• 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.

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • Hey yeah.

    So anyway. I played for a little while on no stakes online. I'm fairly inexperienced. I was wanting to do maybe some pub games or something with low stakes, but don't know what sort of place would be good to begin with.

    Also, do you have any specific ideas about how best to learn? Do I need to learn probabilities precisely, or just be able to have a loose grasp? Is it more important to study or play?
    Ah yes, this place is not great by a long shot, regardless of which
    I am speaking to you as a moderator, in case you may not have noticed. :)
    Artsu Tharaz, if you want to talk about your emotional distress on forums, doing so more coherently would be appreciated. With respect towards your emotional state, many of the posts you've lately been making have been little more than spam and generally not making much sense. Creating a blog in the appropriate section would be a better choice for venting personal sentiments.
    Socionics has the ordering of the functions incorrect - and I find they don't have the right idea of how functions are paired. In that sense mbti is more accurate.

    But the mbti j/p is less accurate than socionic's j/p. Still, neither are entirely on the mark. ^^;
    Well, due to the way in which the dominant & auxiliary are paired (1 intro, 1 extro -- 1 being judging, the other being perceiving) two results emerge. There are those who are worldview+executor, and those who are compass+explorer.

    Adaptive: someone with the compass+explorer duo in their top two.
    Directive: someone with the worldview+executor duo in their top two.

    Er, if I understand correctly that's what the fundamental distinction is? All the synonyms and descriptions used to describe them (like directive being more commanding/inflexible) are peripheral.

    Having said that, I think the stereotype "directive" definition mostly applies only to Je. And the stereotype "adaptive" definition mostly applies to Pe...

    A lot of INFJs are super.. not directive. Heh..
    But I need to give this more thought. Very interesting observation. Again you might be onto something.
    Hi. :)

    Hmm, well they're measuring entirely different things.

    Adaptive/Directive is roughly synonymous with MBTI's P vs J
    Discern/Percept Lead is roughly synonymous with Socionic's P vs J

    Both are real differentiations in the same way extroversion and introversion is a differentiation. But yea, they're not the same thing. So we could argue that the adaptive/directive dichotomy is illegitimate, but if we wish to keep it, Ti-Ne would always fall under Adaptive, by definition.

    Personally I think both sets of dichotomies have insights to offer, and are useful for discerning type. =x
    sorry i havent been so active in responding to your messages... i was in deep thought about some other things actually...
    about the things you say, i dont quite understand everything: you have to explain me more details from the beginning... your whole theory including your basic "axioms" or definitions
    I mean the natural energy state, the temperaments. When a person is unrestrained and being himself.

    Not sure about the others but I've been reading Nietzsche and I think INFp is accurate.
    That's cool. You really do receive much different data to type on than in person. I'm starting to get a hold of the idea that Socionics(/typology) is both information and energy. And the lack of the latter is why typing is so difficult online.

    Nw base types naturally exude a "spiritually calming" energy. This can't be felt online(well, not without some degree of closeness), but if you experience it in person, you could know right away the person's type.
    How would you validate an INTJ in Pod'lair?
    I may project Fi on the internet and this leads to confusion.
    Your message is moderated for some reason.

    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.
    Strengthen vs. Expand: Is strengthen perception, expand judgements. Es strengthen judgements, expand perceptions.

    Objective vs Subjective: [A]s have make judgements in the objective and perceive in the subjective, make judgements in the subjective, and perceive the objective.

    Perception vs Judgement dominance is no longer a true dichotomy because we have placed both functions on equal terms. Rather, we get a generalised dichotomy based on the Perception of the world caused by being Perception or Judgement led.
    Okay, thanks for your analysis.

    With the death metal thread, although it can't be said for every person of the type, you seemed to have an excellent tolerance and even appreciation of dark themes which I don't give to INFj. I do see the same extremities of emotional depth that INFs share, but from INFps it is more dramatic and pushed outward, whereas with INFjs it is more subdued and turned inward.

    On the INFJ forum, it was a while ago since I've been there so I don't remember the specifics, but you just didn't seem as touchy as the rest of them.

    Yeah I agree with that. I do believe one can be experienced enough to pick up nuances(aspects of a person still creep through), but video on the whole is much better.
    It's not a surprise. Before we even spoke, I thought INFJ was off, hence the ENTP typing. This came mostly from impressions on INFJf and the old death metal thread.

