# Einstein - ILE, LII or ILI?



## Tellus

http://www.albert-einstein.org/article_handicap.html

I don't think Einstein was ILE for three reasons: he is famously known for his thought experiments (Ni+), most people describe him as an introvert and he was intensely interested in science and math.

I used to think he was LII but I have changed my mind. This is why I think he was ILI:

1) "One of the most interesting aspects of their personality is the "perseveration," an obsessive interest in a single object or topic to the exclusion of any other."

2) Both LII and ILI have 4D Ni+, but ILI's Ni+ is mental.

3) His handwriting seems to have been fluid and comfortable. 

4) "Einstein was a very good-looking man who appealed to women." (Albert Einstein: And the Frontiers of Physics)

"The man who attracted women "like a magnet attracts filings", who was not afraid of having more than one love affair alongside his marriage and who stuck by his friends and lovers "in his way", this man nevertheless considered himself a lone wolf..."

5) He struggled with advanced math. 

6) "To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself." 

"Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth." 

7) "He was a mischievous person and that was primarily because of his curiosity." 


What is your view on Einstein's type?


----------



## Felipe

Tellus said:


> What is your view on Einstein's type?


I used to think he was LII but when I first heard this quote from Einstein:

"You see, when a blind beetle crawls over the surface of a globe he doesn't notice that the track he has covered is curved. I was lucky enough to have spotted it"

Ever since then I thought he was Ni. This seems to me like those kind of perceptions that happens occasionally and you can't explain.


----------



## Sylas

From what I've heard, Victor Gulenko has typed him as ILE based on the match of Einstein's attitudes and statements to Causal-Determinist thinking style:


*1. Objective idealists (ENxx)*

...

"- The Inventor (ILE): the universe is ruled by a universal intelligence. This sociotype more than others believes in ability of human mind to comprehend the most complex phenomena, in intelligent design of the objective world, in that it can be explained from the point of view of precise laws of logic. *("God does not play dice" - Einstein)*"
Philosophical Motivations of Types (Gulenko)


"Dialectical thinking best corresponds to the quantum-probabilistic worldview of modern physics. According to this paradigm, there are no immutable laws, only tendencies and probabilities. Quantum Mechanics is built on the counterintuitive principle of particle-wave duality, according to which microcosmic objects behave as particles and as waves. *Two of the 20th century's greatest physicists disputed over this view—Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr. The former defended causal-determinism as the nature of the universe, the latter advocated a probabilistic ontology.* In the aftermath, Bohr won. Though apart from its historical context, the dispute makes little sense, given that these cognitive forms are dual to one other. Jung's principle of 'synchronicity' also lies within the Dialectical paradigm."
Gulenko Cognitive Styles - Wikisocion​



Tellus said:


> ...6) "To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself."


This could be interpreted as a case for ILE -> LSI supervision. I think of all the types the LSI would object the most to this kind of attitude, yet the supervisor type carries in itself "half" of the supervisee.



Tellus said:


> 7) "He was a mischievous person and that was primarily because of his curiosity."


"Mischievous" and "curious" is very much descriptive of the ILE TIM, which is also described as "the trickser" or "slyster" in some profiles: 

"... Despite this, [ILE] can show the necessary resourcefulness and ingenuity in everyday affairs, drawing from everything even a smallest benefit or favor. This activity in spirit of recombination is similar to the character of Ostap Bender, due to which some may consider him to be clever and elusive." 
ILE - Features of Behavior​


----------



## Tellus

Sylas said:


> From what I've heard, Victor Gulenko has typed him as ILE based on the match of Einstein's attitudes and statements to Causal-Determinist thinking style:
> 
> 1. Objective idealists (ENxx)
> ...
> "- The Inventor (ILE): the universe is ruled by a universal intelligence. This sociotype more than others believes in ability of human mind to comprehend the most complex phenomena, in intelligent design of the objective world...


This applies more to ILI according to me.



> ...in that it can be explained from the point of view of precise laws of logic. ("God does not play dice" - Einstein)"
> Philosophical Motivations of Types (Gulenko)


This could be true, I am not sure.... but does it really apply to Einstein?



> "Dialectical thinking best corresponds to the quantum-probabilistic worldview of modern physics. According to this paradigm, there are no immutable laws, only tendencies and probabilities. Quantum Mechanics is built on the counterintuitive principle of particle-wave duality, according to which microcosmic objects behave as particles and as waves. Two of the 20th century's greatest physicists disputed over this view—Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr. The former defended causal-determinism as the nature of the universe, the latter advocated a probabilistic ontology. In the aftermath, Bohr won. Though apart from its historical context, the dispute makes little sense, given that these cognitive forms are dual to one other. Jung's principle of 'synchronicity' also lies within the Dialectical paradigm."
> Gulenko Cognitive Styles - Wikisocion


This is a very shallow analysis of him. It is not as if there are/were no ILI physicists who defend/ed the causal-deterministic view.



> This could be interpreted as a case for ILE -> LSI supervision. I think of all the types the LSI would object the most to this kind of attitude, yet the supervisor type carries in itself "half" of the supervisee.
> "Mischievous" and "curious" is very much descriptive of the ILE TIM, which is also described as "the trickser" or "slyster" in some profiles:
> "... Despite this, [ILE] can show the necessary resourcefulness and ingenuity in everyday affairs, drawing from everything even a smallest benefit or favor. This activity in spirit of recombination is similar to the character of Ostap Bender, due to which some may consider him to be clever and elusive."
> ILE - Features of Behavior


Yes, those descriptions could fit ILE as well. But ILEs have Ignoring Ni+ which is problematic for a physicist... and (according to me) ILEs also have producing Ni+, i.e. vital TeNi...


----------



## Massage

Its hard to find videos on him


----------



## Massage

He was one of those theoretical scientist. He published all his works around the same time which means he been thinking about it for a long time and then printed it all out. After that he continually to find new discoveries within his frame of thinking. And then he died from old age. Idk, I always thought of him as LII or maybe ILE.


----------



## Massage

Felipe said:


> I used to think he was LII but when I first heard this quote from Einstein:
> 
> "You see, when a blind beetle crawls over the surface of a globe he doesn't notice that the track he has covered is curved. I was lucky enough to have spotted it"
> 
> Ever since then I thought he was Ni. This seems to me like those kind of perceptions that happens occasionally and you can't explain.


He did explain many things with Time. If you are in a elevator in the space and put some motors on it, it will feel as gravitation. I think it is actually demonstrative Ni. Lack of Se.


----------



## Massage

They make all these movies on steve jobs, mark zuckerberg but nothing on Einstein.


----------



## Sylas

Tellus said:


> Yes, those descriptions could fit ILE as well. But ILEs have Ignoring Ni+ which is problematic for a physicist... and (according to me) ILEs also have producing Ni+, i.e. vital TeNi...


I don't think that you need +Ni to do quality physics. What you need is a combination of talent, creativity, and intelligence, which are personal qualities that are outside of jurisdiction of socionics IEs and IM. 

Besides this, ILE's have +Ne that can run far ahead of the present times. If you look at Einstein's work, this was his case: he proposed theories that were 1) radically new for his time, and 2) completely theoretical and lacking in any sort of empirical evidence and support (many of his theories were proven only later), which from my experience with ILI is really not in their nature, as a Te+Se valuing TIM.


----------



## Tellus

Sylas said:


> I don't think that you need +Ni to do quality physics. What you need is a combination of talent, creativity, and intelligence, which are personal qualities that are outside of jurisdiction of socionics IEs and IM.
> Besides this, ILE's have +Ne that can run far ahead of the present times. If you look at Einstein's work, this was his case: he proposed theories that were 1) radically new for his time, and 2) completely theoretical and lacking in any sort of empirical evidence and support (many of his theories were proven only later), which from my experience with ILI is really not in their nature, as a Te+Se valuing TIM.


First of all, I don't agree with the notion of "valued" functions. There are "verbal" functions; 1256 in Model A. Read more about this on the16types forum (theory etc.)

Secondly, "radically new" does not imply Ne. Ne is about potential behavior, i.e. seeing news ways to solve a problem. Ni is about seeing the problem in a new context, via thought experiments and scenarios. The latter applies more to Einstein's approach and theories.

Thirdly, it is not true that Einstein's theories lacked empirical support. For example, he used the orbit of Mercury to support some aspects of his theories.


----------



## seriousguy

Tellus said:


> I don't think Einstein was ILE for three reasons: he is famously known for his thought experiments (Ni+), most people describe him as an introvert and he was intensely interested in science and math.


But, I (an IEI) do the thought experiments too, for instance, a few months ago, I was obsessively focused on philosophical thought experiments at home ("what if" scenarios regarding different philosophical school of thoughts), so if Ni+ is vital for me (and for an ILE), then it may still be relevant in private activities/interests. Einstein, having problems in social communication could explain his private interests related to Ni+ that couldn't be verbalized easily.


> 1) "One of the most interesting aspects of their personality is the "perseveration," an obsessive interest in a single object or topic to the exclusion of any other."


This is the stupid argument. I become obsessed with a single topic too to the exclusion of other topics, even leaving the important work aside for days and months. In fact, people who are pioneers or does the tremendous work tend to be highly focused on a single topic, examples include inventors, scientists, artists, painters, etc. not all of them are ILIs.


> 2) Both LII and ILI have 4D Ni+, but ILI's Ni+ is mental.


This is an irrelevant argument. LII with their 4D Ni+ can do everything what ILI's Ni+ can do just fine. Mental vs vital is about how much clear/vague you are in conversations pertaining to particular information processes, not the interests. In fact, reading that he was assumed a person with "learning disabilities" and social ineptness, LII makes more sense (weak Fe+/Fe-), considering you (your model) believe that ILI has understanding of social dynamics better than LII (due to strong FeNi).


> 3) His handwriting seems to have been fluid and comfortable.


lol my IEI father has good writing, he must be ILI.


> 4) "Einstein was a very good-looking man who appealed to women." (Albert Einstein: And the Frontiers of Physics)
> 
> "The man who attracted women "like a magnet attracts filings", who was not afraid of having more than one love affair alongside his marriage and who stuck by his friends and lovers "in his way", this man nevertheless considered himself a lone wolf..."


This is an insult to non-ILI types. LII (and ILE) can be sexy too! Every ILI I have met is ugly as fuck.


> 5) He struggled with advanced math.


How? LII (and ILE) don't struggle with advanced math?

Your other points are irrelevant too, does nothing to prove that he was ILI.


----------



## Tellus

seriousguy said:


> But, I (an IEI) do the thought experiments too, for instance, a few months ago, I was obsessively focused on philosophical thought experiments at home ("what if" scenarios regarding different philosophical school of thoughts), so if Ni+ is vital for me (and for an ILE), then it may still be relevant in private activities/interests. Einstein, having problems in social communication could explain his private interests related to Ni+ that couldn't be verbalized easily.


Yes, strong (and weak) vital functions ARE used SPORADICALLY in PRIVATE. But my view is that the 'Ignoring' function actually means something in both Model A and Model D. And Einstein's Ni+ is very obvious. Furthermore, I claim that ILE's Ni+ is a producing function (in Model D). ILE's Ni+ builds on prior Te- processes. That is very different from LII's and ILI's accepting Ni+.



> This is the stupid argument. I become obsessed with a single topic too to the exclusion of other topics, even leaving the important work aside for days and months. In fact, people who are pioneers or does the tremendous work tend to be highly focused on a single topic, examples include inventors, scientists, artists, painters, etc. not all of them are ILIs.


Okay, so the Process/Result dichotomy is completely false according to you? 

LIIs usually don't obsess with a single subject.



> This is an irrelevant argument. LII with their 4D Ni+ can do everything what ILI's Ni+ can do just fine. Mental vs vital is about how much clear/vague you are in conversations pertaining to particular information processes, not the interests. In fact, reading that he was assumed a person with "learning disabilities" and social ineptness, LII makes more sense (weak Fe+/Fe-), considering you (your model) believe that ILI has understanding of social dynamics better than LII (due to strong FeNi).


Model D distinguishes between main functions and secondary functions, so it is definitely possible that Einstein looked like a person with Asperger syndrome to some people.

His problem as a child was mainly speech. That is an argument FOR ILI, since Ni+ is entirely visual. 

The vital functions are used sporadically, so it is not likely that an LII spends every waken hour using NiTe. 9 out of 10 physicists are ILI for a reason. 



> lol my IEI father has good writing, he must be ILI.


LII often have a child-like handwriting. That's my point. This is not the ultimate proof, but it is an indication.



> This is an insult to non-ILI types. LII (and ILE) can be sexy too! Every ILI I have met is ugly as fuck.


Insult or not, ILIs are usually better looking than LIIs. This is especially true for males.



> How? LII (and ILE) don't struggle with advanced math?


Most LIIs will of course struggle with advanced math. But it is more likely that an ILI will struggle with advanced math. Especially if Einstein actually had an IQ of 160, which some people claim.



> Your other points are irrelevant too, does nothing to prove that he was ILI.


I disagree.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ILE. No Fi at all. Fairness of Fe HA. Preference of beauty/symmetry over reality. Quantum mechanics was too messy and inelegant. So was the Big Bang.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse

I'd say ILI because his Ni was all over the place in his theories and quotes. LII is possible too because of shared demonstrative Ni. ILE is very unlikely.



Tellus said:


> ]Insult or not, ILIs are usually better looking than LIIs. This is especially true for males.


Factual statement.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Rabid Seahorse said:


> I'd say ILI because his Ni was all over the place in his theories and quotes. LII is possible too because of shared demonstrative Ni. ILE is very unlikely.
> 
> 
> 
> Factual statement.


Not an ILI. I gave examples of his preference of Ti and he isn't strict enough to be a judging/Ti dom. Why not ILE? He has no Fi at all. Where is his Fi? He's definitely a Ti and Fe user. ILI is out of the question. Fi HA, no way.


 "ILEs see beauty in the symmetrical nature of theories, and will try to make sure things match up on both sides, with any ends nicely tied"

^^like I said. And Einstein to the letter. 

http://**************.blogspot.com/2015/05/ile-intuitive-logical-energiser.html


----------



## Sylas

Einstein's conditions to his estranged wife are interesting in terms of his typing.


By 1914, Albert Einstein's marriage to his wife of 11 years, Mileva Marić, was fast deteriorating. Realising there was no hope for their relationship on a romantic level, Einstein proposed that they remain together for the sake of their children, but only if she agree to the following list of conditions.

"CONDITIONS

A. You will make sure:
1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;
2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;
3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.

B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego:
1. my sitting at home with you;
2. my going out or travelling with you.

C. You will obey the following points in your relations with me:
1. you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way;
2. you will stop talking to me if I request it;
3. you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.

D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behavior."

Mileva accepted them, but to no avail. A few months later, she left her husband in Berlin and moved, with their sons, to Zurich. They eventually divorced in 1919, having lived apart for five years.​


----------



## Tellus

Rabid Seahorse said:


> I'd say ILI because his Ni was all over the place in his theories and quotes. LII is possible too because of shared demonstrative Ni. ILE is very unlikely.


Yes, ILE is very unlikely. Physics is mostly related to Ni. You want to explain phenomena, i.e. see objects in a new context.




> Factual statement.


Well, it is a factual statement in my view. But beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, right?


----------



## Tellus

Sylas said:


> Einstein's conditions to his estranged wife are interesting in terms of his typing.
> 
> By 1914, Albert Einstein's marriage to his wife of 11 years, Mileva Marić, was fast deteriorating. Realising there was no hope for their relationship on a romantic level, Einstein proposed that they remain together for the sake of their children, but only if she agree to the following list of conditions.
> 
> "CONDITIONS
> 
> A. You will make sure:
> 1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;
> 2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;
> 3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.
> 
> B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego:
> 1. my sitting at home with you;
> 2. my going out or travelling with you.
> 
> C. You will obey the following points in your relations with me:
> 1. you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way;
> 2. you will stop talking to me if I request it;
> 3. you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.
> 
> D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behavior."
> 
> Mileva accepted them, but to no avail. A few months later, she left her husband in Berlin and moved, with their sons, to Zurich. They eventually divorced in 1919, having lived apart for five years.​


This corresponds with ILI much more than ILE and LII, right?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Tellus said:


> Yes, ILE is very unlikely. Physics is mostly related to Ni. You want to explain phenomena, i.e. see objects in a new context.
> 
> There is no basis in what you are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it is a factual statement in my view. But beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, right?


Physics is Ni? What? Why don't you address my arguments I made for Ne and Ti. It is quite clear to me. He's a fuckin Ti and Fe user. Seriously. 


"ILEs see beauty in the symmetrical nature of theories, and will try to make sure things match up on both sides, with any ends nicely tied"

Sounds like physics huh? And Einstein to the letter.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Compare Einstein to somebody like Richard Feynman. ENTP is the classic absent minded professor- that is Einstein. Einstein was also never dismissive or aggressive of opposing ideas. Look at the way Feynman sets up lectures. How he zooms in on the big picture all the time. 

Einstein is more roundabout. An example, at the beginning of Feynman lectures he asks his students a question like, "If you could transmit one sentence to humans of the past what would it be?" Bam. Just goes for the meat immediately. And his lectures continue with that kind of intensity. And he wasn't afraid to mock others or show off. Einstein was not like that at all. The guy was a saint. No strong opinions on anything. He was actually a good teacher and used metaphors that I think are well understood but he could never organize something like The Feynman Lectures. And all the other stuff Feynman was involved in. I forgot they used to call Feynman "the great explainer". Which is somewhat ironic because his ideas were so novel that he couldn't get others to understand them. Somebody had to do it for him.


----------



## Tellus

Word Dispenser said:


> LIIs would be more likely to show affection through gifts than through practical service (SEI).


Okay... but is it more likely that LII shows affection through gifts than ILI shows affection through gifts? 



> That said, him doing thought experiments doesn't exclude him from any type.


I disagree with you here. Only ILIs do these abstract thought experiments (about objects, not people) on a regular basis.



> The point wasn't his propensity for the hobby. And saying that a love of a particular genre of music is more common in one type than another is silly. Music is universal, my friend.


My point was that he loved classical music. That is much more common among INxx.



> Him avoiding danger doesn't seem to be relevant. Being a pacifist doesn't exclude you from avoiding danger. And, in fact, one could argue that any type is subject to two choices in those types of scenarios: Fight, or flight. Him being in 'flight' could point to a strong Se PoLR.


Avoiding danger and being a pacifist are not the same thing. And I don't agree with you interpretation of PoLR.


----------



## BigApplePi

A comment I have to make about typing. Can you type a five year old? Maybe. If you can, the five year old is still not developed. If you can't, the five year old has a way to go to bring out their type. Einstein as we know him was not five years old. He was no dummy and I assume from his history had a variety of skills. We know from Socionics that all eight cognitive functions can be used. I have no reason to believe Einstein did not make use of and gained some facility with a good many of those eight functions. This makes it harder to identify his type. Would you agree?

A person of only middle maturity (between a five year old and Einstein) would tend to specialize in cognitive functions. (Think of the way the division of labor works.) Such a person would be easier to type. But Einstein? 

This means there is an overlooked but important variable when typing anyone. That is the variable of experience or maturity. To add to this for an attempt at clarity, beside typing a personality, think of a personality characteristic like courage or goodness. A person in their twenties might be noted for their courage or goodness. It could stand out. But a person in their seventies because of their experience and wisdom might not be characterized so. They would be courageous or good in some situations and reserved or not so good in others.

This doesn't mean it has to be like this. They could become more good or more courageous. We don't know. That's my theory anyway. Continue on ...


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> I disagree with you here. Only ILIs do these abstract thought experiments (about objects, not people) on a regular basis.


My comment on this is that since Socionics acknowledges we are able to use all eight cognitive functions, there is no reason why anyone couldn't do a thought experiment. A question would be, "how much?" It may well be ILIs are fond of thought experiments and Einstein is surely noted for his. My question would be, is that notation ours or his? We note and get excited by his famous thought experiments, but during his lifetime, how much time was devoted to this in his every day life? How do we know he may have spent 95 percent of his time thinking (physics, patent office) and only at peak times his thought experiment discoveries? You tell me. This is just my observation as a possibility and doesn't mean I'm right.

Another thought: we, ourselves do thought experiments no matter what type we are when we read about one.

Still another critique. How much of a developing thought experiment is internal Ni and how much is external Ne? My own intuition says it has got to be both ... especially in a mind as capable as Einstein's. It's matter of being a mature thinker! Tell me I'm wrong.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> A comment I have to make about typing. Can you type a five year old? Maybe. If you can, the five year old is still not developed. If you can't, the five year old has a way to go to bring out their type. Einstein as we know him was not five years old. He was no dummy and I assume from his history had a variety of skills. We know from Socionics that all eight cognitive functions can be used. I have no reason to believe Einstein did not make use of and gained some facility with a good many of those eight functions. This makes it harder to identify his type. Would you agree?


We use all eight functions, but they are different in each type. We must consider high/low dimensionality, mental/vital and accepting/producing (and other aspects). 



> A person of only middle maturity (between a five year old and Einstein) would tend to specialize in cognitive functions. (Think of the way the division of labor works.) Such a person would be easier to type. But Einstein?


That specialization applies to Einstein as well.



> This means there is an overlooked but important variable when typing anyone. That is the variable of experience or maturity. To add to this for an attempt at clarity, beside typing a personality, think of a personality characteristic like courage or goodness. A person in their twenties might be noted for their courage or goodness. It could stand out. But a person in their seventies because of their experience and wisdom might not be characterized so. They would be courageous or good in some situations and reserved or not so good in others.
> 
> This doesn't mean it has to be like this. They could become more good or more courageous. We don't know. That's my theory anyway. Continue on ...


Yes, it is harder to type a person in his or her seventies due to less focus on Ego functions. 

Our Ego is fully developed at the age of 28 according to Vladimir Yermak.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> My comment on this is that since Socionics acknowledges we are able to use all eight cognitive functions, there is no reason why anyone couldn't do a thought experiment. A question would be, "how much?"


Yes



> It may well be ILIs are fond of thought experiments and Einstein is surely noted for his. My question would be, is that notation ours or his? We note and get excited by his famous thought experiments, but during his lifetime, how much time was devoted to this in his every day life? How do we know he may have spent 95 percent of his time thinking (physics, patent office) and only at peak times his thought experiment discoveries? You tell me. This is just my observation as a possibility and doesn't mean I'm right.


Theoretical physicists do thought experiments all the time. That's the only way to come up with a new theory, right?



> Another thought: we, ourselves do thought experiments no matter what type we are when we read about one.


Yes, what is your point?



> Still another critique. How much of a developing thought experiment is internal Ni and how much is external Ne? My own intuition says it has got to be both ... especially in a mind as capable as Einstein's. It's matter of being a mature thinker! Tell me I'm wrong.


Ne is not about thought experiments in my view. As I have mentioned before, it is about alternatives and possibilities (which in turn is about potential).


----------



## ae1905

Tellus said:


> Watch this video at 10:20-11:20. His comments about Einstein apply to ILI much more than LII.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM_xg79OOt4


hating contradictions is Ti, not Ni...in fact, Ni accepts contradictions as _natural_ and works to _synthesize _them into new insights--think hegel's _dialect_...Ti, otoh, _rejects _contradictions as symptomatic of _error _and discards some or all of the contradictory concepts

so in the example of einstein, he _rejected _newtonian mechanics at speeds close to the speed of light and created special relativity


----------



## Tellus

ae1905 said:


> hating contradictions is Ti, not Ni...in fact, Ni accepts contradictions as _natural_ and works to _synthesize _them into new insights--think hegel's _dialect_...Ti, otoh, _rejects _contradictions as symptomatic of _error _and discards some or all of the contradictory concepts
> 
> so in the example of einstein, he _rejected _newtonian mechanics at speeds close to the speed of light and created special relativity


He is not referring to "structural" contradictions. That would be Ti. For example, A=B+C and B=A+C is contradictory.

Instead, he is referring to _conclusions_ (Te) that contradict each other.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> ...


Here's an example of Ne. Simplify this expression: a[SUP]2[/SUP]+b[SUP]2[/SUP]+ab / a[SUP]3[/SUP]-b[SUP]3[/SUP]

In order to solve this you start guessing (i.e. see alternative methods of factorization). That is Ne!

a[SUP]2[/SUP]+b[SUP]2[/SUP]+ab / (a-b)(a[SUP]2[/SUP]+b[SUP]2[/SUP]+ab) = 1 / a-b


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> Here's an example of Ne. Simplify this expression: a[SUP]2[/SUP]+b[SUP]2[/SUP]+ab / a[SUP]3[/SUP]-b[SUP]3[/SUP]
> 
> In order to solve this you start guessing (i.e. see alternative methods of factorization). That is Ne!
> 
> a[SUP]2[/SUP]+b[SUP]2[/SUP]+ab / (a-b)(a[SUP]2[/SUP]+b[SUP]2[/SUP]+ab) = 1 / a-b


Intuition or memory which Myers-Briggs calls Si?


----------



## ae1905

Tellus said:


> He is not referring to "structural" contradictions. That would be Ti. For example, A=B+C and B=A+C is contradictory.
> 
> Instead, he is referring to _conclusions_ (Te) that contradict each other.


first, C=0 solves the two equations (A=B), so there is no contradiction

second, I don't know what you mean by "structural" and "conclusion"...A=B+C is a conclusion inasmuch as A is the result (or conclusion) of adding B and C...likewise for B=A+C...so your so-called Ti "contradiction" _is _a contradiction between two conclusions (provided C=/=0 or null)

third, any fact can be represented symbolically so that contradictory facts can be expressed as _A and not A_ in the same way the two equations A=B+C and B=A+C can be rewritten as B+C and B-C (=not B+C)


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Intuition or memory which Myers-Briggs calls Si?


If you already _know_ how to solve a specific problem then it is memory, Si. (first a conclusion/a fact, Te, then memorization, Si).


----------



## Tellus

ae1905 said:


> first, C=0 solves the two equations (A=B), so there is no contradiction


Yes, there is a contradiction. A, B and C are not variables.



> second, I don't know what you mean by "structural" and "conclusion"...A=B+C is a conclusion inasmuch as A is the result (or conclusion) of adding B and C...likewise for B=A+C...so your so-called Ti "contradiction" is a contradiction between two conclusions (provided C=/=0 or null)


Ti is about logical structure (e.g. A=B+C), and Te is about logical reasoning (e.g. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) ... in my view. 'Conclusion' is mainly about deduction, but also about abduction and induction.

A=B+C is not a conclusion. It is, as you say, a _result_ of adding B and C. The Ti contradiction is "stuctural", i.e. the two expressions don't add up. If the first one is right then B should be A-C.

The fact that Maxwell had concluded that c (speed of light) is constant while Newton had concluded that c is not constant bothered Einstein. It is not as if the contradictory combination of the two theories itself bothered him.



> third, any fact can be represented symbolically so that contradictory facts can be expressed as A and not A in the same way the two equations A=B+C and B=A+C can be rewritten as B+C and B-C (=not B+C)


What is your point?


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> Ne is not about thought experiments in my view. As I have mentioned before, it is about alternatives and possibilities (which in turn is about potential).


Is that statement a thought experiment? When one fails to make a definition precisely (in this case "thought experiment"), one can draw conclusions outside the meaning of that definition. When one defines precisely, the conclusion may fall apart. By not being precise, one is saying more than one thing at once. So goes my intuition, not having proved this formally.





ae1905 said:


> hating contradictions is Ti, not Ni...in fact, Ni accepts contradictions as _natural_ and works to _synthesize _them into new insights--think hegel's _dialect_...Ti, otoh, _rejects _contradictions as symptomatic of _error _and discards some or all of the contradictory concepts
> 
> so in the example of einstein, he _rejected _newtonian mechanics at speeds close to the speed of light and created special relativity


Ti aims at a conclusive direction in one's head. Ni brings in data into one's head. Those are different functions but can be applied serially. The Ti we know of Newton applied to specific limited data about various Ne experiences. Einstein brought in "close to the speed of light" data which was new. The act of bringing in this data was Ni. That this data (among many data) was available to bring in by anyone at all is Ne but only if done so. Aiming at a conclusions about this new data was Te.

We could say a thought experiment is Ni followed by Te. Once the Ni/Te is done for our shared explanation it becomes Ti/Ne. A transformation takes place because the Ni process which was internal becomes available to all and is now external. The originally external Te thinking on the Ni becomes available for all of us to reflect on. Should we choose to think about this (Ti), we may bring in "close to speed of light" data or ordinary speed data which is Ne.

Said another way, Einstein's thinking was based on Ni. Our thinking is based on Ne narrowed to Ni. Perhaps this could all be stated in a more formal manner. Until this is done, you may not be convinced.

About Hegel's dialectic. A thesis and an anti-thesis are locally contradictory as they cannot exist in the same place at the same time. They are not globally contradictory as they are merely different entities in a larger place.
=================================





Tellus said:


> He is not referring to "structural" contradictions. That would be Ti. For example, A=B+C and B=A+C is contradictory.


What if C = zero?


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> Yes, there is a contradiction. A, B and C are not variables.


That statement surprises me. There are too many concepts here to unravel and reply to with comfort. (My Fi.)





> Ti is about logical structure (e.g. A=B+C), and Te is about logical reasoning (e.g. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) ... in my view. 'Conclusion' is mainly about deduction, but also about abduction and induction.


In Myers-Brings Te is about external thinking and Ti about internal thinking. If Socionics wants to use structure, deduction, conclusion, abduction and induction concepts, they sound like abstractions of thinking. They don't sound useful if we wish to separate internal versus external thinking. 





> The fact that Maxwell had concluded that c (speed of light) is constant while Newton had concluded that c is not constant bothered Einstein.


Seems okay.





> It is not as if the contradictory combination of the two theories itself bothered him.


Are you saying the logical structure of the two conclusions bothered Einstein but reasoning about them did not?


----------



## ae1905

Tellus said:


> Yes, there is a contradiction. A, B and C are not variables.


it doesn't matter....in boolean logic, "+" means "true if and only if A is true and B is false or A is false and B is true"...ie, it represents an exclusive OR

so A = B + C = true if B = true and C = false

and B = A + C = true if A = true and C = false

similarly,

A = B + C = false if B = true and C = true
B = A + C = true if A = false and C = true

so there is still no contradiction if you take "+" to mean the logical operator



> Ti is about logical structure (e.g. A=B+C), and Te is about logical reasoning (e.g. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) ... in my view. 'Conclusion' is mainly about deduction, but also about abduction and induction.


I see what you mean by "structural" and "conclusion"...I disagree, however, that Ti is about "structure" and Te about "conclusion"..._e_ and _i_ simply mean orientation to the external and internal, respectively..._external _means objectively observed or measured perceptions..._internal _means subjective perceptions usually of external objects but also of wholly subjective objects (eg, mathematics)...either way, Ti and Te both perform logical operations, one on internal representations, the other on external representations...if this wasn't the case, math would be regarded as a Te activity even though its objects don't exist in the external world



> A=B+C is not a conclusion. It is, as you say, a _result_ of adding B and C. The Ti contradiction is "stuctural", i.e. the two expressions don't add up. If the first one is right then B should be A-C.


now you are contradicting yourself and using "+" to mean arithmetic addition, in which case C=0 solves the system of two equations...so again, there is no contradiction

if you treat "+" as a logical operator, then A=B+C should be rearranged as A-C=B+C-C...subbing various values for A, B, and C will show the relation holds--ie, LHS=RHS

in other words, there are no contradictions



> The fact that Maxwell had concluded that c (speed of light) is constant while Newton had concluded that c is not constant bothered Einstein. It is not as if the contradictory combination of the two theories itself bothered him.


actually, the combination of the two theories did bother him...newtonian mechanics satisfies the principle of relativity where there were no privileged frames of reference and physical laws work the same way in all (inertial) frames of reference...maxwell's laws, otoh, gave preference to a single frame of reference coincident with a hypothetical _ether_, a medium fixed in absolute space through which light waves were believed to travel...if an observer himself happened to travel through the ether, he would measure a speed for light different than maxwell's speed in a vacuum (ie, wrt the ether)...it was the preservation of this principle _of physics _in maxwell's laws that motivated einstein to create special relativity...(he had to discard newton's notions of absolute space and time--and along with it his mechanics--to do it)

I regard this effort as Ti because einstein tried to impose a _universal _logical consistency across _different fields_ of physics...Te, otoh, would be satisfied that newtonian mechanics and maxwell's electromagnetism each work in its _individual _domain...it's also Ti because einstein was concerned with a _principle_, an _idea_, rather than any empirical fact



> What is your point?


my point is that logic--or what you call "structure"--underlies both Ti and Te and contradictions in both types of thinking would be represented in the same way as _A and not A_


----------



## DavidH

The only math involved in Te is the handwriting involved in performing math equations. Similarly, the only Te involved in any logical discussion on the forums is the typing involved, which is more evidence of weak, valued and black ethics causing the prevention of black ethics usage in offline means.


----------



## BigApplePi

ae1905 said:


> ... I regard this effort as Ti because einstein tried to impose a _universal _logical consistency across _different fields_ of physics...Te, _..._


I put myself as LII in socionics which correspond to INTP in Myers-Briggs. Since you are INTP also, feel free. I tend to agree with what you say should I wade through the language. @*Tellus* corresponds to an INTJ so that could account for different perspectives. 

My general guess is anyone as experienced a thinker as Einstein would be highly proficient in both Ti and Te. Any internal/ external boundary would be easily crossed. Theoretical physicists would have a greater fondness for Ti I would think yet one can find evidence for usage of both. I'm a little skeptical to classify such people as preferring Ti or Te. It's a little like saying, does a lover prefer kisses or hugs?

This reminds me of the story of the king who when confronted with two women laying claims to one baby had to make a decision. He offered to divide the baby equally in half and give a half to each woman. The real mother screamed, "No. No. Give the baby to her."


----------



## ae1905

BigApplePi said:


> I put myself as LII in socionics which correspond to INTP in Myers-Briggs. Since you are INTP also, feel free. I tend to agree with what you say should I wade through the language. @*Tellus* corresponds to an INTJ so that could account for different perspectives.
> 
> My general guess is anyone as experienced a thinker as Einstein would be highly proficient in both Ti and Te. Any internal/ external boundary would be easily crossed. Theoretical physicists would have a greater fondness for Ti I would think yet one can find evidence for usage of both. I'm a little skeptical to classify such people as preferring Ti or Te. It's a little like saying, does a lover prefer kisses or hugs?
> 
> This reminds me of the story of the king who when confronted with two women laying claims to one baby had to make a decision. He offered to divide the baby equally in half and give a half to each woman. The real mother screamed, "No. No. Give the baby to her."


you might say the king had his own theory of relativity

and it is relative...einstein's Te might have been greater than most people's, but it would still have been less than his Ti if he was an intp

I wrote this mbti test twice, first answering for myself (to validate the test), and second answering for einstein as I imagine he would have answered...I got intp...and so did "he"

note: we didn't always give the same answers...for example, where I was uncertain of his response, I left the slider unmoved...and where I was quite certain of his reponse, I gve einstein the highest or next highest scores--because he was einstein!

https://www.my-personality-test.com/personality-type/?profileid=2488787568456182989


----------



## BigApplePi

ae1905 said:


> you might say the king had his own theory of relativity
> 
> and it is relative...einstein's Te might have been greater than most people's, but it would still have been less than his Ti if he was an intp


The king observed both women wanted the baby. The title of this thread is, "*Einstein - ILE, LII or ILI?"*

The true personality is supposed to be the one which one is most comfortable with. I'm sure the real woman knew what she wanted as was comfortable with it. But somehow circumstances caused her to change her mind. Now her choice of comfort was to give the whole baby away. Who can say what Einstein went through? He struggled, failed, succeeded, became famous and made the spotlight. Who can say what that does to one even if it is only temporary?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Is that statement a thought experiment?


Do you mean my comment? If yes, that is my conclusion so it is not a thought experiment (...which becomes a "fact", which in turn is memorized ... Te -> Si). But I have used thought experiments in order to draw that conclusion.



> When one fails to make a definition precisely (in this case "thought experiment"), one can draw conclusions outside the meaning of that definition. When one defines precisely, the conclusion may fall apart. By not being precise, one is saying more than one thing at once. So goes my intuition, not having proved this formally.


Can you give me a concrete example of this?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> That statement surprises me. There are too many concepts here to unravel and reply to with comfort. (My Fi.)


I should have chosen a simpler example. 4 < 2 ... this is a "structural" contradiction (Ti).



> In Myers-Brings Te is about external thinking and Ti about internal thinking. If Socionics wants to use structure, deduction, conclusion, abduction and induction concepts, they sound like abstractions of thinking. They don't sound useful if we wish to separate internal versus external thinking.


Socionics does not use logical reasoning vs. logical structure. Those are my definitions of Te and Ti.

We have...

1) Jung and Myers-Briggs ... N.B. this is not external Thinking and internal Thinking! ... Instead, it is objective vs. subjective Thinking.

2) "your" external / internal 

3) SSS definitions

4) Aushra's external dynamics of objects, Te... and external statics of fields, Ti.

5) and my definitions



> Are you saying the logical structure of the two conclusions bothered Einstein but reasoning about them did not?


What do you mean by "the logical structure of the two conclusions"?

I am saying that the contradictory conclusions themselves bothered Einstein. Maxwell's or Newton's pattern recognition, or observations, or experiments failed ... or one of them drew the wrong conclusions.


----------



## Tellus

ae1905 said:


> it doesn't matter....in boolean logic, "+" means "true if and only if A is true and B is false or A is false and B is true"...ie, it represents an exclusive OR
> so A = B + C = true if B = true and C = false
> and B = A + C = true if A = true and C = false
> similarly,
> A = B + C = false if B = true and C = true
> B = A + C = true if A = false and C = true
> so there is still no contradiction if you take "+" to mean the logical operator


It is not Boolean logic either. I should have chosen a simpler example. 4 < 2 ... this is a "structural" contradiction (Ti).



> I see what you mean by "structural" and "conclusion"...I disagree, however, that Ti is about "structure" and Te about "conclusion"...e and i simply mean orientation to the external and internal, respectively
> ...external means objectively observed or measured perceptions...internal means subjective perceptions usually of external objects but also of wholly subjective objects (eg, mathematics)...either way, Ti and Te both perform logical operations, one on internal representations, the other on external representations...if this wasn't the case, math would be regarded as a Te activity even though its objects don't exist in the external world


No, 'e' refers to Extraversion and 'i' refers to Introversion. Jung's theory (and Myers-Briggs) has four functions and two attitudes, so Te = Thinking and Extraversion, Ti = Thinking and Introversion.

Jung's Te _is _objective and his Ti _is_ subjective. Te (according to Jung): "... with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint." There is no "external" or "internal" in his view.

Okay, so what does he mean by "collective standpoint"? Is it about facts? Do LIEs organize objects according to the "collective standpoint"? 

What do _you_ mean by "objectively observed"? In what sense are they objective? You say "empirical fact", but that does not correspond with LIE. LIE is not a "factual" type.

--------

Math is both a Te activity and a Ti activity (mainly Ti though... calculations in math is about Te). This is not a problem in Socionics since all types use all functions.



> actually, the combination of the two theories did bother him...newtonian mechanics satisfies the principle of relativity where there were no privileged frames of reference and physical laws work the same way in all (inertial) frames of reference...maxwell's laws, otoh, gave preference to a single frame of reference coincident with a hypothetical ether, a medium fixed in absolute space through which light waves were believed to travel...if an observer himself happened to travel through the ether, he would measure a speed for light different than maxwell's speed in a vacuum (ie, wrt the ether)...it was the preservation of this principle of physics in maxwell's laws that motivated einstein to create special relativity...(he had to discard newton's notions of absolute space and time--and along with it his mechanics--to do it)


This is about contradictory patterns, or rather contradictory conclusions about patterns (Ni -> Te). He wasn't bothered by a contradictory logical structure; i.e. varying speed of light vs. constant speed of light. For example, when he put c (constant speed of light) into Newton's equations there were contradictions. This did not bother him.



> I regard this effort as Ti because einstein tried to impose a universal logical consistency across different fields of physics...Te, otoh, would be satisfied that newtonian mechanics and maxwell's electromagnetism each work in its individual domain...it's also Ti because einstein was concerned with a principle, an idea, rather than any empirical fact


I disagree with your (and Jung's) view on Te and Ti.


----------



## ae1905

Tellus said:


> It is not Boolean logic either. I should have chosen a simpler example. 4 < 2 ... this is a "structural" contradiction (Ti).


4<2 is arithmetic...I think you're confusing "structure" with the_ rules of reasoning_...Ti is not only about the rules of reasoning...it includes the use of logic when applied to internal (subjective) objects



> No, 'e' refers to Extraversion and 'i' refers to Introversion. Jung's theory (and Myers-Briggs) has four functions and two attitudes, so Te = Thinking and Extraversion, Ti = Thinking and Introversion.


and what do extroversion and introversion mean but _orientation to the external and internal_, repectively?



> Jung's Te _is _objective and his Ti _is_ subjective. Te (according to Jung): "... with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint." There is no "external" or "internal" in his view.


yeah, there is...objective means _oriented to the *external*_, subjective _oriented to the *internal*_



> Okay, so what does he mean by "collective standpoint"? Is it about facts? Do LIEs organize objects according to the "collective standpoint"?
> 
> What do _you_ mean by "objectively observed"? In what sense are they objective? You say "empirical fact", but that does not correspond with LIE. LIE is not a "factual" type.


objectively observed means observations of external phenomena that don't depend on subjective interpretation..."the sun is up", for example, is an objective observation



> Math is both a Te activity and a Ti activity (mainly Ti though... calculations in math is about Te). This is not a problem in Socionics since all types use all functions.


you went much further than this earlier when you said "Te is reasoning, including deduction, induction, and abduction"...Ti also reasons when it does math, incl deduction, induction, etc...what makes math mostly Ti is it works with internal (subjective) objects



> This is about contradictory patterns, or rather contradictory conclusions about patterns (Ni -> Te). He wasn't bothered by a contradictory logical structure; i.e. varying speed of light vs. constant speed of light. For example, when he put c (constant speed of light) into Newton's equations there were contradictions. This did not bother him.


no...it was precisely the contradictions that bothered him...from his paper on special relativity, titled, "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies":



einstein said:


> It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to *asymmetries *[contradictions] which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. *The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet*, *whereas the customary view [electromagnetism with a privileged frame of reference] draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. *For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
> 
> Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” [the so-called _ether_] suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics *possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest*. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities,* the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good*.[SUP]1[/SUP][this is the _principle of relativity_]


note: comments in [] are mine




> I disagree with your (and Jung's) view on Te and Ti.


jung probably typed einstein as a Ti-dom

so you don't disagree that einstein is intp in mbti as most typologists understand it...you disagree that what typologists call Ti is "really" Ti; you think it is Te


----------



## DavidH

Alexsi Bukalov said Einstein is ILE.


----------



## BigApplePi

BigApplePi said:


> When one fails to make a definition precisely (in this case "thought experiment"), one can draw conclusions outside the meaning of that definition. When one defines precisely, the conclusion may fall apart. By not being precise, one is saying more than one thing at once. So goes my intuition, not having proved this formally.





Tellus said:


> Can you give me a concrete example of this?


I would think any example at all would do, but I'll look for concrete ones.

1. Here is a common example: When a person in seducing a sexual partner says, "I love you" in order to achieve the seduction the seduced one may misinterpret the seducer's meaning of "love." Later the seducer is proven wrong.

2. Here is an example we've been talking about. Physicists before Einstein failed to define "space." Everyone assumed Newton's use of this term was okay. Einstein broadened the definition to go outside of Newton's. This meant at least two meanings were existent: Space at the human level and space at speeds near the speed of light or perhaps around large masses. By using the more refined definition of Einstein's, conclusions in Newtonian space fell apart.

3. When we speak of personality types, we don't define them precisely when we speak. Therefore the listener is free to impose their own definition. If they draw conclusions according to their own personal meaning, the original speaker's conclusions may fall apart because they were thinking of a different meaning.


----------



## DavidH

Your #3 is typically referred to as equivocation or false equivalency, correct?


----------



## Tellus

ae1905 said:


> 4<2 is arithmetic...I think you're confusing "structure" with the rules of reasoning...Ti is not only about the rules of reasoning...it includes the use of logic when applied to internal (subjective) objects


It doesn't matter if it is arithmetic, geometric, algebraic, analytic or Boolean logic ... or parts of a machine. I am referring to any logical structures. 4 < 2 is a structural contradiction since 4 is more than 2, and < means 'less-than'. My explanation (here) is about Te, it's a conclusion (and so is "rules of reasoning"). BUT the actual comparison of 4 and 2 is Ti. Ti distinguishes between many and few, big and small, long and short... and it (probably) processes mental rotation.



> and what do extroversion and introversion mean but orientation to the external and internal, repectively?


Jung: 

"In the section alluded to I mentioned, inter alia, that the introvert interposes a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that corresponds with the objective situation."

"*Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions*, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus."

-------

Myers-Briggs Foundation: 

"I like getting my energy from dealing with the ideas, pictures, memories, and reactions that are inside my head, in my inner world." ... This is very similar to your "internal" (and "external"). 

"Adapted from Looking at Type: The Fundamentals by Charles R. Martin (CAPT 1997)"

------

My view: 

"The trait of extraversion–introversion is a central dimension of human personality theories. The terms introversion and extraversion were popularized by Carl Jung, although both the popular understanding and psychological usage differ from his original intent. Extraversion tends to be manifested in outgoing, talkative, energetic behavior, whereas introversion is manifested in more reserved and solitary behavior."

Keirsey's (and my) view: 

"The fourth ring - Expressive versus Reserved (Attentive) .... The fourth ring describes how people interact in with their environment. Individuals who primarily say and do before they listen and watch are described as expressive whereas people who primarily listen and watch before they say and do are described as attentive." 



> yeah, there is...objective means oriented to the external, subjective oriented to the internal


No, it doesn't (see quotes above).



> objectively observed means observations of external phenomena that don't depend on subjective interpretation..."the sun is up", for example, is an objective observation


I agree with you that noticing the sun (is up) is an objective process. But that is Si in my view (and SSS's view ... S, white sensing).

Is this Se or Te in your view? Can you give me another Te example?

EDIT: 

If someone observes the sun and says/thinks "the sun is up", then it is a conclusion (Te). He or she observes the sun and the horizon (Si), and concludes that the sun is above the horizon (Te).



> you went much further than this earlier when you said "Te is reasoning, including deduction, induction, and abduction"...Ti also reasons when it does math, incl deduction, induction, etc...what makes math mostly Ti is it works with internal (subjective) objects


Ti works with both external (math books, blackboard etc.) and internal objects.



> no...it was precisely the contradictions that bothered him...from his paper on special relativity, titled, "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies":


"when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries" This is a conclusion, Te, which bothered him. The actual asymmetries themselves are structural inconsistencies, Ti, which did not bother him.

Do you see the difference?



> so you don't disagree that einstein is intp in mbti as most typologists understand it...you disagree that what typologists call Ti is "really" Ti; you think it is Te


Yes I do. Einstein is INTJ if we are using MB Foundation's definitions, because the main difference is Ni vs. Ti, not Te vs. Ti.


----------



## ae1905

Tellus said:


> It doesn't matter if it is arithmetic, geometric, algebraic, analytic or Boolean logic ... or parts of a machine. I am referring to any logical structures. 4 < 2 is a structural contradiction since 4 is more than 2, and < means 'less-than'. My explanation (here) is about Te, it's a conclusion (and so is "rules of reasoning"). BUT the actual comparison of 4 and 2 is Ti. Ti distinguishes between many and few, big and small, long and short... and it (probably) processes mental rotation.


2 + 2 = 4 is also "conclusion"...but it isn't Te...it's Ti because it works with objects that don't exist in the external, objective world--ie, numbers are _abstractions_



> Jung:
> 
> "In the section alluded to I mentioned, inter alia, that the introvert interposes a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that corresponds with the objective situation."


precisely...the "subjective view" is the _orientation to the internal_, the subjective interpretation or impression of objective perceptions



> "*Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions*, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving *subjective disposition* to the sense stimulus."


as I said earlier in this thread, orientation to the internal includes *subjective impressions and* *interpretations * of objective perceptions



> -------
> 
> Myers-Briggs Foundation:
> 
> "I like getting my energy from dealing with the ideas, pictures, memories, and reactions that are inside my head, in my inner world." ... This is very similar to your "internal" (and "external").
> 
> "Adapted from Looking at Type: The Fundamentals by Charles R. Martin (CAPT 1997)"
> 
> ------
> 
> My view:
> 
> "The trait of extraversion–introversion is a central dimension of human personality theories. The terms introversion and extraversion were popularized by Carl Jung, although both the popular understanding and psychological usage differ from his original intent. Extraversion tends to be manifested in outgoing, talkative, energetic behavior, whereas introversion is manifested in more reserved and solitary behavior."
> 
> Keirsey's (and my) view:
> 
> "The fourth ring - Expressive versus Reserved (Attentive) .... The fourth ring describes how people interact in with their environment. Individuals who primarily say and do before they listen and watch are described as expressive whereas people who primarily listen and watch before they say and do are described as attentive."


what does this have to do with your idea that "Te is conclusions"?



> No, it doesn't (see quotes above).


see above...even jung said interversion is an _orientation to internal subjective impressions and conclusions_



> I agree with you that noticing the sun (is up) is an objective process. But that is Si in my view (and SSS's view ... S, white sensing).


no...Si would be the "sun is _hot_", a subjective impression of the objective observation the "sun is up"



> Is this Se or Te in your view? Can you give me another Te example?


the _perception _"the sun is up" is Se...the _judgment _"the sun is up" is Te..."observation" can refer to either perception or judgement, or both...that's why I used "observation" to describe extroverted _processes_

another example of a Te judgment is _the capital of the us is washington dc_




> Ti works with both external (math books, blackboard etc.) and internal objects.


when Ti works with external objects, it works with its _subjective representations_ of those objects, eg, mathematical representations (eg, numbers, physical theories) of physical reality

when a Ti user works with external objects _as they are_, he is using Te



> "when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries" This is a conclusion, Te, which bothered him. The actual asymmetries themselves are structural inconsistencies, Ti, which did not bother him.
> 
> Do you see the difference?


no..."when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries" refers to inconsistencies in maxwell's electromagnetic _theory_--ie, contradictions in _Ti judgments_



> Yes I do. Einstein is INTJ if we are using MB Foundation's definitions, because the main difference is Ni vs. Ti, not Te vs. Ti.


your view of _e_ vs _i_ is hardly convincing



> Keirsey's (and my) view:
> 
> "The fourth ring - Expressive versus Reserved (Attentive) .... The fourth ring describes how people interact in with their environment. Individuals who primarily say and do before they listen and watch are described as expressive whereas people who primarily listen and watch before they say and do are described as attentive."


"listening before speaking" describes _behavior_, not cognition...typology is not a theory of behavior...it's a theory of cognition


----------



## ae1905

@*Tellus* 

you want to use Te to mean "conclusion", but conclusion is another word for _judgment_...and in mbti, judgment is the function performed by Te _and _Ti (and Fe and Fi)

unless you can explain what advantage your appropriation of these terms confers, there is no reason to abandon the existing theory


----------



## DavidH

@ae1905 We have confirmation that Einstein is ENTP in Socionics. Such can be used to properly reframe understandings accordingly.

You speak of Te and object judgments. Have you considered the possibility that Te is the act of personal movement? The act of personal movement must be classified within the system, as it is a function of the brain.


----------



## BigApplePi

ae1905 said:


> 2 + 2 = 4 is also "conclusion"...but it isn't Te...it's Ti because it works with objects that don't exist in the external, objective world--ie, numbers are _abstractions_


This may be another topic, but I see 2 + 2 = 4 as Se laden with the definitions of "2" and "4" which is Si. There is very little thinking as Tx must be conscious. If so, what is 9 + 7 = 16? This could also be observation. Then what is 9 x 7 = 63? Is it Si ... something memorized out of a table? What about 234 x 567? That's not in the table. One goes through a memorized procedure headed toward a result making weak judgments. I suppose the judgment is to carry out the procedure as opposed to not carrying it out. Is it Ti or Te? Not sure how abstract what we are dealing with is as numbers become concrete once we acknowledge their definitions. We don't pick "5" and "9" and a procedure from any consciousness. They are almost "sensed." This has me considering an absence of any Ti/Te boundary in this case. Let me think this over, lol. What do you think?
================================





DavidH said:


> Have you considered the possibility that Te is the act of personal movement? The act of personal movement must be classified within the system, as it is a function of the brain.


Nice.


----------



## BigApplePi

ae1905 said:


> ...





Tellus said:


> It doesn't matter if it is arithmetic, geometric, algebraic, analytic or Boolean logic ... or parts of a machine. I am referring to any logical structures. 4 < 2 is a structural contradiction since 4 is more than 2, and < means 'less-than'. My explanation (here) is about Te, it's a conclusion (and so is "rules of reasoning"). BUT the actual comparison of 4 and 2 is Ti. Ti distinguishes between many and few, big and small, long and short... and it (probably) processes mental rotation.


Let's try to simplify this. 4 < 2 is complex and there are so many concepts. Speaking of rotation take this visual:


 

To begin with the visual is just there. If we just stare at it, there is no contradiction. We could try to blindly construct such a structure. Would we fail? Can we call that Se? If we think about handling each step and failing is that Te? If, instead of working in the physical reality, we reach into our memory and compare stepping down with the impossibility of ending up higher, is that Si and Ti? Aren't all of these choices possible? Which is it? Which choice? Doesn't that depend on who we are and what we are doing?






> Jung:
> 
> "In the section alluded to I mentioned, inter alia, that the introvert interposes a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that corresponds with the objective situation."
> 
> "*Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions*, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus."
> 
> -------
> 
> Myers-Briggs Foundation:
> 
> "I like getting my energy from dealing with the ideas, pictures, memories, and reactions that are inside my head, in my inner world." ... This is very similar to your "internal" (and "external").
> 
> "Adapted from Looking at Type: The Fundamentals by Charles R. Martin (CAPT 1997)"
> 
> ------
> 
> My view:
> 
> "The trait of extraversion–introversion is a central dimension of human personality theories. The terms introversion and extraversion were popularized by Carl Jung, although both the popular understanding and psychological usage differ from his original intent. Extraversion tends to be manifested in outgoing, talkative, energetic behavior, whereas introversion is manifested in more reserved and solitary behavior."
> 
> Keirsey's (and my) view:
> 
> "The fourth ring - Expressive versus Reserved (Attentive) .... The fourth ring describes how people interact in with their environment. Individuals who primarily say and do before they listen and watch are described as expressive whereas people who primarily listen and watch before they say and do are described as attentive."


If we are seeking to distinguish external views from internal views, the many perspectives above need to be consolidated and founded on more solid grounds. Each has something to say. I would like to see them consolidated and unified with differences in terms of variables if need be. 

Keep in mind this further requirement: An introverted versus an extroverted personality is *not the same* as an introverted/ internal function versus an extroverted/ external function. Personalities as a whole exist at a higher level than the functions within them.




> Yes I do. Einstein is INTJ if we are using MB Foundation's definitions, because the main difference is Ni vs. Ti, not Te vs. Ti.


Doesn't the answer to this depend on how much Ni and how much Ti? Evidence for each can be presented, but not to forget Einstein worked in a patent office where many (Ne) issues were presented (Te) to him, among them instruments addressing the simultaneity of time in different locations. If Ti is actual thinking, Ni is pre-thinking and I would venture both were used. Einstein could be INTJ or INTP or both.


----------



## NostalgicWizard

Apologize in advance: I often do this thing where I post in the Socionics board even though it's meant toward the universal functional theory, ie. Jung. This meant more towards MBTI, so I posted it here, and then here's the repost:

I often see Socionics misdefine Ti more how Te is supposed to be, and Te more how Ti is supposed to be.

For instance, Ti is often viewed as a highly objective function by which the underlying truth of the world can be rationalized into oftentimes overarching theories or constructs. Te on the other hand is often defined strongly in terms of one's _personal efficiency_ ie. "I thought about X, experimented on it, and it either worked for me to a degree or it did not. Thus as a result I can maintain it regardless of whether it's true for others," as it's logic applied to one's own psyche with no method by which one could assume it could be the same for others. It is subjective logic.

This is not an all-inclusive definition of Ti or Te ^, but rather how I often see them being misdichotomized or misdefined. I would have to say that the above descriptions are actual descriptions of Ti and Te, but they're _switched._ The first IM is Te, unifying the objective world into known constructs, while the latter function is Ti, the rationalizations and experiments which apply to one's personal understanding and reliance, yet overlook objective universality.

In any case, this simply discloses my logical reasoning at the moment. When an INTj really wants to be objective, it seems more logically best accomplished through the extroverted function, reading broad assumptions into the nature of the world through _vibes, probabilities and generalities,_ rather than through a subjective reflective rationalization (Ti like a personal philosophy.

This then sounds like I'm beginning to mix up Socionics terms, as Ne begins to sound like Ni and Te begins to sound like Ti. Rather, I'm claiming based on a Jungian premise of IMs being either objective and universal OR subjective and personal, that Socionics terms are _inherently_ slightly mixed up. This will only make sense to you if you believe the functions are inherent and nonchanging in people, that is Ti is always Ti, and that Ti as Jung states is subjective and personal. Then it seems that Ti already has a _built-in_ definition which can't be altered.

This explains why in MBTI, the INTJ (NiTe) is often scientific and visionary, think Nikola Tesla and Isaac Newton, even possibly Einstein, while the INTP (TiNe) is primarily philosophical, insightful and skeptical, think of the great philosophers and rationalizers.


----------



## DavidH

This topic should be merged with the Ti vs Te topic.

In MBTI, the INTJ is viewed as a crank, who cannot accept reality. In MBTI, the INTP is viewed as someone without opinion.

Jung did not utilize correct definitions of objective and subjective. He utilized a a general idea. Objective is independent of source, subjective is not.

Socionics does not misdefine. It has its own definitions. Te is objective. Ti is subjective. You can either directly observe something concerning an individual or you can not. If you directly observe it, it is an extroverted function. If you indirectly observe it, it is an introverted function. You cannot directly observe someone "thinking." If it is "thinking," then it is not Te, which is why Socionics does not utilize "Te" and "Ti," but, rather, "P" and "L."


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> In MBTI, the INTP is viewed as someone without opinion.


Like it or not, that hit me personally. Your opinions are encouraged. It is my "meta"-opinion for myself to avoid opinion.


----------



## DavidH

@BigApplePi I don't know what you are saying. Rephrase it to be more simplistic and skip the odd terms.


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> @*BigApplePi* I don't know what you are saying. Rephrase it to be more simplistic and skip the odd terms.


You said:


DavidH said:


> In MBTI, the INTP is viewed as someone without opinion.


I responded: Like it or not, that hit me personally. Your opinions are encouraged. It is my "meta"-opinion for myself to avoid opinion.

How is this?
I like it when people have opinions. For me, my opinion about opinions is I strive not to take sides.


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> Jung did not utilize correct definitions of objective and subjective. He utilized a a general idea. Objective is independent of source, subjective is not.
> 
> Socionics does not misdefine. It has its own definitions. Te is objective. Ti is subjective. You can either directly observe something concerning an individual or you can not. If you directly observe it, it is an extroverted function. If you indirectly observe it, it is an introverted function. You cannot directly observe someone "thinking." If it is "thinking," then it is not Te, which is why Socionics does not utilize "Te" and "Ti," but, rather, "P" and "L."


That sounds intuitively correct. I, myself, like to look for more formality. I don't think in terms of objectivity and subjectivity because the best I could do to define those terms was:
Subjective view - a view in the eye of the beholder
Objective view - the consensus view from many beholders arrived at by the scientific method

There is a limited ability to see anything directly. One person may look "directly" and see a tree, another may see a bush and still another may see only an obstacle. How do you see this "P" and "L"? I have been given to believe Socionics does utilize "Tx" but you are saying something different.


----------



## DavidH

That is not correct. I have referenced such previously with you. You are utilizing a definition of subjectivity and objectivity which both account for equal parts of what is actually subjectivity.

The tree is something objectively observable. From this point, it may be subjectively classified, be it by height, weight, shape, calling it a tree, a bush, etc. An individual moving is objectively observable. From this point, they may be subjectively classified as moving in any sort of way.


----------



## NostalgicWizard

DavidH said:


> You can either directly observe something concerning an individual or you can not. If you directly observe it, it is an extroverted function. If you indirectly observe it, it is an introverted function. You cannot directly observe someone "thinking." If it is "thinking," then it is not Te, which is why Socionics does not utilize "Te" and "Ti," but, rather, "P" and "L."


I see a problem with that definition being treated literally, once we look at Ne and Se. Ne-oriented information isn't something I think can be observed directly, that is, Ne-oriented information is usually all in one's mind: what possibilities or opportunities one can think of regarding anything, seeing multiple perspectives. Secondly, Se by this definition would be directly-observed sensation. The problem is, almost everyone is good at directly observing sensations, to where it's not Se-specific. In a way, these simplified categories aren't really as useful or consistent as I'd think.


----------



## DavidH

@NostalgicWizard If you wish to remain in the unreconciled theoretics of Socionics, yes. You are capable of objectively viewing another individual's utilization of perception.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> 3. When we speak of personality types, we don't define them precisely when we speak. Therefore the listener is free to impose their own definition. If they draw conclusions according to their own personal meaning, the original speaker's conclusions may fall apart because they were thinking of a different meaning.


Yes, this is of course a problem. If we would have exact definitions of the functions, a perfect model and accurate descriptions there would be no misinterpretations. But there wouldn't be anything to discuss either.

I think it is important that we _define_ the functions. SSS has tried to define them, but they have partially failed (in my view).


----------



## DavidH

Define the objective functions, and then you have the resultant subjective functions as well.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Let's try to simplify this. 4 < 2 is complex and there are so many concepts. Speaking of rotation take this visual:
> To begin with the visual is just there.


Yes, but we must decide which function processes this image. It's Si and/or Ni in my view. It depends on the object.



> If we just stare at it, there is no contradiction. We could try to blindly construct such a structure. Would we fail? Can we call that Se?


This would be a lack of Ti. Se is not related to structure. But Se would be involved in the planning of any motions (when you construct a physical structure). 



> If we think about handling each step and failing is that Te?


Yes



> If, instead of working in the physical reality, we reach into our memory and compare stepping down with the impossibility of ending up higher, is that Si and Ti?


Yes, Si and Ti... or Ni and Ti .... or Si/Ni and Ti.



> Keep in mind this further requirement: An introverted versus an extroverted personality is not the same as an introverted/ internal function versus an extroverted/ external function. Personalities as a whole exist at a higher level than the functions within them.


This is the key issue. We all agree that some types show extroverted behavior (outgoing, talkative...) and other types show introverted behavior (reserved, quiet...). But what causes these two behaviors? Is it a focus on the outer world vs. the inner world? Or is it a focus on objective aspects of reality vs. subjective aspects of reality? Keirsey and I say: No, neither one of those are accurate. This is accurate: "... Individuals who primarily say and do before they listen and watch are described as expressive whereas people who primarily listen and watch before they say and do are described as attentive."

------

Jon Stewart, ILE, is an excellent example. He loves debating, and he is expressive and extroverted while doing it. But he doesn't comment on the exterior environment (the studio, how guests look etc.). Instead, he shares his inner thoughts.



> Doesn't the answer to this depend on how much Ni and how much Ti? Evidence for each can be presented, but not to forget Einstein worked in a patent office where many (Ne) issues were presented (Te) to him, among them instruments addressing the simultaneity of time in different locations. If Ti is actual thinking, Ni is pre-thinking and I would venture both were used. Einstein could be INTJ or INTP or both.


A theoretical physicist is much more focused on Ni than Ti. But I agree with you that working in a patent office is an argument for INTP / LII (TiNe... or NeTi). However, this was probably a job he had to do in order to make a living. His passion was physics.


----------



## NostalgicWizard

DavidH said:


> @NostalgicWizard If you wish to remain in the unreconciled theoretics of Socionics, yes. You are capable of objectively viewing another individual's utilization of perception.


Sorry, I'm not quite sure what sentence A implies or what sentence B means. Can you expound upon my last post?


----------



## DavidH

@NostalgicWizard 

Personality encompasses both the objective and subjective aspects of an individual. For a personality theory to be capable of being correct, it must consider both of these and classify them accordingly. What the others in this thread are doing is taking the dichotomy of objective/subjective, discarding the objective half, taking the subjective half, splitting the subjective half into two parts, then calling one of those parts objective and the other part subjective.

You are capable of measuring movements, speech, facial expressions, eye movement, auditory attention, etc. These are objective things that are controlled by the brain, independently of "thought." By classifying these into the appropriate extroverted functions, the implicit, respective, introverted functions are more accurately understood.

You mentioned Ne, which is an extroverted perception information element. You are capable of observing another individual perceiving their surroundings, which is perception of possibilities. To know where one may walk, one must first perceive the possible paths one may walk. Etc.

You must view the subjective for what it is and what it is not. Doing such allows clear view of the objective. When you see both, side by side, for that which they are and that which they are not, you may begin to understand personalities.


----------



## NostalgicWizard

@DavidH

With that being said, in my reluctance to trust advanced descriptions over real exemplars, and going by your definition, can you provide me with a link to accurately-typed famous people for each type? That way one is able to best examine your hypothesis through video observation.


----------



## DavidH

@NostalgicWizard You could just do it yourself, pretty easily too.

Te is Work in Socionics. Work, actual work, is movement.
Fe is Emotions in Socionics. Emotions is talking, laughing, facial expressions, etc.

Does someone move more or less than they don't move? More? Okay, Te is higher dimension than Ti.
Does someone talk and display emotions more or less than they don't? Less? Okay, Fi is higher dimension than Fe.
Does someone move more or less than they talk and display emotions? More? Okay, Te is higher dimension than Fe.


----------



## NostalgicWizard

@DavidH I believe you're onto something compared to the others. I've spent some time reading excerpts from a few individuals so far, but find your simple descriptions so far wanting the details I believe you could have. I ask, can you give me a list of your 8 IM definitions elaborated a bit more, or your best reading material. I need something to go off of that is wrapped up.

*The INTj (INTP)* I notice is so genius, lost in logical thought and consideration, and yet in the external moment can never say something impressive or think on their feet. Their true intellect goes unnoticed as they simply need time to think. On the other end, they rarely ever concern their mind with ethical issues, and yet in the moment easily snap to and adhere to ethics, responding politely rather than sensibly, sometimes joking with emotions or coming across so nice. It is momentary.

*The INTp (INTJ)* on the other hand I notice is easily sharp and calculated in action, knows the answers and accurate information to respond for fun, processing themselves smoothly. They seem much sharper and more well-rounded than the INTj (INTP), their performance is noteworthy, and yet they spend all their time not thinking about logical depths, but the depths of intuiting life, its possibilities and processing its ethical issues, only for the time to come that they totally lack personability or friendliness.

The INTj can't get what's going on in the moment, while the INTp is slow at reading possibilities into the moment.

*On Extroverted Functions:* _"It's easy for us (insert quadra) to just do it when it's not something we're concerning our deep thoughts over. We're not seeking full calculated perfection there, so the act just comes natural."_

*On Introverted Functions:* _"We (insert quadra) are still refining it and have it going on the backburner at the moment. The issue is more sensitive and involved than you'd think, so we're not quite content putting out in the open. It's more interesting to keep processing it."_

Thus, the four quadra values.


----------



## DavidH

@NostalgicWizard Those are equivocations. The most accurate correlations between systems are identical names of types.

The introverted information elements of the two extroverted elements would be the subjective versions, considering movements and considering emotions. For the perceiving ones, I suppose that you could utilize head position stability. Se would be focused forward and Ne would be looking around. This is evident somewhat by the utilization of "eyes" as a typical method to assist in typing.


----------



## NostalgicWizard

My previous post correlates to the old but true understanding of *extroversion* being _short-wavelength thought (sharp immediate processing,)_ and *introversion* being _long-wavelength thought (deep time-consuming processing.)_ Introversion can commonly be written off by people as being slow, as it struggles to give an answer to simple questions, but it's a deep process, it realizes it needs to look at the whole picture before validating the little things. It can become frustrated with peoples' quick gratification to accept an answer. Ie: 








(Ne) easily sees and comes up with possibilities and perspectives in the moment.







(Ni) may not have considered those yet, but sees them as shallow and deprived of true investigation, the situation needing to be envisioned more thoroughly as a comprehensive vista. 








(Te) easily comes up with the contemporarily known answers and facts.







(Ti) may not have considered those yet, but sees them as a shallow and deprived way to be certain, requiring instead deep calculation or contemplation to form a solid viewpoint. Te/Fi types are about practicality, not logical investigation, and so stick to what is effectively studied and save the deep analysis.








(Fe) easily responds with affirmative and effective ethics.







(Fi) commonly dismisses those and first asks the fundamental, underlying questions surrounding ethics, 'What is the real lesson here?' 'How does that fit my comprehensive view of morality?' Fe/Ti types don't care about ethics as an exploration. Ethics are simply viewed as something pleasantly effective in the moment and uninteresting to actually think about.








(Se) spots the opportunity to do something and does it, it's the star of a situation because it _knows_ what to do. While







(Si) may not have perceived of these quick resolves, it does not see the need to jump to them. Si is about realizing there may be better, more-effective ways of doing things. So instead of resolving, it invests time to explore and investigate solutions that work better.

*Xe *is fast-wavelength in that it's positivistic: it sees what can already work, and uses it.Extroverts are naturally short-wavelength thinkers. Their dominant operation is external interaction.​*Xi* is deep-wavelength in that it's negativistic: it rejects the idea that we have good-enough solutions,
and continues processing.​


----------



## DavidH

It appears you are moving backwards. You are unknowingly reverting everything back into subjectivity. You cannot directly measure subjectivity. You can only indirectly measure subjectivity by absence of objective effect.

It is possible to "think" about working or being emotional; however, "thinking" of these things is a different function of the brain than the brain's functions of actually doing these things. The objective portions of personality are simply thus. They are an execution with tangible effects in the external world. There is no "thinking" to these objective portions. The "thinking" portions are entirely subjective.

What your previous post has done is re-relate both the objective and the subjective back into the immeasurable reality of the subjective. This is an error by virtue of equivocation. Begin with the objectively verifiable. From there, draw conclusions of the necessitated corresponding subjective parts. They are two halves to a whole, no different than managing the distribution of weights on the scales.

I would not recommend the positive/negative language, as that is an existent dichotomy in Socionics, which exists as a different entity to what you have stated. You are referencing Involution/Evolution, which exists for both extroverts and introverts.


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> That is not correct. I have referenced such previously with you. You are utilizing a definition of subjectivity and objectivity which both account for equal parts of what is actually subjectivity.
> 
> The tree is something objectively observable. From this point, it may be subjectively classified, be it by height, weight, shape, calling it a tree, a bush, etc. An individual moving is objectively observable. From this point, they may be subjectively classified as moving in any sort of way.


DH, I notice you do not say to whom you are responding nor to which message. I would appreciate it if you would use "Reply with Quote" or the equivalent. It can be several days before I can respond and there can be many intervening messages. This leaves me uncertain if I am responding properly.





BigApplePi said:


> Subjective view - a view in the eye of the beholder
> Objective view - the consensus view from many beholders arrived at by the scientific method


You are technically right if you are saying both my definitions are about subjectivity. We are different personalities and may be looking at this issue with different motives and therefore see different things. I am not an LSI and tend to be ... this is hard to put into words ... philosophical and theoretical and find flaws in things. I am not as practical as others. Discussing this could help clarify differences, but if you don't care to that is okay.

While a tree may be obvious to you, it is not to some people.


----------



## DavidH

@BigApplePi People see a tree. A few individuals do not. That is not evidence of type. That is evidence of schizophrenia.


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> People see a tree. A few individuals do not. That is not evidence of type. That is evidence of schizophrenia.


Lol. There is the issue of precise definitions. Can you *define a tree*? Your definition will have to be precise enough so a child raised in the desert and transported to an unkempt botanical garden will be able to identity all trees present without mistakes scoring 100 percent on a test. Here is something I've always wondered about: can you define "pattern"? If not, don't worry.


----------



## DavidH

BigApplePi said:


> Lol. There is the issue of precise definitions. Can you *define a tree*? Your definition will have to be precise enough so a child raised in the desert and transported to an unkempt botanical garden will be able to identity all trees present without mistakes scoring 100 percent on a test. Here is something I've always wondered about: can you define "pattern"? If not, don't worry.


You have the pattern of referencing mental illnesses as a type.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pattern


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> If we would have exact definitions of the functions, a perfect model and accurate descriptions there would be no misinterpretations. But there wouldn't be anything to discuss either.
> 
> I think it is important that we _define_ the functions. SSS has tried to define them, but they have partially failed (in my view).


I take it SSS = *School of System Socionics.* In the past when I've been shown SSS, I'm dismissed it because I couldn't "ground" the definitions and different places seemed to say different things. That is why I've made these definitions:

I look for fundamental concepts like:
(1) Short-term & long-term meaning time interval
(2) Intensity of value (importance = the force which we bring), as in F = feeling
(3) Direction or aim, as in T = thinking
(4) Hierarchical categorization: part or whole, as in S = sensation and N = intuition
Are these fundamental enough and are they clear enough?

I admit I haven't documented detailed support for this. It isn't because I think this list is flawed. It's because making the foundation solid for the functions ... I can't tell you why not. I guess I'm looking for critique first. So far you've said (paraphrase) physics doesn't correspond with psychology, but I don't buy that.

