Ok- so I realize that this may be a little long to read. So opt out if you are not into reading a debate. I'm not asking anybody to declare a winner here... I'm just asking for the powers of Te and Ni that be (or any others with an insightful response) to extrapolate my friends type with the limited information given here.
Here is some other useful info:
I had him take "the test", and types as INTJ, but he is WAY goofy, can get very visceral in a debate. I have brought him to tears. He has at times called me cold hearted. I have a female friend that tests INTJ as well as my girlfriend's dad who tests similar, and they would NEVER be emotionally goated like that. So I think it's a negative. His girlfriend says he is way too social to be an introvert. If he is indeed an introvert, it's Fe that makes him so socially fluid and openly emotional.
He is also very smart and talented. He is musical, and does electronic music, but he is not technically savy. I set it up, synthesize it, program it, he bangs it out (as in plays the music on the fly- where I would be pre-emptive and plan out my music and program to exaction), I mix it, master it, and promote it etc. He is vocally fluid (he can rap, does ridiculous impressions that are spot on of anybody).
Please help. I can usually type people, but he is a kind of a head scratcher...
- Travis: Thats cute...It was cuter when they tried and failed to do that in 2004 and 2008.
Yesterday at 2:07pm ·
Soured Lie: Democratic process is garbage. 51 percent shitting on 49. It just sums that up. I doubt they would be successful and agree in regards to that. We live in a republic! Group rights should be a compilation of individual rights. Not negate them. At least their protest is actual action. I certainly can't say that much about occupy. Nobody even remembers that or can tell you what they accomplished.
Yesterday at 5:12pm via mobile ·
Travis: At least Occupy only failed once. I'm sure you wouldn't be talking about how much garbage our democratic process is if you saw Romney take the white house. Funny how people are quick to defend the government when it works in their favor and hate on it when it doesn't go their way.
23 hours ago ·
Soured Lie:Who said I was voting for Romney?
8 hours ago ·
Travis: Or the OTHER guy who wanted to deregulate wallstreet and throw out roe v. wade...
7 hours ago ·
Soured Lie: Our economy sucks. A little deregulation for a little while wouldn't hurt the economy dude. There isn't a simple one sided solution. There are no hard turns and instant gratifications when it comes to these issues. I look at politics (concerning the economy and some social issues) the same way I look at evolution; at least in a K Theory fashion. Remember the equalibrium debate? Well there is no equalibrium that is maintained. It's the same way with politics. It's a see saw effect. You have two component- X and Y. Lets say X is socialism, democracy, communism; whatever you like to call (for arguments sake we'll say it's a political theory that manages economic decline by spreading thin, sharing, and focusing on social issues (which is obviously more important to a greater majority than economic stability right now as we can see from polls and who was voted as president and so forth). Then we have Y which would be unfettered and unregulated capitalism. There is no perfect maintained equalibrium. One has the upper hand at any point and time. It teeters up and down between the two, but never a perfect balance (otherwise there is no competition, so we get stagnation with no reason to adapt- perfect harmony is really the death of us and evolution. They drive each other into propulsion by teetering for power, but one absolutely cannot thrive without the other. As X will decline into economic disparity without economic growth, but Y will ultimately self destruct without being tamed. So each one needs to thrive at one point and time (hence the teeter effect). It's the same with evolution. Species drive each other into adaptation by way of competition. So there is no real argument for one side or the other. There is just what you support and how you adapt to your situation. I'm personally a competative person. I disagree that life directs how I move, and that circumstances dictate my situation. I prefere to be in control and be the one who changes environments and my own situation. That is my philosophy. Break an egg? Make an omolette.
5 hours ago ·
Travis: George W. Bush used to chamion free markets, but he actually had to back peddle on that precisely BECAUSE it was the only thing that could save the economy: (see source here:AFP: Bush says sacrificed free-market principles to save economy) If you really think that people in wallstreet (some of which admitted straight to Frontline that they we're responsible for the financial collapse) need less regulation, then you forgot completely about 2000-2008 when we had lowered restrictions almost entirely. Bush himself admits that deregulated markets (especially in a recovering economy) are bad news and they result in CEO's getting huge corporate bonuses while at the same time firing thousands of workers. Please, tell me how that helps the economy. I don't think thousands of laid off workers on unemployment helps the economy. Unless of course you want to take that away from them too, even though they paid into it with their taxes. And if you are really thinking we should make an omelette with a broken egg, then why not support working with Obama? (who would be the egg in this equation). It sounds like you're supporting throwing the whole dozen of eggs out the window. Also, freewill is an illusion and you're still being completely controlled by the thousands of little organisms that live on your body. The sooner you realize that selfishness is not sustainable without a larger group to support itself, the better off you'll be. Like you said yourself "It teeters up and down between the two, but never a perfect balance ". So putting all your eggs in one basket (or relying entirely on yourself) will only get you so far. Like when Obama said, "you didn't build that". He was referring to the fact that no one has ever gotten anywhere completely by themselves. They get assistance from families, friends, banks, rich parents, the government or whatever resource they have to to make it work. You can have all the dreams and aspirations you want, but you aren't going anywhere without a leg up. You can't hire yourself to do a job, you have to rely on someone else to do that. If you prefer to be in control of yourself, then why would you want the banks to have so much say in whether or not you can find work? Why would you want them to have all the power in the world to end your shit at the stroke of a pen, without any regard to how much YOU did for their company?Bush says sacrificed free-market principles to save economy
www.google.comWASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from "collapse."
