Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread:

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, because only INFps have enough wisdom to say that.
    Lol, not at all. I don't think like that, don't make those assumptions. It just seems like a thing very INFP oriented and something an INFP would say. And I've thought about the same exact thing before, so I kind of brang me to thinking that. Just his whole demeanor seems INFP to me, that was just kinda the breaking point and I had to say it.

  2. #42
    Creepy-Jadae

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    "Show proof of theory to reality. Show me Jesus lol."

    The first part of you issue is semantical one.

    For instance, if you call a a peach a potatoe, and I call an orange a Potatoe, it's readily obvious that they aren't the same thing! All we simply need to do acknowledge that we aren't referring to the same thing when we use the same symbols to represent that which we are referring to.
    Ah! Poor MysticSonic....so young....

    Soon you will learn that the fun part is not FINDING the truth, but CONVINCING people of it....

    If socionics (or life!) can teach us anything, it is that each person has a different path of understanding, and you can say the same thing many different ways, but each person will only understand a handful of the possible ways....
    You know, I just spent 15 minutes trying to type up an answer to Jadae's questions, but the whole thing got erased so fuck it. I'm not going to try to convince her any more because I realized it doesn't matter; I don't really care what she wants to go on believing nor does it affect me. I do think she has a distorted view of the "truth" about sensing and what it is, but I don't care any more. I'm not here to recruit anyone to socionics or their definitions of functions. Sometimes people just have to believe what THEY want to believe, and let that be the end of it.

    Aw you gave up too early Its him btw. Jadae is a completely fictional name. Not all F's are female You finally drove to my point, tho. You have to believe. Under sociological definition theories like socionics, mbti and enneagram would be under the religious area (which part is debateable I suppose).

    "If socionics (or life!) can teach us anything, it is that each person has a different path of understanding, and you can say the same thing many different ways, but each person will only understand a handful of the possible ways...." -Transignet

    Woot.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,529
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  4. #44
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Awesome duck.

    "If socionics (or life!) can teach us anything, it is that each person has a different path of understanding, and you can say the same thing many different ways, but each person will only understand a handful of the possible ways...." -Transignet

    Woot.
    Heh, maybe that will appear in the Reader's Digest under "Quotable Quotes". Who said this?

    A. Rocky
    B. Discojoe
    C. Transigent

    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    "Show proof of theory to reality. Show me Jesus lol."

    The first part of you issue is semantical one.

    For instance, if you call a a peach a potatoe, and I call an orange a Potatoe, it's readily obvious that they aren't the same thing! All we simply need to do acknowledge that we aren't referring to the same thing when we use the same symbols to represent that which we are referring to.
    Ah! Poor MysticSonic....so young....

    Soon you will learn that the fun part is not FINDING the truth, but CONVINCING people of it....

    If socionics (or life!) can teach us anything, it is that each person has a different path of understanding, and you can say the same thing many different ways, but each person will only understand a handful of the possible ways....
    You know, I just spent 15 minutes trying to type up an answer to Jadae's questions, but the whole thing got erased so fuck it. I'm not going to try to convince her any more because I realized it doesn't matter; I don't really care what she wants to go on believing nor does it affect me. I do think she has a distorted view of the "truth" about sensing and what it is, but I don't care any more. I'm not here to recruit anyone to socionics or their definitions of functions. Sometimes people just have to believe what THEY want to believe, and let that be the end of it.

    Aw you gave up too early Its him btw. Jadae is a completely fictional name. Not all F's are female You finally drove to my point, tho. You have to believe. Under sociological definition theories like socionics, mbti and enneagram would be under the religious area (which part is debateable I suppose).

    "If socionics (or life!) can teach us anything, it is that each person has a different path of understanding, and you can say the same thing many different ways, but each person will only understand a handful of the possible ways...." -Transignet

    Woot.
    Ok, if you want the short answer from me I am Si-Te and definatly NOT judging. Sensing, whether Si or Se, is a percieving function and being dominated by that function makes you act percieving. Also don't get too caught up in the word "judging" because it is a translated word. You would be better off learning what the exact diffrences in behavior judgers and percievers have, then you would see how Introverted Thinking types are judging (like Jung a Ti type himself defined it as). And that's the easiest answer I can give without trying to re-type the whole thing I wrote before.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  6. #46
    Creepy-Jadae

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Ok, if you want the short answer from me I am Si-Te and definatly NOT judging. Sensing, whether Si or Se, is a percieving function and being dominated by that function makes you act percieving. Also don't get too caught up in the word "judging" because it is a translated word. You would be better off learning what the exact diffrences in behavior judgers and percievers have, then you would see how Introverted Thinking types are judging (like Jung a Ti type himself defined it as). And that's the easiest answer I can give without trying to re-type the whole thing I wrote before.
    I understand the J/P behaviors. The real question is: Who is the real Crafter? dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnn

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually, Jadae has got some pretty good points.

    I don't take the MBTI or Socionics very seriously myself. It's just fun speculation, but I don't really believe in it. Neither of them have been through any kind of empirical verification. Neither of them are supported by academics and "real" psychology. Type is nothing more than a curiosity for me. I don't buy in it too much.

    If I really want to understand anything about relationships, I look into traditional psych.

    IMO there is waaaay too much emphasis on personality (a fuzzy and debatable concept in itself from a scientific point of view) in general. All we are doing here, in these forums, and on the multitude of other places about "personality" on the internet... is fostering pseudoscience and a rather useless amassing of knowledge that will serve no one... apart our personal fun.

    Cultural and social differences account for far more differences in behavior between people than "personality". Some societies don't even have a word for "personality". In fact, this insistance on "individuality" is a direct byproduct of a specific economy, historical background and religion.

    I don't deny there are patterns... or else I wouldn't be here. I just think it's not to be taken TOO seriously...
    ENTj - intuitive subtype - 8w9, sp/sx

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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