    I don't think I'll be associating with Pod'lair officials anytime soon. :)

    If you don't mind, I'd like to learn more of my j-ness: where you get the impressions from and if you see it constantly, as in even now, could you point it out. It's something I've been thinking about myself. As for reasoning, I've pretty much given up on presenting an explanation for myself and would rather people just perceive me in full. I believe I'm already biased enough and it's better to just let time tell what's what.

    I'll rethink your type, if you think my opinion is not accurate. Will need to "feel my ideas out" though.
    Eh, I couldn't be INFp in Model A, unless you're saying the way elements are defined is entirely wrong and we should revert everything to how Pod'lair does things, at which point you have invalidated Model A as whole and are basically referring to Podlair in Socionics terms.
    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.

    Ok, but you must acknowledge that this explicitly goes against Socionics consensus in terms of type-function correspondence.

    The Tiers are not separate, but operate on higher/lower dimensions.
    Alternatively, if you intentionally mean Quadra functions should be Conscious, that would be misguided because Consciousness determines type. ILI is Unconsciously SeFi, SEE is Unconsciously NiTe. Duality is the exchange of information and energy between their Consciousness and Unconsciousness which stimulates psychological development.
    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.

    I think you're misunderstanding the Model A here. A type's Conscious/Mental Ring functions are similar in that they are either all Dynamic or all Static. It seems like you're saying the valued Quadra functions should be there instead. If this is true, then you're missing the point. Conscious/Unconscious is one way of ordering functions. Strong-Valued & Weak-Valued(by Quadra) is another. This doesn't affect the theory, it's just a way of looking at the functions. Some Socionists only use two functions for instance, TP(Tempus Profiteur, NiTe).
    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.

    Again, it seems you're jumping to a conclusion without showing the reasoning for it. The Model A is a system that inteprets the dichotomies. 1) What do you mean by 'not dichotomy based' and 2) What about this topic is mutually exclusive?.
    Can you elaborate your view on this?:
    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 don't see how that conclusion was made.
    Oh ok.

    Well, there's the Super-Ego. The Super-Ego is the Social Control Block(3rd + 4th/Role + Vulnerable), where you are pressured by Society to conform or to generally survive. If you're stuck in an environment where your Super-Ego functions are constantly being pressured, by theory/practice, you are not living healthy. Although temporary strain should be manageable.

    What about that?
    Yea, richer, a new way of looking at types/typology at least. I have no idea what to do with the Second Tier though.
    not that, I mean the functional model. You know like Base=Ni, Creative=Te, Role=Si etc. I would like to know what kind of model would be needed if the Third Tier was utilized in the same way the First Tier is in terms of creating functions from dichotomies.
    oh, that's what I thought.

    You know, since Model A(or regular typology for that matter) relies on the Jungian dichotomies, don't you agree a new Model is in order to fully realize the Third-Tier dichotomies?

    I know where Process/Result and Negativist/Positivist come from but as to the practical manifestations, there's nothing at all to suggest what they are. Gulenko does say Process/Result = Artificial/Natural which seems to make some sense when you compare types. He goes into detail about it here. But beyond that, it's just speculation.
    I'm beginning to see cog styles more clearly, I think, but not enough to explicate yet. Hope it's not just delusion.

    Just continue being yourself and I'll be able to notice contradictions or agreements with LII.
    What's your point? You could pretty much say every theory is deeper than just the concrete physics of it, but that doesn't mean theories can't be incorrect. A theory is not valuable by itself just because it might have a little bit of Natural Law to it, it actually needs to be able to be applied to something, that is really the only way that you can test how accurately it has captured Natural Law. You can make predictions with Astronomy, ones that your life may depend on, and so far they generally pull through. If they didn't, if astronomy left you stranded at sea with no way home, why the hell would you still use it? Everything has Natural Law behind it, even the most ridiculous Supernatural or Pseudo-Scientific theories you have ever heard, but it is not just the Nai of a theory that makes it valuable, it is how well it can align with all four Languages of Understanding to allow one to produce something real.
    I love trance style writing. Basically, it's when you have a single idea in mind upon which you can expand endlessly - that ultimate convergent point of information we strive for. However, I tend to let the idea out slowly. I can't process words well enough to type or even read quickly. I don't quite know if I "daydream" per se, in the sense that there is usually no accompanying visual image. However, staying focus on an external task is damn near impossible.