5 hours ago ·
Soured Lie:I never said we don't rely on each other, we are social beings by nature. But we are individuals. We need to be independent. I'm sorry, but attitude regarding not being able to accomplish anything without a leg up is garbage, and you wont get anywhere with that attitude, and you will always be waiting for somebody to give you that leg up rather than by exerting some energy and being independent. I don't care what bush did. He didn't save the economy. Are you serious?
3 hours ago ·
Travis: I'm not saying Bush saved the economy, I'm saying he prevented a bigger catastrophe by imposing heavier regulations during his 2nd term. Something you seem to think isn't helpful to the economy. You're right about Bush not fixing the economy, he actually gave many of these people the license to defraud the public in the first place, by deregulating the markets in his first term. The moral of the story here is, deregulation of the market leads to more fraud. This is something that not only the greatest champion of free markets in our history (Alan Greenspan) and a person who presided over one (G W Bush) both admit that this is not a functional model. You should care what Bush did, because your asking to repeat the same things he did that got us here in the first place. Have fun hiring yourself and paying your paycheck to yourself. lemme know how that works out.
2 hours ago · Edited ·
Travis: PS - The idea of independence is false...Or did you miss the whole point of Century of the Self? Its a false illusion sold to the people, to make them feel more empowered than they actually are and it primarily serves to generate more consumerism. The idea of independence might sell more shoes, but it doesn't work on a larger scale. You are co-dependent on society to keep your water clean, deliver your goods and services, keep your food safe, etc. Tell me HOW exactly are you independent?
2 hours ago ·
Soured Lie:Wow- yeah. You're a goner.
about an hour ago ·
Soured Lie: What I really think is funny is that you think it's just up to one man and he has all the power undiluted. It's the enigmatic bad guy smoking a cigar while sitting on a mahogany desk raping the statue of liberty in the white house or on wall street. I mean really, talk about crying about a democratic process when it doesn't suit you. Come on, give me a fucking break. Bush didn't save or sink athe economy single handedly is more what I was aluding to... Now that's a fucking cute thought. I think it's hilarious that you praise good deeds done in a social or group setting, because good things don't happen on people's own accord apperently ("you didn't do that"), yet you can single out men who supposedly single handedly do dastardly deeds and blame them and them alone. Alan Greenspan. George Bush. Harry Truman. Etc. Etc. You get my point.
about an hour ago · Edited ·
Travis: I never blamed Alan Greenspan or Bush, they admitted to it all on their own. I didn't put the words in their mouths, they said that shit directly. I never once said it was Bush's fault alone, but to say he didn't have a key role in not just deregulation but also increasing the national debt beyond repair, is to flat out deny the truth. He cut taxes during war time. That's considered suicide no matter how to look at it (from the right or the left) and that's what got us into this mess.
Its also the same kind of mess that republicans have always gotten us into. Increase defense spending, cut taxes, cut education, cut welfare, cut planned parenthood. Whose supposed to pay for that?
Also, I'm not giving Bush and Greenspan any credit beyond what is undeniably a part of their record. I'm not saying anything that is untrue. I'm just telling you that two of the most experienced people in the world (As far as handling an economic disaster of this magnitude) are telling you you're wrong and admitting (at least partial) guilt for it. For some reason you're just not willing to acknowledge any of that.
Also, I'm not saying good things never happen on someone's own accord. But without the things needed to do that, you're efforts are meaningless. How does one pull up themselves by their own bootstraps when they can't even afford boots?
Also that comment about the statue of liberty? Not my style at all. It sounds like your trying to put my ideas in a car and drive that car into a tree. Its not one man alone. There's thousands of them and their all very guilty of very real laws that any one of us would have to face. Many of these people have admitted their guilt on film and they still haven't been stopped. Because they can afford the best cops, judges lawyers and prison guards money can buy. They have special connections, they have lobbyists, they have money, they have power. No they are not conspiring together, they don't have to. They just have to all live under that bullshit Ayn Rand philosophy of "gimme that its mine!!!"
Yknow Ayn Rand collected benefits from the government too
33 minutes ago ·
Soured Lie: Nice back peddle. BAHAHA. I like how everybody blames Ayn Rand too. It's about as silly as the notion of Nietzsche being responsible for the second reich just because hitler championed his philosophy. I doubt she collected more than she had payed in taxes. I swear I can read your argument in a thousand blogs of overvoiced opinion and half baked intellect. Let's stick to the music, because I swear you don't get what I'm saying. You are responsible for YOU ultimately. Nobody can live for you and you can't live for anybody else. People can be self sufficient as a group and work together cohesively toward a common goal and accomplish many huge awesome things, but when you force others by law to give to others what they havent payed into, or use a governing force to steal in order to "liberate" those who just "can't find a job", or because the "economy is bad", people aren't thinking. That isn't any kind of anarchism. That's not liberty. That's just poor thinking and bad justification. I don't buy it for a second. There is a better solution than using the government you complain about to leverage yourself into boot straps that you won't fucking do anything with. You can justify your balogna (that just doesn't have the same ring to it when you spell that out) all you want with saying they said it themselves, so now they must be responsible and all of a sudden they speak for everybody. I mean really- that's a little narcissistic to take all that credit. And it's funny that you give it to them. You didn't believe what they said before, but then it's oppurtune to buy their shit now? Stupid.