ellauri080.html on line 524: Overall, SE/NI is much more trusting of what we could call empirical or collected data, particularly data from direct experience, which is why, as CelebrityTypes was the first to point out, it tends to feel much more “intense and singular” of vision, because it is perfectly happy with direct observation and direct conjecture from the collected data. As CelebrityTypes says, “The person will stress one point of view (Ni), which is indeed frequently the viewpoint that generates the greatest yield here and now (Se). The singularity of observation involved will frequently lend a manifest and immediate quality to the SE/NI type’s observations, which in turn tends to make them convincing.” This is because SE/NI is naturally hooked into and derived from a direct and photographic view of the world.
ellauri080.html on line 526: A dominant NI type, for instance, is constantly conjecturing from whatever data they have: it’s what they do, and that’s why these types will often feel like they have a lot to say on topics regardless of their expertise, because they can still conjecture an intriguing point of view from what little data they have; of course, depending on their skill, luck, and their sample size, it is not uncommon for their ‘lines of best fit’, as it were, to be off by some degree. In fact, Ni types are often used to this and, at least in my experience, can sometimes conjecture about how accurate their own conjectures are likely to be. Se conjecture like this too, believe it or not, just not as consistently, but it is part of what can lend that peculiar air of surety or confidence to the ESTP’s speech, or the driven spontaneity of the ESFP’s decisions. These types feel that they see something before them in glorious clarity and sharpness. How long that vision will last varies.
ellauri150.html on line 734: I was just reading about Stephen Hawking this morning and thinking that I should write an article about that. I was thinking of calling it "Also sprach Stephen Hawking". I've never been a fan of his. I always thought his "a brief history of time" to be an exercise in extreme egotism and pure conjecture. I actually never bothered reading it because I didn't want my mind polluted with those thoughts.
ellauri192.html on line 287: Lastly, there is the rumor of the blacklist. No outside observer can show that any such list exists, let alone how and when it was explicitly arrived at. But there are stubborn, unsettling indications. Behind them stands the enigmatic figure and afterlife of Dag Hammerskjold. In one or two cases, the choice of laureate seems to have been largely his. His chill displeasures seem not only to have had great influence, but to persist beyond the grave. The list of lepers, for motives which may, in some masked degree, go back to Hammarskjold's own politics and arcane sexuality, is rumored to include Graham Greene, G"unter Grass and Borges, as it did Malraux (passed over, to de Gaulle's just anger, in favor of a French poet-diplomat close to Hammarskjold, viz. Saint-John Perse). The mere fact that the Nobel Prize in Literature has long passed Borges by suffices to put the whole institution in doubt. But whether any such blacklist is real remains baffled conjecture.
4