Typology Random Thoughts

[Lord Pixel]

So funny but sad seeing my LSE friend struggle with Fi, like I never knew what it looked like until I seen him get constantly paranoid that someone hates him for some little thing that happened a year ago. He still swears up and down this or that person hates him even when I tell him he's being paranoid and it's all in his head, he remains unconvinced lol. It's super strange, but it's pretty much text book Fi seeking, I just didn't know it'd be SO textbook.

[Lord Pixel]

I could say a lot about this, but let's listen to what an SEE who is surrounded by Ni-doms has to say about it.



Here's another SEE, talking about how he tries and tries and tries to get through to an ILI. There is a woman effectively playing an ILI at 0:50. Now, conquering her would be a challenge. A perfect challenge.



SEEs push and push and push. They want to conquer the world, hence their designation as "Caesar". If they can't conquer the world, maybe they can up-sell you on some new tires to go with that used car. Which is like conquering a small world.

ILI's want to be wanted. Tell an ILI "I want you to know three things", and all they will hear is the "I want you" part.

How ESI does this guy look?
Not to mention the ExTj dad.

[godslave]

How ESI does this guy look?
Not to mention the ExTj dad.

He kinda looks like Adam Driver...

[Still Alive]

He kinda looks like Adam Driver...

who is an IEI, like all the people posted on the last page.

[qaz00]

How ESI does this guy look?

Looks more ESI than average, but I think xEI-Fe.

[Distance]

🍒 cola found a type.

Thread closed, so:

[CosmicCat]

According to this reinin dichotomy calculator.

Intuitive: Better perceives non-material side of the world — ideas, concepts, and the like. Quickly absorbs new information, but because of poor digestion doesn’t keep it in memory for too long.

Sensing: Better perceives material side of the world — taste, color, and the like. Slowly absorbs new information, but thanks to good digestion keeps it in memory for a long time.

Translated into English: intuitives are lossless like .png while sensors are lossy like .jpg

[godslave]

Most of ITR related conversations and/or observations in this forum resolve around "romantic" relationships. It would be more constructive see examples of ITR manifestation outside the domain of "romance".

I have the impression that the Socionics aspects that people are the most interested in are a) their own type and b) the type of their crush/romantic partner (Dual idealisation).

All this gives me the impression that most people use socionics essentially as a dating/romance matching tool. Socionics is not a matchmaking service for God's sake !

That said, I also like to come up with different and often unexpected ways to use stuff.

[Distance]

Te ignore = creating trueness to self at the expense of what is actually believed externally.

Add in Ne PoLR and you create models of people that don't work well.

Consequently you are stuck in how changes can come about in someone, so you change little mirroring an instone static belief.

It is a house with no windows.

[Distance]

My signature lines are Ni in nature. Abstract processes thru time.

[godslave]

I am convinced that the unconscious reads faster than than conscious mind. As a matter of fact, in socionics the Vital track (of ring) information flow faster than the Mental track and we realise the effect of our vital track information only afterwards.

That said, sometimes I feel like having a headache when I read some texts (including that of certain forum members). It's difficult do describe but it's probably similar to brain fog. However, this phenomenon has more to do with the perceived lack of fluidity in the writing style than with its content. Some would say that it's a like a gut feeling...

Now, why did I talked about the unconscious reading ? Because this "brain fog" happens in the first seconds of my conscious reading which means that my unconscious has already "looked ahead" and shown signs of inconfort that somehow leaked and manifested physically before my conscious awareness of the texts style. It's a bit when you touch a very hot object and burn your fingers, you feel the burning after a certain delay of a few microseconds.

I would also compare that unconscious awareness with my adaptability to people's mind. I think there is a certain aspect in people that I unconsciously perceive and once that process is done I start to, for the lack of a better word, energy-shift before being conscious of it. Of course when I talk about energy shifting (some would call that shapeshifting to give it more oomph !), it is not something negative. I think that I unconsciously summon an archetype (whatever it is) that mirrors the energy of my interlocutor. Maybe not exactly but just enough to ease communication flow, no more no less.

I know that this is weird stuff folks but it's most certainly type related. Do you relate to some of this ?

[Distance]

I am convinced that the unconscious reads faster than than conscious mind. As a matter of fact, in socionics the Vital track (of ring) information flow faster than the Mental track and we realise the effect of our vital track information only afterwards.

That said, sometimes I feel like having a headache when I read some texts (including that of certain forum members). It's difficult do describe but it's probably similar to brain fog. However, this phenomenon has more to do with the perceived lack of fluidity in the writing style than with its content. Some would say that it's a like a gut feeling...

<snip>

Now, why did I talked about the unconscious reading ? Because this "brain fog" happens in the first seconds of my conscious reading which means that my unconscious has already "looked ahead" and shown signs of inconfort that somehow leaked and manifested physically before my conscious awareness of the texts style. It's a bit when you touch a very hot object and burn your fingers, you feel the burning after a certain delay of a few microseconds.

I would also compare that unconscious awareness with my adaptability to people's mind. I think there is a certain aspect in people that I unconsciously perceive and once that process is done I start to, for the lack of a better word, energy-shift before being conscious of it. Of course when I talk about energy shifting (some would call that shapeshifting to give it more oomph !), it is not something negative. I think that I unconsciously summon an archetype (whatever it is) that mirrors the energy of my interlocutor. Maybe not exactly but just enough to ease communication flow, no more no less.

<snip>
I know that this is weird stuff folks but it's most certainly type related. Do you relate to some of this ?

We don't consciously decide, we become conscious that we have decided.

The switching is forwarding you making a conscious part of us.

Like a light switch and you are the bulb, the bulb only knows it is glowing. It looks like the bulb did it itself but it is unaware of the back-behind event.

[qaz00]

Te ignore = creating trueness to self at the expense of what is actually believed externally.

Add in Ne PoLR and you create models of people that don't work well.

Consequently you are stuck in how changes can come about in someone, so you change little mirroring an instone static belief.

It is a house with no windows.

[chriscorey]

wow I wish I could memorize the details of a stupid theory and make myself feel smart.

[CosmicCat]

wow I wish I could memorize the details of a stupid theory and make myself feel smart.

Emergence.

[Distance]

Park, loopy clouds, necrosebud, Crink, lol what an ENFp name, and to those on the want-thine-relationship-@you-4me-u -makmeelive-4eva people, are interestingly alien to this soul in terms of the great, greatcoat doctrine magnetic pull: I wantneedmusthavehownow Fi hotbox internal generative relationship machine.

Wut?

Wut was that Distance?

RU sure UR not Fi PoLR, Distance?

Me: It's a bear i do see, i do glee, but not 4me, but 4U, like Winnie the Pooh, may the force bring tidings to all the writings; my bear lies in Si, with the never shuteye. T eye i do possess, but in a low process, but never a mess, it is a bless.



Poet-over-an-out

[Distance]

Crink's link on emotional intensity and nuance made the obvious true: T's have all the nuances in seeing the reverse, in logic.

If F is more about color, and its implications, T is more systems and impersonal.

If you spend your time in theory of mind pursuits, like empathy around people, with social imaginations and those interests, then Feeling is that color in a limbic feel. It is experienced non verbally, and the true false math is felt, not verbalized. You can daisy chain it in this realm, too.

So what is T in experience that is used, as opposed to F ?

Is it a subtext of verbal speak in longer daisy chains of linked thought?

Seems that way.

Is the dichotomy really verbal vs non verbal thought in limbic intensity vs thought in verbal contexts?

In my experience when i formalize an argument there are a few steps in it, and it stops.

It feels full on to full off and dies.

Thinking in thinking people run a full blown daisy chain of subtractions and additions in their programs forming a system. A system is a complex set of implications that ties to other sets of these datum chunks thus making a ''system.''

Is T a linear approach in having a longer verbal memory to do this?

Maybe.

[Distance]

If Ni is "truth," an accomplished fact thru understanding processes....

Ne?

Dynamic truth or best relative truth?

What 1 word would describe it?

[godslave]

It is quite obvious to me as it should be to everyone that the so-called "traits of character" are not type related. These are forged by the interaction between the individual and his environment, they are essentially contextual. Even if the psychical equipment (i.e. the TIM) has a substantial influence on the traits of characters, it doesn't inherently encompasses these traits.

Indeed, I am of the opinion that character traits are not phenomena that pertain to the core type but rather to peripheral and more malleable aspects of the psyche that constitute the personality of the individual namely his "life path" especially in early stages. In other words character traits are of the individuality and not of the TIM. The former is unique to each individual and the latter is more universal and archetypical i.e. deeply rooted in the human condition.

Now, Reinin Dichotomies could have been called Reinin Dichotomies of character traits. As a matter of fact, Reinin didn't use Math to classify human characteristic traits based on their observation, his work was based on the observation of Model A. The source material he worked on was a theoretical model (one could even say hypothetical Model). These dichotomies are essentially mathematically deduced from a) the structure of the Model and b) the information flow (direction, signs etc..).

Although I'm sure that the number of dichotomies possible are correct (cuz I'm not a mathematician but Reinin is !), a certain number of adjectives assigned to some of these dichotomies seem quite aleatory and exaggerated. More importantly, they are unrealistically systematic. Humans are not androids.

As mentioned above, character traits are acquired and relative to life path contexts (esp early life stages ) and psychology unique to each individual and not type related. Otherwise all identicals (ITR) would have a very similar life trajectory or "destiny" and we know that people can have the same TIM while having very different life trajectories.

One could say that the Reinin dichotomies are closer to numerology than typology...

Consequently I don't use Reinin dichotomies in the typing process, I think they are utterly useless. Their usage complicates the typing process instead of making it easier.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I respectfully disagree, dear delta. Certain types are naturally gonna exhibit certain stereotyped behaviors. The ppl who think they don't do this are the biggest cartoon characters of them all.

How exactly are they malleable when people don't seem to change much? People say they change but really don't... if everybody had these randomly chaotic personalities.... when obviously they don't really in every day life even when/if they value random chaoticness. What a bunch of mumbo jumbo! /cries in beta.

[godslave]

I respectfully disagree, dear delta. Certain types are naturally gonna exhibit certain stereotyped behaviors. The ppl who think they don't do this are the biggest cartoon characters of them all.

Thank you for the quadra typing ! Yes indeed, certain people do exhibit certain type related stereotypes, there is no doubt about that.

How exactly are they malleable when people don't seem to change much? People say they change but really don't... if everybody had these randomly chaotic personalities.... when obviously they don't really in every day life even when/if they value random chaoticness. What a bunch of mumbo jumbo! /cries in beta.

Well, as we know, people can't change their core type. However, most of them do evolve (hopefully) as they experience life (as they journey through the process of individuation). I didn't say that people have randomly chaotic personalities. That said, the question of whether or not people change depend on our point of view. Again the core type doesn't change, we know that people (especially those with whom we are familiar and/or close) tick a certain way and that can't really change.

However, the malleable part in people I talked about are imho all the things that can have a significant influence on our personality but are not "core type" related, like for instance attachment styles (huge impact on the personality but NTR). Dr.G came up with an entire system (DCNH) addressing this phenomenon.

Another example would be traumas (psychological and/or physical), they can change people's behavior. Healing from these traumas can also change people's behavior. Addictions can change people, prison can change people, period of life like the middle life crisis, menopause, andropause can change people's behavior, etc..

I would say that one of the most archetypical instance of change in behavior is the so-called "redemption". You can find one of its iteration in the famous myth of the labours of Heracles. As you can see, changes in behavior are inscribed in the human condition. There are plenty of instances attesting of this phenomenon throughout the human history.

I don't like redemption arcs in storytelling when the protagonist has crossed a certain threshold in terms of evil. As a matter of in fact, when I was a teenager I was of the opinion that people don't change at all. That bad and good people would remain that way their entire life. I used to think like that, and one day I saw this scene...

[CosmicCat]

As I take myself back to high school times and philosophy class I realized that language is too imprecise and we are doomed. Then I thought that only pure symbolic manipulation could save me and I went to to study science and math.

Turns out that someone has begun to mull over it way before me and came up with logically very consistent language that no human including the creator himself can not speak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithkuil

Crazy, isn't it?

Might have figured out the internal language of Mr. Spock. Very out there.

[Man of Your Dreams]

EIE is the most evil type in the Socion followed by SEE.

[CosmicCat]

If F is more about color, and its implications, T is more systems and impersonal.

F means heuristic. Things like Darwinian evolution and genetic algorithms are very prototypical of F. They are all probabilistic, and Blause Pascal probably developed probability theory in order to understand heuristic thinking.

T means "causal" and F means "heuristic".

Warning: not all types that operate on causality are intuitive. The non-intuitive causal types give off a glow of walking in the darkness. Especially this one.

[Distance]

F means heuristic. Things like Darwinian evolution and genetic algorithms are very prototypical of F. They are all probabilistic, and Blause Pascal probably developed probability theory in order to understand heuristic thinking.

T means "causal" and F means "heuristic".

Warning: not all types that operate on causality are intuitive. The non-intuitive causal types give off a glow of walking in the darkness. Especially this one.

Yes. You are giving it a quality in a snapshot frame in a category, that is true categorically.

