Personality Cafe banner

101 - 106 of 106 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Discussion Starter #101
I found it interesting because of the idea of EII's being 'aware of Se tactics' when Se is their PoLR. I also don't think there's anything to it, as there are just too many factors to take into consideration about i.e. the temperament of the person, if the topic is a sensitive one, what the general motivation is, how much free time people have etc. I'd say types with high-dimensional Se are probably more likely to respond in a 'suitable' way to something like pressuring from others, but again there's just too much to consider to come to a firm conclusion.
I dunno about that. I think that being aware of it necessarily means that you will be cognizant of HOW to stand firm against it. I rather thought this was more a question of capacity and experience determining what can and cannot be done. That's why I think EII could be good at this if they are staying in the debate over a Fi point or something. I'm not so sure there really are too many factors to consider - if the person is capable of it then they are capable of it, yannoe? If there are more situations where they cannot, then the rules are different for that situation, but when discussing a general rule we are trying to look at the average and not at the exceptions. Exceptions always exist to any rule, but they aren't always useful. ;)

The question is basically whether EII would be good at this in something like 60-70% of situations. That's a good baseline. And when looking at that breadth of situations...I'd be inclined to say EII would not be good at staying in the argument.

I think the explanation for EII's burst of standing firm seeming that way in an argument is because their standing firm like that is unusual and thus MEMORABLE. We remember the times EII stood up more than the times they sat down. That's my theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: d e c a d e n t

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
I dunno about that. I think that being aware of it necessarily means that you will be cognizant of HOW to stand firm against it. I rather thought this was more a question of capacity and experience determining what can and cannot be done. That's why I think EII could be good at this if they are staying in the debate over a Fi point or something. I'm not so sure there really are too many factors to consider - if the person is capable of it then they are capable of it, yannoe? If there are more situations where they cannot, then the rules are different for that situation, but when discussing a general rule we are trying to look at the average and not at the exceptions. Exceptions always exist to any rule, but they aren't always useful. ;)

The question is basically whether EII would be good at this in something like 60-70% of situations. That's a good baseline. And when looking at that breadth of situations...I'd be inclined to say EII would not be good at staying in the argument.

I think the explanation for EII's burst of standing firm seeming that way in an argument is because their standing firm like that is unusual and thus MEMORABLE. We remember the times EII stood up more than the times they sat down. That's my theory.
Well, the point is that any type could be good at standing their ground in an argument. It just depends on what the argument is (i.e. how meaningful it is for the person), where it takes place (i.e. feeling the need to defend the ego vs being in a public area), the health of the individual (i.e. if extremely tired), general situation (i.e. if the person is fairly busy/doesn't have much time) etc. etc. This is what I mean by too many other factors to take into account. Things like sticking with an argument is very situational behaviour the majority of the time. You can make a general rule, but the fact remains that if there are so many other factors which need to be taken into account, the general rule isn't particularly strong because it's not an intrinsic aspect of the person, but instead heavily dictated by external factors as well.

It may be more memorable, but that isn't really relevant to the initial point which was about if EIIs would be good at or more likely to stand their ground in an argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Discussion Starter #103
Well, the point is that any type could be good at standing their ground in an argument. It just depends on what the argument is (i.e. how meaningful it is for the person), where it takes place (i.e. feeling the need to defend the ego vs being in a public area), the health of the individual (i.e. if extremely tired), general situation (i.e. if the person is fairly busy/doesn't have much time) etc. etc. This is what I mean by too many other factors to take into account. Things like sticking with an argument is very situational behaviour the majority of the time. You can make a general rule, but the fact remains that if there are so many other factors which need to be taken into account, the general rule isn't particularly strong because it's not an intrinsic aspect of the person, but instead heavily dictated by external factors as well.

It may be more memorable, but that isn't really relevant to the initial point which was about if EIIs would be good at or more likely to stand their ground in an argument.
Its memorability is intended to lampshade the reason for why the topic would even come up in the first place, IE the impression that EIIs would be good at such. I'm searching for the meaning of the vibe that was given. :)

Yes, there are many specifics and variabilities. To arrive at the baseline you assess the commonality of those situations and cross reference the results gathered from the situations against the commonality of that situation, thus computing an average which represents the general rule. We just don't have the data to do the thing. The number of factors really doesn't prevent us from assessing general rules - if it did, then the type wouldn't actually mean anything at all. There are general rules. Even if the general rule is something like "when the type representative feels this way the rule is this and when that way the rule is that" because the rest of the time is split down the middle....that is just a complex generality with clauses and so forth. Basically, if you can say "this is a thing that is observable in this type that you don't also observe in every other type", then it has some kind of base line we can work with. For something as general as this, though, it would be helpful to go back to defining what good at an argument even actually means, lol.

