User talk:Admin/Philosophy

From Wikisocion

[edit] Games

Good point about chess. Both chess and Go definitely have strong elements of Se. However, I don't think games of chance have inherently less Se. It's probably more a rationality/irrationality thing than anything else; I personally have no interest in games of chance. Chess is a rational game (I suppose you could say it's ISTj).

Some other games:

Monopoly: Te

Plus    , perhaps? --Admin 00:47, 20 November 2007 (GMT)

Possibly.

Taboo: Ne

Good call.

Life: Te

what??? Niffweed17 00:48, 20 November 2007 (GMT)

I meant The Game of Life, btw. Any game where you have a salary, job etc. strikes me as Te. Perhaps it's a combination of Te and Si (the part about having kids, etc.). What do you think? Thehotelambush 03:14, 20 November 2007 (GMT)

Boggle and most other word games: Ti (+ Ne)

Hmmm. I'm not sure. I forget what Boggle is about. A lot of verbosity seems to be     related.     seems to be more about introducing structure to verbosity.

Boggle is a word-find game. It has nothing to do with communication (none of the players talk during the game). It's not so much about structuring words as letters. I think your point about Fe is true (so Taboo probably involves some Fe too), but I'm thinking about word games that involve putting words together in a framework or finding linguistic patterns. Thehotelambush 03:14, 20 November 2007 (GMT)

Scattergories: EP

Scrabble: logical

There might be some     there as well (searching for possibilities, etc.)

I can see that, yeah.

Dungeons and Dragons: Ni

Wow, yes. I just cannot get into anything that is make-believe. --Admin 00:47, 20 November 2007 (GMT)

Starcraft: Te + Se

Myst: Ni? Definitely intuitive.

What are some ethical games? Thehotelambush 09:20, 19 November 2007 (GMT)

Now that is the question to be answered! --Admin 09:29, 19 November 2007 (GMT)

It seems like all "mental" things don't "use" ethics, but that simply can't be true. Perhaps ethics is used in games that require negotiation (my ethics-dominant family loved the game "Pit" (a loud card trading game) as well as Scrabble -- which might not be logic dominant)

I've always wanted to learn how to play Go... also an ethical card game might be casino or although it's got it's fair share of logic/stradegy to it as well. It might not look it by the rules but if you play it you'll see what I mean. There's a bigtime emotional component that comes into play. Bionicgoat 12:33, 19 November 2007 (GMT)

maybe bullshit? Bionicgoat 12:34, 19 November 2007 (GMT)

Yes! We also forgot an obvious one: Poker. The game Mafia is ethical now that I think about it - it's pretty much impossible to have a completely logical strategy of any kind (although you can use logic in creative ways). I also know an ENFp who is awesome at it, lol. Thehotelambush 20:47, 19 November 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Anthropology and sociology

I've always found anthropology and sociology a bit overly wishy-washy to point where they seem to have completely miss the point of what they're doing. I do like Stanley Milgrams and even Orwells ideas and way of thinking but most of the others just seem so boring and light-weight. I dislike the emphasis that other people (usually Deltas) have on Orwell (we're all living in a police state, if we don't do something now we're all fucked, all right wing thoughts are in line with doublethink, duckspeak etc. but people on the left never do that) I feel like they're all completely missing the point. Just wondering what this means socionically, me being the dual of a lot of the creators of anthropology and sociology theories and all. Not a complaint, just asking. --Electric 22:47, 17 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Fantasy, etc.

How about "escapism"? Thehotelambush 21:22, 27 April 2008 (BST)

[edit] Jimmy Wales

"SLI sidekick"? - co-founder Angela Beesley. Thehotelambush 19:44, 11 October 2008 (BST)

[edit] Literary Theory

I'm not sure which aspect of it you're referring to in particular. This a field that fascinates me particularly because I think different types gravitate to it for different reasons. To me: emotional effect, word choices, technique, that's more     +    , whereas character motivations, relationships between characters, the effect of certain actions on characters, who is wrong/right?, archetypes,... is very     +    . (There are also, say,    /    reasons.) I think that the main difference I have observed between Beta and Delta NF's in literary study is that Delta NFs are interested in literary theory up until the point where they have learned all they can from a particular author/movement, for their own personal use, so as to affect a real-life change; Delta NFs are "thinker-doers." There comes a time when they go go "enough with studying the history of authors and all of their devices and pondering whether Macbeth is the precursor to Dr. Evil. Am I going to write something myself?" Beta NFs, otoh, seem to like discussing historical works without end and for no purpose other than the pure enjoyment of the discussion. Ritella 19:36, 4 November 2008 (GMT)

I don't know about Rick, but my idea of literary theory is trying to find hidden meanings in a work that are totally based on personal interpretation, as in "What was the author really trying to say?" or "What do such-and-such a character's actions signify?" Such questions are clearly about     and    .     and     are present, but secondary. Thehotelambush 22:35, 14 November 2008 (GMT)

In other words, a waste of time. Looking for hidden meanings is useless... but observing the evolution of either technique or character development is effective in getting inside most authors' heads, at least.

Rest assured, if the author wants you to interpret their work as an indictment about something, they'll come out and say it. (I'm thinking of Atlas Shrugged, here) Tcaudilllg 00:37, 15 November 2008 (GMT)