User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 166

  1. #91
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    I woke up this morning and for some reason I suddenly (think) I know what you guys are talking about (if only for a moment.) It’s stuff that you’ve been saying all along, but it’s rather hard to understand because it’s hard to put into words. The problem is not really “the sensors” so much as it is with the world. It’s almost as if you guys come from a different planet all together.

    It’s an English speaking planet, (I’ll use English because that’s what we’re using now.) But it’s a world of abstractions and possibilities. (Sounds obvious.) Speaking from a strictly N point of view, there is nothing physical in it. No physical bodies, no grass, no trees, no nothing. And then you’ve come into this planet, (Earth) of physical things and a physical body. Where 75 percent of people are native to the planet and can physically and mentally navigate with ease. And then you say something like, “Well sensors don’t understand us, they don’t speak our language.” And then we say, “Well yes we do, we’re all speaking English here.” “Well you don’t understand our level of abstraction.” And we say, “Yes we do, we talk about the meaning and abstractions behind things all the time, we all talk about the same stuff. Of course we understand your world.” .

    But, someone who starts their thought processes with concrete data would never be able to understand the world without physical things. We can understand abstractions and talk about meaning and possibilities, but would never be able to understand a world that has nothing physical in it, while N’s are forced to understand the world with physical things in it. It may be easier for some N’s if at least more people “understood” them. So, when many sensors walk around placing the importance on what you “do” in the physical world, a strong N may not be able to relate to it.

    I may be way far off, I’m not sure. (Also, really black and white terms of course.)
    I see you shortnsweet!

  2. #92
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    Aww, I was going to go off into my propoganda about how N's don't really exist at all, and if you are here, typing on a keyboard and responding to what I said, you aren't really N. So we're all S's. You just destroyed that idea.
    i'm sorry
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  3. #93
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    I had a long-ish reply typed out yesterday, then the site died. So, you all get a half-assed version. Oh well

    Quote Originally Posted by mal12345 View Post
    I respect typology for teaching us that not everyone thinks the same way.
    This is probably the best use of typology. However...

    Then that means most of typology is useless theory.

    It's not useless, just unfounded, like the MBTI which is based on making assumptions about Jungian INTJ typology, but is not based in S (reality). Your comment indirectly supports what I've been saying on another thread. For example, the idea that my inferior function is Fe has no basis in my personal reality. It is true in theory, but not necessarily in practice. And it is true in theory only because someone made up a nice-sounding idea about cognitive functions that makes sense in a circular way, but only internally to the theory itself.
    I hope that I'm not taking this out of context; forgive me if I am.

    To me, there seems to be a significant amount of overlap between "well-founded" and "useful." A mental construct or analogy can be useful if it helps to illustrate a concept (perhaps by way of drawing comparisons), but it's even more useful if it serves as a direct explanation of some concept. (disclaimer: on tests, I get 'dinged' on 'N' because I halfway prioritize practicality )

    What sort of overlap between the two traits ("well-founded" and "useful") exists to you?

    If a theory states that you have such-and-such an inferior function, and that doesn't seem to be true in practice to you, is the theory still very useful? Should we abandon the part of the theory that tries to assign an inferior function to a type, or at least include a caveat within the theory?

    More broadly, is an elegant and logically well-structured internal pattern useful even if it's shown to not match up very well with reality?

    This might be taken as a minor quibble. But to me, such patterns can be damaging or misleading if they are misapplied, such as what is potentially occurring all throughout this thread and many others.

    I'd love to get your thoughts on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Yeah right, like I'm going to believe that the majority of university professors and lawyers are N (especially lawyers, good God! Talk about an SJ bastion.) This statement alone leads me to think that you're simply typing people as N IRL if they are smart or open-minded. Just what about doing work as a lawyer or being a university professor (especially in fields that are more practical) is more inherently N? I'm surprised that there aren't more Ss taking offense to this, as it's basically saying that any serious profession in which extensive knowledge is required is inherently not suited for you, unless you can somehow exercise your "N muscles." Goddamn.
    This needs much, much more love. I love it.

  4. #94
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    ^

    i like your posts, shortnsweet. i think it makes sense. especially in terms of seeing the world in abstractions first and then in realities. i think of the world in big sweeping principles and patterns and connections and holistic atmospheres and meanings and intangibilities first, and then i think about its more concrete components. sometimes to understand, i have to redux to theory. it's not that i'm not here, i feel the ground pressing into my belly (yes i lay on the floor with my laptop lol) and see the things around me and remember facts and details, but i tend to see my N stuff as the "ultimate" reality. it seems like the theoretical structure is what the concrete components fit into, not vice versa.

    also can i please point out the irony that the S has accommodated her own worldview to see from the N point of view while i have not yet seen that from an N
    Now I want to make a movie with a funny trailer. (With that guy who talks on all the trailers.)

    (TV showing empty white space.)
    "In a world with no things- anything is possible."

    "But what happens when these people have to learn to function on Earth?"
    (5 random people dissolving onto a scene with a city background)
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  5. #95
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I had a long-ish reply typed out yesterday, then the site died. So, you all get a half-assed version. Oh well



    This is probably the best use of typology. However...



    I hope that I'm not taking this out of context; forgive me if I am.

    To me, there seems to be a significant amount of overlap between "well-founded" and "useful." A mental construct or analogy can be useful if it helps to illustrate a concept (perhaps by way of drawing comparisons), but it's even more useful if it serves as a direct explanation of some concept. (disclaimer: on tests, I get 'dinged' on 'N' because I halfway prioritize practicality )

    What sort of overlap between the two traits ("well-founded" and "useful") exists to you?

    If a theory states that you have such-and-such an inferior function, and that doesn't seem to be true in practice to you, is the theory still very useful? Should we abandon the part of the theory that tries to assign an inferior function to a type, or at least include a caveat within the theory?

    More broadly, is an elegant and logically well-structured internal pattern useful even if it's shown to not match up very well with reality?

    This might be taken as a minor quibble. But to me, such patterns can be damaging or misleading if they are misapplied, such as what is potentially occurring all throughout this thread and many others.

    I'd love to get your thoughts on this.
    For about one month a long time ago, I thought I was a type 4, and it was the most integrating experience of my life. Maybe it's not true that I am/was a type 4, but the belief was what counted.

    Typological issues boil down to epistemology: which part of typology is a product of belief, and which part comes down to knowledge? How much heuristic value for self-reflection and personal growth does it all have? How much does it tend to distract and detract from these things? And on another level: "Am I even ready to take on this knowledge/belief system?"

    One thing I do know (and many others here have known for a long time) is that handing out one type per person is too rigid. And another thing I learned from this forum: the MBTI 16 types system is based on the false assumption that the Dominant function for the types are defined by the I/E and P/J scales. This assumption is not even Jungian, it is just made up.

    Possibly as a result of this, someone here recently reported a tendency to score either ISFP or ISFJ, and the result was only psychological confusion. So it doesn't seem very useful for this person. I have seen a similar confusion bring others to this forum. Why can't there be a type that includes traits of both the ISFP and ISFJ? Why were the system founders so rigidly certain about their formula for determining dominant function?
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #96
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Two things:

    1. We're not as good at typing others as we give ourselves credit for. Many different paths to the same destination, after all. It's not what a person does, it's how they think in the process of getting there. So saying that someone's taking an intuitive approach, or a sensory approach, if they've not been formally typed, is an exercise in folly.

    2. Of course most lawyers are SJs. So are the best law students. The intuitives are the C students who all of the SJs end up working for 20 years down the line, though they've had to starve in the meantime to get there.

  7. #97
    Undisciplined Starry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    Now I want to make a movie with a funny trailer. (With that guy who talks on all the trailers.)

    (TV showing empty white space.)
    "In a world with no things- anything is possible."

    "But what happens when these people have to learn to function on Earth?"
    (5 random people dissolving onto a scene with a city background)
    LOL. So awesome!

  8. #98
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    Now I want to make a movie with a funny trailer. (With that guy who talks on all the trailers.)

    (TV showing empty white space.)
    "In a world with no things- anything is possible."

    "But what happens when these people have to learn to function on Earth?"
    (5 random people dissolving onto a scene with a city background)
    i would pay to watch a show of 5 random upper-middle-class N doms who have to live in the hood for a month.

    predictions:
    ENTP becomes particularly effective drug dealer
    ENFP becomes police liaison
    INTJ becomes mercenary / hitman
    INFJ becomes go-to counselor

  9. #99
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    can i please point out the irony that the S has accommodated her own worldview to see from the N point of view while i have not yet seen that from an N
    As long as I can point out the irony of anyone claiming to be an Ne dom who can see only two possibilities.

  10. #100
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    2. Of course most lawyers are SJs. So are the best law students. The intuitives are the C students who all of the SJs end up working for 20 years down the line, though they've had to starve in the meantime to get there.
    Wow, applying the same (lame) pep talk they give to the nerds in school to Ns?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. Does this site attract more than the average ASD poster?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-03-2017, 06:01 PM
  2. [INTP] Does he like me as a friend or more than a friend?
    By meg11 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-15-2015, 02:33 PM
  3. Does ESFPs generally have more Fe than ENFPs?
    By Elemental Chaos in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-25-2010, 10:25 AM
  4. Do sensors enjoy music more than the intuitive?
    By swordpath in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 02:44 PM
  5. Which Stephen King books are worth reading more than once?
    By Totenkindly in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 01-26-2008, 07:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO