59 replies to this topic

[Ashton]

I don't know what an Ni PoLR is like directly, since I don't have an Ni PoLR. I'm familiar with the experience you speak of, and I've encountered it many times lol.

Punctuality tends to annoy me a lot, since time schedules are such an arbitrary and rigid imposition on my own natural rhythms. I really, really hate being expected to be at a certain place at a certain time. I'm late everywhere I go, and not on purpose. I think I've been late to work every day for the past past 2 months straight haha. Granted, I know that some things need to be scheduled to ensure proper organization of the world. So in circumstances where it genuinely does matter, I take time seriously. In everything else I prefer to be flexible and laissez-faire. Most people don't know how to properly distinguish when to take time seriously and when to not, so they annoy me.

I also have a hard time estimating accurately in advance how long it will take me to do something. I'll tell someone something will take me 5 minutes to do. Then an hour passes and it's still not done lol. Though sometimes that's just because my attention wanders and I get lost in something else. When I'm really focused and in the zone, I can anticipate time quite effectively.

[Ajax]

Ashton, on Sep 19 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Punctuality tends to annoy me a lot, since time schedules are such an arbitrary and rigid imposition on my own natural rhythms. I really, really hate being expected to be at a certain place at a certain time. I'm late everywhere I go, and not on purpose. I think I've been late to work every day for the past past 2 months straight haha. Granted, I know that some things need to be scheduled to ensure proper organization of the world. So in circumstances where it genuinely does matter, I take time seriously. In everything else I prefer to be flexible and laissez-faire. Most people don't know how to properly distinguish when to take time seriously and when to not, so they annoy me.

I started new job a couple weeks ago and I have been late every day so far and the people there are of the uptight kind so I know i will be in trouble about it shortly. I am basically always late for just about everything. I had an ESTj gym instructor who did complain about my lateness but he did not do it in a way I found really harassing or disproportionate to the situation. I think a lot of Ni types have problems managing physical time.

[Riddy]

pesto, on Sep 19 2008, 06:15 AM, said:

[What I edited out: A really nice (?) ESTj has a forum. Don't worry, it's more like a knowledge db, no bumping allowed etc. It had been 3.5 years since the topic concerned me and 2 since I was logged in there, when he added me elsewhere on the internet. My brother was and still is severely ill, so I added him back, awaiting the energy to be social again. After two months I asked the ESTj how he was and other polite things. His answer was pretty much "Thanks. (sic!) I'm not really here, just trying it out." Gah.]

It's funny to watch ESTjs being particular about having their time respected while they fail so badly at planning themselves. It's funny because for once I can't relate to them and their inability seems random. No judgement though. Like mentioned before; face to face I can easily explain my intentions, but I guess I never have to understand their perceived intention, which would help.

Luckily my best ESTj friend has an INTp gf, so whenever the three of us make plans, she and I work out the schedule.

Um...I know several ESTj's who delight in planning, and are actually pretty good at it. I think someone is making type generalizations.

[christy_b]

pesto, on Sep 25 2008, 09:42 PM, said:

What were you saying, then?

Good question. I guess that's what's unclear to me too and why I'm asking in the first place. My observation is that when I don't show up in time or cancel late (or at all?), ESTjs react with a cold shoulder. When others would be happy with my saying I'm sorry, they seem to take it personally until I've given a thorough explanation of my reasons for wasting their time. Something like that.

In my experience ESTJ wants to have some control in decision making, mainly in order to be helpful and make the situation "run smoothly" (Te/Si ?)). If something changes they see this as a problem, want to know what has caused this problem so they can offer the needed "help". They are annoyed and push for information mainly because they cannot see readily why there has been that change (Ni polar issue?) and feel like the situation is beyond their control. Getting that information they can change plans, see another perspective, change positions and then lend needed "help" (Te?) in order to regain (Si?) harmony.

[Riddy]

christy_b, on Oct 1 2008, 08:05 AM, said:

In my experience ESTJ wants to have some control in decision making, mainly in order to be helpful and make the situation "run smoothly" (Te/Si ?)). If something changes they see this as a problem, want to know what has caused this problem so they can offer the needed "help". They are annoyed and push for information mainly because they cannot see readily why there has been that change (Ni polar issue?) and feel like the situation is beyond their control. Getting that information they can change plans, see another perspective, change positions and then lend needed "help" (Te?) in order to regain (Si?) harmony.

Hahahahahahahah. OMG they love for things to "run smoothly". I get the impression that ESTjs tend to get so into the thick of things that they can find it very hard to genuinely see the bigger picture, although many times they convince themselves that they can see it just fine. But in general, I don't like describing things in terms of PoLR because I think it can give a lot of misconceptions about unvalued functions. I'd rather say that their attitude towards change is the way it is because they are very attuned to Ne and Fi, but don't have a fine-grained way of dealing with them.

As far as Ne goes, they conceptualize events in an Ne way. What I mean by that is that they see events and trends as a succession of states that more or less jump from one to another discretely. But they, being dynamic, don't really think "discretely." So despite their awareness of the complexity of event succession, they tend to focus on just a few paths that they can get a good handle on. Changing the path without really giving contextual information and reasons why makes them feel out of control, and that makes them uncomfortable.

The broad Fi awareness comes into play by giving them some sorta "you are what you accomplish" mentality (this an Fe/Ti characterization of it, no doubt). Again, Fi is a state, rather than an a process, so they don't quite "get" it with as much clarity as a delta NF would. This leads many ESTjs to judge others' character based on how well they act in accordance with their plans.

[christy_b]

pesto, on Oct 1 2008, 05:06 PM, said:

I don't think ESTjs are generally driven by helping though.

lol note the quotation marks around "help" in my post ahahha. I think they think it is help, or at least justify it as such, others don't always see it this way.

[Herzy]

Nick, on Oct 1 2008, 09:50 PM, said:

They don't help shit lol, always trying to control a brotha!

rofl

[crazedrat]

Ni polr is kind of like a generalized aversion / fear to thinking critically and deeply about anything. so basically, do not even suggest to them they need to do this. Try and be as stupid and simple as possible. What seems stupid to you will seem relaxing to the ESTj.

[Riddy]

crazedrat, on Oct 30 2008, 12:44 AM, said:

Ni polr is kind of like a generalized aversion / fear to thinking critically and deeply about anything. so basically, do not even suggest to them they need to do this. Try and be as stupid and simple as possible. What seems stupid to you will seem relaxing to the ESTj.

Why are you such an asshole, crazedrat? You are clearly insecure and you act like you know everything and everyone else is stupid to cover up your own uncertainty. It's incredibly transparent.

ESTjs do sometimes seem to avoid "deep" thinking of a certain kind because Ni themes are a mystery to them. And while it's unlikely that many ESTjs are philosophers of any sort, the tone you take to describe them sounds like an arrogant predjudice against them. Get off your high horse and at least attempt some objectivity, fucktard.

[crazedrat]

that's good advice that i gave him. it works, i have tested it. you used the word objective wrongly. if this information offends you then smile and look the other way.

[Riddy]

crazedrat, on Oct 30 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

that's good advice that i gave him. it works, i have tested it. you used the word objective wrongly. if this information offends you then smile and look the other way.

LOL. I'm not offended. I'm just bothered that you are wasting people's time with your opinionated and derisive characterizations of types. Hell, you may even have some semblance of a point, but you state it like you are some kind of venerated authority on the subject. Why should anyone believe you at all?

[dolphin]

Riddy, on Oct 30 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

LOL. I'm not offended. I'm just bothered that you are wasting people's time with your opinionated and derisive characterizations of types. Hell, you may even have some semblance of a point, but you state it like you are some kind of venerated authority on the subject. Why should anyone believe you at all?

because your avatar is a frog yay

[crazedrat]

Riddy, on Oct 30 2008, 11:03 PM, said:

Hell, you may even have some semblance of a point, but you state it like you are some kind of venerated authority on the subject. Why should anyone believe you at all?

This quote will show you the subjective orientation of Ti. The obvious answer is I have a point because you can observe it in reality. The point is independent of the teller. But for some Ti types it seems in order to have a valid point, it needs to support a good reputation. Also, I think you're targeting me because I insulted your dual earlier.

[Riddy]

crazedrat, on Oct 30 2008, 09:50 PM, said:

This illustrates the subjective orientation of Ti as compared with Te. The obvious answer is I have a point because you can observe it in reality. The point is independent of the teller. But really, I think you're targeting me because I insulted your dual earlier.

No, lol. I don't mind that. ISFps bother me too sometimes with their talkativeness....

I'm targeting you because you are the kind of person that thinks they are completely right all the time and offers ill-informed condescending views with nothing to really back it up but the assertion that you know what you're talking about. What I'm asking you is why you are a trustworthy source? You seem quite reluctant to answer that question and quite eager to shift the discussion to what you presume are my personal motives.

You don't understand what an objective viewpoint is. You are just saying what you think and calling it "objective." I'm asking you to draw a line between yourself and reality. Then tell me why I should accept that your words are accurate descriptions of reality in any way.

[crazedrat]

I said "blah blah blah blah" about ESTj, and you can look at ESTjs, and think about what an ESTj is, and know whether it is true. That is how simple this is. What else needs explaining? There is nothing. If you disagree, then this is another matter, but you haven't yet voiced any disagreement with the statement. So I see no need to further explain things for you.
It is easy to realize when I need more information to justify a statement. This allows me to be completely arrogant at certain times, and to act passive and ask questions at other times.
The informations which justify a statement are observations in reality. Reality does not need to be explained for a statement on it to be made; but only the awareness that you could explain it if someone calls upon you to do so is necessary.
So again, if you want me to further explain myself, you need to explicitly disagree with what I initially said, explain how, and then I will lay reality out for you in a bundle so you can see what I am seeing.
What I am not going to do is globally catalog for you all of my observations remotely relevant to this matter with no idea of where you're confused. That is a waste of my time, and it is unnecessary.

[Tom]

I don't like it when things don't go according to plan...

Anyway, Ni POLR is pretty easy to explain when you know where you're coming from.

Take Ashton for example; he and I are kindred (or business, but whatevs). I think Ashton's easy to talk to/get along with/etc. However, I know Ashton sits on his ass all day and doesn't bother thinking about getting a real job. Ni is lazy. Ew. lol (This is sarcasm for those of you who missed it)

Anyway, I think Ni POLR has more to do with how people feel the world is turning more than anything else. I, a good, solid, dependable Si mode, think of all actions as basically meaningless on a scale which makes them tiny and insignificant, albeit entirely interconnected. I know that there isn't a "divine purpose" or some "predetermined ending" that the world is intrinsically summing toward. I am deterministic, but that doesn't mean that the end result is "destiny". The "end" that most people seem to believe will occur in some fashion is no more than the end of man, which is only a change in shape, not some cataclysm. Even if humankind ends in some fiery ball of death as the sun implodes, there still hasn't been an ending. "Man" is nothing more than a tiny spec of indeterminable minuteness in the vastness of eternity.

Ni POLR hits home when people don't understand this; when some utter fool thinks that his life "means something" in the great scales of fate and the universe other than some minute action which is connected to all other actions by the same means that all other actions are connected. When someone thinks that there's some mystical fate to the universe or some huge movement when all they've succeeded in doing is become a spectacle of minute dust to the "even smaller-minded" individual, who sees his life as a central pawn in the hands of some god or destiny. No man lives alongside giants, for giants do not exist.

Another way I think Ni POLR manifests is in the innumerable bullshit ways someone may try to present the "feel" of a genre through environmental changes at the cost of personal comfort. A great example of this is Bowtie Cinemas (you know, those movie theaters that try to still be from the 50's?). They give you those shitty old seats to sit in and sub-par screens to watch. All for the sake of the genre. Do you know why I hate going to those theaters? Because they don't understand that we've gotten new chairs, color schemes, and screens for a reason. I don't care about the 50's; I'd rather have a comfy chair and a widesceen to watch my movie on. They destroy the comfort level in your environment to produce some internal feeling of "being back then", and I absolutely can't stand it. Gah.

So I hope you've all enjoyed reading about Ni POLR.

[Ajax]

Tom, on May 19 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

eternity.

Another way I think Ni POLR manifests is in the innumerable bullshit ways someone may try to present the "feel" of a genre through environmental changes at the cost of personal comfort. A great example of this is Bowtie Cinemas (you know, those movie theaters that try to still be from the 50's?). They give you those shitty old seats to sit in and sub-par screens to watch. All for the sake of the genre. Do you know why I hate going to those theaters? Because they don't understand that we've gotten new chairs, color schemes, and screens for a reason. I don't care about the 50's; I'd rather have a comfy chair and a widesceen to watch my movie on. They destroy the comfort level in your environment to produce some internal feeling of "being back then", and I absolutely can't stand it. Gah.

So I hope you've all enjoyed reading about Ni POLR.

I would say that those old theaters are things that would be loved more by an Ne/Si type(they like to recycle things/ideas it seems) or a traditionalist. I hate nearly everything that is old myself. I think I kind of know what you are getting at in a way. However, Ni is not usually in as solid and as practical a form as the example you have given. I identify with the spirit of the 1960's but I would not seek to recreate it in a practical tangible form, the identification with that period in time is more in an abstract philosophical way. There is a really good thread on Ni which Ashton contributed much to on Ni, I think it is "the ask me questions about socionics thread" but I do not have the time to search for it now. It basically contained what Ni is as best as it can be described.