I was looking at it in a flow state dynamically in quantities, it appears there is not much capacity holding serial chain inductions and deductions in this cut of mine in a process power.

[godslave]

I was exploring "Like Stories of Old" YTC and I find his video on plagiarism very interesting. This video triggered a reflexion and I suspect that the feeling of being plagiarised is relative to the creative function.

As a reminder the creative function is the producing phase of the Ego Block, the Leading function being the accepting phase. So the creative is supposed to bring to the world "something new" that shouldn't exist before (or if it already exist, the person is not aware of it because it feels knew to him). That said, I wonder what if identicals or even kindreds who didn't know each other find out that their "something new" is very similar ?

Anyway, I suspect that when we see that other people have produced a very similar creation to our own, we automatically suspect plagiarism (often irrationally). As a matter of fact even when the idea hasn't been given to the world yet we might feel like being robbed (this might have something to do with the mobilizing function though).

I'll take myself as an example. When an idea pops in my mind, I usually instinctively know if it comes from either a) the Zeitgeist and in this case I know that the idea is kinda floating in the air for anybody to catch and that a lot of people have probably already express it in one way or another or b) from a singular connection of ideas that find echo in my personal unconscious and individuality and are therefore original. Some ideas come from the deeper layers of the collective unconscious and therefore have a universal component to them.

In this example Tom (Like Stories of Old) is EII-ish imho and Thomas Flight some kind of NF, I don't know have a clue about the third dude with a gray beard (he seems like a S type (?)). I think it is natural to feel bad when someone uses your ideas (or any stuff) without permission because they are a part of us. Even if deep down we know that once released in the world, our ideas don't belong to us anymore, they are appropriated by the world and it's all good.

[CosmicCat]

Sensing not intuitive types typically have a clenching around the jawline.

[godslave]

"You don't have to worry anymore, it's all been taken care of." - Your dual.

[Distance]

The Socion types Feynman as EIE, MBTI lands hims ENTP, but an argument for Ni lies in his configurations of processes in creating templates to explain the phenomenon. He was inventive in the existing paradigm of thought.

Ne is looking for the new, where not possible, and innovate from there. His work was here in the now frames, in a singular drive.

I get a vision of an Ni person with him.

[Adam Strange]

The Socion types Feynman as EIE, MBTI lands hims ENTP, but an argument for Ni lies in his configurations of processes in creating templates to explain the phenomenon. He was inventive in the existing paradigm of thought.

Ne is looking for the new, where not possible, and innovate from there. His work was here in the now frames, in a singular drive.

I get a vision of an Ni person with him.

I have an old friend who looks and acts just like Feynman. He says he's either an LIE or an ILI. I'd say he's an LIE.

As for The Socion typing Feynman as EIE, well, everyone has an opinion. Paper doesn't refuse print. In our modern world, morons with megaphones can say whatever they want.

Speaking of which, I know about thirty LIEs, and half of them run tech companies and quite a few have PhD's in Physics. LIEs tend to want to understand the underlying hardware, so when they try to do stuff with it, what they do will usually work.

I know two male EIEs. One is perennially unemployed because he feels that the rich owe him a living, and the other works in tech but has been fired from every tech job he's ever had. Usually after just a few months of him demonstrating his high levels of drama and his disregard for money or efficiency, or logic of any kind, really.

I'd like to have The Socion show me some examples of EIEs with PhDs in Quantum Physics.

So, yeah, The Socion is not the place from which you should take stock advice.

[Distance]

I have an old friend who looks and acts just like Feynman. He says he's either an LIE or an ILI. I'd say he's an LIE.

As for The Socion typing Feynman as EIE, well, everyone has an opinion. Paper doesn't refuse print. In our modern world, morons with megaphones can say whatever they want.

Speaking of which, I know about thirty LIEs, and half of them run tech companies and quite a few have PhD's in Physics. LIEs tend to want to understand the underlying hardware, so when they try to do stuff with it, what they do will usually work.

I know two male EIEs. One is perennially unemployed because he feels that the rich owe him a living, and the other works in tech but has been fired from every tech job he's ever had. Usually after just a few months of him demonstrating his high levels of drama and his disregard for money or efficiency, or logic of any kind, really.

I'd like to have The Socion show me some examples of EIEs with PhDs in Quantum Physics.

So, yeah, The Socion is not the place from which you should take stock advice.

Adam, you never addressed my point, and I don't expect you to. Point was Ne vs Ni.

This whole argument is the usual Fi Te blather, where if it doesn't fit statistically it is thrown out, baby and all.

