Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 13/01/2008, 09:40 PM
itinerant_stapler71's Avatar
itinerant_stapler71 itinerant_stapler71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 77
Default type me

So I found this strange little theory while traveling along wikipedia. My MBTI type is inconclusive. Different MBTI tests seem to give different results, including INTJ, INTP, ISTP, ISTJ, ENTP, ESTP, and ESTJ. I'm not totally sure what to make of all of those, although I'm clearly a very T type.

I've been reading some of the socionics type descriptions and I'm not really sure, as there are a lot of different things in those descriptions which I could see myself as (although, again, as with MBTI, I'm pretty sure I'm some kind of T type). I've seen the section on VI here, but I find it difficult to believe that anyone could tell my type simply by looking at me, so I'd like to take a slightly more analytical approach to this.

What type do you think I am based on what I've written here? And what other kinds of information do you need to know about me in order to type me?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 13/01/2008, 10:12 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
What type do you think I am based on what I've written here?
A T type.

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
And what other kinds of information do you need to know about me in order to type me?
1. What would you say you are naturally good at?
2. What would you say you are you bad at?
3. Are you naturally clearly an eraly bird or a night owl?
4. How would you describe your natural temperament?
5. Which are your main interests?
6. Can you name some things you dislike doing?
7. Are you more reactive or more proactive?
8. Would you say that you are a naturally born leader?
9. Are you a very serious person?

More questions might come later ...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 13/01/2008, 10:46 PM
itinerant_stapler71's Avatar
itinerant_stapler71 itinerant_stapler71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
A T type.


1. What would you say you are naturally good at?
Thats kind of a broad question. Probably the thing I'm best at is working with computers or solving logic-related problems, but I'm hesitant to simply declare this as without . For example, consider the following function definitions at wikipedia:

Quote:
Te is responsible for assessing the efficiency of actions, understanding of technical processes, the accomplishment of work, the efficient and prudent use of resources, and the acquisition of relevant and useful information. Te understands the difference between effective and ineffective behavior when performing a procedure or accomplishing a task, and aspires to increase the frequency of productive outcomes within a system.

Ti is responsible for understanding logic and structure, categorizations, ordering, logical analysis and distinctions, logic explanations and proof based on a minimal set of "self-evident" rules and axioms. Ti interprets information via a closed and internally consistent system of truths. Ti is particularly aware of syntactic correctness and how words relate to each other in meaning and structure.
Of these descriptions, it seems like would more readily apply to this situation because it deals with the most efficient way of solving a problem, but my understanding of from pages like some of the articles on this site suggests that is also related to dealing with rules and establishing systems of rules. That also applies to data processing.

So I have no idea what that would indicate as far as whether I might be a Te or a Ti type.

Quote:
2. What would you say you are you bad at?
Dealing with other people and socializing. Most of the time I don't really have anything of interest to say, so I don't say anything.

Quote:
3. Are you naturally clearly an eraly bird or a night owl?
It varies. I can be somewhat of a night owl at times. At other times, I'll be up at five in the morning.

Why is this important? Does this have any correlation to socionics?

Quote:
4. How would you describe your natural temperament?
I'm a more or less even-keeled person, I suppose. I try to be reasonable. I'm not always, sometimes.

Quote:
5. Which are your main interests?
I have so many interests, its hard to know where to begin. I'm interested in computers (especially in games ), math, science, history, linguistics, economics, philosophy, sociology. In some of these areas, however (like linguistics) I have practically no experience, but it's something I could see myself studying in the future.

Quote:
6. Can you name some things you dislike doing?
Laundry?

Quote:
7. Are you more reactive or more proactive?
Probably more reactive. But every situation is different, and my actions will obviously vary for each scenario.

Quote:
8. Would you say that you are a naturally born leader?
Not really, no. However, it depends on the activity. If there's some task that I happen to know a lot about, I'll certainly throw my opinion in, and that can sometimes lead to leadership roles.

Quote:
9. Are you a very serious person?
Sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 13/01/2008, 11:31 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

What did you get on the Socionics Type Assistant? http://socionicstypeassistant.com/stc/sta.html
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 14/01/2008, 12:29 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
Probably the thing I'm best at is working with computers or solving logic-related problems, but I'm hesitant to simply declare this as without .
You shouldn't bother about the functions at this stage. You should try to describe your behaviour and attitudes as accurately as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
So I have no idea what that would indicate as far as whether I might be a Te or a Ti type.
Good. Then you don't have prejudices. Stop thinking about the functions for the moment and concentrate on how to describe yourself without any references to specific functions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
Dealing with other people and socializing. Most of the time I don't really have anything of interest to say, so I don't say anything.
You and I are similar in that respect, but more information is needed. It suggests introversion and thinking, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
It varies.
No, it doesn't. What varies is your body temperature, and if you are a night owl you are probably warmer when you go to bed than when you wake up, whereas if you are an early bird you might be warmer in the morning than when you go to bed. If you are a night owl, you might tend (as I do) to go to bed later and later in the night if you don't have to get up at a specific time due to wordly duties. The day and night cycle of a night owl is longer than 24 hours, whereas for an early bird the cycle is near 24 hours or perhaps even less than 24 hours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
I can be somewhat of a night owl at times. At other times, I'll be up at five in the morning.
And that is totally irrelevant. You are either a night owl or an early bird by natural temperament. It is not something you can change at will -- you are born either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
Why is this important? Does this have any correlation to socionics?
Try to answer the questions first, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
I have so many interests, its hard to know where to begin. I'm interested in computers (especially in games ), math, science, history, linguistics, economics, philosophy, sociology.
What kind of philosophy are you drawn to? Do you have any favourite philosophers, and why those? Do you have any philosophical views, and which are they? What is your view on science? What is science to you, what should it be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
Sometimes.
In what situations are you serious? When are you not?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 14/01/2008, 01:28 AM
itinerant_stapler71's Avatar
itinerant_stapler71 itinerant_stapler71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
What did you get on the Socionics Type Assistant? http://socionicstypeassistant.com/stc/sta.html
Self-description

Normal mode
Aloof, Audacious, Cogitative, Cognitive, Coherent, Cold, Conceptual, Creditworthy, Daydreamer, Deductive, Dependable, Detached, Determinative, Dialectical, Dispassionate, Do-not-disturb, Down-to-earth, Fickle, Fictive, Flexible, Frank, Frigid, Hard-hearted, Heedful, Hesitating, Homebody, Illative, Impassive, Incoherent, Incorrigible, Indecisive, Indrawn, Inductive, Inferential, Inflexible, Intellectual, Introvert, Inventive, Inward, Irresolute, Logically-minded, Loner, Lukewarm, Meandering, Open-ended, Outspoken, Planner, Precise, Private, Quiet, Ratiocinative, Rational, Reasoner, Reliable, Reserved, Resolute, Responsible, Scatter-brained, Sci-tech, Scientific, Secluded, Self-assertive, Shy, Solitary, Spaced-out, Speculative, Stolid, Subdued, Swerving, Taciturn, Technically-minded, Thoughtful, Unapproachable, Unemotional, Ungregarious, Uniform, Unimpassioned, Unsociable, Unsympathetic, Variable, Wandering, Wishful-thinker, Withdrawn, Woolgatherer [84].

Reversed mode
NOT Acquisitive, NOT Adoring, NOT Affable, NOT Affectionate, NOT Avaricious, NOT Benevolent, NOT Benign, NOT Boastful, NOT Bold, NOT Capricious, NOT Casual, NOT Certain, NOT Closemouthed, NOT Commanding, NOT Conclusive, NOT Conformist, NOT Covetous, NOT Decisive, NOT Definitive, NOT Desirous, NOT Discoverer, NOT Discriminate, NOT Dutiful, NOT Ebullient, NOT Ecstatic, NOT Effervescent, NOT Emotional, NOT Enthusiastic, NOT Exact, NOT Exuberant, NOT Freewheeling, NOT Gluttonous, NOT Grabby, NOT Grasping, NOT Gregarious, NOT Gushy, NOT Harum-scarum, NOT Hateful, NOT High-spirited, NOT Humanitarian, NOT Impassioned, NOT Incoherent, NOT Inconstant, NOT Incorrigible, NOT Insatiable, NOT Invariable, NOT Irrational, NOT Irresolute, NOT Irresponsible, NOT Kind-hearted, NOT Leader, NOT Loud, NOT Lovey-dovey, NOT Loving, NOT Matter-of-fact, NOT Maudlin, NOT Melodramatic, NOT Merciful, NOT Merciless, NOT Methodical, NOT Mushy, NOT Noisy, NOT Notional, NOT Orderly, NOT Outgoing, NOT Over-realistic, NOT Passionate, NOT Pell-mell, NOT Physical, NOT Prehensile, NOT Regular, NOT Rigid, NOT Romantic, NOT Schmaltzy, NOT Self-important, NOT Sentimental, NOT Shameless, NOT Sociable, NOT Soft-hearted, NOT Spontaneous, NOT Steady, NOT Stiff, NOT Sympathetic, NOT Systematic, NOT Talkative, NOT Tender-hearted, NOT Thoughtless, NOT Unambiguous, NOT Unchanging, NOT Uniform, NOT Unreserved, NOT Unwavering, NOT Visionary, NOT Whimsical [94].


E/I choice (E - Extraversion, I - Introversion, x - Undefined)
Normal mode Reversed mode Combined mode
I I I

S/N choice (S - Sensation, N - Intuition, x - Undefined)
Normal mode Reversed mode Combined mode
N N N

F/T choice (F - Feeling, T - Thinking, x - Undefined)
Normal mode Reversed mode Combined mode
T T T

J/P choice (j - Judgement, p - Perception, x - Undefined)
Normal mode Reversed mode Combined mode
conscious unconscious conscious unconscious conscious unconscious
j j p j x j

Scoring factor
Normal mode Reversed mode Combined mode
0.77 0.81 0.79

Summary
Normal mode Reversed mode Combined mode
INTj INTx INTj


so the end result appears to be INTj.

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
You shouldn't bother about the functions at this stage. You should try to describe your behaviour and attitudes as accurately as possible.


Good. Then you don't have prejudices. Stop thinking about the functions for the moment and concentrate on how to describe yourself without any references to specific functions.
All right, fine. If you'd like to illegitimize all of my analysis, take my original answer to your question: dealing with data and logical problem-solving.

Quote:
No, it doesn't. What varies is your body temperature, and if you are a night owl you are probably warmer when you go to bed than when you wake up, whereas if you are an early bird you might be warmer in the morning than when you go to bed. If you are a night owl, you might tend (as I do) to go to bed later and later in the night if you don't have to get up at a specific time due to wordly duties. The day and night cycle of a night owl is longer than 24 hours, whereas for an early bird the cycle is near 24 hours or perhaps even less than 24 hours.


And that is totally irrelevant. You are either a night owl or an early bird by natural temperament. It is not something you can change at will -- you are born either way.
Seriously, what are you talking about? What does my body temperature have to do with socionics?

Quote:
What kind of philosophy are you drawn to? Do you have any favourite philosophers, and why those? Do you have any philosophical views, and which are they?
I haven't really studied all that many different kinds of philosophy extensively, but I have done a little bit on my own.

With most of the philosophers I've encountered I've at least found something to disagree with. Some philosophers are really bad. I notice that Immanuel Kant seems to be typed as INTj (at least according to wikisocion). That is perhaps indicative of something, because I can't stand reading him. Nothing that he wrote ever made any sense to me. Other philosophers who I dislike include Descartes and Sartre

Some philosophers whose works I enjoy or find at least elements of truth in include Voltaire, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Locke and Hume. My favorite branch of philosophy is probably Absurdism, a la Camus. Any philosophical beliefs of mine probably most closely resemble his than anyone's.

Quote:
What is your view on science? What is science to you, what should it be?
What do you mean? Science is basically anything that can be verified using the scientific method. I don't understand the rest of your question.

Quote:
In what situations are you serious? When are you not?
It can be very variable. I can be very serious around certain people where I feel that a certain degree of formality is necessary, but around other people I'm able to act more casually. In formal situations, obviously, I'm liable to be far more serious than in merely casual ones.

Does that answer your question?

Last edited by itinerant_stapler71; 14/01/2008 at 01:28 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14/01/2008, 01:56 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
Seriously, what are you talking about? What does my body temperature have to do with socionics?
I'll explain later. Are you a night owl, or are you an early bird, or don't you know which it is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
Some philosophers are really bad. I notice that Immanuel Kant seems to be typed as INTj (at least according to wikisocion). That is perhaps indicative of something, because I can't stand reading him. Nothing that he wrote ever made any sense to me.
That is interesting. But Kant is also difficult to understand correctly because he didn't write very well; his style of writing is not that esthetically appealing. Are you sure it is the content of his philosophy you don't like and not only its form?

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
Other philosophers who I dislike include Descartes and Sartre
Why? What is is about their philosophical ideas you don't like?

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
Some philosophers whose works I enjoy or find at least elements of truth in include Voltaire, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Locke and Hume. My favorite branch of philosophy is probably Absurdism, a la Camus. Any philosophical beliefs of mine probably most closely resemble his than anyone's.
This is even more interesting, and I think it says something about your type. But please have patience just a little bit longer. Can you tell us some more about your relation to Camus? Which philosophical ideas are we talking about exactly? What do you find most attractive in Camus's philosophy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
Science is basically anything that can be verified using the scientific method. I don't understand the rest of your question.
I interpret that as indicating that you have a generally positive view on science, is that correct? And that you probably don't consider yourself a post-modernist, or some sort of relativist who is highly critical towards "positivistic" science?

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
It can be very variable. I can be very serious around certain people where I feel that a certain degree of formality is necessary, but around other people I'm able to act more casually. In formal situations, obviously, I'm liable to be far more serious than in merely casual ones.

Does that answer your question?
Sort of. We can leave that for the moment.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 14/01/2008, 03:07 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post


No, it doesn't. What varies is your body temperature, and if you are a night owl you are probably warmer when you go to bed than when you wake up, whereas if you are an early bird you might be warmer in the morning than when you go to bed. If you are a night owl, you might tend (as I do) to go to bed later and later in the night if you don't have to get up at a specific time due to wordly duties. The day and night cycle of a night owl is longer than 24 hours, whereas for an early bird the cycle is near 24 hours or perhaps even less than 24 hours.

I have a problem with this piece too. Sometimes I go to bed I feel cold sometimes hot, then waking up is the same depends on what hour I get up. I can get up really early in the morning and feel hot or an hour later and feel cold or 45 minutes later and feel hot or... What are you on about prom?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 14/01/2008, 05:27 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
I have a problem with this piece too. Sometimes I go to bed I feel cold sometimes hot, then waking up is the same depends on what hour I get up. I can get up really early in the morning and feel hot or an hour later and feel cold or 45 minutes later and feel hot or... What are you on about prom?
When I searched on the Internet I found some pages that may help to elucidate this phenomenon:

http://www.nightowlnet.com/archive05.htm

http://www.truestarhealth.com/member...3ML3P1A22.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0420012234.htm

Most people may be somewhere in between an extreme night owl or an extreme early bird, and I think I have read somewhere that according to some studies night owls would be more common than early birds. And that would of course be a problem for my hypothesis, because I have found in my own typings of other people what seems to be a very clear pattern: that most rational types are early birds and that most irrational types are night owls. I have asked more than 30 people whose type I am certain of (based on a systematic and thorough typing using several typing methods, including tests and interviews), and so far I have only met one or two persons that might not fit the pattern. Such a result would be unlikely if there wasn't a positive correlation between this phenomenon and the j/p dichotomy. I can assure you that it cannot be explained by possible mistypings, but even if you don't take my for granted on that, the hypothesis is easy to falsify if it is not true.

So, according to my predictions you would be an early bird, SG. It would be interesting to see if that is correct or not.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 14/01/2008, 05:49 PM
hkkmr's Avatar
hkkmr hkkmr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
When I searched on the Internet I found some pages that may help to elucidate this phenomenon:

http://www.nightowlnet.com/archive05.htm

http://www.truestarhealth.com/member...3ML3P1A22.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0420012234.htm

Most people may be somewhere in between an extreme night owl or an extreme early bird, and I think I have read somewhere that according to some studies night owls would be more common than early birds. And that would of course be a problem for my hypothesis, because I have found in my own typings of other people what seems to be a very clear pattern: that most rational types are early birds and that most irrational types are night owls. I have asked more than 30 people whose type I am certain of (based on a systematic and thorough typing using several typing methods, including tests and interviews), and so far I have only met one or two persons that might not fit the pattern. Such a result would be unlikely if there wasn't a positive correlation between this phenomenon and the j/p dichotomy. I can assure you that it cannot be explained by possible mistypings, but even if you don't take my for granted on that, the hypothesis is easy to falsify if it is not true.

