User Tag List

First 567

Results 61 to 67 of 67

  1. #61
    As Long As It Takes.... Redbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,879

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    They resent the outside world as much as any introvert. In this case, they resent the irrational emotionality of society, even as they ironically crave the approval of those whom they respect. INTJs don't crave that sort of approval, in my experience.
    Hmm. I don't usually crave approval of those I respect. Approval or disapproval doesn't usually make much of a dent with me. Even lots of "thank you's" or a great deal of affirmation can make me squirm with discomfort.

    Mutual respect, maybe? That is a big deal for me.

    Confused INFPs?
    The INFP I know would say, "Oh hell no!"

    I do agree about functions not fitting in exact order according to "type". I also wonder how much of this has to do with my age and personal experience. Warping my perception of why and how.

  2. #62
    As Long As It Takes.... Redbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,879

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    <BUMP>

    I am interested in learning more about how INTPs formulate personal values and handle emotional data, both their own and others'.

    I have come to realize that, while my INTP SO and I tend to value the same things on a practical level, we rarely discuss values directly, and emotions almost as rarely. I seem to be more comfortable discussing values, but with emotions, it is like the blind leading the blind. The Fi/Fe difference is probably a significant influence, as is the way each of us may use other functions to mimic or reinforce these.
    Unsure on the J/P axis so....

    Personal values...hmm. I remember seeing things in my childhood, my family, how people interacted that made me come up with my own ideas of right and wrong. I judged on the basis of whether someone was harmed by it or not or whether it made sense. It was a skeleton and has gained flesh with the passage of time and experience. I still go by a lot of those things today and it has often been a source of friction between other people and myself. Well, when I have voiced these values directly. They tend to be codes that I live by versus letting others know by telling them. So it's more about hearing (unwanted) criticism on how I live my life.

    Other people's emotions. I tend to want to hold myself apart from them. Not let them touch me or have an impact on me. I want people to make sense. I am talking about intense emotions (even though I tend to perceive a good majority of emotions as intense. ) I do not discuss emotions for the most part.

  3. #63
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbone View Post
    Hmm. I don't usually crave approval of those I respect. Approval or disapproval doesn't usually make much of a dent with me. Even lots of "thank you's" or a great deal of affirmation can make me squirm with discomfort.

    Mutual respect, maybe? That is a big deal for me.
    Let's just say that I got to see a lot of this in the physics community, and it's kind of revealing how it plays out. Yes, all types are represented, but xNTPs are way more common here than elsewhere in life. So here's a bunch of people that pride themselves on their objectivity, but even as they do so, they're instinctively bouncing their ideas off of each other in order to make sure they're being objective. Moreover, the graduate students in the community are schmoozing for jobs, because getting a post-doc position is unlikely without the schmoozing.

    The irony is that the INTPs really don't like that part. Fe is inferior, after all. They do, however, have a leg up on the INTJs who not only aren't aware of the schmoozing factor, but wouldn't know how to schmooze even if they did - not at that age, at any rate. So INTPs realize how important others' respect is, especially as it applies to one's career. Heck, peer-reviewed papers are the INTPs' typical communication style for ideas writ large: publish an idea, be very careful so as to not make any unprovable claims, reference others' ideas in order to add validity to your own idea, and if others approve of your idea (by referencing it in their own papers), then it must be a good idea.

    So yeah, it's kind of like your "mutual respect", but it isn't dispassionate or completely unemotional. This is where the Fe goes, having been rejected by Ti, so to speak. One wants to be objective (Ti), but having no means to prove one's objectivity to oneself, one relies upon the approval of others (Fe).

    (For contrast, INTJs go at it completely backwards from this, starting with the shared ideas in the Te world, then evaluating what they imply with Ni. They're not concerned with an ideal of "objectivity" so much as "figuring things out." The shared ideas might be right or wrong. That they're largely accepted is a starting point, not a conclusion.)
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  4. #64
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbone View Post
    I noticed on the cognitive function tests, many INTPs showed more use of Fi than Fe, myself included. ReflecttcelfeR had some good ideas on this. Anyone want to contribute on why this might be? Eric B, do you have thoughts on this?
    Wow; don't know how I missed this one, unless I saw where SuchIrony linked to a post of mine, and I just let that stand as my answer, then forgot about it. Sorry about that. I usually don't get around to checking the "Other Pychology" forum, and this probably should have just been in the main forum, since it is about Jung/Myers type.

    Anyway, what several people have said would cover what I would say.


    Of course, the order is not about relative strength. The order isn't "crap" either. It does stand for something; namely the ego structure.

    Also, the notion of "using" functions can cloud the issue. They are not tools, skills sets or gears that you switch between. They are perspectives, and each is implicit in any given situation or set of data.

    Everything has a tangible or "concrete" aspect, as well as a conceptual ot "abstract" one. It also involves both technical (or "impersonal") details (deciphered through "logic") as well as at least potentially, a humane (or "personal") element (that may involve "ethics", "emotional" affects, or things such as "importance" or "values").
    This data can also draw from an internally stored source, or from externals.
    Thus, the eight perspectives officially known as "function-attitudes" ("functions" are really just the four: S, N, T, F by themselves).

    So the order of the eight perspectives is about the ego, or our sense of "I" and the collective images or roles this can take the form of. These are the "archetypes", which when personalized, then become "complexes".

    What we call "type" is formed from only TWO of the four general functions: one perceiving, and one judging, plus a dominant orientation (i or e). One function is made dominant (in which it becomes the ego's main perspective,or "operating charter" as I have seen it called), and the other is auxiliary, and placed in the opposite orientation. This for the purpose of balance.

    The other two functions or six function-attitudes are all basically reflections of these first two. Again, each situation can be divided between two perceptive and judgment aspects. They're all there; but our egos tend to focus on one and not pay as much attention to the other.
    The ones suppressed are still implicit, and form a "shadow" in our psyches. This has two levels: the two unpreferred functions, in the basic orientations we place them in, and beneath that, there's all four functions in the orientation opposite of what our egos normally place them in.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  5. #65
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Of course one will define the ordering as in order of strength and/or use of that function, when the ordering is set up with the words Dominant, Auxiliary, Tertiary, and for the weakest.... Inferior.

    Jung said the order was to indicate which functions were most "conscious and confident" in the person, starting with the aptly named Dominant. Pretty much the same as "in order of strength etc."
    Since the first four are the most conscious, then they generally should both develop in that order, as well as the strength fall in that order. Other factors can appear to change this, especially the "inflation" of the tertiary. People are also said to have weak auxiliaries, though that is probably not really normal. That would be out of balance.

    However, this does not tell us where the other four fit in regards to strength, and basically, what we are using to define "strength" to begin with. (below)

    Again, these are all reflections. Dominant thinking is reflected by inferior Feeling. Dominant intoversion is reflected by suppressed extraversion. Auxiliary iNtuition is reflected by tertiary Sensing. While the auxiliary falls into the opposite orientation, the complex associated with the tertiary usually places it in the dominant orientation, thus maintaining the mirror dynamic.

    Since the orientation is really distinct from the function; we can look at the same mirroring dynamic within one orientation or the other. So then, demonic Fi is a reflection of dominant ("heroic") Ti. Trickster Se is a reflection of supportive Ne. Hence, these are the right brain alternatives of the preferred functions. (left brain for J's). Also nicknamed the "Crow's Nests"). I now call these "grand reflections". (Where the reflections within the first four are less wide).

    This also illustrates that Myers had the right idea in creating J/P as standalone dichotomy. Those grand reflection functions, which bear the same J/P attitude, are a lot like each other in certain ways, and thus might be turned to before even the tertiary and inferior. A large number of those K2C results actually come out close to Lenore's order.

    What I've been thinking to really pinpoint, is in which way or in which circumstances the tertiary and inferior might be turned to first, and in which way or circumstance the Crow's Nests might be turned to first. Then, we also have the "Double Agents", which are the preferred functions in the opposite orientation. These back up the primary preferences (and thus, you sometimes get people with results like TiNeTeNi).

    Questions this raises:
    are are the Crows Nests the same thing as the Trickster and Demon (since they use the same functions)? Lenore herself has moved more towards Beebe's model (though with some qualification), and away from her old model. So they don't seem to be the same things. Especially when you look at what the archetypes represent. The Trickster is about feeling bound, and the Demon is about feeling your ego is in danger of disintegration. The Crow's Nests were not about that stuff, or at least she did not associate them as such in the book.

    Of course, Beebe never actually said that those functions are ONLY associated with those archetypes in the ego. He has said that the functions are free to step away from their archetypal carriers, or be scooped out by the ego to use as needed.
    So I think the Crow's Nests might simply be some of these "other uses" of those functions; like additional sort of archetypes that associate with those functions. (Like even in Beebe's model, you have the "positive" side of the archetypes--Comedic, Angelic/Transformative, which are really separate, archetypes from the negative ones).

    It might perhaps be what some here have been describing as being "combinations" of functions. Since there are really only four functions, and the orientation is separate, than you can look at the supposed "Ti+Fe" as a form of Ti. It's an unusual attitude assignment, that uses the inferior function (just F, not Fe, initially), but in the dominant orientation i, and maintaining the preferred P attitude. This is probably what the "Crows Nests" (brain lateral alternatives) were.
    This would be different from the more dire situations when the same combination is forced from the unconscious in a rash fashion, when you really feel threatened. (Beebe's concepts, modified from Donald Kalsched).

    Then, as others have mentioned, what is K2C really measuring anyway? Strength of what? Skills sets? "tools"? "processes"? Something "used"? Conscious perspectives? Unconscious things?
    Some of it seems to be overgeneralized. Especially Fi and Ni.

    Since it is based on questions we consciously answer, and those functions are supposed to be unconscious, maybe it reflects an oversensitivity to these greatly suppressed functions (As someone in there appeared to touch upon. I suspect this is the case for Fi with me, and why I was at one point swayed into thinking I might be an FP. I knew the typical descriptions of the function were present, though I consciously disowned them, which was the real clue certain "experts" using these models seemed to ignore).

    The questions are based on behavior. Behaving a certain way is therefore a sign of "using" a particular function. However, functions are not behavior; that is actually influenced by temperament theory, as someone suggested to me. Still, behaviors might be evidences of function-"use".
    The key is sorting out whether it is, or it s a generalization (like Fi="knowing what you want for yourself"), or perhaps an unconscious function, that you disown completely from your awareness, but does surface in some of the behaviors, which you are conscious of, and thus can be picked up by the test.

    So they can enter consciousness, even enough to come out "strong" on the test, and even make us uncertain whether it might be the preferred function or not. But ultimately, the order is about where it actually falls in the ego structure, and embracing vs disowning is the more likely determinant.

    So again, the difference between "strong" Crow's Nests, unconscious "shadows" and stronger or weaker tertiary/inferior, and thus the different "orders" are probably drawn along these lines. Behaviors, "used" processes, unconscious perspectives erupting into consciousness, conscious perspectives we are hypersensitive to, things we disown, yet are still there, etc.

    Our experience also shapes these things. Like being in situations where the lower archetypes were constellated a lot. Perhaps being in midlife, and individuating, where the Self begins imposing the ignored perspectives on the ego more.

    Basically, all you need is one function-attitude, and another function, of the opposite rationality (j or p) and the opposite attitude, and if you can verify that these are what you prefer, then you have your type. It doesn't matter how "strong" the others come out. Unless one is running neck and neck with one of those first two, and then, go back to step 1, verify which of the conflicting functions is really preferred.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  6. #66
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CzeCze View Post
    I think INTP and INFP are really close
    Eh, only one of us cuts themselves.

  7. #67
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    So here's a bunch of people that pride themselves on their objectivity, but even as they do so, they're instinctively bouncing their ideas off of each other in order to make sure they're being objective. Moreover, the graduate students in the community are schmoozing for jobs, because getting a post-doc position is unlikely without the schmoozing.

    The irony is that the INTPs really don't like that part. Fe is inferior, after all. They do, however, have a leg up on the INTJs who not only aren't aware of the schmoozing factor, but wouldn't know how to schmooze even if they did - not at that age, at any rate. So INTPs realize how important others' respect is, especially as it applies to one's career. Heck, peer-reviewed papers are the INTPs' typical communication style for ideas writ large: publish an idea, be very careful so as to not make any unprovable claims, reference others' ideas in order to add validity to your own idea, and if others approve of your idea (by referencing it in their own papers), then it must be a good idea.

    So yeah, it's kind of like your "mutual respect", but it isn't dispassionate or completely unemotional. This is where the Fe goes, having been rejected by Ti, so to speak. One wants to be objective (Ti), but having no means to prove one's objectivity to oneself, one relies upon the approval of others (Fe).

    (For contrast, INTJs go at it completely backwards from this, starting with the shared ideas in the Te world, then evaluating what they imply with Ni. They're not concerned with an ideal of "objectivity" so much as "figuring things out." The shared ideas might be right or wrong. That they're largely accepted is a starting point, not a conclusion.)
    Much of this makes sense. I certainly see it myself, and can see how inferior Fe finds some outlet in these practices. I see much more of a NTJ perspective in my own organization, though, which puts a different spin on collaboration and peer review -- much more Te-influenced. We are not completely dispassionate either, and our Fi often comes through in our motivation for doing what we do.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. What type could be even MORE withdrawn than an INTP?
    By Mipp in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-23-2011, 08:23 AM
  2. Is N more dramatic than S? (with poll)
    By magil in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 09:46 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