User Tag List

First 122021222324 Last

Results 211 to 220 of 234

  1. #211
    Senior Member LeafAndSky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    If you're not going to use the quote button, can you at least mention the post # you are referring to?
    I don't see that quote from Sim.

    Edit: Never mind. Lol. It's in his signature.
    Yeah, sorry, that wasn't clear -- and I just complained about clarity in someone else's post in another thread. (FWIW, I did originally try to do a quote but found that quotes don't include signatures.)

  2. #212
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    "If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?"

    I keep noticing Sim's quote above.

    It implies that no one is now, or could ever be, happy or satisfied.
    That quote actually sounds like Sim, whining.

  3. #213
    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
    Please cite examples. Here is one for my side: Look at INTJs vs. INTPs and the way they deal with feelings. INTJs are notably threatened when people attempt to pry for more private information than they want to give away. They are very cognizant of the strategic value of withholding information and they almost always consider their feelings extremely private information.

    They make a point of giving away as little information as necessary, because they recognize the negative implications of letting people know too much about their feelings and motivations. A hallmark of Fe is emotional openness--sharing feelings and expecting the same in kind, because that is how loyalty to friends and family is expressed.

    If you can get an INTJ to even talk about this, you'll find that they sincerely dislike being prodded to reveal their feelings. They care far less about what others think of them than do INTPs--which wouldn't make sense according to your theory, because INTJs and INTPs would have the same Feeling function and it would be an even lower priority for INTPs. And yet INTPs are clearly more concerned with how they are perceived and far more desiring of the approval of others. How can this be if INTJs have Fe in higher priority?

    When I try to use Fe to relate to an INTJ, I almost invariably get a bad reaction because when Fe shares feelings, it expects a similar response from others--but this comes off to INTJs as a direct attempt to manipulate them into revealing more of their private feelings than they want to. If you try to force this, they will shut you out.

    NTPs make a point of making themselves understood--they will restate, rehash and repeat themselves and go to every effort to rephrase their ideas in ways that make sense to others because they desperately want their ideas to be understood (Ne), appreciated and validated (Fe) by others.

    You'll notice that INTJs really don't care about this. Not only do they not care if you understand their feelings, they don't want you to understand their feelings in the first place because that's private, sensitive information that could potentially be leveraged against them. This kind of borderline paranoid protection of/refusal to express feelings openly is clearly indicative of Fi and absolutely not Fe. (Conversely, the NTP's need for personal/emotional validation from others, itself a clear result of Fe, is visibly absent in INTJs.)



    If your claim about the dom/tert opposite theory were so clearly obvious from Jung's text, there would not be such significant support for the opposing theory. Once again, Jung is ambiguous on this subject, as he was much more concerned with defining each function on its own than spending time talking about the function hierarchy within an individual.

    You have not established that Jung believed the dominant and tertiary to be in opposite directions. His text is sometimes vague and difficult to interpret. Please quote precisely where Jung states definitively that the dom and tert are in opposite directions. If he had been as clear about this as you claim, there simply would not be significant controversy among Jungian scholars about it.

    As of now, it is uncertain what Jung really meant to say on this topic, and it's unlikely we'll ever know for sure. (I just got the "Red Book" for my birthday though, so I'll let you know if I find anything about it...although thus far it seems mostly about his musings on theology and not very typology-related.)

    Also please quote where he says that two Judging or two Perceiving functions cannot work together. IIRC he says that all four functions influence us all the time and often in ways that are totally unconscious to us. (As for shadows, he doesn't really say much about them other than if they are used at all, it would require especially great expenditure of energy, which is my primary basis for claiming that they are not used often.)

    Often I've found that certain excerpts seem to mean one thing but then mean something else when viewed in the context of the chapter he's writing or the broader subject he's discussing. Since his work has been translated from German it's not always clear exactly what he meant to say.



    People are out of balance over time--most of the time, in fact. That's why everyone is either an introvert or an extrovert--no one is perfectly balanced between the two. The aux function alone doesn't completely balance the dominant, and there's no reason to suppose that it should. If it did, people would be completely balanced on the E/I axis, and no one is.

    The reason the auxiliary is key to developing some measure of balance is its opposition to the dominant in terms of direction and rationality/irrationality. Your argument that the aux+tert must be oriented the same way in order to "balance out" the dom's overwhelming influence seems predicated on the erroneous assumption that people's personalities are assumed to be balanced between introversion and extroversion in the first place. They're not; that's why we have introverts and extroverts.

    On the other hand, observation of very unbalanced personalities makes it clear what is happening when someone ignores the auxiliary in favor of the dom+tert loop. The reason this doesn't work well is that the dom and tert are oriented the same way, and the reason people are tempted into using it is that the tert is sometimes more comfortable due to its common orientation with the dominant.

    This leads us to another problem with your theory--if the tert were in the same direction as the aux, it would be an equally viable option for balancing the dominant. Suddenly an ESFJ would be able to use either Fe+Si or Fe+Ni and neither would produce the structural imbalance characteristic of personalities stuck in the dom+tert loop. (In practice, unbalanced ESFJs are almost always stuck in some sort of Fe+Ne loop and become far too dependent upon what others think of them.)

    People using primarily dom+tert are invariably too introverted (too dependent upon internal/subjective validation, as a result of using two introverted functions) or too extroverted (too dependent upon external/objective validation from others, as a result of using two extroverted functions.) These clearly observable imbalances would not happen if the tert were the same direction as the aux because dom+tert would work just as effectively as dom+aux--and yet in practice, it doesn't.



    That doesn't really hold up. Your reasoning assumes that strong I + weak E + weak E is necessary for balance, but where do you get the assumption that this balance is supposed to exist in the first place? As I said earlier, people's personalities are inherently unbalanced.

    The need to have the aux+tert oriented the same way in order to "balance out" the direction of the dominant is purely imagined. Everyone is unbalanced toward the influence of his dominant function, and thus, everyone is an introvert or an extrovert. This hypothetical perfect balance between strong I and weak E + weak E (presumably you mean the two weak Es would be equal in strength to the one strong I) would result in no real preference for introversion or extroversion, which never exists in practice--even among very well developed people.

    If you don't mind, I'd like to carry this conversation here.

    It's Easter. I'll respond when I have time.
    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


  4. #214
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Please cite examples. Here is one for my side: Look at INTJs vs. INTPs and the way they deal with feelings. INTJs are notably threatened when people attempt to pry for more private information than they want to give away. They are very cognizant of the strategic value of withholding information and they almost always consider their feelings extremely private information.
    this



    When I try to use Fe to relate to an INTJ, I almost invariably get a bad reaction because when Fe shares feelings, it expects a similar response from others--but this comes off to INTJs as a direct attempt to manipulate them into revealing more of their private feelings than they want to. If you try to force this, they will shut you out.
    unfortunately, yes


    You'll notice that INTJs really don't care about this. Not only do they not care if you understand their feelings, they don't want you to understand their feelings in the first place because that's private, sensitive information that could potentially be leveraged against them. This kind of borderline paranoid protection of/refusal to express feelings openly is clearly indicative of Fi and absolutely not Fe. (Conversely, the NTP's need for personal/emotional validation from others, itself a clear result of Fe, is visibly absent in INTJs.)
    yeah...

  5. #215
    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
    Now it's an "S weakness?" Horse shit, Sim.
    First you blame Te for not liking your generalizations, and now you are calling it an "S weakness," since saslou is an SJ.

    It seems that whenever anyone calls you out on your incessant bullshit, you just pick a function in the person's type and use it as a weapon against them.
    What are you going to do when an ENTP tells you to knock it off?
    Then what function will you blame?
    I have no response to this, as ENTJs are incapable of being wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    "If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?"

    I keep noticing Sim's quote above.

    It implies that no one is now, or could ever be, happy or satisfied.
    It's a Modest Mouse quote. Lives
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #216
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ENTJs are incapable of being wrong.
    More bullshit generalizations.

  7. #217
    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
    More bullshit generalizations.
    I got you a present that should help with your continuous uninvited whining.

    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #218
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I got you a present that should help with your continuous uninvited whining.

    Post all the shampoo bottles you want.
    It doesn't change the fact that you make bullshit generalizations.

  9. #219
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Post all the shampoo bottles you want.
    This sounds like one of the better thread ideas

  10. #220
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    I think that both Jaguar and simulatedworld find common ground in the revelry of arguing for the sake of argumentation itself. If Jaguar were to bring more substantive information to the table, then he would at least have the appearance of being more credible than he does right now. Thus far, I think that sim's current theory is correct except for his belief that the generic functional orientation orders must be universal and applicable to all people. Of course, I have no concrete evidence to prove otherwise, as we are discussing abstract figures. They will remain as such until someone efficiently designates function with brain hemisphere, but even then we are inhibited by the barrier of consciousness itself. I have always held the belief that the brain operates on a synergistic and 3 dimensional level; unlike our computer counterparts that work on 2 dimensions. And as such complex organs, they communicate to themselves interdependently. So the functions are layered and interwoven in the conscious individual. So I question whether Ti is completely expunged when Fi is inaction; because such a notion would also dictate that the brain completely ceases to communicate in one area in order to completely accommodate another area. This is possible, but until I hear it falsified by a neurologist/typologist, I'm going to remain agnostic about it.

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