I too hate when things do not go according to plan, the dislike of non-fulfillment of plans is not Ni related. I am not sure that you are ESTj but briefly what I often see Ni polr types lacking is a lack of capacity for reflection on their own actions and that of others in a meaningful way. They seem to have trouble learning from lessons and seeing certain patterns because of this. From my perspective as an Ni type they often have a kind of inability to see how things will develop and so they seem to always get caught in very unpleasant situations because of this. INFps are far less active and practical as people than ESTjs but they tend to know when the right time is to move so they don't tend to get caught up in certain types of problems. I read a socionics description of INFps as the types of people who tend to appear to always avoid disasters and problems and I do believe that this is true. Whereas ESTjs often seem logical and active but they seem to always get "caught" or something even though they seem so hard-working and prudent.

Nearly, every good thing that has happened to me personally is due to Ni, it helps me to see things which are not obvious on the surface to most others. It gives me a certain kind of edge with people, I intuitively know how people especially Ni polr types will react to things and what they will do next and believe me I am almost never wrong about that, Fe has some influence on that as well though. Often when an Ni polr type is in conflict with me they end up eventually just flying into a massive rage or becoming insulting or emotional because they feel powerless in the face of Ni. The reason for this is that they try to take an action but I am usually several steps ahead and have already anticipated their actions and they do not seem to understand how I could have done it and they are often very, very surprised in a way that hurts them. However, they can do make me uncomfortable with Si and the consistency of action which seems to accompany that function.

[Tom]

Ajax, on May 24 2009, 03:19 AM, said:

I would say that those old theaters are things that would be loved more by an Ne/Si type(they like to recycle things/ideas it seems) or a traditionalist. I hate nearly everything that is old myself. I think I kind of know what you are getting at in a way. However, Ni is not usually in as solid and as practical a form as the example you have given. I identify with the spirit of the 1960's but I would not seek to recreate it in a practical tangible form, the identification with that period in time is more in an abstract philosophical way. There is a really good thread on Ni which Ashton contributed much to on Ni, I think it is "the ask me questions about socionics thread" but I do not have the time to search for it now. It basically contained what Ni is as best as it can be described.

Well, honestly, what you're seeing in repetition probably has more to do with Te/Fi (like trying to implement an internal system/theme on a set of objects, or trying to implement some physical state for internal purposes). Ni is about the change in an internal hierarchy as well as waiting for Se to come and do things/just knowing (even though that sort of perturbs me as well)/being mystical/etc. That change doesn't always have to be in a new direction (though I think it usually is). The reversion to another state of internal hierarchy, or taking the consumer out of his/her current internal setup and moving him/her into a new one is Ni-related.

Ajax, on May 24 2009, 03:19 AM, said:

I too hate when things do not go according to plan, the dislike of non-fulfillment of plans is not Ni related. I am not sure that you are ESTj but briefly what I often see Ni polr types lacking is a lack of capacity for reflection on their own actions and that of others in a meaningful way. They seem to have trouble learning from lessons and seeing certain patterns because of this. From my perspective as an Ni type they often have a kind of inability to see how things will develop and so they seem to always get caught in very unpleasant situations because of this. INFps are far less active and practical as people than ESTjs but they tend to know when the right time is to move so they don't tend to get caught up in certain types of problems. I read a socionics description of INFps as the types of people who tend to appear to always avoid disasters and problems and I do believe that this is true. Whereas ESTjs often seem logical and active but they seem to always get "caught" or something even though they seem so hard-working and prudent.

ESTj's do seem to tend to get "caught" lol, but I think that ends up being Te ESTjs. They always seem to be caught up in some kind of corporate scandal or being called out on some sexual harassment charge, etc. My dad and my Statistics teacher are both Te LSEs, and it's very easy to see how that might happen when watching them do things. Both of them are constantly commenting women on their looks (usually with some inappropriate connotation, or something you know they said without realizing how bad it was, or at least you hoped they didn't realize..), and my Statistics teacher used to be the CFO of American Express, and won't tell anyone why he quit his 40mil/year job for doing what he hates, and I believe that if that doesn't reek of scandal, nothing does lol.

As for reflection, I usually do my reflecting more passively, if you take my meaning. Like, my past situations are already there in my head, and I've thought on them when they've happened, but I don't usually dwell on mistakes. I think you might not be right there, you may just not be able to see how ESTjs reflect (being their role 'n all).

Honestly, though, it's this kind of thing that makes me think I'm Si ESE...

[ArchonAlarion]

I dislike "old" shit too.

I don't feel its type related and if it is, its likely a Delta deal because they do like "old" shit in my observations.

[Tom]

For the record, I still seriously hate old shit.

[Nick]

Tom, on May 19 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

I don't like it when things don't go according to plan...

Anyway, Ni POLR is pretty easy to explain when you know where you're coming from.

Take Ashton for example; he and I are kindred (or business, but whatevs). I think Ashton's easy to talk to/get along with/etc. However, I know Ashton sits on his ass all day and doesn't bother thinking about getting a real job. Ni is lazy. Ew. lol (This is sarcasm for those of you who missed it)

lmao. poor Ni egos I actually remember thinking "no job is right" before, according to whatever 'vision' I was hopped up on at the time.

Quote

Anyway, I think Ni POLR has more to do with how people feel the world is turning more than anything else. I, a good, solid, dependable Si mode, think of all actions as basically meaningless on a scale which makes them tiny and insignificant, albeit entirely interconnected. I know that there isn't a "divine purpose" or some "predetermined ending" that the world is intrinsically summing toward. I am deterministic, but that doesn't mean that the end result is "destiny". The "end" that most people seem to believe will occur in some fashion is no more than the end of man, which is only a change in shape, not some cataclysm. Even if humankind ends in some fiery ball of death as the sun implodes, there still hasn't been an ending. "Man" is nothing more than a tiny spec of indeterminable minuteness in the vastness of eternity.

Well, you've proved that you're ESTj > ESFj lol. Regardless, I think you're touching on a general theme, but the whole "powerful vision of meaning" doesn't always have to manifest with Ni-egos (especially gamma NTs). Have you read The Stranger? Just an example. I do think that Ni takes a sensationalistic and fatalistic turn in betas (The Matrix, 1984, Brave New World), which on the surface can seem like we're running around chasing some blind destiny that the more pragmatic Te types see as fruitless and dumb. But it's derived from a personalized honing in on whatever "themes" appear to manifest most powerfully, according to the way contexts are perceived in the individual, and how this resulting "vision" is to be applied. But don't be fooled: Ni egos take every context into account, and make sure they're synthesizing as many processes as possible; no one wants to be off the mark with something as paramount as Da Revolution

Quote

Ni POLR hits home when people don't understand this; when some utter fool thinks that his life "means something" in the great scales of fate and the universe other than some minute action which is connected to all other actions by the same means that all other actions are connected. When someone thinks that there's some mystical fate to the universe or some huge movement when all they've succeeded in doing is become a spectacle of minute dust to the "even smaller-minded" individual, who sees his life as a central pawn in the hands of some god or destiny. No man lives alongside giants, for giants do not exist.

