Does N accomodate S more than S accomodates N?

[Thalassa]

"Advocator" isn't a word.

Yes it is.

 

[stalemate]

Yes it is.

I was allowing for the possibility that maybe the statement was in reference to a non English language.

 

[Orangey]

"Advocator" isn't a word.

It's bad enough that this is a pointless comment to begin with, but to be dead wrong as well? Hahahaha.

 

[onemoretime]

"Advocator" isn't a word.

¿Por qué no?

 

[Elfboy]

advocate

 

[Jaguar]

It's bad enough that this is a pointless comment to begin with, but to be dead wrong as well? Hahahaha.

I need a martini. Lol.

 

[redacted]

WTF? So if one is a minority, one should automatically bow to others? Should African Americans and Mexican Americans be more accomodating of whites?

Should gays be more accomodating of straights then straights are of them?

I don't like your logic.

Oops missed this post.

I'm pretty sure we're missing on definitions here, but I think I may also disagree a bit --

Just acting in your own self-interest (excluding your interest in others' well being) obviously will have some consequences on the whole (other people may not be able to pursue their self-interest at the same time, for example). Just caring about other people obviously also has consequences on the whole, because people are on average best at knowing their own needs. So their needs to be some give and take between the two...

Someone devising methods regarding the looking out for others side should come up with strategies that work as efficiently as possible. The more overall benefit your moral strategy has per unit of effort, the better it is. In that sense, an N devising a social strategy would be making a mistake to develop an algorithm that benefits S types and N types equally, because they could better maximize efficiency catering slightly more to S types.

This is all assuming a perfectly equal world in every other way. Now, in real reality (ha), there are those that have been treated more unfairly than others. In other words, the marginal utility of helping them is much higher, so catering to them more than the less needy increases your ethical output.

So the more complex picture is that the best strategy is to cater to those that benefit most from your help (and keep marginal utility in mind), while at the same time catering to as high a percentage of people as possible. I didn't bring that up because it seemed kinda irrelevant, but yeah.

 

[Thalassa]

Sounds like Fe, bro.

 

[entropie]

Oops missed this post.

I'm pretty sure we're missing on definitions here, but I think I may also disagree a bit --

Just acting in your own self-interest (excluding your interest in others' well being) obviously will have some consequences on the whole (other people may not be able to pursue their self-interest at the same time, for example). Just caring about other people obviously also has consequences on the whole, because people are on average best at knowing their own needs. So their needs to be some give and take between the two...

Someone devising methods regarding the looking out for others side should come up with strategies that work as efficiently as possible. The more overall benefit your moral strategy has per unit of effort, the better it is. In that sense, an N devising a social strategy would be making a mistake to develop an algorithm that benefits S types and N types equally, because they could better maximize efficiency catering slightly more to S types.

This is all assuming a perfectly equal world in every other way. Now, in real reality (ha), there are those that have been treated more unfairly than others. In other words, the marginal utility of helping them is much higher, so catering to them more than the less needy increases your ethical output.

So the more complex picture is that the best strategy is to cater to those that benefit most from your help (and keep marginal utility in mind), while at the same time catering to as high a percentage of people as possible. I didn't bring that up because it seemed kinda irrelevant, but yeah.

I havent understood a word of this and I had only 3 beer I swear

 

[redacted]

I havent understood a word of this and I had only 3 beer I swear

LOL I knew it would sound weird!

So their needs to be

Aaaaaaaaaah noooooooooo!!

 

[Eric B]

Keirsey actually classifies types into Preemptive, Contending, Collaborating, and Accommodating. The "Accommodating" ones are ISFP, ISFJ, INTP, and INFP in Keirsey terms.

ISTJ would be contending and ESFP collaborating.

I can't find exact definitions right now but "contending" is more similar to "competitive" in this sense. It is more about interaction style I guess. This post on brainsandcareers mentions these terms briefly in breaking down the whole new Keirsey naming scheme where, for example, ENFP is a Diplomatic Collaborator / Advocator where the old term was "Champion." http://brainsandcareers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=117

Keirsey's latest book uses all the new terms and I haven't read the whole thing yet and am still getting used to the terminology.

These are the new "roles of interaction" Keirsey introduced in that book, which are the same as Berens' Interaction Styles. He finally took the final step of dividing the eight "intelligence variants" by I/E to get the four roles, like berens had done.

Though three of those names I never heard. When the book first came out, you saw the names "Initiator", "Responder" and "Coworker".

Then ExFPs are Collaborative? I would think Collaborative and Accomodating would be the easiest to get along with.

The Accomodating ones make sense, too.

Those are the Role-Informatives, which are the most "responsive" (people rather than task-oriented) on the social level.

So contending = chart the course, accomodating = behind the scenes, etc?

Yes. ("Accomodating" was "Responder". "Accomodating" is the name of the informative introvert in the Thomas Kilman Inventory as well). And Collaborator=Coworker=Get Things going, and Preemptive=Initiator=In Charge.

 

[strychnine]

I thought the 'confusion' (though I was not confused) was because advocate is also a noun.

 

[Thalassa]

I thought the 'confusion' (though I was not confused) was because advocate is also a noun.

and in France, un avocat is a lawyer

isn't learning fun?

 

[Thalassa]

I can't find exact definitions right now but "contending" is more similar to "competitive" in this sense. It is more about interaction style I guess. This post on brainsandcareers mentions these terms briefly in breaking down the whole new Keirsey naming scheme where, for example, ENFP is a Diplomatic Collaborator / Advocator where the old term was "Champion." http://brainsandcareers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=117

Keirsey's latest book uses all the new terms and I haven't read the whole thing yet and am still getting used to the terminology.

While I like being called a Champion or an Advocator (I like this: "note the name has been updated to Advocator, which was chosen because it literally means (ad-voc-a-tor) "to give voice" to ideas, beliefs or causes."), identifying myself with Diplomatic CoWorker seems far too entrenched in capitalism as a way to define my entire personality.

 

[skylights]

isn't learning fun?

advocator

latin advocare + ending "-r"

advocare = ad vocare

ad, to/towards/in favor of
vox, voice, vocare, to vocalize

ad vocare, to vocalize in favor of
vocat, third person present indicative
ad+vocat, (he) vocalizes in favor of

french avocat, pleader (as opposed to the avoué (who prepares the case))
english advocate, to speak in favor

-r ending, transforms verb into noun identified as that which performs verb

"that which vocalizes in favor of"

advocator

i like words

==

incidentally while i appreciate the attempt to find better words i think i am much more of a "champion" than a "diplomatic coworker". that makes me sound like i will not fight you. that would be an unfortunate misunderstanding.

 

[Mal12345]

Haha, I made you look it up.:hi:

advocator

latin advocare + ending "-r"

advocare = ad vocare

ad, to/towards/in favor of
vox, voice, vocare, to vocalize

ad vocare, to vocalize in favor of
vocat, third person present indicative
ad+vocat, (he) vocalizes in favor of

french avocat, pleader (as opposed to the avoué (who prepares the case))
english advocate, to speak in favor

-r ending, transforms verb into noun identified as that which performs verb

"that which vocalizes in favor of"

advocator

i like words

==

incidentally while i appreciate the attempt to find better words i think i am much more of a "champion" than a "diplomatic coworker". that makes me sound like i will not fight you. that would be an unfortunate misunderstanding.

 

[stalemate]

Haha, I made you look it up.:hi:

Nice try.

 

[skylights]

Haha, I made you look it up.:hi:

actually i'm a word nerd, i already knew all that which... if any of it's wrong, that'd be my fault, lol.

my high school bio teacher was really into etymology and spent half the year teaching us how to break words down and recognize common prefixes, suffixes, and latin and greek roots. i liked the biology and it was useful but to be honest the word breakdown was possibly one of the most useful lessons i have ever learned. plus i've taken french for like... forever. so "advocator" was pretty easy. "ad" means towards - learned that in bio; "voca" is about voice, know that because there's a planned parenthood group named "vox" which is latin for "voice" (plus just "vocal" being an obvious related word), and "-are" is a standard latin verb form, and "(vowel)t" is the 3rd p. pres. indicative - and "-r", that's just easy to figure out - so yeah.

and then i just knew the french business thanks to french history/culture classes. though admittedly i did look up "avoué", because i couldn't remember the difference between the avoué and the agreé - actually i'm still not sure what the agreé does. some kind of french lawyery things.

 

[Mal12345]

actually i'm a word nerd, i already knew all that which... if any of it's wrong, that'd be my fault, lol./QUOTE]

Drats! Foiled again...

 

[CrystalViolet]

An Exchange at Work.
S: Our analyser is having multiple problems. We can't clear it's memory, and we are getting random error messages while testing particular analytes.
N: OOO, I've seen this before! On a completely unrelated machine.
S: *rolls eyes*
N: It was a mother board problem. It shorted, and we got all these random unrelated errors, kinda like what we are getting now.
S: Could be. It's possible. But I can't get the technition based on a hunch you are having.
N: Why not?
S: We've gone over this, Crystal, you can't call in the technition without presenting concrete facts. P.s. We're scientists, we don't believe in magic.

This is a real exchange, which doesn't paint me in the best of lights admittedly, but best I could do under short notice.