I can completely understand ignoring Ni.
Profile posts Latest activity Postings About
-
Excellent. Most helpful, indeed.
Thanks.
I had originally been operating under the premise that there is simply no way I could be an extrovert. However, further research on the matter indicated that it could be true. Only because I am not very sociable and dislike social outings... I suppose that would be due to MBTI, though.
Anyway... I can see ILE. It makes much more sense than LII. I guess I don't really have much more to say currently. But, I should be doing calculus homework anyway, so maybe that's a good thing.
I do have one question, though, which I ask out of necessity, not doubt- how sure are you?
You gave ILI, LII, ILE, LIE, and EII as the "ultimate" list.
I have already explained to you that I have reasonable certainty that I am not a Fi dominant... but I'll be honest with you, I have never, ever seen myself as a rational, and because of this, though I don't really see myself as an extrovert either, I would say that ILE is more likely than LII, really. I can consider extroversion because I have at least some degree of doubt but I have never seen myself as rational/judging. In addition to that, I don't really see LIE because Ti is the ignoring function and I do use it to at least some degree. However, I also find myself not agreeing very much with the dominant Ti of the LII, because I don't really make everything a system like dominant Ti seems to imply. I do not feel as though I am inclined to look at everything systematically or try to make it fit into a set of rules, instead preferring to create a set of rules from information which can then be refined should new information come which contradicts the current set. Open-mindedness seems to be more common with perceiving types rather than judging types.
On LII, there are other functions that I just don't agree with (role Fi, mobilizing Si, and ignoring Te, primarily, in addition to what I have already mentioned about dominant Ti). Overall, I agree more with ILE then LII, simply.
I cannot go through all of the thoughts that I have on this, as some of these thoughts have not fully materialized yet.
Even so, all things said, I see ILE and ILI as most likely. I am somewhat reluctant to exclude LII on the list since I had considered it likely for so long, but ILE just makes your sense, I think. Your thoughts on this?
At any rate, seems what type I am is mostly dependent on Ti/Ne vs. Te/Ni. I am still somewhat unsure as to whether I use Ne or Ni more (I suppose I will just have to analyze myself as I think or do something). As to Te/Ti... I think my repelling from Te originally may have been due to a bias or misinterpretation... I can see it.
See you. I'm off to bed.
EDIT: Ti as a dominant function seems to imply the creation of logical systems that are all-encompassing in the same way Fi does, except with morals. I don't see it.
It just makes sense to me.
You said a few days ago that if certain conditions were met, you would see your life as 'meaningful.'
In theory, I don't believe that life ever really has meaning, but in practice, I have 'conditions' that make my life 'meaningful' as well. You said your conditions, among other things, were "an intimate relationship with someone I loved, good relations between my family, a time-consuming & interesting occupation".
Put simply, my only condition is understanding. I supremely enjoy inner depth and clarity of almost anything. I have always been most at peace and even "happy" when I have suddenly gained deep understanding of something that previously confounded me (this happens periodically).
That is all.
It just so turns out I find meaning in understanding.
This PM is hella long, just warning you.
I found this test on [noparse]socionics.us[/noparse]. I took it, and it gave me LIE. I then analyzed it to find out how it operates.
First tier: Dominant element
Second tier: Extroversion/Introversion
Third tier: Creative element
Meh. I have doubts regarding its accuracy.
I had questioned whether twenty people were really worth more than one person, and a few others things as well outside of my explanation, but ultimately considered them irrelevant. Twenty people would only really be worth equal to one if an individual's worth is 0 or infinity. And while I do technically believe that people aren't really worth anything (um, perhaps I more or less mean humanity isn't worth anything as a whole, and therefore its individual parts aren't worth anything either. Yes, that makes much more sense...), my moral principles dictated my decision, and my logic proved it was the 'most moral' choice.
I don't usually consider moral situations objective. This one just happened to have only one real variable. Most moral situations have more than variable. This was a simple moral matter.
Would you say I use Te more than Ti, then? Or that I use neither very often?
http://forums.infjs.com/showpost.php?p=404119&postcount=59
Might help you out in your endeavours? Hehe, I spent about 10 minutes trying to think of a relevant mathematical model and how to prove it.
I just thought that reading some of my more constructed posts outside of PMs might help a bit.
What do you think of from reading that post?
It feels somehow odd posting this... but here goes.
Hehe, actually, that was going through my head when I wrote that as well. Associations and whatnot.
I need to find and talk to a confirmed ILI in real life...
I am glad there is seemingly no character limit on these visitor messages as there is on INTPf.
I agree with your disgust of "I'm right, you're wrong" arguments (as I have written several times that the purpose of conversation and discussion should be for both parties to gain insight from each other), but I don't see what that has to do with the article.
I ask the last question, because I am more or less absolutely certain that I am MBTI INTP. Nothing else really makes sense. MBTI is considerably simple and the dichotomies pretty much determine everything with a minimal focus on interplay among cognitive functions. Going purely on MBTI, I am INTP. However, I still do understand it might would be different in Socionics.
You said that Sociotypes were roughly the same as MBTI types, correct?
How well do MBTI type descriptions compare with Socionics types?
I don't know. I'll have something for you, perhaps, with a little more thought. And a time model, which can only really be understood with calculus. I'm reading on it right now.
I fully disagree that you would not have time you think about it if you lead a "fulfilling life," only that you wouldn't have the immediate need to think about it.
That is fine. I don't take offense.
I can't see a "happy, meaningful" life as anything but an illusion (no offense to you, of course). It is a shroud, just as I spoke of in the PM. That is what that section was about. The system is designed, among other things, to keep one occupied in enough temporal pleasures and sensations to keep the innate human search for meaning at bay. It is when that system fails for some reason that an "existential crisis" occurs. And yet, this is not a crisis, but an awakening, an understanding of the universe and humanity's place within it. It is impossible, upon this realization, to ever really go back, for you have seen everything for what it is, and unable to keep the desire at bay even with all the constructed meaning which existentialism would have you create. Just another system to hide the failures of the first. All systems fail. When this happens, we are free. Freedom is desired but, once obtained, it is no longer desirable.
We are slaves of any number of things. True freedom exists in the realization that we need not be slaves to anything. The realization of that freedom, however, is one of despair and anguish. Quite ironic, isn't it?
Life need not be despairing... it is only after the failure of the created system and failure of existentialism that the truth becomes obvious. The solution to this problem is not suppressing the desire with trickery and deceit, but to admit to yourself fully that there no meaning to anything, and that even created meaning is not of any use. When the systems fail, existential crisis occurs. The existentialists got it wrong. Contentment does not come when one creates his own meaning, contentment comes when one is fine with no meaning. The denial of any meaning whatsoever perfectly allows this, fully accepting the absurd, not combating it. And yet, this does not mean that one cannot participate in the pleasures that once held his desire at bay. Rather, they are more fulfilling because they are not being done to hold the desire at bay. Existential defeatism. Nihilism.
I can see this clearly now...
existentialism may or not be a valid system in reality. Nihilism is the same. Everything degregates into emptiness in full realization of the absurd. Constructed meaning is possible, but not necessary, but I am unsure whether the creation of meaning independent from inherent meaning can exist as something which has the same function as inherent meaning. It seems that humans want meaning... and they continue searching for meaning even in the knowledge that there is none.
I will find some way to make nihilism work as a valid replacement of existentialism. I refuse to accept constructed meaning as true or fulfilling. There is only nihil. -
Loading…
-
Loading…
-
Loading…