I think you're hyperbolizing for rhetoric The converse of this would be an Ni-ego complaining about how an Si-ego thinks processes simply evolve gradually, with no latent symbolism embedded into them, no insight into what is going on 'behind the scenes'. It seriously doesn't have to be meaning; you know that's more personal and philosophical than a function would allow. That shit just seems to be fairly prevalent with beta NFs because everything is processed as intangible developments and interactions; so wtf are we supposed to do lol? Stuck in a well of soul-searching Anyway, I think Ni-polr really manifests when some Si-ego is prompted to 'look inside' what's happening in a given situation -- how whatever process that's occurring has a more abstract reflection within subjective perception -- and they react with a sort of incredulous indifference. That's been the most frequent experience with my Si-ESFj mom.

Quote

Another way I think Ni POLR manifests is in the innumerable bullshit ways someone may try to present the "feel" of a genre through environmental changes at the cost of personal comfort. A great example of this is Bowtie Cinemas (you know, those movie theaters that try to still be from the 50's?). They give you those shitty old seats to sit in and sub-par screens to watch. All for the sake of the genre. Do you know why I hate going to those theaters? Because they don't understand that we've gotten new chairs, color schemes, and screens for a reason. I don't care about the 50's; I'd rather have a comfy chair and a widesceen to watch my movie on. They destroy the comfort level in your environment to produce some internal feeling of "being back then", and I absolutely can't stand it. Gah.

Couldn't this equally apply to Si-egos? Deltas always seem the most classic to me, and often seem very aroused by vicariously experiencing historical contexts in every detail (SiTe ftw). Although, this phenomenon is probably just something that goes both ways, i.e. an ESTj would probably find a beta NFs rendering of a past setting fairly repulsive, etc.

Quote

So I hope you've all enjoyed reading about Ni POLR.

Oh, I fuckin loved it

Ajax, on May 24 2009, 03:19 AM, said:

I would say that those old theaters are things that would be loved more by an Ne/Si type(they like to recycle things/ideas it seems) or a traditionalist. I hate nearly everything that is old myself. I think I kind of know what you are getting at in a way. However, Ni is not usually in as solid and as practical a form as the example you have given. I identify with the spirit of the 1960's but I would not seek to recreate it in a practical tangible form, the identification with that period in time is more in an abstract philosophical way. There is a really good thread on Ni which Ashton contributed much to on Ni, I think it is "the ask me questions about socionics thread" but I do not have the time to search for it now. It basically contained what Ni is as best as it can be described.

I agree completely. Ne/Si does have a very... recursive quality to it (especially in delta because of Te). And likewise, I identify with a lot from the 1920s, but I honestly do feel that a tangible recreation would immediately suck out the substance of my "vision."

Quote

I too hate when things do not go according to plan, the dislike of non-fulfillment of plans is not Ni related. I am not sure that you are ESTj but briefly what I often see Ni polr types lacking is a lack of capacity for reflection on their own actions and that of others in a meaningful way. They seem to have trouble learning from lessons and seeing certain patterns because of this. From my perspective as an Ni type they often have a kind of inability to see how things will develop and so they seem to always get caught in very unpleasant situations because of this. INFps are far less active and practical as people than ESTjs but they tend to know when the right time is to move so they don't tend to get caught up in certain types of problems. I read a socionics description of INFps as the types of people who tend to appear to always avoid disasters and problems and I do believe that this is true. Whereas ESTjs often seem logical and active but they seem to always get "caught" or something even though they seem so hard-working and prudent.

There is actually a grain of truth to this. While Ni is obviously not in any way about time, intrinsically, there is always a personalized sense of 'timing' (whatever that really refers to) with Ni-egos, and with Ni-INxps, a passive receptivity with an eye on the long-term. I can sit around stagnant for months and *still* feel like I'll know the exact moment to act when it comes. I'm probably just delusional, though.

Quote

Nearly, every good thing that has happened to me personally is due to Ni, it helps me to see things which are not obvious on the surface to most others. It gives me a certain kind of edge with people, I intuitively know how people especially Ni polr types will react to things and what they will do next and believe me I am almost never wrong about that, Fe has some influence on that as well though. Often when an Ni polr type is in conflict with me they end up eventually just flying into a massive rage or becoming insulting or emotional because they feel powerless in the face of Ni. The reason for this is that they try to take an action but I am usually several steps ahead and have already anticipated their actions and they do not seem to understand how I could have done it and they are often very, very surprised in a way that hurts them. However, they can do make me uncomfortable with Si and the consistency of action which seems to accompany that function.

I relate very much. I think Fe affects this strongly, because the internal effects and intentions of others that are processed sequentially are filtered throughout that abstract Ni context, and thus viewed as being linked to some more consistent 'theme'. It's fairly frequent someone does something and I find myself nodding expectantly (take it how you want ).

[ArchonAlarion]

Riddy, on Oct 1 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

Hahahahahahahah. OMG they love for things to "run smoothly". I get the impression that ESTjs tend to get so into the thick of things that they can find it very hard to genuinely see the bigger picture, although many times they convince themselves that they can see it just fine. But in general, I don't like describing things in terms of PoLR because I think it can give a lot of misconceptions about unvalued functions. I'd rather say that their attitude towards change is the way it is because they are very attuned to Ne and Fi, but don't have a fine-grained way of dealing with them.

As far as Ne goes, they conceptualize events in an Ne way. What I mean by that is that they see events and trends as a succession of states that more or less jump from one to another discretely. But they, being dynamic, don't really think "discretely." So despite their awareness of the complexity of event succession, they tend to focus on just a few paths that they can get a good handle on. Changing the path without really giving contextual information and reasons why makes them feel out of control, and that makes them uncomfortable.

The broad Fi awareness comes into play by giving them some sorta "you are what you accomplish" mentality (this an Fe/Ti characterization of it, no doubt). Again, Fi is a state, rather than an a process, so they don't quite "get" it with as much clarity as a delta NF would. This leads many ESTjs to judge others' character based on how well they act in accordance with their plans.

Tom, did you read this?

[Tom]

ArchonAlarion, on Jul 1 2009, 09:43 PM, said:

Tom, did you read this?

lol Well, now I have.

The second paragraph seems to be in good order. In fact, I said a very similar thing about the Ni polr being a vertical stretch instead of a horizontal one. This makes a bit more sense to the general public, though, I'm sure lol. It does seem a bit off, mind you, but I think I get where he's going. It isn't so much (or at all really) a contextual thing for me, though. It's more of a conceptual thing. It has to follow all the rules, so to speak; like I can't stand inconsistencies, mal-reasoning, and, most particularly, non-reasoning. Like I really can't stand it when someone thinks something without a reason, makes a statement without a thought behind it, is just blatantly hypocritical, etc. I'm sure most people don't like this, but to me it's more like a neurosis.

Anyway, I really don't like the whole "you are what you accomplish" dilly, regardless of what it may mean, and I don't care really how people follow their plans (or mine), as long as the final product is the same. Now, I am the bastard to always remind people that "the ends include the means", but I mean this in a more "you still did all that bad shit to get you here" way than a "I'm not fond of your methods" way. Sure, I'll be making suggestions, etc. the whole time if I think it'll help, but as long as the final product is the same I could really care less. Anyway, I think this (in my case, I mean; perhaps or perhaps not in Riddy's case) is a more strictly Si/8 thing.

lol And Nick, all my rhetoric was getting at was that while I do think that everything has a specific "end" that won't change, and that end is "destiny", I hate when people think there's some divine plot behind it all (or something like that). I'm deterministic, etc. lol I just get annoyed when people think they have some divine duty to fulfill and such the like. I'm not too certain what you mean by "a more abstract reflection", though. Like, if you mean an underlying internal journey of the person as a sort of parabolic journey that's universally true, then I'd say I am sort of indifferent. Like, maybe not indifferent, but like... There are important and non-important pieces of this to me: it's incredibly important to the individual on this "internal journey" as well as to the observer to experience it; however, I don't think it's so important that we can relate one journey to another on the level you're talking about. Sure, it's important from one person to another who've both experienced it to make that connection with one another, but I don't find it very interesting as a topic of study. Like... Yea, I know already, etc. lol

But I've come to a more profound realization of what Ni polr really is. It's getting annoyed (or becoming uncomfortable, which seems to be more often the case) when people take shit too seriously.

[Nick]

Tom, on Jul 1 2009, 11:30 PM, said:

lol Well, now I have.

The second paragraph seems to be in good order. In fact, I said a very similar thing about the Ni polr being a vertical stretch instead of a horizontal one. This makes a bit more sense to the general public, though, I'm sure lol. It does seem a bit off, mind you, but I think I get where he's going. It isn't so much (or at all really) a contextual thing for me, though. It's more of a conceptual thing. It has to follow all the rules, so to speak; like I can't stand inconsistencies, mal-reasoning, and, most particularly, non-reasoning. Like I really can't stand it when someone thinks something without a reason, makes a statement without a thought behind it, is just blatantly hypocritical, etc. I'm sure most people don't like this, but to me it's more like a neurosis.

I don't like these things either. But the thing you said about 'following all the rules' -- was that related to general reasoning or functions? Cause that general descriptor is something I think correlates well to the TeSi mindset (this could be equally claimed about TiSe). A lot of times with ESTjs (delta STs in general), it seems like they need everything to go according to their preconceived plan, or the "tried-and-true method" they've used before which is "guaranteed" to work. Deviations are often met with fairly harsh condemnation. So, how does/doesn't this play out in your experience?

Quote

Anyway, I really don't like the whole "you are what you accomplish" dilly, regardless of what it may mean, and I don't care really how people follow their plans (or mine), as long as the final product is the same. Now, I am the bastard to always remind people that "the ends include the means", but I mean this in a more "you still did all that bad shit to get you here" way than a "I'm not fond of your methods" way. Sure, I'll be making suggestions, etc. the whole time if I think it'll help, but as long as the final product is the same I could really care less. Anyway, I think this (in my case, I mean; perhaps or perhaps not in Riddy's case) is a more strictly Si/8 thing.

I suppose this somewhat accounts for the above question. It does seem somewhat E8 related, just in the sense of imposing one's will to achieve ends (what I usually like about 8s is how they can easily put aside "petty" feelings to simply get something done). You're different from other ESTjs I've met... smarter, or more open.

Quote

lol And Nick, all my rhetoric was getting at was that while I do think that everything has a specific "end" that won't change, and that end is "destiny", I hate when people think there's some divine plot behind it all (or something like that). I'm deterministic, etc. lol I just get annoyed when people think they have some divine duty to fulfill and such the like. I'm not too certain what you mean by "a more abstract reflection", though. Like, if you mean an underlying internal journey of the person as a sort of parabolic journey that's universally true, then I'd say I am sort of indifferent. Like, maybe not indifferent, but like... There are important and non-important pieces of this to me: it's incredibly important to the individual on this "internal journey" as well as to the observer to experience it; however, I don't think it's so important that we can relate one journey to another on the level you're talking about. Sure, it's important from one person to another who've both experienced it to make that connection with one another, but I don't find it very interesting as a topic of study. Like... Yea, I know already, etc. lol

Ask Ashton if he thinks there's a divine plot behind his life Seriously though, to what degree are you correlating Ni with this aggrandized sense of meaning? I've seen a lot of your duals get on this deluded train of thought (Mr. Tolle), whether it be thinking they have psychic powers or knowing all the 'ins and outs' of human purpose.

What I mean by "abstract reflection" is that, through an Ni lens, all events are taken as forms whose substance is to be seen by reflecting the perception of them... on the subjective perception itself. Things don't register as gradually-developing sensory processes felt subjectively, as in Si; the "sensory" aspect is largely in part removed, so mostly everything takes on a symbolic form, in one way or another (not necessarily anything grand). Like, you "see" something, but you don't really see "it," only the latent impression you derive from your reaction to it; there are no symbolic/abstract qualities embedded within the object itself, only those connected with the subjective impression.

Quote

But I've come to a more profound realization of what Ni polr really is. It's getting annoyed (or becoming uncomfortable, which seems to be more often the case) when people take shit too seriously.

[Tom]

Nick, on Jul 2 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

I don't like these things either. But the thing you said about 'following all the rules' -- was that related to general reasoning or functions? Cause that general descriptor is something I think correlates well to the TeSi mindset (this could be equally claimed about TiSe). A lot of times with ESTjs (delta STs in general), it seems like they need everything to go according to their preconceived plan, or the "tried-and-true method" they've used before which is "guaranteed" to work. Deviations are often met with fairly harsh condemnation. So, how does/doesn't this play out in your experience?

I mean more in a sense of correctness, or following strict, logical "rules". I was going to say "following strict, physical laws", but that sounds so much like "I value Ti, so there ", that I figured it best to say something more neutral.

Quote

I suppose this somewhat accounts for the above question. It does seem somewhat E8 related, just in the sense of imposing one's will to achieve ends (what I usually like about 8s is how they can easily put aside "petty" feelings to simply get something done). You're different from other ESTjs I've met... smarter, or more open.

Quote

Ask Ashton if he thinks there's a divine plot behind his life Seriously though, to what degree are you correlating Ni with this aggrandized sense of meaning? I've seen a lot of your duals get on this deluded train of thought (Mr. Tolle), whether it be thinking they have psychic powers or knowing all the 'ins and outs' of human purpose.

What I mean by "abstract reflection" is that, through an Ni lens, all events are taken as forms whose substance is to be seen by reflecting the perception of them... on the subjective perception itself. Things don't register as gradually-developing sensory processes felt subjectively, as in Si; the "sensory" aspect is largely in part removed, so mostly everything takes on a symbolic form, in one way or another (not necessarily anything grand). Like, you "see" something, but you don't really see "it," only the latent impression you derive from your reaction to it; there are no symbolic/abstract qualities embedded within the object itself, only those connected with the subjective impression.

Ah ok lol. Well, the "divine plot" business may be entirely unrelated to Ni, then . But I always thought of it in a way somewhat like you described, except with a monitor or will for the change in this symbolism (as opposed to Fi, which would have to change the whole system to see that, I'd think). I don't find that particularly upsetting, though, and I might even say that I find it rather interesting. To be honest, how I visualize Ni is much the same way that I visualize Ne, but with more the properties of Si. Like, where Ne is like an enveloping membrane of essential "thing" (moderately described as a "bubble of shifting essence" lol) which Si swims around in (in several different parts, giving form and shape) Ni is the swirling, surrounding essential properties of the "thing" given shape and direction by Se. I find it surprising (from an outside perception of my thought; that is, looking at the process/conclusion as an observer), but I usually think of the static elements as the "driver", at least as far as the perceiving elements are concerned.

I do have a pretty oddly exact image of the elements in my mind lol

*Edit: Actually, I find that Ni valuers usually don't seem to think so much that they have a "purpose", but that everything in their environment does (or at least certain things/people do). And, to be honest, I don't find that very annoying at all. I think the only thing that really resembles polr to me (like when I feel utterly uncomfortable and peeved) is when people say/do things with zero reasoning behind them. I'm not even sure that's type related, to be honest, though lol

[Nick]

Tom, on Jul 2 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

I mean more in a sense of correctness, or following strict, logical "rules". I was going to say "following strict, physical laws", but that sounds so much like "I value Ti, so there ", that I figured it best to say something more neutral.

Ah But isn't "strict, logical rules" more Ti-sounding than anything else?

Quote

Ah ok lol. Well, the "divine plot" business may be entirely unrelated to Ni, then . But I always thought of it in a way somewhat like you described, except with a monitor or will for the change in this symbolism (as opposed to Fi, which would have to change the whole system to see that, I'd think). I don't find that particularly upsetting, though, and I might even say that I find it rather interesting. To be honest, how I visualize Ni is much the same way that I visualize Ne, but with more the properties of Si. Like, where Ne is like an enveloping membrane of essential "thing" (moderately described as a "bubble of shifting essence" lol) which Si swims around in (in several different parts, giving form and shape) Ni is the swirling, surrounding essential properties of the "thing" given shape and direction by Se. I find it surprising (from an outside perception of my thought; that is, looking at the process/conclusion as an observer), but I usually think of the static elements as the "driver", at least as far as the perceiving elements are concerned.

There definitely is a sense of overriding development that usually takes a symbolic form (more so with beta NFs); the "meaning" derived from said thing, however, will depend mostly on the individual's philosophical disposition and ambitions. lol "bubble of shifting essence" -- even though it makes me want to throw up. I get what you're describing, generally speaking, and do agree that Se and Ne act as gauges of sorts to give better direction to the evolution of the Ni and Si subjective processes.

Quote

I do have a pretty oddly exact image of the elements in my mind lol

Don't we all

Quote

*Edit: Actually, I find that Ni valuers usually don't seem to think so much that they have a "purpose", but that everything in their environment does (or at least certain things/people do).

I think that's generally true, because Ni types (more so INxps and ENxjs) tend to process their environment in a holistic, thematic way, and will consequently find some sort of purpose -- if only situational -- sometimes.

Quote

And, to be honest, I don't find that very annoying at all. I think the only thing that really resembles polr to me (like when I feel utterly uncomfortable and peeved) is when people say/do things with zero reasoning behind them. I'm not even sure that's type related, to be honest, though lol

I think you are describing an Ni polr, only via an ESTj rationalization It's often that ESxjs find ideas expressed from an Ni disposition to be "claims with zero reasoning behind them" because of the vagueness, seemingly disconnected quality of them, or overly-personalized method of expression.

[Tom]

Nick, on Jul 2 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

Ah But isn't "strict, logical rules" more Ti-sounding than anything else?

Yeah....

Quote

I think you are describing an Ni polr, only via an ESTj rationalization It's often that ESxjs find ideas expressed from an Ni disposition to be "claims with zero reasoning behind them" because of the vagueness, seemingly disconnected quality of them, or overly-personalized method of expression.

lol no, I just mean when people start arguing with some point that has absolutely no reasoning behind it like "Oh, I hate that guy", or "He's just so right, you know", etc. And then you're like "well what makes you think that?" And they respond with "I just know," or something similar (or even change topic), but you know they just heard it from somewhere else, it's gut reaction, etc. lol *Edit: Even better, and I know you've all heard it: "I know I can't prove it, but that doesn't mean he isn't real; I've just got this feeling that tells me he's there" to which you can easily think of a dozen rationalizations all usually ending up in "don't freak out because your mom has psychosis!"

Which is why I said I think everyone has this problem but I've got it extra bad

[Nick]

Tom, on Jul 2 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

Yeah....



lol no, I just mean when people start arguing with some point that has absolutely no reasoning behind it like "Oh, I hate that guy", or "He's just so right, you know", etc. And then you're like "well what makes you think that?" And they respond with "I just know," or something similar (or even change topic), but you know they just heard it from somewhere else, it's gut reaction, etc. lol *Edit: Even better, and I know you've all heard it: "I know I can't prove it, but that doesn't mean he isn't real; I've just got this feeling that tells me he's there" to which you can easily think of a dozen rationalizations all usually ending up in "don't freak out because your mom has psychosis!"

Which is why I said I think everyone has this problem but I've got it extra bad

Yeah. I also hate it when people make claims and expect me to accept them as valid, based solely on the fact that it 'feels' right to them. Granted, when I'm discussing socionics with someone whom I know and consider intelligent and knowledgeable about the field, I am more likely to accept statements such as, "This person feels beta to me" as valid, only because I know we are coming from a similar, correct stance on the matter, and I have discussed it with them in the past. Aside from that, I could give less of a fuck about peoples' reactions to things or opinions or vibes or whateverthefuck. Save it for the shrink, the journal, the blog. Or perhaps, if you tell me, don't place it on the same level as a legitimate argument. And it's funny, cause when you call these types of people out on the baseless and insubstantial jibber jabber they're rambling on about, they usually attempt to evade by claiming that "it's just their opinion" in some 'take it for what it's worth' format. But I don't want to 'take it for what it's worth' cause it isn't worth shit and I don't want to take your shit.


that was a rant... had to keep it real though

*edit: on the topic of Ni-polrs... sometimes an Ni-polr will be looking for a fairly detailed explanation from an Ni-ego to substantiate an impression or something such. The Ni-ego, maybe having not honed their "image" to completion, or simply expecting the other person to "get it," may not offer a satisfactory explanation, and perhaps claim that they 'just know.' They may or may not, but the Ni-polr will find it irritating, regardless.

[Ashton]

Tom, on Jul 1 2009, 10:30 PM, said:

lol Well, now I have.

The second paragraph seems to be in good order. In fact, I said a very similar thing about the Ni polr being a vertical stretch instead of a horizontal one. This makes a bit more sense to the general public, though, I'm sure lol. It does seem a bit off, mind you, but I think I get where he's going. It isn't so much (or at all really) a contextual thing for me, though. It's more of a conceptual thing. It has to follow all the rules, so to speak; like I can't stand inconsistencies, mal-reasoning, and, most particularly, non-reasoning. Like I really can't stand it when someone thinks something without a reason, makes a statement without a thought behind it, is just blatantly hypocritical, etc. I'm sure most people don't like this, but to me it's more like a neurosis.

I'm pretty neurotic about non-reasoning in people too. I can't stand it when someone asserts something, believes something, or engages in some act—and they have no idea why. That kind of haphazard lack of self-awareness blows my mind. And I consider such people alarming, because a lack of self-awareness also means a lack self-control. A person who is oblivious to themselves cannot be trusted, nor expected to have a sense of integrity and principle. Everything they do, say, think—everything that they are—is an accident.

Quote

Anyway, I really don't like the whole "you are what you accomplish" dilly, regardless of what it may mean, and I don't care really how people follow their plans (or mine), as long as the final product is the same. Now, I am the bastard to always remind people that "the ends include the means", but I mean this in a more "you still did all that bad shit to get you here" way than a "I'm not fond of your methods" way. Sure, I'll be making suggestions, etc. the whole time if I think it'll help, but as long as the final product is the same I could really care less. Anyway, I think this (in my case, I mean; perhaps or perhaps not in Riddy's case) is a more strictly Si/8 thing.

Yeah, I'm not particular about methods employed by other people to achieve ends desired—as long as I agree with the ends at least and that the means used aren't blunderingly wasteful and inefficient.

Myself, I often end up spending inordinate amounts of time researching and figuring out the absolute optimal/efficient/effective methods to go about something. Whether it's finding the best product design for something I want to purchase, or finding superfluous steps that can be cut out in some process, or devising a way to automate some repetitive task, etc. Sometimes I might rationalize to myself that I do it because "in the long-run, making this initial investment of time/energy will save me a lot." Which might be true in some instances, though most often I end up spending more time finding the most efficient route, than the time it would have taken me to just go the inefficient route. But that was never really the point anyway. I really do it for my own enjoyment, driven by an obsessive search for ideal means. I just want the best of the best for the sake of it being the best. To have that ruthless elegance of maximal concision, directness, and expediency in action.

Quote

lol And Nick, all my rhetoric was getting at was that while I do think that everything has a specific "end" that won't change, and that end is "destiny", I hate when people think there's some divine plot behind it all (or something like that). I'm deterministic, etc. lol I just get annoyed when people think they have some divine duty to fulfill and such the like. I'm not too certain what you mean by "a more abstract reflection", though. Like, if you mean an underlying internal journey of the person as a sort of parabolic journey that's universally true, then I'd say I am sort of indifferent. Like, maybe not indifferent, but like... There are important and non-important pieces of this to me: it's incredibly important to the individual on this "internal journey" as well as to the observer to experience it; however, I don't think it's so important that we can relate one journey to another on the level you're talking about. Sure, it's important from one person to another who've both experienced it to make that connection with one another, but I don't find it very interesting as a topic of study. Like... Yea, I know already, etc. lol

I'm indifferent to the notion too. Not that I don't believe there is some "purpose" or "destiny" to things—I do. But it's not something that can really be discussed, and I don't believe it's worthwhile to dwell on it or advertise it. I doubt it can be found endlessly introspecting on the question, "what is my purpose in life?" Neither reason nor faith will get you there—if there is a "plan," it's naive to think that our bounded rationalities could possibly deduce and predict what it is. I figure it's not something that can actually be known a priori until you experience the moment it happens to you, which will likely in some completely inexplicable and unexpected way. Yet you'll know it's Right when it does. And that if one were to examine the conditions which lead up to it, they'd see it came about as the result of an apparently very trivial and disturbingly fragile chain of events resembling nothing more than mere statistical noise, and that any number of things could have gone differently in some seemingly benign way that would have disrupted the real outcome entirely—yet somehow things turned out exactly as they are. To answer whether it was coincidence or fate isn't something that can be discerned from the outside. As you said, only the individual(s) involved can know that, and that is for them alone to know. If a person knows their purpose, the correct thing to do is acknowledge it, shut the fuck up about it, and just do it. Gloating in the metaphysics of it, beyond a point of recreational interest, just seems like it would be a pointless distraction. And probably leads to a lot of deluded egomania and people knocking themselves up with messiah complexes because they thought about it too much, talked about it too much, and overglorified it. And hence probably ruined their ability to actually recognize it if/when it does happen to them, etc.

Oh yeah, I like this Patton quote on the topic:

“A man must know his destiny… if he does not recognize it, then he is lost. By this I mean, once, twice, or at the very most, three times, fate will reach out and tap a man on the shoulder… if he has the imagination, he will turn around and fate will point out to him what fork in the road he should take. If he has the guts, he will take it.”

Obligatory blurb against Determinism: Both brands of Determinism—the spiritual kind ("everything is caused by divine intervention/God's plan") and the material kind ("everything is caused by the Big Bang/Newtonian clockwork")—are morally detrimental outlooks on life. To deny the existence of free will is to simultaneously deny 1) That individual choice is at all relevant and should be respected, 2) That individuals are accountable for their own actions.

Quote

But I've come to a more profound realization of what Ni polr really is. It's getting annoyed (or becoming uncomfortable, which seems to be more often the case) when people take shit too seriously. \

Nah. Maybe a difference of priorities insofar as what you find worth taking seriously vs. not taking seriously. Also could be influenced by your 9-wing (sometimes I wonder if you are a 9 still), an Enneatype which endows one with a remarkable propensity towards being an apathetic sloth.

[Tom]

Ashton, on Jul 2 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

Mayhaps.

[Tom]

lol Anyway...

Ashton, on Jul 2 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

I'm pretty neurotic about non-reasoning in people too. I can't stand it when someone asserts something, believes something, or engages in some act—and they have no idea why. That kind of haphazard lack of self-awareness blows my mind. And I consider such people alarming, because a lack of self-awareness also means a lack self-control. A person who is oblivious to themselves cannot be trusted, nor expected to have a sense of integrity and principle. Everything they do, say, think—everything that they are—is an accident.

It's not a lack of self-awareness or a matter of actions (what I'm talking about anyway)... It's more of a conceptual ineptitude, or an obvious flaw in logical process, lack of logical process, etc. Like, what I'm talking about is how people use non-reasoning in concepts more than actions. Which isn't to say that I don't find it infuriating when people don't think before they do things and end up fucking shit up, I do. But I'm talking about more specifically in like conceptual/philosophic argument/discussion, or mental framework, when people just think they "know" things, and they don't.

Quote

Yeah, I'm not particular about methods employed by other people to achieve ends desired—as long as I agree with the ends at least and that the means used aren't blunderingly wasteful and inefficient.

Myself, I often end up spending inordinate amounts of time researching and figuring out the absolute optimal/efficient/effective methods to go about something. Whether it's finding the best product design for something I want to purchase, or finding superfluous steps that can be cut out in some process, or devising a way to automate some repetitive task, etc. Sometimes I might rationalize to myself that I do it because "in the long-run, making this initial investment of time/energy will save me a lot." Which might be true in some instances, though most often I end up spending more time finding the most efficient route, than the time it would have taken me to just go the inefficient route. But that was never really the point anyway. I really do it for my own enjoyment, driven by an obsessive search for ideal means. I just want the best of the best for the sake of it being the best. To have that ruthless elegance of maximal concision, directness, and expediency in action.

I just don't care unless they totally fuck shit up, hurt someone, etc. Like, if I'm there watching and I see maybe a way someone could cut back on all the time/energy they're wasting, etc., I'll offer (what I think, anyway, are) helpful suggestions for the benefit of the party doing whatever it is that they're doing. And this seems like total 8 Ej-ness without question. Jake always flaps his bullshit yap about how it's "so Te", but I've known basically any type that's an 8 to do this.

Quote

I'm indifferent to the notion too. Not that I don't believe there is some "purpose" or "destiny" to things—I do. But it's not something that can really be discussed, and I don't believe it's worthwhile to dwell on it or advertise it. I doubt it can be found endlessly introspecting on the question, "what is my purpose in life?" Neither reason nor faith will get you there—if there is a "plan," it's naive to think that our bounded rationalities could possibly deduce and predict what it is. I figure it's not something that can actually be known a priori until you experience the moment it happens to you, which will likely in some completely inexplicable and unexpected way. Yet you'll know it's Right when it does. And that if one were to examine the conditions which lead up to it, they'd see it came about as the result of an apparently very trivial and disturbingly fragile chain of events resembling nothing more than mere statistical noise, and that any number of things could have gone differently in some seemingly benign way that would have disrupted the real outcome entirely—yet somehow things turned out exactly as they are. To answer whether it was coincidence or fate isn't something that can be discerned from the outside. As you said, only the individual(s) involved can know that, and that is for them alone to know. If a person knows their purpose, the correct thing to do is acknowledge it, shut the fuck up about it, and just do it. Gloating in the metaphysics of it, beyond a point of recreational interest, just seems like it would be a pointless distraction. And probably leads to a lot of deluded egomania and people knocking themselves up with messiah complexes because they thought about it too much, talked about it too much, and overglorified it. And hence probably ruined their ability to actually recognize it if/when it does happen to them, etc.

Oh yeah, I like this Patton quote on the topic:

“A man must know his destiny… if he does not recognize it, then he is lost. By this I mean, once, twice, or at the very most, three times, fate will reach out and tap a man on the shoulder… if he has the imagination, he will turn around and fate will point out to him what fork in the road he should take. If he has the guts, he will take it.”

Obligatory blurb against Determinism: Both brands of Determinism—the spiritual kind ("everything is caused by divine intervention/God's plan") and the material kind ("everything is caused by the Big Bang/Newtonian clockwork")—are morally detrimental outlooks on life. To deny the existence of free will is to simultaneously deny 1) That individual choice is at all relevant and should be respected, 2) That individuals are accountable for their own actions.

Ok, so I basically couldn't read that first paragraph it was so annoying lol. Also, I can't understand how people can be so thick. Determinism does NOT, in any way, limit "free will". All determinism says is that every action causes every action superseding it, that action causes the actions after that, all actions lead into each other, and, most importantly of all: everything that will happen, will happen, unquestioningly and with one outcome. What that means is that what will happen, is going to happen. End of story. A=A. That doesn't mean that you're forced to make some particular decision, some particular action, etc. It just means that that thing in the future that you're going to do, you'll do. Determinism makes no claims as to what this future is, only that no matter what it is, it will be.There's absolutely nobody pulling the strings behind the curtain, and I, for one, do not believe that the "big bang" was the beginning of all shit. Shit was always here, but in different, changeable forms. A small part is the big bang, etc. and I can explain more outside of this medium if you like . Anyway, you're an absolute fool if you think that all those minute, chemical reactions in your head are somehow not the result of your DNA and your stimuli, not some mangled concept of "freewill". Anyway, the point is that you can have only one future without it being predetermined you piece of shit.

Quote

Nah. Maybe a difference of priorities insofar as what you find worth taking seriously vs. not taking seriously. Also could be influenced by your 9-wing (sometimes I wonder if you are a 9 still), an Enneatype which endows one with a remarkable propensity towards being an apathetic sloth.

lolz nope, I'm just 8w9.

[Nick]

Eldanen... why'd you remove that post -- it was good IMO. I agreed with most of what you said. Looking back at experience, there does seem to be a specific way that the aristocratic quadras prefer to explore historical contexts and such. I don't fully know how to qualify it, but it definitely differs from the democratic types whose attitudes towards this subject I've observed (vero, ashton, steve, gilly). It almost feels like the aristocrats are more emphatic (sometimes distastefully so) about what they like, whereas the democrats seem more explorative about what they like, in a laid-back way -- as in, not being overly-selective about what is good/bad, etc. That's just my intuition at this point, though. As for the difference in :beta: / :delta: styles, that example is humorously accurate. It's not that betas are more adept linguists, just that they're method of acclimation (more so beta NFs) is a very intuitive one, so the skilled people will exhibit the kind of fluency you've noticed (my Fe-ENFj 3w4 friend exhibits this when talking about history or aesthetic matters). The actual attitudes though... both of the quadras have an arrogance about their aristocracy and how it relates to their historical preference, I think. Betas feel more lofty to me, and sort of amorphous in the way they go about expressing themselves, whereas deltas seem to take pride in their 'attention to detail' and strong hold on the tangible aspects of their respective focus.