how's about their types?
Also, a fun poll.
how's about their types?
Also, a fun poll.
IM type alone has nothing to do with genius. Genius means "local spirit" (Greek), which is usually a phenomenon created by people whos IM and IE types are constrasting on the I/E and J/P scales. They perceive rational observation as molded by irrational forces, which allows them their unique outlooks. What seperates a "genius" from a "non-genius" rational-irrational is their ability to project these outlooks into the external world on a wide scale, using I/E as a source of charismatic projection. They can also make sense of information coming in from the external world by analyzing its influence on internal processes. They know how they can change the world, and they know how the world can change them. But they also know how events they create can change the world, and how a world event may change them.
hey, i have no idea why i put this thread in Any Relations.
Seems like projecting anything onto the world on a large scale would depend on more than just charisma, like opportunity.
Well, considering that every dual-type temperament has two of it's dichotomies crossed and the remaining shared*, I'd say there is a bit of a 'genius' hidden inside each one of us. I'm often impressed by the tricks you static/dynamic crosses pull, pointing out those universal principles at work in localities.Genius means "local spirit" (Greek), which is usually a phenomenon created by people whos IM and IE types are constrasting on the I/E and J/P scales.
* Of course the exception to this rule would be the temperaments that have no crossed dichotomies at all, but are we really convinced that they exist? They'd be... different from the others in a way that makes the big picture look very 'unelegant'.
Interesting to see the picture from the other side! So genius is actually unaware of its influence... and "non-genius" is unaware of its influence on genius.Originally Posted by labcoat
This is a topic of some interest, certainly. I'm posting a list of all the IM-IE parings (master-slave view only) which will hopefully with some discussion will shed some light on the issue....* Of course the exception to this rule would be the temperaments that have no crossed dichotomies at all, but are we really convinced that they exist? They'd be... different from the others in a way that makes the big picture look very 'unelegant'.
That's J/P: making the decision at just the right time. It's how they create large-scale movements.Originally Posted by MsKensington
I believe people has a wrong impression about some historic characters. Not all of them are geniuses, despite that they did great things or not.
Edison (ESTj), for example, wasn't a genius, because even if he did a lot of things, most was a result of trial and error. He did literally tens of thousands of unnecessary experiments, which proves he didn't really know what he was doing. Also, he did what he did because he was persevering and was a great businessman, which gave him all the resources he needed to keep trying. Also, he continuously hired more talented individuals to help him.
Augh... this is not working. People are pissed off and not cooperating with discussion of exertion theory. There are those who want to discuss it, and those who don't. Right now it seems only 1/4 of the board (or less) feels comfortable with it. However, a lot of people want to discuss "crosstypes" which is what the exertion theory is.
Perhaps it's time to go back to the echo chamber, at least for a while. The Joys have inundated me with their endless repetition of the same tripe, and it aggrivates me to no end that Expat did not expand on his observation of the first function responding to the observations of the second. (which makes a lot of sense and could have consequences for the exertion theory, also)
Furthermore, the completely bogus question of function orders is resurfacing. (weak at work, obviously) And in general, it seems this board is dead. The ENFps are taking over everything. Weak does not make for constructive debate.
Originally Posted by Kim
I think an ENFp world sounds great!
<3 teh ENFps
Do you have a better idea? I'm open to suggestions.Originally Posted by labcoat
Either that or maybe people is taking socionics too seriously. I mean, there are a lot of idiots around here who seem to believe that just because they score INTj then they are comparable to Descartes, or something like that.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
How about we denote dual-type temperaments by the temperament-based attribute shared between the IE and IM type.Do you have a better idea? I'm open to suggestions.
For example, an Ixxj-Exxp would be called 'static-bound'. The Exxp-Ixxj would carry this label also, which makes sense, as the two temperaments have much in common. A group of people for whom it is easiest to take a fresh look at problems and to interface directly with the subject material.
Exxj-Ixxj would be a 'rational-bound' type. A safeguard of human knowledge, who sees how the established views of their times tie in with timeless principles.
Likewise Ixxp-Ixxj would be 'field-bound' or 'introvert-bound'. A person who evaluates different models of understanding by contrasting them against eachother.
These descriptions are probably biased and generally not very good, but they reflect how the temperaments appear to me.
I find it easiest to tell a person's dual-type temperament by looking at their most outstanding temperament based quality.
[sarcasm] exactly what about that is not Genius? [/sarcasm]Originally Posted by mikemex
I can see what you are saying. But we would obviously need 65 of these.... I like what you've done with them though. Could you put together a list? Or I guess I can.Originally Posted by labcoat
What do you want me to call the list?
If you'd stick to temperament dichotomies (J/P, E/I, static/dynamic), there would be either 12 or 16 depending on wether the Ixxj-Ixxj's, Exxp-Exxp's, etc. exist or not. You could treat the other traits the same way, but there'd be complications. For example, a person who pairs Ne with Ni is not quite the same as a person who combines the accepting and creating variants of Ne.
They exist. Bush is one. (ESTP-ESFP)Originally Posted by labcoat
ignore this discription, it's horrible.A group of people for whom it is easiest to take a fresh look at problems and to interface directly with the subject material.
That actually sounds like dynamic kineticism, don't you think?Originally Posted by labcoat
Probably. Einstein has certainly lived up to that description.