    [note the change of voice midway through post]
    The trance-style writing you're describing is basically how I compose, it's also how I'm writing a lot of my longer messages on here (this message for example, is written as fast as I can type, it's pretty much straight channeling from my Nai into my Xyy).

    Dreams and dream interpretation is awesome for Nai and Xyy. Nai itself is very close to dreaming when done awake, it's why we keep spacing out, we're doing extreme daydreaming with our Nai and detaching from the Vyy (~Se) environment.
    Nai'xyy that either don't have a regular connection to their U'ther or don't get to put forth into the world and interact enough using their Nai (especially in expressing it to other people through their Xyy) tend to have a lot of anger issues (that are often dealt with using alcohol and such).The Nai'xyy's Nai&Xyy is turmoil if it's not channeled into something that compliments that realm, it's all this energy that's begging us to do something with it, to have the endurance to pursue it, even if it means leaving everything we previously thought was true, or what we feel pressured around us to do (via Christianity or whatever else).
    (in response to Puffy's post on your page) Puffy, you sound like a self-aware Nai'xyy, everything you said in Artsu's wall I can relate to as well, although I don't like doing the superficial calm playing style. I am honestly kinda cagey in real life though, though I do it more Peter-pan style.

    Yes, just using Zai (~Ti) to control your emotions creates a false sense of "I feel kinda sedated" but there's this weird draining energy that comes from a dissassociated-like energy. If you do art or passionately investigate history, you might notice how different the "calm" sedate state is from that kind of inspirational passion that we're famous for. The inspirational passion's flipside is deep anger, and without addressing your Nai's need to really investigate and do weird things with your Xyy, after a while it really boils over.
    Any system can be imperfects in response to the accomplishment of certain goals. Reaching for a higher Ideal should not include arbitrary constants such that most rigid systems include. Flexibility is the most compatible with my views. Resistance arises in conditions of unreasonableness when forced to abide by rigidity.
    Hey, you said Cog Style + Quadra. Don't you mean Quadra + Process/Result & Negativist/Positivist?
    "True type" makes sense.

    Except I transcend systematic limitations through comprehensive perspectives, not through a perfect system.
    The four socionic dichotomies appear to be very similar to the dichotomies used by the MBTI system. However, close inquiry reveals that there are many subtle differences. If you assume the dichotomies are the same and equate each socionic type to an MBTI type, some socionic types will overlap to a large degree with their MBTI counterparts, others will partially overlap, and yet others will seem to be completely different. If the types were truly equivalent, a similar theory of intertype relations would have arisen in the MBTI system — but there is none. On the whole, MBTI and socionics types seem to correlate in roughly 30% of cases. That is not nearly enough to consider the two typologies close approximations of each other.

    Socionics and the MBTI

    At some point Augusta and her associates learned of Isabel Briggs Myers' and her mother Katharine Cook Briggs' development of Jung's typology across the ocean in the United States. Newcomers to socionics in the West often have to face the difficulty of trying to distinguish between the two typologies. They are fundamentally different and cannot be treated as "the same types, but with different type names." Those who look deeply into socionics and the MBTI recognize that socionics' theoretical apparatus is more systematic and logical in nature — and simply larger. Indeed, socionics was created by a "thinking" type, while the MBTI was created by "feeling" types (a quick review of sites on the two fields will make this clear). That is just the beginning of the differences. I personally, of course, find socionics to be a big improvement on the MBTI, but I'm sure there are ardent followers of the MBTI that hold the opposite opinion.
    The Myers-Briggs Type Theory is sometimes confused with socionics, although there are some differences between these two theories. Let us describe them shortly:

    Somewhat different definitions of the 4 basic type criteria. In MBTT, the type is defined as 4 basic choices: extraversion (E) or introversion (I), sensing (S) or intuition (N), thinking (T) or feeling (F), judgment (J) or perception (P). Socionics uses terms logic/ethic – instead of thinking/feeling, and rationality/irrationality – instead of perception/judgment. However, more important is the contents of these definitions, they do not always coincide.

  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom