E/I EZTYPE

[Mal12345]

You call it twisting; I call it presenting in a different light. I just think that cognitive extraversion is widely misunderstood.

I call it, "disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing."

 

[wolfy]

I call it, "disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing."

Wut?

I call it presenting a valid opinion. A well thought out opinion at that.

 

[Mal12345]

Wut?

I call it presenting a valid opinion. A well thought out opinion at that.

So you're a mind-reader.

 

[wolfy]

So you're a mind-reader.

Explain to me how you came to the conclusion it was disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

 

[Mal12345]

Explain to me how you came to the conclusion it was disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

Because it requires a direct effort to misunderstand something as simple as what I wrote. What other world is there for extraverts to expand into? The subconscious?

 

[wolfy]

Because it requires a direct effort to misunderstand something as simple as what I wrote.

Who is the mind reader now?

 

[Mal12345]

Why would I do that? There's nothing personal about it and I prefer to avoid conflict when possible. In this case, I just feel a strong responsibility to address what I believe is misinformation.

I do feel general frustration that cognitive extraversion is often misrepresented. I struggled for several years to understand why I didn't feel well-described by the INFP profiles even though I consistently tested as introverted. It was a huge weight off my chest when members here explained to me that ExxPs are often socially introverted but cognitively extraverted, and I finally correctly identified as ENFP. As a result of that personal struggle, it frustrates me to see anyone implying that all extraverts must be very outgoing, high-energy, gregarious social-butterfly types - the type of person who wouldn't be satisfied by taking a camera out on a walk.

I feel a moral responsibility to help people where I reasonably can, and in this instance I feel that sort of responsibility to attempt to prevent personal struggle on Webslinger's part by refining what I understand to be misinformation.

It is far from disagreement for the sake of disagreement.

Then you were just duplicating my own point, because that's what I was saying in briefer terms. Next time, don't start your response by saying you disagree. Assume you didn't understand the point being made. Or don't assume you understood it completely.

 

[skylights]

Then you were just duplicating my own point, because that's what I was saying in briefer terms. Next time, don't start your response by saying you disagree. Assume you didn't understand the point being made. Or don't assume you understood it completely.

I STILL DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT that:

An extravert would define "interaction" quite differently from "exploring" and taking pictures.

As an extravert, I would define "exploring" and "taking pictures" as [extraverted] "interaction".

That makes your statement logically incorrect.

Like I said - nothing personal and not disagreement for the sake of disagreement. You're just wrong.

--

Anyway, Webslinger, point being I don't think there's any reason to discount extraversion. You're sounding right up the Se alley so far.

 

[Mal12345]

Why would I do that? There's nothing personal about it and I prefer to avoid conflict when possible. In this case, I just feel a strong responsibility to address what I believe is misinformation - it is far from disagreement for the sake of disagreement.

You stated:



As an extravert, I would define "exploring" and "taking pictures" as [extraverted] "interaction".

That makes your statement logically incorrect.

Your original counterpoint stated that extraverts CAN enjoy exploring and taking pictures. But that's a side-issue not relevant to the differences between intraverts and extraverts which involves interacting with the EXTERNAL world (better now?). Furthermore, if incorrect, it wouldn't be logically incorrect, just factually incorrect.

There has also been a study done on the different styles of photography used by intraverts and extraverts. Intraverts tend to take pictures of objects, extraverts tend to take pictures of people.

 

[Mal12345]

I STILL DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT that:

There is no point in interacting with a person such as yourself. Take your strong disagreements elsewhere, or change your posting style to one that is not so rude to others on these forums.

 

[skylights]

There is no point in interacting with a person such as yourself. Take your strong disagreements elsewhere, or change your posting style to one that is not so rude to others on these forums.

I am genuinely sorry that you feel I was being rude to you... that wasn't my intention. I genuinely don't understand why you felt so strongly that me disagreeing with you was a problem. You put strongly-stated opinions on the forum often and at times I think you have very good points, and other times, like now, I feel like they are incorrect and/or misleading. I admit that sometimes I feel on edge when reading your posts because you often state things strongly and I often feel compelled to address what I perceive to be misinformation, even though I do dislike the conflict. It's not really surprising that we clash, I guess. I don't feel like my posting style is rude to others overall and I'm sorry that I was more harsh than usual with you.

More than anything I'm sorry for taking up Webslinger's thread with all this crap.

 

[miss fortune]

[MENTION=17945]Webslinger[/MENTION]... read your short story there as well... lovely It reminds me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on it
[MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION]... one thing that I find interesting is that people will often label by first impression of how the work looks instead of looking at it even twice... for instance (sorry for sticking with lit en espanol... I took A LOT of spanish lit ) on the first glance stylistically speaking, Cortazar appears to be straightforward and Marquez appears to be a bit loopy and dreamy... look a bit closer and Cortazar is nuts, he'll play with your head just for the joys of fucking with you and doesn't linger on the descriptions while Marquez seems to lovingly dote on his surroundings and tells a surprisingly straightforward story. Of course we make the same mistakes while looking at and typing people here, disregarding the fact that a seemingly conflicting function can play an excellent second banana

and on extroversion v introversion there's always the confusion on the board between cognitive extroversion and behavioral extroversion... cognitive being the manner in which the environment and oneself are to be perceived while behavioral relates to how social the person is... it'd probably make things a lot less argue-y if that distinction was made more frequently

 

[Galena]

No hard feelings here. To post a thread about anything is always to sign for the possibility of conflict. I just hope any headaches have cleared up.

Yeah, Socionics is a mixed bag, IMO. It's kind of a lot of things thrown together, and I'm not into their Visual Identification theories - like typing people based on physical characteristics. But I do think they've hit on some nuances that other systems have missed, and for that I think it's worth perusal.

Yeah, personality type will influence a person's activities, which get reflected in a person's body over time as they live, but the exact same goes for everything else in life. A person's look is an opaque blizzard of variables.

Personally I can have fun on an exploratory walk alone, but if you made me take an hour-long walk in a barren place I'd probably start getting miserable around 30 minutes in because of the lack of external stimulation.

I dunno if that would even do it for me.....
View attachment 9668
I mean, if I put a red filter over this Nebraskan void (source: Australian outback), how many baby boomer aunts would believe it was a Mars pic? How about building an online photo album of American flyover landscapes shopped to look like other planets?

jk I know what you mean. The end of my story is just that I found my writing style this way. When I got home from a Photo Romp, I'd take stock of the images with humor potential (the most; everything has it) and send them to friends back home in batches with my written observations and jokes, like a little slapdash tour. Whether making your own stimulation to make other people's stimulation is introverted, extraverted, XNTJ, or just crazy, one thing I do know about myself is that it's what I love. That's the important thing.

 

[skylights]

No hard feelings here. To post a thread about anything is always to sign for the possibility of conflict. I just hope any headaches have cleared up.


Yeah, personality type will influence a person's activities, which get reflected in a person's body over time as they live, but the exact same goes for everything else in life. A person's look is an opaque blizzard of variables.

Exactly. I like the way you phrase that.

I dunno if that would even do it for me.....
View attachment 9668
I mean, if I put a red filter over this Nebraskan void (source: Australian outback), how many baby boomer aunts would believe it was a Mars pic? How about building an online photo album of American flyover landscapes shopped to look like other planets?

jk I know what you mean. The end of my story is just that I found my writing style this way. When I got home from a Photo Romp, I'd take stock of the images with humor potential (the most; everything has it) and send them to friends back home in batches with my written observations and jokes, like a little slapdash tour. Whether making your own stimulation to make other people's stimulation is introverted, extraverted, XNTJ, or just crazy, one thing I do know about myself is that it's what I love. That's the important thing.

Lol! How interesting! You are an artist and entertainer by nature Your friends and family are lucky to have you!!

 

[skylights]

[MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION]... one thing that I find interesting is that people will often label by first impression of how the work looks instead of looking at it even twice... for instance (sorry for sticking with lit en espanol... I took A LOT of spanish lit ) on the first glance stylistically speaking, Cortazar appears to be straightforward and Marquez appears to be a bit loopy and dreamy... look a bit closer and Cortazar is nuts, he'll play with your head just for the joys of fucking with you and doesn't linger on the descriptions while Marquez seems to lovingly dote on his surroundings and tells a surprisingly straightforward story. Of course we make the same mistakes while looking at and typing people here, disregarding the fact that a seemingly conflicting function can play an excellent second banana [/quote]

Absolutely! I'm not familiar with Cortazar but Marquez really is pretty straightforward plotwise. We read Isabel Allende's House of the Spirits, too, which I liked a little better. Less craziness. Go figure - I'm an intuitive and I dislike magic realism. Poo on stereotypes!

and on extroversion v introversion there's always the confusion on the board between cognitive extroversion and behavioral extroversion... cognitive being the manner in which the environment and oneself are to be perceived while behavioral relates to how social the person is... it'd probably make things a lot less argue-y if that distinction was made more frequently

You've described the split better than I did. Cognitive versus behavioral, not just social. And yes, absolutely, agreed. I think my ISFJ is more behaviorally extraverted than I am half the time...

 

[Galena]

Lol! How interesting! You are an artist and entertainer by nature Your friends and family are lucky to have you!!

I don't know how to respond. That is, in a good way. In my private context, that means a hell of a lot to me.