Take (2). Tell me why feeling doesn't correspond exactly to intensity of valuation? And conversely intensity of valuation is feeling. The other functions lack both intensity and valuation. Furthermore such valuation is a judgment as there are alternative valuations. Thinking doesn't do that. Thinking is flat as to feeling. Thinking does have a feeling in humans but it is not conscious ... not while we're thinking. Observation for practical purposes is flat also. It senses and intuits but carries no feeling. We could say there are alternative choices in what we sense, but those are unconscious. If observation is accompanied by feeling, that is feeling and symantically we choose to separate observation from feeling.

(3) Thinking defined as choice of direction or aim is a little bit more tricky. When we decide to go in some direction, that is a judgment. We decide one way as opposed to another keeping in mind some structure. Little or no feeling is involved. I don't know how to be more general about this (so far) without giving examples. Logic is about structure. Categorization is about structure. There are choices (judgments) as the aim of logic goes from hypothesis to conclusion. It doesn't matter whether this "logic" process is correct or not according to some outside judgment. What matters is there is aim toward conclusions.

(4) as S and N is more controversial. I am definitely right about this (he said lol) but so far no one has bought it. I have to stand alone. (So did Einstein. I'm in good company.) That could be because there is so much history and tradition otherwise. No one wants to believe or even try my conjecture. They are wrong. The literature is filled with what intuition does, but they don't present consistent definitions or even try. I do.

As to (1), why have I put that in and left out internal and external? Not ready to explain that I guess.


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> You have the pattern of referencing mental illnesses as a type.
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pattern


That dictionary list shows how "pattern" is used but where is a definition? I like #10 best:


> a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts ... _foreign policy patterns. _


That is only a start at a definition which must be grounded on something more simple.

Seems to me "pattern" may not be definable solely within an entity. It may be a judgment by the observer who sees some correspondence to something. Of course if this observer is mentally ill, I'm not going to blame them for that.

Aren't we getting off topic?


----------



## DavidH

BigApplePi said:


> That dictionary list shows how "pattern" is used but where is a definition? I like #10 best:
> That is only a start at a definition which must be grounded on something more simple.
> 
> Seems to me "pattern" may not be definable solely within an entity. It may be a judgment by the observer who sees some correspondence to something. Of course if this observer is mentally ill, I'm not going to blame them for that.
> 
> Aren't we getting off topic?


It doesn't matter what you like. The context was #7 . Reasonable individuals would select #7 as well.

You repeatedly reference schizotypal traits, incorrectly equate them to INTP traits, and proceed to speak positively of such. Schizotypal traits are evidence of a mental illness, not something that is "okay" but "different." It is a serious illness and should be dealt with accordingly.


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> It doesn't matter what you like. The context was #7 . Reasonable individuals would select #7 as well.


#7 = a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution _a behavior pattern_ _spending patterns_ _the prevailing pattern of speech
_That's a good one also. I guess I overlooked it. I think I selected #10 = "_a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts_" because it may include #7 as it is quite general.





> You repeatedly reference schizotypal traits, incorrectly equate them to INTP traits, and proceed to speak positively of such. Schizotypal traits are evidence of a mental illness, not something that is "okay" but "different." It is a serious illness and should be dealt with accordingly.


I can't let you get away with this unless you give an example of my doing this. It could be your personal judgment which is okay.

I looked up "schizotypal." 

"*What Is Schizotypal Personality Disorder?*

Schizotypal personality disorder is one of a group of conditions informally thought of as "eccentric" personality disorders. People with these disorders often appear odd or peculiar. They also may display unusual thinking patterns and behaviors.
People with schizotypal personality disorder may have odd beliefs or superstitions. These individuals are unable to form close relationships and tend to distort reality. In this respect, schizotypal personality disorder can seem like a mild form of schizophrenia -- a serious brain disorder that distorts the way a person thinks, acts, expresses emotions, perceives reality, and relates to others. In rare cases, people with schizotypal personality disorder may eventually develop schizophrenia."
Mental Health: Schizotypal Personality Disorder

Do you think Einstein had this? (I'm trying to get on topic.) I don't.


----------



## Tellus

ae1905 said:


> 2 + 2 = 4 is also "conclusion"...


It is a _judgment,_ Ti. See comment below.



> but it isn't Te... it's Ti because it works with objects that don't exist in the external, objective world--ie, numbers are abstractions


2 + 2 = 4 (on your screen) _is _an abstraction ... and equations on a blackboard are also abstractions.



> precisely...the "subjective view" is the orientation to the internal, the subjective interpretation or impression of objective perceptions
> 
> as I said earlier in this thread, orientation to the internal includes subjective impressions and interpretations of objective perceptions


Okay, we agree on Jung's viewpoint. Is this your viewpoint as well?



> what does this have to do with your idea that "Te is conclusions"?


My view is that an "extroverted" function processes the planning of behavior/action/interaction of objects, and an "introverted" function processes identification/recognition of objects. This corresponds with Keirsey's view on extraversion (expressive) and introversion (attentive).



> no...Si would be the "sun is hot", a subjective impression of the


I disagree with you here. 'hot' is just as objective as observing the sun. Both are sensory perceptions that all (healthy/normal) people experience the same way.



> objective observation the "sun is up"


You cannot observe "sun is up" unless you mean a phrase on a screen, blackboard etc.



> the perception "the sun is up" is Se.


SSS and I disagree.



> ..the judgment "the sun is up" is Te..."observation"


Yes



> another example of a Te judgment is the capital of the us is washington dc


Yes, if you conclude that Washington D.C. is the capital then it is Te. But if you mention it as a fact then it is Si.



> when Ti works with external objects, it works with its subjective representations of those objects, eg, mathematical representations (eg, numbers, physical theories) of physical reality
> when a Ti user works with external objects as they are, he is using Te


That is Jung's point of view, yes. But it doesn't add up. For example, mechanics are almost exclusively LSI / ISTP (mbti). And mechanics work with concrete and external objects. It is not as if they always need internal visualizations in order to compare screws, nuts etc. 

I think LII's and LSI's dominant cognitive process (Ti) is about both subjective (inner) representations of objects and external objects. 



> no..."when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries" refers to inconsistencies in maxwell's electromagnetic theory--ie, contradictions in Ti judgments


"when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries" This phrase is itself a conclusion, Te.

There were no inconsistencies in Maxwell's theory. It's the combination of Maxwell's theory and Newton's theory that leads to inconsistencies. But, again, that did not bother him.



> "listening before speaking" describes behavior, not cognition...typology is not a theory of behavior...it's a theory of cognition


I disagree strongly with this. Every behavior is preceded by a planning/preparation of behavior. That is what "extroverted" functions do (in my view).



> you want to use Te to mean "conclusion", but conclusion is another word for judgment...and in mbti, judgment is the function performed by Te and Ti (and Fe and Fi)
> unless you can explain what advantage your appropriation of these terms confers, there is no reason to abandon the existing theory


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion

Definition of conclusion -> "a *reasoned* judgment : inference"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgement

Definition of judgment -> "the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing"


----------



## DavidH

@BigApplePi You do this regularly. You reference Schizotypal as a source of differences and commit false equivalency by falsely associating schizotypal traits as INTP traits. Schizotypal individuals typically mistype as INTP.

Einstein was not Schizotypal. He also was ENTp, which has been confirmed.


----------



## ae1905

Tellus said:


> It is a _judgment,_ Ti. See comment below.
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion
> 
> Definition of conclusion -> "a *reasoned* judgment : * inference*"
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgement
> 
> Definition of judgment -> "the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing"


_2+2=4_ _is _an inference...it's _deduced _from the axiom _1+1=2_

and before you object that 2+2=4 is a fact recalled from memory, it is unlikely anyone would recall _3767+20485=24252_, yet its solution relies on the same rules of arithmetic as _2+2=4_

Ti, in other words, also draws inferences, or conclusions



> 2 + 2 = 4 (on your screen) _is _an abstraction ... and equations on a blackboard are also abstractions.


I didn't say they weren't...in fact, I said Ti works with internal representations of external objects (eg, symbols written on a blackboard)



> Okay, we agree on Jung's viewpoint. Is this your viewpoint as well?


yes...I'm not the one trying to reappropriate common mbti terms



> I disagree with you here. 'hot' is just as objective as observing the sun. Both are sensory perceptions that all (healthy/normal) people experience the same way.


no..._hot _is subjective because it is defined in reference to human _experience _of heat...the _objective _definition of heat is _energy _(of a particular form) measured in units like joules or kelvin (temperature or heat intensity)



> You cannot observe "sun is up" unless you mean a phrase on a screen, blackboard etc.


I don't mean the phrase "sun is up"



I mean the _observation _you make (perception or judgment) when you _see the sun_



> SSS and I disagree.
> 
> Yes
> 
> Yes, if you conclude that Washington D.C. is the capital then it is Te. But if you mention it as a fact then it is Si.


Si is not memorized facts...there is nothing subjective about "dc is the capital of the us"...rather, "dc is the capital, etc" is a Te judgment



> That is Jung's point of view, yes. But it doesn't add up. For example, mechanics are almost exclusively LSI / ISTP (mbti). And mechanics work with concrete and external objects. It is not as if they always need internal visualizations in order to compare screws, nuts etc.


istps do a lot more than "compare screws, nuts, etc"!...those simple tasks use Te...rather, istps use Ti to _understand how mechanical objects work_--ie, they use internal mental (Ti) models to manipulate external objects



> I think LII's and LSI's dominant cognitive process (Ti) is about both subjective (inner) representations of objects and external objects.


that's why istps can be good mechanics



> "when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries" This phrase is itself a conclusion, Te.


it's Ti judgment because it concerns _theoretical _objects



> There were no inconsistencies in Maxwell's theory. It's the combination of Maxwell's theory and Newton's theory that leads to inconsistencies. But, again, that did not bother him.


you don't know what you're talking about...the asymmetries were in maxwell's _theory_:



einstein said:


> It is known that *Maxwell's electrodynamics*—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies,* leads to asymmetries* which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena.


the problem was that electromagnetic waves were thought to need a medium to propagate, in the same way sound needs matter, but this medium (called the ether) was a preferred frame of reference that produced anomalous predictions in maxwell's theory that were not matched by observed phenomena...it was only after the ether was abandoned that these asymmetries were resolved



> My view is that an "extroverted" function processes the planning of behavior/action/interaction of objects, and an "introverted" function processes identification/recognition of objects. This corresponds with Keirsey's view on extraversion (expressive) and introversion (attentive).
> 
> I disagree strongly with this. Every behavior is preceded by a planning/preparation of behavior. That is what "extroverted" functions do (in my view).


and what is the advantage of these definitions over commonly accepted terms?...why, for example, is yours a better description of istps' affinity for working with mechanical stuff?


----------



## BigApplePi

@*DavidH*. I'm so glad Einstein did not have this condition. Must one live with this or is there some sort of road to salvation?:crying:


----------



## DavidH

@BigApplePi I'd recommend a psychiatrist.


----------



## Tellus

ae1905 said:


> ...





BigApplePi said:


> ...


*1)*

Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions)

"INFORMATION-ACCESSING PROCESSES—Perception" ... Se, Si, Ne and Ni provide information.

"ORGANIZING-EVALUATING PROCESSES—Judgment" ... Te, Ti, Fe and Fi use that information and make judgments.

You agree with this, right?

*2) *

Let's consider ILI / INTJ (mbti).

Information goes from Ni directly to Te. Right? 

*3) 
*
If the information that is provided by Ni is subjective and/or "internal", then a judgment (Te) which is based on that information must also be subjective and/or "internal". Right?


----------



## DavidH

@Tellus #2 is equivocation from the start. I don't know why you keep making such a simple logical error. You commit equivocation multiple times within the same post often, seemingly without realization of such.


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> *1)*
> Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions)
> 
> "INFORMATION-ACCESSING PROCESSES—Perception" ... Se, Si, Ne and Ni provide information.
> 
> "ORGANIZING-EVALUATING PROCESSES—Judgment" ... Te, Ti, Fe and Fi use that information and make judgments.
> 
> You agree with this, right?


When you ask me if I agree, I'd say roughly yes. However I view a lot of these functions as not experienced in isolation. That is, there are no judgements not preceded by information gathering. I am also guilty of not reading and absorbing thoroughly the contents of every link provided. That means I am making snap judgments. (Or for me I am speaking Ne intuition which means this spoken intuition is not accurate or well thought out.)






> *2) *
> Let's consider ILI / INTJ (mbti).
> 
> Information goes from Ni directly to Te. Right?


That's what the literature says. Is some conclusion trying to be drawn here?



*



3)

Click to expand...

*


> If the information that is provided by Ni is subjective and/or "internal", then a judgment (Te) which is based on that information must also be subjective and/or "internal". Right?


Yes, however one could now say every function is subjective. After all it is a flawed human being who is executing these functions. That is not what is meant by "subjective" and "objective" I take it. I don't use these words (voluntarily) deliberately for this reason. I would wish to leave out subjective/objective in any personality theory. But why is too hard to explain at this point in time. (I wish to reply to other messages in this and the Te/Ti thread with more thought.)
=======================================






DavidH said:


> @*Tellus* #2 is equivocation from the start. I don't know why you keep making such a simple logical error. You commit equivocation multiple times within the same post often, seemingly without realization of such.


People are hard to read, aren't they? When one does read them, and unequivocably so, there is a strong possibility the reading is off and the recipient can be offended ... or not.


----------



## ae1905

Tellus said:


> *1)*
> 
> Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions)
> 
> "INFORMATION-ACCESSING PROCESSES—Perception" ... Se, Si, Ne and Ni provide information.
> 
> "ORGANIZING-EVALUATING PROCESSES—Judgment" ... Te, Ti, Fe and Fi use that information and make judgments.
> 
> You agree with this, right?
> 
> *2) *
> 
> Let's consider ILI / INTJ (mbti).
> 
> Information goes from Ni directly to Te. Right?


when Te is informed by Ni, it doesn't necessarily "go from Ni directly to Te"...Te can draw from Se and Fi as well as the other four functions



> *3) *If the information that is provided by Ni is subjective and/or "internal", then a judgment (Te) which is based on that information must also be subjective and/or "internal". Right?


if Te draws from Se (and Ne and Fe) then, by your reasoning, no, it wouldn't be entirely subjective

but even supposing "Ni goes directly to Te", it doesn't mean Te is subjective...Ni works with impressions of external reality...Te works with realilty itself...so while Ni might perceive that trump is about to be elected, Te would decide to contact trump's son and arrange a meeting where he would be offered assistance in exchange for some favors, etc


----------



## DavidH

@BigApplePi You don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## DavidH

ae1905 said:


> when Te is informed by Ni, it doesn't necessarily "go from Ni directly to Te"...Te can draw from Se and Fi as well as the other four functions
> 
> 
> 
> if Te draws from Se (and Ne and Fe) then, by your reasoning, no, it wouldn't be entirely subjective
> 
> but even supposing "Ni goes directly to Te", it doesn't mean Te is subjective...Ni works with impressions of external reality...Te works with realilty itself...so while Ni might perceive that trump is about to be elected, Te would decide to contact trump's son and arrange a meeting where he would be offered assistance in exchange for some favors, etc


The last line appears to be utilizing Fe on Trump's son to elicit either a Fe or Te response from the son.


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> @*BigApplePi* You don't know what you're talking about.


Sorry but you don't give reference. Surely you don't mean every message I make? Furthermore you don't know me very well. I'm a stranger to you on PerC. You don't know me. Even if I weren't a stranger, I would rephrase what you said and say, "I don't know what you're talking about. Can you explain?" That way I'd be more inclined to believe you.


----------



## DavidH

@BigApplePi The appropriate reference would be the previous statement you made towards me. My last statement was correct. You don't know what you're talking about. There is no misunderstanding there, nor is there a lack of knowing what you are talking about. You don't know what you're talking about, but you still speak.

I did not misread Tellus. He stated ILI and INTP are the same thing. That is a false statement. They are not the same thing, nor are ILI and INTJ the same thing. Furthermore, the argument that they are the same things is a fallacy of equivocation, whereby two words with the same name yet different definitions are treated as the same. "Ni" in MBTI and "Ni" in Socionics share the same name, yet have different definitions. Tellus, however, ignores this fact and repeatedly references a lie as a fact.


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> @*BigApplePi* The appropriate reference would be the previous statement you made towards me. My last statement was correct. You don't know what you're talking about. There is no misunderstanding there, nor is there a lack of knowing what you are talking about. You don't know what you're talking about, but you still speak.
> 
> I did not misread Tellus. He stated ILI and INTP are the same thing. That is a false statement. They are not the same thing, nor are ILI and INTJ the same thing. Furthermore, the argument that they are the same things is a fallacy of equivocation, whereby two words with the same name yet different definitions are treated as the same. "Ni" in MBTI and "Ni" in Socionics share the same name, yet have different definitions. Tellus, however, ignores this fact and repeatedly references a lie as a fact.


In my mind it is perfectly alright to critique what people are saying ... provided it is backed up with references. No references then the critique doesn't help.

Look at #106. (I assume you know how to copy and paste.) That is the last message of @*Tellus*. He says:
"*2) *Let's consider ILI / INTJ (mbti)." No error there if we assume correspondence as opposed to identity. I don't recall him confusing ILI with INTP. If he did we need a reference to correct it. Tellus has been on this thread since the beginning. I assume he means Socionics. Only recently he cites Myers-Briggs and my guess that is because some Myers-Briggs talk has appeared on this thread. It's a shortcut. You need not assume he thinks Myers-Briggs and Socionics are the same. They are not.

As for Ni being different in each case, that is a good observation. But it is useless unless you provide sources with links if you think it important. Otherwise it is not a contribution. I would look forward to your contributions because you are an astute critic.


----------



## DavidH

@BigApplePi Once again, you are mistaken. That is an identity statement he made. You assumed. I did not.


----------



## BigApplePi

I'm done with this conversation. Too many sticks and no carrots.


----------



## douleur

Einstein is an Alpha NT all the way. Most likely LII-Ne subtype since Ni is 4D and strenghtened. Gamma is so off


----------



## DavidH

douleur said:


> Einstein is an Alpha NT all the way. Most likely LII-Ne subtype since Ni is 4D and strenghtened. Gamma is so off


He's already been confirmed as ILE.


----------



## Tellus

ae1905 said:


> 2+2=4 is an inference...it's deduced from the axiom 1+1=2


I don't think '1+1=2' is an axiom. Both '1+1=2' and '2+2=4' are deduced from axioms (Te), yes. But I am referring to a judgment/evaluation/weighing of the left side and right side of the expression (Ti). 1+1 ... vs ... 2 (an abstraction), or eight slices of pizza ...vs ... one whole pizza.

"It’s deducted from Peano axioms (Peano axioms - Wikipedia)
S(0) = 1
a + 1 = a + S(0) = S(a+0) = S(a)
S(0) + 1= S(S(0)) = 2"



> and before you object that 2+2=4 is a fact recalled from memory,


Yes



> it is unlikely anyone would recall 3767+20485=24252, yet its solution relies on the same rules of arithmetic as 2+2=4


Yes



> Ti, in other words, also draws inferences, or conclusions


No



> I didn't say they weren't...in fact, I said Ti works with internal representations of external objects (eg, symbols written on a blackboard)


But that is not Jung's point of view. Introverted Thinking considers ´2+2=4´ on the blackboard AND adds a subjective/internal evaluation.



> no...hot is subjective because it is defined in reference to human experience of heat..


You said: 'objective observation the "sun is up" '. This is also about the human experience. 

You are contradicting yourself.



> .the objective definition of heat is energy (of a particular form) measured in units like joules or kelvin (temperature or heat intensity)


Yes



> I don't mean the phrase "sun is up"
> I mean the observation you make (perception or judgment) when you see the sun


My point is that "the sun is up" (a conclusion, Te) is a different cognitive process than observing the sun (Si).



> Si is not memorized facts...there is nothing subjective about "dc is the capital of the us"...rather, "dc is the capital, etc" is a Te judgment


But you don't memorize judgements. Instead, you memorize patterns of sounds (Si). 



> istps do a lot more than "compare screws, nuts, etc"!...those simple tasks use Te...rather, istps use Ti to understand how mechanical objects work--ie, they use internal mental (Ti) models to manipulate external objects


The problem here is that 'comparing screw, nuts etc' is a _categorization_ of objects. It is not an _organization_ of objects. And LIE / ENTJ and LSE / ESTJ don't categorize objects, they organize objects.



> it's Ti judgment because it concerns theoretical objects


I disagree. See previous comments.



> you don't know what you're talking about...the asymmetries were in maxwell's theory:
> the problem was that electromagnetic waves were thought to need a medium to propagate, in the same way sound needs matter, but this medium (called the ether) was a preferred frame of reference that produced anomalous predictions in maxwell's theory that were not matched by observed phenomena...it was only after the ether was abandoned that these asymmetries were resolved


"In sum Einstein's lesson was this. Maxwell's theory employed an ether state of rest; but that state of rest could not be revealed by observation. So somehow the principle of relativity needed to be upheld."

There are no asymmetries in Maxwell's theory since it assumes an ether state of rest.



> and what is the advantage of these definitions over commonly accepted terms?...why, for example, is yours a better description of istps' affinity for working with mechanical stuff?


My definitions correspond more accurately with our observations of the types. ISTP... see comment above.


----------



## Tellus

NostalgicWizard said:


> My previous post correlates to the old but true understanding of *extroversion* being _short-wavelength thought (sharp immediate processing,)_ and *introversion* being _long-wavelength thought (deep time-consuming processing.)_ Introversion can commonly be written off by people as being slow, as it struggles to give an answer to simple questions, but it's a deep process, it realizes it needs to look at the whole picture before validating the little things. It can become frustrated with peoples' quick gratification to accept an answer. Ie:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Ne) easily sees and comes up with possibilities and perspectives in the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Ni) may not have considered those yet, but sees them as shallow and deprived of true investigation, the situation needing to be envisioned more thoroughly as a comprehensive vista.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Te) easily comes up with the contemporarily known answers and facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Ti) may not have considered those yet, but sees them as a shallow and deprived way to be certain, requiring instead deep calculation or contemplation to form a solid viewpoint. Te/Fi types are about practicality, not logical investigation, and so stick to what is effectively studied and save the deep analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Fe) easily responds with affirmative and effective ethics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Fi) commonly dismisses those and first asks the fundamental, underlying questions surrounding ethics, 'What is the real lesson here?' 'How does that fit my comprehensive view of morality?' Fe/Ti types don't care about ethics as an exploration. Ethics are simply viewed as something pleasantly effective in the moment and uninteresting to actually think about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Se) spots the opportunity to do something and does it, it's the star of a situation because it _knows_ what to do. While
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Si) may not have perceived of these quick resolves, it does not see the need to jump to them. Si is about realizing there may be better, more-effective ways of doing things. So instead of resolving, it invests time to explore and investigate solutions that work better.
> 
> *Xe *is fast-wavelength in that it's positivistic: it sees what can already work, and uses it.Extroverts are naturally short-wavelength thinkers. Their dominant operation is external interaction.​*Xi* is deep-wavelength in that it's negativistic: it rejects the idea that we have good-enough solutions,and continues processing.​


Yes, extroverts seem faster than introverts. But I don't think an "extroverted" function itself is faster than an "introverted" function.

A fact must be memorized, right? How can Te (a judgement) memorize anything?


----------



## Toroidal

Sylas said:


> Einstein's conditions to his estranged wife are interesting in terms of his typing.
> 
> By 1914, Albert Einstein's marriage to his wife of 11 years, Mileva Marić, was fast deteriorating. Realising there was no hope for their relationship on a romantic level, Einstein proposed that they remain together for the sake of their children, but only if she agree to the following list of conditions.
> 
> "CONDITIONS
> 
> A. You will make sure:
> 1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;
> 2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;
> 3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.
> 
> B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego:
> 1. my sitting at home with you;
> 2. my going out or travelling with you.
> 
> C. You will obey the following points in your relations with me:
> 1. you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way;
> 2. you will stop talking to me if I request it;
> 3. you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.
> 
> D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behavior."
> 
> Mileva accepted them, but to no avail. A few months later, she left her husband in Berlin and moved, with their sons, to Zurich. They eventually divorced in 1919, having lived apart for five years.​


The C block seems like poor Fi with no Fe.


----------



## Tellus

Yes... If one wants to simplify social relationships like that, it is very likely that Si+, Se+, Fe- and Fi- are weak.


----------



## DavidH

Tellus said:


> Yes... If one wants to simplify social relationships like that, it is very likely that Si+, Se+, Fe- and Fi- are weak.


Tellus, what are you using for a standard of accuracy for your typings?


----------



## Tellus

DavidH said:


> Tellus, what are you using for a standard of accuracy for your typings?


I recognize patterns: facial expressions, facial features, speech, body language...

I consider specific skills, interests...

I also consider other people's typings.


----------



## DavidH

Tellus said:


> I recognize patterns: facial expressions, facial features, speech, body language...
> 
> I consider specific skills, interests...
> 
> I also consider other people's typings.


That is what you are comparing to a standard, not the standard itself.


----------



## Tellus

DavidH said:


> That is what you are comparing to a standard, not the standard itself.


OK, I use mostly mbti descriptions of the types. 

I like these descriptions in Socionics:

Tatyana Prokofieva and Marina Kuzmina


Intuitive-logical introvert (ILI) can be called the main strategist of all strategists. The strongest intuition combined with logics gives this type representatives wisdom and knowledge of life laws. ILI’s attribute is caution. M.I. Kutuzov is the bright representative of this type of information metabolism. He fought for all his life but did not win any remarkable battle, all his victories are ambiguous – with even score. Despite that we call him the greatest commander. And Napoleon and Suvorov called Mikhail Illarionovich a cunning fox. Why? Kutuzov’s intellect shows itself in a simple acceptance of an evident fact – there was no way to defeat Napoleon in an open battle. Napoleon was a master of attack, he thoroughly thought over the plans of the battle and Kutuzov could retreat. That is the most complicated military task – to contain the enemy forces, acting only with a part of the army, constantly changing manner, from shaking them out into a fighting formation to turning to march formation. Kutuzov forethought that Napoleon would not manage to provide enough forage for horses of the cavalry, and was absolutely right. At the end of the war there were only 5000 people survived of the great “Grand Army”. That is of five hundred or six hundred thousand! Kutuzov kept half of his army for the general battle.


The morbid inability to show their emotions actively can be called the main ILI’s drawback. We could remember the historical fact of Kutuzov’s eating chicken during the Borodinskaya battle. This type representatives often produce the impression of sullen and sad people. However, the mask of perpetual skepticism and pessimism hides a real idealist and dreamer. ILI are capable of prodigality or reckless actions not to be taken as an “avaricious knight”. For example, to make an expensive gift to a slightly known person. But even here they will rarely shift all the money, they would calculate beforehand how much they should spend and when they should stop. Weak sensorics of sensing shows itself in their indifference to the appearance, often close to looseness and untidiness. On the whole they are inclined to the simple style in clothes.


Logical-intuitive extraverts (LIE) are born businessmen, rationalizers. They can be characterized with the word hard worker. However they do not like senseless activities, there should be a final goal everywhere. LIE’s head reminds of a computer (the strong channel of logics). They are capable of grasp the gist of the matter, calculate all the details and find out the optimal ways of solving the problem (manifestation of intuition). At the same time this type representatives are incorrigible romantics, disposed to traveling, adventures and risk. They work easily and merrily. Feeling of comradeship and friendship are very important for them.

The main problem of LIE is their appearance (weak sensorics of sensing). That’s why they often look as if have just returned from a trip: men are unshaved, women lack hairstyle. They have so many important things to do that they have absolutely no time for themselves. The same is true about the situation with cooking. This type representatives do not like improvisation at the kitchen. They would rather take a book on cooking and cook a dish according to the written recipe. Answering a formal question about their health they can start describing their recent doubtful symptoms. Peculiar spontaneity in demonstrating emotions (weak ethics of emotions) can be compared to a sudden waterfall. In such moments it seems that there is “too much of them” for the people around.


Logical-intuitive introvert (LII) aims at seeing and creating a system and regularity in everything. As a rule, they are erudites who do not like to make a show of their wide knowledge. They are extremely accurate and pedantic not only in the way of thinking but also in their environment. You will scarcely meet a person believing in miracles and trusting to luck among LII. Having set a goal they rely on their own diligence and good organization of affairs. Consistency, reliability, being stick to once given word – these are good epithets which can characterize this personality type representatives.

LII’s drawback is the weakness of the ethics of relations which sometimes results in uncertainty, melancholy in emotional estimation of people. It is clearly seen in unfamiliar circumstances. Watching others, LII try to understand what fits this company, what is accepted there and what is rejected. However, they often fail to fit the situation. Their cheerfulness or gloominess can be out of place. Due to their weakness in differentiation of emotional nuances this type representatives see the people in black and white tones: bad – good, kind – evil, friend – enemy. LII are often characterized as thick-headed and stubborn (the function of will sensorics is hypertrophied). The fact is that they can not stand even slight falsity and lies. They can be very firm, solid like a rock, in the matters of high importance for them.


Intuitive-logical extraverts (ILE) – are born researchers and inventors. They study not only the things that are useful, but also “everything that is interesting”, from the machines and mechanisms theory to butterflies and caterpillars. There is nothing they like better than to read about something mysterious and enigmatic. ILE are aimed at using the received knowledge in practice, but are rarely interested in getting real profit from their discoveries. Due to the intuition (channel 1) and logics (channel 2) this type representatives are capable of studying a great volume of literature on the preferred topic in the shortest possible time, so to speak, to grasp the world and to pave the way for the followers. Their theories and methods are often uncommon which can result in a turn-over in the traditional views.


The main ILE’s drawback is their constant strive for defending their ideals (weak will sensorics). Decency is the feature most of all idealized by ILE. However with their steep demands it is difficult for them to take life and people’s actions as they are. Their irreconcilability in one’s honour, dignity and freedom infringement often drives them to numerous “duels”. Sometimes they fight not their real enemies but wind mills acting only in their imagination. At every insight ILE try to share their thoughts with those around them not thinking whether it is the right time and place for that (weak ethics of relations function). Unfortunately, they are not always ready to listen to the person they are talking with or their opponent and often interrupt them. For that reason they are sometimes called excessive upstarts .


------------------------------------


Intuitive-ethical introvert (IEI) can be characterized as a dreamer and romantic. Reminiscences of future and thinking of the past take IEI’s thoughts. This type representatives like to lay on a sofa with a book or go to the country to reunite with nature. But actually, nature is an insidious thing, it can give cataclysms like snow, rain and wind. That’s why such undertakings IEI usually holds in his own imagination. Strong intuition of time (the first channel) gives this type the inclination for mysticism and superstition. IEI believe in prophetic dreams and omens. Ethics of emotions (creative function) helps them to tune into the interlocutor’s feelings and grasp the deep strives of the other person’s soul.

Unfortunately , people are not always able to use their creative function for the good. Sometimes one can meet IEI with exaggerated ethics of emotions, simply speaking, emotionally dissipated. Instead of comforting people with the warmth of their soul they start manipulating others and become whimsical. In exalted upsurge IEI can go into hysterics because “everything goes wrong’ and “nothing turns out to be as expected” (sensorics of sensations and logics of actions are weak functions). In a word, this type representative is not for hardships. Intuition of time can make him wallow in the world of illusions, dreams and imaginings. He would hardly muddle through a long-term matter. IEI can renovate the house for years or, having started moving the furniture in the morning, drop this occupation by lunch time.


Ethical-intuitive extravert (EIE) can be characterized as a person of wasteful emotions. Not without reason there are many actors, producers and musicians among them (ethics of emotions in the first channel).”All the world is a theatre and people are actors in it”, that’s EIE’s slogan. He is capable of introducing dull material to the audience in an amazingly vivid and interesting matter. It is impossible to have tedious time with them. This type representatives live from one emotional storm, suddenly started, like a May thunderstorm, to another. He is a master of putting quotes, jokes, puns and anecdotes in a talk. EIE is often a true expert and connoisseur for beauty. Intuition of time allows him to appreciate art and to know at first glance what will become popular. There are many adepts of vanguard tendencies in literature, music and art among them. EIE is a Bohemian person, sensitive to the spirits of the epoch. These are the most aristocratic people, real princes and princesses.


EIE’s drawback is their “public performance”. Indifference and lack of attention to their peacockery and external effect can be disastrous. Without appropriate public EIE’s enthusiasm fades, their behaviour becomes constrained and they feel hurt. They are known for their extreme squeamishness (weak sensorics of sensing). But despite that this type representatives’ home is usually kept in “artistic mess”. Contradictions can also be noticed in their appearance. EIE can put on clothes of red and green colours together explaining it by fashion and their own style. Painful inability to follow logics (this function is their painful point) sometimes hypertrophies to an accented desire to be reputed a business man. EIE has many notebooks, calling cards and cheques in his pockets. He presents them on any possible occasion. This type representative can not stand physical pain. Dentists are their arch-enemies. The smallest abrasion can unsettle them for a long time and their luxuriant imagination attributes terrible consequences to it. Remember “The Princess and the Pea” – that’s the case.


Ethical-intuitive introvert (EII) puts in the first place of his priorities hierarchy matters of human ethics and morals (ethics of relations is the basic function). All his creativity is filled with the search of new, more perfect forms of human relationships. EII tries to be attentive to every personality as he sees it as the whole world, a vessel where beauty gets on with coarseness, anger and hatred. EII type is a spiritual and moral pastor, mentor irrespective of age. He is turned to when grief occurs, when one needs to cry on somebody’s shoulder or there is a gnawing in one’s heart. On his way from understanding to forgiving EII representative fulfill his destiny.


EII’s drawback is inadequate manifestation of will sensorics seen in irreconcilability with personal violence. Their favourite words are the epithets of “must”. As a result there appears unnecessary fuss over nothing. Spending days in philosophic reflection which often do no have practical exact use, EII is unable to arrange his own everyday life. Steamroller approach is destructive for a vulnerable EII, who is unable to resist the pressure. This type representatives stand up for noble, spiritual ideals, throwing away and criticizing “bourgeois” manifestations: urge towards good clothes and tasty food. EII’s self sacrificing can sometimes be turned to the people who do not need that.


Intuitive-ethical extraverts (IEE) are born psychologists, consultants and dealers. This type representatives are the most vivid, very natural persons. Intuition in the first channel gives them a chance to grasp the gist of people’s problems and desires at first glance. Their way of thinking is non-trivial, unusual and from time to time they discover in their interlocutors merits and talents previously unknown to themselves. There are many inventors and discoverers among IEE in the sphere of computer programmes and technics. Intuition combined with ethics manifests itself in precious tact. We’d like to speak separately about the IEE talent in working with people. All representatives of this type are naturally charming, warm and considerate. They have many friends of different kind and all of them like these people for their shrewd understanding of people’s problems and peculiarities. If you have come across a person capable of keeping good relations with their former wives, husbands and colleagues, it is mostly likely IEE.

IEE’s drawback is their inability to perform laborious, systematic functions that is sedentary, routine work. This type representatives delay upholding graduation papers, quarterly accounting reports and other important documentation for a long time (lack of will sensorics manifestation). Their pacifism and friendliness often play bad tricks on IEE. Really, from time to time (more often irrelevantly) they can show indomitable will and determination to hit the target. But later they regret about harsh words and actions and seek reconciliation.


----------------------------------------


Sensoric-logical introverts (SLI) are people preferring a bird in hand to two in the bush. Sensorics of sensing, being the strong function, gives SLI talent in everything that is connected with handwork. The particular feature of this type is creating comfort in their everyday life. They are good at design, furniture and have good taste. They like expensive clothes pointing out their high status. And it is really very high. Women, as well as men are able to organize a profitable business in commerce or production. And more, SLI are born cooks. The process of cooking for them is a kind of sacred ritual. The strong function of sensorics of sensing helps them here. Even if they do not have a villa in Canary Islands, but only a small house near Moscow, please, believe, they will manage to enjoy a morning jogging on dew, the smell of blossoming lilac and a mug of fresh milk.

SLI’s drawback is in their weak functions of ethics of emotions and intuition of time. Being afraid secretly of being misunderstood (SLI are very vulnerable), he will prefer hiding his real attitude to people at all. However if humiliated or made fun in public, they can burst into tears and lose their temper shouting at the offender. This type representatives remember even the smallest offences and after serious quarrels they are capable of break the relations forever. SLI’s weak intuition of time is manifested in their desire to plan all their affairs in advance. That is also their excessive conservatism and caution. They will never make a final decision without thorough and detailed analysis of the situation.


Logical-sensoric extravert (LSE) is known for his skill to differentiate between the main things and secondary matters. As all other logics, this type hate rush, fuss and accompanying them nervousness. LSE are businesslike, concentrated, consistent. On the whole, this type representatives are reasonable in estimation of their strength and that’s why they try to find the according place in work. Sensorics of sensations in the creative channel gives LSE a refined taste and ability to create beauty with their own hands. Women-LSE prefer spectacular, fit clothes and accessories. Beauty, combined with functionality and utility is the guarantee of their success.


LSE’s drawback can be their tendency for predictability and stability (weak intuition of time). For fear of living in a present day they are reproached with conservatism and lack of foresight. Weak ethics of emotions is the reason for their diffidence in new situations. Despite LSE’s extraversion, they are not inclined to start new relationships guided with the principle that “old friends and old wines are the best”. Even if their family life does not satisfy them by some reason, LSE scarcely should take a solitary way.

Logical-sensoric introverts (LSI) prefer to act quietly, systematically and rationally. To their mind, the world is organized by the law of logics (according function is basic). These people respect discipline and order. They are advocates of strong power. The brightest representative of this personality type is I.V. Stalin. He preferred secret methods in his policies, often intriguing, craftily eliminated his rivals. LSI’s persistence and patience are often envied by many personality types lacking these features. They step back seeing the quiet but determined LSI’s position. Logical-sensoric introverts - the leaders of a small team – will cope with the business or studying task in due time.


LSI are often blamed for their emotional deafness. Their drawback is in a weak manifestation of ethics of emotions. For example, they are rarely capable of feeling the mood in the managed team. They prefer to build their relationships with people on the effect of admiration. This type representatives can hardly listen and, more over, accept even constructive criticism for them. The weakness of intuition of opportunities can be seen in their tendency to fight “extra” information, they try to cling to one earlier formed opinion. They consider discussions and debates to be unnecessary disputes interfering with their work. LSI rarely listen to advice considering their own point of view the only right one. If they are told about their drawbacks very tactfully they can nurse a grievance against these people and take revenge on occasion. In the course of Stalin’s repressions, for example, representatives of dissident intellectuals were physically eliminated.


Sensoric-logical extraverts (SLE) are not airy-fairy and do not dream lying on a sofa about the things that could have happened if … These are materially-minded, practical people. They can be characterized as ambitious, willed and purposeful people. These are born leaders, administrators capable of taking responsibility for making decisions on important matters. They appreciate logics and arguments. SLE’s irrationality manifests itself in the fact that their activity often depends on their mood. If they did not “get out of bed from the wrong side” they can sign any paper or will bring to life a dream of a confirmed truant putting him the satisfactory mark But if it happened to be the wrong side – be careful! You can hear about such people that harsh treatment is usual for them. Despite that if you turn to this type representatives for help in a critical situation, they will not talk on and on or give free advice but will prefer doing what they can to help. That is their main virtue.

Inability to see the future and consequences of harsh words and actions (weak intuition of opportunities) can be named their drawback. Because of that it seems to them that problems fall on them from nowhere and grow like a snowball. They see their main task in holding out, being firm. SLE are also not capable of understanding the nuances of people’s relations. Their strong will sensorics in this case overrides their weak functions and it looks like “a tank effect”. Like a ram they push their way through people’s opinions and weaknesses.


--------------------------------


Sensoric-ethical introvert (SEI) can be called a master of compromise. Their credo is in full enjoying their life without interfering with other people’s ways. As a rule, this personality type representatives have extremely cozy home where they like to have relax with soul and body (sensorics of sensing is the basic function). There are many comfortable things at their home. Everything is toned and planned beforehand. SEI spends his spare time cooking – that is his favourite occupation. This type representative is a born designer and image maker. He feels colour, form and size very well. Gathering his friends at a dinner table SEI often becomes the master of ceremonies, joker, life and soul of the party (ethics of emotions is in the creative channel). His funny story or anecdote can make even a gloomy person feel sympathy to him.


SEI’s drawback is their inability to make important strategic decisions. He lacks persistence, perseverance and foresight in important matters. SEI lives by one day, any conclusions for the future poignant for him (intuition of time and logics of actions are weak functions). One more negative feature has been noticed with this type – they waste a lot of precious time on trifles.

Ethical-sensoric extraverts (ESE) are incorrigible optimists trying always and everywhere keep the stiff upper lip and good disposition in any weather. These are true swingers who can see something good in bad situations. This type representatives love to eat well and have a drink with friends in the open air. They are often fascinated by some ideas. Unlike other personality types ESE can have long telephone talks discussing weather, business and TV-programmes or problems of other people. ESE is an optimist and hates sadness and inactivity. They can provoke even the most sullen and unsociable person to go to a forest for mushrooms. To enjoy life is their main credo. ESE find self-fulfilling in advertisement, can sell the most slow-moving articles to the most fastidious client. Doing this they often sell not for the sake of money but on principle.


ESE’s drawback is their lack of punctuality. They can be late and fail to do the promised things in time not because they did not want it but because it is hard for them to make their plans adequately. Their weak function of logics does not allow them to differentiate between the main and the secondary things. All matters are of the same importance for them. This results in incoherence and important things be left without necessary attention. Their weak intuition of time manifests itself in their inability to foresee the future. To bring into life the next plan ESE makes numerous inquiries and involves a great number of contacts. Sometimes their irrepressible energy is wasted on trifles and when he reaches the main thing there is no strength and patience to bring the matter to a close.


Ethical-sensoric introvert (ESI) is a real stoic and a guardian of moral principles of the society. There are many lawyers, investigators, doctors and teachers among them (ethics of relations in the first channel). ESI women are known for their deep attachment for the family. Having taken the burden beyond her strength, that is, work, household and children, they do no complain about their fate but heroically bare the severities. No other psychological type can be compared to ESI in their selflessness and reliability (will sensorics is the creative function). ESI type can be a doctor not only for a soul but also for a body. Fighting evil is this type’s distinguishing feature.


ESI’s drawback is in the super rationality of this type. Certain orthodoxy and maximalism negatively distinguish them from others. Let’s remember numerous stories of the ancient Greece. What should the main character choose: love or duty? ESI would choose the last. Doing that, they often become hostages of inner loneliness. Interesting people and relationships falling beyond their values drop out of their sight. This type representatives are at odds with intuition of opportunities and that’s why are capable of untimely or inappropriate initiative. Later it can turn into numerous troubles – “the initiative is punishable”.


Sensoric-ethical extraverts (SEE) are born leaders. Their spheres of interest are practical, realistic matters where they can feel their unlimited influence on others. This type representatives respect power and strive for it and at once to all privileges acquired with it. Their slogan is: “came, saw, won!”. These are willed people (will sensorics is the basic function) and at the same time diplomatic ones (ethics of relations in the creative channel). If for other types of information metabolism the process of getting ready for important event and thinking it over is their nature, SEE become thoroughly engrossed in activities. “The main thing is to engage in battle and then we’ll see”, - Napoleon Bonaparte, the bright representative of this type used to say. “I jump into love like into deep”, - echoes him Alla Pugachyova, also a bright representative of SEE. These are people of uncontrollable passions; if they are friends – then to the end; if they love – then hold nothing back. They live by present, future is always wonderful for them, but it is future and there is no reason to regret about the past, it will never come back.


SEE’s drawback is their desire to shine for everyone and everywhere like the Sun. The fourth channel (painful function) is busy with the logics of relations, they are not good at computers, do not like different formalities: plans, schedules, hate putting everything in order. From this their maximalism starts. The feelings “love – hatred” for one and the same person can change a few times a day. SEE often puts on a mask of a skillful manipulator and schemer but due to the fact that their intuition is not their strength, quick victories sometimes turn to problems and defeats. SEE hide their failures from other people for nothing should shatter the image of the winner. SEE are often blamed for their egocentrism, being too ambitious and self-conceit. This type representatives live by one day, “now and here” and sometimes get up against people with their fits of anger.


----------



## Aiwass

ILE. All this talk about him being a jerk to his wife, about his hard time when it comes to keeping "close" relationships is more Fi PoLR than Fe PoLR.

You know, Fi is about internal, stable relationships, and Fe about emotional states. ILE may seek to cultivate positive emotional states (Fe mobilizing) but is bad at keeping long-term relationships.


----------



## DavidH

@Tellus Yes, but what are you using as a standard for if people you view in such ways are actually that way.


----------



## Tellus

DavidH said:


> @*Tellus* Yes, but what are you using as a standard for if people you view in such ways are actually that way.


You are looking for a personality type "manual", so you can easily compare one trait after the other. (That is typical of LSI, Ti+). But there is no such "manual" or "standard".


----------



## Tellus

Aiwass said:


> ILE. All this talk about him being a jerk to his wife, about his hard time when it comes to keeping "close" relationships


Is that true though? They lived together for at least 7 years.

"Einstein and Marić married in January 1903. In May 1904, their son Hans Albert Einstein was born in Bern, Switzerland. Their son Eduard was born in Zürich in July 1910. The couple moved to Berlin in April 1914, but Marić returned to Zürich with their sons after learning that Einstein's chief romantic attraction was his first and second cousin Elsa."



> ...is more Fi PoLR than Fe PoLR.
> 
> You know, Fi is about internal, stable relationships, and Fe about emotional states. ILE may seek to cultivate positive emotional states (Fe mobilizing) but is bad at keeping long-term relationships.


First of all, I don't think Model A is accurate.

But let's assume it is accurate. ILI is not bad at keeping long-term relationships, but he or she is bad at forming relationships in the first place. So which one is worse?


----------



## Bastard

Aiwass said:


> ILE. All this talk about him being a jerk to his wife, about his hard time when it comes to keeping "close" relationships is more Fi PoLR than Fe PoLR.
> 
> You know, Fi is about internal, stable relationships, and Fe about emotional states. ILE may seek to cultivate positive emotional states (Fe mobilizing) but is bad at keeping long-term relationships.


This.



Tellus said:


> ILI is not bad at keeping long-term relationships, but he or she is bad at forming relationships in the first place


Oh really?


----------



## Tellus

> Oh really?


ILI neglects social relationships. That's more accurate.


----------



## DavidH

Tellus said:


> You are looking for a personality type "manual", so you can easily compare one trait after the other. (That is typical of LSI, Ti+). But there is no such "manual" or "standard".


You stating there is no standard is not the same as there being no standard. If you aren’t using a standard, then your comparisons are entirely emotional.


----------



## DavidH

Bastard said:


> This.
> 
> Oh really?


He thinks ILI’s are the real smart type and that he’s an ILI. That’s the sum of his coherence.


----------



## Tellus

DavidH said:


> You stating there is no standard is not the same as there being no standard. If you aren’t using a standard, then your comparisons are entirely emotional.


A "standard" presupposes some kind of system/logical structure (Ti), and a system/logical structure presupposes objects/patterns. But those patterns are not clear (yet), so it is not possible to create a system.

No, my comparisons are not emotional. They are based on (barely) recognizable patterns.


----------



## DavidH

Tellus said:


> A "standard" presupposes some kind of system/logical structure (Ti), and a system/logical structure presupposes objects/patterns. But those patterns are not clear (yet), so it is not possible to create a system.
> 
> No, my comparisons are not emotional. They are based on (barely) recognizable patterns.


It is already a standard in Socionics. Individuals created terms to convey meaning. The objective verification of those individuals confirming or denying that utilization of those terms is in accordance with their own intended meaning is a standard.

The standard for MBTI is the communication of an individual that they view their own preferences as one of the supplied groupings.

Then your comparisons are entirely emotional, since you cannot define a standard. Your standard that you are using is what I previously described to another member, that ILI is the type who is truly intelligent and that you are an ILI, with the added societal dysfunction that makes you reclusive. If something states, objectively or subjectively, that these things are not true, then those things are not accurate, and thus a standard is born.


----------



## Bastard

Tellus said:


> ILI neglects social relationships. That's more accurate.


It's also not unique to ILI.


----------



## Felipe

"Chess holds its master in its own bonds, shackling the mind and brain so that the inner freedom of the very strongest must suffer." - Albert E.

Intuition is his "dominant" the end


----------



## Tellus

DavidH said:


> It is already a standard in Socionics. Individuals created terms to convey meaning. The objective verification of those individuals confirming or denying that utilization of those terms is in accordance with their own intended meaning is a standard.


Yes, but those terms must correspond to some real personality traits etc, otherwise they are pointless. That "objective verification" is NOT the main issue in Socionics. Sometimes you hear: "only ILE socionists know the meaning of bla bla bla in Socionics" ... "only ILE socionists can type accurately" etc. That is utter nonsense!