So, according to my predictions you would be an early bird, SG. It would be interesting to see if that is correct or not.
I'm a extreme night owl, but I've done a early bird schedule before.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 14/01/2008, 07:46 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
So, according to my predictions you would be an early bird, SG. It would be interesting to see if that is correct or not.
Hate to disappoint you, but I gravitate towards sitting through the night on the computer and then sleep till afternoon, though I hate to lose half a day, so I'm really screwed am I?

I'll check your links.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 14/01/2008, 07:52 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
Hate to disappoint you, but I gravitate towards sitting through the night on the computer and then sleep till afternoon, though I hate to lose half a day, so I'm really screwed am I?

I'll check your links.
For the most part before christmas your q and a would update at nine am and then you would log into forums. The same process would happen at twelve. So you manage to do this AND sleep in till afternoon..


You should start changing your body clock back to regular hours again. You'll feel better for getting up in the morning and not losing most of the day
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 15/01/2008, 12:56 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Thanks for stalking me, but I'm not the only one who has access to q&a moderation panel.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 15/01/2008, 01:16 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
Thanks for stalking me, but I'm not the only one who has access to q&a moderation panel.
Your welcome! Although whatever goes on is nowt to do with me..lets just say I've got eyes and I use them..and its no major leap of faith that q & a is very sporadic .. but if you can't take friendly advice then maybe it is for the best you hide yourself during the day hehe

Oh..for the record..It isn't just me thats noticed..I have many personal friends into socionics ! Sleep well today
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 15/01/2008, 01:17 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Where are you, itinerant_stapler71? Do you want to be typed or not? I am sure that I can help you find your correct type if you collaborate. I am already pretty sure about your type, but to be even more sure I would prefer that you tried to answer just a few of those questions I asked you in my previous post -- and if those answers don't point in another direction, I will tell you what I think is your correct type (with more than 90 % likelihood).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 15/01/2008, 11:10 PM
itinerant_stapler71's Avatar
itinerant_stapler71 itinerant_stapler71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Where are you, itinerant_stapler71? Do you want to be typed or not? I am sure that I can help you find your correct type if you collaborate. I am already pretty sure about your type, but to be even more sure I would prefer that you tried to answer just a few of those questions I asked you in my previous post -- and if those answers don't point in another direction, I will tell you what I think is your correct type (with more than 90 % likelihood).
Sorry, I was busier than I expected yesterday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
I'll explain later. Are you a night owl, or are you an early bird, or don't you know which it is?
I have no idea what you mean by this. My sleep schedule is very variable, so I don't know how to answer this question.

Quote:
That is interesting. But Kant is also difficult to understand correctly because he didn't write very well; his style of writing is not that esthetically appealing. Are you sure it is the content of his philosophy you don't like and not only its form?
Oh yeah, it's certainly the content of his works I don't like. I'm not sure in what way he writes with poor form, as you claim, but most of his work is so rigid that it's almost impossible to read. A wonderful, albeit overused example of his is his treatise on lying, in which he argues that lying is unacceptable in any context. Doesn't that strike you as a tad contrived and narrow-minded?

Quote:
Why? What is is about their philosophical ideas you don't like?
I find both Sartre and Descartes to be very similar to Kant in the rigidity of their conclusions. Descartes' ideas are often very well thought out and interesting, but I find any philosopher who rejects the notion of perception to the extent that Descartes does to be rather strange. This leads me effectively into the next question about Camus.

What I like most about Camus is that he establishes a precedent by which the subconscious areas of perception and intuition are able to take on some greater meaning. It seems to me that all of what Camus' characters focus on is that which is truly important. One thing that I cannot agree with regarding existential philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre is the notion that this innately spiritual aspect of humanity is important within day-to-day existence. To say that life is about a search for meaning is missing the point somewhat, which is to experience life.

Quote:
I interpret that as indicating that you have a generally positive view on science, is that correct? And that you probably don't consider yourself a post-modernist, or some sort of relativist who is highly critical towards "positivistic" science?
I don't know what the difference between positivistic and post-modernist and relativistic science is.