It is taken personally and offensive to Te holders of what works objectively.

Te: Thinking external

godslave falls onto this camp too, btw.

[Adam Strange]

Adam, you never addressed my point, and I don't expect you to. Point was Ne vs Ni.

This whole argument is the usual Fi Te blather, where if it doesn't fit statistically it is thrown out, baby and all.

It is taken personally and offensive to Te holders of what works objectively.

Te: Thinking external

godslave falls onto this camp too, btw.

I agreed with your point. Feynman uses Ni.

[CosmicCat]

The Socion types Feynman as EIE, MBTI lands hims ENTP, but an argument for Ni lies in his configurations of processes in creating templates to explain the phenomenon. He was inventive in the existing paradigm of thought.

Ne is looking for the new, where not possible, and innovate from there. His work was here in the now frames, in a singular drive.

I get a vision of an Ni person with him.

Richard P. Feynman = Psychopath.

"You should never turn a man's generosity as a sword against him. Any virtue that a man has, even if he has many vices, should not be used as a tool against him." – Rabi to Feynman

^Why did Feynman's Rabbi needed to say that to him? How does that reflect on the type of man Feynman was?

[spacious]

You may be right. Your post made me think.

It's not something I've thought about as much as I should have. I've always felt I struggle getting through to people, but I'm less sure what that means the more I think about it. I think partly I have a childish thought that if I'm sure of something, then just laying out the truth will be enough to convince people of it, and I get frustrated when that doesn't happen and people don't change their minds/see the truth of my perspective immediately. Also I'd say that when I'm trying to explain something, it's hard for me to understand which points would be unclear or unconvincing to others, or what I should prioritize getting across, and so I don't think I do well unless I'm asked direct questions. Oh, and I have a tendency to say blunt or offensive things and make people mad.

I suppose that being a good communicator is multi-dimensional. I certainly put a premium on clarity, maybe logical clarity and structure, and so, as I said, find your posts to pass muster by far in these regards for me. It's so interesting, I wouldn't have thought about the things you mentioned as factoring into what makes a good communicator. So, so interesting. I think the "get[ting] frustrated when...people don't...see the truth of my perspective immediately" is particularly elucidating and clear-minded of you to point out in your internal process/functioning. I swear, I think that Ni demo + Ti lead give people like a window into what you are thinking that I think is otherwise hard to come by.

I could think of other weaknesses in my own communication skills.

[spacious]

The other day, my ESI-Se interior decorator and her LII GF showed up to return some tools they had borrowed to fix their house.

While they were here, I told them my "met cute" story about my first date with my ex-wife, and then I said that one of the reasons why my marriage had failed was because both my ex-wife and I were thinkers, and no one was taking care of the feeling part of the relationship. They, on the other hand, had the LII as a thinker and the ESI as a feeler.

To be honest, I was intentionally trying to be supportive of their union, because that's what friends do, even when they privately think that their friends are making a less-than-optimal decision. I'm not good at duplicity, though, and the ESI knows me through and through. She absolutely knows that I wish I were younger and she were straight (because ....... of course), and she seems quietly amused by my wishes. Oh, well.

The ESI said that she thought I had the two of them reversed; that she was the Thinker and her LII GF was the Feeler. The LII immediately corrected her, like, within about 50 microseconds, and said to the ESI, "No, he's right. You are a Feeler. I'm a Thinker."
The ESI didn't look convinced. She looked a bit pissed, actually.

I've been thinking about this, about the nature of Superego relations. the other person operate in the way that you think you are 'supposed to', AND DOES NOT operate in the way that your dual does, since the person is Contrary relations with your dual. Their Ignoring function yields to the monitoring of THEIR dual, for whom it is the Role function. There is that hesitance to 'impose' their ignoring function onto you, their Superego. So you are faced with someone who acts the way / has developed the talents that you think on some level that you ought to have, and have tried and failed to develop significantly; and they don't respond the way that you subconsciously project that they will. I can see why it can be so frustrating, up close. I know that rebeldoneck (former poster) wrote about the goodness of being able to form a family with your Superego partner, and I can kinda see that. I don't think that i know any ESI-LII couples in real life, that I'm aware of. Si and Ni would be the information elements that they have in common - the mobilizing and demonstrative of each person are thereby included. Will be interested to see how this relationship progresses. I recall that you said that the interior decorator felt that it was important that she and her partner like to do the same activities together, and doesn't mind that meanwhile they do not share the same values. And you felt that she had things exactly backwards, and of course, being in on socionics for what it is, I would agree with you. Interesting.

