huh? what?Originally Posted by xiuxiu
huh? what?Originally Posted by xiuxiu
because it was simply an analogy for the result of two opposing forces clashing and one overpowering the other. of course it has no real-world usefulness because it failed to take into account the triviality you both pointed out (a Te observation if there ever was one), but as an illustration of principle it is still valid.Originally Posted by Rocky
lol
read bold then my reply to rockyOriginally Posted by niffweed17
lol
that was perhaps the intended analogy, but that wasn't what was written.Originally Posted by xiuxiu
Actually, it seemed more like a weak-Ne observationOriginally Posted by xiuxiu
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
how is the observation weak Ne? it doesn't reflect my understanding of the actual analogy.
ugh this discussion is stupid. i would ramble on about exactly what the observation is but i dont care anymore.
Not yours, Rocky's.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
goes from a general assumption (a social consensus), then breaks it down to the specific in a certain situation - e.g. their default position is 'murder is wrong', but when a critical situation arises, they may bend this rule a little e.g. 'murder is wrong in some cases, but not this one'.Originally Posted by labcoat
goes from a specific assumption to a general rule - in a critical situation they are rigid with the position they hold - whether murder is always wrong, or only in some cases (two different types could have different views).
So, a type wavers in their moral position over time, but builds up a viewpoint gradually - a type is certain of their position over time (it is the widely held view, typically).
But, when a situation arises, is dynamic on it's views (they are flexible), is static (views are already made).
(The same applies to + :wink: )
While forms views on an inductive logic, forms views from its social setting (typically from family contact\small, familiar groups), then rigidly defends these views.
seems to follow the common (but hidden) desires\views of a wide group of people, and is able to adapt its viewpoint during a critical situation for its own needs (or the group's).
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
... he did group the two of us together... BUT my point being tc pretending that he can see the world through superior reasoning capabilities while at the same time his reasoning actually came off as a bit childish... I mean, if we are to believe that Ti is as xiuxiu and tc describe, and we believe that they use it in the manner they do, then it seems like they only use pseudo-Ti... using it but only using it with minimal grasp of the concept and not fleshed out with the most clarity.Originally Posted by Gilligan
Oh yess! Thats what Ti is. A mess! If the murder is bad then it is not justified. But people will get away with it. So are some murders justified? Take exhecutions as an example. People kill people as a punishment and in the name of the law. Does that mean I can commit a murder and get away with it? If I will kill Bill my IT specialist from Moscow who emigrated into Estonia couple of years ago, I would end in jail. But if I am in a war and will kill my terroristic enemies, then I am an hero. So how can a murder be a bad thing? The law saies it's a bad thing. Well it does usually. Then acording to a law killing people means no-no! But then again, law is one thing, my beliefs are another thing. Even if I don't kill that Michailov the IT specialist from Moscow, in my mind I could think it's a right thing to do. The law may say it's bad, but my beliefs may be better for me. I won't do it only because I don't want to go to jail, in my head I may think it's a right thing which just doesn't have a right to be done in our society.
And the moral Fi people will hate me for that now!
But my example was Ti and Ne. Ti and Se is different. More dogmatic and doesn't care on what grounds that belief lies on, as long as it sounds right for that ISTj, its right and others are wrong.
Semiotical process
Technically, neither of these are considered "murder".Originally Posted by jsb'07
And this is called having "anti-social" or "sociopathic" personality disorder (or, more extreme then that if you talk about murder) and very few people hold this belief.The law may say it's bad, but my beliefs may be better for me. I won't do it only because I don't want to go to jail, in my head I may think it's a right thing which just doesn't have a right to be done in our society.
As I said, it is analagous to the functioning of Te, but is irrelevant to the way it actually manifests in use (except as a symbolic representation as to how it is used in logic; ie, tc's description, applied to a logical function, is Ti).Originally Posted by Rocky
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
So do you think tc's dominant function is Ti, or is he faking it?Originally Posted by Gilligan
Ah, relativity...Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
1. If the observer is on land, observing the current and the boat, they may observe the current going by them at -10, while the boat is going past them at +5. The boat, relative to the current, would be going at 5 - (-10) = 15.
2. If the observer is on the boat, they may notice the current is flowing past the land at -10, and that (according to their speedometer) they are proceeding at +5. Since the speedometer only measures speed as compared to the water it is going through, this would actually be -10 + 5, producing a net speed of -5.
INTp
i think you read past what was intended by it and in the process generated arbitrary objections. this is not really meant as an insult, rather a note of something you do often which is why i wonder if you are intp. also rocky and you both resonated with each other on the first page.Originally Posted by niffweed17
lol
if i'm deciphering your message correctly, i don't know why you would classify an observation such as "velocity is not related to force; therefore your statement is meaningless" as Te.
but i don't care anymore.
again, it comes off as childish because the analogy was inherently (read; purposely) oblivious to the physical axioms themselves which it had no interest plugging in to begin with because it only needed to be analogous to a concept, that being the interplay of two forces. a concept is a vague abstraction to be fleshed out later, in this case with physical laws. you're reading way too far into it. and for the record i disagree with tc's post in general so don't group me with him PLEASE. thanks.Originally Posted by Rocky
lol
hmm...
v = integral(F/m * dt, from t=a to t=b) + C, where m is the mass of the object the force is being applied to, and C is the starting velocity of the object.
(and btw, they WERE given vectors, just 1D ones: one is opposite to the other, therefore i and -i.)
INTp
ahahahaha okOriginally Posted by xiuxiu
How is it people always seem to end up discussing me more than the content of my posts...?
Weak Ti
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
... because people question your sanity to begin with.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg