User Tag List

First 67891018 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 234

  1. #71
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    We build a model based on one idea, and if it turns out that idea was wrong, oh well--we quickly and easily discard it and build a new one.
    I see. Kind of like you thinking hairdressers who read winnie the pooh, are ENTJ?
    The erudition is bewitching me.

  2. #72
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    I see. Kind of like you thinking hairdressers who read winnie the pooh, are ENTJ?
    The erudition is bewitching me.

  3. #73
    Senior Member LeafAndSky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Star Wars, Winnie the Pooh, hairdressers, and posts I can't digest. I don't know why I'm still subscribing to this thread (my own) but it's entertaining in its own bizarre way.

  4. #74
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    Star Wars, Winnie the Pooh, hairdressers, and posts I can't digest. I don't know why I'm still subscribing to this thread (my own) but it's entertaining in its own bizarre way.

    Maybe. But if you presume that Star Wars is about P/J then it is reasonably sure that your thesis in the first post was correct. (at least in general)


    Also I think that it is obvious who would be Js and who would be Ps when it comes to Star Wars story line.

  5. #75
    Senior Member LeafAndSky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Maybe. But if you presume that Star Wars is about P/J then it is reasonably sure that your thesis in the first post was correct. (at least in general)


    Also I think that it is obvious who would be Js and who would be Ps when it comes to Star Wars story line.
    Ah, okay, your comment was in regard to the original subject of the thread and not a reference to the apparent (and entertaining) War going on now.

    Who would be Js and who would be Ps. Well Han S. is P.

    The rest . . .

    let's see,

    'must decide yesterday'
    vs.
    'must decide tomorrow' . . .

    Did George Lucas make all the bad guys Js and the good guys Ps? (Except maybe Princess L.)

    It's not immediately obvious to me, sorry. But you say you think my thesis in the first post is correct in general, and that's helpful. Thanks. In which direction, long-range thinking or short-range thinking, do you see the J/P difference correlating?

  6. #76
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    Ah, okay, your comment was in regard to the original subject of the thread and not a reference to the apparent (and entertaining) War going on now.

    Who would be Js and who would be Ps. Well Han S. is P.

    The rest . . .

    let's see,

    'must decide yesterday'
    vs.
    'must decide tomorrow' . . .

    Did George Lucas make all the bad guys Js and the good guys Ps? (Except maybe Princess L.)

    It's not immediately obvious to me, sorry. But you say you think my thesis in the first post is correct in general, and that's helpful. Thanks. In which direction, long-range thinking or short-range thinking, do you see the J/P difference correlating?


    Actually I am looking on this more like a Rebels/light (P) vs. Empire/dark(J)



    But since you are interested here is why I am using Star Wars and why I agree with your statements and how I see it .



    The Empire was building the Deathstar in order to insure long turn domination and status quo. While rebels found a quick way to counter the Empire's ultimate weapon. Also it is interesting that they attacked when it actually started destroying planets.


    Also if you take a look at the villain "The Emperor" you will see he has quite a number of J traits. The best example proably is how he became an emperor in the first place. Which is my something that you can apsolutly call a masterplan.


    While on he other hand you have people like Han Solo and Jar-Jar which even don't know what they will be doing 3 hours from now. On the other hand Imperials are seting traps well in advance.


    Also Ps are much more comfortable with making choices or theories that don't really makes sense. For example Obi-Wans surrender in a fight against Darth Vader is the obvious example.


    If you watch carefully rebels are much more adventourus and they don't think that much on the long run. So they use alot of improvising.
    While if you look at the Empire you will find very little improvisation.


    Also Luke has a one trait that is typical for Ps. Which is that he has a spirtual path in order to figure himselfs out.


    Basicly even trems "Rebellion" and "Empire" have a obvious P/J divide between them.


    Etc.




    So basicly it is

    SP vs SJ = Advanture and improvising vs. Strict social order

    and

    NP vs NJ = Speculation and creativity vs. Strategic planning


    I hope that this will explain my point to you.

  7. #77
    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 just have a different focus and strength, is how I see it. I understand that you don't validate that. You seem to feel like the proof is in the definition, and definitions are important, for sure, but I feel like you criticize me ad nauseum about my weakness in this area, yet fail to see that I perhaps make up for lack of Ti by using more Ni, Ni/Fe or Te(call it T if you don't agree with my Te hypothesis). Furthermore, I haven't seen you really get beyond definitions very much. It's like the primary thing you seem to argue about, although I don't doubt you have in the past (talked about your theories). As for function theories, it sounds like you are saying until I understand functions according to how you view functions, whatever I say is necessarily suspect. That is why debating with you is fruitless for me because you think you are the holy grail when it comes to this stuff, and denigrate my knowledge at every turn. I admire Jung and his contributions to type theory and for identifying some archetypes, but I don't think Jung is some typology God either. I think you can see the INTJs on here do not necessarily have him on a pedestal either. This is a manifestation of Ni doms; we look outside for answers. Not to say we can't be guided by, nor influenced by, gurus who have gone before; it's just that we don't limit our thinking to what they have said necessarily, like you seem wont to do.
    We can get beyond definitions once you get them straight. ENTPs don't usually like being mired in definitional red tape; as I told you earlier, if we're doing that with you it's because we don't think you have the definitions down enough to explore New patterns with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    So, until you can understand this fundamental difference, and accept it, I don't see how discussing things with you can go anywhere good for me. You also are missing out on my strengths by holding your way of being as the epitome of enlightenment.
    Epitome of enlightenment? No, I've stated repeatedly that we can throw out Jung and discuss cognition from a non-Jungian perspective if you want to. I certainly don't think this is the only way to consider the human mind.

    But I do think that if you're going to use the Jungian model, you should learn its definitions, or most of what you're saying won't make very much sense.



    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    This all assumes that Jung was absolutely correct in everything he said. It also assumes you think you know everything I know about Jung. There are a lot of assumptions being made by you. I like to get down to the base of things, and build back up without assumptions, inasmuch as possible.
    It makes none of these assumptions at all. It's just an example to illustrate that important distinctions can look like pointless nitpicking when you don't understand their importance.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I don't mind at all working on definitions to get them concise and equal, I do mind working with someone who thinks they are superior in the way they think, and who don't come at learning with/from others from an open-minded aire but a lecturing aire. Sharing personal beliefs is one thing, but to tell someone who is trying to get deeper about this stuff that they are missing the point and lack depth, is just not a functional way of communicating.
    You talk a lot about how you're trying to get deeper, but I don't really see it. What's deeper about your approach? The fact that you're renaming clearly defined concepts as you see fit?

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    This is why I see you as totally Fi. You can be Fe when you want to be, but I largely feel you as selfishly devoted to your ideas in a valuing kind of way. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I think that might even be a bigger hindrance to our communications than your Ti commitments, as I said before. Trying to communicate with you about this stuff (which you feel strongly about) feels analogous to me as when I have a problem communicating with INFPs; we just can't communicate, simple as that.
    My protectiveness of ideas is stereotypically Ti.

    This flatly contradicts the FiTe perspective, which would be inclined to be more protective of personal feelings but pay more attention to external influence regarding impersonal ideas.

    You probably have trouble communicating with INFPs largely because of the disconnect between their FiTe perspective and your FeTi one.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I disagree. And I know a couple up close and personal irl. The individuality you see is their Ni. True, since F is tert, they don't place high priority on it; T drives them and their very existence. But when they are around people or interact with people, they are very Fe minded, imo.
    Please explain how INTJs are motivated by Fe.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Occam's razor says not. If it looks like Fe, it's probably Fe, not Te trying to mimic Fe. Te doesn't care if people agree with him as much; Te wants to find a precise and new way (Ni) of doing things with reproducible results.
    Te wants to find the most objectively effective method of achieving its goals. If that means pretending to be nice to certain people at times, INTJs are often willing to do that. They typically make a point of not revealing their true feelings because they've decided they're happy dealing with the world in a Te way most of the time, and revealing Fi can make them feel vulnerable.

    This gets at the heart of what you are missing about functions. It's not Fe use unless the INTJ really genuinely believes in the value of the Fe perspective for its own sake, and not just to fulfill some Te goal. Talk to some INTJs and ask them about adjusting their feelings to mirror those of their cultural/social groups. You'll find that they rarely do this, but that they keep their true feelings hidden quite often because they see strategic advantage (Te) in not making them known.

    Occam's razor is a generalized approach to getting a guess at how to deal with problems we know nothing about. It doesn't really apply when we're working with a concept we actually have detailed information about. If a physicist is telling me that matter is really made up of particles called atoms that are too small to see, I'm not going to "Occam's razor" him by saying the more simple explanation is that these tiny invisible particles don't exist because we can't see them.



    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I already said, I thought. I hate repeating myself. I don't have time to rehash. Maybe it was earlier in this thread or another one. They don't care much about people's opinions, but they are very, very appropriate when dealing with people, very considerate. I don't feel that Fi thing at all, and you must understand that since Fe is my aux function, I have been up close and personal to Fi many times in my infp friends, and on here. My aux F will be able to intuit more F, and those attitudes, in others that perhaps you cannot appreciate.
    Only with people that:
    A) They care about emotionally (Fi), or
    B) They have a particular strategic reason to maintain peace with (Te).

    If neither of those conditions applies, they can and will be coldly dismissive.

    But either way, the way to distinguish Fi vs. Fe is not what they're doing, but why they're doing it. If an INTJ friend/family member is being nice and polite to you, it's probably because Fi is telling him that's the right thing to do, from a purely personal/subjective moral standpoint, uninfluenced by any external standards of morality.

    It would only be Fe use if he's being nice to you because external social/cultural standards demand it, and he sees inherent value in aligning with that, regardless of what his subjective personal feelings say about it. Fe-ers will tend to suppress their own internal feelings about something if they can see that it's in the best interest of their cultural/social group as a whole. Fi-ers, if prompted to do something they personally feel is wrong, will very rarely go along with it, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

    The basic difference: Fe needs to know what other people important to the user think before making moral evaluations, and Fi doesn't. (In fact, Fi usually finds the idea of changing your moral view to fit that of others grossly inappropriate and offensive to its integrity.)

    Quote Originally Posted by LTEW
    Fe: Until I can see where this fits into my network of tribal bonds and obligations, I don't see how I can relate to it. How can I tell if I'm for it or against it until I know how other people feel about it?
    Can you really imagine an INTJ asking the bolded question? It goes directly against that rugged sense of individualism that Z was talking about. Fi-ers tend to regard Fe as a fake, superficial way to give up control of your own feelings that lacks depth and integrity.

    Once again, look at why, not what. I've seen ESFPs lie to women about agreeing with their moral perspectives to try to get them into bed, but that doesn't mean they were motivated by Fe. Se+Te had ulterior motives and blocked out the Fi voice saying "This is fundamentally wrong!"


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Finally, I find it intriguing and contradictory that you say I don't understand Jung, and am constantly making some new age theory, yet I am the only one trying to go back to Jung and say, "Hey I think Jung might have been right about the tert orientation."
    There is significant debate among Jungian scholars as to whether he actually intended to say that the tertiary is in the opposite direction of the dominant. Most of his work is directed at describing the functions themselves, and he didn't spend much time on talking about their order in real people. He was focused on describing each function in a dominant role by exaggerating its traits to show all the logical conclusions of that function having total control.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    Myers interpreted Jung as saying that the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions are always in the opposite attitude of the dominant. In support of Myers' (and/or Briggs') interpretation, in one sentence Jung seems to state that the three inferior functions of an (extreme) extravert are introverted. The "most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted" (Jung, [1921] 1971:par. 575).

    Many, however, have found Jung's writing to be ambiguous, and those who study and follow Jung's theories (Jungians) are typically adamant that Myers is incorrect. Jungians interpret Jung as explicitly stating that the tertiary function is actually in the same attitude as the dominant, providing balance.
    Myers actually agreed with you, but many Jung students don't, as Jung was vague on this issue and doesn't seem to have definitely stated what he thought about it one way or the other. There is no definitively accepted interpretation about this.

    Maybe when they finally release his Red Book, that'll shed some light on this.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #78
    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
    We can get beyond definitions once you get them straight. ENTPs don't usually like being mired in definitional red tape; as I told you earlier, if we're doing that with you it's because we don't think you have the definitions down enough to explore New patterns with you.
    mkay. I am always open to a better way/better definition. Never said I wasn't.



    Epitome of enlightenment? No, I've stated repeatedly that we can throw out Jung and discuss cognition from a non-Jungian perspective if you want to. I certainly don't think this is the only way to consider the human mind.
    I'm studying Jung. More than some, less than others.

    But I do think that if you're going to use the Jungian model, you should learn its definitions, or most of what you're saying won't make very much sense.
    I don't think I'm that far off. You make it sound like I'm some ape human that has not idea what functions even are.


    It makes none of these assumptions at all. It's just an example to illustrate that important distinctions can look like pointless nitpicking when you don't understand their importance.

    You talk a lot about how you're trying to get deeper, but I don't really see it. What's deeper about your approach? The fact that you're renaming clearly defined concepts as you see fit?
    I'd say the very same thing about you. I try to use intuition, observation, feeling, and thinking to figure things out; especially as it regards current function theory, and I post quite a bit about it, predominantly about it, in fact.

    Some of my approach isn't necessarily deeper, some is. I believe I use more of a Te approach, that of reorganizing and redefining what exists, identifying where there are gaps (that can then be filled), and along the way, use lingo everyone can understand.



    My protectiveness of ideas is stereotypically Ti.

    This flatly contradicts the FiTe perspective, which would be inclined to be more protective of personal feelings but pay more attention to external influence regarding impersonal ideas.

    You probably have trouble communicating with INFPs largely because of the disconnect between their FiTe perspective and your FeTi one.
    I've already told you I'm leaning away from the tert aligned similarly to the dom, so you saying FiTe holds little to no validitiy for me at this time. I disagree. You use Fi, not Fe.

    No, the INFP disconnect results from the feeling aspect of our personalities, for the most part, and always has. I think it's highly cavalier of you to think you know best what an F aux has an issue with regarding an Fi dom. Just another illustration that you think you know everything better than anyone else.


    Please explain how INTJs are motivated by Fe.
    They are motivated by Fe because Fe is usually their tertiary function.


    Te wants to find the most objectively effective method of achieving its goals. If that means pretending to be nice to certain people at times, INTJs are often willing to do that. They typically make a point of not revealing their true feelings because they've decided they're happy dealing with the world in a Te way most of the time, and revealing Fi can make them feel vulnerable.
    But once you enter into the world of people, and relating with people, you are using Fe, not Te. There is no reason to assume that there is an underlying manipulative motivation there. Manipulation would ensue only if a person is unbalanced. You are implying all INTJs would inherently be imbalanced.

    This gets at the heart of what you are missing about functions. It's not Fe use unless the INTJ really genuinely believes in the value of the Fe perspective for its own sake, and not just to fulfill some Te goal.
    I disagree with this. I have seen Jung speak to this occasionally, but I don't believe a person needs to believe consciously in the value of a function to use the function. Especially if that function is in the tert position. In fact, I'm pretty sure Jung says that all processes except the dominant are largely unconscious processes, and that a person might not know he is using them, but that others can see them in use.

    Talk to some INTJs and ask them about adjusting their feelings to mirror those of their cultural/social groups. You'll find that they rarely do this, but that they keep their true feelings hidden quite often because they see strategic advantage (Te) in not making them known.
    No, they don't need to adjust. You might. But if they inherently use Fe over Fi, they will naturally be able to get along with people without necessarily adjusting their beliefs at all.

    This is a good segway for relating that the stereotypical definitions of Fe are not very good. Fe is not just about societal expectations within social groups or culture. That is an outdated perception, and it might have worked 100 years ago when Jung wrote Psychological Types, but the world has changed a lot since then. We have discussed this before, I think, a while back. They might indeed keep their true feelings hidden. Who doesn't!! Fe doesn't have much to do with true feelings, necessarily.

    This is just another example of how little you grasp Fe, but I'm not blaming you necessarily, because F is your tert function.

    Occam's razor is a generalized approach to getting a guess at how to deal with problems we know nothing about. It doesn't really apply when we're working with a concept we actually have detailed information about. If a physicist is telling me that matter is really made up of particles called atoms that are too small to see, I'm not going to "Occam's razor" him by saying the more simple explanation is that these tiny invisible particles don't exist because we can't see them.
    Obviously, with all the discussion and arguing and debating done around here and elsewhere as it regards typology, we don't know crap; there is forthcoming debate and possible change looming on the horizon for the tert function's orientation, and to say INTJs use Te in a manipulative way to appear as Fe, I'd classify it myself as a "problem we know nothing about."

    How about this: If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and shits like a horse, it's probably a ......horse.


    Only with people that:
    A) They care about emotionally (Fi), or
    B) They have a particular strategic reason to maintain peace with (Te).

    If neither of those conditions applies, they can and will be coldly dismissive.
    Yes, they can be horribly cold and harsh. They just usually don't need to be nor care to be, especially with those they don't know. So, you are wrong there. If they feel 'safe' with someone, they're probably going to be harsher with them, imo.

    But either way, the way to distinguish Fi vs. Fe is not what they're doing, but why they're doing it. If an INTJ friend/family member is being nice and polite to you, it's probably because Fi is telling him that's the right thing to do, from a purely personal/subjective moral standpoint, uninfluenced by any external standards of morality.

    It would only be Fe use if he's being nice to you because external social/cultural standards demand it, and he sees inherent value in aligning with that, regardless of what his subjective personal feelings say about it. Fe-ers will tend to suppress their own internal feelings about something if they can see that it's in the best interest of their cultural/social group as a whole. Fi-ers, if prompted to do something they personally feel is wrong, will very rarely go along with it, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
    Your conceptual understanding of F is convoluted and messed up. As I said before, it can be Fe (or any other function) whether you give it conscious thought or not. The bolded is basically bullshit, and a spewing of bad definition. There are much better and more valid definitions of Fe than that. I think your little definition of Fe up there ^ more aptly represents Fi ideas; you'd have to make yourself appear Fe, even though you are feeling Fi feelings. Think about it.

    The basic difference: Fe needs to know what other people important to the user think before making moral evaluations, and Fi doesn't. (In fact, Fi usually finds the idea of changing your moral view to fit that of others grossly inappropriate and offensive to its integrity.)
    Yeah, okay. Or Fe terts use Fe to appeal to the masses to spread their ideas and insights.

    Can you really imagine an INTJ asking the bolded question? It goes directly against that rugged sense of individualism that Z was talking about. Fi-ers tend to regard Fe as a fake, superficial way to give up control of your own feelings that lacks depth and integrity.

    Once again, look at why, not what. I've seen ESFPs lie to women about agreeing with their moral perspectives to try to get them into bed, but that doesn't mean they were motivated by Fe. Se+Te had ulterior motives and blocked out the Fi voice saying "This is fundamentally wrong!"
    That's just not even applicable. That's a manipulative behavior and a twisted, lying one at that.



    There is significant debate among Jungian scholars as to whether he actually intended to say that the tertiary is in the opposite direction of the dominant. Most of his work is directed at describing the functions themselves, and he didn't spend much time on talking about their order in real people. He was focused on describing each function in a dominant role by exaggerating its traits to show all the logical conclusions of that function having total control.



    Myers actually agreed with you, but many Jung students don't, as Jung was vague on this issue and doesn't seem to have definitely stated what he thought about it one way or the other. There is no definitively accepted interpretation about this.

    Maybe when they finally release his Red Book, that'll shed some light on this.
    Oh, I thought it was out. Jung also thought he was an INTP, but some think he was an INTJ. Just because we see ourselves one way, does not mean we are that way. Even if Jung did see it that way, what does it really matter? It is up to us to take his work and theory further than he did. He understood that would, and should, happen.

    Furthemore, so Jung was more hung up on definitions and a philosophical approach to personality. That is even more reason why the field is wide open for function theory interpretations and hypotheses. His work has gaps, we know more now, there are more of us. Why not continue forth?
    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. #79
    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
    Some of my approach isn't necessarily deeper, some is. I believe I use more of a Te approach, that of reorganizing and redefining what exists, identifying where there are gaps (that can then be filled), and along the way, use lingo everyone can understand.
    What about that is characteristic of a Te mindset, exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I've already told you I'm leaning away from the tert aligned similarly to the dom, so you saying FiTe holds little to no validitiy for me at this time. I disagree. You use Fi, not Fe.
    In that case, you have no idea what Fi and Fe are, which is why I keep insisting that you don't know the function definitions. I don't believe that any ethics exist without external context to define them. In situations involving people and groups that are important to me, I adjust my emotional reactions to those of others in order to harmonize with the prevailing standard of that context. This is stereotypically Fe.

    The only principles I stick to rigidly regardless of external context are conceptual/logical ones regarding impersonal evaluations. This is what you see me sticking to dogmatically, and this is what you mistakenly believe to be Fi. This is also stereotypically Ti.

    If I were using Fi often, I would eschew such impersonal evaluation in favor of maintaining my personal, subjective, feeling-oriented values, and I would rarely consider adapting my emotional responses to those of other people. In Fi philosophy, all personal feelings and forms of self-expression of unique identity are sacred and expressing them honestly is always the right thing to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    No, the INFP disconnect results from the feeling aspect of our personalities, for the most part, and always has. I think it's highly cavalier of you to think you know best what an F aux has an issue with regarding an Fi dom. Just another illustration that you think you know everything better than anyone else.
    No, but I do think I know Jungian functions better than you, and better than most (not all) people on this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    They are motivated by Fe because Fe is usually their tertiary function.
    And you wonder why I think you're making up your own model?

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    But once you enter into the world of people, and relating with people, you are using Fe, not Te. There is no reason to assume that there is an underlying manipulative motivation there. Manipulation would ensue only if a person is unbalanced. You are implying all INTJs would inherently be imbalanced.
    I've implied no such thing. Fi can and does motivate people to interact peacefully and courteously toward others; the key is whether the source of ethical ideals comes from a subjective internal source or an objective external one. Dealing with other people doesn't necessitate Fe use.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I disagree with this. I have seen Jung speak to this occasionally, but I don't believe a person needs to believe consciously in the value of a function to use the function. Especially if that function is in the tert position. In fact, I'm pretty sure Jung says that all processes except the dominant are largely unconscious processes, and that a person might not know he is using them, but that others can see them in use.
    The person might not consciously recognize that that function is influencing his behavior, but the reason for his behavior is still that he holds some sort of belief based on function's ideals.

    For instance, tertiary Fe will sometimes lead ETPs to react negatively to perceived rudeness (rudeness being violating generally accepted external behavioral standards of some sort.) The ETP might not realize this is what's motivating him to react negatively, but the fundamental belief in the importance of these Fe-oriented behavioral standards is still there, whether or not the ETP consciously recognizes it.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    No, they don't need to adjust. You might. But if they inherently use Fe over Fi, they will naturally be able to get along with people without necessarily adjusting their beliefs at all.
    No, because they're not using Fe unless they adjust to external moral standards because they see inherent value in such standards for their own sake. For an INTJ to use Fe he has to temporarily set aside his own feelings in favor of an external moral standard simply for its own sake. They'll occasionally do this, but not often.

    Being nice to people =/= using Fe.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    This is a good segway for relating that the stereotypical definitions of Fe are not very good. Fe is not just about societal expectations within social groups or culture. That is an outdated perception, and it might have worked 100 years ago when Jung wrote Psychological Types, but the world has changed a lot since then. We have discussed this before, I think, a while back. They might indeed keep their true feelings hidden. Who doesn't!! Fe doesn't have much to do with true feelings, necessarily.


    This is just another example of how little you grasp Fe, but I'm not blaming you necessarily, because F is your tert function.
    This is you making up your own definitions again. You haven't shown enough comprehension of functional definitions for me to take your criticisms of my understanding of Fe very seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Obviously, with all the discussion and arguing and debating done around here and elsewhere as it regards typology, we don't know crap; there is forthcoming debate and possible change looming on the horizon for the tert function's orientation, and to say INTJs use Te in a manipulative way to appear as Fe, I'd classify it myself as a "problem we know nothing about."

    How about this: If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and shits like a horse, it's probably a ......horse.
    You need to focus on why the behavior is happening, not what the person is doing. Fe use = aligning your feelings/moral beliefs with an external standard because you see inherent value in doing so, not because you seek to complete some unrelated goal.

    They're not trying to appear as Fe; they're not even considering the things Fe considers. They're drawing ethical standards entirely from internal subjective standards (Fi) and logical standards from external, empirical evidence that's shown to work to achieve their goals (Te.)

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Yes, they can be horribly cold and harsh. They just usually don't need to be nor care to be, especially with those they don't know. So, you are wrong there. If they feel 'safe' with someone, they're probably going to be harsher with them, imo.
    That depends on a variety of factors that are largely unrelated to Fi vs. Fe use.

    The only determining factor is where the moral/emotional standard is coming from--an internal/subjective or external/objective source.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Your conceptual understanding of F is convoluted and messed up. As I said before, it can be Fe (or any other function) whether you give it conscious thought or not. The bolded is basically bullshit, and a spewing of bad definition. There are much better and more valid definitions of Fe than that. I think your little definition of Fe up there ^ more aptly represents Fi ideas; you'd have to make yourself appear Fe, even though you are feeling Fi feelings. Think about it.
    Making up your own definitions for already defined terms. Not interested. If you're going to claim that standard, commonly accepted definitions of Fe are wrong, then cite a credible source that you believe shows a better definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Yeah, okay. Or Fe terts use Fe to appeal to the masses to spread their ideas and insights.
    Sometimes they can, sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    That's just not even applicable. That's a manipulative behavior and a twisted, lying one at that.
    It is applicable because it shows that behaving in a way that appears Fe on the surface does not necessitate genuine Fe use.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Oh, I thought it was out. Jung also thought he was an INTP, but some think he was an INTJ. Just because we see ourselves one way, does not mean we are that way. Even if Jung did see it that way, what does it really matter? It is up to us to take his work and theory further than he did. He understood that would, and should, happen.
    That doesn't mean tearing apart the fundamentals of what he already wrote.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Furthemore, so Jung was more hung up on definitions and a philosophical approach to personality. That is even more reason why the field is wide open for function theory interpretations and hypotheses. His work has gaps, we know more now, there are more of us. Why not continue forth?
    You're not filling in gaps; you're ripping out the fundamentals and making up a new system.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #80
    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
    What about that is characteristic of a Te mindset, exactly?



    In that case, you have no idea what Fi and Fe are, which is why I keep insisting that you don't know the function definitions. I don't believe that any ethics exist without external context to define them. In situations involving people and groups that are important to me, I adjust my emotional reactions to those of others in order to harmonize with the prevailing standard of that context. This is stereotypically Fe.

    The only principles I stick to rigidly regardless of external context are conceptual/logical ones regarding impersonal evaluations. This is what you see me sticking to dogmatically, and this is what you mistakenly believe to be Fi. This is also stereotypically Ti.

    If I were using Fi often, I would eschew such impersonal evaluation in favor of maintaining my personal, subjective, feeling-oriented values, and I would rarely consider adapting my emotional responses to those of other people. In Fi philosophy, all personal feelings and forms of self-expression of unique identity are sacred and expressing them honestly is always the right thing to do.



    No, but I do think I know Jungian functions better than you, and better than most (not all) people on this forum.



    And you wonder why I think you're making up your own model?



    I've implied no such thing. Fi can and does motivate people to interact peacefully and courteously toward others; the key is whether the source of ethical ideals comes from a subjective internal source or an objective external one. Dealing with other people doesn't necessitate Fe use.



    The person might not consciously recognize that that function is influencing his behavior, but the reason for his behavior is still that he holds some sort of belief based on function's ideals.

    For instance, tertiary Fe will sometimes lead ETPs to react negatively to perceived rudeness (rudeness being violating generally accepted external behavioral standards of some sort.) The ETP might not realize this is what's motivating him to react negatively, but the fundamental belief in the importance of these Fe-oriented behavioral standards is still there, whether or not the ETP consciously recognizes it.



    No, because they're not using Fe unless they adjust to external moral standards because they see inherent value in such standards for their own sake. For an INTJ to use Fe he has to temporarily set aside his own feelings in favor of an external moral standard simply for its own sake. They'll occasionally do this, but not often.

    Being nice to people =/= using Fe.



    This is you making up your own definitions again. You haven't shown enough comprehension of functional definitions for me to take your criticisms of my understanding of Fe very seriously.



    You need to focus on why the behavior is happening, not what the person is doing. Fe use = aligning your feelings/moral beliefs with an external standard because you see inherent value in doing so, not because you seek to complete some unrelated goal.

    They're not trying to appear as Fe; they're not even considering the things Fe considers. They're drawing ethical standards entirely from internal subjective standards (Fi) and logical standards from external, empirical evidence that's shown to work to achieve their goals (Te.)



    That depends on a variety of factors that are largely unrelated to Fi vs. Fe use.

    The only determining factor is where the moral/emotional standard is coming from--an internal/subjective or external/objective source.



    Making up your own definitions for already defined terms. Not interested. If you're going to claim that standard, commonly accepted definitions of Fe are wrong, then cite a credible source that you believe shows a better definition.



    Sometimes they can, sure.



    It is applicable because it shows that behaving in a way that appears Fe on the surface does not necessitate genuine Fe use.




    That doesn't mean tearing apart the fundamentals of what he already wrote.



    You're not filling in gaps; you're ripping out the fundamentals and making up a new system.

    Let me summarize and be done.

    You do not define Fe's characteristics sufficiently for me.

    I perceive you to do the bolded, at least often on Type C, and not just with me.

    I have demonstrated decent use of Jungian definitions and ideas in recent history here. Good enough to at least dialogue with others. Yet you consistently refuse to validate my knowledge, which leads me to suspect an ad hominem motivation of some sort.

    I find, from an Fe stance, your behavior in this discussion to be not only be nonfacilitative, but derogatory in nature, which lends an aire of negativity to fruitful discussion.

    I find your inability to consistently see other's viewpoints as valid or valuable in some way, destructive for the acquisition of knowledge and increasing understanding.
    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


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