> The standard for MBTI is the communication of an individual that they view their own preferences as one of the supplied groupings.


Yes... but what is your point?



> Then your comparisons are entirely emotional, since you cannot define a standard.


You are not listening, that's the problem. See my previous comments.


----------



## DavidH

Tellus said:


> Yes, but those terms must correspond to some real personality traits etc, otherwise they are pointless. That "objective verification" is NOT the main issue in Socionics. Sometimes you hear: "only ILE socionists know the meaning of bla bla bla in Socionics" ... "only ILE socionists can type accurately" etc. That is utter nonsense!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... but what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> You are not listening, that's the problem. See my previous comments.


They do correspond to real personality traits: how those who identify similarly view other individuals. “Type” is the objective observation of another’s subjective viewpoint towards others. It’s a simple concept.

You’re not listening. That’s the problem.


----------



## Tellus

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> What bothers me about these sorts of topics, is that it's obvious people are trying to boil Einstein's Genius down to a certain personality type or thinking style, etc. Essentially, trying to reduce him to a formula that they can try and say they have that same formula and are essentially Einstein themselves.
> 
> Einstein's Genius has absolutely nothing to do with Socionics. It is obvious it's a matter of his Autism, which is fairly proven to be a Savant Syndrome... probably even /THE/ Savant Syndrome that explains Genius as a whole and why people became so aware of it. Because Autistic individuals have been around for ages.
> 
> It's the only thing that makes sense, the same Disorder that turned out to be so often the cause of Mental Retardation. If it causes one extreme of intelligence, why not the other? So you can talk about his socionics all you want and you can determine that it's the same as yours. Just remember. You're still nowhere near his level of intelligence.


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3676-einstein-and-newton-showed-signs-of-autism/

'Glen Elliott, a psychiatrist from the University of California at San Francisco, is not convinced. He says attempting to diagnose on the basis of biographical information is extremely unreliable, and points out that any behaviour can have various causes. He thinks being highly intelligent would itself have shaped Newton and Einstein’s personalities.

“One can imagine geniuses who are socially inept and yet not remotely autistic,” he says. “Impatience with the intellectual slowness of others, narcissism and passion for one’s mission in life might combine to make such an individuals isolative and difficult.” Elliott adds that Einstein had a good sense of humour, a trait that is virtually unknown in people with severe Asperger syndrome.'


----------



## Tellus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_talker

"Sowell claimed late talkers are often inaccurately categorized as having an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and that a small subset of late talkers are highly intelligent children with common characteristics concentrated in music, memory, math or the sciences."


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Tellus said:


> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3676-einstein-and-newton-showed-signs-of-autism/
> 
> 'Glen Elliott, a psychiatrist from the University of California at San Francisco, is not convinced. He says attempting to diagnose on the basis of biographical information is extremely unreliable, and points out that any behaviour can have various causes. He thinks being highly intelligent would itself have shaped Newton and Einstein’s personalities.
> 
> “One can imagine geniuses who are socially inept and yet not remotely autistic,” he says. “Impatience with the intellectual slowness of others, narcissism and passion for one’s mission in life might combine to make such an individuals isolative and difficult.” Elliott adds that Einstein had a good sense of humour, a trait that is virtually unknown in people with severe Asperger syndrome.'


Lol, the fact that elliot said that about humor pretty much tells you right off the bat that he has no clue what the fucksoever what Autism is. I am clinically diagnosed, I have it. This kind of statement strikes me as someone who simply reads a list of the symptoms of a disorder and then tries to act like they know all about it.

The only reason for Aspergers being a social disorder, little alone one that may affect humor, is because you look at everything like a dictionary definition. So a joke MAY fly over your head as you robotically/scientifically try to break the joke down into it's constituent parts. That's wholly different from lacking a sense of humor. Of course you won't find something funny if you are /OBLIVIOUS/ to the joke. But people with aspergers have just as good of a sense of humor as anyone else, if they notice the joke being made.

I literally sit down and spend a huge portion of time watching comedic content so I can laugh my ass off and enjoy it. I also, for an indisputable fact, have Aspergers. Sooooo???? In fact, yet again, Aspergers if anything has the potential to give you the greatest sense of humor of all. Because you can LEARN any and all sense of humors, something not even most "normal" people can do. Just as someone with Aspergers can learn to be the most smooth and suave mofo around. Why? Because they're a robot, they can break the shit down to it's contituent parts and crack the code. Something most normal people cannot comprehend.

Nevermind that he goes to accuse this theory as being proposed with an unreliable basis, but the very idea he presents as an alternative has infinitely less precedence. This whole idea of "intelligence shaping personality". It's actually scientifically proven that people who /act/ smart, or are "narcissistic", etc. Are actually more likely to be LESS intelligent than those who are humble. Likewise, where he is getting the idea that Einstein was Narcissistic is... well, probably from his ass. Because in all honesty, there has never been anything ever from any source to even remotely suggest that about him. In fact, Einstein's Emotional and Ethical intelligences were incredibly high. Einstein at the very least had massive compassion.

Oh, and Einstein and Newton are not comparable? Yeah Newton is often regarded as the Einstein of his time, because he achieved something functionally similar in the context of his era. But reality is, you can't seriously say that a falling apple and realizing that it means that "falling is like pulling". Is anywhere near as close as observing a moving train and realizing it means fucking Time itself, is relative. The gap between Newton and the other people around him at the time, was nowhere near comparable to the gap between Einstein and everyone else. Nor is it just because of the times they were born in, as a modern day Newton still wouldn't compare jack shit to Einstein. We actually have a dime a dozen of those these days already. So when he calls Newton a Genius and talks about him alongside Einstein as if anyone had seriously thought he was an actual Genius, it's like... "Wait what, when did that become a thing?"

Anyways, point is that beyond the fact that people are hypocrites. There is absolutely jack shit about intelligence shaping personality, so he's definitely pulling that one out of his rectum. No, it would most certainly be the other way around. Personality would influence how you act upon your intelligence. Hence why he says "impatience with intellectual slowness". Impatience is a personality trait and has absolutely nothing to do with high intelligence, in fact it is technically it's own lack of intelligence as it is nothing more than a lack in the size of the pre-frontal cortex. But in order for that to be the case, Einstein would have had to of been an impulsive person which isn't likely considering he patiently bided his time working around the hard way and sitting tight in the post office in berlin. That to me, does not indicate impatience... it indicates the exact opposite? Where is this guy getting his shit from, is his ONLY source his anus?

Last but not least, he's arguing against what is pretty much established fact. Autism in any form, is ultimately just 1 thing: An abnormal amount of brain cells. It stands out to us as a disorder because if the brain has too many cells or synapses, it can essentially "overclock" the brain to run more powerfully than it's normally supposed to. This means, on the one hand, a heightened chance to fry the brain and make it overload in a negative way. But that description alone already proves that 1.Autism is a Savant disorder/Aka is Genius. Because on the positive end of this, it directly explains "intelligence that is even above, above average intelligence". Because above average intelligence is simply a normal brain with abysmally higher cell count. In other words, the gape between average intelligence and above average intelligence is almost nonexistant as far as Psyiology goes. So someone with significantly more cells than they are supposed to have, is 1 for 1 predicted that if it doesn't lead to adverse consequences... would have DRASTICALLY more intelligence than even someone with "above average" intelligence. And 2.This is among the only few things that are different among einstein's brain. To me it's pretty dumb to act like this isn't an open and shut case, when he basically has the 1 for 1 thing, that constitutes Autism.

You and your source are trying to posit that this argument comes from just, a biographical basis. That's not even in the slightest true. It's already almost certainly true for Autism itself. Even taking Einstein out of the equation. It's simply /BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE/, as well as easily evident logic, that Genius itself stems from Aspergers.

But you know... who's REALLY the one more likely to be off base here? The guy basically saying "herpity derpity, they were just really smart bro", or the people saying there is an actual scientific explanation with detailed sense and logic, a fully detailed biological explanation, for why some people seem so impossibly beyond everyone else? Fact is, Genius isn't something you can attain with effort. That strongly implies that it is /physiological/. But yet natural lower and upper limits for breeding don't exceed above average intelligence. If it did, there would be drastically more Einsteins in the world.

You just can't see how it makes perfect systematic sense. The same disorder that is responsible for extremely low intelligence/retardation. Being the same thing that causes extremely high intelligence/genius.


----------



## Tellus

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Lol, the fact that elliot said that about humor pretty much tells you right off the bat that he has no clue what the fucksoever what Autism is. I am clinically diagnosed, I have it. This kind of statement strikes me as someone who simply reads a list of the symptoms of a disorder and then tries to act like they know all about it.
> 
> The only reason for Aspergers being a social disorder, little alone one that may affect humor, is because you look at everything like a dictionary definition. So a joke MAY fly over your head as you robotically/scientifically try to break the joke down into it's constituent parts. That's wholly different from lacking a sense of humor. Of course you won't find something funny if you are /OBLIVIOUS/ to the joke. But people with aspergers have just as good of a sense of humor as anyone else, if they notice the joke being made.
> 
> I literally sit down and spend a huge portion of time watching comedic content so I can laugh my ass off and enjoy it. I also, for an indisputable fact, have Aspergers. Sooooo???? In fact, yet again, Aspergers if anything has the potential to give you the greatest sense of humor of all. Because you can LEARN any and all sense of humors, something not even most "normal" people can do. Just as someone with Aspergers can learn to be the most smooth and suave mofo around. Why? Because they're a robot, they can break the shit down to it's contituent parts and crack the code. Something most normal people cannot comprehend.
> 
> Nevermind that he goes to accuse this theory as being proposed with an unreliable basis, but the very idea he presents as an alternative has infinitely less precedence. This whole idea of "intelligence shaping personality". It's actually scientifically proven that people who /act/ smart, or are "narcissistic", etc. Are actually more likely to be LESS intelligent than those who are humble. Likewise, where he is getting the idea that Einstein was Narcissistic is... well, probably from his ass. Because in all honesty, there has never been anything ever from any source to even remotely suggest that about him. In fact, Einstein's Emotional and Ethical intelligences were incredibly high. Einstein at the very least had massive compassion.
> 
> Oh, and Einstein and Newton are not comparable? Yeah Newton is often regarded as the Einstein of his time, because he achieved something functionally similar in the context of his era. But reality is, you can't seriously say that a falling apple and realizing that it means that "falling is like pulling". Is anywhere near as close as observing a moving train and realizing it means fucking Time itself, is relative. The gap between Newton and the other people around him at the time, was nowhere near comparable to the gap between Einstein and everyone else. Nor is it just because of the times they were born in, as a modern day Newton still wouldn't compare jack shit to Einstein. We actually have a dime a dozen of those these days already. So when he calls Newton a Genius and talks about him alongside Einstein as if anyone had seriously thought he was an actual Genius, it's like... "Wait what, when did that become a thing?"
> 
> Anyways, point is that beyond the fact that people are hypocrites. There is absolutely jack shit about intelligence shaping personality, so he's definitely pulling that one out of his rectum. No, it would most certainly be the other way around. Personality would influence how you act upon your intelligence. Hence why he says "impatience with intellectual slowness". Impatience is a personality trait and has absolutely nothing to do with high intelligence, in fact it is technically it's own lack of intelligence as it is nothing more than a lack in the size of the pre-frontal cortex. But in order for that to be the case, Einstein would have had to of been an impulsive person which isn't likely considering he patiently bided his time working around the hard way and sitting tight in the post office in berlin. That to me, does not indicate impatience... it indicates the exact opposite? Where is this guy getting his shit from, is his ONLY source his anus?
> 
> Last but not least, he's arguing against what is pretty much established fact. Autism in any form, is ultimately just 1 thing: An abnormal amount of brain cells. It stands out to us as a disorder because if the brain has too many cells or synapses, it can essentially "overclock" the brain to run more powerfully than it's normally supposed to. This means, on the one hand, a heightened chance to fry the brain and make it overload in a negative way. But that description alone already proves that 1.Autism is a Savant disorder/Aka is Genius. Because on the positive end of this, it directly explains "intelligence that is even above, above average intelligence". Because above average intelligence is simply a normal brain with abysmally higher cell count. In other words, the gape between average intelligence and above average intelligence is almost nonexistant as far as Psyiology goes. So someone with significantly more cells than they are supposed to have, is 1 for 1 predicted that if it doesn't lead to adverse consequences... would have DRASTICALLY more intelligence than even someone with "above average" intelligence. And 2.This is among the only few things that are different among einstein's brain. To me it's pretty dumb to act like this isn't an open and shut case, when he basically has the 1 for 1 thing, that constitutes Autism.
> 
> You and your source are trying to posit that this argument comes from just, a biographical basis. That's not even in the slightest true. It's already almost certainly true for Autism itself. Even taking Einstein out of the equation. It's simply /BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE/, as well as easily evident logic, that Genius itself stems from Aspergers.
> 
> But you know... who's REALLY the one more likely to be off base here? The guy basically saying "herpity derpity, they were just really smart bro", or the people saying there is an actual scientific explanation with detailed sense and logic, a fully detailed biological explanation, for why some people seem so impossibly beyond everyone else? Fact is, Genius isn't something you can attain with effort. That strongly implies that it is /physiological/. But yet natural lower and upper limits for breeding don't exceed above average intelligence. If it did, there would be drastically more Einsteins in the world.
> 
> You just can't see how it makes perfect systematic sense. The same disorder that is responsible for extremely low intelligence/retardation. Being the same thing that causes extremely high intelligence/genius.


I am not saying that Asperger could not be related to high IQ. I am saying that I don't think Einstein had Asperger syndrome.

"if they notice the joke being made." ...but that's the point, they often don't notice the joke.

https://paulcooijmans.com/asperger/straight_talk_about_asperger.html

"In the current diagnostic criteria (D.S.M. IV), the main difference between the diagnoses is that autism requires a delay in language (speech) development in the first years of life, while Asperger requires the absence of such a delay."

"Actually, within the group of individuals with Asperger, those with high intelligence are a minority (just as they are in the general population) and in the group of highly intelligent persons, those with Asperger are a minority (just as they are in the general population)."

"My own work with high-range intelligence tests has shown even more; that in the high range of intelligence there is a negative correlation between I.Q. and Asperger. In other words, those with Asperger are _less_ intelligent."

BTW, we don't know Einstein's IQ and this thread is not about his IQ, but his personality type.

Einstein: "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." This is typical of ILI.


----------



## Bastard

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> The thread doesn't even have a premise if you deny that it's basically just for narcissistic ego masturbation?


Hey...



InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Lol, the fact that elliot said that about humor pretty much tells you right off the bat that he has no clue what the fucksoever what Autism is. *I am clinically diagnosed, I have it.*


... hypocrite.



Tellus said:


> Einstein: "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." This is typical of ILI.


That is Te id block à la ILE.


----------



## Tellus

Bastard said:


> That is Te id block à la ILE.


Why would it be Te id block?

Do you think ILE stays with problems longer? Really?


----------



## Bastard

Tellus said:


> Why would it be Te id block?


"You're smart" is a measure of quality. His response is a "that's not important," not a rebuttal.



Tellus said:


> Do you think ILE stays with problems longer? Really?


Don Quixote stick with a problem? Yeah. I do.


----------



## Red Panda

Tellus said:


> Do you think ILE stays with problems longer? Really?


of course they do because they need to consider eeeeeeevery possible variable & outcomes before taking action, more than any other type


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Tellus said:


> "if they notice the joke being made." ...but that's the point, they often don't notice the joke.


That's because the vast majority of people with AS, do not have the Meta-Awareness to know to turn their "disability" into a tool of mastery. Bipolar Disorder is for example very similar, a lot of great people were either outright diagnosed or just are likely candidates to have had Bipolar Disorder, and while BD isn't really anything other than a dysfunction... it can be intuitively exploited for high productivity. During a Bipolar High, a person has extreme levels of emotion and energy. Utilized the right way, it could make you achieve drug induced like levels of performance without doing any illegal drugs. However, the vast majority of bipolar sufferers never achieve this potential. Instead they simply live destructive and chaotic lives and can only hope to try and cope and manage.

They won't notice it, if they never actively train themselves to consciously become aware of it. The main thing here is, the difference between Aspergers and other people isn't intelligence? Factually speaking, it's bluntly that AS isn't considered a learning or intelligence disorder, but strictly a SOCIAL one. Because of the way they function. Best way to describe it, is like if a person was born without any natural instinct and talent. All they have is conscious awareness. This would by default make them socially inept, because they don't have the natural automatic reactions to other people's cues and social rules, etc.

You're not grasping that, your "sense of humor", by and large... isn't a conscious thing, little alone a learned one. For the most part, it's something inate to your personality. Most of what leads to your reactions in this regard, is completely subconscious. Hence why people will be inclined to laugh at what are otherwise offensive and questionable jokes without even thinking about it. Being compelled to laugh at a racist joke, despite not being racist, etc. But, here's the thing. This isn't saying that the inate subconscious instinctually aspects of humanity, cannot be mastered through conscious awareness. It is often that normal "healthy" people percieve this to be the case, because they almost always only understand it through an inate way in the first place. It is hard for them to comprehend it consciously, because it is not a conscious thing for them.

Needless to say, by default will jokes fly over an Aspie's head? Yeah. But they can just as easily consciously learn if they pay attention to other people and media, etc. So stating that they often DO fly over an Aspie's head, doesn't mean anything besides that most Aspies are like any other average person: They're intellectually lazy and don't put time and effort into making it happen.



> "In the current diagnostic criteria (D.S.M. IV), the main difference between the diagnoses is that autism requires a delay in language (speech) development in the first years of life, while Asperger requires the absence of such a delay."


It is incredibly intellectually disingenuous to try and reduce a disorder down to it's diagnostic criteria? This is, in fact, a clinically retarded way of looking at disorders... sooo. It's much deeper than this quote suggests as the actual primary difference between other forms of Autism and Aspergers, is that AS doesn't cause communication, learning, and intelligence impairment. The reason that other forms of Autism get a reputation for basically being the "Retard Disorder", is because the way it is overloading the brain causes too much sensory overload for the person to functionally focus on the external environment. It varies in intensity, but it hinders their ability to communicate and subsequently by extension... to learn. Because if you are being flooded with 1000x visual sensory information than you are supposed to, you won't even be able to functionally see what is going on. If your physical sensory information is being flooded with pain, and you feel like you are literally constantly on fire. Then how the fuck are you going to focus on anything going on around you? So on and so forth.

But Aspergers is completely devoid of this level of sensory overload. No matter the intensity of AS, you won't be prevented from being able to interact with and communicate with your external environment and the people in it.



> "Actually, within the group of individuals with Asperger, those with high intelligence are a minority (just as they are in the general population) and in the group of highly intelligent persons, those with Asperger are a minority (just as they are in the general population)."
> 
> 
> 
> Okay? But this is missing the point when what is being asserted here isn't that AS is /latent/ or /talented/ Genius. But rather that the way it gives the person a significantly unpruned brain, leaves the person to continue learning more akin the malleability of a child despite having the physical body of an adult. It's obvious that Einstein didn't have any latent talent, he wasn't just automatically smarter than everyone else. He worked harder than everyone else in his class, and was just short of failing. Aspergers is a gift of potential, and considering that the vast majority of people regardless of normality or disorder are just mindless drones who never advanced past the level of Disposable Pawn. This including the majority of people given this gift.... would never actually realize it.
> 
> There's a song perfect for this description in fact. A little song called Between The Bars, by Elliot Smith:
> "Drink up, baby.
> Stay up all night.
> With the things you could do.
> You won't, but you might.
> The potential you'll be.
> That you'll never see.
> The promises you'll only make."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "My own work with high-range intelligence tests has shown even more; that in the high range of intelligence there is a negative correlation between I.Q. and Asperger. In other words, those with Asperger are _less_ intelligent."
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is fuckin funny. Considering that by no means whatsoever is IQ considered a measure of intelligence, scientifically speaking, in the modern day. Scientists do not regard IQ as a measure of intelligence, that's just your public school systems and your government feeding you lies. The current understanding is that IQ boils down to nothing more than Memory, which isn't considered an intelligence but rather is no more than Storage Capacity. Actual intelligence is about functional ability. There are multiple kinds of intelligence, none of which are Memory/IQ. They are things like Spatial Intelligence, Temporal Intelligence, Pattern Recognition, Musical Intelligence, Artistic Intelligence/Creativity, Athletic Intelligence(what you would classify combat skill, or sports centered skills, as), etc.
> 
> As for people with AS tending to have "low IQs". That's to be expected when AS is characterized by an obsessive passion to master a very linear and narrow path. By default, for the same reasons an Aspie neglects Social Intelligence, Humor, etc... they are liable to neglect formal education and seem like "slackers". Which perfectly describes Einstein's professors perceptions of him, FYI. Because an Aspie's mind is inclined to only center around it's obsession, it is bound to neglect everything else. I would argue that if an Aspie's obsession was mastering the formal education system, you'd see something completely extra-ordinarily different. But that isn't often the case, so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, we don't know Einstein's IQ and this thread is not about his IQ, but his personality type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is estimated to have a particularly high IQ tho. Simply because of the sorts of equations he could understand and write. Regardless tho, IQ doesn't matter. I'm not talking about his IQ either, and I'm only speaking of his /intelligence/ to address the horse in the room and make sure people don't get any big ideas or egos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein: "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." This is typical of ILI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, regardless he was wrong. He was just too humbled to know his place in things, or where he stood in reference to everyone else. Other people ponder problems endlessly and don't come anywhere near close to figuring out some world changing shit. Hell, now more than ever. There are some serious scientific problems that we have to constantly contemplate because a solution to this day seems completely unapproachable. So people are saying with the problems, and still aint crackin the code or just barely scratch the surface.
> 
> He can be ILI, I don't care. I'm just making sure that you know sharing this similarity with him, would merely be a statement of how someone like yourself can still be worlds beyond you. I'm sure God has similarities to Humans, but he's still an almighty omniscient and omnipresent being if he exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Red Panda said:


> of course they do because they need to consider eeeeeeevery possible variable & outcomes before taking action, more than any other type


Except, that's not how Einstein discovered Relativity. He didn't consider every possibility, little alone a myriad. If you actually know the word from mouth accounts from himself as well his prodiges and peers. Then you know the very specific instance and what happened: He was observing a passing by train, and pondering it intuitively he came to 1 distinct conclusion: That to him, the people on the train were moving faster and to the people on the train... he was moving faster. In other words, that the observed passing of time was relative and because both sat at a relative fixed position... both percieved themselves to be still, while everything else around them was moving.

That's not, a whole shindig bag of random possibilities. That is such a minutely specific realization and intuition.


----------



## Red Panda

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Except, that's not how Einstein discovered Relativity. He didn't consider every possibility, little alone a myriad. If you actually know the word from mouth accounts from himself as well his prodiges and peers. Then you know the very specific instance and what happened: He was observing a passing by train, and pondering it intuitively he came to 1 distinct conclusion: That to him, the people on the train were moving faster and to the people on the train... he was moving faster. In other words, that the observed passing of time was relative and because both sat at a relative fixed position... both percieved themselves to be still, while everything else around them was moving.
> 
> That's not, a whole shindig bag of random possibilities. That is such a minutely specific realization and intuition.


I don't how he got his first intuition about it, but it says nothing about what you quoted me. Obviously he had an intuitive revelation at some point, but he spent 10 years on it after he published Special Relativity.


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Red Panda said:


> I don't how he got his first intuition about it, but it says nothing about what you quoted me. Obviously he had an intuitive revelation at some point, but he spent 10 years on it after he published Special Relativity.


Yeah, he ran through other ideas before. But, that's what a scientist in general does.

To me, when someone says they just need more time to consider the problem. It's not so they can just aimlessly throw more random possibilities at it. But rather to try and catch that revelation moment. That 1 realization that will explain everything. Which is why he hit a brick wall when he got to Quantum Physics, cause it's obvious QP is so significant it requires a complete restructuring of our WHOLE understanding of everything. Especially a realization that leads in the direction of an entirely new fabric of reality besides Space and Time.


----------



## Red Panda

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Yeah, he ran through other ideas before. But, that's what a scientist in general does.
> 
> To me, when someone says they just need more time to consider the problem. It's not so they can just aimlessly throw more random possibilities at it. But rather to try and catch that revelation moment. That 1 realization that will explain everything. Which is why he hit a brick wall when he got to Quantum Physics, cause it's obvious QP is so significant it requires a complete restructuring of our WHOLE understanding of everything. Especially a realization that leads in the direction of an entirely new fabric of reality besides Space and Time.


I never said anything about aimless possibilities. But, sure, in the process you can't know how much someone discards until they get to the working theory. I'm not sure what your point is, here, tbh.


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Red Panda said:


> I never said anything about aimless possibilities. But, sure, in the process you can't know how much someone discards until they get to the working theory. I'm not sure what your point is, here, tbh.


You're missing the point. Based on people's description of ILI, it doesn't fit the style of thinking here. It's the same kind of style of thinking I have, and it's not about possibilities.

In fact speaking of Science, or really anything where you have to start by innovating and creating an idea. People who are like ILI type thinking, clearly are actually the well known exact opposite of what is actually needed for you to succeed in such things. People like Bill Gates, Tesla, Elon Musk, etc. Or even just examples of people who dominate the stock market, etc. It is actually the people who just span a wide array of possibilites, that never actually get anywhere.

I call it /aimless/, because in regards to what is actually needed to hit that 1 revelation or get that 1 big idea. That's pretty much what it is. As an example, let's say you want to get Bill Gates level of rich and you do so by trying to start up a business. Someone who considers multiple possibilities, emphasis on the multiple. Is actually not going to succeed. Because businesses like Microsoft, aren't just some random idea. It's a very specific niche, and is as successful as it is for a very narrow of a pinhole of a reason.

Randomosity and Multitude go hand in hand. The more variables there are, the more unpredictable and random things get. So the more and more ideas you have at once, the more and more those ideas are missing a very specific mark. Einstein was looking for 1 answer, as a scientist he knew this. So he wasn't coming up with a bunch of different ideas. He was almost entirely on 1 trail, and found his answer when that trail reached the precipice of the answer within his intuition.


----------



## Red Panda

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> You're missing the point. Based on people's description of ILI, it doesn't fit the style of thinking here. It's the same kind of style of thinking I have, and it's not about possibilities.
> 
> In fact speaking of Science, or really anything where you have to start by innovating and creating an idea. People who are like ILI type thinking, clearly are actually the well known exact opposite of what is actually needed for you to succeed in such things. People like Bill Gates, Tesla, Elon Musk, etc. Or even just examples of people who dominate the stock market, etc. It is actually the people who just span a wide array of possibilites, that never actually get anywhere.
> 
> I call it /aimless/, because in regards to what is actually needed to hit that 1 revelation or get that 1 big idea. That's pretty much what it is. As an example, let's say you want to get Bill Gates level of rich and you do so by trying to start up a business. Someone who considers multiple possibilities, emphasis on the multiple. Is actually not going to succeed. Because businesses like Microsoft, aren't just some random idea. It's a very specific niche, and is as successful as it is for a very narrow of a pinhole of a reason.
> 
> Randomosity and Multitude go hand in hand. The more variables there are, the more unpredictable and random things get. So the more and more ideas you have at once, the more and more those ideas are missing a very specific mark. Einstein was looking for 1 answer, as a scientist he knew this. So he wasn't coming up with a bunch of different ideas. He was almost entirely on 1 trail, and found his answer when that trail reached the precipice of the answer within his intuition.


Yes I'm _asking_ you what's your point, duh
The more variables you include, the more you can build your understanding of reality, which is what Einstein did and why it took him decades to publish his works. Things don't get unpredictable when you add variables, it's the opposite, you can truly find out what works and what doesn't. But if they really do get unpredictable, then it may actually be an important observation because it shows that there's something you haven't understood yet... avoiding possibilities is detrimental to innovation. Clearly, which variables you include are important, there must be a priority, sorting them out, a series of questions one can ask to determine that, which is what intelligent people are good at, and geniuses even better at. Businesses like Microsoft and the Theory of Relativity are nothing alike in their conception. One is just carving a straight path to social/financial success, the other is a step to understanding the world like we never had before, which was only possible because Einstein had powerful extraverted intuition, which gathered & prioritised variables no one thought of, or imagined, before. 
Einstein is not considered an ILI type, and rightly so. He's kinda the posterboy for ENTPs. Like, actual, inventor ENTPs not all the people who think are ENTP because they are a little witty and goofy.


----------



## Tellus

Red Panda said:


> Einstein is not considered an ILI type, and rightly so. He's kinda the posterboy for ENTPs. Like, actual, inventor ENTPs not all the people who think are ENTP because they are a little witty and goofy.


There are very few ILEs in theoretical physics. Socionists have defined the functions inaccurately so they think Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman were ILEs. Nyet!


----------



## Tellus

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> It is incredibly intellectually disingenuous to try and reduce a disorder down to it's diagnostic criteria? This is, in fact, a clinically retarded way of looking at disorders... sooo. It's much deeper than this quote suggests as the actual primary difference between other forms of Autism and Aspergers, is that AS doesn't cause communication, learning, and intelligence impairment. The reason that other forms of Autism get a reputation for basically being the "Retard Disorder", is because the way it is overloading the brain causes too much sensory overload for the person to functionally focus on the external environment. It varies in intensity, but it hinders their ability to communicate and subsequently by extension... to learn. Because if you are being flooded with 1000x visual sensory information than you are supposed to, you won't even be able to functionally see what is going on. If your physical sensory information is being flooded with pain, and you feel like you are literally constantly on fire. Then how the fuck are you going to focus on anything going on around you? So on and so forth.
> 
> But Aspergers is completely devoid of this level of sensory overload. No matter the intensity of AS, you won't be prevented from being able to interact with and communicate with your external environment and the people in it.


https://paulcooijmans.com/asperger/straight_talk_about_asperger.html

"In the current diagnostic criteria (D.S.M. IV), the main difference between the diagnoses is that autism requires a delay in language (speech) development in the first years of life, while Asperger requires the absence of such a delay."_

_Okay, so you are confirming this quote, which means that Einstein did not have Asperger syndrome._






_


----------



## Red Panda

Tellus said:


> There are very few ILEs in theoretical physics. Socionists have defined the functions inaccurately so they think Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman were ILEs. Nyet!


well, and he was one of the few then, what kind of argument is that 
I don't go by socionics, just Jung, but carefully because he made mistakes and had a bias too


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Tellus said:


> https://paulcooijmans.com/asperger/straight_talk_about_asperger.html
> 
> "In the current diagnostic criteria (D.S.M. IV), the main difference between the diagnoses is that autism requires a delay in language (speech) development in the first years of life, while Asperger requires the absence of such a delay."_
> 
> _Okay, so you are confirming this quote, which means that Einstein did not have Asperger syndrome._
> _


Lolwat? How would confirming that quote mean that? He's mentioning an EXCLUSION in the diagnosis of Aspergers, not actually saying what the diagnosis is. He's exlcuding 1 thing from the list.

So unless you're saying Einstein had Autism but not Aspergers, because there's some biographical information saying he had a speech delay early on... then how the fuck?

Einstein satisfies ALL of the diagnosis criteria for Aspergers.


----------



## Tellus

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Lolwat? How would confirming that quote mean that? He's mentioning an EXCLUSION in the diagnosis of Aspergers, not actually saying what the diagnosis is. He's exlcuding 1 thing from the list.
> 
> So unless you're saying Einstein had Autism but not Aspergers, because there's some biographical information saying he had a speech delay early on... then how the fuck?
> 
> Einstein satisfies ALL of the diagnosis criteria for Aspergers.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_talker

Einstein was a "Late talker", and he did not have AS nor Autism.

"In the current diagnostic criteria (D.S.M. IV), the main difference between the diagnoses is that autism requires a delay in language (speech) development in the first years of life, while Asperger requires the absence of such a delay."

"Late talkers can often be misdiagnosed early on as having severe ("low-functioning" or nonverbal) autism spectrum disorder "


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Tellus said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_talker
> 
> Einstein was a "Late talker", and he did not have AS nor Autism.


I love how you just assert this, without any proof whatsoever. In fact not only do you assert that he was a late talker, which is one thing. But you then go to add on "AND he did not have AS nor Autism". Which if you could at least show he was a late talker as you claim, then you would ONLY start to have a basis for him not having Aspergers. But it would be a wholly separate matter from whether he had other forms of Autism or not and in fact that makes this part of your post completely contradictory... you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, and it's almost obvious that you're directly aware of the fact that him being a late talker is actually strong evidence that he had Autism because it is one of the diagnostic criteria for other forms of autism. So you made sure to try and throw in that "and he did not have autism". Again, a completely baseless assertion on your part.

The majority of professionals are leaning towards the idea of Einstein having some form of autism, because it all around makes massive sense. It's a much more scientific explanation of the Genius phenomenon, thus far, than the half baked mystical nonsense or even just the dipshits spewing that "these were just really intelligent people". No retards, he wasn't, he was factually speaking a God among men. Literally, not even overstating or exaggerating. If anything, underestimating and understating... sooooo.



> "Late talkers can often be misdiagnosed early on as having severe ("low-functioning" or nonverbal) autism spectrum disorder "


This is just plain hilarious. So now here you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, on what is basically directly disproof of your own argument. As shown here, it's a /FALSE/ criteria in the DSM-V. That Late Talking has a causal/inextricable relationship with Autism. But really, your true mistake was being like most laypersons who use the DSM as their basis of understanding and judgement about Mental Illness.

You DO know that the DSM, is NOT a guide or a manual on mental illness and disorder... right? It's a fucking /diagnosis/ manual EXCLUSIVELY. It does not even remotely try to explain or dictate what a mental illness is or what it entails. The DSM exists solely for the sake of creating a baseline, a baseline of how we can even hope to begin to guess whether someone has a given disorder or not. It's not actually got anything to do with Psychology, Psychiatry, or Neurophysiology and is not a guide into an actual professional understanding of mental illness/disorder. It is literally no different than a diagnosis manual on biological diseases like the flu or mileria, which in that case isn't a guide to understanding how biological disease works but rather is just used to /help identify the disease/. DSM is to try and help identify a mental disorder, not to /define/ it.

Hence why just like a language dictionary or a diagnosis manual for biological disease, it gets updated every so often. Because it's not even trying to be an absolute command or anything like that. It adheres to what the professionals are saying at the time, and gets updated so infrequently that it's rarely ever perfect on reflecting what current professionals think. Hence your little quote there, admitting that basing diagnosis on Autism based on Speech, is a bunk criteria to begin with. It's actually incredibly deceptive that whoever said that quote, tries to suggest that it leans any more in the direction of meaning people are overdiagnosed with Autism than the other way around with people being wrongly excluded from Autism diagnosis because of this speech criteria.

Ala, Einstein flying under the Autism Radar because he didn't seem to have a low functioning autism as the FALSE speech delay criteria would have suggested, but also had a speech delay which would make it seem like he didn't have Aspergers either. In other words, it's hilarious that you're trying to in one breath. Impose this criteria as some sort of significant evidence, meanwhile trying to on the flip side use it as a double edged sword that says he had NEITHER form of Autism. It's absurd, if anything given OTHER mountains of information outside of this while also reviewing these facts. This is actually much more evidence for his autism than otherwise.

It's much more likely that the reality is. You can either have the speech delay, or not... and have ANY form of autism. Whether Aspergers, or the more typical forms of Autism. Or you can have the speech delay or not... and not have any form of Autism. Because the Speech Delay, is only at best CORRELATIVE. Not causative or fixative. This is one of the most common mistakes made with early definitions of diagnosis of disorders. It's the same exact thing that caused ADHD to be so massively under-represented among females, because we had a set conception of what people with ADHD do and do not do... and females with ADHD did not seem to adhere to this conception because of cultural and chemistry based differences.

*All the while, you still can't address the hard evidence: Einstein had what for all intents and purposes, can be /neurologically/ recognized 1 for 1 as an Autist brain. How do you explain that son? Fuckin magnets, how do they work up in this bitch?*


----------



## Tellus

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> I love how you just assert this, without any proof whatsoever. In fact not only do you assert that he was a late talker, which is one thing. But you then go to add on "AND he did not have AS nor Autism". Which if you could at least show he was a late talker as you claim, then you would ONLY start to have a basis for him not having Aspergers.


Can you prove that he wasn't a late talker?

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...-learning-how-to-speak-related-to-being-smart

_"I've heard various stories about Einstein, but never saw actual proof either way.
_
_I CAN tell you a bit about speaking and being gifted (IQ130+).
_
_On average, most children start talking between 10 and 14 months; they'll start saying a few words like Mommy, Dog, Eat. Slowly their vocabulairy grows to 50 words, 100, and more, and at some point (18-24 months) they'll start stringing them together into sentences; "Dog nice", "Have drink?". And so on until they can talk in full sentences.
_
_Children with low intelligence often (but not always) are slow talkers; they start later, and progress slower.
_
_Children with a high intelligence, gifted children, often start earlier, sometimes as early as 4 months, and progress much quicker.
_
_However, there's a catch: very intelligent children (like Einstein) will often *realise* their speech is not yet as good as that of the people around them (notably their parents), and as a direct result of this will either not talk where others can hear it, or even not talk at all until they are SURE they can do it properly. These children will often start talking very late (sometimes as late as 3 or 4 years old), but will then progress extremely quickly, sometimes talking in full sentences right from the start, other times going from single words to full sentences in a matter of weeks.
_
_Seeing Albert Einstein was very gifted indeed, it is entirely possible he fell into that last group."_



> But it would be a wholly separate matter from whether he had other forms of Autism or not and in fact that makes this part of your post completely contradictory... you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, and it's almost obvious that you're directly aware of the fact that him being a late talker is actually strong evidence that he had Autism because it is one of the diagnostic criteria for other forms of autism. So you made sure to try and throw in that "and he did not have autism". Again, a completely baseless assertion on your part.


No, you are wrong. It is not strong evidence that he had Autism.

"Late talkers can often be *misdiagnosed* early on as having severe ("low-functioning" or nonverbal) autism spectrum disorder"



> The majority of professionals are leaning towards the idea of Einstein having some form of autism, because it all around makes massive sense. It's a much more scientific explanation of the Genius phenomenon, thus far, than the half baked mystical nonsense or even just the dipshits spewing that "these were just really intelligent people". No retards, he wasn't, he was factually speaking a God among men. Literally, not even overstating or exaggerating. If anything, underestimating and understating... sooooo.
> 
> This is just plain hilarious. So now here you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, on what is basically directly disproof of your own argument. As shown here, it's a /FALSE/ criteria in the DSM-V. That Late Talking has a causal/inextricable relationship with Autism. But really, your true mistake was being like most laypersons who use the DSM as their basis of understanding and judgement about Mental Illness.
> 
> You DO know that the DSM, is NOT a guide or a manual on mental illness and disorder... right? It's a fucking /diagnosis/ manual EXCLUSIVELY. It does not even remotely try to explain or dictate what a mental illness is or what it entails. The DSM exists solely for the sake of creating a baseline, a baseline of how we can even hope to begin to guess whether someone has a given disorder or not. It's not actually got anything to do with Psychology, Psychiatry, or Neurophysiology and is not a guide into an actual professional understanding of mental illness/disorder. It is literally no different than a diagnosis manual on biological diseases like the flu or mileria, which in that case isn't a guide to understanding how biological disease works but rather is just used to /help identify the disease/. DSM is to try and help identify a mental disorder, not to /define/ it.
> 
> Hence why just like a language dictionary or a diagnosis manual for biological disease, it gets updated every so often. Because it's not even trying to be an absolute command or anything like that. It adheres to what the professionals are saying at the time, and gets updated so infrequently that it's rarely ever perfect on reflecting what current professionals think. Hence your little quote there, admitting that basing diagnosis on Autism based on Speech, is a bunk criteria to begin with. It's actually incredibly deceptive that whoever said that quote, tries to suggest that it leans any more in the direction of meaning people are overdiagnosed with Autism than the other way around with people being wrongly excluded from Autism diagnosis because of this speech criteria.
> 
> Ala, Einstein flying under the Autism Radar because he didn't seem to have a low functioning autism as the FALSE speech delay criteria would have suggested, but also had a speech delay which would make it seem like he didn't have Aspergers either. In other words, it's hilarious that you're trying to in one breath. Impose this criteria as some sort of significant evidence, meanwhile trying to on the flip side use it as a double edged sword that says he had NEITHER form of Autism. It's absurd, if anything given OTHER mountains of information outside of this while also reviewing these facts. This is actually much more evidence for his autism than otherwise.
> 
> It's much more likely that the reality is. You can either have the speech delay, or not... and have ANY form of autism. Whether Aspergers, or the more typical forms of Autism. Or you can have the speech delay or not... and not have any form of Autism. Because the Speech Delay, is only at best CORRELATIVE. Not causative or fixative. This is one of the most common mistakes made with early definitions of diagnosis of disorders. It's the same exact thing that caused ADHD to be so massively under-represented among females, because we had a set conception of what people with ADHD do and do not do... and females with ADHD did not seem to adhere to this conception because of cultural and chemistry based differences.
> 
> *All the while, you still can't address the hard evidence: Einstein had what for all intents and purposes, can be /neurologically/ recognized 1 for 1 as an Autist brain. How do you explain that son? Fuckin magnets, how do they work up in this bitch? *


I disagree with you. See my previous posts.


----------



## Tellus

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-intuitive-parent/201603/autism-and-late-talking-children

"Importantly, late talking can also simply be a passing developmental stage, with no long-term adverse consequences whatsoever. It may surprise some to learn that the odds of the late talking being ASD—or some other dire condition is much less than 50-50."

------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Witelson

"Her analysis, with a credit to Harvey as well as her research assistant, was published in a 1999 paper titled 'The exceptional brain of Albert Einstein'. In it, she stated that the brain had a 15% wider inferior parietal region as well as a shorter than normal lateral sulcus. As the parietal lobe is the center for visuospatial perception and navigation, and the shorter sulcus would have allowed more of the area to be physically connected, she proposed that this may have allowed Einstein higher functionality in this area."

This description does not correspond with AS.


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Tellus said:


> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-intuitive-parent/201603/autism-and-late-talking-children
> 
> "Importantly, late talking can also simply be a passing developmental stage, with no long-term adverse consequences whatsoever. It may surprise some to learn that the odds of the late talking being ASD—or some other dire condition is much less than 50-50."


Doesn't matter because there is no actual evidence of the kind of late talking mentioned in your other post, where people just sit there and "make sure they get it right". That doesn't even make sense, how can you know what's right without trial and error? A young child ALWAYS learns by sheer force of trial and error. It's the same way that they learn to walk. Following this logic, why wouldn't the same child be a "late walker" and everything else, and all of a sudden appear to be walking, talking, and everything under the sun at a certain point? Again with quoting these sources where people posit stuff that has no actual basis in anything, they just pull this stuff out of their ass.

Morever, you keep emphasizing Aspergers, forgetting that there is a whole spectrum of Autism you still have to try and remove from the equation. So even if you were to be given your points, you haven't done shit about Autism in general. Only Aspergers, but even that I'd say you haven't built much of any case at all by this point.

In any case, late talking is still a symptom of Autism. So it's automatically, categorically, disqualified from being evidence AGAINST the idea that he has Autism of some form. You keep forgetting that part. Meanwhile, this isn't actually proof against even AS, because AS does not miraculously prevent you from being a Late Talker, it just doesn't have an INCREASED correlation. Meaning you're no more or less likely to be a late talker, if you have AS.




> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Witelson
> 
> "Her analysis, with a credit to Harvey as well as her research assistant, was published in a 1999 paper titled 'The exceptional brain of Albert Einstein'. In it, she stated that the brain had a 15% wider inferior parietal region as well as a shorter than normal lateral sulcus. As the parietal lobe is the center for visuospatial perception and navigation, and the shorter sulcus would have allowed more of the area to be physically connected, she proposed that this may have allowed Einstein higher functionality in this area."
> 
> This description does not correspond with AS.


Um, yes it does? You need to actually research Autism and AS, before you actually speak about it. Because it's becoming increasingly apparent that you know literally jack shit about it. Having any part of the brain "15% larger", is significant. You're not stopping to ask how that happened, and the only explanation to date, is Autism. People aren't just randomly born with significantly larger and smaller areas of the brain. Autism is the only disorder known to cause this, as it's many different causes all center around significant lack of /pruning of brain cells in the brain/.

The amount of lack of pruning exhibited here, is precisely the kind seen in people with AS. As for the "shorter than normal lateral sulcus", that is explained by his early obsessive playing of music. As einstein was known to excessively play Violin when he was a kid, and he actually kept playing his whole life. Which is something that only a child with AS, does.

In fact, this is one of the many evidences I have been talking about. If you had asked me to explain my own theory of Genius, I would have probably ended up throwing this article in /your/ face because what you see here is that AS caused the individual to overtrain their brain in a way normal healthy children never do even when forced to study by their parents. It ties in with my theory that what Einstein had was a sort of Attained Genius, but that this Genius was also exclusive because it required the pre-requisite of having an Autist brain and then using the extra brain cells to develop Genius levels of intelligence.

There is strong evidence for this just in the fact that a normal healthy human brain, almost outright is functionally incapable of developing genius. Because of the way the brain develops. A normal brain has a set average amount of brain cells. Among all "normal" people, the brain cell count is by and large the same. Which is why there is an Average Intelligence to begin with, and why Above Average isn't that significantly higher than the Average.

An Autist brain is the only brain CAPABLE of attaining Genius. Genius most certainly REQUIRES more brain cells than the average brain has. Yet Autism is the only disorder where you end up with drastically more brain cells than the average person.

*(Also, Einstein was more than just "gifted"... just LOL at the idea that he "was most certainly gifted". He was a /God/. I already said this, I already put it out there that this is a vast understatement. It wasn't the fact that he had a 130+ IQ, IQ isn't even a measurement of intelligence factually speaking. Having a high IQ is not gifted or special in any way, and doesn't in the slightest mean you are intelligent lol)*


----------



## The Veteran

I look up to Einstein.


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

khanrumell1 said:


> I look up to Einstein.


Lol who doesn't? Dude makes everyone past and present look Clinically Retarded by comparison.


----------



## Tellus

A) 

https://www.quora.com/What-were-Einstein’s-hobbies

_"When Einstein attended college at the Polytechnic Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, he fell in love with sailing. He would often take a boat out onto a lake, pull out a notebook, relax, and think. Even though Einstein never learned to swim, he kept sailing as a hobby throughout his life. Einstein owned several sailboats in his lifetime. He kept one in Caputh, Germany, that was seized along with his cottage in 1933 when the Nazis took power. When he lived in the United States, he owned a sailboat called Tinnef."_
_
"He used to spend his time with his fellow scientist talking and exchanging ideas with them on variety of topics like science, culture, arts, politics and many more. He was also very fond of kids."

"Einstein enjoyed reading and is quoted as saying that "Traktat" by David Humes had a big influence on him. He enjoyed classics, such as Don Quijote by Cervantes Saavedra and books with a scientific bent, including "Energy and Matter" by Ludwig Büchners and Aaron Bernstein's "Natural-Scientific Popular Books." He also read books by the philosophers Spinoza and Schopenhauer."_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein

_"Albert Einstein was widely known during his lifetime for his work with the theory of relativity and physics in general. He was also an important peace activist, a world federalist and a socialist. His political opinions were of public interest through the middle of the 20th century due to his fame and involvement in political, humanitarian and academic projects around the world. He was often called upon to give judgments and opinions on matters often unrelated to theoretical physics or mathematics. Einstein's visible position in society allowed him to speak and write frankly, even provocatively, at a time when many people were silenced due to the rise of the Nazi movement.

_
_Einstein participated in the 1927 congress of the League against Imperialism in Brussels. Einstein also met with many humanists and humanitarian luminaries including Rabindranath Tagore with whom he had extensive conversations in 1930 prior to leaving Germany."_

-----

B) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
_
"Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger's, is a developmental disorder characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. As a milder autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it differs from other ASDs by relatively normal language and intelligence. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and unusual use of language are common. Signs usually begin before two years old and typically last for a person's entire life."_

https://autismawarenesscentre.com/definition-autism/

It generally involves:



Difficulty with social interactions
Restricted interests
Desire for sameness
Distinctive strengths
*Strengths* *can include:*


Remarkable focus and persistence
Aptitude for recognizing patterns
Attention to detail
*Challenges can include:*


Hypersensitivities (to lights, sounds, tastes, etc.)
Difficulty with the give and take of conversation
Difficulty with nonverbal conversation skills (distance, loudness, tone, etc.)
Uncoordinated movements, or clumsiness
Anxiety and depression
*
There is no chance whatsoever that Einstein had AS/autism.*


----------



## Red Panda

I find it unlikely that he had autism either, and a lot of professionals seem to agree with that. Einstein was a creative genius, which requires openness to experience that people in the autism spectrum struggle with. How many people who are in the autism spectrum are creatively genius? Being savant is more about having obsessive interest and overtraining skills, I don't think it's the same.. I'm genuinely asking here.
The arguments in favor for him being autistic are very flimsy and could just be quirks of someone who has to live and socialise with people objectively much dumber than him...
Also his brain was smaller than average actually.


----------



## Tellus

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> The amount of lack of pruning exhibited here, is precisely the kind seen in people with AS. As for the "shorter than normal lateral sulcus", that is explained by his early obsessive playing of music. As einstein was known to excessively play Violin when he was a kid, and he actually kept playing his whole life. Which is something that only a child with AS, does.


This is false.

Einstein: 

"_I took violin lessons from age 6 to 14, but had no luck with my teachers, for whom music did not transcend mechanical practicing. I really began to learn only when I was about 13 years old, mainly after I had fallen in love with Mozart's sonatas."_


----------



## Tellus

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> In fact, this is one of the many evidences I have been talking about. If you had asked me to explain my own theory of Genius, I would have probably ended up throwing this article in /your/ face because what you see here is that AS caused the individual to overtrain their brain in a way normal healthy children never do even when forced to study by their parents. It ties in with my theory that what Einstein had was a sort of Attained Genius, but that this Genius was also exclusive because it required the pre-requisite of having an Autist brain and then using the extra brain cells to develop Genius levels of intelligence.
> 
> There is strong evidence for this just in the fact that a normal healthy human brain, almost outright is functionally incapable of developing genius. Because of the way the brain develops. A normal brain has a set average amount of brain cells. Among all "normal" people, the brain cell count is by and large the same. Which is why there is an Average Intelligence to begin with, and why Above Average isn't that significantly higher than the Average.
> 
> An Autist brain is the only brain CAPABLE of attaining Genius. Genius most certainly REQUIRES more brain cells than the average brain has. Yet Autism is the only disorder where you end up with drastically more brain cells than the average person.
> 
> *(Also, Einstein was more than just "gifted"... just LOL at the idea that he "was most certainly gifted". He was a /God/. I already said this, I already put it out there that this is a vast understatement. It wasn't the fact that he had a 130+ IQ, IQ isn't even a measurement of intelligence factually speaking. *


I strongly disagree with your definition of "Genius". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius

_"A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creative productivity, universality in genres or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge."
_
_"Richard Feynman, who had an IQ of 125 and went on to win the Nobel Prize in physics and become widely known as a genius, the current view of psychologists and other scholars of genius is that a minimum level of IQ (approximately 125) is necessary for genius but not sufficient, and must be combined with personality characteristics such as drive and persistence, plus the necessary opportunities for talent development."_



> *
> Having a high IQ is not gifted or special in any way, and doesn't in the slightest mean you are intelligent lol)*


LOL... yes it does, by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Lloyd

LII, 170+ IQ, _does not_ have AS/autism... He's a genius in my eyes.


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Tellus said:


> This is false.
> 
> Einstein:
> 
> "_I took violin lessons from age 6 to 14, but had no luck with my teachers, for whom music did not transcend mechanical practicing. I really began to learn only when I was about 13 years old, mainly after I had fallen in love with Mozart's sonatas."_


Um? No. That quote proves my point, derpity herpity.


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Tellus said:


> "Richard Feynman, who had an IQ of 125 and went on to win the Nobel Prize in physics and become widely known as a genius, the current view of psychologists and other scholars of genius is that a minimum level of IQ (approximately 125) is necessary for genius but not sufficient, and must be combined with personality characteristics such as drive and persistence, plus the necessary opportunities for talent development."[/I]


Fanboys calling Feynman a "genius", does not actually make him one. He wasn't actually, literally the most genius thing he did was use images instead of math one time. Other than that, Feynman was just a pioneer. Literally no different from Elon Musk, and Elon Musk is more Tesla Tier than anything else.



> LOL... yes it does, by definition.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Lloyd
> 
> LII, 170+ IQ, _does not_ have AS/autism... He's a genius in my eyes.


Scientifically speaking, your opinion does not matter. Scientifically speaking IQ is /memory retention/, which isn't a mental faculty but rather almost directly identical to Muscle Mass Growth. You wouldn't say someone is intelligent for having muscle, so you can't say someone is intelligent just for remembering something and regurgitating information.

Intelligence, is /faculty/. Aka the /ability/ of the brain to /perform/ based upon the information it has in fact retained. So you could have a 2000 IQ. It doesn't matter because if you can't actually do anything significantly inovative with that knowledge. Then you're actually just compensating for your actual LACK of intelligence.

The current scientific understanding is that the actual areas of intelligence are things like: Athletic, Temporal, Spatial, Creative/Imaginative, Emotional, Mathematic, Geometric, etc.

Einstein was a Temporal/Spatial genius, because of his music playing. There's a very specific notch in the brain that ONLY people practicing when they were children, develop. Which ALL "musically gifted" people documented and to have had their brains studied, have all had this same notch in the brain. Along with as you mentioned, certain parts of his brain being more merged together.

Literally nobody has heard much of this Seth Loyd dude, and even following the wiki definition(which is just lol unto itself, keep qouting derpypedia instead of doing actual scientific research yourself.) that you quoted, he doesn't in the slightest qualify for Genius as he didn't do anything game changing in his field.


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

@Tellus

Also you are missing the part where, following what Wikipedia itself defines as Genius, someone who is simply "above average intelligence"... does NOT correlate much at all with "to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances".

Above Average, like Tesla and Elon Musk DO invent new things and make discoveries. But to call their shit game changing or all that significant or original, is bullshit. More specifically, what you always see with these so called "geniuses" is that the shit they "discovered", was stuff that there was already a huge breadcrumb trail leading to. Tesla barely invented the harnessing of electricity, as it was very similar to the lightbulb: People already knew before then, that it was likely possible. Tesla simply was the first to do it as successfully and efficiently. That's not even a SPECK of original thought in comparison to Einstein's Relativity.


----------



## Tellus

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Matter_Brain_Structure_in_Asperger's_Syndrome

"Consistently, performance IQ scores in individuals with (high-functioning) autism are often higher than verbal IQ scores, whereas individuals with Asperger’s syndrome often have higher verbal IQ than performance IQ scores"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-functioning_autism



People with HFA have a lower verbal reasoning ability
Better visual/spatial skills (higher performance IQ) than people with Asperger syndrome
Less deviating locomotion than people with Asperger syndrome
People with HFA more often have problems functioning independently
Curiosity and interest for many different things, in contrast to people with Asperger syndrome
People with Asperger syndrome are better at empathizing with another
The male to female ratio of 4:1 for HFA is much smaller than that of Asperger syndrome


https://www.angelsense.com/blog/aspergers-vs-high-functioning-autism-understand-the-difference/

"With HFA, the child displays delayed language early in development, whereas an AS diagnosis only exists if there are no significant impairments in language."

*Einstein did not have AS.*

--------

https://www.verywellhealth.com/why-high-functioning-autism-is-so-challenging-259951

*Myth: People High Functioning Autism Are Unusually Intelligent and Successful*

If the media is to believed, the high end of the autism spectrum is peopled largely by eccentric geniuses—Bill Gates and Albert Einstein are often mentioned, along with Dan Aykroyd and Daryl Hannah—who by and large do very well indeed, though they march to the beat of their own drummer. The reality, however, is that "high functioning autistic" and "genius," "business tycoon," and "Hollywood star" *rarely go together.* In fact:



People with high functioning autism, while they may or may not be unusually intelligent, rarely have the kind of intense motivation for public success that sends a Bill Gates to find funders or an Einstein to find a publisher.

They may also have significant challenges which stand in the way of living a comfortable life, succeeding in work or romance, or achieving a sense of self-worth. Those issues are made more challenging, in part, because they surprise and upset others who don't anticipate odd behaviors or reactions from people who "pass for normal" in many situations.

While people with more severe autism are not generally expected to just suck it up and get through difficult moments, people on the higher end of the spectrum are expected to do just that.

Lastly, people with high functioning autism are, in general, very aware of their own difficulties and extremely sensitive to others' negative reactions.

*...nor did he have HFA.*


----------



## Red Panda

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Um? No. That quote proves my point, derpity herpity.


no it doesn't :shocked:

unless you are saying that anyone who ever plays music for all their life is autistic


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Red Panda said:


> no it doesn't :shocked:
> 
> unless you are saying that anyone who ever plays music for all their life is autistic


Playing as obsessively as is described, is something only Aspies do. It's why we are Gods among men, because while y'all "chase bucks and dice for brittle stuff and chase ass and coochie", we are busy mastering something with an intensity that the average 99% couch potato population only dreams of.

Literally, it's the qualifying factor for diagnosis. Being abnormally obsessed with 1 domain of skill. Such as a kid being obsessed with building with Legos, etc. I have Aspergers, when I was a Kid I was obsessively dissecting action figures and splicing them together to create new ones, and taking apart electronics to see what they were made of.

If my mom placed a parental control on a computer, I would always find away around it because Aspergers + Teenager Hormones = Unstoppable Genius Horniness lololol


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Tellus said:


> "Consistently, performance IQ scores in individuals with (high-functioning) autism are often higher than verbal IQ scores, whereas individuals with Asperger’s syndrome often have higher verbal IQ than performance IQ scores"


Not an absolute rule.



> People with HFA have a lower verbal reasoning ability


Not an absolute rule.



> Better visual/spatial skills (higher performance IQ) than people with Asperger syndrome


Did you NOT just hear me point out that Einstein's genius was explicitly within Visual/Spatial Intelligence? That the very differences you noted yourself, directly are the parts of the brain to do with Spatial Intelligence? Herpity Derpity. But also, not an absolute rule.



> Less deviating locomotion than people with Asperger syndrome.


Both completely irrelevant, and not an absolute rule.



> People with HFA more often have problems functioning independently.


Again, notice how these are all /symptoms/ and here especially they directly say "often" as in /NOT ALWAYS/?



> Curiosity and interest for many different things, in contrast to people with Asperger syndrome.


You know, this whole thing is curious to me considering AS /IS/ an HFA. But again, Autism is a spectrum. So trying to creating this strict divide between what symptoms AS does or doesn't have, including in contrast to other forms of Autism, is automatically categorically WRONG. Also, not an absolute rule.



> People with Asperger syndrome are better at empathizing with another.


1.Not an absolute rule. 2.Einstein was very compassionate towards the wellbeing of others.



> "With HFA, the child displays delayed language early in development, whereas an AS diagnosis only exists if there are no significant impairments in language."
> 
> Einstein did not have AS.


Again, stop trying to twist their words. They are saying "An AS /diagnosis/". Not AS itself, they are NOT claiming that if you had delayed speech that you do not have Aspergers. There's no reason AS would prevent delayed speech caused by other causes, just because it is "often the case", does not mean it's an absolute rule.

Plus again, there is no proof that einstein was a late talker, whatsoever.



> People with high functioning autism, while they may or may not be unusually intelligent, rarely have the kind of intense motivation for public success that sends a Bill Gates to find funders or an Einstein to find a publisher.


First of all, this is a statement that seems unfathomably deliberately dense to me. Like, the person saying this DOES KNOW that what they just said about "instense motivation", in general, is true about 99.9% of the human species /PERIOD/? Right? It seems really weird to me that you would single out Autists and say "This is an Autist specific fact!" when actually, this statement is pretty much true about the overwhelming vast majority of couch potatos among the masses of /NON/ autist humans?

You know, this is literally why Bill Gates is 1 man out of a trillion. Where the other trillion is nowhere near as successful and probably never will be all that successful in their entire lifetimes? He's not the only one, but it's definitely an unfathomably small elect of individuals?

Of course the average Autist doesn't have that motivation, neither does the average non-autist, herpity derp.

But here's the real consideration to be had: If the average person does have that motivation, their accomplishments will still be average. So it has to be something else other than naive "intense motivation" that sets Einstein apart from everyone else. Bill Gates was just lucky/a smartass. Not smart, but /smartass/. He simply took advantage of other people's work in just the right way to take a monopoly on Personal Computing. He's not a genius, so comparing him here is a non-sequitor. In otherwords, his ambition translated to success thanks to the right /gimick/. We are talking about /intelligence/, not necessarily /success/. Since you can be successful and unintelligent, that hardly seems relevant to the issue.

The main point here is. If you'd want to know what sets people like me and Einstein apart from other Autists. It's that we just so happen to be both Autists, and among the rare few to have that 0.01% infinite audacity that everyone else in general, lacks.



> They may also have significant challenges which stand in the way of living a comfortable life, succeeding in work or romance, or achieving a sense of self-worth.


This is actually true for Aspergers as well? What the fuck are these people smoking. It's well known that AS has exactly this same ordeal, and to say Einstein's story WASN'T littered with these sorts of struggles, is just LOL. Dude had massive issues succeeding in acedemics because of his dysfunctional argumentativeness with authorities(Which is an extremely AS thing, FYI). He also had massive romance issues as well.


----------



## Red Panda

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Playing as obsessively as is described, is something only Aspies do. It's why we are Gods among men, because while y'all "chase bucks and dice for brittle stuff and chase ass and coochie", we are busy mastering something with an intensity that the average 99% couch potato population only dreams of.
> 
> Literally, it's the qualifying factor for diagnosis. Being abnormally obsessed with 1 domain of skill. Such as a kid being obsessed with building with Legos, etc. I have Aspergers, when I was a Kid I was obsessively dissecting action figures and splicing them together to create new ones, and taking apart electronics to see what they were made of.
> 
> If my mom placed a parental control on a computer, I would always find away around it because Aspergers + Teenager Hormones = Unstoppable Genius Horniness lololol


All musicians play excessively because that's what they like to do and it's why they become musicians. Doesn't mean Einstein was fixated with music the way an autistic person does, in fact it's likely it was the opposite, he did it with creativity and a certain rebelliousness to how his teachers taught and only after many years. This just doesn't fit what you're saying. Since Einstein was actually into many different things, it doesn't fit "abnormally obsessed with 1 domain" either. I think you are reading into this what you want to...


the theory of multiple intelligences you also refer to above is not scientifically validated and very controversial btw


----------



## Tellus

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Einstein was a Temporal/Spatial genius, because of his music playing. There's a very specific notch in the brain that ONLY people practicing when they were children, develop. Which ALL "musically gifted" people documented and to have had their brains studied, have all had this same notch in the brain. Along with as you mentioned, certain parts of his brain being more merged together.


https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/einstein-genius-violin-music-physics-science/

"Einstein was six when his mother Pauline, herself an accomplished pianist, arranged for him to take violin lessons. But the instrument *was a dutiful chore *until he discovered the violin sonatas of Mozart at age 13. From that moment on, music became an enduring passion."




> Literally nobody has heard much of this Seth Loyd dude, and even following the wiki definition(which is just lol unto itself, keep qouting derpypedia instead of doing actual scientific research yourself.) that you quoted, he doesn't in the slightest qualify for Genius as he didn't do anything game changing in his field.


*LOL *

MECHE PEOPLE: Seth Lloyd | MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering

"Publications. Dr. *Lloyd* is author or co-author on over 200 scientific publications"

https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/seth-lloyd/profile

"He has performed seminal work in the fields of quantum computation and quantum communication, including proposing the first technologically feasible design for a quantum computer, demonstrating the viability of quantum analog computation, proving quantum analogs of Shannon's noisy channel theorem, and designing novel methods for quantum error correction and noise reduction."


----------



## Tellus

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Playing as obsessively as is described, is something only Aspies do.


But Einstein did not play obsessively as a child... nor did he have AS. Only HFA is possible, but it is very unlikely... see my previous posts.


----------



## IDontThinkSo

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Playing as obsessively as is described, is something only Aspies do. It's why we are Gods among men, because while y'all "chase bucks and dice for brittle stuff and chase ass and coochie", we are busy mastering something with an intensity that the average 99% couch potato population only dreams of.
> 
> Literally, it's the qualifying factor for diagnosis. Being abnormally obsessed with 1 domain of skill. Such as a kid being obsessed with building with Legos, etc. I have Aspergers (HOW MANY? :thinking2, when I was a Kid I was obsessively dissecting action figures and splicing them together to create new ones, and taking apart electronics to see what they were made of.
> 
> If my mom placed a parental control on a computer, I would always find away around it because Aspergers + Teenager Hormones = Unstoppable Genius Horniness lololol





InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Everybody is a clinical retard compared to higher levels of intelligence. The way that I "cope" with my own clinical retardation, is by narcissistically proclaiming myself a Genius and a God. Which does work, because I completely forget that I'm clinically retarded at least lol


:Smilies3:

Genius = autist sure sounds like a great excuse for a moron not to be a genius, _"cuz I'm not an autist"_, as well as a great excuse to deny being a moron obsessively _"cuz not accepting reality is autistic so it makes me smarter"_.


----------



## Wisteria

Why are you all so obsessed with Einstein? Is he supposed to be the poster boy for Aspergers or something?


----------



## Tellus

https://latetalkers.wordpress.com/

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...syndrome-and-High-functioning-Autism-Asperger_

"Einstein syndrome is economist Thomas Sowell’s name for a set of characteristics common to smart, late talking, children . He claimed that though such kids might be defiant they should not be seen autistic.
_
_Asperger’s is an old name for having autistic traits but no language delays. So someone with Asperger’s could not have Einstein syndrome according to the definition of both entities."_


----------



## Tellus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_brain

"*Stronger connection between brain hemispheres*

A study published in the journal Brain in September 2013 analyzed *Einstein's corpus callosum *- a large bundle of fibers that connects the two cerebral hemispheres and facilitates interhemispheric communication in the brain - using a novel technique that allowed for a higher resolution measurement of the fiber thickness. Einstein's corpus callosum was compared to two sample groups: 15 brains of elderly people and 52 brains from people aged 26. Einstein was 26 in 1905, his Annus Mirabilis (Miracle Year). The findings show that Einstein had more extensive connections between certain parts of his cerebral hemispheres compared to both younger and older control group brains."

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/137/4/e268/365419

"We found that Einstein’s corpus callosum was thicker in the vast majority of subregions than their corresponding parts in the corpus callosum of elderly controls, and that Einstein’s corpus callosum was thicker in the rostrum, genu, midbody, isthmus, and (especially) the splenium compared with younger controls. These findings show that the connectivity between the two hemispheres was generally enhanced in Einstein compared with controls."

-----

https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/lack-of-corpus-callosum-yields-insights-into-autism/

“One of the most consistent findings in *autism* is *diminishment of size of the corpus callosum*,” says Elliott Sherr, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.


----------



## Tellus

https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=LOlHvazQvGM

Watch this video, especially at 7:40-8:40 ... the opposite is true for Einstein (ie we can rule out AS).

------

Einstein: A Biography

By Jürgen Neffe

"He rebelled against any kind of authoritarian structure: against rigid rules in school and at the university; against the dictates of bourgeois life; against conventions such as dress codes; against dogmatism in religion and physics; against militarism, nationalism, and government ideology; and against bosses and employers. His opposition to all forms of opportunism was one of the most remarkable of his personality traits."

------

https://www.iidc.indiana.edu/pages/Supporting-Students-with-Aspergers-Syndrome

"Insistence on sameness: easily overwhelmed by minimal changes in routines, sensitive to environmental stressors, preference for rituals."


----------



## Tellus

Neffe:

"Researchers on creativity have also discovered that an overly high intelligence quotient is more of a hindrance than a help on the way to genius. Most people to whom the label 'genius' applies are well above average, but the rare breakout genius with a super IQ (over 150) almost never turns out to be a creative genius.

Creative people are propelled by a high-octane motor: the sheer force of will. They feel the overwhelming need to be creative, and are distinguished by their determination and boundless perseverance. Einstein admitted to a 'mulish stubbornness'. Wherever necessary, his maxim was to grit his teeth and bear it. 'God created the donkey and gave him a thick hide'. This is why highly creative people tend to meet with disapproval, at least initially."


----------



## Wisteria

Who are you to diagnose a famous person? Are you a professional? I doubt it. You're not qualified to diagnose someone.


----------



## Tellus

Wisteria said:


> Who are you to diagnose a famous person? Are you a professional? I doubt it. You're not qualified to diagnose someone.


stop whining


----------



## Wisteria

Tellus said:


> stop whining


Then stop being weird


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid

Red Panda said:


> All musicians play excessively because that's what they like to do and it's why they become musicians.


In adulthood, yes. But not Children. Children aren't smart enough, and lack the attention span, to understand the benefit of investing that much time into something. Not to mention that an Aspie obsession is completely unwilling and has nothing to do with enjoyment. I literally spent a whole year utterly obsessed with researching an archetypological system that I discovered in a webcomic. Sure it was interesting and had realistic application to the real world, but it actually became very tedious to me and I even reached a point where it was like a hell to me because I wanted to stop but couldn't.

So it's not that Aspie children are all that intelligent either, and adults with Aspergers would be deliberately exposing them to uncomfortable levels of "grind" if they wanted to try to tap into the qualities of their "disability" in a constructive way.



> In fact it's likely it was the opposite, he did it with creativity and a certain rebelliousness to how his teachers taught and only after many years.


Um no? It's a Biographical Fact that Einstein played since early childhood, and that he developed a certain notch in his brain that genius musicians have that can only be developed when practiced excessively in very early childhood.



> This just doesn't fit what you're saying. Since Einstein was actually into many different things, it doesn't fit "abnormally obsessed with 1 domain" either.


Again, just like the other person you are trying to boil this stuff down into black and white. Aspergers tends to "improve" with time, as the amount of lack of pruning of brain cells can be counterbalanced with time and the person can try to consciously learn the things that the disability makes it difficult to develop naturally. As I've grown older, I've naturally turned my sights towards expanding my horizons as much as possible.

Mind you, I have a professional diagnosis for Aspergers. I do become solely focused on 1 thing at a time, but I have many obsessions that I switch between at any given time. Not to mention that another big reason for me believing that Aspergers is a Savant Syndrome, is because technically speaking... obsession is the greatest quality for mastery. Not only because it makes you invest yourself into something more than most would, but also because it is very often that 1 path will branch out into many others. Reading 1 book may lead you to many different terminologies that all branch off into different subjects. 1 skill may lead to others, etc. If I want to sing and I go to learn that, I will most likely end up learning Lyricism too and even Poetry. All knowledge and skill is interconnected one way or another, so the more you stack on the more you improve what you've already learned as well. Etc.




> The theory of multiple intelligences you also refer to above is not scientifically validated and very controversial btw


False, it has plenty of evidence to make it something worth considering. Hence why it's "controversial" in the first place. It wouldn't be contested among the scientific community, if it didn't carry any weight. I've even seen plenty of first hand experience, especially of "Athletic Intelligence". As I naturally move like a martial artist, with no martial arts practice whatsoever, likely because I have above average Athletic Intelligence from practicing other athletic and combat related skills.

Plus it just kind of makes sense. The brain itself is basically just this biological computer with different components directly responsible for different tasks and kind of tasks. The idea that intelligence is basically just growing a certain part of your brain through effort of specific kinds of activities, makes perfect sense. Whereas IQ being actual intelligence doesn't, because again that's just Memory.


----------



## Tellus

InfiniteLightvoid said:


> Um no? It's a Biographical Fact that Einstein played since early childhood, and that he developed a certain notch in his brain that genius musicians have that can only be developed when practiced excessively in very early childhood.


Einstein:

"_I took violin lessons from age 6 to 14, but had no luck with my teachers, for whom music did not transcend mechanical practicing. I really began to learn only when I was about *13* years old, mainly after I had fallen in love with Mozart's sonatas."

_BTW, the vast majority of musically gifted children _do not _have HFA / AS.


----------



## Tellus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_brain

"*Stronger connection between brain hemispheres*

A study published in the journal Brain in September 2013 analyzed *Einstein's corpus callosum* - a large bundle of fibers that connects the two cerebral hemispheres and facilitates interhemispheric communication in the brain - using a novel technique that allowed for a higher resolution measurement of the fiber thickness. Einstein's corpus callosum was compared to two sample groups: 15 brains of elderly people and 52 brains from people aged 26. Einstein was 26 in 1905, his Annus Mirabilis (Miracle Year). The findings show that Einstein had more extensive connections between certain parts of his cerebral hemispheres compared to both younger and older control group brains."


https://academic.oup.com/brain/artic.../4/e268/365419

"We found that Einstein’s corpus callosum was thicker in the vast majority of subregions than their corresponding parts in the corpus callosum of elderly controls, and that Einstein’s corpus callosum was thicker in the rostrum, genu, midbody, isthmus, and (especially) the splenium compared with younger controls. These findings show that the connectivity between the two hemispheres was generally enhanced in Einstein compared with controls."

------

https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/thick-bridge-of-nerves-may-signal-autism-in-infancy/

The results are partially consistent with a 2014 study that reported the corpus callosum is abnormally large in children with autism, but then shrinks with age. In the new study, the corpus callosum appears to revert to normal by age 2. Wolff believes, however, that if he were to follow the infants longer, he would see that the structure becomes *unusually thin with age in those who have autism*.


----------

