User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 234

  1. #131
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Practice being human.
    If you practice long enough, you will become skilled at being human.
    Maybe so, but I hardly see the relevance.

    The point is, skill is more a function of practice than natural ability, so preference for one type of cognitive perspective, over the long term, will translate into more skill (on average) with that perspective than people who don't prefer to use it much.

    Therefore, we can clearly infer that some types will, on average, have a tendency to do certain tasks (or think in certain ways) better than other types.

    Now that that's established, what do you think are some of the things that ENTJs tend not to do as well as other types?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #132
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I not only don't think this way, but I think it's weird that you do. You are attributing intent to me that just doesn't exist. I don't want to be revolutionary. It's just easy for me to see some things, and to see some things that function theory doesn't represent. That is all. It's natural where I'm at in my life and with my current interest that I follow this through a ways.
    The point is that function theory does represent those things. If it doesn't, you haven't gotten far enough with it yet.

    btw, zero Ni doms actually think they think this way. I don't know you well enough to know whether or not you do, so I'll let that one go from here on.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I have never tried to be, or say, that I'm profoundly brilliant. I don't even think that way. If the things I'm saying have been written about, I'd really appreciate the links to read about them. But it still won't stop me thinking about it. Nothing can stop that. In fact, so far it's YOU who has gone around tooting your own horn about how much you know, etc., and how much I don't know.
    Amazon.com: Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self-Discovery (0046442798679): Russ Hudson, Don Richard Riso: Books

    Amazon.com: The 16 Personality Types, Descriptions for Self-Discovery (9780966462470): Linda V. Berens, Dario Nardi: Books

    Amazon.com: Personality Type (Jung on the Hudson Book Series): Lenore Thomson: Books

    Amazon.com: Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (9780891060741): Isabel Briggs Myers: Books

    Amazon.com: Building Blocks of Personality Type: A Guide to Using the Eight-Process Model of Personality Type (9780971932623): Leona Haas, John Beebe: Books



    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Emotional. oooohhhh. pms? or Fi?
    Despite my lack of a uterus, I still think PMS is more likely. (Even more likely than that, of course, is Fe.)

    This would be Fi if I believed you were doing something unethical and it really violated my personal moral beliefs. I don't think you're unethical; I just think you're incorrect--which is kind of the equivalent of unethical in Ti terms. Fi-ers only go to these lengths to debate morality, not technical accuracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I never said glaring in a self-righteous way. I said make a better, more cohesive theory that more people can access and understand. Why are you so loyal to a fledgling theory that nearly creates more problems than it ameliorates?
    Making the theory more accurate would probably make it even harder to understand for most people. It's a complex idea, so translating it into simpler terms will necessarily dumb down the accuracy.

    I don't think Jungian typology is some sort of masterful explanation of the entirety of human psychology. If you got that from my posts then you really missed the point by a mile.

    If you didn't claim to be operating within a Jungian framework when you're clearly not, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't know how many times I have to explain this, but I guess it's not getting through. I am not and have never been telling you that Jung's way is the only way to think about cognition.

    I've asked several times if you would like to discuss cognition from a non-Jungian standpoint and you've refused every time. I'm perfectly open to non-Jungian ideas about cognition; what I'm not open to is people getting Jung's theories wrong yet claiming they're applying Jungian typology. It's the incongruity between these two things that I'm taking issue with (which is very, very Ti), not your attempts to think about new ways to consider cognition.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I think this is one of those ad hominem things again. You really should get a handle on your emotions, my friend. And I agree about the last sentence, I would more likely trust someone's judgment in that regard that shared my functions; otherwise, only if they were very skilled at interpreting functions, or had experience at psychoanalysis with a focus on typology.
    I don't find your attempts to intentionally provoke me with accusations of over-emoting very convincing.

    I don't suppose you remember that part of the Si/Ni test thread where you were defending yourself from accusations that your feelings were hurt? Why, exactly, do you feel that you have the authority to assign emotional motivations to others, but that others can't do it to you? You're the authority on how everyone feels?

    You're the authority on exactly one person's feelings: yours.

