics for me.. so I'm thinking LVEF to be the most likely probability.. then again I'm gr8 at personal finance and taking care of myself, cooking, interior design and shit like that so.. unsure. What I have always struggled with is motivation, but even there I ust tend to refuse to do things I don't want to do and no amount of external motivation, pushiness or even coercion can make me budge... hell it has the opposite effect, I bunker down and refuse to comply just to spite them.

  5. #245
    scientist donkey BrightDemonSheep96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On a toilet, right above you
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF/omnibeta
    Posts
    6,342
    Mentioned
    267 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suspiria View Post
    I got my results today too. FELV Borgia for psychosophy, so I can officially assert myself as the resident, decadent trickster-actor EIE here. I would have raised an eyebrow at F in a confident aspect, but I've read more about the "selfish" nature of 1F and I can say I relate quite well to it.




    Yea, after you know 1E ILI all bets are off.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type

    Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.

  6. #246
    RBRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    123
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Well no, that's not actually true. Gulenko didn't mention Te at all. He used contact + terminal to determine subtype rather than the accentuations. Both of those qualites are present in psychosophy will.



    I wish Timur had given more reasoning in his response to see how he'd come to his conclusions. I'm not so sure whether he considered rationality, or even uses dichotomies. It sounds more like he leans heavily on element descriptions and looking for how they show up.

    In that light, I understand why he thought Te. It's based on how he defines Te I imagine my description of a trip or event - where I described Teotihuacan and its physical characteristics, changes through time, history and how they're still learning more about it, plus my answer to the mayor question - where I described the practical steps I'd take in that position, and the information I'd gather to better inform myself both could be described with that definition. Probably other of my answers as well could be described as dealing with objective reality.

    In contrast he defines Ti as something abstract, divorced from the objective So, it's partially also a difference in definition of the terms themselves.
    Although not mentioning & determining subtype through dichotomies, Gulenko's dominant subtype has either strengthened extroverted thinking or extraverted feeling, extraverted judging in particular. For what I know Timur types through semantics which would be a sort of reverse-deciphering of information metabolism through conclusions (Aaand for what I know your art interpretation also usually has a lot of weight to that). The descriptions he sends (that he also sent me) are simplified.

    If you want to compare, in my video interview I responded to the trip question something along the lines of "Well I don't know, I went with my girlfriend to a restaurant then we had a walk" more or less as short and continued with the questionnaire. Your "semantics" that is to say the information elements you use to perceive and develop a framework of reality that are present in practically all of your speech is their main base for typing. I personally rewatched my video after the results and everything clicked for me about why the results were those (Plus ITR & the rest fitting atleast with Gamma NT and a good quantity of traits pointing towards rationality)
    Last edited by RBRS; 04-06-2021 at 09:59 PM.

  7. #247
    RBRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    123
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shotgunfingers View Post
    I got into an argument recently and -.- it was painfully obvious that instead of trying to foster discussion I was extremely irritated at 2 other people's (one a EIE typed by G) weak logic and all I was thinking about was the irritation that they just didn't get it and how I could bash them over the head with logic so they would.

    :\ to me it seems speculation and opinion is irritating, I'm too rigid with logic, too strict and the need for precision, logical coherence does not leave much room for uncertainty & weird magical thinking or exceptions.

    .. I'm very 1L it seems. Combined with 3E aka inhibited emotion with low tolerance for negative emotional bombardment from the outside seems to leave only 2 options on the table:

    LFEV or LVEF. It seems Zeke was wrong. but he did note 2V accentuation and results physics for me.. so I'm thinking LVEF to be the most likely probability.. then again I'm gr8 at personal finance and taking care of myself, cooking, interior design and shit like that so.. unsure. What I have always struggled with is motivation, but even there I ust tend to refuse to do things I don't want to do and no amount of external motivation, pushiness or even coercion can make me budge... hell it has the opposite effect, I bunker down and refuse to comply just to spite them.
    -I got into an argument recently and -.- it was painfully obvious that instead of trying to foster discussion I was extremely irritated at 2 other people's (one a EIE typed by G) weak logic and all I was thinking about was the irritation that they just didn't get it and how I could bash them over the head with logic so they would.

    If you want to take the PY route then I would suggest you guess the PY type of your opponent. If he is third logics (tendency towards questioning everything & denying rational arguments for the sake of it, saying nonsensicals, having difficulty with rational arguments, insecure about his mental abilities, etc) then it might mean you are first logic (not interested in discussing, does not feel the need to even state opinions as he considers them absolute truths, when seeing someone who disagrees doesn't bother to talk to them about the subject, only talks to people he can lecture on things and treat as disciples, who have an already positive disposition towards his ideas) and if the person is fourth logics (Parroting what their friend/parent/social group/Guru says without putting any thought to it, accepting what others say based on non-rational reasons as personal likings and dislikings, following herd or group thinking, searching for prefabricated argument so they don’t have to put any effort, trying to escape any sort of intellectual or deeper discussion, resorting to emotional/physical means in debates if they find themselves engaged with debate at all, incapacity or lack of any interest to simply understand logical chains...) then it might point out to you being second logics (Interested in discussion, generates logical chains easily, can play the black and the white, comes to conclusions either by debate or by dialectics, tries to create and involve others in deeper intellectual conversations, is tolerant of weak logical abilities and different viewpoints as much as he can help/debate those themes and the other part is willing to understand and listen...). It goes without saying that first logics is more compatible with fourth and second logics is most compatible with third.

    -then again I'm gr8 at personal finance and taking care of myself, cooking, interior design and shit like that so.. unsure.

    I have also seen your posts on diet, exercise, weight loss... all of this I would relate to externally focused physics, thus second physics (more points towards first logics).

    -What I have always struggled with is motivation, but even there I ust tend to refuse to do things I don't want to do and no amount of external motivation, pushiness or even coercion can make me budge... hell it has the opposite effect, I bunker down and refuse to comply just to spite them.

    This points a lot towards third will, but I have the problem that a lot of times when you speak about your relations it doesn't seem to me like you adapt nor accept and copy entirety the likings and emotional/dramatic reactions of others, being colder and with a tendency to breakouts, cutting people off... which points towards third emotions quite a lot. Anyways last will would probably prefer to be led by a stronger-willed individual and have most decisions taken by others and would dislike people who try to ask them about their preferences or have them decide on something, while third will would be the opposite, being weak willed, there would be a tendency towards searching for people who would take their "willings" and desires into account and would hate someone who bulldozes or imposes himself and his desires on others.

    Probably you have the same problem I might be having with it that functions fit into various positions at the same time, actually I'm thinking some attitudes as those described by both third will and third emotion aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and could exist at the same time within an individual.
    Last edited by RBRS; 04-06-2021 at 11:57 PM.

  8. #248
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RBRS View Post
    Although not mentioning & determining subtype through dichotomies, Gulenko's dominant subtype has either strengthened extroverted thinking or extraverted feeling, extraverted judging in particular.
    Yes it's the EJish subtype, but it's not an either/or kind of thing. There are 3 elements involved in each subtype, not just the two and they work together. Se is the 3rd one for dominant. So, it's not like he's saying that it's just one of the 3 that he's seeing, it's Te, Se, and Fe - all three of them. It's the same result whether using element accentuations or going from the dichotomy side, but you're not calling out an individual element. In other words, since he didn't mention any of them particularly, whether he's seeing more Se, or more Te or even more Fe can't be determined strictly from the given subtype. All that can be said is that he saw contact (going towards challenges) and terminal (finishing what you start) - with the description sounding quite similar in my opinion to psychosopy will: LINK

    For what I know Timur types through semantics which would be a sort of reverse-deciphering of information metabolism through conclusions (Aaand for what I know your art interpretation also usually has a lot of weight to that). The descriptions he sends (that he also sent me) are simplified.

    If you want to compare, in my video interview I responded to the trip question something along the lines of "Well I don't know, I went with my girlfriend to a restaurant then we had a walk" more or less as short and continued with the questionnaire. Your "semantics" that is to say the information elements you use to perceive and develop a framework of reality that are present in practically all of your speech is their main base for typing. I personally rewatched my video after the results and everything clicked for me about why the results were those (Plus ITR & the rest fitting atleast with Gamma NT and a good quantity of traits pointing towards rationality)
    Yeah, I get that, and I see where he was able to see what he defines as Te. I agree that what he defines as Te is definitely present in what I said. There are other ways to define Te and Ti however. For example, using the element definitions both Te and Ti are external elements, meaning that both operate objectively, using real-world measures. Both are concrete, neither are abstract. Te is object focused, and Ti is field focused, Te is dynamic and Ti is static but both are external elements.

    I noticed that Timur does use the static/dynamic dichotomy in his definition, but not the external/internal distinction, and instead takes a more Reinin-like or Kalinauskas steering wheel approach to them with subjective/objective instead. I'm not going to argue with his definitions, because they're the ones he wants to use, and there's a logic to it. But it means that it's not going to translate perfectly when someone uses a different way of defining them. Or if they use a different kind of system.

  9. #249
    RBRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    123
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Yes it's the EJish subtype, but it's not an either/or kind of thing. There are 3 elements involved in each subtype, not just the two and they work together. Se is the 3rd one for dominant. So, it's not like he's saying that it's just one of the 3 that he's seeing, it's Te, Se, and Fe - all three of them. It's the same result whether using element accentuations or going from the dichotomy side, but you're not calling out an individual element. In other words, whether he's seeing more Se, or more Te or even more Fe can't be determined strictly from the given subtype. All that can be said is that he saw contact (going towards challenges) and terminal (finishing what you start) - with the description sounding quite similar in my opinion to psychosopy will: LINK



    Yeah, I get that, and I see where he was able to see what he defines as Te. I agree that what he defines as Te is definitely present in what I said. There are other ways to define Te and Ti however. For example, using the element definitions both Te and Ti are external elements, meaning that both operate objectively, using real-world measures. Both are concrete, neither are abstract. Te is object focused, and Ti is field focused, Te is dynamic and Ti is static but both are external elements.

    I noticed that Timur does use the static/dynamic dichotomy in his definition, but not the external/internal distinction, and instead takes a more Reinin-like or Kalinauskas steering wheel approach to them with subjective/objective instead. I'm not going to argue with his definitions, because they're the ones he wants to use, and there's a logic to it. But it means that it's not going to translate perfectly when someone uses a different way of defining them. Or if they use a different kind of system.
    I would like to know where does have Gulenko said that Se is a defining factor (Let's edit for accuracy; Gulenko never proposes that Se alone can be responsible for D sub, which is how I erroneously interpreted what you've said) for dominant subtype, both in his book and average DCNH descriptions Te/Fe corresponds to Dominant, Se/Ne corresponds to creative, Ti/Fi to normalizing and Si/Ni to harmonizing. Regarding your link, there's what we are interested in (and it's pretty much confirmatory of all I've already said)

    "The second way to define a subtype is through a stable triplet of functions. It is important here that two conditions are met:
    1) these functions would be strongly expressed from the outside and 2) would work in a coordinated manner.
    Further, in this triple of functions, we will single out the two, which should come first. And the third function in the formula is additional. This is a 2 + 1 formula."

    Basically, you necessarily have a strengthened Te, Se & Fe, either having Te+Se>Fe, Te+Fe>Se or Se+Fe>Te in Gulenko's model, seeing how Timur sees Te+Se and the fact that you are typed as a logical type with clasically 1D suggestive Fe, then it should be evident that you have strengthened Te & strengthened Se > weaker but still strengthened Fe for an LSI. Thus if we discard DCNH it makes a lot of sense to type you LxE or SLE specially through semantics or IMs expressed. Both are seeing through and getting to conclusions on the same phenomena from different perspectives.

    Timur offers those definitions as simplifications or that is what I am perceiving, as in his debate with Jack Oliver Aaron he readily explains that in his methodology the levels of subjective thought are not related to Te/Ti but the placement of logic in PY. External VS Internal would mean that logical and sensory functions deal with data & conclusions derivated from themselves and not impressions, feeling the development of processes, or subjective perception of energetic states as it would be the case with intuition & ethics. I don't see much contradiction more than that definitions are written fast as a simplified "overview" and key to understanding IMs if you already don't know it, sent for everybody in case someone lacking that knowledge receives the diagnostic and doesn't know how to make sense of it. What I am perceiving with Archetype Center's model is that it is classical socionics - excessive behavioralisms + Quadra dichotomies + psychosophy as a behavioral subtyping system
    Last edited by RBRS; 04-07-2021 at 12:09 AM.

  10. #250
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RBRS View Post
    I would like to know where does have Gulenko said that Se is a defining factor for dominant subtype, both in his book and average DCNH descriptions Te/Fe corresponds to Dominant, Se/Ne corresponds to creative, Ti/Fi to normalizing and Si/Ni to harmonizing.
    I gave you the link on it being the 3rd factor. Each one has 3 factors, not 2. As he puts it, it's a (2 +1 formula) As for in his book, it's the same description as the link I gave you, page 431 if you have the book (although the link has more info on determining the type than that single page does.) Here's the link again if you missed it in my other post: LINK

    Here's also a quote talking about Te+Se with additional Fe (rather than Te+Fe with additional Se) In other words, they can interact in different "amounts" so to speak
    If we see that extraverted managerial functions Te and Se are expressed in the functional profile of a person, then we have the right to assume that he has a dominant subtype. As an additional function, Fe acts - the ethics of emotions, which gives the ability to speak and a tinge of hysteria.

  11. #251
    RBRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    123
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    I gave you the link on it being the 3rd factor. Each one has 3 factors, not 2. As he puts it, it's a (2 +1 formula) As for in his book, it's the same description as the link I gave you, page 431 if you have the book (although the link has more info on determining the type than that single page does.) Here's the link again if you missed it in my other post: LINK

    Here's also a quote talking about Te+Se with additional Fe (rather than Te+Fe with additional Se) In other words, they can interact in different "amounts" so to speak
    You are the one who has missed my response (maybe due to not reading the entire post or me editing to add it up a moment later) so I will copy & paste from the post you are referencing:

    Regarding your link, there's what we are interested in (and it's pretty much confirmatory of all I've already said)

    "The second way to define a subtype is through a stable triplet of functions. It is important here that two conditions are met:
    1) these functions would be strongly expressed from the outside and 2) would work in a coordinated manner.
    Further, in this triple of functions, we will single out the two, which should come first. And the third function in the formula is additional. This is a 2 + 1 formula."

    Basically, you necessarily have a strengthened Te, Se & Fe, either having Te+Se>Fe, Te+Fe>Se or Se+Fe>Te in Gulenko's model, seeing how Timur sees Te+Se and the fact that you are typed as a logical type with clasically 1D suggestive Fe, then it should be evident that you have strengthened Te & strengthened Se > weaker but still strengthened Fe for an LSI. Thus if we discard DCNH it makes a lot of sense to type you LxE or SLE specially through semantics or IMs expressed. Both are seeing through and getting to conclusions on the same phenomena from different perspectives.

    I'll add that if Timur types you Logical INTUITIVE Extravert is probably because you probably show semantics of both valued and strong Ni and valued extraverted sensing.
    Last edited by RBRS; 04-07-2021 at 12:20 AM.

  12. #252
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RBRS View Post
    You are the one who has missed my response (maybe due to not reading the entire post or me editing to add it up a moment later) so I will copy & paste from the post you are referencing:

    Regarding your link, there's what we are interested in (and it's pretty much confirmatory of all I've already said)

    "The second way to define a subtype is through a stable triplet of functions. It is important here that two conditions are met:
    1) these functions would be strongly expressed from the outside and 2) would work in a coordinated manner.
    Further, in this triple of functions, we will single out the two, which should come first. And the third function in the formula is additional. This is a 2 + 1 formula."

    Basically, you necessarily have a strengthened Te, Se & Fe, either having Te+Se>Fe, Te+Fe>Se or Se+Fe>Te in Gulenko's model, seeing how Timur sees Te+Se and the fact that you are typed as a logical type with clasically 1D suggestive Fe, then it should be evident that you have strengthened Te & strengthened Se > weaker but still strengthened Fe for an LSI. Thus if we discard DCNH it makes a lot of sense to type you LxE or SLE specially through semantics or IMs expressed. Both are seeing through and getting to conclusions on the same phenomena from different perspectives.
    I didn't see your edit, no. The problem I see with this, is that DCNH is a subtype in addition to the main type. G typed me with dichotomies first, and then discussed subtype. He saw introversion, sensing, logic and rationality. So, if we throw out DCNH, he still saw introversion, logic, sensing and rationality. That part didn't change. And it still makes sense if 1Will and D subtype are describing something similar.

    If you want to only use what IMs people saw . . . well, that's going to be tough, because neither of them mentioned much. They mentioned (or implied via subtype) between them Te, Se, Fe, and Ni, and then that's where you have to decide something else to throw out. You can throw out Timur's NT club suggestion, and go with beta ST. You can throw out that suggestion and also throw out that both of them put me in a central quadra and go with LSE, or you can throw out G's dichotomy typings of both introversion and sensing and go with LIE. It's a matter of deciding what to keep and what to toss to force them to meet in the middle somewhere. Or a different option, that I think works better, is that they're typing different ways, and those don't come up with the same core type for me.

    Common ground seems to be central quadra, logic, rationality, Te, Se and they both gave me the asshole subtype (kidding, but man reading 1Will descriptions and the way D is sometimes described does not sound good, I thought I was much nicer than that heh)

  13. #253
    RBRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    123
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    I didn't see your edit, no. The problem I see with this, is that DCNH is a subtype in addition to the main type. G typed me with dichotomies first, and then discussed subtype. He saw introversion, sensing, logic and rationality. So, if we throw out DCNH, he still saw introversion, logic, sensing and rationality. That part didn't change. And it still makes sense if 1Will and D subtype are describing something similar.

    If you want to only use what IMs people saw . . . well, that's going to be tough, because neither of them mentioned much. They mentioned (or implied via subtype) between them Te, Se, Fe, and Ni, and then that's where you have to decide something else to throw out. You can throw out Timur's NT club suggestion, and go with beta ST. You can throw out that suggestion and also throw out that both of them put me in a central quadra and go with LSE, or you can throw out G's dichotomy typings of both introversion and sensing and go with LIE. It's a matter of deciding what to keep and what to toss to force them to meet in the middle somewhere. Or a different option, that I think works better, is that they're typing different ways, and those don't come up with the same core type for me.

    Common ground seems to be central quadra, logic, rationality, Te, Se and they both gave me the asshole subtype (kidding, but man reading 1Will descriptions and the way D is sometimes described does not sound good, I thought I was much nicer than that heh)
    If G typed you by dichotomies alone or above IMs then my fault, for projecting my belief that base typings always need to be constructed around IMs and dichotomies should only be used as a little help when there's non-conclusive data if they are to be used at all, I sometimes forget about other conceptions on this and float around in my own context. On the rest of your comment I agree completely with you

  14. #254
    thought criminal shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ୧༼ಠ益ಠ╭∩╮༽
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    2,011
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RBRS View Post
    If you want to take the PY route then I would suggest you guess the PY type of your opponent. If he is third logics (tendency towards questioning everything & denying rational arguments for the sake of it, saying nonsensicals, having difficulty with rational arguments, insecure about his mental abilities, etc) then it might mean you are first logic (not interested in discussing, does not feel the need to even state opinions as he considers them absolute truths, when seeing someone who disagrees doesn't bother to talk to them about the subject, only talks to people he can lecture on things and treat as disciples, who have an already positive disposition towards his ideas) and if the person is fourth logics (Parroting what their friend/parent/social group/Guru says without putting any thought to it, accepting what others say based on non-rational reasons as personal likings and dislikings, following herd or group thinking, searching for prefabricated argument so they don’t have to put any effort, trying to escape any sort of intellectual or deeper discussion, resorting to emotional/physical means in debates if they find themselves engaged with debate at all, incapacity or lack of any interest to simply understand logical chains...) then it might point out to you being second logics (Interested in discussion, generates logical chains easily, can play the black and the white, comes to conclusions either by debate or by dialectics, tries to create and involve others in deeper intellectual conversations, is tolerant of weak logical abilities and different viewpoints as much as he can help/debate those themes and the other part is willing to understand and listen...). It goes without saying that first logics is more compatible with fourth and second logics is most compatible with third.
    One was 4L and the other one was 2L (at least they claim 4L and 2L). Both 1E and EIE, the 4L one was typed by G. The 4L one was absolutely nonsensical and refused to even consider things even after I thoroughly explained that socionics information elements refer to the same type of information regardless of the model used Fi is Fi, Fe is Fe and definitions for IMEs do not change, apples do not become oranges. While the functions may be different IMEs stay the same, they have to. The 2L EIE was offering perspectives to the 4L but had an equally weird understanding of things despite claiming to have training from Gulenko's students, kept saying that information elements are different between systems.. which to me would mean they are completely different systems then if Gulenko's Fi refers to information completely different from Timur's Fi or model A's Fi. The 4L EIE was saying she is SEE in model A and values Fi, but then said she doesn't value relationships, prefers to be blunt, to say exactly what's on her mind no filters, to be emotionally expressive regardless of what other people think (1E). ^^' which led me to believe that G's typing was correct, she obviously does not value Fi and consequently can't be Gamma or Delta. Based on other factors she was a obvious beta extrovert... their magical thinking continued. I couldn't get through with logic, got pissed and shut up. (arguing with ppl on the internet and all that bs)

    -then again I'm gr8 at personal finance and taking care of myself, cooking, interior design and shit like that so.. unsure.

    I have also seen your posts on diet, exercise, weight loss... all of this I would relate to externally focused physics, thus second physics (more points towards first logics).
    Yeah could be. I do consider LFEV.

    -What I have always struggled with is motivation, but even there I ust tend to refuse to do things I don't want to do and no amount of external motivation, pushiness or even coercion can make me budge... hell it has the opposite effect, I bunker down and refuse to comply just to spite them.

    This points a lot towards third will, but I have the problem that a lot of times when you speak about your relations it doesn't seem to me like you adapt nor accept and copy entirety the likings and emotional/dramatic reactions of others, being colder and with a tendency to breakouts, cutting people off... which points towards third emotions quite a lot. Anyways last will would probably prefer to be led by a stronger-willed individual and have most decisions taken by others and would dislike people who try to ask them about their preferences or have them decide on something, while third will would be the opposite, being weak willed, there would be a tendency towards searching for people who would take their "willings" and desires into account and would hate someone who bulldozes or imposes himself and his desires on others.

    Probably you have the same problem I might be having with it that functions fit into various positions at the same time, actually I'm thinking some attitudes as those described by both third will and third emotion aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and could exist at the same time within an individual.
    There are accentuations, which is a way to explain away differences, so they are kind of like subtypes. Obviously some people can't be shoved onto specific boxes, so there has to be some kind of wiggling room while maintaining a best fit type. I have a 2V accentuation according to Zeke. To be honest the LVEF EXI type does feel kinda weird for me considering how confident I am with F. Both LVEF and LFEV are types where E6 is most common, so 1L 3E fits imo.

  15. #255

    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    TIM
    LEFV INxx 9w1 sp/so
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I used to think I was first Physics b/c of how much time and effort I put into improving it. But now that I've read how the third can be an often intensely obsessive attitude, I think I'm more keen on placing it there.

    I feed my Physics more through learning about how others satisfy it and and utilizing an open mind, than I do through truly caring about Physics for the sake of it. If I learn that I can improve Physics, then I will, but I won't improve it otherwise. I guess you could say I don't want what I want, I only want what benefits me, and what I need.

  16. #256
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Was reading the original author's work regarding logic and the idea that kind of encapsulates how I see them based on the author's descriptions:

    1: dogmatist, everyone else is a heretic
    2: discussion-lead, inviting commentary and discussion
    3: The eternal skeptic - this is how you're wrong
    4: just here to listen/learn/observe/comment


    Edit: Oh, and bc I haven't gotten the auto-translate to work on the archive page, I've been copy-pasting into translator, and saving results. So, in case anyone else is having the same problem, here's everything on logic that I saved. I did the same for each of the others as well. Each section is separated by a line of dashes if you want to find a particular section easier.

    Logic:
    LOGIC

    Even a wise man stumbles

    Looks obvious: Logic, as a mental function, should be much younger than Emotion. After all, love in living beings clearly precedes thinking and is completely out of his control. Which is easy to confirm by observing human nature, not to mention animals. That's the way it is. But without entering into a dispute about priorities, nevertheless, I will take the liberty to doubt this truth and suggest that Logic is not inferior in antiquity Emotions.

    I believe that life, even in its most primitive forms, is so complex and multivariate that solving all problems willy-nilly requires the work of intellect. Otherwise you can't survive. I will bring in this connection the observation of the wonderful biologist Conrad Lorenz. He once engaged in experiments with a variety of fish tseplid, an interesting feature of the behavior of which was that the male, collecting fry in the nest, "does not spend time on persuasion, and just takes them in his spacious mouth and swim to the nest, "spits out" in the entrance hole."

    One day Lorenz witnessed the next scene. Throwing a few worms to the bottom of the aquarium, he saw how the male, who had previously gone through the aquarium in search of his fry, grabbed one worm and began to chew it, but then he came across a passing male. Then the same thing happened: "The male shuddered like a stung, rushed after the little fish and pushed it into the already filled mouth. It was an exciting moment. The fish kept two very different things in its mouth, one of which it had to send to the stomach and the other to the nest. What's she going to do? I must confess that at this point I would not have given two pence for the life of a tiny precious fish. But what's amazing happened! The male stood motionless, with his mouth full, but did not chew. If I've ever thought what a fish thinks, it's at this point. It is absolutely wonderful that a fish can be found in a truly difficult situation, in which case it behaved exactly as a person would behave if he were in its place. For a few seconds she stood motionless, as if not finding a way out of the situation, and you could almost see how tense all her feelings were. Then she resolved the contradictions in a way that can't help but cause admiration: she spit out all the contents on the bottom of the aquarium... Then the father resolutely went to the worm and slowly began to eat it, all the while looking at the young man, who dutifully lay on the bottom. After finishing the worm, the male took the fry and took it home to his mother.

    Several students who witnessed the scene shuddered. when one man started applauding."

    Together with Lorenz applauding and happy for the fish, I want to note that, no matter how elementary in this case the logical task and no matter how painfully coping with it fish, she unwittingly deprived the man of the halo of exclusivity, caused by the supposedly undivided possession of such a great treasure as reason.

    However, the days when a person claimed intellectual birthright, apparently, have already passed. As it seems, the time passes when superiority is seen in the weight and volume of his brain, or in the amount of gyrus. In all these parameters, a person is unlikely to be able to claim the title of the unconditional leader of the animal world. Yes, and not in the parameters, apparently, the case: the great scientist Louis Pasteur became a light science with one half of the brain (the other was atrophied). while the Florida resident, whose brain was the heaviest of all known, remained nameless even for the meticulous authors of the Guinness Book of Records.

    The question arises: if not the parameters of the brain and not intellectual birthright, what made man "thinking reeds" awarded this species of animals the title of "sapiens"? I will risk and give absolutely heretical, based, of course, on the principles of mental yoga explanation of the phenomenon of man.

    The essence of the human phenomenon is not in the presence or absence of Logic and not as a tool that we have to implement it, but in the position of Logic at the levels of the functional hierarchy.

    Once it was very true and expressively noticed that the mind is a super-klyk of man. That's right. But let's remember the mental yoga: the main weapon of man in the struggle are the functions at the top. The 4th Logic, no matter what class of beings its bearer belongs to, does not recognize thinking with a mighty weapon and even turns it off, as any Fourth function in the run-up to the conflict. Therefore, the intellectual barrier passes not between humans and animals, but between those who have Logic above and those with Logic Below. There is nothing offensive here: everyone thinks, and the quality of intellectual work does not depend on the position of Logic on the steps of the functional ladder. The only question is whether Logic is supportive, self-valued, authoritative, trustworthy, murderous or vice versa, secondary and ineffective for the mental self-perception of the individual.

    Let's remember the fish from the Lorenz Aquarium. But her thinking was typical of the 4th Logic: the inclusion of intelligence occurred only at the moment of choice, under the pressure of external circumstances. For her, intellectual work was not self-important, existing as an internal need, independent of external circumstances.Klapared, founder of zoopsychology, wrote that in animals "intelligence is activated when instinctive or acquired automatism is not able to solve a behavioral problem." I mean, Lorenz's fish itself wasn't stupid, it was just too practical and mentally lazy to become human.

    The essence of the intellectual boundary that lies across the cosmos of living beings is that individuals with the 4th Logic perceive thinking as a means, while individuals with Logic above perceive it as a target with all the consequent gains and losses.

    Therefore, the origin of the human phenomenon in the light of psycho-yoga is seen as follows: at first the entire animal world, including the proto-human, had the 4th Logic, but one day, due to an obscure confluence of circumstances (mutation, climate change, etc.), in some representatives of the protohuman family OF TETICALS. On this day the phenomenon of man was born. Not being smarter than his relatives, the owner of a high-standing Logic simply in a different way to the process of thinking, considering it self-valued, supportive, murderous, considered so, still having no evidence, simply because of his, new to the proto-human world order of functions.

    There was a giant intellectual explosion, according to one biologist, "there was an unprecedented - a person largely out of the influence of natural selection. Unfinished, unfinished. And so remained forever ... And a person came out from the action of selection because the main condition of success was not genetically transmitted information, but non-genetically transmitted knowledge. It is not those who are better organized as those who are better at the knowledge of how to build, how to produce food, how to protect themselves from diseases, but most importantly - next to pragmatic thinking stood up the thinking of fundamental - thinking is self-important, existing regardless of the tremors and circumstances of the external environment.

    Modern society is only now growing to realize the need to finance basic research. i.e. the satisfaction is said to be of idle curiosity at someone else's expense. But in fact, regardless of the sources of funding, fundamental research exists as long as there is a modern person. The question is: who was Socrates, who was sitting on the neck of his wife Xantippa, and in endless conversations trying to understand the creature of far from everyday life, philosophical categories? He was a typical representative of the high-standing Logic: idly curious. a supporter of self-important play with intellectual muscles, adept of the theory of thinking for the sake of thinking. But no matter how angry the free or unwitting "sponsors" of fundamental intellectualism, in the end their contributions never disappear, the strategic gain always remains for the representative of the high-standing Logic. However, no matter how the fate of the planet develops, the engine of the last stage of evolutionary development - the high-standing Logic - will continue to play a decisive role.

    The reader is already probably dreaming of a typical image of the man of the future for some magazine illustrations: a body-body, on top of which swings a bald skull the size of a pumpkin. No, you can be calm here. I repeat, it is not about the structure of the skull and not in anthropology, but in the order of functions, in which Logic by the will of fate is at the top. Therefore, anthropological metamorphosis is not foreseen. I do not foresee the impending numerical under-violence of intellectuals. They are still very dense, and since the love program of the person is focused on the emotional, as much was said in the previous chapter, it will take at least millennia before Logic begins to seriously compete with Emotion in the struggle for the continuation of the family.

    However, it is time to move from global problems to private ones and to look at ways to express Logic, depending on the position of it at the steps of the functional hierarchy. All carriers of this function are divided into "dogmatists" (1st Logic), "ritors" (2nd Logic), "sceptics" (3rd Logic) and "schoolers" (4th Logic).
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Dogmatic" (1st Logic)

    19. BERTIER LOGIC PHYSICS EMOTION EMOTION WILL
    20. PASCAL LOGIC EMOTION EMOTION WILL PHYSICIST
    21. PLATO LOGIC PHYSICS WILL EMOTION
    22. EINSTEIN LOGIC WILL EMOTION PHYSICS
    23. AUGUSTINE LOGIC EMOTION PHYSICS WILL
    24. LAO TZU LOGIC WILL PHYSICS EMOTION

    The title "dogmatic" in this case has a double meaning: today, according to which dogmatics are considered a person incapable of changing the times of learned truths, and in the ancient sense of the word, when the dogmatic was understood a thinker, prone to a monologue, an affirmative form of intellectual activity, as opposed to dialectic, which preferred a dialogue, a question form.

    In principle, both meanings - today and ancient Greek are equally applicable to the 1st Logic. Since the internal, psychological staging of Logic is reflected only in the way of thinking, but not on the quality of it, the "dogmatist" can be both a great sage and an impenetrable dullness. The 1st Logic combines the effectiveness of thinking, and what the results - a matter of purely individual.

    Among the external signs of the 1st Logic the most noticeable and revealing is the uniquely affirmative form of communication. Even when the "dogma" seemed to ask, it does not follow that he is waiting for an answer, and the question itself is usually put in a way that contains a known assessment. For example, a question like, "Did you hear what that dummy said?" - obviously does not imply an open-minded exchange of views. For this reason, communication with the 1st Logic in general can be considered quite difficult, communication "dogmatics" is so oppressive that the conversation willy-nilly reduced to a monologue, it can be interesting, useful, brilliant or, conversely, tedious, aimless, squalid, but it will still be a report, a speech, not a conversation.

    The monologue of the 1st Logic is insurmountable even then. when she tries to speak in someone else's name and reproduce a fundamentally alien dialogue intonation. This was the case, for example, with the great "dogmatic" Plato, who in vain imitated the style of his teacher Socrates, until the nature took its own and he brought to the end his "Socratic Dialogues" to pure monologues, on the title of which the name of Socrates, a lover of communication, was already an obvious fiction.

    Fortunately, the dogmatic is not chatty, has the ability to hear and is not in a hurry to speak on any of the proposed topics. He allows himself to start the monologue only in comfortable conditions, i.e. in connection with the problem in which he considers himself competent. How thorough this opinion about itself is another question, the main thing, when discussing those in which the "dogmatist" floats or does not have information at all. he prefers to keep quiet.

    That's what I think. 1st Logic of caution manifests itself. She does not know how to communicate outside the affirmative form, and the detection at cavalry appeal on the insolvency of her First - a supporting and most powerful function - is fraught with self-destruction of personality.

    Another reason for the silence of the 1st Logic: the lack of gift and taste for discussion. In disputes with "dogmatics" the truth is not born, it is either affirmed or swept away. The third is not given.

    Usually he goes to a debate with home-cooked - a cudgel of absolute truth, which sometimes very effectively jams his opponent. But home-cooked 1st Logic is equally inherent in both strength and weakness. A simple, shifting-looking topic is a question that is not relevant to the point of remark, and even a simple "dogmatic" is taken out of balance and shut his mouth. And while he tries to collect the crumbling after the failure of the design of his home speculative scheme, comes a painful silent scene, painful for the 1st Logic and unpleasant for listeners.

    This happened, for example, with Demosthenes. As a speaker by profession, he was a "dogmatic" in his way of thinking. Therefore, never, even in extreme cases, did not perform with impromptu, but always at first at home wrote and studied speech, and only then went with her to the podium. All would be fine, but the exuberant Athenian people often shouted interrupted the speaker, and here on Demosphen found such tetanus that he was speechless and silent descended from the podium, which immediately climbed the party colleague Demad, able to respond more flexibly to the challenge of the crowd.

    "Dogmatic" in general tightum - a stayer, not a sprinter of intelligence. He, as the Russians say, is strong in the hind wind (the English call it humor on the stairs), so he has no taste for discussion and without extreme need does not enter into it. Darwin admitted: "I am not endowed with the ability to grasp on the fly or the sharpness of the mind, so striking us in gifted people, such as Huxley. Accordingly, I am an unimportant critic.."

    The third reason for the silence of the 1st Logic: dislike of idle chatter. conjectures and generally private opinion. "Dogmatic" collects absolute truth, not opinions. Only absolute truth can be put brick in the intellectual support that builds for itself 1st Logic. Hence the outright alienation and even dislike that the "dogmatic" feels to chatter, hypotheses and opinions. One of the scientists who knew Einstein wrote: "It was the most important thing for him to come to the absolute truth; in this pursuit he did not know the delicacy and spared no self-love of opponents."

    I will not say that the "dogmatic" himself is not the author of hypotheses. There are very often ridiculous hypotheses. Another thing is that usually. them for such does not feel, does not consider to such an extent that is not inclined to experience to test the faithfulness of their lives. This is not done by negligence, God forbid, but because for the 1st Logic the thought is primary and self-sufficient, it is of the same kind and does not need any crutches.

    To go from concept to fact, and not vice versa - the usual for the 1st Logic way of action.Natural looks at this image of thought and the fact that for "dogmatic" there is no more painful spectacle than the kind of battleable theory. Once, talking to Huxley about the nature of the tragic, someone mentioned Spencer. "Ha!" "Hexley cried out," he shouted. the tragedy in Spencer's view is deduction, morified by fact."

    "Dogmatic" in its trust to the thought (more precisely, not to the thought, but to the First function - the function of the highest authenticity), it happens, goes so far that others begin to classify this fascination with speculation as madness. Obsession with the idea, confidence in its supervalue, reliance on logic at the expense of fact and experience has in psychiatry its special name - "paranoia." And sometimes, such a diagnosis is made by the 1st Logic. However, as in the case of manic-depressive psychosis in the 1st Emotion, paranoia is not a mental illness in its own sense of the word. it is just the extreme expression of the 1st Logic, by nature too trusting to speculative schemes. And if we classify paranoia as a disease, this disease is not mental, but psychotypical, i.e. caused by the mental type of the individual.

    However, the clinical title - "paranoid" 1st Logic is awarded quite rarely, more often it is a borderline state. Characterized usually by epithets such as "mentor," "doctrinaire," "scientist donkey."

    It is very similar to the madness and the reaction that the 1st Logic reacts to all obvious stupidity, nonsense, alogism, beliberda, other Logics perceived usually quite condescendingly. Knowing nonsense, that is, direct mockery of the best, most important side of the psyche "dogmatics" almost immediately knocks him out of the rut, bringing to rabies, to hysterics. Paustovsky described in the memoirs of one of his gymnasium teachers, pathologically not carrying beliberda. Young dunce-gyms students soon recognized his weakness and, garking some notorious stupidity at the beginning of the lesson, just knocked out the teacher, immediately bringing to a hysterical fit and insanity.

    Thinking of the 1st Logic may not be the best in the world, but, for sure, the most HONEST. This happens because there is nothing above logic, and no other function twists the hand to the sake of thinking, does not press from above, dictating direction and way of thinking. In the "dogmatic" functions standing below can only ask, and not demand from Logic something for themselves, something working on self-interest in Physics, on sensitivity on Emotion, on vanity by will - and only. Therefore, the 1st Logic, as no one, is honest and pure in its speculation, and the rigor of its intellectual constructions can be relied upon.

    The ability to immerse yourself in the thought until completely disconnected from the outside world is noticed in the "dogmatic" already in childhood. Extreme and, more importantly, lonely reverie characterizes such a child. He can spend hours alone, busy with his thoughts, not reacting to what is happening around. Sometimes the thought captures it at the most inopportune moment, for example, for food and captures so much that the view of the child-"dogmatic" stoned and the spoon hangs for a long time in the air, not conveyed to the mouth.

    The propensity for somnambulic immersion in thought in the 1st Logic is well illustrated by episodes from Einstein's life. It is said that one day they saw Einstein rolling a stroller with a child down the street; suddenly he stopped in the most inappropriate place, from the point of view of the rules of the street traffic, and, having taken out of his pocket paper and pencil, began to make hasty notes. Only after finishing the recording, Einstein continued to move. Or another case. Wanting to celebrate the scientist's birthday, friends invited Einstein to the restaurant and, among other things, ordered a rare delicacy - Russian caviar. When the caviar was brought, Einstein was just "talking about the Newtonian law of inertia and about its possible physical explanation. He put caviar in his mouth and continued to comment on the law of inertia. When the caviar was seden and the speaker stopped to put an invisible point, the interlocutors asked him if he knew that he had eaten. "No, but what?" - "It was caviar!" - "How, was it caviar?" - Einstein exclaimed with sadness..."

    The memory of the 1st Logic is also well-known. It holds ideas, theories, concepts well, but is quite weak on facts, names, dates, numbers. When Einstein was asked a simple question about the speed of sound, he replied, "I don't know that by heart. To what to load his memory with what can be found in any handbook." He is not interested in the disparate non-systemic factual material, because it is impossible to build on that finished intellectual structure, which tries to rely on the 1st Logic. According to the "dogmatics", the facts - sand, building material itself unfit, valuable it makes only a noticeable addition of cement of thought, able to turn the grains of facts into that concrete, from which only and possible to form a genuine and unshakable support of personality.

    For the same reason, "dogmatic" is usually not curious and often even poorly read. In general, if the circle of his professional interests is far from intellectual sphere, his luggage "dogmatic" from the crowd almost does not stand out, and does not aspire to it. His skate is a system analysis, not information storage. Nils Bohr, for example, none of his colleagues considered any seriously erudite person, but his gigantic talent to structure disparate, at first glance, accidentally caught in the sight of the facts, was not denied by anyone. Bohr himself said, "You know, I'm an amateur. When others begin to complicate the machine of theory, I cease to understand anything ... I can only think with sin in half."

    "Dogmatic" is a philosopher, a philosopher, even when his occupation is formally far from philosophy. For example, Einstein and Bohr are considered physicists, but in fact they were naturosophs and stood much closer to Democrit than to Rutherford. Explain the philosophical inclinations of "dogmatics" by the fact that the thinking of the 1st Logic was strategic and gravitates towards the creation of closed universal systems. To connect with thought all things in the world is an unattainable, but constantly built "dogmatist" before itself. As another famous physicist, Heveshi, wrote: "The thinking mind does not feel happy until it manages to tie together the disparate facts observed by it. This "intellectual unhappiness" most of all makes us think - to do science."

    The conceit of "dogmatics" in terms of the abilities of one's mind extends far as far. One day, George Eliot asked Spencer why he didn't see any wrinkles on his forehead with such hard work. "It's probably because I'm never puzzled," the famous scientist replied. "Dogmatic" is self-confident to the point that, perhaps, only it leaves indifferent the universal fascination with crosswords, logical tests and similar means of intellectual self-control. And in vain. This self-confidence sometimes serves the 1st Logic of unkind service, because when depending on the results of testing is the fate of the person (recruitment, school, etc.), the 1st Logic does not always score high scores. And it's not just the unsyability and tightness of thinking "dogmatics." The very assumption that the power of the mind given to him by nature is not just in abundance, but even with excess, can be challenged, seems "dogmatic" so ridiculous that to strain his hemispheres he sometimes considers simply superfluous. Hence, often more than modest results of intelligent testing of the 1st Logic.

    The style. In its quest for laconicism, the 1st Logic is very similar to the 1st Emotion. Like "romantic," the "dogmatic" is brief in self-expression and on the court of the human tends to present only the result of his lonely reflections - "raisins" of thinking, with the exception of everything that preceded it, i.e. the process of rational search. For example, Einstein outlined his famous theory of relativity on three pages, and spent eighteen pages on his thesis without even providing it with a list of literature.

    Lapidarity of self-expression of the 1st Logic is rarely for its benefit and almost always to the detriment. Sometimes it can be directly associated with some irreparable, tragic losses. Let's say that Heraclitus - the greatest and deepest philosopher of antiquity already in his lifetime nicknamed "Dark", and to this day from all his philosophical heritage came only a few brilliant quotes. Such is the bitter payment of the 1st Logic for the high concentration of its emphatically effective style.

    The handwriting of "dogmatics" is very recognizable. It is ugly, difficult to read and by its principles approaches to shorthand (I think the inventor of shorthand had the 1st Logic). The main formal signs of "dogmatic" handwriting are: of all the variants of writing letters is chosen the simplest and fastest, as well as the bundles between the letters short, straight and as adapted to cursive. In short, the handwriting of the 1st Logic is extremely rational and neglects clarity and aesthetics for the sake of speed and simplicity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Ritor" (2nd Logic)

    2. REDUCE THE WILL LOGIC OF EMOTION PHYSICS
    6. LENIN WILL LOGIC PHYSICS EMOTION
    7. ARISTIP PHYSICS LOGIC WILL EMOTION
    10. EPICURE PHYSICS LOGIC EMOTION WILL
    14. ANDERSEN EMOTION LOGIC WILL PHYSICIST
    17. RUSSO EMOTION LOGIC PHYSICS WILL

    To say that "rhetoric" is a big fan of talk is to say nothing. Communication - air and bread of the 2nd Logic. The size of this need can be judged at least by the example of Fidel Castro, for whom it is worthless to give a 15-hour interview. However, apparently, this is not the limit - Castro himself admitted that he met people even more talkative than him.

    Moreover, this chatteriness of the "ritor" exists as if in itself, as a passion, as a disease, outside of personal and public interests. And sometimes in spite of them.

    After abandoning the affairs of the vast empire, all day long wandered through the grammar schools of Emperor Tiberius, asking wild, in terms of his social position, questions: "Who was Hecuba's mother? What was Achilles' name among the girls? What songs were sung by sirens?" He liked, for example, to summon some literary flesh on the carpet, to indulge in hours to criticize the novel paralyzed from the fear of roaches, compared some great writers with others, to the different manners of writing, etc.

    These curiosities could be considered a simple bliss of jaded tyrants, if we do not take into account the fact that both Tiberius and Stalin had the 2nd Logic. This fact puts everything in its place. Being carriers of the psychotype, of which Logic is the Second Function, i.e. the function of the not easily powerful, but still being procession, both tyrants, contrary to their own and state interests, simply could not go against their nature and threw in the insatiable womb of the procession of the 2nd Logic all that falls under the hand, up to the near-literary thration.

    To be commended, the "rhetoric" would be utterly unbearable if his word-lustability often did not reach the heights of the true art of communication. The secret of this art is in the ability and desire not just to speak out, but above all to involve the interlocutor in the conversation, to make intellectual feast joint.

    The techniques that make such involvement in the conversation are simple and fail-safe. First, unlike "dogmatics," "rhetoric" never begins communication with approval, but always with a question. Begins with a question even when the subject is known to him thoroughly. One owner of the most powerful, turned off only on the night of the 2nd Logic, once told me: "If I ask you, it does not mean that I do not know the answer. I'm just so comfortable talking."

    The second way is to pretend to be a fool and start communicating with a phrase like the famous Socratic: "I only know that I know nothing." It is hard to imagine who would refuse to swallow such bait - an opportunity to teach a fool. And the further matter of technology: word for word, conversation rolled, you see - for an interesting conversation and the day passed.

    It does not follow from this that only direct, open, equal dialogue determines the completeness of the implementation of the 2nd Logic. It has enough reverberation. Take, say, a speech from the podium. In this case, it seems that the speaker is doomed to a monologue, and, therefore, the 2nd Logic is notoriously put in an uncomfortable position for her. However, this is only visibility. Communication still takes place, contact is, but not on the language, but on the energy level. This is how the writer Garcia Marquez describes the rally version of Fidel Castro's 2nd Logic: "In the first minutes his voice is barely audible and intermittent. It seems as if the speaker is moving blindly in the fog, using every flash of light to per inch the terrain, stumbles, but gets up and... completely takes over the audience. From that moment between him and the public there is an electric circuit, which excites both sides, turning them into a kind of dialectical accomplices, and in this unbearable tension his reassity."

    Another wonderful and precious quality, characteristic of all "ritors" without exception - is a healthy cynicism. 2nd Logic does not believe in God, in the devil, nor in party programs, nor in scientific doctrines - in anything. All aximatic, dogmatic, once in the millstones of the hemispheres of the "rhetorical" brain, quickly loses its absoluteness and is made by a simple object of intellectual manipulation. For the "ritor" there are no prohibitions, no frameworks, no rules that keep the free play of thought. Everything is subject to the trial of the 2nd Logic, but this court is merciful and rarely makes a final verdict (except for obvious stupidity). The verdict is the result, the end of the process, which is so cherished by the 2nd Logic. Therefore, the cynicism of her statements is devoid of aggressive, categorical notes, it is the cynicism of a non-partisan, free-thinking person.

    He does not value the "rhetoric" and his own statements, which are not statements for him, but only hypotheses that are convenient at the moment. To refute today said yesterday - the normal state of the "ritor." You don't have to go far for an example - Lenin. During his life he said so much the opposite that Leninists still can not decide which of his statements should be considered prescriptive. A great polemist, Lenin each time managed to make an extremely convincing thought, directly contrary to the one he had recently defended with a little more brilliance. In general, the ability of the 2nd Logic with ease snake to throw dilapidated intellectual skin - a huge gift, making of the "ritor" of the invincible polemist, Proteus of thought, multifaceted and elusive.

    It is impossible not to admire the breadth of interests of the 2nd Logic. She is interested in almost everything that happens in the world, from global problems to the smallest. To stand up to the interests and memory of the "ritor" is rich. well-holding and universal concepts, and insignificant facts, like a scaup closet, keeping everything that comes in the way. And in such omnivorous memory of the 2nd Logic there is a reason. One God knows where the dear heart of the "ritor" conversation can begin, which will serve as a starting point: a trifle or a super-idea. The main thing is to participate, and for full participation you need a large, devoid of special memory.

    However, unlike "dogmatics", the 2nd Logic is not at all confused and the complete lack of information, when it fearlessly encounters in the conversation. However, it does not take the risk of being punished, as it is protected by flexibility and freedom of mind, which are expensive regardless of the degree of awareness of the interlocutors, as well as certainly a questionable form of entering into the conversation.

    2nd Logic also knows no equal as a commentator, a misinterpreter of other people's ideas. An illustration of this provision can serve as a characteristic of the young, at that time fascinated by hegelian dialectic,Mikhail Bakunin: "Bakunin had a great ability to develop the most abstract concepts with clarity, which made them accessible to everyone, and they did not lose in their idealistic depth ... Bakunin could speak for hours, argue tirelessly from evening till morning, without losing neither the dialectical thread of conversation, nor the passionate power of persuasion. And he was always ready to explain, to explain, to repeat without the slightest dogmatism."

    No matter how fond of "rhetoric" joint intellectual feasts, at the same time he perfectly owns the art of shaving, shut his mouth to the opponent. I will give examples from the life of tyrants already known to us. They told about Stalin that when Orjenikidze, having learned about the search of his apartment of the NKVD, called his despot and expressed his indignation, he heard in response: they say, the NKVD is such an organization that could make a search of Stalin. It's a stage. One day a delegation of Trojans arrived to Emperor Tiberius and belatedly expressed his condolences on the death of his son. Tiberius's reaction was instant, and he expressed his condolences to them on the occasion of the death of the best of the Trojans - Hector. It's a stage.

    Regardless of the speed and accuracy of the sharpness of the 2nd Logic, it should be noted as a characteristic feature - the great speed of processes going on in her brain. Instantly, the necessary information is extracted from the memory caches, instantly and half-word assimilated, options are rapidly calculated and hypotheses are born. It seems that the neurons of the "ritor" pulse runs faster than that of other people. Watching near the work of the 2nd Logic, involuntarily feel like an arithmometer, standing next to the computer.

    Perhaps the only drawback of the 2nd Logic, which is an extension of its merits, is that the thinking of the "ritor" tends to be more gravitating towards tactics than strategy. 2nd logic and does not aspire to something long-term, large-scale, finished, it is more interested in the momentary, close-to-goal intellectual game. Very good this feature of the 2nd Logic on the example of Lenin described Victor Chernov: "First of all, he is a master of fencing, and the swordsman needs quite a bit of ability to anticipate and does not need complex ideas. In fact, he does not need to think too much: it is necessary to focus on each movement of the enemy and control his own reaction at the speed of innate instinct in order to respond to every movement of the enemy without the slightest delay.

    Lenin's intellect was sharp, but not broad, resourceful, but not creative. Master of assessment of any political situation, he instantly mastered it, quickly evaluated all its new turns and showed unsized political ingenuity. This perfect and fast-paced political flair stands in stark contrast to the totally unfounded and fantastic nature of all the historical predictions he has made for any length of time - any programme that encompasses something more than today and tomorrow."

    Being a tactic, not a strategist of thought "rhetoric" and does not seek to gain the ultimate truth, after which, of course, needed in his fast, mobile mind should simply fall away. In this sense, one recognition of Lessing is characteristic. He wrote: "The value of man is determined not by the possession of truth, genuine or imaginary, but by honest work used to achieve the truth... If God, having concluded the truth in his right hand, and in the left - the eternal desire for the truth, but with the fact that I will be forever mistaken, said to me, "Choose!" I would humbly attach to His left hand, saying, "Father, give! The pure truth is that she is one for you."

    "Ritor" is not a big hunter before writing his views. And that's understandable. His passion is live communication, not a battle with a dead piece of paper. He gives it to others, as Socrates did, agreeing to Plato's recording. But what further disgusts the 2nd Logic from the cabinet work - is the inability to limit yourself to some framework, to find the beginning and end of thought. Thinking for the "ritor" is primarily a process, movement, flow, and an attempt to snatch anything from it is no more fruitful than trying to cut a piece of the river. Therefore, if he sits down at the table, he does it with great reluctance, for any particular reason, and his manuscript looks like something without beginning and end, a fragment of a boundless, endless opus.

    The only thing when the 2nd Logic willingly turns to the paper - it is during the forced loneliness. It is being doomed to silence, she turns to such a surrogate as a paper, and usually starts a diary. But the one who thinks that it is a diary in the usual sense of the word, as a secret attorney of the innermost doomsdays is greatly mistaken. It's nothing like that. It's a ship's journal of thought, directly designed for extraneous reading. A friend of mine, after a long absence, not only gave, but forced to read his wife his diary-magazine.

    Another notable and funny character trait of the 2nd Logic is the passion to make notes in books, especially library. Reading with a pencil, it abundantly sat down pages with features, exclamation points and question marks, "nb" etc. But in reality the origins of this passion are different. Tagging in books - a typical form of communication typical for the 2nd Logic, a message to all the future unnamed owners of the book, an attempt to exchange opinions in absentia.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The Skeptic" (3rd Logic)

    3. AKHMATOVA WILL EMOTION LOGIC PHYSICS
    5. NAPOLEON WILL PHYSICIST LOGIC EMOTION
    11. BORJA PHYSICS EMOTION LOGIC WILL
    12. GOETHE PHYSICS WILL LOGIC EMOTION
    13. BUKHARIN EMOTION PHYSICS LOGIC WILL
    15. GASSED THE EMOTION OF THE WILL LOGIC OF PHYSICS

    Once again I will say heresy, but still I will say: skepticism is not philosophy at all, and psychology. The title of "sceptic" deserves any holder of the 3rd Logic, regardless of the level of education and degree of philosophical training. There would be a desire to deny the effectiveness and necessity of rational beginnings in a person - it is enough to be in the camp of skeptics.

    However, the 3rd Logic would not have been the Third Function if it had not been internally divided and, along with the fierce denial of reason, secretly worshipped it. The poet Alexander Block in the letters almost clicked: "I know love, I know that "mind" will not be, I do not want it, throw it, throw mud, trample my feet, " - but in one of the questionnaires admitted: "My favorite quality is the mind."

    Typical for the Third function love-hate in the 3rd Logic is original only because it is directed to the mental activity of a person.

    Ordinary, everyday "sceptic" is a silent, very cautious person in parcels and conclusions, with dislike and irony referring to all sorts of categorical judgments. Moreover, silence as a form of existence prevails in him. One owner of the 3rd Logic, being married to a man with the 4th Logic, once complained to me: "I know I'm smarter than him, but I want to open my mouth and I can't. Indeed, the "skeptic" is almost always doomed to silence, although it is more of a burden to him than anyone else. However, it is necessary for the "sceptic" to open his mouth sometimes, as it immediately hears from the side: "Silence, for the clever will go," - and he numbs, catching the air with his mouth.

    The only way for the 3rd Logic to protect yourself from such injuries is to turn the logic out of the realm of direct contact. What in the back of my mind is not desirable and in the conditions of modern society is impossible. Therefore, the "sceptic" can only limit itself to minimal self-defense: flight from the most pressing issues, discussions, debates - and most importantly, the prevention of attempts to use logic in conflict situations. Phrases like, "We're not going to discuss!" "Enough to talk!" - from which the conflict of the 3rd Logic usually begins, pursues this goal. Such demands are rarely heard by grumpy opponents of the "sceptic", but not to try to protect himself from blows on the sore spot, and therefore throughout the conflict tries to transfer the struggle to other functional levels, or, at worst, to pretend to be deaf.

    Experiencing almost panic fear of acute, gambling dispute, "sceptic" at the same time, as no one, appreciates a leisurely, benevolent, free conversation, in which there are no winners and losers, and therefore there is no division into smart and fools (to get into the last 3rd Logic is afraid more than anything). She appreciates, even bluntly, the empty chatter in which the process is much more expensive than the result.

    Here it is discovered that the imaginary silencer is in fact monstrously verbose, that there is no greater joy for him than quietly, almost whispering, murmuring and murmuring, sorting, like beads of rosks, theme after topic.

    The 3rd Logics are especially successful in two themes. The first is classical skepticism: about the insolvency of reason (Sext Empiric's essay "Against Logic" can be considered a reference in this area). Maybe, and not competing with Sext Empiric, each "sceptic" contributes to this direction, very inventively, and most importantly, logically proving the futility of logic. Although even ancient opponents of the first skeptics pointed out that to fight reasoning against reasoning - not very correct. But that is the two-faced quirkiness of the 3rd Logic: to deny the mind so that everyone can say, "Why is he smart!"

    Another topic or, better to say the sphere in which the 3rd Logic is easily breathed- is the boundary between knowledge and ignorance, that shaky streak, where there are no yet dogmas, all but facts and facts, hypotheses and opinions. It is here in full force unfolds the talent of the 3rd Logic, the great master to be sophisticated in multivariate, to build exquisite paradoxes, to weave speculative laces, to bring any position to the absurd. I suppose that the question: "How many angels can sit on the end?" - invented it is the 3rd Logic.

    The complexity of thought in general is closer to the 3rd Logic than simplicity. This fact is interesting because in philosophy there is a principle called "Ocama razor" according to which, of the two solutions to the problem: complex and simple - it is necessary to cut off a complex version, as the most unproductive and cumbersome. 1st Logic certainly accepts the "Okkam razor", the 3rd Logic does not present it at all and prefers a complicated decision to the simple.

    Much more caution than in the analysis of hypotheses and opinions, shows the 3rd Logic in the analysis of dogms. Unlike the 2nd logic, fearless enough to try on a tooth even common, common truths, the 3rd Logic does not feel as strong for an open revolt against them, its rebellion is hidden, it is painful, painful, gradual, in the expression of the great "sceptic" Kant, the swell with itself "dogmatic task".

    Describing Churchill's 3rd Logic, Lloyd George wrote: "Churchill's mind was a powerful mechanism. But in the structure of this mechanism, and maybe in the materials from which it was composed, there was some incomprehensible flaw, which prevented it from always acting properly. What was the case here, critics could not say. When the mechanism malfunctioned, its sheer power led to disaster not only for himself, but also for the people with whom he worked. That's why the latter felt nervous in working with him.

    In their opinion, in the metal from which it was cast, there was some fatal isayan. This weakness was put forward by Churchill's critics in support of his refusal to use his great abilities at the moment. They saw it not as a positive value to be used in an hour of danger, but as an additional danger to beware."

    Unfortunately, Lloyd George only points out the presence of some of Churchill's logic, but apparently unable to articulate what this is a member of the world. My attempts to question the owners of the 3rd Logic were also not very fruitful. The answers were brief, and they showed that the particular difficulty for them was the formation of priorities, the systemicity of thinking ("thoughts spread like crayfish").

    I suspect that for a large part of the owners of the 3rd Logic the problem lies not so much in the haphazardness of thinking and related doubts about mental abilities, but in the stiffness and undeveloped speech apparatus. Therefore, in the development of speech, starting from infancy, I see the main solution to the problem of "scepticism". Otherwise, the consequences may be the saddest. For example, Alexander Blok almost starved to death during the Civil War, because rations were given to writers for lectures, and to lecture work, because of innate "scepticism". he was incapable. Block said to his colleagues, "I envy you all: you know how to speak, you read somewhere out there. I can't do that. I can only write in writing."

    The idea of the feelings experienced by the 3rd Logic, when she is at the department, give excerpts from one letter to a psychiatrist: "I teach at a technical university ... For the sixth month I have been giving lectures in my specialty... "I read" - it is said incorrectly. I don't read, I suffer and torment listeners... I go out to the audience like a statue of a commander. Everything is fine and surprising: the tongue does not toss, in the spine stake, on the shoulders of the weight of the Egyptian pyramid, and in the brains - what is in the brain, already damn will understand. Smokescreen. I forget half the material, no notes help."

    Another source of intellectual glitches in the "sceptic" is the very order of functions, which put logic down. The correctness of thinking for the 3rd Logic is especially difficult, because the strong functions above simply break its apparatus under itself. 1st Will easily turns into a clown "I think!" 3rd Logic, and there's nothing you can do about it.

    Lermontov wrote, "I like to doubt everything: this arrangement does not interfere with the determination of my character." The same, which leads to the combination of "scepticism" with determination of character can be judged by the examples of two such well-known "sceptics" as Napoleon and ******.They mocked common sense not because little and poorly thought, but because the 1st Will too believed in themselves and in their right to own the world to listen to the reasonable babble of the 3rd Logic. Their Will, standing much higher than Logic, simply excluded from the circle of brainied themes and facts such as found to be sensitive, In fact, the violence that is done over the 3rd Logic of the Higher Will is what is commonly referred to as "female logic," i.e. by the definition of a single wit, is "an unconscious belief that the oceactivity can be overcome by one desire." Disorder is dishonest, dishonesty is dishonest - that's what we should pay attention to in any moral and intellectual assessment.

    If the "sceptic" turns to politics, his first thing is characterized by stable relations with the press. In Democratic systems, a "skeptic" politician usually flees the press, as President Reagan did. Under totalitarian regimes, the "skeptic" ruler escapes from it by repression. An example is Napoleon, who closed 160 French newspapers on a single day, imposed a heavy grip on the remaining, and claimed that another newspaper was worth a thousand bayonets. This statement of the great commander, as in a drop of water, reflected the respect and fear that the 3rd Logic constantly experiences before the hard word given to her.

