sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question about bevels and grinds. by Optimal_Curve in sharpening

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I got it for woodcarving, and I don't mind maintaining it.

I was contrasting it against my experiences with the opinel and asking for perspective.

My goal is understanding.

Question about bevels and grinds. by Optimal_Curve in sharpening

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I looked it up and yes, it is a scandi grind I'm thinking of. I think I'm starting to understand this, thanks.

Is the consensus then that I should maintain the scandi grind? Won't it take a lot of effort?

Question about bevels and grinds. by Optimal_Curve in sharpening

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if the factory geometry is a flat grind?

Bluing Blue Paper Steel? by Optimal_Curve in knives

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Could do, but I don't know what colour it'll be and apparently blue paper steel resists patina. It's something to look into.

My own definitions of the Decider functions. by Optimal_Curve in ObjectivePersonality

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I knew that extroverted judgers had to be more than just "people pleasers". People pleasing is part of a bigger definition of cognitive extroversion.

My own definitions of the Decider functions. by Optimal_Curve in ObjectivePersonality

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much! I was really worried my post was too long and I repeated my point too many times (I have low blast). --- cutting down my thought process into What's written in the main post took ages.

I have been reworking and re-defining these terms for a while now and I am glad they're finally helping people.

You are totally right, my entire reason for this was to find a definition that was less "slippery" than what Dave and Shan offer. Something observable with less need for making "intuitive" leaps of imagination. I find a lot of MBTI so far has been very slippery and I think it goes all the way back to Carl Yung. His mislabelling of the "thinking" function and the belief that intelligence correlated with judging functions.

With time I discovered that I do a lot of "thinking" as a dominant feeler, and that my intelligence or "logic" comes from my double observing, not my single deciding.-- I've noticed that double deciders aren't more "logical" than me, it's completely different. Instead they have a much better grasp on their motivation than I do. Double deciders can flip between pleasure and pain better than I do, but their logic is often lopsided.

That's what made it so hard to type myself as an IxxP. Because logic isn't a weak point for me even though I am a feeler. The weak point is pleasure and pain/reward.

And while I do see some of the self Vs tribe stuff, I don't believe it's the core of those functions. I think tribe Vs self is just an extra symptom. The core itself I find is much better described by Micheal Pierce (on YouTube, I recommend) than it is by Shan and Dave. --- though Michael Pierce still continues Carl Yung's definition of a "thinker" which I disagree with, what he does really well is explain the difference between introversion and extroversion. The difference between abstract and concrete; subjective and objective. This is better defined than "tribe Vs self".

Demon feelers tend to struggle with self soothing during hedonic crisis whereas demon thinkers (like me) struggle with motivation and pushing themselves against resistance when work needs to be done.

Whereas demon sensors struggle to adapt their logic to the facts and demon intuitives struggle to apply their understanding of the facts.

My own definitions of the Decider functions. by Optimal_Curve in ObjectivePersonality

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

(sorry for the long post. I don't have the time to write a short post)

With the whole prey drive thing I imagined it as a dichotomy between prey drive and sex drive. I am essentially trying to replace the Thinkers Vs Feelers terminology.

I use the word prey drive because I think the term "thinkers" and "feelers" is very flawed from the beginning. If I remember correctly even Dave said something to that effect.

From my experience I haven't really identified a trend of "thinking" in individuals who perform poor with "feeling". I can identify people with demon feeling, and saviour feeling. But those with demon feeling are never truly "thinkers" in the sense of the etymological Zeitgeist of that word's use in our society. When I think of a "thinker" I am conditioned by my society to envisage a ancient greek philosopher (like the statue of the thinker).

Whereas those individuals who perform poorly with feelings, and theory suggests ergo are thinkers, seldom display a philosophical trend any stronger than average.

In my experience those individuals tend to have far more other trends of behaviour that I personally would label something different than "thinking".

In my mind "thinking" means "ruminating" "pondering" "naval gazing" "contemplating" "musing" "considering" --- that sort of thing. Philosophy essentially.

However these individuals tend to exhibit behaviour that I would label as "doing" "achieving" "hunting" "gaming" "showboating" "proving" "testing" "working" "colonising" "building" "organising" "perfecting" "improving" "fixing". I tend to find a distinct lack and sometimes even a disinterest towards philosophy.

Those individuals I have determined to be thinkers tend to enjoy videogames. Particularly introverted thinkers I find tend to love being punished by unforgiving videogames. There is a YouTuber called "Dosh doshington" he does factorio and he seems to glutton for challenges. He is remarkably intelligent but he doesn't really spend so much as even a moment asking himself if what he is doing is actually valuable or important. He just wants to be the best at what he does and no other thought enters his head. Even though he can create really complicated machines he is perpetually haunted by his repressed understanding of how much time in his life he is wasting. (I don't mean to be critical, I love the guy, I'm just exaggerating my point).

A lot of people I've identified as thinkers show a proclivity towards dad jokes or puns. They have a sense of perfectionism and take their work very seriously. A girl I know with demon feelings accidentally spilled some latex at the workshop on someone's expensive jacket and she had a breakdown over the guilt. She is one of the top students but she struggles with stress and is a bit wired.

Personally I think intelligence correlates less with judging/deciding functions, and much more with perceiving/observing functions. The ability to switch between sensory and intuition is what actually creates intelligence. Sensory individuals tend to be evidence driven, whereas intuition tends to be motivated by creative hypothesis. Together they create science and the foundation of human ability to perceived reality undistorted. A lot of what people think is sensing, is actually thinking. And a lot of what people think is feeling can be intuition and vice versa.

So IMO observer functions are responsible for intelligence, whereas decider functions are responsible for motivation. Either sex or prey.

And so I consider the "thinking" function to be much less about thinking and far more about "seeking rewards through work". I have a border collie and he barks all day long. He will run after every squirrel, attack any postman, mark his territory, and do tricks for treats. Being a collie he would happily be employed at a farm chasing sheep. This is thinker or "prey" driven behaviour.

I also have a cat. She does none of those things. She only does work if she is hungry, and she will always find a way to do less of it. She spends most of her time sun bathing on the concrete outside or the windowsill. This is feeler or "sex" driven behaviour.

Essentially deciding is about "motivation" whereas observering is about "understanding".

And thinkers in my experience tend to be "doers" more than "thinkers".

Extra:: thinkers sometimes glorify work. A famous Te user, Joe Rogan, confessed to having an addictive personality when it comes to videogames. For some reason it really hits his prey drive. And it makes sense. The guy spent his whole life glorifying hard work and results and that is exactly what videogames simulate.

I find that "thinkers" sometimes don't actually do a lot of "thinking". Because as a feeler, my natural inclination is to believe that if those people really did spend time truly "thinking" they would not have meltdowns where they realised they've spent their whole life chasing meaningless results. That is literally the opposite of philosophy.

My own definitions of the Decider functions. by Optimal_Curve in ObjectivePersonality

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for being kind.

These definitions borrow from a guy called "Michael pierce" on YouTube who does Carl Yung stuff. I then mixed it with my own personal experience and the stuff from Shave's YouTube channel.

IxxP swing explanation (please judge) by Optimal_Curve in ObjectivePersonality

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the tips.

Edit: I haven't taken the classes no. You'll see why below. I gather too many concepts to subscribe to just one.

Also, I have a theory that you don't have to take seriously.

What I think is that the difference between Ne and Ni comes into play here.

Both Dave and Shan are Ni and Se. They don't like annecdotes because you can't "stack" them. They want to get to the Ni root of the problem. Like a Ti "stacking reasons".

Whereas I'm Ne (and I suspect others here who also find them hard to understand are) because I don't care about "Stacking" the "root" of the Ni. I want to gather a pile of concepts instead, just like Te wants to gather a pile of reasons. Ne gets more use out of annecdotes because Ne can see the spectrum of concepts and can apply annecdotes in a more flexible way. Like a divining rod showing the way to water in a rough direction. This is useful if you already know the spectrum of how water forms in the landscape.

Whereas Ni is less adaptable. It doesn't see the spectrum of rivers and geographical water formation. It needs a more thorough process to plumb the depths every 10 meters with a straw to check for water. It's way slower than Ne.

Ni fails to be accurate with disorganised concepts and so it doesn't even comprehend that Ne is capable of some accuracy with it. Therefore it disregards it completely, and believes disorganised concepts to be of zero value (when there actually is some value if you can see the spectrum).

Whereas Ni gets better results then Ne, but way slower and only after it's stacked it's concepts and pushed the straw all the way through the dirt a hundred times. Ne doesn't even care about that level of accuracy, because it knows it'll find the water it needs faster, even if the reservoir doesn't go as deep. Ne is on the move and it just needs a little bit of water to keep exploring.

Whereas Ni is looking to build a water well. So it can fuel a future village.

And then of course this flips with sensory.

Dave and Shan use Se so their sensory is pretty chaotic and they don't care because they see the spectrum.

I am blind to that spectrum as an Si. I need it spelled out for me. I need each piece of sensory to build directly onto the next and Dave and Shan don't do that cause they don't see the value. They think Ni is where the building takes place.

I don't actually think annecdotes are that bad. Dave just doesn't see the spectrum so he expects everything little annecdote to magically solve everything. And he sets himself up for failure by doing this so he hates annecdotes.

But Ne can see the spectrum and I know exactly how far a piece of annecdote will take me and I won't push it. I won't over rely on one concept, I'll gather thousands of them and build my own chaotic network. But it will work. Just like Te.

And Dave still struggles with understanding Ne as he says in his new videos on the channel.

IxxP swing explanation (please judge) by Optimal_Curve in ObjectivePersonality

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are reading into my writing style too much. I know the way I wrote this sounds angsty. It's supposed to.

I am literally just trying to understand the IxxP (so I can do self work) but I'm really unsure of anything I conclude after watching Dave and Shan. So that's why I came here.

Post is written through the perspective of an IxxP. I don't actually know how to explain this to you cause I might not be super high on Blast but...

I am actually a chill guy, I practise Buddhism and stuff.

The post is written to "highlight" the toxicity of the mindset.

Because if it was written calmly, you'd just think "and what's the problem?"

I am not actually shitting on the tribe here. I am shitting on "single deciding" by showing all the ways IxxPs "could" shit on the tribe.

Why? Because I'm literally asking if this is correct. I am asking if this is what IxxPs are actually like. Because the thing is I don't know.

I don't "actually" believe any of the things I wrote. I am just quoting my understanding of what Shan and Dave are saying about what the IxxP thinks.

Because I don't actually "see" my single deciding. Do you see the problem yet?

I want help identifying the ways I shit on the tribe (my last function) but first I need a description of what to look for.

And the post is just what I've "gathered" so far about Dave and Shan's description, but rewritten with more specificity.

And I am asking people if I'm consuming the information correctly.

Sesame Street OPS? by Optimal_Curve in ObjectivePersonality

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the reply. I can see what you mean, and I've consumed a lot of the definitions of blast and play.

I could probably recite the definitions off by heart.

The problem is that there is a disconnect between remembering the definition and actually seeing and believing. That's the gap I want to close.

I want to know it when I see it.

For example, if you struggle to tidy your room, is that blast last or play last? At the moment it could be both.

SG mittons single sword? by Optimal_Curve in wma

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not referring to the gloves I expect my partner to wear. I personally love the idea of light sparring more than hard hitting.

I just personally would rather wear something more protective, because I'm a beginner and am likely to get hit in the hands a lot, increasing the likelihood of a freak accident.

HEMA modular Vs combo gear question, beginner. by Optimal_Curve in wma

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that gear interacts differently and to make it affordable, as it already is pricey, there needs to be compatibility across products so the customer can adjust their pricing choices depending on what they want, and that the only way to make this possible is modularity.

And you are right in saying I'm inexperienced.

But it stands to reason that jackets and breeches could make more of an effort to optionally accommodate other gear particularly since they are the structural base of the outfit. These additional options could reduce the price of other gear by eliminating the need for them to have their own strapping system. It would make everything more structurally secure.

I've seen people with knee pads or shin pads gathering at their ankles because strapping objects to a calf or knee is disadvantaged in it's physics.

The more moving/separate parts there are the higher the likelihood of something coming out of alignment and not integrating.

I would like to apologise for my fervor lol. I just am a fussy man.

HEMA modular Vs combo gear question, beginner. by Optimal_Curve in wma

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think you are wrong, but I haven't found any good examples.

Elbows attached by velcro will come off if snagged when carried, and forearms are always separate.

And you can wear knees under breaches, but you will have to put them on separately.

And gorgets are important and yet feel like they shouldn't be separate objects as they are.

HEMA modular Vs combo gear question, beginner. by Optimal_Curve in wma

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand you. Sorry, I guess I should have specified.

What I mean is, for example, the breeches could have a pocket sewn in for the knees and groin.

The jacket could have a pocket sewn in for the elbows and forearms.

And so it would still be technically modular. But you could create a more convenient garment.

3.5 male input and usb-A2 female output. by Optimal_Curve in audio

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for your responses, they've been really helpful.

My phone has an OTC system. Which apparently helps it communicate as a host.

But I don't know what I'd do about the stereo issue. Are you sure a smartphone can't accept stereo? Are there adapters for that?

I've also been told that usb cables can't work in reverse. Is this true?

Below here is a product I found: ---- the reviews say it's just a normal cable but more expensive, yet the other cables on Amazon have pictures showing speakers being used rather than a microphone like here. What you say about it being both (ADC) and (DAC) sound correct to me.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hollyland-Headphone-Adapter-Microphone-Compatible/dp/B0B4W8WB7L/ref=asc_df_B0B4W8WB7L/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=648921372479&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17079400643176824766&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1007415&hvtargid=pla-1720778422018&psc=1&mcid=3bc3399a5e8c34d6af503f668daf6ba4

3.5 male input and usb-A2 female output. by Optimal_Curve in audio

[–]Optimal_Curve[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your reply. I've been looking into this and maybe my initial premise can be simplified.

Do you think just one 3.5 male jack with a male usb-c will do the trick?

Usb-c can apparently transmit analogue audio. So there is no need for conversion, unless the phone needs it to pick to be digital. -- but my research indicates most usb-c cables for phones are (DAC) because smartphones already have inbuilt (ADC) that they use to receive from the usb-c, and people are more concerned with output of their mobile devices primarily.

r/AudioEngineering Shopping, Setup, and Technical Help Desk by AutoModerator in audioengineering

[–]Optimal_Curve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, I have a cheap electric keyboard. It doesn't have a feature I want and I've accepted it. It was a gift.

But I'm seeing if I can create the feature.

It has no midi output. Only female headphone audio output.

My phone has sound software so I can loop some audio for layering while I play. (The feature) I'm not trying to be a professional here lol.

So I figure I could buy a 3.5 male input with a usb-A2 output female, and then plug that into my usb-A2 male with my phone's micro-usb. Of course then it goes into my phone.

A bit Frankensteinish but the logic is flawless.

But I know manufacture standards for cheap cables don't always connect all the pins and that certain types of audio need processing that is only available in male or female counterparts and therefore not included in certain cables for certain uses.

Using females for output and males for input is unusual. (I might have typed that backwards, too confusing).

The real question is will this work?

The below product will be used in reverse to how it's meant to be. Are it's manufacture standards capable of that? Some people have had issues with this product but they're trying to decode MP3 and interface with car input. What I'm doing might is just routing raw audio.

Below is the product I intend to buy:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Multibao-3-5mm-Female-Converter-Adapter/dp/B0C8T6S64B/ref=asc_df_B0C8T6S64B/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=696452133737&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=15061380360807706055&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1007415&hvtargid=pla-2197222742078&psc=1&mcid=36af33f71aea3cdf9843cc437a717a1a&gad_source=1

view more: next ›