Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Two types of people, revised

Two types of people, revised
May 06, 2011, 06:35:29 AM
Recent thoughts from NIHIL list think tank:

There is another facet to the "two kinds of people in this world" cliche.
  • joyful slaves of truth
  • wretched emperors of their own imaginary self-image

The latter are they who vaguely sense, but cannot comprehend the empty hole in themselves where meaning should go so they vainly fill it with consumer stuff and pop culture trivia to no end.

Also:
  • consequentialists versus emotivists
  • long-term thinkers versus short-term feelers, desirers, etc.
  • structural thinkers versus hedonistic samplers
  • those who internalize world versus those who externalize self

We're getting this down to a theory of sorts. Citing examples of how the laboratory of human history has already tested these will only help.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 06, 2011, 10:09:59 AM
To be remarkably on topic, for once: metalheads (Hessians) vs. fair-weather fans (hipsters).  While the latter drop out of whatever cliques they pretend to join, gaining nothing permanent in the process of switching their mindsets so frequently, the former generally fall headfirst into the gaping pit of Awesome into which they leapt so long ago, usually as children or teenagers, while they gradually find understanding in the swirling darkness around them.  Judging from personal experience, those who find something that they support more than just intellectually are infinitely happier than those who are only supporting something because it makes sense to/it makes them seem cool/everybody's doing it.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 06, 2011, 01:23:53 PM
There are 16 types of people.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 06, 2011, 03:31:35 PM
In my view there are three types of people in the world, those who pigeonhole others and those who don't.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 07, 2011, 03:58:53 AM
In my view there are three types of people in the world, those who pigeonhole others and those who don't.

This is nice and all, but for the purposes of theorising, this kind of thinking isn't going to get us very far.


I'll write up an overview of what I've come to understand from the 16-type Typology model (as per MBTI) shortly. I think if we're going to dichotomise people as per the OP then we may as well look at the very nice conceptual model (once you get past the plastic test and horoscope profiles) which has already been developed. I'll also talk about how it relates to the general ANUS philosophy, and various recurring topics.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 07, 2011, 04:58:34 PM
There are 16 types of people.

Aside from the inert vegetable or retard (i.e. those who image themselves as unique snowflakes above any classification and thus immune to any critique), there are also two metatypologies the 16 fit within. The split isn't necessarily at the introvert/extravert axis, but it could be.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 08, 2011, 04:21:53 PM
In my view there are three types of people in the world, those who pigeonhole others and those who don't.

It seems like you're reacting to the simplicity of the dichotomy, which is understandable. Dichotomies are rarely absolutely true. However, they tend to possess a truth of a relative and functional order, insofar as they are useful for isolating and illustrating certain tendencies.

In this case, the dichotomy offered in the original post seems to refer to something real. Maybe it's true that few people fully embody just one or the other half of it, but don't you think that there's a certain accuracy to the general idea?

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 08, 2011, 08:46:52 PM
There are 16 types of people.

MBTI does come to mind. I know there are many INTx's on this board; that goes along with some of the dichotomies portrayed in the OP.

Categorizing people is a good method to understanding their behavior in my opinion. It has benefited me at least, even if I use my own hypotheses.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 08, 2011, 10:14:49 PM
Categorizing people is a good method to understanding their behavior in my opinion. It has benefited me at least, even if I use my own hypotheses.

Tell me about it. I can rest assured in the fact that I am not insane or otherwise mentally retarded.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 09, 2011, 02:49:34 AM
There are 16 types of people.

MBTI does come to mind. I know there are many INTx's on this board; that goes along with some of the dichotomies portrayed in the OP.

Categorizing people is a good method to understanding their behavior in my opinion. It has benefited me at least, even if I use my own hypotheses.

INTJ especially on here. Ni, which is the main function of INTJ (Descartes, Nietzsche) and INFJ (Plato, Schopenhauer), is strongly associated with looking for universal concepts, and a continuously developing conceptual map. Ne (Socrates, Feynmann, Shakespeare), by comparison, is constantly striving after new ideas, and tends towards deconstruction rather than creating holistic world views - which is not to say Ne is necessarily bad or anything, but it is certainly a different approach than is emphasised here. Si strives after reliability in the physical world, being especially associated with tradition - so is necessary for the survival and continuation of society, while Se is always striving after new physical experience - being useful for the less routinised aspects of physical work. We might roughly equate N with ideas, S with the physical world, Pi with being conservative, Pe with being liberal.

I believe the F/T distinction to be simply one of different approach, and both sides are probably equally as important. T makes sure each part works, F makes sure all the parts work together smoothly - if we equated F/T with emotivism vs. consequentialism, we would need to keep in mind that often emotivism is an indirect appeal to holistic consequences, and oftentimes a more accurate one than directly looking at consequences would be, which oftentimes misses the big picture, i.e. linear logic. Think of attacks against science, for example. The I/E divide is a significant one, but also quite self-evident so I won't say much about it. A society of introverts will probably be lacking in strength and cohesion. Basically, introverts are needed as a record of time to provide a consistent structure for society, whereas extraverts handle any new things which come up (time vs. space based approach).

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 09, 2011, 05:12:20 AM
What the fuck is the REAL meaning of introvert/extrovert? All the supposed "introverts" I've met have have been spineless people with barely above average intelligence at best. On the other hand, the most interesting people I've met have been sociable, affable people. I think I might have things backwards.

Of course, I'm biased because I'm one of the few here that normally scores an "E" based off the MBTI. Then again, I didn't know how to answer a lot of the questions because the premises behind them were such horse shit.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 09, 2011, 05:23:42 AM
What the fuck is the REAL meaning of introvert/extrovert? All the supposed "introverts" I've met have have been spineless people with barely above average intelligence at best. On the other hand, the most interesting people I've met have been sociable, affable people. I think I might have things backwards.

Of course, I'm biased because I'm one of the few here that normally scores an "E" based off the MBTI. Then again, I didn't know how to answer a lot of the questions because the premises behind them were such horse shit.

Basically, it is whether you focus on what is external to you, or what is internal to you - a focus on object vs. subject. Introverts tend to be more self-preservant, and are more likely to back away from conflict than an extravert, unless they think the problem will be ongoing. I have no idea if introverts are any more or less intelligent than extraverts, but you can't really tell what an introvert is like most of the time. If an extravert is smart, they will let everyone know, resulting in a higher gravitational pull for people such as yourself. Don't think of introvert and extravert as being a superior/inferior relationship necessarily. Just see it as: introverts rule the subjective/time-based world, extraverts rule the objective/space-based world.

Yes, the tests suck. However, the functions are structurally sound (once you have the proper understanding of what they refer to). I believe that how the functions manifest in combinations as per the types is also fairly accurate, however I really only view these as archetypes - a nice simplification of human personality for the sake of getting an all-at-once view of the spectrum of human ability and interrelations. It may or may not be useful for objective pursuits, but I myself don't really bother directly using it in such a way. Rather, examining the model itself results in deeper insight into human behaviour which is relevant even if the theory happens to be false.

The rough MBTI axioms:
1. that human cognition can be divided into that which is seen as external, and that which is internal
2. that the processes of cognition may be divided into those which are a flow of perceptions, and those which are goal-based judgements
3 i. that for perception, we may define two distinct types - S and N (the immediate properties of the Idea, vs. relations between Ideas)
3 ii. that for judgement, we may define two distinct types - T and F (linear/logical based processes, holistic/harmony based processes)
(3 iii. these give us the 8 functions of Ni Si Ne Se Ti Fi Te Fe, or the 4-function groups N S T F and Ji Je Pi Pe )
4. that each person will have one of these four as their primary introverted process, and one as their primary extraverted process
5. furthermore, one of these two must be a judgement process, and the other a perception focus
6. the individual will primarily reside in, or view the world from, the subjective and internal point of view, or the objective and external point of view
[7. the individual will also have a back up i and e process, which is a letter not already used, and of opposite kind (J vs P) of the other so-directed function]

From this, we can derive the 16 different function set  ups, e.g. Fi Se Ni Te = ISFP

Perhaps the most interesting result of the model is the J vs. P divide, which we can define from axioms 5 and 6. We see that a person's main functions must either be Je+Pi or Ji+Pe. One of these types will perceive what is going on around them as it is and react directly, then analyse that internally. The other will perceive what is going on in accordance with their internal perceptions, and be instead focused on external goal processes which follow from these, which are generally stereotyped as "spontaneous" vs. "prepared".

I believe this provides quite a nice framework for looking at the differences in cognitive processes between individuals.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 09, 2011, 07:00:59 AM
Introverts tend to be more self-preservant, and are more likely to back away from conflict than an extravert, unless they think the problem will be ongoing. I have no idea if introverts are any more or less intelligent than extraverts, but you can't really tell what an introvert is like most of the time. If an extravert is smart, they will let everyone know, resulting in a higher gravitational pull for people such as yourself. Don't think of introvert and extravert as being a superior/inferior relationship necessarily. Just see it as: introverts rule the subjective/time-based world, extraverts rule the objective/space-based world.

The INT(J/P) typologies tend toward above average intelligence. As for the extravert vocalizing its intelligence, we're likely seeing the Dunning-Kruger Effect at work.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 09, 2011, 07:24:55 AM
Introverts tend to be more self-preservant, and are more likely to back away from conflict than an extravert, unless they think the problem will be ongoing. I have no idea if introverts are any more or less intelligent than extraverts, but you can't really tell what an introvert is like most of the time. If an extravert is smart, they will let everyone know, resulting in a higher gravitational pull for people such as yourself. Don't think of introvert and extravert as being a superior/inferior relationship necessarily. Just see it as: introverts rule the subjective/time-based world, extraverts rule the objective/space-based world.

The INT(J/P) typologies tend toward above average intelligence. As for the extravert vocalizing its intelligence, we're likely seeing the Dunning-Kruger Effect at work.

Note that the kind of intelligence which applies to the Ni-Te of an INTJ is different to that of the Ti-Ne INTP. NFs are probably at least as intelligent as NTs, however whereas NFs turn abstract notions into abstract processes and thus can't get away from generalities, NTs turn abstract notions into concrete processes, thus developing a more practical intelligence*. INFJs are as intelligent as INTJs, but generally less driven, and more socially focused. It's that Ni that you want to focus on.

As for extraverts: there are a large number of things that extraverts really are better at, namely those things which relate directly to the environment. e.g. an extravert can see a pattern manifest directly, whereas introverts have to compare it to a store of ideas. Extraverts are better at dealing with new information, introverts are better at filtering that information into what works best.

* we may regard two different kinds of intelligence. The first refers to the level of abstractness you can comprehend in ideas, the second is about how well you can turn the abstract into something concrete. Ni,F may well be the most intelligent in the first regard, but N+T certainly excels in the second. S is typically not seen as being as intelligent, though they may be "clever", in that they deal with concrete ideas - they don't really perceive abstraction, nor are they adept at reasoning from it.

Focusing on INTJ and INFJ:
INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se = Ni + Te, Ni + Fi; able to turn concept into action and understand mechanistic systems, builds personal values from this
INFJ = NI Fe Ti Se = Ni + Fe, Ni + Ti; able to understand social-related (perhaps "aesthetic"?) processes from concepts, builds logical systems from this

Philosophers are predominantly of one of these types, though we do get a lot of NPs. As far as philosophy is concerned, Ne is good at breaking down previous conceptions, and then replacing that with a structure from their Ji process. However, from a Hessian perspective, all the worthwhile philosophy is Ni based.

Re: Two types of people, revised
May 09, 2011, 09:35:37 AM
You mustn't forget the power of Ti domination (INTP only, since ISTP's are known as the clever mechanics/engineers). Several great philosophers and mathematicians have been identified as INTP's, and even though Ne is important, the inductive-propelled model-building of the Ti is excellent for designing new systems. It is readily apparent how Ni is great for philosophical and naturalistic theories (Ni-dom's are excellent in finding the "source" or the means to creating the desired cause; implications come naturally), but an INTP would be able to synthesize a strategy based on the known principles rather customarily. Simple, observed connections are all Ti really requires to create something new; intelligent INTP's are the ultimate creators due to their model-building. Darwin being a prime example. Many of the users here are less apt to take the INTP seriously (even though there several present), because INTJ's and INTP's clash horns when it comes to implementation, and even more so, the design it takes to reach a required goal. I am an INTJ, but my J is very low, and according to research, I am one of the few who seem to be an "INTx" at first glance. This is because I am able to use the functions on the other side of my natural, Ni-Te axis: Ti-Ne. Some of my best theoretical work seemed to be Ti-driven (though it is tricky following cognitive functions subjectively), but my insight seems to be due to the Ni -- Ni being loaded and ready at all times. As I understand it, an INTJ is more insightful than an INTP, but the INTP is more pensive when it comes to creation of a single abstract theory -- this is when both the INTJ and INTP are equal in IQ, experience, etc. Dominant Ti is able to expound and elongate any created system, but I'm not sure that it would be ideal for practical and realistic innovation in the face of developed, dominant Ni (Ti is more, in the clouds so to speak; developed Ne makes it extremely useful though).

My point is that some of the Hessian/ANUSian ideas discussed at length have probably been spiced up by the Ti machine: the ability to create the system on which the insightful worldview must operate. I believe there is more Ti work than meets the eye in the ANUS-sphere.

INTP's have tremendous focus and loyalty to an idea and cause in which they are interested, so it wouldn't surprise me that some key members of the Hessian cause are/will be INTP's. As an INTx/j myself, this wouldn't catch me off guard.