    HINT: You can't read the emotional motivations of strangers you've never met through the internet. Look up the myriad threads complaining about Fi if you want to learn why.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Finally, and get this straight. I am not taking his criticism personally. I don't even understand how you get that. My feelings are not hurt, for fuck's sake.
    Gosh, afro...you used exactly the same "emotionally loaded" phrase--"for fuck's sake"--that I did. And of course, somebody pounced on it and claimed you were being too emotional. I guess you should really learn to get control of your emotions too, huh?

    Or maybe, just maybe, trying to assess the private emotions of strangers you've never met over the internet is retarded. We both used some coarse language out of exasperation/frustration, not some kind of emo kid meltdown.

    "ZOMG U R WAY 2 EMOTIONAL LOL" is the standard internet forum debate lingo for "Shit, I'm so out of relevant material that accusing you of being too emotional is the only argument line I have left!"
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #133
    Senior Member LeafAndSky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    skill is more a function of practice than natural ability, so preference for one type of cognitive perspective, over the long term, will translate into more skill (on average) with that perspective than people who don't prefer to use it much.

    Therefore, we can clearly infer that some types will, on average, have a tendency to do certain tasks (or think in certain ways) better than other types.

    Now that that's established,
    But it wasn't -- for me, anyway. Established, I mean.

    I lost you at the very first assumption, "skill is more a function of practice than natural ability."

    The music example, for instance. There's this 'scale' or spectrum of being able to tell pitch. It has a huge effect on playing. Also, drive has an effect. Also, pleasure, pleasure gained from technical accomplishment, or pleasure gained from expression. Also a sense of rhythm. (There are some people who are 'tone-deaf' as far as dancing and wouldn't be able to play drums; it seems to be a separate thing from a sense of pitch.) Also humor vs. uptightness -- call it frustration level or 'I quit' level.

    People who seldom practice can be phenomenal in two hours. People who practice their fingers off can be wooden after weeks.

    No matter how hard I practice I will never be as good at spreadsheets and databases as the guy who sat next to me in a class on them and barely bothered with homework. I got a higher grade, but the bottom line is you would not want me designing a database for even a girl scout troop, you would want him to do it.

    Humans are muddles. It'd be nice to completely and with finality categorize us, and all the parts of us, but can we, really? The line between things, maybe between all things, is variable. Amorphous, even.

    Or so it seems to me, with this brain (which is probably why I'm not great at databases). Your brain may view the potential for categorization differently.

    Well, I'm not following the positions of people in this thread (and on a subject I haven't studied) in any detail. I just wanted to say that the chain of logic above seemed appealing and satisfying, but when looked at closely, amorphous.

    Anyway, the Big Cat doesn't give an impression of cageability. I don't think you're going to get anywhere.

  4. #134
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    But it wasn't -- for me, anyway. Established, I mean.

    I lost you at the very first assumption, "skill is more a function of practice than natural ability."

    The music example, for instance. There's this 'scale' or spectrum of being able to tell pitch. It has a huge effect on playing. Also, drive has an effect. Also, pleasure, pleasure gained from technical accomplishment, or pleasure gained from expression. Also a sense of rhythm. (There are some people who are 'tone-deaf' as far as dancing and wouldn't be able to play drums; it seems to be a separate thing from a sense of pitch.) Also humor vs. uptightness -- call it frustration level or 'I quit' level.
    Tone-deafness doesn't exist except in people with serious hearing disabilities. That's a gigantic myth. Some people have better natural rhythm than others but nobody becomes a world-class percussionist without an enormous amount of practice. People who show very high aptitude early on are encouraged to practice more, so they often get a huge amount of experience at a very young age.

    Some people do have perfect pitch, yes, and it grants an advantage in learning music, but it doesn't do anything on its own if you don't practice hard to develop it into a useful skill.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    People who seldom practice can be phenomenal in two hours. People who practice their fingers off can be wooden after weeks.
    You seem to have some misconceptions about talent. All it means is that you'll require fewer hours to reach higher skill levels than someone who's proportionally less talented. It represents potential to learn faster than others if the proper amount of work is applied, nothing more.

    Being "phenomenal in two hours" at anything that has a lot of room for improvement is impossible.


    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    No matter how hard I practice I will never be as good at spreadsheets and databases as the guy who sat next to me in a class on them and barely bothered with homework. I got a higher grade, but the bottom line is you would not want me designing a database for even a girl scout troop, you would want him to do it.
    Unless you have some kind of significant mental disability, if you devoted years of your life to improving your spreadsheet skills, and he rarely practiced it at all, you would do better. I promise.

    We all like to look at successful people and think, "Well I'd be that successful too, if only I'd been lucky enough to have that kind of talent!" But what many of us don't realize is that anyone who reaches the highest levels of success in anything has always spent an inordinate number of hours working on it.

    For instance, if you want to be really skilled at the piano, it might take you 10,000 hours of practice, whereas an especially talented person might be able to do it in 5,000. An extraordinarily talented prodigy might get there in 500. But nobody is doing it in 2.


    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    Humans are muddles. It'd be nice to completely and with finality categorize us, and all the parts of us, but can we, really? The line between things, maybe between all things, is variable. Amorphous, even.

    Or so it seems to me, with this brain (which is probably why I'm not great at databases). Your brain may view the potential for categorization differently.
    I agree that we cannot completely categorize everything about humans (not yet, anyway.) There's far too much we don't know about the brain and the mind.

    Jungian typology does not purport to do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    Well, I'm not following the positions of people in this thread (and on a subject I haven't studied) in any detail. I just wanted to say that the chain of logic above seemed appealing and satisfying, but when looked at closely, amorphous.

    Anyway, the Big Cat doesn't give an impression of cageability. I don't think you're going to get anywhere.
    Don't worry--I know he'll never publicly respond in any way that validates anything I've said. That's not why I'm saying it
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #135
    Senior Member LeafAndSky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post

    doesn't exist

    gigantic myth

    have some misconceptions

    impossible.

    anyone

    in anything

    has always

    nobody
    You share your opinions more forcefully than I prefer to share mine.

    Obviously our experience of the world, and of the world of music, is often very different, as is our view of talent. The first assumption of your logic chain, "skill is more a function of practice than natural ability," remains unworkable for me, just as it remains workable for you. Neither of us has found the other's examples and opinions convincing.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Don't worry--I know he'll never publicly respond in any way that validates anything I've said. That's not why I'm saying it
    I'm enjoying this thread.

  6. #136
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    You share your opinions more forcefully than I prefer to share mine.

    Obviously our experience of the world, and of the world of music, is often very different, as is our view of talent. The first assumption of your logic chain, "skill is more a function of practice than natural ability," remains unworkable for me, just as it remains workable for you. Neither of us has found the other's examples and opinions convincing.
    Okay, actually, I was wrong about tone-deafness. It does exist without hearing impairment or other injury in about 4% of the population:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    Congenital amusia, commonly known as tone deafness[15], refers to a musical disability that cannot be explained by prior brain lesion, hearing loss, cognitive defects, or lack of environmental stimulation[14], and it affects about 4% of the population[2]. Individuals who suffer from congenital amusia seem to lack the musical predispositions that most people are born with[16]. They are unable to recognize or hum familiar tunes even though they have normal audiometry and above average intellectual and memory skills[2]. Also, they do not show sensitivity to dissonant chords in a melodic context, which, as discussed earlier, is one of the musical predispositions exhibited by infants[2]. The hallmark of congenital amusia is a deficit in fine-grained pitch discrimination, and this deficit is most apparent when congenital amusics are asked to pick out a wrong note in a given melody[2]. If the distance between two successive pitches is small, congenital amusics are not able to detect a pitch change. As a result of this defect in pitch perception, a lifelong musical impairment may emerge due to a failure to internalize musical scales. A lack of fine-grained pitch discrimination makes it extremely difficult for amusics to enjoy and appreciate music, which consists largely of small pitch changes[16].
    A lot more than 4% of the population, however, believes themselves to be tone-deaf. Often people mistake lack of training for true tone-deafness, which is rarely the case. True tone-deafness is a congenital disability involving a malfunction in a particular area of the brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    I'm enjoying this thread.
    Can you name anyone who achieved world class skill in any area without significant training and practice?

    I've been taking music classes and lessons on a variety of instruments from a lot of different musically experienced people for most of my life and I've always been taught that practice > talent.

    It is, of course, true that the very highest levels of skill in anything (music included) are reserved for those who possess both exceptional talent and exceptional work ethic. If your natural talent for something is really low, you're never going to compete on a world class level no matter how much you work at it--that much is true. You'll never compare to talented people who work hard.

    But if you work really hard, you will beat out talented people who are too lazy to put any effort into practicing. That's what I mean when I say success is more dependent upon diligence than talent.

    If diligence with average talent frequently produces success, but high talent with no diligence rarely does, which would you say is more important?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #137
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The point is that function theory does represent those things. If it doesn't, you haven't gotten far enough with it yet.
    I meant current function theory. I thought that was obvious.

    btw, zero Ni doms actually think they think this way. I don't know you well enough to know whether or not you do, so I'll let that one go from here on.
    I'm so textbook Ni it's not even funny. I'd think you'd get that if you knew much about Ni.



    Thanks for the references. I have the Berens and Nardi and I find it practically useless and cliche. I am not interested in Enneagram although I think they have developed a kick-ass conceptual model. I am always intrigued with Myers-Briggs because they actually have a large enough organization to fund research and testing of personality types. I'm not very interested in Beebe; I got turned off from the beginning with his 8 function model seemingly based in his own mind, but not grounded in any sort of observation. I could be wrong here, and I welcome any critique of his work regarding his most valuable impact. I will probably get his book later, after I've studied the main gurus. I have been all over the Lenore Thompson Wiki and like it, for the most part. I cannot find where she gets her information for her work in that wiki. I will buy her book and check it out.

    Despite my lack of a uterus, I still think PMS is more likely. (Even more likely than that, of course, is Fe.)

    This would be Fi if I believed you were doing something unethical and it really violated my personal moral beliefs. I don't think you're unethical; I just think you're incorrect--which is kind of the equivalent of unethical in Ti terms. Fi-ers only go to these lengths to debate morality, not technical accuracy.
    I respect your opinion on this. If you don't think you use Fi, you probably don't. But I also have my own observations to go by, so I can't just take your (or anyone's) word for it. You should know this about Ni doms.

    For the sake of argument, and the pursuit of truth, I will say that IF the aux and tert functions are oriented the same way, they will bleed over into each other somewhat, and the effect, especially of the tert, might be very difficult to see. Sort of like how some perceive Ni and Si bleed over into each other. For example, I feel an emotional attachment of you to your ideas that seems to go beyond what I know of Ti users. In fact, I usually feel Ti to be very detached, at least in Ti doms, IxTPs, very non-emotional, and very logical. If what you, and Jag, are saying is true, that we are seeing the emotional adherence of you to your Ti ideas getting challenged, then Ti doms should have even more reason to feel emotional, or invested (if you like) in being challenged. However, with the tert-opposite idea, IxTPs would use Fe, not Fi, which might be the reason; which might be what makes the difference.

    But this tert-opposite idea of mine is but 1 tiny piece in the whole personality typology 10,000 piece construct. I have made an observation, and I can only wait to see where it falls into place. It goes somewhere, I'm just not sure where.


    Making the theory more accurate would probably make it even harder to understand for most people. It's a complex idea, so translating it into simpler terms will necessarily dumb down the accuracy.
    OR maybe it's confusing because of all the missing pieces. Like looking at a painting only half finished. What's more confusing? Looking at an unfinished Escher or looking at a finished Escher? I guess that would depend on your viewpoint, and how you like to think.

    I don't think Jungian typology is some sort of masterful explanation of the entirety of human psychology. If you got that from my posts then you really missed the point by a mile.

    If you didn't claim to be operating within a Jungian framework when you're clearly not, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't know how many times I have to explain this, but I guess it's not getting through. I am not and have never been telling you that Jung's way is the only way to think about cognition.

    I've asked several times if you would like to discuss cognition from a non-Jungian standpoint and you've refused every time. I'm perfectly open to non-Jungian ideas about cognition; what I'm not open to is people getting Jung's theories wrong yet claiming they're applying Jungian typology. It's the incongruity between these two things that I'm taking issue with (which is very, very Ti), not your attempts to think about new ways to consider cognition.
    But I never claimed to be operating within a Jungian framework, and if "you got that from my posts then you really missed the point by a mile." All I said, in response to your repeated criticisms, was that I agree with a lot of what Jung and others say. If you judge with your Ne, that I "got Jung's theories wrong" that's your problem. I see Jung through my own vision, my Ni, so I will necessarily judge his work differently than you, and intuit different things than you. Furthermore, I never made conjectures about what you believe. If anything, I'm the only one asking questions here when I want more information, instead of making false assumptions.

    I make my own framework. I never adopt another person's framework if it means something important to me, or affects my view in some personal way. It's just not how I think, which is what you don't seem to get either. I'm not telling you, "Hey, Sim, don't go memorize every detail from every author who ever wrote anything with the word function in it," because I know that's just what Ne's do.


    As to the bolded, you haven't passed my tests yet. You think I'm going to philosophize with someone I can't even communicate with? No thanks.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  8. #138
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default A Study of two female INTJs as it regards their tert function

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    Ok, I was actually looking for this for a different thread, but I think it fits better here.

    Can you honestly tell me that this person has Fe? Her morality is so Fi...in fact, while I'm not an Objectivist by any stretch of the imagination, I completely agree with what she says about love at 7:02 - 7:15. So unbelievably Fi. I could happily quote what she says there.

    [YOUTUBE="7ukJiBZ8_4k"]A famous INTJ who absolutely did not have Fe[/YOUTUBE]

    Thanks for that! I think it was Alan Greenspan that said she was his mentor...? :horor: Why couldn't we then see it sooner?


    Anyway, a few thoughts. She's definitely not emotionally healthy. Her eyes are way too flitty--something is going on there. You can get away with some neurotic behavior for a while when you are young, but as you age, if you continue the neurotic behavior, you will develop physical manifestations of it, namely as nervous ticks. So she's not a healthy example of an INTJ, imo. Furthermore, Wikipedia describes her as having used amphetamines to work long hours writing, and "Her continued use of it for several decades also may have contributed to volatile mood swings observed by her associates in later years.[39]" So anything construed from this example, can only show what an unhealthy INTJ would look like, but an interesting study nonetheless (more interesting probably than a study of a healthy INTJ). That being said, she definitely needs to work on her Fe.

    I agree that she is exhibiting Fi in the tert position. The Lenore Thompson Wiki goes into good detail about Fi, and how Fi looks in each position, the dom/aux/tert, but I'm not sure the model she/they used to assess that information, so I'm not sure of it's accuracy. For example, were they looking at how Fi looks in an INFP, and an ENFP, the Fi descriptions might be accurate, but if there is some question to the tert orientation, looking at Fi in a normal INTJ might give skewed data versus looking at Fi tert in a norml ENTP.

    Which leads us to ask why. Why does Ayn Rand introvert Fi to an unhealthy degree? Are we seeing the extra-intraverted Fi of a 'normal' INTJ, or is it Fi gone awry? Fi that should have been Fe?

    Her past is illuminating somewhat. Eldest of three children. Father was a pharmacist. Nonpracticing Jews. She came of age during the Russian Revolution and saw the rise of the Bolshevik party; her father's pharmacy was taken over by the Soviets and they had to flee the country. So this gives a bit of background for her anti-communist/anti-government capitalist ideals.
    She graduated from high school in the Crimea and briefly held a job teaching Red Army soldiers to read. She found she enjoyed that work very much, the illiterate soldiers being eager to learn and respectful of her.
    --wikipedia. I don't glean much Fe there at all, except for liking to teach the soldiers to read. That's pretty Fe, but more in a being-revered, possibly hinting at some Messiah complex kind of way.

    So, perhaps in all that she had to do to survive during a war situation and communist take-over, she became more introverted. Then entered university and got turned on to Aristotle and Plato and Nietzsche and others who showed her that within her own powerful mind (Ni/Te) was the only true way to find solace. Perhaps not. She became a writer and ended up in Hollywood.

    Maybe the so-called INTJ evil masterminds are the ones who DO use Fi, and don't extravert enough with Fe; that with an incredibly strong Ni, using another introverted function could tip one way over into imbalance, whereas those with more moderate or mild Ni could buffer more easily extra dips into introversion without becoming unbalanced. Perhaps strong Ni acts as a magnet on T or F, pulling one or both of them into an introverted orientation when T or F don't take care to extravert to the world to balance heavy Ni out.

    I explain this Magnet idea thus: A strong Ni (as in Ayn) might be such a relief from the outside world that instead of leaving one's own mental space, one simply, over time, pulls the weaker function away from the world with it and into it, enveloping it and bastardizing it in an incestuous way. As time goes by, less and less of the outer world enters in, and when it does it is so anathema to the internal solace that it is quickly rejected, making for increasing pychosis, ironically unobserved by the party in question. Which then lends an untouchable aire to him/her; a self-righteous indignation that can't be touched by mortals anymore, leaving one to eventually die alone and forgotten by others (which was apparently the case with Ayn).


    So, great unhealthy example of INTJ. Love it. I love studying types.

    I think a good example of a healthy INTJ that is an uncannily parallel example as well, is Brooksley Born, who Protean turned me on to in another thread. She rocks. I say "uncannily" because it was her that tried to blow the whistle on the whole lack of government oversight when it came to the derivatives market, which in large part, led to the current Recession. So, in effect, this would be the Arch Enemy of Ayn Rand. How fitting is that? They even look alike!





    as a perhaps intersting aside, my bio mom is an intj and looks exactly like both these women too




    [YOUTUBE="NsqSY3xVIkw"]Brooksley Born[/YOUTUBE]

    I recommend the entire Frontline episode, but here are some snippets where you can get a feel of her tert Fe, imo.

    1:20
    4:30
    9:20


    Throughout the Frontline episode (my only study of B.B.), it is apparent to me, through her presence in interviews and pictures, and by her actions in her work that she is not only true to logical reasoning, but to a broader context of living as well; she understands appropriate behavior, and uses it at all times, according to what society demands, and the Highest of societies, Congress. Even when the fate of the American people are hanging in the balance! Because she understood that if she kept pressing, even after she was fired, kept spreading the word of evil and wronged principles (Fi), that she would alienate further those that did not wish to be saved, and that she could do no good in that realm. So, always the lady, always appropriate, she backs down and accepts that she had done all she could and that with the proper protocol denied her, her hands are tied.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  9. #139
    Senior Member LeafAndSky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Okay, actually, I was wrong about tone-deafness. It does exist without hearing impairment or other injury in about 4% of the population:



    A lot more than 4% of the population, however, believes themselves to be tone-deaf. Often people mistake lack of training for true tone-deafness, which is rarely the case. True tone-deafness is a congenital disability involving a malfunction in a particular area of the brain.



    Can you name anyone who achieved world class skill in any area without significant training and practice?

    I've been taking music classes and lessons on a variety of instruments from a lot of different musically experienced people for most of my life and I've always been taught that practice > talent.

    It is, of course, true that the very highest levels of skill in anything (music included) are reserved for those who possess both exceptional talent and exceptional work ethic. If your natural talent for something is really low, you're never going to compete on a world class level no matter how much you work at it--that much is true. You'll never compare to talented people who work hard.

    But if you work really hard, you will beat out talented people who are too lazy to put any effort into practicing. That's what I mean when I say success is more dependent upon diligence than talent.

    If diligence with average talent frequently produces success, but high talent with no diligence rarely does, which would you say is more important?

    I have extensive personal experience that I base my view on, as you do.

    However, I don't enjoy debate for the sake of debate. Your posts give the impression that your mind is made up and the questions are being asked not to learn about my view but rather to find a way to win.

    Notwithstanding what seems to me a forceful way of stating an opinion, you've been polite to me and I appreciate that.

  10. #140
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    Your posts give the impression that your mind is made up and the questions are being asked not to learn about my view but rather to find a way to win.
    I see you figured out Sim - fast.

Similar Threads

  1. Long Hair V.S. Short Hair
    By kyuuei in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-06-2017, 08:07 PM
  2. [NF] NF: since we think 'differently' than normal folks...
    By niki in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 10:54 AM
  3. Range in MBTI types.
    By Nillerz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 06:10 PM
  4. Thinking/Feeling game: Same Difference
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 08:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO