If one actually watches this man's videos you will find he gives a great deal of deep knowledge on MANY WW2 events AND the history of Socialism, Communism, Italian Fascism, and German national socialism. I found his video on how Wall Street bank rolled the Bolshevists during the Russian revolution and their motives for doing so. I'm happy to find we are the same type 🙂
TIK is an SLI, imo I'm an LII too, and I've been watching TIK a lot. But the most striking thing about him is his sheer work ethics (he's basically always on the verge of burn out, lol) And well, the argument in porcupine video aren't good, since reading a few books on a battle, well, that's just the standard ammount of research you would have to do as an Historian. And not all historians are LIIs... TIK kinda differed from the normal historians, since he's a youtuber and tried such a day-by-day in depth series with stalingrad, but the other Historians actually did a similar ammount of leg work for their books. He's just distilling their stuff
Ti wants to simplify and keep it elegant. As an LII I do reference multiple sources and it's within a narrow range of interest however, I'm not keeping it all. I'll take what information is useful and discard what isn't in order to simplify and find the underlying structure. In terms of practicality, being an expert on a topic has it's uses and it's why LIIs are great in particular fields and not others, such as academica. Most enjoy teaching because you can provide for others the fruits of your research. The distilling of various topics into one single insight is the point.
As an LII myself, it is not in so much that we over complicate stuff, but that the simplest things can sometimes move past us. Our major objective is to understand certain things, or concepts to its fullest so we can synthesize and simplify things, and also be able to innovate new ideas, or forms.
I think the reason for all those readings is to find a commonality that can be applied to one's own main philosophical structure, so that everything is simplified down to one equation. I'm aware at least now that most people can find that level of theorizing a waste of time so I've found ways to keep it to myself until it's in a shareable state, as in it's been simplified and I've gone over what I believe to be a sufficient number of perspectives on that topic. We don't like data for data's sake. The point is to gain understanding. And that's the only thing that will motivate me to do anything. If I knew it would inform or enhance my main philosophy of reality. Staying there of course is not the most fulfilling thing. And what really gives the greatest fulfillment is when we can give that theory an active role in our life and create a material experience of it, in our own lives or the lives of others.
This a great, interesting video being an Socionics LII myself. I used to get a lot of flack from people for obsessing over certain topics ranging from Spinoza, neural science and the deterministic universe to Jungian analytical psychology.
Great video. I can relate to this type about halfway, I'm one of those people who try to take things from all different typologies and try to make them work together and what not. I know a bit about a few niche things, but I don't go full nerd like an LII probably would.
I'm LII and I can't say that I am overcomplicating things. And I'm not even doing that much research, I am actually feeling a bit ashamed that I'm going too little research. And I am able to simplify things, I wouldn't bring up all the different sources in the conversation. Maybe if people are not simplifying things, then they just don't understand the topic themselves. What I agree with from this video is about being obsessed with some specific field (though can't say it's that narrow) with not much interest if the practical application of that field. However, that's not all the story, outside of my interest, I am very much about being practical and being productive.
Gulenko is my favorite Socionics author. Although Causal determinalist strict Model A purist Jack Oliver Aaron dislikes the holographic panoramic "contaminated" mix that he creates.
As panoramic holographic thinkers us LIIs prefer multiple sources from different angles to create a hologram. Which a strict Causal Determinist ILE like Jack Oliver Aaron sees as unnecessary splitting hairs. In reality, it could be argued Causal Determinists that only stick to one model are forced to split hairs to create strict chains of cause and effect models that don't allow for variations. Whereas a Panoramic Holographic thinker like Gulenko seeks to create a broad 3-D image that can move around. Hence, a normalizing ILE is shaped and behaves differently than a dominant ILE. Jack calls that splitting hairs. I call that observing different haircuts among types that Model A alone cannot explain.
Every bit of information provides a likelihood for newer connections, strings of understanding and availability for a newwr train of thoughts for my own. Information has their own merit where it's everywhere and you can stare at something and pick up millions of indefinite connections. Such is one of the fewer reasons why differentiated views are prefered. I thought i was LSI but nah im LII. Nothing is ever going to explain enough. There is more to get. The beauty lies in this systematic approach towards structures that create a deep essence of everything that the mind has pierced into.
That AI John C. Calhoun screenshot for this video - that is literally my great-great-great grandpa. Still can't decide if I'm LII or ILI after watching this though, the quest continues
so every historian, librarian or even doctor is an intp because they read big books on the same subject? i mean i agree with the main idea and you know it from my earlier comment "ti and fi digs deep". but what's the point of history at all if this specific war doesn't mean anything? what's the point of philosophy? what's the point of reading any book that doesn't teach you a practical skill? why watch anime? why watch any tv? why play computer games? why play billiards with friends and waste time? why go to a bar and poison yourself and talk about football? so intps like to waste their time with reading instead of worthless chit chat about no thing. besides, maybe the guy actually is a teacher or researcher or historian so that's his proffession so it's not really wasted time. hey, look, he has a history channel. hey look, he has 266b subscribers. reading these kind of books are very easy anyways. history books are straightforward things without philosophical or psychological concepts. i don't know what might be so ne fascinating about this though. he very well might be an istj or istp or something. where is ne? for this specific example that is. otherwise sure, intps can obssess over wierd things. infps too. where's even ti? history is just facts you can't change.
"i mean i agree with the main idea and you know it from my earlier comment "ti and fi digs deep". " That is the point. You can see the consistent pattern of this type. Don't get turned around by the little variables.
@@PracticalSocionics te can read the sheit out of books to reach their goals the same way they can work 14 hours everyday. it's not that easy to differ te pragmatic ambition from ti urge to understand things fundamentally if you don't know the person and what drives him. if you think these are "little variables" for an LII video where you type a person LII because he has bunch of stalingrad books, then cool though.
@@demogorgon4244 perhaps it’s a misunderstanding. I didn’t type him LII. I’m not going to claim that I can type someone based on one behavior. My point was to demonstrate a behavior that’s very common with LII types by giving a visual example.
Ne is looking at the same topic from different perspectives. So having 200 books on the same topic works. You don't like history or facts or philosophy and your emphasis is on practical skills... perhaps you are ISTJ or ISTP.
You really wouldn't like my instinctive response to that statement, and believe it's right on the stereotype of my personality type in this system, so its best I don't say it.
Look, mate. I'm LII. But I'm also a PhD graduate. 20 books is nothing. I had to read hundreds of books or articles to complete my thesis. If you can't even get your head around "25 sources" you're certainly no kind of scholar. It's not about being LII. That's the standard for any research.
Sounds like hell. Though you can see how such requirements would mean only certain few types would be interested in such a career path, LII most of all.
Less than 2 percent of the population in most Western countries has a PhD. But that's what would be required if you wanted to get one. If you don't like it, fine. But you can't expect LII's to care just because you and the rest of the mass populace gets annoyed.
@@Jaxy451 I’m not trying to convince LII’s. And of course LII’s are not the only ones becoming PH.D’s. However, I notice that LII’s without a Ph.D can still try to sound like one by constantly referring to as many references as possible in order to try to validate their points. It’s a noticeable heuristic.
Cool, that's for a PhD, not a TH-cam channel that a guy has sealed himself into and grown increasingly enmeshed in a sort of right wing althistory narrative. Either way, he wasn't making some personal attack on academia or specialized fields lol
Yeah sorry for my resp9nse. Probably not called for. But yes, you are definitely a very different type from me. It's not hell. It's just the way it is for certain people.
If one actually watches this man's videos you will find he gives a great deal of deep knowledge on MANY WW2 events AND the history of Socialism, Communism, Italian Fascism, and German national socialism. I found his video on how Wall Street bank rolled the Bolshevists during the Russian revolution and their motives for doing so. I'm happy to find we are the same type 🙂
That sounds really interesting
TIK is an SLI, imo
I'm an LII too, and I've been watching TIK a lot. But the most striking thing about him is his sheer work ethics (he's basically always on the verge of burn out, lol)
And well, the argument in porcupine video aren't good, since reading a few books on a battle, well, that's just the standard ammount of research you would have to do as an Historian. And not all historians are LIIs...
TIK kinda differed from the normal historians, since he's a youtuber and tried such a day-by-day in depth series with stalingrad, but the other Historians actually did a similar ammount of leg work for their books. He's just distilling their stuff
Ti wants to simplify and keep it elegant. As an LII I do reference multiple sources and it's within a narrow range of interest however, I'm not keeping it all. I'll take what information is useful and discard what isn't in order to simplify and find the underlying structure. In terms of practicality, being an expert on a topic has it's uses and it's why LIIs are great in particular fields and not others, such as academica. Most enjoy teaching because you can provide for others the fruits of your research. The distilling of various topics into one single insight is the point.
As an LII myself, it is not in so much that we over complicate stuff, but that the simplest things can sometimes move past us. Our major objective is to understand certain things, or concepts to its fullest so we can synthesize and simplify things, and also be able to innovate new ideas, or forms.
Yep, a lot of times I have a deep insight but then realize that it was conventional common sense after all
I think the reason for all those readings is to find a commonality that can be applied to one's own main philosophical structure, so that everything is simplified down to one equation.
I'm aware at least now that most people can find that level of theorizing a waste of time so I've found ways to keep it to myself until it's in a shareable state, as in it's been simplified and I've gone over what I believe to be a sufficient number of perspectives on that topic.
We don't like data for data's sake. The point is to gain understanding. And that's the only thing that will motivate me to do anything. If I knew it would inform or enhance my main philosophy of reality. Staying there of course is not the most fulfilling thing. And what really gives the greatest fulfillment is when we can give that theory an active role in our life and create a material experience of it, in our own lives or the lives of others.
This a great, interesting video being an Socionics LII myself. I used to get a lot of flack from people for obsessing over certain topics ranging from Spinoza, neural science and the deterministic universe to Jungian analytical psychology.
I thought i had ocd for a very long time . Searching for information seems very compulsive to us , a way to justify existing.
Great video.
I can relate to this type about halfway, I'm one of those people who try to take things from all different typologies and try to make them work together and what not. I know a bit about a few niche things, but I don't go full nerd like an LII probably would.
I'm LII and I can't say that I am overcomplicating things. And I'm not even doing that much research, I am actually feeling a bit ashamed that I'm going too little research. And I am able to simplify things, I wouldn't bring up all the different sources in the conversation. Maybe if people are not simplifying things, then they just don't understand the topic themselves. What I agree with from this video is about being obsessed with some specific field (though can't say it's that narrow) with not much interest if the practical application of that field. However, that's not all the story, outside of my interest, I am very much about being practical and being productive.
As an LII myself, I have my 2-3 niche interests, but also have a whole much of other interests.
Gulenko is my favorite Socionics author.
Although Causal determinalist strict Model A purist Jack Oliver Aaron dislikes the holographic panoramic "contaminated" mix that he creates.
As panoramic holographic thinkers us LIIs prefer multiple sources from different angles to create a hologram.
Which a strict Causal Determinist ILE like Jack Oliver Aaron sees as unnecessary splitting hairs.
In reality, it could be argued Causal Determinists that only stick to one model are forced to split hairs to create strict chains of cause and effect models that don't allow for variations.
Whereas a Panoramic Holographic thinker like Gulenko seeks to create a broad 3-D image that can move around.
Hence, a normalizing ILE is shaped and behaves differently than a dominant ILE. Jack calls that splitting hairs. I call that observing different haircuts among types that Model A alone cannot explain.
Every bit of information provides a likelihood for newer connections, strings of understanding and availability for a newwr train of thoughts for my own. Information has their own merit where it's everywhere and you can stare at something and pick up millions of indefinite connections. Such is one of the fewer reasons why differentiated views are prefered. I thought i was LSI but nah im LII. Nothing is ever going to explain enough. There is more to get. The beauty lies in this systematic approach towards structures that create a deep essence of everything that the mind has pierced into.