Last edited by itinerant_stapler71; 15/01/2008 at 11:10 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 16/01/2008, 12:04 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
I have no idea what you mean by this. My sleep schedule is very variable, so I don't know how to answer this question.
Don't you read every post in this thread? Take a look at the links in my response to SG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
A wonderful, albeit overused example of his is his treatise on lying, in which he argues that lying is unacceptable in any context. Doesn't that strike you as a tad contrived and narrow-minded?
Maybe. I don't believe that lying is unacceptable under any conceivable circumstances, but I don't lie myself, and I tend to think that in at least 99 cases out of 100 the truth should be preferred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
I find any philosopher who rejects the notion of perception to the extent that Descartes does to be rather strange.
Does that mean that you tend to think that science should be based primarily on empirical observations rather than pure speculation? Do you prefer the empiricism of Hume and others to the rationalism of Kant and others?

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
I don't know what the difference between positivistic and post-modernist and relativistic science is.
Okay, but can you tell us some more about your philosophical views in general and the kind of philosophizing you say that you have beein doing?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 16/01/2008, 12:17 AM
itinerant_stapler71's Avatar
itinerant_stapler71 itinerant_stapler71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Don't you read every post in this thread? Take a look at the links in my response to SG.
Sorry to say, but I don't go around with a thermometer taking my body temperature every hour to see what my circadian rhythm is. I already said, my sleep schedule is very erratic. I really don't see how this relates to socionics at all and I would like to talk about something more pertinent.

Quote:
Does that mean that you tend to think that science should be based primarily on empirical observations rather than pure speculation? Do you prefer the empiricism of Hume and others to the rationalism of Kant and others?
I guess so, but I'm not really sure what you mean by pure speculation.

Quote:
Okay, but can you tell us some more about your philosophical views in general and the kind of philosophizing you say that you have beein doing?
It would be easier if I had a specific prompt to work with. What do you want to know?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 16/01/2008, 12:45 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
It would be easier if I had a specific prompt to work with. What do you want to know?
Let's do a little test to find out some of your your philosophical views.

1. Do you want to believe in the existence of a free will, or do you prefer a more deterministic/fatalistic view on what man is cabable of? (This question is not primarily about what you really think is the truth, but more about your inclinations, about what you feel drawn to.)

2. Do you tend to believe that matter/energy is pretty much all there is in the universe, or do you tend to believe that there also must be some non-material substance or entities, like for example "souls" or even that some kind of idealism instead of pure materialism is correct?

3. Do you have a generally positive outlook on man and life, or do you feel more drawn to a pessimistic world view?

4. What should philosophy be about? Is it primarily a search for Meaning, or is it primarily a search for Truth? A search for Meaning would be focused on our place in the world as humans, whereas a search for Truth is focused on understanding the world (and maybe ourselves as material objects rather than subjects and agents).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 16/01/2008, 12:56 AM
itinerant_stapler71's Avatar
itinerant_stapler71 itinerant_stapler71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
1. Do you want to believe in the existence of a free will, or do you prefer a more deterministic/fatalistic view on what man is cabable of? (This question is not primarily about what you really think is the truth, but more about your inclinations, about what you feel drawn to.)
I'm not sure how to respond to the question of what I want to believe. I do believe in free will, in the sense that no divine entity has predetermined our actions.

Quote:
2. Do you tend to believe that matter/energy is pretty much all there is in the universe, or do you tend to believe that there also must be some non-material substance or entities, like for example "souls" or even that some kind of idealism instead of pure materialism is correct?
I dislike the concept that souls exist in some form that is transcendent of matter. I see existence as more of a unified continuum of material transfer of energy, and that anything resembling a spirit or soul is a product of matter.

Quote:
3. Do you have a generally positive outlook on man and life, or do you feel more drawn to a pessimistic world view?
Probably the latter, but I don't see this question as being very important or pertinent to my philosophical beliefs.

Quote:
4. What should philosophy be about? Is it primarily a search for Meaning, or is it primarily a search for Truth? A search for Meaning would be focused on our place in the world as humans, whereas a search for Truth is focused on understanding the world (and maybe ourselves as material objects rather than subjects and agents).
Both meaning and truth are important. One possible caveat to this idea is that meaning is completely subjective, but some truths can be proved empirically. Think about modern science. The search for meaning is personal, somewhat spiritual, and what is meaningful about the world to one person may be meaningless to others.

Although both truth and meaning are important for understanding the overall picture of humankind in the world.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM