User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 112

  1. #31
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    ENFJ and ENFP are, of course, I said I used the Keirsey splits also.

    ESTP and ESTJ, well, probably less similar. Different drives.
    So you're subdividing four groups into four more groups? Well there's your sixteen
    They can be. I said most "naturally" adept or something, meaning on average of course.
    I was indicating towards those who though being NPs are not at all suited to such analysis. I know of one INFP who would be useless at such things as the whole process of making a decision about someone would send him into mild panic!

    I'd estimate that the analysis of people does sit well with NPs but perhaps not necessarily solely based upon this. It also requires some level of ability with analysis and also learning to work, in part as a J. Without definition and assumption then all progress is halted.

    (Call that nitpicking if you like... it's true... it is.... )
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    So you're subdividing four groups into four more groups? Well there's your sixteen
    Two separate divisions, to be used separately!
    I was indicating towards those who though being NPs are not at all suited to such analysis. I know of one INFP who would be useless at such things as the whole process of making a decision about someone would send him into mild panic!
    Yeah but look at this board. Most of the people who regularly type celebrities and shit are NP. Intuition Primary.

  3. #33
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Two separate divisions, to be used separately!
    Not so. You are applying them to one subject no? If not then your typing is inconsistent and if so then you are using them together whether consciously or not.
    Yeah but look at this board. Most of the people who regularly type celebrities and shit are NP. Intuition Primary.
    Prevalence does not indicate ability.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Not so. You are applying them to one subject no? If not then your typing is inconsistent and if so then you are using them together whether consciously or not.
    I talk about NTs, and I talk about NPs. Two divisions, both useful. I formerly saw the Keirsey setup as the most useful, but since I developed that function system, more has become clear.

    Prevalence does not indicate ability.
    Nor does the fact that "you know this one INFP..."

  5. #35
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Personally I believe it's better to naturally distrust those reflected images and what the light covers. It often misses context and images make a whole lot more sense when combined with sounds, smells and textures. The exact parellel of this within the mind I leave to you.
    You're going to put my Ni through the roof playing with analogies.

    I guess there's no way we can know precisely what's truth and what's reflection because all our senses have bias. But if we combine all of them, we might get a more complete image of what's out there. So bringing the analogy forward, what we should do is as you say, to distrust the first image. Wait and spend more time gathering information before judgment.

    Not sure what you can do for hardheaded people though. Sure you can beat them on the head with contrary evidence but if they see just the reflected image in front of them, they wouldn't believe you...

    Err... aren't the tertiary and inferior the shadow functions? I'm confused. INTP is Ti Ne Si Fe. Fe Si is ESFJ is it not?
    I think the shadow functions refers to the "hidden" 4.

    INTP is Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi.
    Tertiary is Si, Inferior is Fe
    Shadows are Te Ni Se Fi.

    So function usage is like what key you're playing in? Holy breadboard!!! That means that to identify with another type you have to transpose as well as attempt to mimic the instrument!! No wonder most make it sound like an englishman trying his latest french phrases in italy!
    Heh, actually in my analogy I haven't even thrown in the key yet. The Englishman works for me though. Translating is definitely difficult. There's no reference standard for anything.

    Me thinks my Ni is overactive then... See this is where the whole type thing tends to fall down for me as I can identify conscious control of all eight functions at various points in my thinking and yet never by itself. There is always another function being paired with it. If such is common for everyone then how do you remove the influence of the other functions to ascertain which is in predominance? Aren't your preferred functions always in the dominant position and hence limiting and guiding the other functions accordingly?

    Oh and compared to my experience of INTJs.... Epic Fail. You haven't said I'm wrong yet. This is most disconcerting. Shape up immediately or consequences cannot be far behind.
    I seriously doubt anybody can isolate functions other than their dominant. Even with their dominant, it's not so much isolating as in function subtraction. Your dominant is always present, but the other functions will not be. So if you subtract out the "noise" you get your dominant.

    The rest of the functions are even more difficult to understand. I'm not even sure if I can explain the process I use. I try to find people who seems to display the "purest" dominant function and study them in detail again using the subtraction method. Then I compare them to other people. But in this case I can't go back to check my work. I only get output based on their behavior and never their input even if I'm placed in the same situation. Very much your description of trying to figure out the music without the sheets.

    About your Ni, there's no reason why we can't use all 8 functions consciously so long as we pay attention and practice often. We're probably never going to be as good as a dominant function user but it doesn't mean we don't improve. Is your Ni better than say your Ne, I'll say likely not. In fact are you sure you're using Ni or a mix of Ti Ne that resembles Ni?

    My Ni knows patterns are stable even if the system is flexing. So if I dig deep enough, I usually find what I need. Ne directed by Ti most likely shifts through lots of data to see whether there's a pattern. The starting point for the two processes are different even know it seems like both are search for the same thing.

    (It is nice to note though that someone detects the whole background Ne rather than thinking it foreground working or perhaps some representation of sensing. I think I've been typed as just about everything except an FJ or an SJ at this point. Perhaps my P is too strong?)
    I personally don't think it matters what other people type you as. Only that you're comfortable with who you are whether you've been typed or not. Typology is just a model.

  6. #36
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    I talk about NTs, and I talk about NPs. Two divisions, both useful. I formerly saw the Keirsey setup as the most useful, but since I developed that function system, more has become clear.
    How is it useful to have divides which aren't applied to people? Or are you merely refining my definition instead of changing it's core?
    Nor does the fact that "you know this one INFP..."
    What I mean't by my comment was that just because NPs are more prone to try and type people doesn't actually mean they're any good at it. They perhaps just enjoy how conceptual it is.

    As for using singular instances as indicative of a wider pattern, I consider that a good counter measure so that I don't end up thinking that one pattern will ever cover all instances. More philosophy than factual technique.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  7. #37
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    God Xander, your posts are sooooo looooooooooong, pal.

    #3 Subconscious influences

    I'm not sure what you mean by this but I've become interested in reversing the traditional model for typing people and typing them by inferior function.
    Eg. The INTP would be Fe/Si deficient.

    The rationale being

    a) behaviour derived from subconscious drivers cannot of necessity be faked, so one removes self-deception from the equation.

    b) perceived utility in a clinical/diagnostic/self-improvement context

    Thoughts?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  8. #38
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    You're going to put my Ni through the roof playing with analogies.
    Sometimes I find the abstraction to give clearer insight than the actual subject. Something to do with the conceptualisation removing extraneous details.
    I guess there's no way we can know precisely what's truth and what's reflection because all our senses have bias. But if we combine all of them, we might get a more complete image of what's out there. So bringing the analogy forward, what we should do is as you say, to distrust the first image. Wait and spend more time gathering information before judgment.
    You sure you're a J??

    Sometimes I think it's necessary to sit back and wait for further information but equally I find that it's also sometimes necessary to take the information you have, calculate the best route and just go for it. After all if all you do is wait then whatever you do is likely to be of little use as it'll be too late.
    Not sure what you can do for hardheaded people though. Sure you can beat them on the head with contrary evidence but if they see just the reflected image in front of them, they wouldn't believe you...
    Oh I've found a knowing smirk often works wonders... though if I don't have the answer myself it can get complicated
    I think the shadow functions refers to the "hidden" 4.

    INTP is Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi.
    Tertiary is Si, Inferior is Fe
    Shadows are Te Ni Se Fi.
    Really? I honestly didn't know that. That'd change my thinking around a little... have to think now damn you!!! :steam:
    Heh, actually in my analogy I haven't even thrown in the key yet. The Englishman works for me though. Translating is definitely difficult. There's no reference standard for anything.
    You ever think that there's no standard because of those hard headed people? You know there's the one's who won't change from old ways because "if it ain't broke don't fix it even if it's 100 years old and as slow as tundra" and then there's the "independants" who basically boil down to "Change? But I don't wanna change... Right I'm going to start persuading people to not change so I don't have to".

    There's no reason why UK engineers still work in english and metric. There's no reason why they insist that a thou is a measurement and not an abbreviation. There's even less reason for them thinking that everything they have as part of their personal routine is standard...

    Oh we so need more NTs in the world.... or is it just me???
    I seriously doubt anybody can isolate functions other than their dominant. Even with their dominant, it's not so much isolating as in function subtraction. Your dominant is always present, but the other functions will not be. So if you subtract out the "noise" you get your dominant.

    The rest of the functions are even more difficult to understand. I'm not even sure if I can explain the process I use. I try to find people who seems to display the "purest" dominant function and study them in detail again using the subtraction method. Then I compare them to other people. But in this case I can't go back to check my work. I only get output based on their behavior and never their input even if I'm placed in the same situation. Very much your description of trying to figure out the music without the sheets.
    It seems we use the same or similar techniques. In fact my father uses similar techniques too.. find the most indicative elements of a particular type/ function and then see if that element is present.

    Seems so much simpler said like that no?

    Of course practice is always more complex than concept.
    About your Ni, there's no reason why we can't use all 8 functions consciously so long as we pay attention and practice often. We're probably never going to be as good as a dominant function user but it doesn't mean we don't improve. Is your Ni better than say your Ne, I'll say likely not. In fact are you sure you're using Ni or a mix of Ti Ne that resembles Ni?
    This is my problem with functions... how is Ni different to Ne? Is it not basically N combined with a preference of where it is focused? If so then shouldn't someone with Ne as a preferred function also have decent command of Ni typically?

    I'm wondering if this is why each function listed for a type is from either side of the judging and sensing dichotomies and never from the E/I dichotomy.
    My Ni knows patterns are stable even if the system is flexing. So if I dig deep enough, I usually find what I need. Ne directed by Ti most likely shifts through lots of data to see whether there's a pattern. The starting point for the two processes are different even know it seems like both are search for the same thing.
    Aha... that is where we agree.... According to my previous psychoanalysis I'm usually not working on the surface of a subject but quite a distance beneath. Least that's what they said. I always figured that's why I usually seem to be thinking in a different plane to most people... too far below what they see and too far beneath to see what they're on about.

    Anyhoo.. perhaps in this case it is not what is used which causes the parallel but how it is applied?

    Next decision...
    How INTPish of you
    -or-
    How INTJish of me
    ???
    I personally don't think it matters what other people type you as. Only that you're comfortable with who you are whether you've been typed or not. Typology is just a model.
    Yeah but....no...hang on....

    If I'm typed as an ENFP then what I read and how I interpret things is altered by that. The people who've said I 'sound' more ENTPish or even INFPish (don't ask.. I'm figuring it was a joke) have actually helped. Without challenges to my thinking then how can I progress?

    More than this, if I don't value other's insight then surely the whole MBTI process falls down.... I'm thinking too much again right?

    Nuts.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  9. #39
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemonday View Post
    God Xander, your posts are sooooo looooooooooong, pal.
    They are?

    I could be more laconic but I always end up worried that it'll be misunderstood.. so I muddy the water to make the picture clearer
    #3 Subconscious influences

    I'm not sure what you mean by this but I've become interested in reversing the traditional model for typing people and typing them by inferior function.
    Eg. The INTP would be Fe/Si deficient.

    The rationale being

    a) behaviour derived from subconscious drivers cannot of necessity be faked, so one removes self-deception from the equation.

    b) perceived utility in a clinical/diagnostic/self-improvement context

    Thoughts?
    I forget where I posted it, I think I had a whole thread complaining about the poor distribution of information on the downside of each type. See though I don't use functions in typing (far too fine grain and detaily for my tastes) I do tend to look for the drawbacks or negative points in a type. My thinking was similar to yours that the unconscious reactions would be more honest than those under conscious control.

    I'm still distrustful of this whole "typing by numbers" thingummy but I 100% agree with your premise and hell if you like functions then why not.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  10. #40
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    That's something I've been thinking about recently. If you're taking a test then surely it's entirely possible that you aren't engaging your preferred functions? The testing environment could have an effect upon what you'd use.

    If everyone can and does use every function then surely whenever a person is attempting to evaluate or determine which functions are preferred then every effort should be made to ensure that the environment is "function neutral" no? If not then would it not be entirely possible that the testing itself will warp the results?

    According to what I have read the tertiary function is not usually under conscious control and the inferior is rarely under conscious control. I think this blends into the theory that those things which are easiest to control end up being preferred.. back to the handedness parallel.

    If you don't use tests then isn't the whole thing thrown out the window? I mean you can type by observation, that much is clear but then what do you do about those who do not express a marked enough preference to evaluate them, especially introverts who tend not to show as much of their nature as extraverts.

    Perhaps the tests are supposed to attempt to reveal what is in the introverted world of the subject regardless of their preference for extraversion or introversion? Perhaps the lack of comfort of an extraverts is indicative itself?
    first off, i think the tertiary is under conscious control, but to engage it is somewhat draining. i know i personally have access to it. in regards to the tests, no the whole thing isn't thrown out the window at all. you just need to use the right tests and your average MBTI test isn't the "right" test. also i test people based purely on observation but sometimes will back it up by using tests. the tests can probably be done even better by first finding out whether they are intuitive or sensing and then eventually narrowing it down to type. for example if someone is an ENTP: N/S -> NF/NT -> NTP/NTJ -> E/I. so basically you give them a couple questions that determine whether they are an intuitive or sensor. this splits off half of the types. then it figures out temperament. for testing this they could have questions and/or show them the temperament profiles. then once the temperament is figured out, it basically figures out what the J/P is in a functional sense, once again this could be questions and/or profiles. then the E/I which shouldnt be hard. once this is done they can read their profile and agree or disagree. my "logic" (which isn't that much) is that they will easily be able to differentiate what they are during each part of the test. they will know quite easily if they are an intuitive or sensor. they will quite easily know if they are an NT or NF. they will quite easily know if they are an NTP or NTJ. and extrovert and introvert is just whatever. the test, unfortunatelly would have to be quite dynamic, and might not be easy to administer on paper, in which case a computer would be nice.

    EDIT:

    if people like this testing idea ill do it and compile a basic MBTI test using C++.
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-05-2013, 02:42 PM
  2. [MBTItm] Animals & MBTI (A thread brought to you via 'an attempt to satiate boredom')
    By FantailedWall in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 06:47 AM
  3. Something to consider - F vs T
    By Xander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 09-30-2008, 06:40 AM
  4. A mind is a terrible thing to lose
    By Wolf in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 01:30 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