    Several observations over not too significant, but characteristic features of the 3rd Logic.

    First. She is the main consumer of crossword puzzles, logical tasks and tests. All this intellectual production is the perfect testing ground on which the 3rd Logic can test itself without interference and risk of serious injury, to find out how inherently inward the feeling of mental inferiority. Although, in my opinion, crossword puzzles and tests are not able to give a true picture of the state of the logical apparatus. However, as a psychotherapeutic tool, they are absolutely necessary, inspiring and comforting a large army of "sceptics."

    Second. 3rd Logic, even without being emotional (i.e. with the 4th Emotion), is still prone to mysticism. The mechanism of such a propensity is quite transparent. However, usually "sceptical" mysticism at the 4th Emotion is not deep and is limited to the propensity to superstition, as such well-known "skeptics" as Reagan and Yeltsin openly admitted.

    Third. If the 3rd Logic works in the artistic sphere, then it is closer to others in spirit such currents as expressionism, Dadaism, surrealism, etc. The secret of this sympathy is just as simple, "skeptic" can not be close artistic directions, bulging irrational beginnings, aesthetic concepts, contrasting in creativity unconscious conscious, putting the second much below the first.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Skolar" (4th Logic)

    1. THICK WILL EMOTION PHYSICS LOGIC
    4. TWARDOVSKY WILL PHYSICS EMOTION LOGIC
    8. CHEKHOV PHYSICS WILL EMOTION LOGIC
    9. DUMA PHYSICS EMOTION WILL LOGIC
    16. PASTERNAK EMOTION WILL PHYSICS LOGIC
    18. PUSHKIN EMOTION PHYSICS WILL LOGIC

    I am afraid that the reader in advance, voluntarily or unwittingly, has the impression of the 4th Logic as a function of the notoriously mentally helpless and retarded. Therefore, once again - it is not so. The essence of the problem of the 4th Logic is not the poor quality of its functioning, but that the individual takes logic in its internal hierarchy of values the last place. Read in these lines:

    "It wasn't hard for me to get used to the feasts,

    Where the idle mind shines, while the heart slumbers."

    Who is the author of these lines, where the preference for Emotion ("heart") before Logic ("mind")is unequivocally expressed? The author - a great clever, unsurpassed, according to the testimonies of contemporaries, polemist - Alexander Pushkin, who, indeed, the 1st Emotion was combined with the 4th Logic, which is clear and reflected in the lines.

    In the example of Pushkin it is easy to see one of the specific features of the 4th Logic: the combination of the quality work of the logical apparatus with complete madness. Pushkin is a brilliant polemist. lost in the cards to all who knew how to hold them in their hands. There is nothing paradoxical here. The polemical gift of it was opened in a serene atmosphere of a friendly circle. Whereas a large card game in itself led to discomfort, tension of the situation in which, according to the laws of the Fourth Functions, the 4th Logic of Pushkin was disconnected, and all internal energy was concentrated in Emotions - a function that stands first in its internal hierarchy. And the result of playing cards based on emotions, I think, is easy to predict in advance. And so, depending on the situation, lives any "schoolboy" smart and stupid in one person.

    The russian tsar Nicholas II was not denied the mind by people who knew him well. But... Victorious considered him not to tolerate "common issues" able to assess "the significance of the fact only isolated, without relation to the rest, without connection with the set of other facts, events, currents, phenomena." The king himself said, "that he suffers heavily, choosing from all the necessary things heard," "that he has a hard time straining the mind", and "he thinks. that this effort of mind, if it could pass into a horse (when he sits on it), it would very disturb her." That's the way it is. The 4th Logic is difficult to give independent mental work, generally the inclusion of intelligence without immediate and obvious in that need. The brain of the "schoolboy" is pragmatic, he does not like to look forward and look wide and quickly moulds without aftershocks from the outside.

    And so, in appearance of the 4th Logic is almost no different from the 2nd. It is also intellectually non-partisan; easily assimilates, accepts, reproduces, develops any views: dogmatic, dialectical. Skeptical... 4th Logic is as free and fearless in its premise and conclusions as it is in the 2nd. And let's give credit, omnivorousness, combined with fearlessness - the main and very weighty trump card in the hands of the "schoolboy."

    Two things allow you to quickly distinguish the 4th Logic from the 2nd. First, the ideology of the "schoolboy" is completely detached from his life, and he is not inclined to follow what he postulates. Tolstoy wrote about one of these owners of the 4th Logic: "Sviazhsky was one of those people who was always amazing for Levin. reasoning which, very consistent, though never independent, goes on its own, and life, extremely defined and firm in its direction, goes on its own, completely independently, almost always contrary to reasoning."

    The second sign of the 4th Logic is congenital skepticism. However, let's not confuse it with the active skepticism of the 3rd Logic. "Skolarsky" is a toothless skepticism, Pasternak's remark that they say to engage in all life intellectual activity is like eating mustard all his life - that's the land for which rarely passes "school" in his criticism of rationalism. The skepticism of the 4th Logic is not a vigorous denial of the effectiveness of an intelligent beginning in a person, but a simple indifference to it. And that's the big difference between skepticism of the 3rd and the skepticism of the 4th Logic. Because the indifference of the 4th Logic, still recently painted with skepticism, tomorrow may be painted dogma, and the day after tomorrow something else. Because of the indifference to intellectual questions of the 4th Logic is easily captured, but the wrong one who thinks that captured it forever. No - until the next interlocutor. About one of these "schoolers" Labreuyer wrote: "He so naturally appropriates someone else's mind that he himself is the first to be deceived, sincerely believing that he expresses his own judgment or explains his own thought, although in fact he is just an echo of who he has just broken up with." Chekhov wrote about the same very self-critical: "I have no political, religious and philosophical worldview; I change it every month..."

    In short, "schoolboy" - energetic only in need, idly curious, internally utterly uninhibited, intellectual chameleon. And here all its pros and cons.

    In consolation, the "schoolboy" must add that he is a champion. Among the population of the earth, it is numerically superior to all other Logics. There is no country or nation where the "school" Logic would dominate. Purely hypothetically reasoning, we can assume that in Greece Y-IVV. until the R.H. and in Germany, the YIII-XIX centuries, in the heyday of their philosophies and sciences, the 4th Logic was slightly supplanted. But in other times and in other spaces, the dominance of the 4th Logic was and is undivided.
    Last edited by squark; 04-08-2021 at 02:55 AM.

  17. #257
    scientist donkey BrightDemonSheep96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On a toilet, right above you
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF/omnibeta
    Posts
    6,342
    Mentioned
    267 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post


    However, the clinical title - "paranoid" 1st Logic is awarded quite rarely, more often it is a borderline state. Characterized usually by epithets such as "mentor," "doctrinaire," "scientist donkey."

    This one calls for new user title.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type

    Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.

  18. #258
    I don't play, I slay. Lolita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Near Whole Foods
    TIM
    SEE-N™ VLEF™AP 863
    Posts
    1,145
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Attitudinal Psyche type system

    VFXX and FVXX have a Te flavor in output. BTW the DCNH functions doesn't mean either/or but all the functions in that subtype is accentuated for that type. Being D subtype is engaging with Te, Fe, and Se. So for LSI-D, there's more shadow functions development (Te and Fe) but since Se is also developed, LSI already has valued, reliable Se, they have the energy to keep everything running. LSI-D are social stabilizers with an agenda, grey cardinal. LSI-D with VFLE Napoleon actually makes perfect sense.


  19. #259
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lolita View Post
    VFXX and FVXX have a Te flavor in output. BTW the DCNH functions doesn't mean either/or but all the functions in that subtype is accentuated for that type. Being D subtype is engaging with Te, Fe, and Se. So for LSI-D, there's more shadow functions development (Te and Fe) but since Se is also developed, LSI already has valued, reliable Se, they have the energy to keep everything running.
    Agreed, I said the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lolita
    LSI-D are social stabilizers with an agenda, grey cardinal. LSI-D with VFLE Napoleon actually makes perfect sense.
    The main contradiction between the two is in some of the 3L aspects where VFLE is said to hold back or not get involved, waiting to speak, and the D subtype is contact, so not holding back. I've gotten myself in trouble more than a few times by jumping in and saying things when I probably shouldn't have ha.


    PS Edit: Received results from Rob at AP of . . . LVEF which is what I had already figured was most likely. His explanations made much more sense as well. I tried to consider Timur's results and see if they could fit, but I don't think they do. VFLE doesn't fit me, even if I squint at it, and try to rationalize it to make it work. And I definitely tried to rationalize it into place -many hoops were spun and much gymnastics undertaken hah. There are some aspects of 1V and D that come across as similar, but my attitude is much more 2V. Process >>>>Result. In everything else I read, the most natural fit really is 1L and 2V.
    Last edited by squark; 04-09-2021 at 12:27 PM.

  20. #260
    The Banana King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    TIM
    ILE-Ti-H FLEV
    Posts
    81
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vex View Post
    My personal random thoughts/theories regarding AP/Psychosophy after looking at the author's original site, mainly regarding V and F:


    • 1V has a tendency to see love as poison (Akhmatova literally writes it off as poison in her poetry at least, and even as a child I did the same).
    • If I had to personally correlate my type with enneagram, I would say 4 instead of 3 or 7. 8 makes sense as well.
    • Different combinations of course have different effects on the psyche, 1V with 4F is frail physically but still has a strong spirit that toils through the hardship. F in other placements, such as 2F and 1V, are probably going to be the most withstanding types (along with the most lustful).
    • 1F is not weak, anything but, and I'd say they would be able to withstand quite a lot though it's not their preference to put their bodies through hell. Worth noting that the original author even states that 1F usually has indifference to suffering, blood, and gore surrounding them, so this shouldn't come off as a shock. But as aesthetes and sensualists, this isn't their preference. The author notes that the best soldier is actually Borgia, or FELV, due to the willing to be commanded (4V) and the 1F. Epicurus is much different since they are free men, but I'm getting off topic here.
    • 4V is usually called spineless though that's only in the most extreme cases, and even then I think it's the pitfall of the third function to obsess to the point of any of this usage of V draining energy from the psyche itself. Same goes for L, F, and E, though outside of the psychological drainage their effects on a person differ due to the difference in the functions.
    • A lower placement doesn't mean this person is terrible at it, just that it's not preferred most of the time.
    • Even in the higher placements, it is worth noting that due to accentuation that 1V can be less purposeful than others' V, 1L can be less structured than other L in other people, 1E can be more detrimental to the atmosphere or not as artful, and 1F more crass. This is about preference, and how information is delivered AFAIK (processional vs result). The original author states that there are great artists with 4E, great thinkers with 4L, and so on. Even the first two placements can be pitfalls in their own, if people rely on them too much.


    The most important thing though is that the original author says types can change, though only after a shock has been administered to a person's psyche. Otherwise, a person's type is either inherited by a parent or a distant relative such as a grandparent (inborn), or placed on them through societal or familial expectations (grown). I can personally see it being a combination of both, as parents tend to place similar restrictions and expectations on their children as their own parents would with them, leading to a generational pattern of sorts.
    Nice insights.
    I never thought about 1V that way. The only clear 1V representative I know which is my VFEL grandma was very against love/relationships because she said it interfered with her studies. To the point where she forbade her children (my mum, aunt and uncle) from dating people (they had their first relationships after they finished college). It's crazy how her 1V was so strong to influence them like that. They were seriously scared to death about falling in love lol.

    About 1F and 'unsettling' sights, I always thought of myself as a guy with a strong stomach lol. But it's not like I enjoy looking at filth or death or whatever. It grosses me out which is probably the normal human response but say, if I had to dispose of a dead animal or something I'd just hold my breath and get it over with. Reminds me of when I used to live in a pretty shitty highway sorta street with no sidewalk and on my way to college there'd be roadkill every day and there was basically no way around it. No choice but to hold your breath and walk by and damnit every day it was like walking through waves of putrid air. 99% of the kids living in the same dorm would just take a ride instead of walking a few blocks so they could skip the gross streets lol Me and my ILE buddy (whom I suspect is 1F as well) would just walk by and stare at the various flattened possums, rats or whatever and we'd say shit like "bro you thought you had it bad with midterms and all? look at this guy over here, life just steamrolled him"

    4V is spineless as long as they don't get a 'nudge forward' so to say. I would say that in extreme cases 4V can shine, because the 4th function is generally dormant until some sort of crisis happens. 4V is somewhat like Se-suggestive in the sense that they are characterized by 'inertia'. So a strong occasional push forward can help them a lot, the sort of push that 1V can give. I would say 3V is more the spineless type, in the sense that they need constant assurance of their will, so little constant pushes forward in the way 2V can give them. So perhaps lots of positive reinforcement after a task like 'Good Work! Keep it up!' could work with 3V lol. 4V is better at just taking orders and seeing them through via their higher functions.

    For the record I can push my Will somewhat but it lacks perseverance. So if I'm working on an interesting project I can work whole days at first and then I run out of steam after a while. And I don't feel like doing anything until I remind myself 'HEY I gotta finish this thing already because [x, y, z reasons]' and I just repeat the process over and over. Feels a lot easier when somebody reminds me every now and then of why I'm doing things in the first place haha. It also inspires me when people are doing something or another. Kinda like the mere presence of Volition inspires volition in me lol.

    Now as for the inheritance of PY type I've taken a good look at it and there seems to be patterns that fit the russian model (they have a developed theory for it). So essentially it goes:

    Parent === Child
    1st -> 2nd (+) or 4th (-)
    2nd -> 1st (+) or 3rd (-)
    3rd -> 2nd (+) or 4th (-)
    4th -> 1st (+) or 3rd (-)
    The (+) inheritance happens I suppose when there are positive family/early experiences or something along those lines, and bad experiences lead to (-) inheritance. I think only two positive and two negative inheritances can occur.

    Of course since parents are often not duals then inheritance isn't quite straightforward, but basically certain combinations lead to higher likelihood of functions in a certain place.
    Example: Me, FLEV
    DAD: LFVE == ME: FLEV == MUM: EVLF
    L -> 2nd ------------------- E (no inherit)
    F -> 1st ------------------- V (no inherit)
    V -> 4th ------------------- L -> 2nd
    E -> 3rd ------------------- F -> 1st
    [my dad may be LVFE or such but after analyzing him better I noticed that many traits I thought were 3F were really just Ni quirks, and 3V is the prevailing 'weak spot']

    So in my case 1F and 2L were the result of positive inheritance, 3E and 4V were due to negative inheritance. If my dad was LVFE then the theory wouldn't mean anything because my 4V came outta nowhere lol. And if types are dynamic then inheritance is kinda pointless to think about in the first place but whatever.

  21. #261
    thistle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    TIM
    ESI-Fi
    Posts
    94
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Going back to the hierarchy of the functions: 1 and 4 are the unconscious ones. These you prefer to keep humming along low maintenance so they are serviceable for yourself; you do not tend to these and adjust by way of bringing in external evaluation.

    When it comes to your
    process functions 2 and 3 you will take note of fluctuations in yourself and also in those same functions in others - they are conscious (and require upkeep?)

    I highlighted areas below that I thought indicated the difference between conscious/unconscious in a way that could add more value, or lead to improvements in the descriptions.
    These were taken from a curious website and run through a translator (nothing more, so some parts may look strange)



    Logic


    1L

    Let me remind you that the 1st function is a monologue and is configured for the result. For 1L, life and thought are inseparable. She feels that she lives if she thinks. Perhaps that's why she doesn't like meaningless conversations – if you really want to talk, then talk to the point, on the topic, about the main thing.


    Such a person often communicates affirmatively, does not like surprises and what is unexpected (in the sense of information), prefers to prepare for everything in advance. He has no gift or taste for discussion, so it is useless to argue with him – in an argument with him, the truth is not born, it is either confirmed or rejected.

    And they don't like to explain what and why. Sometimes it happens that a person with the 1st logic will tell his research, and the listener will ask him to repeat them (due to the fact, for example, that he was a little inattentive and thought about something else). but The 1st logic generally does not like to explain, especially repeatedly. After all, when she says something, she believes that she is being listened to, and if not, then everyone can fall into the category of fools who do not hear, which means that it is useless to seek another language with them.



    These are very good system analysts – in the research of such people, there is little factual material, more essential things, so it is important for them not to store information, not to spread their thoughts along the tree, but to analyze it well systematically. By the way, at the institute, such people write notes at the level of shorthand, only what is clear to them and no one else.


    Outwardly, such people may have a high forehead. Part of the high logic may be indicated by small eyes (I mean, the size of the iris in relation to the sclera). The latter in personology(?) refers to reduced emotionality. And often reduced emotionality is compensated by a strong mind.


    2L

    Has a multi-layered thinking – she is able to write, listen, think and talk at the same time. According to the 2nd logic, a person is ready to explain many times, he likes to explain-in different ways, he likes to teach. For him, in general, the process of teaching, teaching and helping is attractive. Communication is the air and bread for him. But, loving to talk, he begins the conversation not with a statement (as does the 1L), but always with a question. And he has the unique ability to draw the other person into the conversation before he knows it, thus making the intellectual feast a joint one.



    This is a great polemicist, a player, a brilliant liar, a talk show host, a coach, a training host, a mass entertainer. The breadth of interests, a good memory and the ability to pull the necessary information out of your head or out of the air at the right time make it universal in any field where there is a lot of communication.


    3L

    Such a person has a huge need for communication and it is extremely important for him to receive feedback from the outside world. Outwardly, these are rounded eyes, which often show surprise and a thirst for communication. There is a saying: "women love with their ears." This just applies to the 3rd Logic – it can be very much impressed by a person with whom it is interesting, with someone who knows how to speak and explain correctly, beautifully and clearly.

    And it is not uncommon for the 3rd Logic to love unrecognized geniuses – those whose brilliant ideas have not received recognition in society. And yet, the ideas themselves have not ceased to be brilliant from this. The 3rd Logic wants to learn a lot and in its desire to penetrate into the ideas of the universe, it can not once, for example, change the institute in which it studies. Because the need for a non-standard approach to the knowledge of the surrounding world puts it in conflict with existing systems of knowledge and learning.



    The 3rd logic does not know how to "speak". It is difficult for her to express her thoughts – this can happen either with a good interlocutor for her, or in a drunken state. The latter rarely happens, as alcohol opens up the desire for self-expression, but if there is no person nearby with whom it would be interesting to chat, she can just go to bed. And if you want to learn more about the person with the 3rd logic and get into his ideas, then it is best to interest him, show him attention.


    The manifestation of attention also has an effect at work – the 3rd Logic can have very interesting practical knowledge and approaches for the development of the company or the resolution of certain complex situations. In this case, you need to show her that her ideas are important to people. By the way, for the development of the 3rd Logic, you need to learn to speak, not be afraid to express your thoughts.


    4L

    This logic is often called "female". She is independent only if there is a good partner nearby. And in this sense, she is a kind of chameleon, copying and using the ideas of others, but not inventing something herself.



    Capacious, with a great ability to systematize, a good memory, she likes to save documents, knowledge, objects-so that nothing is lost. The principle of "nothing should be superfluous in this world " is very suitable for her. She is interested in everything, reads a lot of books, communicates with everyone – does a lot of things, often I do not understand what is more important for her. At the same time, he is well able to maintain conversations, speak both simple and complex words, likes to learn, make different plans. But she doesn't keep the information in her head for long (she may not remember what she said a day ago).


    The talkativeness of such people with a huge stock of knowledge that they keep in mind allows them to be good customer service managers, managers, catalogers, and work in the field of show business.


    Only here it is important to remember that in a stressful situation, the last function is "cut off" and the 4th logic can not explain, make a decision at the level of strategy. These are generally people in life who perfectly solve current tactical tasks. For example, such a person can be an administrative director, providing the company with the necessary things and maintaining order in it.


    It is important for the 4th Logic to make notes, write down-in this sense, its ability to remember increases, and it can clearly keep the goal, the thought.




    Physics


    1F

    Outwardly, such a person is often large, broad-boned, prone to fatness, tall with large facial features. In a nutshell, it seems that there is "a lot" of such a person. By the way, it is for this reason that he needs to work on himself – to play sports, to keep himself in shape, because there is a tendency to "spread" the body, obesity, especially in the second half of life.

    These are life-lovers in the truest sense of the word! They should have everything to the maximum: to work - as an ox, to relax-so on a grand scale, to support a family-so buy them the best things, to spend on a loved one-so to the last penny in your pocket...all the same, the 1st physics knows exactly what can earn here and she will have money. Such people are owners and they are not afraid of the real world.


    They have weight in society, they have a good relationship with money – they can earn a lot of it, get loans, etc. Behind such people as behind a stone wall.


    Since they feel the human body well, they make excellent dentists, chiropractors, orthopedists, and massage therapists. They have a great vitality and self-preservation instinct.


    The only thing that you should not expect from the 1st physics is the subtleties of perception. They perceive odors, colors, and tastes quite roughly. They can raise their voice without noticing it. In food, he prefers meat dishes, fatty, salty and high-calorie food. They generally like to eat in a simple way – often pasta "navy" for them is more pleasant than restaurant delights.


    2F

    Outwardly round, dense, rarely tall (average height and slightly lower). Pleasant in their dynamics, in their movements. They do everything beautifully-work, clean, cook, eat. Working with objects of the material world is mastered at the level of the eyes and repetitions, they do not like to read instructions. They like to collect something, disassemble, work with their hands and feel objects subtly. Such people make excellent masseurs, specialists in acupressure, as they can clearly see a person's sore area and can raise energy with pinpoint effects and help a person get better.



    2nd physics likes to do several things at the same time and they almost always succeed.


    They prefer natural, simple, environmentally friendly food - so that it is delicious, satisfying and calm. They can quickly prepare food. Most likely, it will be very tasty and from simple products.


    In the work they quickly turn on, quickly learn, they have great endurance. By the way, the rest of the 2nd physics gets in switching between cases. She can come home after work, take a shower, lie down for half an hour and be full of energy again.


    This is an ideal employee for the social sphere – doctors, physical education teachers, for example.


    3F

    It may look different, but its movements are plastic and dynamic. The physique is proportional, the height is usually high, there is often a facial asymmetry, the nose can be either too wide or too long. Does not tolerate tickling. He is very suspicious about his health and physical well-being. This is where his hypersensitivity to the perception of the physical world manifests itself – it is very subtle. This allows such people to be excellent foodies, chefs, stylists, artists, doctors.



    In food, they are fastidious and among them there may be vegetarians, fans of fine cuisine. Sometimes they only need to look at a dish to taste it. Eating for them is generally an intimate process. They don't feel like eating for the sake of satiety.


    3rd Physics likes to spend money to the fullest. And he prefers to give, sometimes completely forgetting about his beloved. It is difficult for her to talk about her feelings and if you want to give her a good gift (perfume, for example), then you need to try to guess her tastes.


    She hates and feels very bad when she has no money. And given her penchant for high spending on her loved ones, she can often have such feelings.


    For a good productivity of a person with the 3rd physics, it is best to provide him with comfortable conditions (room, food) and make sure that he comes to work rested and rested.


    4F

    Such a person is outwardly good - looking – fine facial features, a beautiful figure, attractiveness. Quite calmly refers to the physical needs of his body. In life, such people are hardy, but sometimes they simply do not have enough strength to implement some projects.



    For example, it is interesting that the 4th physics behaves while cleaning or disassembling the house. She does not notice the clogged space, and only when a pile of everything around her accumulates and it is already clear that it is impossible to live in such a mess, she starts cleaning. And this is a global cleaning. Starting to sort the shelves, she finds an interesting book and begins to flip through it, read and read. And time goes on. And the desire to finish cleaning disappears. There is not enough energy to finish everything. Therefore, if you do something at work, at home, it is better to do it in parts.


    A person with the 4th physics can neglect the feeling of hunger. Just in the process of communication, for example, do not notice that he is hungry and feel bad every other day. He doesn't feel his body's signals very well. And at work, he can spare neither himself nor others, giving extremely difficult tasks.


    Such a person needs to take more care of himself, be more attentive to his sensory sensations. In stress, the 4th physics can "cut off", and the sensitivity of your own body is lost in this case. Rest for the 4th Physics is also important, because otherwise, from severe fatigue and weakness, she can lie in bed for several days and not get out of the house.




    Will


    1V

    Her gaze speaks for itself-calm, confident, intent, full of energy and knowing what he wants. I am impressed by the subtle comparison of the 1st Will with the tsar or tsarina, which was proposed by Afanasyev in his book "The Syntax of Love". First of all, this is an antisocial person who has a surprisingly powerful decision energy that allows him to achieve his goals regardless of the pressure of obstacles. But in his process, he is alone and does not need society, because he is self-sufficient. He has charisma, the qualities of a natural leader-tough, strong-willed, assertive, clearly knowing what he needs. But I do not advise you to "break" such a person. At a loss, so to speak, it will turn out. With the 1st Will, you can only agree – after all, no one has yet canceled the power of persuasion!

    The first Will has another amazing ability – it is the ability to anticipate events. It's some kind of animal sense of what might happen. And very often it happens exactly as the 1st Will said. By the way, from my personal observations, such people often see prophetic dreams and trust their intuition, because it works for them to the fullest.


    2V

    If the first Will is a loner in life, then the second Will is the complete opposite of it. It always has a sense of "right – wrong", "good - bad", and inside there is a sense of moral law. And there is always a feeling: "I am always together with people. I have to help, explain, and we can do something together." She likes to help people, to give to them. And it protects others more easily than it protects itself. In many situations, she shows not a hefty tolerance and compliance. But, often they take on a lot, an unbearable burden, and suffer from this – because the Will is flexible and likes to test itself for strength. Therefore, the 2nd Will has enough internal problems. After all, often, giving herself to others, she forgets herself. But after a certain time, she begins to think: "I don't spare myself, and I don't get the feedback I need." And then she needs to get away from people for a while to regain her strength, and then ... start giving herself to people again!


    A person with the 2nd Will is not a psychologist, not curious, he is characterized by simplicity, openness and trustfulness to people. Sometimes it is perceived as weak-willed and soft-bodied. But this is only a deceptive appearance. For he is very stubborn and will take his own way.

    In a sense, the analogy with mercury comes in. Mercury is liquid, but it is a metal. So is the 2nd Will.


    3V

    As with any third function, we always feel flawed. This applies to Logic, to Physics, to Emotion...and to Will. The 3rd Will has a great creative potential. At the same time, she can completely deny it. After all, it is important for her what people will say when they discover this potential. If people give adequate feedback and support 3rd Will in many of its endeavors, it begins to unfold.


    In it, vanity and great resentment are cunningly intertwined at the same time. She can stop a step before the result and drop everything, without bringing the process to a logical conclusion. And all this because of self-doubt. This confidence is gained by the 3rd Will from the outside. From the outside world. She needs the support of others, especially those close to her, because then faith in herself will come and a multi-faceted creative life will begin.


    For the 3rd Will, self-affirmation in society plays an important role. After all, she envies people who have overcome themselves and decided to take the first steps towards achieving their goals. And she has a great confidence that it is the winners who are loved. Therefore, it tends to seek its place in the sun, making its way up the hierarchical ladder of society. For them, fighting is the meaning of life. And stubbornness is action.


    4V

    They often write little about it, bypassing its uniqueness. Unlike the 3rd Will, it does not fight for power, it is not vain, it does not have pride – it does not need it. They write about her: "This is the sweetest person in the world, in his field you can breathe very easily." And so it is. She's efficient and damn talented. In society, he plays the role of a kind of archivist. In her opinion, everything is important for history. And she wants to collect everything, convey it and pass it on to the next generations. It carries the evolution of life. For her, there is nothing in the world that is not important.




    Emotion


    1E

    Always a "hurricane". Outwardly, such a person can look very calm and unperturbed and do not stand out from the crowd. But this is only externally. If the 1st Emotion is needed, it will be very sad or very cheerful. Moreover, the excess of feelings can be expressed not only by exaggerated laughter, but also by streams of tears. And the main thing for her is an inadequate, overly emotional reaction to the events that are taking place. At work, such inadequacy can occur in the form of scandals. For example, the 1st Emotion can really shout and does it well!

    It can promote a product or service well. Again, this is done with the help of an emotional lift, which can not leave the buyer indifferent. And if you have something to offer users, technical issues are worked out perfectly and there is a demand, but the product is not sold, then you should think about attracting a person with the 1st Emotion to your team. As you know, to buy a product, you need to tell about it. You can dryly describe the technical characteristics of the computer, or you can very emotionally tell how you made a masterpiece with this computer in Photoshop, or how happy your son was playing this or that computer game. Believe me, they will buy a computer!


    2E

    Second Emotion behaves a little differently. She's strong, too. But it is almost invisible in humans. The 2nd Emotion is also called "Artist". Why? Have you seen real artists? So they can give the right emotional reaction at the right time and do it very subtly. In the theater, the 1st Emotion will play Hamlet once, and then say that it needs a mood. And the 2nd Emotion can play as much as the director requires. At the right moment, she will let out a tear, burst into laughter or fool the viewer, and each time it will look natural. Endurance is one of the qualities inherent in it.


    Naturally, it helps the people of the public. At work, such a person will behave appropriately to the situation. A doctor, a teacher, a supervisor, even a rescue worker of the Ministry of Emergency Situations needs it for emotional endurance. Can you imagine a teacher who has a class of twenty or thirty people, and there is a lot of noise and noise, but you need to be calm? And the doctor, to whom different people come every day. and everyone needs not just their own approach, but also the ability to empathize where it is necessary? What about a recruitment manager at a large company? In general, there are many examples.


    3E

    The 3rd Emotion is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is weak, because such people very poorly tolerate increased noise, scandals in the house and at work. But on the other hand, she is very sensitive. Having the 3rd Emotion, you can work as a family psychologist, for example. The ability to empathize and subtly feel the inner spiritual world of a person gives him such a quality as empathy.


    Such people will definitely not go to discos and concerts. They can be found where it is quiet and peaceful. It is in such an environment that they achieve the maximum in their work.
    And this must be taken into account by their superiors!


    4E

    It is probably the most dispassionate of all emotions. I also called it that because in a stressful situation, it seems to be "cut off". A person begins to reason soberly, while calmly enough, and the emotional tone can not even be seen. You will not see any emotions in him, only "cold brains". However, the ability of the 4th Emotion to adequately assess the situation, and the focus on quality makes it an excellent critic. The absence of internal taboos, dogmas rewards the 4th Emotion with fearlessness and at the same time a certain indifference. Emotionally responsive, can help and support, but it is difficult for her, because she simply does not understand why a person is crying, and how to help him.


  22. #262
    I don't play, I slay. Lolita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Near Whole Foods
    TIM
    SEE-N™ VLEF™AP 863
    Posts
    1,145
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Agreed, I said the same.



    The main contradiction between the two is in some of the 3L aspects where VFLE is said to hold back or not get involved, waiting to speak, and the D subtype is contact, so not holding back. I've gotten myself in trouble more than a few times by jumping in and saying things when I probably shouldn't have ha.


    PS Edit: Received results from Rob at AP of . . . LVEF which is what I had already figured was most likely. His explanations made much more sense as well. I tried to consider Timur's results and see if they could fit, but I don't think they do. VFLE doesn't fit me, even if I squint at it, and try to rationalize it to make it work. And I definitely tried to rationalize it into place -many hoops were spun and much gymnastics undertaken hah. There are some aspects of 1V and D that come across as similar, but my attitude is much more 2V. Process >>>>Result. In everything else I read, the most natural fit really is 1L and 2V.
    AP is different than Psychosophy so you'll get different typing regardless. It's just that with AP, it's through EIE lenses and focuses more on E priority, whereas Timur is LSI and I'd wager he focuses more on L priority. The issue is that Rob is intuitive and emotional so AP is based off how one emotes and feels so he's good with intuition but sucks at logic. Timur is the reverse, excellent with logic but suckass at intuition so he don't know how to read between the lines. I would sooner trust Timur with Psychosophy since he knows the system logically, but that's just my reasoning. Rob has tweaked psychosophy so much that it's turned emo.

    With Psychosophy, 1 and 3 is often swapped, and as such, they're the attacking functions. It's more a matter of whether you attack with your V and L or with L and E? BTW, Rob's interpretation of 3E are people who hate emotions. 3 function in psychosophy is questioning both yours' and others' function but it doesn't mean that you doubt what your's. So you having 3L doesn't mean you doubt your logic, but that you question if your logic is correct and you also question if other people's logic is correct. 3L doesn't mean holding back your logic or that you're silent.

    D subtype is really it's own thing and as such, they always want the last word which is why they'll say things that may not be deemed appropriate to say. That's mainly due to the Se power manuevers, mixed with the Te bulldozing aspect. My mom is SEE-D subtype and she vigorously fights. The fact that she's 5 ft and 100lbs catches pretty much everyone off guard. She's argued with police for driving 50mph above the speed limit (criminal speeding) and they've let her off with no ticket. This didn't happen 3 or 4 times. This has happened at least a dozen times. I don't know how she does it and she's not a lawyer. She just knows how to argue and bulldoze her way and it works. After studying DCNH closer, I've realized just how much power the D subtypes psychologically wield and then they streamline that and make it reality. I find that really amazing.

  23. #263
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Lolita, I think Rob actually stays closer to the orginial author's intent for psychosophy than Timur does. For example, Timur told me that I couldn't have lower physics because of all the things I've done that someone with lower physics "wouldn't have it in them." The original author calls this the gravest error that you can make in psychosophy. It's not what you're good at, or can do, it's a matter of priority and your attitude towards each. Result physics, or using physics as a means to an end (rather than to enjoy the process) is what I actually wrote about which Rob picked up, but Timur did not. Here's the original author discussing 4th function and he compares it to 2nd.

    FOURTH FEATURE

    It's hard to talk about the Fourth function in a wordy way. It is a "little thing" - a function that we ourselves attach little importance to. It does not follow from this that the Fourth is notoriously weak and unproductive. On the contrary, the world is full of good mathematicians with the 4th Logic and artists with the 4th Emotion. The main thing in it is again a subjective hierarchy of internal values, forcing something one in itself to put on the last fourth stage. And putting, and treat appropriately.

    On this attitude and to the Fourth function I want to insist, because the confusion between the quality of functioning and the position of function on the steps of the mental hierarchy - a common mistake in mental yoga. 4th Logic is not necessarily stupid, the 4th Emotion is not necessarily insensitive, etc. One woman with the 4th Will, when I once said about her "weak character", with a feeling she retorted: "This is not true. I'm not weak. I just feel better when I am led." God spare us by exploring low-cost functions, equating their position with quality. No mistake is more serious.


    Externally, the fourth function is hard to distinguish from the Second. They are related to freedom, naturalness and fearlessness of self-expression. For example, the 4th Logic is worth nothing to get involved in a catchy philosophical dispute, at ease demonstrating the uninhibitedness and paradox of thinking, and not even to be offended, like the 2nd Logic, on the expressed in the hearts of the "fool". However, in the external similarity of the action there is a deep difference in motives between the two of these functions: the 2nd Logic will not be offended by the "fool" because it will not believe, and the 4th Logic - because the assessments on this part of it are deeply indifferent to it. That's the trick.

    Based on the external similarity of the Second and Fourth functions, I see the need to enumerate the signs by which the identification of the Fourth can be considered unconditional.

    The main thing - the activity on the Fourth does not have an independent value, it is not a goal, and a means of subsistence. Therefore, if, say, someone with the 4th Logic is engaged in intellectual work, it follows only that he tries to use this function (regardless of success) as a tool by which the requests of other self-worthy higher functions are realized: ambition - by will, material interests - on Physics, etc.

    Secondly, the unreliability of what is mined and obtained by the Fourth; let us remember the 4th Logic of Tolstoy, who, for all his love of philosophization, doubted the existence of Japan Madagascar.

    Third, disabling the Fourth in crisis situations. The human psyche, generally distrustful of the Fourth as such, in crises disables it as a possible hindrance in choosing the right decision and transfers the internal energy to higher levels.

    Next - mirror. Interaction with the Fourth is always the same as an order made by a higher partner function. This circumstance, for example, makes the 4th Physics a good sexual partner, because, not having its own model of sexual behavior, it adequately and sensitively responds to all requests of the partner.

    Finally, the Fourth function is very dependent and easily overdoes itself to others standing above the steps of the hierarchy functions. So, the 4th Physics painlessly goes into content, the 4th Emotion is easily infected with other people's moods, the 4th Logic without dispute takes any, more or less plausible concepts, the 4th Will in advance agrees with the decisions made for it.

    A remarkable feature of the Fourth is that the true power of its man learns only in the moments of fullness of life. Translating the term "fullness of life" into the language of mental yoga, we can say that it is a state where the first three functions are adequate to themselves, i.e. there is a good result on the First and there are processes on the Second and Third. It is at such moments that the usually dormant Fourth Function gains strength, independence and depth of sound. Conversely, the blows to any of the first three functions completely turn off the Fourth.

    In short, the fourth function is a slave without guile, a chameleon and a dependent with a large, but often dormant potential.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Posting Permissions

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