Honestly, I think it is possible to arrive at this generality, and I think it would take many many man-hours of observation and cross referencing to actually do it. More effort than I will go to without a grant XD

Though...to be fair, I question whether type actually DOES mean anything at all, so hey. There ya go. Maybe it is all pointless in the end, valuable only for the thoughts that we had. In the end, its a learning point and a journey. How many roads must a man walk down? Enough to see the beginning and the end, I say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
Its memorability is intended to lampshade the reason for why the topic would even come up in the first place, IE the impression that EIIs would be good at such. I'm searching for the meaning of the vibe that was given. :)

Yes, there are many specifics and variabilities. To arrive at the baseline you assess the commonality of those situations and cross reference the results gathered from the situations against the commonality of that situation, thus computing an average which represents the general rule. We just don't have the data to do the thing. The number of factors really doesn't prevent us from assessing general rules - if it did, then the type wouldn't actually mean anything at all. There are general rules. Even if the general rule is something like "when the type representative feels this way the rule is this and when that way the rule is that" because the rest of the time is split down the middle....that is just a complex generality with clauses and so forth. Basically, if you can say "this is a thing that is observable in this type that you don't also observe in every other type", then it has some kind of base line we can work with. For something as general as this, though, it would be helpful to go back to defining what good at an argument even actually means, lol.

Honestly, I think it is possible to arrive at this generality, and I think it would take many many man-hours of observation and cross referencing to actually do it. More effort than I will go to without a grant XD

Though...to be fair, I question whether type actually DOES mean anything at all, so hey. There ya go. Maybe it is all pointless in the end, valuable only for the thoughts that we had. In the end, its a learning point and a journey. How many roads must a man walk down? Enough to see the beginning and the end, I say.
That's fair. Sometimes I don't know if it's worth looking that hard though.

Arriving at a baseline does require you to be reductive to an extent (the extent depends on how broad the field is). General rules are fine as long as you remember they're general rules and so it's correlation - it might be really accurate correlation and work the vast majority of the time, but it's still correlation. You do need a baseline to work from with typing, but I also believe that with typing it's about getting to the core of each function in each position and then looking at how those work within a mind rather than how it's expressed or anything. Typing by expression is all you can really do when trying to type others, but asking a lot of questions etc. can help. I can't even remember what we were discussing now!

It's not something I think should be taken extremely seriously, especially in the context of psychology, but it's interesting. The road thing confuses me because if you're seeing the beginning and the end, that means you have to walk down at least one full road but no more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Discussion Starter #105 (Edited)
That's fair. Sometimes I don't know if it's worth looking that hard though.

Arriving at a baseline does require you to be reductive to an extent (the extent depends on how broad the field is). General rules are fine as long as you remember they're general rules and so it's correlation - it might be really accurate correlation and work the vast majority of the time, but it's still correlation. You do need a baseline to work from with typing, but I also believe that with typing it's about getting to the core of each function in each position and then looking at how those work within a mind rather than how it's expressed or anything. Typing by expression is all you can really do when trying to type others, but asking a lot of questions etc. can help. I can't even remember what we were discussing now!

It's not something I think should be taken extremely seriously, especially in the context of psychology, but it's interesting. The road thing confuses me because if you're seeing the beginning and the end, that means you have to walk down at least one full road but no more.
I get the bolded a lot. I'm fuzzy, I guess. Or to put it the way @Immolate described it, I'm watery. I think that's a good description. I circle around the point and backtrack back to the root causes of why I said things while I am saying more things. Its like I'm stuck in the big picture of it all and keeping track of all the various streams of consciousness currently flowing, but I keep missing all the nitty gritty and the super fine details because I am not staying on just one topic well enough to hammer things out. I don't do the detail work so well.

We were discussing whether EII would be good at effectively remaining in an argument situation (whether or not they are good at the actual arguing is not the topic, only if they are good at remaining within it). So, basically, how well they can remain in a Se charged situation.

Yes, you certainly must be reductive to some extent. That's a great way to put it - what I was trying to say earlier, finding the average situation. That's what I meant with that, you have to exclude the outliers through reduction in order to even find said baselines. I agree. Thank you for giving me that word, it helped refine my thoughts and expression.

As for whether this level of work is worth it...well, that's why so much of the world goes unexplored, isn't it? We simply don't have the time to do everything. We have to choose between research and application, improvement of what is and advancement to what could be. These two needs pull and grate against one another, and it is the tensions between them that cause advancement to occur in steps and starts. Look at computer technology. It is easy enough to go and research how to make the best computer, use only the best materials...but what is being tried is finding the best materials and methods at the most cost effective means. There is a balance point that must be struck. Even those that are trying to make the best computer will have results, from their failures, that they can use to advance the current situation. Researchers must switch between the two and be mindful of both.

The problem is, typology has invisible results. When you cannot see the results of your tests directly, it is like studying Schroedinger's Cat. Is it alive or dead? Is it ESTP or ESTJ? The answers to these questions are ever fuzzy. In my view, the answer to these two is the same. It all depends on context. When we come to the conclusion that one or the other is true, we risk losing the information that can be gleaned from the other perspective. There needs to be some level of surety before you can claim one or the other. The assurance of evidence is hard to find in typology-land, and so the assurance of thinking you are right is hard to find. Fortunately for me, at least, I don't mind being unsure all that much.

If you walk down one road and no more, you FIRST saw the beginning and then saw the end. You must walk until you see the beginning AND the end, not see the beginning THEN the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Discussion Starter #106
That's not the only reason; it's against the rules to share the contents of a PM without permission.


Agreed. Just as Fenix says, he is clearly dynamic, and valued vs devalued functions are not that difficult to tell apart. Fenix imposes emotion on others. Thankfully, they're nice ones.
You, sir, are a ****ing prophet.

I have been doing a lot of GMing in the last couple years. I run tabletop games like Vampire the Masquerade and Dresden Files. My GMing style has finished solidifying now that I am older. My method primarily consists of introducing characters and finding ways to make the players appreciate, feel connecting to, and like these characters. Then story events happen and the players make some kind of impact on the setting itself. Maybe a building they have gotten attached to is destroyed, maybe a character they like dramatically dies, maybe a child loses their soul to a soul-sucking monster. Then I do a time skip and introduce more characters and settings and paint broader strokes of the world. Then I repeat process! Just in this last session of Witchcraft, I revealed that the mother of one of my player character's has secretly all along been the murderess that killed both of the parents of another player character, and she did so while mind controlled by the shadowy organization that runs large parts of the world...which another player character had secretly been a part of all along, and ALSO was secretly the ACTUAL father of the player character that lost their parents - their father had in fact been a stepfather all along! And this was only a one hour segment of the mass of reveals I'd been orchestrating for a couple months, I also revealed much more that was going on behind the scenes. I emotionally "hook" my players and impose a progression of time and the development of attachments and emotions over time and then TAKE IT AWAY!!! Mwahahaha~!

My players love-hate me.

For those that want to hear me natter on about my life and mind and what's been going on since I was here last (so precisely no one XD): Imposing emotions is EXACTLY what I do, but when I wrote this questionnaire oh so long ago, I couldn't see that yet. I was too taken up with learning and building a complex worldview. THESE days, I am obsessed with politics and how theology, politics, and archetypes interact to produce irrational emotional responses to complex issues of societal morals, such as on abortion and gun control. I've spent well over 1000 hours studying it now. Now, its perfectly obvious that the thing that I do is looking inside others and calling to the surface that which I can use to derive the reaction I desire from them, but only choose to do so situationally and for a specific purpose. The Creative Fe is apparent. What seems weird to me these days is my relationship with Si. I've reached that age where instincts to have a child keep popping up, but I am without a mate and have developed precisely no additional skills that help around the home. I've only just started trying to get diet and exercise under control, and I'm freakin' 28. I've avoided the worst of the **** I could have been eating, keep sugar low and stuff, but I prefer to do the minimum I can get way with on dieting and exercising and focus on thinking. Doesn't work so well, gotta learn more skills.
 
101 - 106 of 106 Posts
Top