I can't seem to be able to leave this alone. RE: Ego orientation:: The id, ego and superego (and possibly other components as well) are part of the self. Using the word "I" does not immediately reference the ego. It references the the entire self (or can reference the entire self).

Hi, Robert. Thank you for posting your thoughts to my wiki!

I took the liberty of creating a home page for you, since I hadn't written How to Participate Here until this morning (26-Oct-2004).

I'm confused by some, well, pretty much all, of what you've posted so far. No doubt that's inherent in this subject: it takes a while to find a common vocabulary. One quick question to start off, just to get the site's home page cleaned up: do you mean something by "Then it's up to the reader to judge whether a particular judgement is right or wrong!!!" that isn't expressed in the preceding sentence? (That's sort of what I intended the preceding sentence to mean, anyway.) Or are you objecting to the wiki policy of refraining from declaring Lenore's stuff right or wrong?

--Ben Kovitz

I seem to have initially misunderstood what you attempted to communicate. As you've stated elsewhere on this wiki, we're dealing not just with different vocabularies, but different semiotic orientations: the pattern, the symbol, the prod, body language, Syntax/Grammar vs Vocabulary. -- Robert Evans

I don't see the connection, but maybe I'm just not understanding the previous paragraph. The wiki rule is just that we post ideas about what Lenore is talking about, but that we don't declare her ideas right or wrong. So, for example, "Lenore means such-and-such when she says subjective" is on-topic, whereas "Lenore is right about subjectivity" is off-topic. In general, the wiki is just a brainstorming forum: a place to post ideas that we find interesting enough to write up. The wiki makes no authoritative or official pronouncements about anything, not even which interpretations of Lenore's stuff are right. We kick around ideas, but we never settle the matter of which ideas are right, wrong, better, or worse. The wiki is here strictly to give readers ideas to think about--including wrong ideas, even really awful ideas. Your mission as a writer here is to say something interesting. Interesting does not imply true. Just supply readers interesting food for thought. Does that help clarify things? --Ben Kovitz

Never mind, I think I read too much into what you posted.

I'm attempting to illustrate the difference in cognitive process between we two. I have difficulty expressing myself with ideas that are not arguments. All dominate Tis do (though they can to an extent, as I've shown with my pages of definitions).

I also find it difficult to slow down when an idea has gripped me. I lay out the arguments in the first flush of discovery, then go back and modify or retract them. Like extroverted intuitives, it is not uncommon for me to leave after a short while. I have already spent more time here than I have in other places, though it's quite possible I'll return in a few months/years.

Your How to Participate Here is an example of Je assigned law. An agreed framework of how to cooperate. Those who extrovert perception can adapt themselves to this a certain extent, but it involves a significant internal sacrifice on our parts.

Robert, are you there? Can we talk by email? I'm thinking that it looks like you have an important idea to contribute here, but it's scattered all over the wiki to the point of being virtually incomprehensible. How about creating a new page and assembling your argument there, including stating what you're arguing for? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you--it's hard to tell right now. --Ben Kovitz

I can't easily do this. Hopefully what I've posted since is more easily read by you. If you have problems interpreting any particular statement, break them out and post them here (as well as the problems you're having with them), I may or may not respond to them though. Or send me email, mailto:pencilcillin-cartouche@yahoo.com -- I changed my email to a disposable account in case of spam harvesting.

Family

Mom = ISTJ (She gave me a framed piece of wood that says "Nobody gets in to see the wizard, not nobody, not no how!")
Dad = ESTJ
Brother =

Notes:

Given typing based on people Type From Scratch

Is it possible for the brain to create new high level (not just lower-level fluctuations that are seen in differing people) base types?

To an extent, this will occur when people have developmental intracranial abnormalities that don't kill them. Can differing types be made this way, or are the resultant people merely/usually subset-types of a normal type (snipped down... have lost the vocabulary)

If intracranial abnormalities aren't weird enough, wouldn't brain tend to make the same units it normally does (just misplaced, or absent some of the major ones). Presumably some minor misplacement, or others things wouldn't make much of a difference, as to great a variations would cause death.

Now we're dealing with things different from base motivational/desires types such as enneagram, and potentially other attributes.

This can be seen somewhat with deletion things such as William's Syndrome and other, even more severe, intracranial anomalies. William's Syndrome most likely orients in affect and desires to enneagram 2 or 3, and the Lenoran ESFJ, ISFP, or enneagram 7w6, ENFP types (profoundly extroverted in effect, and interpersonal).

Science by type: Highlighting fields of work, investigative styles, goal-orientations, communication styles, integrative styles, etc....

from: http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j2dialogues.html
"I believe that something slightly different is afoot when it comes to the grandscale historical change that may (!) be taking place. Western culture has, for centuries, been guided by a paradigm that is predominantly a rational (T), empirical (S) one, with a distinctly 'extraverted' (E) and pragmatic (J) bias."
--- J tends toward idealism, not pragmatism.

compensatory skills (I,N,F,P related skills)

I would be somewhat shocked if proportions of people in general broke down percentage-wise the way Lenore, et al. generally describe it.

enneagram point 3, and related = level and facade awareness, "there is no magic", etc.... At this level, at that level, layering.... ===== This is at least somewhat equivalent to heirarchy. ==== -heirarchy- and -stages of development-
stackings
.... annealing of factors to over-factors (though this is potentially because said over-factors have been borrowed from others).

Idea vs Concept (most of what's on this wiki are concepts, not ideas). In general, ideas inately motivate the party with the idea to action (to actuate or flesh out the idea).

Je - Empathizing??
Ji - Systematizing??

Pe/Ji - Correlation over Causation
Je/Pi - Causation over correlation

Note: It's possible different writing styles and different focuses of writting, etc... (or whether or not one writes, or how one multi-media prefers communication) are orthogonals/tangentials to base personality type. -- ITPs, IFPs or ENPs will be the most likely to get relevant information from the preceding sentence. INJs, etc... may get a different style of information, but it will probably not be what I intended to convey.

See: epistemological understandings of external reality
Epic Fantasy by Type (within the bounds of Lenore Thomson types):

ESTP - Gene Wolfe (The Wizard Knight)
ESFP - Glen Cook (The Black Company Novels), Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel TV series)
ENTP - Mark Twain (A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court) -- Much more present-oriented (by ideas, etc...), attune to relevant opportunites, more science than extraverted sensates.
INTP - Robin Hobb???? (Farseer novels), Ursula K. Leguin (Earthsea Novels)
ISTP - Margaret Weis (Significant numbers of Dragonlance Books w/ Tracy Hickman, etc...)
INFJ - Mercedes Lackey, Robert Silverberg, Ricardo Pinto (Stone Dance of the Chameleon)
ISFJ - L.E. Modesitt Jr.
ISTJ - JRR Tolkein (Middle Earth) -- You may note a tendency towards prequelization, this is not fully indicative, but it happens fairly frequently so far (Backfilling and building of concrete expertise/understanding)
INTJ - C.J. Cherryh (Morgaine Cycle, etc...), Neil Gaiman
INFP - Lawrence Watt-Evans, David Weber, Mickey Zucker Reichert
ENTJ - Harry Turtledove (with Judith Tarr "Household Gods")
ISFP - Raymond E Feist (Serpentwar Saga, etc...)
ESFJ - Made for TV movie: "The Librarian"
ENFJ - J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter books)

SciFi:
ENTP - Pat Murphy?, Douglas Adams, "Quantum Leap" TV series
INTP - Isaac Asimov, Stephen King (The Stand)
INTJ - Andre Norton, William Gibson, Cyberpunk novels in general, I can't recall the names of the specific people I'm currently thinking about
INFJ - Mary Shelley (Frankenstein) -- definitely Ni, potential INTJ
ISFP - Orson Scott Card(???)
ENTJ - Robert Heinlein
INFP - Charles Sheffield (???), Eric Flint (1632, 1633, 1634 books)
ENFP - Alan Dean Foster(???? - potential ENTP), Larry Niven (though quite possibly an INTP)
ISTJ - Lois McMaster Bujold (the Miles Vorkosigan books -- He is profoundly the Si "rescuer" fantasy), Star Wars movies
ISFJ - Brian Herbert (The prequels to Dune)
ENFJ - Anne McCaffrey (This is rampant speculation on my part)

Light Fantasy:

INFJ - Movie "Amelie" - Takes great liberties in "aiding" individual people (enigmatic interaction, too)
INTJ - Eve Forward "Villains by Necessity"
ISFJ - Leo Frankowski (Conrad Stargard novels) -- Conrad as the maintainer/rescuer of Poland, bringing back a king, etc....
EN*P - "Dude, Where's My Car?" - From the ENFP played by Ashton Kutcher, to the ENTP played by O'Connell.

Enneagram notes:
Temporarily assuming the macroscopic sub-structure of the enneagram
1 int to 7, up the Corpus Callosum (or across?)
8 int to 2, up the CC? (or across?)
Only types 4 and 5 (what of 3,6 & 9?) explicitly integrate and disintegrate to the same "side" of the brain.

9w8 as an alterer? 9w1 as a maintainer? Is the division (if this is how it divides) along the cortex (and left/right) sides of the brain, only this way with some of the types, or something else?

Just making minor corrections.