[Adam Strange]

I've been thinking about this, about the nature of Superego relations. the other person operate in the way that you think you are 'supposed to', AND DOES NOT operate in the way that your dual does, since the person is Contrary relations with your dual. Their Ignoring function yields to the monitoring of THEIR dual, for whom it is the Role function. There is that hesitance to 'impose' their ignoring function onto you, their Superego. So you are faced with someone who acts the way / has developed the talents that you think on some level that you ought to have, and have tried and failed to develop significantly; and they don't respond the way that you subconsciously project that they will. I can see why it can be so frustrating, up close. I know that rebeldoneck (former poster) wrote about the goodness of being able to form a family with your Superego partner, and I can kinda see that.

I don't think that i know any ESI-LII couples in real life, that I'm aware of. Si and Ni would be the information elements that they have in common - the mobilizing and demonstrative of each person are thereby included.

Will be interested to see how this relationship progresses. I recall that you said that the interior decorator felt that it was important that she and her partner like to do the same activities together, and doesn't mind that meanwhile they do not share the same values.

And you felt that she had things exactly backwards, and of course, being in on socionics for what it is, I would agree with you. Interesting.

The interior-decorator ESI-Se has confused the fact that "she thinks about facts constantly" with "actually being good at rational thinking." Don't get me wrong; she's smart as hell and I would not want to be on the other side of a competitive project with her, but she told me that she's read, like, two books outside of school, and she is most comfortable interacting with other people. She does sleep about 10 hours per day, so while she prefers to interact with people and is astoundingly good at using emotional arguments to get what she wants, she is introverted and she gets tired fast when dealing with people.

She likes to constantly challenge herself and would climb mountains 24/7 if she could find a way to make enough money to live while doing that.

I'm pretty sure that the LII is not going to be climbing any mountains with her, so in some sense, the ESI-Se is not going to get her wish of communing with an interested partner over hiking activities. If hiking were all there was to the relationship, I'd say that the relationship was doomed. And in fact, I get hints now and then that there are cracks in the facade. Small flashes of anger, things said like "there is poison in the house" (when talking about the lead paint in the house they are renovating). Of course, I could be (and probably am) reading too much into these little details.

On a positive note, the ESI-Se is an e6w7 and the LII is an e5, and those two enneatypes are very compatible. When you add in the fact that both women are lesbians, and their potential pool of "other partners" is therefore reduced to about 10% from what it would be if they were straight, then I predict that they will be together for many years.

I, personally, feel that the ESI-Se would be happier with an LIE-Ni and, probably, quite a few of the female LIEs could be happily married to a lesbian (my LIE niece is), since all LIEs are men inside. However, there is the time factor for dating. How long would an ESI-Se wait until she could find a lesbian LIE-Ni?

I'd say, half-a-second, tops, before she goes back to dealing with her life as it presently is.

She's had other GFs, and she seems to stick like glue to them until they violate in a big way some faithfulness boundary that she has, and I don't see the LII doing that until something better comes along.

But, given my experience with both male and female LIIs, the LII would withdraw from the relationship in a heartbeat and the ESI would be left with another lesson in life.

One other data point: The LII sometimes seems like an LSI to me, but I think she's really an LII. I don't know if that affects the ITR much or not.

[CosmicCat]

I'd like to have The Socion show me some examples of EIEs with PhDs in Quantum Physics.

So, yeah, The Socion is not the place from which you should take stock advice.

EIEs can get Ph.D's in Quantum Physics (which Albert Einstein, an LII, said fie on it). Take Niels Bohr for an example, if you will.

[Adam Strange]

EIEs can get Ph.D's in Quantum Physics (which Albert Einstein, an LII, said fie on it). Take Niels Bohr for an example, if you will.

Bohr looks SEI to me, but I never met him, so I don't know for sure.

And yes, SEIs can get PhDs in physics. ESIs can, too, as Brian May of Queen demonstrated.

I just have a hard time seeing Feynman as EIE. In his autobiography, his description of losing his wife seemed so Fi-seeking to me.

[CosmicCat]

Bohr looks SEI to me, but I never met him, so I don't know for sure.

And yes, SEIs can get PhDs in physics. ESIs can, too, as Brian May of Queen demonstrated.

I just have a hard time seeing Feynman as EIE. In his autobiography, his description of losing his wife seemed so Fi-seeking to me.

Didn't think xSFx could be so cogitative.