That AI John C. Calhoun screenshot for this video - that is literally my great-great-great grandpa. Still can't decide if I'm LII or ILI after watching this though, the quest continues
What about new emerging archetype for LII- that of absolute political militant?
As you may have noticed i didn't.
Yeah, they always complicate things
570 Irving Divide
so every historian, librarian or even doctor is an intp because they read big books on the same subject? i mean i agree with the main idea and you know it from my earlier comment "ti and fi digs deep".
but what's the point of history at all if this specific war doesn't mean anything? what's the point of philosophy? what's the point of reading any book that doesn't teach you a practical skill? why watch anime? why watch any tv? why play computer games? why play billiards with friends and waste time? why go to a bar and poison yourself and talk about football?
so intps like to waste their time with reading instead of worthless chit chat about no thing. besides, maybe the guy actually is a teacher or researcher or historian so that's his proffession so it's not really wasted time. hey, look, he has a history channel. hey look, he has 266b subscribers.
reading these kind of books are very easy anyways. history books are straightforward things without philosophical or psychological concepts.
i don't know what might be so ne fascinating about this though. he very well might be an istj or istp or something. where is ne? for this specific example that is. otherwise sure, intps can obssess over wierd things. infps too. where's even ti? history is just facts you can't change.
"i mean i agree with the main idea and you know it from my earlier comment "ti and fi digs deep". "
That is the point. You can see the consistent pattern of this type. Don't get turned around by the little variables.
it's gold when you find in your exact field : ) Those guys are gems then
@@PracticalSocionics te can read the sheit out of books to reach their goals the same way they can work 14 hours everyday. it's not that easy to differ te pragmatic ambition from ti urge to understand things fundamentally if you don't know the person and what drives him. if you think these are "little variables" for an LII video where you type a person LII because he has bunch of stalingrad books, then cool though.
@@demogorgon4244 perhaps it’s a misunderstanding. I didn’t type him LII. I’m not going to claim that I can type someone based on one behavior. My point was to demonstrate a behavior that’s very common with LII types by giving a visual example.
Ne is looking at the same topic from different perspectives. So having 200 books on the same topic works. You don't like history or facts or philosophy and your emphasis is on practical skills... perhaps you are ISTJ or ISTP.
You really wouldn't like my instinctive response to that statement, and believe it's right on the stereotype of my personality type in this system, so its best I don't say it.
Then don’t .
Look, mate. I'm LII. But I'm also a PhD graduate. 20 books is nothing. I had to read hundreds of books or articles to complete my thesis. If you can't even get your head around "25 sources" you're certainly no kind of scholar. It's not about being LII. That's the standard for any research.
Sounds like hell. Though you can see how such requirements would mean only certain few types would be interested in such a career path, LII most of all.
Less than 2 percent of the population in most Western countries has a PhD. But that's what would be required if you wanted to get one. If you don't like it, fine. But you can't expect LII's to care just because you and the rest of the mass populace gets annoyed.
I'm sure it's not I ly LIIs. And it's only a small percentage of LIIs too who have that aptitude.
@@Jaxy451 I’m not trying to convince LII’s. And of course LII’s are not the only ones becoming PH.D’s. However, I notice that LII’s without a Ph.D can still try to sound like one by constantly referring to as many references as possible in order to try to validate their points. It’s a noticeable heuristic.
Cool, that's for a PhD, not a TH-cam channel that a guy has sealed himself into and grown increasingly enmeshed in a sort of right wing althistory narrative. Either way, he wasn't making some personal attack on academia or specialized fields lol
Yeah sorry for my resp9nse. Probably not called for. But yes, you are definitely a very different type from me. It's not hell. It's just the way it is for certain people.
Right…a way that is often appealing to a LII types and is common to see in them.
And no worries…I’m not offended.
🤣