User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 55

  1. #41
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Are you addressing me, or just making random, idiotic projections?

    This is the second time I have tried to have an adult exchange with you and found you deliberately obtuse. I won't make another attempt. You have absolutely nothing to offer.
    Interesting I havn't been the one throwing personal attacks out.

    Incidentally are you going to make that thread you mentioned earlier? :
    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post

    I do have a problem with MBTI theories, but that is because they are wrong and self-limiting, rather than genuinely harmful in the way you describe. I plan to develop this idea in another thread.
    I would be interested in hearing your insight.

    Oh by the way the bitterness comment was not aimed at you. It was more of an abstract personal epiphany of my own self that I realised through this little back and forth between you and I. Sorry if it offended you anyhow.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    @ygolo
    My reaction to what I posted, I think, is that I believe we have a duty to ourselves to define the self as apart from others by understanding how we relate to our own inner state, indirectly defining how we relate to others at the same time. If time is about change and knowledge comes from change, what we hopefully gain in the process is a way to achieve that goal. Truth in a sense, or at least in the sense of identity, can be more like an assertion, as well as a conditioning, except that the dog and trainer are both influencing one another at the same time, fixating their roles, even though from the trainer's point of view, he might believe to have more control over that. But it all depends on the motivations of the dog as well, really. A dog can act like a dog, but it doesn't mean it thinks like one as the trainer believes and sees only external appearances.



    I feel someone that has a strong concept of identity will be able to integrate an entity view with an incremental view in order to create a stable understanding of them-self and others.
    If one focuses on the incremental view to the detriment of an entity view, what limits of themselves and others will they have in mind or fight for in order to make decisions? Theoretically, none, since the incremental view is that no such things can be determined and they will not know them-self or anyone else either.
    If one focuses on the entity view to the detriment of an incremental view, what can such a person do that they have already decided that they can't or shouldn't do? Theoretically, none, since the entity view is quite strict in defining what our roles are to be.
    By utilizing both, one can understand momentarily, when it is deemed important, what entity they are, assertively, and use that to guide them in a direction, but roam incrementally in that direction.



    So my reaction is that the disconnect people have with the theory is that they are focusing on one over the other and finding the natural problems that arise from that.
    (Entity >> Incremental) --> Resistant to necessary change
    (Incremental >> Entity) --> Has no concept of their limits or anyone else's
    In my opinion then, unfortunately in this light, overall positive reactions to MBTI can indicate a big entity view that allows the person to almost completely define who they are as coming from their type before all else; and unfortunately, in this light, overall negative reactions to MBTI can indicate a big incremental view that allows a person almost no room to define them-self and other people.
    I believe integrating both can bring a person a unique kind of peace, as they are both receptive to change and able to discern the more prominent characteristics of themselves and other people, even if those characteristics must change as time goes on.

    Yes, to anyone considering, I'm not a psychologist or anything, but this is genuinely how I feel/think about this.

  3. #43

    Default

    @Little_Sticks
    Thanks for clarifying. Interesting analogy you make regarding the dog and the trainer...the perspective is vaguely existential (like a Samuel Becket play).

    Seems like you make a good case for needing some degree of having an entity view, and needing a balance. However, how do you determine what can be changed and what cannot? Once you decide that something cannot be changed, do you ever reconsider it?

    Interestingly, Martin Seligman wrote a book titled What you can Change and What you can't. I got this book at the same time I got a couple of other books by him. Unfortunately, when I initially read this, I was on a self-help binge, and the information blended together with all the nonsense I consumed at this time. I may revisit this, since I have come to believe Seligman is a good researcher.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  4. #44
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post

    Incidentally are you going to make that thread you mentioned earlier? :

    I would be interested in hearing your insight.
    I can't be bothered right now. Not worth my time.
    Do your own research, if you're genuinely interested.
    Here are a couple of papers to get you started:
    http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Arti...velop/mbti.pdf
    http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi...bs&sei-redir=1
    And a philosophical treatment, germane to this thread:
    http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/da...yersBriggs.pdf
    Oh by the way the bitterness comment was not aimed at you. It was more of an abstract personal epiphany of my own self that I realised through this little back and forth between you and I. Sorry if it offended you anyhow.
    Bizarre + Glad I could help.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #45
    Senior Member pv255's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I believe that using psychological theories to attain knowledge of oneself can lead to becoming entity theorists, and utilizing permanent, pervasive, and personal explanations for negative life events--leading to pessimism and the negative effects that come along with it.

    So, how do you avoid pessimism during the process of self-discovery?
    The problem I think you are describing is, in varying degrees, the problem with objectivity. I must explicitly define my uses of the terms objective and subjective.

    Objectivity- A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from the thoughts of a conscious entity or subject.
    Subjectivity - refers to individual interpretations of experiences consisting of emotional, intellectual, and spiritual perceptions and misperceptions.

    In regards to human behavior, at the highest level of observation objectivity does not exist. Everything is subjective. As a species, why do we pursue survival and advancement? I don't have a clue. But within a defined scope anything subjective can be treated objectively. Objectivity is an agreement of a baseline from which we compare. Subjectivity is a comparison from a personal baseline. For example, imagine this hypothetical conversation.
    Fisherman 1: Dude! You wouldn't believe how big this fish I caught was.
    Fisherman 2: No way man, you think everything is big. I caught a bigger fish last week.
    Both fishermen are boosting about the physical properties of their fish from a subjective point of view. They feel good about their accomplishment, and if they were talking to a non-fisherman, they would likely be held in high-esteem for their ability. For the sake of comparison, we assigned symbols to represent quantity called numbers. Then we combine numbers with additional symbols, such as grams and meters, to objectify physical properties. Now we can easily compare physical properties of everything with everyone. The upside of doing this is enormous, but what are the downsides? Those fishermen can now explicitly say they caught a 15 kg fish, and their audience, who previously may have been impressed, may not be impressed, because they heard about someone who caught a 20 kg fish on the other side of the continent. The over use of objectivity puts us in competition with EVERYONE and demeans our individual accomplishments.

    How does this relate to psychological theories? Jung identified (objectified) cognitive functions by observing neurotic people. The MBTI system identified general manifestations of each type and popularized Jung's functions. I think the downside to identifying personality types is the presentation of MBTI. I haven't read any papers specifically authored by Myers or Briggs, but the websites and forums I frequent over emphasis the manifestations. I think they do a poor job at connecting the symbol (sense, intuition, think, feel, intro/extravert) to the concept. Analogizing this to mechanics. If you are trying to figure out an object's next movement, you cant just look at the object and say it will go where similar objects of the past have gone. You need to account for external forces being applied to the object and the forces the object is applying to its environment.

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    And a philosophical treatment, germane to this thread:
    http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/da...yersBriggs.pdf
    I really like this paper. In one paper, Davenport touched almost all the criticisms I have brought up over the years, including the main topic of this thread.

    Note, however, that the Five Factor Model avoids only the the Bipartitism objection...and I believe this distinction between the FFM and Myers-Briggs is superficial, and may, in fact, be a result of naive adherence to the dogma of psychometrics (If one wants to design a sorting instrument, the questions on the instrument should sort, but sometimes questions that sort are seen a "biased")

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  7. #47
    Senior Member pv255's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pv255 View Post
    How does this relate to psychological theories? Jung identified (objectified) cognitive functions by observing neurotic people. The MBTI system identified general manifestations of each type and popularized Jung's functions. I think the downside to identifying personality types is the presentation of MBTI. I haven't read any papers specifically authored by Myers or Briggs, but the websites and forums I frequent over emphasis the manifestations. I think they do a poor job at connecting the symbol (sense, intuition, think, feel, intro/extravert) to the concept. Analogizing this to mechanics. If you are trying to figure out an object's next movement, you cant just look at the object and say it will go where similar objects of the past have gone. You need to account for external forces being applied to the object and the forces the object is applying to its environment.
    I didnt relate this thought to the previous paragraph. The poor connection between the symbol and the concept is due to our inability to convey the experience of observation via words. We are telling people something that isnt tellable. And by comparing manifestations that arent comparable, we demeaning individual uniqueness. A common problem when there is a vague connection between symbols and ideas is people begin identifying with the symbol more than identifying with the underlying concepts, which can lead to an identity crisis. Would the identity crisis occur if the concepts weren't identified; If the expectation didnt exist?
    Last edited by pv255; 09-12-2012 at 10:12 AM.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    However, how do you determine what can be changed and what cannot? Once you decide that something cannot be changed, do you ever reconsider it?
    To be honest, the only things I consider truly fundamentally unchangeable are completely abstract to me (archetypes), but I believe those things can't dictate what someone is capable of. Limits can be overcome and reset; they are not absolutely defined in my mind.
    Evolution is an intuitive theory to me because it shows how something can transform into something else; some might argue that when something dies, it is gone. But I see the affects that something helped cause and realize its life is also more than its own - because its definition depends on how it affects and thus defines other things. Extinction even, can be the catalyst for indirect/direct change.

    I think what it comes down to is the idea of being able to "change limits"; by experiencing reality in relation to ourselves we come to understand our limits in various ways by defining them through means of estimations, rationalizations, and reasons for why things are the way they are and even why we think they should become a certain way - to do so is to believe our bias is objective rather than know how our bias is both objective and subjective. Common sense is something I see as a metaphor for the understanding of limits that are really hard to change or something we don't really know how to change. It is common sense that I can't turn one of my hands into a fin because we have almost no understanding of how that would occur or take place. The more knowledge we get about something, the easier it becomes to change such a limit. Supposedly, scientists think they found the Higgs-Boson; that's rather amazing that something like an atom can now be broken down and changed into another atom, an idea that people might even think was completely subjective at one point. I guess if you think about it, that concept, knowledge, really is power because we can use it to change other knowledge, even itself.

    To answer your question then, I guess for me, practically as a rule, it's then good to have an idea of what is common sense and what isn't. What isn't common sense, I consider changeable. What is common sense, becomes the limiting, unchangeable container for what is changeable. For me to reconsider common sense then requires knowledge to support the idea of reconsideration.

    I'm not sure that's what you were looking for, but I kind of doubt I really know that much to begin with. Maybe that's why I still post here.

  9. #49
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Summary
    I believe that using psychological theories to attain knowledge of oneself can lead to becoming entity theorists, and utilizing permanent, pervasive, and personal explanations for negative life events--leading to pessimism and the negative effects that come along with it.

    How do you avoid pessimism during the process of self-discovery?
    With that background set, I'd like to discuss the how to avoid pessimism as we learn about Big 5, Myers-Briggs, Jugian functions, multiple intelligences, IQ, Holland types, enneagram, ...

    1. What explanatory power do you give these psychological theories?
    2. If the psychological theories explain negative things about your life, how do you deal with these explanations?
    3. If the psychological theories explain positive things about your life, how do you deal with these explanations?
    4. Do you deal with both positive and negative explanations in the same say?
    I don't use typology to explain positive or negative events in my life. It's that simple. It helps me to be more understanding and appreciative of others. It helps me to understand myself and to some extent, things that I can do to grow as a person.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  10. #50
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I really like this paper. In one paper, Davenport touched almost all the criticisms I have brought up over the years, including the main topic of this thread.

    Note, however, that the Five Factor Model avoids only the the Bipartitism objection...and I believe this distinction between the FFM and Myers-Briggs is superficial, and may, in fact, be a result of naive adherence to the dogma of psychometrics (If one wants to design a sorting instrument, the questions on the instrument should sort, but sometimes questions that sort are seen a "biased")
    I think it's deeper than that. To dismantle the false dichotomies of MBTI (which perhaps ironically, a trait-based theory like FFM which maps closely onto MBTI does best) is to abolish "type" as a concept with any predictive validity or pretty much any meaning at all...
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] The dark side of ENFPs
    By FinalFrontier89 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 05-05-2017, 09:06 PM
  2. The flip side of Sensotardation - Are you an HSP?
    By Salomé in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 03-30-2014, 09:19 AM
  3. The dark side of modesty/tact.
    By Fluffywolf in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 02-20-2011, 01:19 PM
  4. [MBTItm] The dark side of getting along very well with everyone
    By SilkRoad in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-10-2010, 05:48 PM
  5. [ENFP] ENFPs: The dark side of seeing potential
    By BlueScreen in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-03-2009, 10:22 AM

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