Let's see... quadras are based on... grouping of functions in blocks? That makes sense, I suppose. More later, maybe.
Profile posts Latest activity Postings About
-
Is that last PM your way of "cleaning up the mess?" Hehe.
I think I have a decent understanding of objects and fields.
Though... as they, and the different IM elements associated with them, relate to me personally, I have no clue. Essentially.
Very well. I shall await your reply.
You wrote this on your thread, "Socionics and You":
What I am saying is-is that MBTI and all other interpretations have, for the most part, attributed accurate descriptions of types to the incorrect functions. MBTI has you thinking Ti-Ne equals inner systematization, and a love of philosophy and knowledge but that is wrong. All of that is a result of Ni(not MBTI's incorrect terminology).
Is this still true. Or, rather, do you still believe this is true?
About socionics... I had truly never intended to get so attached to and fascinated with the system. I generally avoid adhering too strongly to almost any system which I myself did not create, and even then, I don't rely absolutely on my own systems. Normally, the existence of another system, such as, in this case, MBTI, would have caused me to look at both with equal skepticism and the same suspended judgment. However, something told me that, out of those two, MBTI just wasn't right. And it was because Socionics adheres to the original principles of Jung, and MBTI does not. That would, in effect, rule MBTI out, merely because it had a nonexistent foundation. And that would leave Socionics, a theoretical system built upon a theoretical foundation...
The other day, I said that, if a foundation had a degree of uncertainty, then a system (especially an uncertain one) built upon that foundation will have compound uncertainty. And that should hold true. And yet, for Socionics, it just doesn't. I can't make any sense of it. I can't use Ne at all in this situation. I can't think of any way to make a purely theoretical system "better"... I accept it fully for what it is, and don't even question it in many cases. As I have also said, "It is what it is." It's ironic that I am automatically assuming true a theoretical system built upon a theoretical foundation, whereas I oftentimes have difficult believing a realistic system built upon a realistic foundation.
It's just... the thing is is that is is pure theory. That is all that matters. That is why it is impossible to really do anything with it. The types, the definitions, the functions, the model, the dichotomies... the entire system is more or less entirely contrived. That, I perceive, is why it is impossible to do anything with it. How can you improve something without some idea of what it should improved in to?
Well, there goes another minirant. Bed now.
Right, then. Because it values Ti.
Very well, but... LSI? TiSe? I have never, ever considered myself a sensing type, and I pretty much consider my Se terrible. So, I would like to know your reasoning behind this.
Conformation bias? Towards what? But no, I do not think I am, nor have I ever consciously intended to in our whole conversation (though I may have done so unconsciously). ILI and EII are both more interesting to me than LII, though I still feel LII has a rather unique perspective on things, but if I am LII, then it is what is as.
What makes me doubt gamma, I think, is the description of group behavior, where it says gammas are wary of newcomers, whereas alphas are described to "make no distinction between "insiders" and "outsiders", easily drawing people into a conversation once it has begun — though they tend to just as easily withdraw if the person is not receptive." This represents me more, I think, though, the apparent emphasis on fun, emotional aspects, and jokes in discussion somewhat overwhelms and completely alienates me. So, again, I suppose I am not really sure. I rarely notice emotional cues in discussion, let alone act on them...
If you go to the gamma wikisocion page (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Gamma), I identify mainly with the first part of subdued elements (Fe and Si), not much with the first part of dominant elements (Ni and Te) and second part of subdued elements (Ti and Ne) and not at all with the second part of dominant elements (Fi and Se). I most assuredly do not take such a hard-line approach toward ethics, and tend to see potential in people, except in some instances. I usually regard people as capable of being "good," but maybe not willing, or not able. On the alpha side (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Alpha), I mainly don't agree with the second part of dominant (Fe and Si) and the first part of subdued (Se and Fi), at least on avoiding controversial subject matter.
I pretty much agree with all of delta, except maybe parts of the dominant blocks. I think I could reasonably fit in to both alpha and delta groups, honestly. Maybe gamma groups too, but they just seem a little over realistic to me. Eh.
Oh yes. I completely disregarded beta quadra. :D
But actually, after fully reading the different quadras on wikisocion, I'd say alpha does fit me best. Maybe some delta too, but not really gamma or beta.
Oh yes. Normally, when I register onto forums, the application wants your email address and a validation of your email address. And normally I am inclined to simply tab and write it twice, since there is more conservation of movement simply writing it again than copying and pasting. This time, however, I decided to copy and paste, and, as it so happened, I had spelled the email address wrong in the first field, so, logically, at also ended up being spelled wrong in the second. hehe. It always seems to be the times when you break habit that you fail (though, not always, that would be silly).
Wow... I just failed hard.
Very well. I will mark you as my referrer regardless.
Oh yes. Did you want me to mark you as referrer or not? You never really properly replied to that PM.
Very well. TiNe with an ignoring Te and demonstrative Ne makes far more sense to me than NiTe with ignoring Ti and demonstrative Ne, anyway.
What other types do you have in mind?
Mostly the description of Ti vs. description of Te. Though I am perhaps not entirely divorced from use of Te, I definitely use Ti more.
Nothing more, really. Probably rather shabby evidence. I was in a mode to look only at the Ego block functions of LII and ILI. In terms of Ni vs. Ne, I feel compelled to both of them, truthfully.
I can, however, tell you for sure that Fe and Se are likely my least developed functions.
No, I had not done it that way. But it worked, thanks.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Elements_of_information_metabolism
This might tip the scale in favor of LII, depending primarily on the Super-Ego and Id blocks (described in the PM) and what "demonstrative" Ni means.
Alright, I did it...
...and it didn't work.
INTPf is apparently broken now.
Like I said... I really only stay there for the people (well, maybe for other things... INTPf is interesting in that regard). If INTPf really is permanently broken, then... there were people up there that I may never get to talk to again. If I ever find them, I must set up external contact independent of forums (AIM or something of the sort, I presume).
It's okay. It was just a matter of uncertainty; no reason to be upset because nobody's at fault. -
Loading…
-
Loading…
-
Loading…