• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

EyeSeeCold

lust for life From California, USA
Joined
Last seen
Messages
7,828
Reaction score
0

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • Been listening to some dub step lately. More particularly skrillex. Some of the songs really speak to me. Not sure how lasting this electronic music phase I'm going through will be, but I find it interesting.

    I just listened to that Jefferson Airplane song below and it hit my brain with a really good vibe, as well as flying lotus. I always loved the white rabbit song, but never really explored their music too in depth.
    Jean Paul
    oh wait I mean Peter the great, sorry was in a rush and thought you were mentioning my avi.
    Jean Paul
    Mwahaha, you know your the one who introduced me to fly lo right? That song to be exact. It's awesome through.....................
    Ni can exude many different auras. Basically, it gives the other person the impression that you are seeing things through a different lens, referencing notions that are immaterial. They are the natural philosophers, and together with some Ne, make up the majority of philosophers. Plato was said to be INFp, Nietzsche INXp, Schopenhauer INXp, Heidegger INXp, and many, mnay other INXps. And many Ethical types will seem be primarily discuss logic, and Logicals may seem pre-occupied with values, but really they are doing this to -get these areas out of the way-.
    On second thoughts, re: your type, I really have no reason to assume j dominant over j auxiliary. I will need to re adjust my model a bit, you could very well be Ni-Te.
    "yea I think extreme metal fits more with NwSb, in terms of taking it seriously at least. Nb/Sw types probably would enjoy it more for parody."

    =o You are correct, sir.

    This would reinforce me being Ni, because I certainly love the music sincerely, not for parody. However, it is not so much for the surface features of the music, but the underlying meaning/emotion being conveyed (or rather, emotion it induces in me).

    +I think messages with website names/links of other MBTI forums get moderated.
    Yes, and I thought I was INFj because of how I was interpreting black and white elements. I thought I was Ni but also Nb (subjective and strengthening, with a plug for objective and expanding).

    However, now I am viewing them as being the same. Thus I am Ni and Fe and agree that I would be less touch than the others on INFJs because it is predominantly Fi.

    Death metal/black metal are -very- Ni genres of music. I think Fe can generally adapt to any kind of emotional atmosphere. Intensity of emotion is pleasurable for them, once they can get over a few hurdles with associations to the emotion.

    Fi prefers to steer away from unpleasant emotions by contrast. They have a schema of judgements through which they orient themselves (a "compass"), and they follow what the judgement says.
    I say j as you prefer not to deviate from your judgements. A p -wants- to deviate from their judgements. Thus you respond to possible lines of inquiry by saying what your understanding is and now pursuing the matter any further. All Introvert types can seem like procrastinators, because doing things in the external world tends to require extroverting. To the observer, Ij will appear absent minded outwardly, but highly structured internally. Ips will appear conscious of dynamics, but generally more accepting of new ideas, and less willing to put plans into action.

    INps for example will often try to get to the highest social position possible through the combination of little work, and efficient use of their talent. Thus you see many, many INp high up positions. (INFp actors for example). INTp tends to be more willing to work, and will instead be highly focused on efficiency to avoid meaningless work. They are still perception led though.
    You don't think that the death metal thread was Ni/Fe?

    I wasn't going off on tangents. I was just taking control of the thread to tell people about the music that I value. I'm not sure what on INFJf you mean in particular. My posts on there are usually not very ENTP at all, except for a tiny bit of faux-trolling. =/

    You don't have to "associate" with them, however I guess they prefer not to read people if they decide from the start they're not going to help the project along anyway, so it doesn't matter. I will just put out there though that gouging someone's personality through posts on the internet can be incredibly difficult, except perhaps in identification of people with the same type. Video works far better.
    I believe you primarily make judgements, rather than following perceptions. Thus I believe you to be a j rather than a p. What is your reasoning for being an INTp?

    I don't agree with your assessment of me as Ne now. I am attempting to converge, not diverge - I am turning away from the object to bring up stripped down objects for study. The extroversion present is of an F nature.
    I think I am perhaps INFp after all given my newest realisation. What do you think with regards to that? It also seems unlikely that you would would mistake that for ILE and I can think of no good back up story.

    Ni = turning away from the actual object studied, and reflecting inwardly on what is missing/converge multiple seemingly disconnected ideas together; Fe = signals of warmth, emotiveness (I don't often show this on the forum so you wouldn't see it). There would be both Ti and Se valuing. I may perhaps value Ti without actually using Ti of my own. I am never confident in my logic, and tend to have to reluctantly admit that I based my ideas on having seen it elsewhere and thought it was cool.

    You should get your mojo read.
    Puffy
    Yeah, being honest I think I remember asking you the same question before. Time ruins my memory :P

    I was for about 9 months, but I read the Hebrew Bible for a degree module on the Old Testament. (I personally prefer calling it the Hebrew Bible because to me it's a Hebrew text about Hebrew society and history - 'Old Testament' implies a certain robbing of it's cultural identity, imo.) So maybe I have a stronger grip, but only coming from historical (which I don't know THAT much of to be fair) and Christian perspectives, I'm sure there are a lot more angles to it.

    Out of curiosity, do you know why Logic was banned? I would guess for recruiting/ marketing but I wasn't sure if I missed something. And how are things?
    Puffy
    I *heart* Ecclesiastes.

    Have you read much of the Hebrew Bible? I remember speaking about it with you briefly a while ago.
    I mean, that if the Dichotomies are taken as fundamental, then Model A doesn't fit it because it is not completely dichotomy based. Basically saying the two can't fully co-exist.

    However, they are still pretty close. One particular issue is that Model A says that the third and fourth conscious functions are like the first two, whereas this shouldn't be the case. Dichotomy models would probably say that any type has the conscious IMs of its quadra, not half and half.

    Also I still think the model should have a code like Nej Tip for ILI. Third tier is model interpersonal, and so this means that the ILI seeks types who can fill in the full process implied by its functions. These are Nip/Sep/Sij and Tej/Fip/Fep, each being in the same quadra. Using Nw Tb to denote ILI and then specifying base isn't wrong necessarily, but I don't believe it to be useful as a fundamental model.
    Anywayz, all types have all function group structures, however half of these are conscious, and half of these are unconscious, assuming particular symmetries, and the existence of all combinations of any subset of conscious functions in the conscious function set.

    Model A makes little sense given this as it does not fit in with any proper dichotomy structures. MBTI's CF model comes close though definitely deviates thus leading to mistypes.

    I believe dichotomies are all that is needed. There are not too many of them really, they are all easily checkable.
    Ah, socionics theory in general, or whatever connected to it.

    Yeah, being out of your element, though perhaps also without the awareness that you are because you haven't properly been in your own element enough.
    btw how does your theory describe the manifestation of people who are not processing information efficiently? Like, is stuck in Sensing mode despite being an Intuitive type, or is otherwise "stuck" fulfilling the wrong of some other type.
    Each pair of third tiers lies on the line of a unique second tier dichotomy, which is shared by a unique pair of first tier dichotomies. Equivalent between first and third tier proves that such a second tier must exist, and further more that exactly six of them must exist. A similar argument shows the existence and nature of the unique fourth tier dichotomy.
    Well, it would be the same as MBTI, except with first tier exchanged for third tier. But third tier is far richer than first tier, so you will have a far richer model. The next step is to show equivalence with the first tier model, and prove the existence of the second tier and fourth tier models based on this equivalence.
    Why not just define them as equal, as a basic premise of the model? You have two sets of 4 dichotomies, and a set of 6 additional dichotomies which can be self-divided, and then an overarching dichotomy.

    INTp:
    Dynamic N & T, Democratic I & P
    Ne = Dynamic N + I or Static N + E
    Ni = Dynamic N + E or Static N + I
    Artistocratic J or Democratic P = NFJ, STJ, NTP, SFP
    This about the flow of information in the two groups and relies on an understanding of the nature of Aristocratic and Democratic.
    Full information rings require all four clubs to split information, and then connection to the adjacent clubs, basically like Jnt Psf Pnt Jsf functions. The current descriptions are not currect, the real picture is far more complex. The thing is we have no terms to describe what is going on, it is just a different direction of information flow. So +/-, L/R are to be left undefined except in terms of the trivial energy flow descriptor.
    Do you know of the general reasoning behind left/right and positive/negative? Like, the quadra values make sense from the initial four dichotomies, with the function model as the intermediate step, and I can see how to frame left/right, +/- in terms of the function model, but I'm not sure why the tendencies associated should follow.
    That's what I meant to put :3. What I meant was that everything we perceive has an element to it which wasn't really there, and which we added to make sense of it - so everything has an aspect of delusion. Good delusions though let us interact more fully with the world, compared to bad delusions which hinder us in that respect. This has nothing to do with our conversation. o.o
    "Hope it's not disillusion" - well, all models are to an extent, but I think it has the same validity as the quadras, except that it might not actually be as they described.
    Cognitive Style is defined simply as the combination of those two dichotomies, so it is equivalent. They are different in the same way that quadra is different from simply the dichotomies which make it up - you must consider interaction also.
    See, my idea is that there is a super-system, of "true types", and both MBTI and socionics are approximations of this, and I believe that if you can apply a particular kind of structure on one approximation, then you can find it on the true type.

    Does this make sense?
    So, if we hone in to the correct definitions for all of the third-tier dichotomies, then we can adequately classify all the types in a really amazing way - one tier above MBTI's function model, -except- that the second tier model has more reference points, and thus a self check for validity. Both MBTI and socionics lack this focus.
    Aha, wellll, we are using different processes here so it's confusing. Keep in mind I have black perception, whereas you have white. Black perception needs focal points for anything, and socionics points to the EFM, whereas I think it would be better to point to the third tier dichotomies.

    Like I said, associate sociotype by quadra crossed with cognitive style. At present it is quadra crossed with club crossed with extroversion (far more complicated).
    What I meant was, the third-tier dichotomies are interpersonal, all four of them, and thus are ideal for socionics (compare this to second-tier dichotomies, which show up more in real time personal processing, and first-tier which are even deeper below the surface.

    So, if third tier possess the quality socionics looks for, maybe it should drop the eight functions and just focus on the four third tier dichotomies?
    Oh, ok. Well that's how I understand the second tier functions, and thus why I associate Ne etc with second tier. I denote third tier by b and w. Unconveniently, w stands in for self rather than world.

    Well, back to a point I made a couple times before, I believe there to be two kinds for each function, i,e. you can have internal world or internal self, external world or external self (self/world are still primary, but there is a difference in orientation)
    No, you were describing second tier dichotomies. You misunderstand the socionics functions - they are not internal vs external, they are introverted vs extroverted, i.e. inward vs outward energy.

    Structure should be designated by the other two dichotomies, not by Model A.
    Well, I personally think you are very confused there. You are describing the MBTI functions, which are different to the socionics one, i.e. you are referencing second tier dichotomies.
    Perhaps, given the approximate nature of typology to begin with, the distribution of the types really does alter when we switch from a first tier model, to a second tier model (expressed in quadrants), and finally to a third tier model.

    Now, it seems to me, that socionics fails in the sense that it only uses half of the third tier dichotomies available to it, and instead tries to fill in the rest of the picture with other level dichotomies.

    To remedy this situation, perhaps it would be necessary to change the division properties of the socionics model, such that all four third tier dichotomies are used.

    So, ignore the MBTI letters, ignore the function model, and look at third tier dichotomies only. Thus we have the four quadrants, and the four cognitive styles. The cognitive styles will be defined implicitly as the remaining aspect of the difference between types.
    Do you believe the Reinin dichotomies nevertheless do have some kind of manifestation, even if we don't know what it may be?

    Also, I still feel I am EII with an underfocused base. That would look roughly like ILE, because Fi - Ne - Ti would appear just Ne - Ti.
    Just a note: if I ever use terms for the functions from now on, e.g. saying Ni, then I am not referring to socionics Ni. I call this Nw. By Ni I mean that kind of intuition which is possessed by NJs and SPs, and in particular Ni types are NJs (interpret contextually). By Nj I mean that intuition which INs and ESs have, in particular an Nj type is IN. By Nej I mean that intuition which is the intersection of Ne and Nj. Statics are IJs and EPs (also called percetion dominants or Pbs), Dynamics are EJs and IPs (also called judgment dominants or Jbs). Democratics are NT or SF, Aristocrats are NF or ST (also: Demo and Arist). I wish to implement iota/kappa/lambda/mu terminology for the cognitive styles. Do you have a preference for how to line it up? My vote is: iota for axiomatics, kappa for algorithmics, lambda for hologramics, mu for transformatives.
    I'm not sure how F works with involute/evolute, it seems like a pretty T focused dichotomy. However, NTPs are evolutive because they apply Ne to Ti. Ti is the set of axioms, facts, as well as the general process of logical combination of premises. If A -> B and B -> C, then A -> C exists as true in the world which Ne is seeking to analyse (however, such logic does not exist in the Se world). INTPs are involved with determining whether one thing is consistent in the framework, ENTPs are involved with searching for new data starting with the framework (this is what you think I do, I don't think I do, but given your limited observance of me it makes sense that you would think this). The other types value evolutory thinking for similar reasons, but relevant to their own goals.

    Basically the idea why such different types have the same cognitive styles is that there was of viewing the world are compatible, in ways that similar types, e.g. INTP vs INTJ, are not.
    Do you believe Cognitive Styles to be valid?

    Are these summaries correct?:

    Evolutory, Positive, (static) = axiomatic, these therefore this
    Evolutory, Negative (dynamic) = algorithmic, if this then this, else this
    Involutory, Positive (dynamic) = transformative?, this becomes this
    Involutory, Negative (static) = holographic, sees the whole by forming a picture out of mutual exclusives

    I think plus/minus element combinations is a good idea, but I don't know the reasoning behind it. I think it ties into how N/S/F/T make up our worldview as a whole and thus are complex dichotomies.

    The dichotomies mirror I/E and P/J just as the quadra values mirror F/T and N/S. For example involute/evolute is independent of I/E, so is a parallel of P vs J. We see that evolutes for example are aristocrat Js, or democrat Ps - we may say that these types "value" aristocratic-J and democratic-P processes (note: using aristocrat/democrat for the types they refer to).
    Puffy
    The Creator's intention is for us all to be happy, but everything decays.

    Nice list.

    (:
    Just took the sociotype.com one, and scored INFj - followed by INFp, then ENFp then INTj.

    You sure I'm not EII?
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom