Hap's Theory of Dynamic Type

[entropie]

[YOUTUBE="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3rnWSLqV3R0"]Ti's end ?![/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jack Flak]

If you call a cat a dog, and everyone believes you, then for all intents and purposes, the cat is a dog. 'Dog' will begin to refer to the similarities between what was formerly known as 'cats' and 'dogs' rather than your preconceived concept of 'dog.' It is therefore no longer incorrect but merely a change of terminology.

Yes...How is this a disagreement? That's what Jung did, and many people believe him.

 

[Jack Flak]

Um, what? Which judging function has elements of input? And perceiving does not technically mean input anyway. Only sensing literally takes in information.

The best example is Ni. It's more processing than input. Low input, High processing (therefore High output).

Sensing is unaltered input, present or past, and Intuition is "distorted" input..."before" processing by Thinking or Feeling.

 

[Haphazard]

Yes...How is this a disagreement? That's what Jung did, and many people believe him.

But there's nothing to disbelieve because it's an artificial construct. Because of this, whether it was a 'misunderstanding' is of no importance.

 

[Jack Flak]

But there's nothing to disbelieve because it's an artificial construct. Because of this, whether it was a 'misunderstanding' is of no importance.

My argument is that while his functions can describe mental action in a way, they are too variable in subjects and too poorly defined to classify subjects using them as a tool.

 

[redacted]

The best example is Ni. It's more processing than input. Low input, High processing (therefore High output).

Sensing is unaltered input, present or past, and Intuition is "distorted" input..."before" processing by Thinking or Feeling.

Yeah, intuition is 100% processing technically. Sensing is mostly processing too.

Again, the distinction between judging/perceiving is conscious vs. unconscious. If it's unconscious, it's either sensing or intuition; if it's conscious, it's either thinking or feeling.

If you really think about conscious assessment, it really boils down to good/bad (F) and true/false (T). "Ideas" come from intuition and "visualizing" comes from sensing.

 

[Jack Flak]

Yeah, intuition is 100% processing technically. Sensing is mostly processing too.

Again, the distinction between judging/perceiving is conscious vs. unconscious. If it's unconscious, it's either sensing or intuition; if it's conscious, it's either thinking or feeling.

If you really think about conscious assessment, it really boils down to good/bad (F) and true/false (T).

The way I'm defining them, there has to be a difference between P and J. All brain action is processing, technically, of course. I should say Input and Output from now on, and Ni is mostly Output. Just like Thinking under my system, which is why I classify INTJ and INFJ as Judging Primaries. (Thinking/Feeling)

 

[entropie]

I am glad my INFJ girlfriend has not the need to give me contra on everything I say. She has the little thing, I guess people call it wisdom or ignorance I do not know

[YOUTUBE="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kRa3BU5bl-s"]Combichrist[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Haphazard]

My argument is that while his functions can describe mental action in a way, they are too variable in subjects and too poorly defined to classify subjects using them as a tool.

And my argument is that your system is about as useful as a Coinstar Machine to a numismatist.

So we should probably just leave it at that.

 

[redacted]

The way I'm defining them, there has to be a difference between P and J. All brain action is processing, technically, of course. I should say Input and Output from now on, and Ni is mostly Output. Just like Thinking under my system, which is why I classify INTJ and INFJ as Judging Primaries. (Thinking/Feeling)

You're having definition problems; you're not understanding what I'm saying because you're clinging to definitions.

@"Ni is mostly output" -- you are right (although I have no idea why you're saying Ni specifically instead of just Intuition). Sensing is mostly "output" too (the way you're using the word at least).

Input/Output is a silly distinction to make anyway, so little is actually input. Input isn't interesting. Cognitive processes are about processing!

 

[Jack Flak]

And my argument is that your system is about as useful as a Coinstar Machine to a numismatist.

That's about as effective as the arguments you made in my thread.

 

[Haphazard]

That's about as effective as the arguments you made in my thread.

And yours mine.

 

[Jack Flak]

You're having definition problems; you're not understanding what I'm saying because you're clinging to definitions.

@"Ni is mostly output" -- you are right (although I have no idea why you're saying Ni specifically instead of just Intuition). Sensing is mostly "output" too (the way you're using the word at least).

Input/Output is a silly distinction to make anyway, so little is actually input. Input isn't interesting. Cognitive processes are about processing!

I'm going to respond in my thread.

 

[entropie]

And my argument is that your system is about as useful as a Coinstar Machine to a numismatist.

But that would be the MBTI system aswell. It's a matter of perception and you know it.

 

[redacted]

I'm going to respond in my thread.

Be sure to quote the last couple posts.

 

[Haphazard]

But that would be the MBTI system aswell. It's a matter of perception and you know it.

MBTI is at least an average coinsorter, which gives you all your money in rolls rather than takes away 9% for its own devices.

I'm trying to make it so you don't throw away any 1943 pennies along with everything else, too.

 

[redacted]

Good metaphor

 

[entropie]

MBTI is at least an average coinsorter, which gives you all your money in rolls rather than takes away 9% for its own devices.

I'm trying to make it so you don't throw away any 1943 pennies along with everything else, too.

It's a matter of perception. I myself cant still sort MBTI into my own perception with people. I now have instruments to actually draft THAT I am thinking about people. But my perception is out of phase with MBTI.

I am not sure, if you can grasp irrationality ever rational, but if it would work, I will be the first to figure it out, I promise.

 

[Haphazard]

It's a matter of perception. I myself cant still sort MBTI into my own perception with people. I now have instruments to actually draft THAT I am thinking about people. But my perception is out of phase with MBTI.

I am not sure, if you can grasp irrationality ever rational, but if it would work, I will be the first to figure it out, I promise.

MBTI is just one way of seeing people and trying to work with them.

I'm just trying to make it so that people still fit but aren't quite so pidgeonholed into a single profile, and trying to give a possible explanation to why they aren't within the context of the system. "Because everyone is unique little snowflakes" can only be said so many times.

 

[entropie]

MBTI is just one way of seeing people and trying to work with them.

I'm just trying to make it so that people still fit but aren't quite so pidgeonholed into a single profile, and trying to give a possible explanation to why they aren't within the context of the system. "Because everyone is unique little snowflakes" can only be said so many times.

And that is absolutely the right way and that is why I respect you and like you. Just wanted to keep you on the track, so you do not loose perception of other possibilities. But I do know, you do not go and tell everyone about your perception like I do and therefore no harm was done.

Whom I dont like is dissonance. He is too perfect for my taste. *pick pick*