User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 134

  1. #81
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    I think they do, but not in so many words.
    They don't get into the nitty-gritty of it, but sort of simplify the application, so novices can understand it, which is the main audience of their book.
    For instance, in Do What You Are, chapter six basically discusses the dominant and auxiliary functions. In the section called Personality Typograms" they represent the fact that an INTP uses introverted Thinking, and extravert iNuition.

    This seems to corroborate, as Xander has said, that Te and Ti are not two separate entities but rather, the same entity being applied in different places.

    Imo, that doesn't change the fact that Ti and Te look different from each other, and people have noticed that and made attempts at describing it.
    This actually confirms why we should not attempt to correlate systems by interchanging terms. Jung and Myers-Briggs are specific in what is meant by Te/Ti and give only a small acknowledgement to thinking alone. Based on what you say the Tiegers do the opposite in giving more emphasis to thinking itself and merely reference to Te/Ti. This again adds to the confusion when readers do not distinguish between the systems.

    The Tiegers I have said for years is a hybrid similar to Otto Kroeger. You’re right they make the attempt to simplify type, which continues to confuse readers when they attempt to correlate with the more in-depth work of Myers-Briggs and Jung. Jung, Myers-Briggs, John Beebe, Lenore Thomson, Naomi Quenck, etc are Jungian followers. Lenore Thomson made that known during her debate with Keirsey years ago, reminding him that his work is temperament and does consider the basic qualities of what makes MB different. The Tiegers and Otto Kroeger go equally as far as in their hybrids which in my personal opinion are too rudimentary. They do not discuss their work using cognitive functions but in part Keirsey and Myers Briggs (not Jung). In fact if you are going to consider any hybrid work at least Berens/Nardi’s is applicable. Sorry Mom I still have to disagree.

  2. #82
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Perhaps it is apples and oranges again.

  3. #83
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    Perhaps it is apples and oranges again.
    Agreed. The Tiegers make it a point to say they’re discussing type in their books. However “Gifts Differing” makes the distinction when saying,
    “In combination, the four preferences (S/N, T/F) determine type but the traits that result from each preference do not combine to influence an individual’s personality by simple addition of characteristics.

    Instead the traits result from the interaction of preferences. The effect of the interaction of the preferred processes is made apparent when the extraverted form of a particular process is compared with the introverted form of the same process. The four figures that make up the balance present contrasting pairs describing the E/I forms of thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition."
    Thus again when pointing out the process in saying TSNF you are merely referring to an ESTJ or ISTP, but the two have little in common when considering the E/I direction of each types' energy.

  4. #84
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    ... when pointing out the process in saying TSNF you are merely referring to an ESTJ or ISTP, but the two have little in common when considering the E/I direction of each types' energy.
    You ain't kidding!
    Instead the traits result from the interaction of preferences
    I understand and agree with this.


    btw: The Tiegers appear to be divorced.
    Barbara goes by the last name of Barron now.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Llewellyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INtj
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Don't know about 80's suits... (Sometimes I don't get those things. What does that mean?).

    But Ti can be Te with a higher resolution? (I'm not elaborating...)

    Te: horizontal thinking. Ti: vertical thinking.
    INtj | 9w1

  6. #86
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    Xander this may be the easiest way to resolve this matter for anyone. First decide which theory you're comfortable with.
    As perfect antithesis to this sensor thrust may I just say "there's theories"?

    All I can say on the whole concept of two disparate theories using the same notation is what idiot thought that would be a good idea and are they still living?

    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  7. #87
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    Who said that they were two separate entities?
    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    Imo, that doesn't change the fact that Ti and Te look different from each other, and people have noticed that and made attempts at describing it.
    What looks different to each other?

    You mean this same entity merely applied to different arenas looks different?

    Well cream does look white against black but is that really appropriate to psychoanalysis?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #88
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Okay to get back to the core of the thread and possibly to redo my original explanation...

    If you take Ti then you have T (the what) and i (the where).
    There is no difference between the thinking process involved in Ti and Te. If there was then there would be an innate difference in the process applied.

    Of course there are differences between people that prefer Te to those who prefer Ti there is a difference between those who prefer extraversion over those who prefer introversion, the argument is are there differences in the processes applied?

    Personally I find that ALL NTs seem to use the same processes. What they apply it to does differ and their own personal accumulation of experiences and skills.

    What I am specifically arguing against, as edcoaching points out correctly, is the theory that people seem to use where they see both the what and the where as a what. In other words I disagree that Ti and Te are two separate entities. I disagree because I don't think they are entities themselves but rather one singular entity with a side note upon where the subject prefers to apply that entity.

    In summation, if what is represented by W and where is represented by w then ALL the so called eight functions are represented as Ww. The thing is that most people only see a What and not the where. I consider this an error and hope that somehow all of this may get them to challenge their conception.
    Sorry.
    I did not want to disrupt your thread.
    You were away, doing God knows what.
    It is your thread.
    Get on with it.

    There is a innate difference in the process applied!
    Dichotomy is one process only.

    Everything takes place simultaneously.
    In a dichotomy.

    Preference is already.
    There is no before or after.

    Differentiation is another process altogether.
    In other words, girls are not dolls.
    Girls may have dolls, though.

    Differentiation is what does not add in a dichotomy.
    It is called inclusion.

    This is all what I wanted to say.

  9. #89
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    As perfect antithesis to this sensor thrust may I just say "there's theories"?

    All I can say on the whole concept of two disparate theories using the same notation is what idiot thought that would be a good idea and are they still living?
    As I have said in other threads, Jung created the cognitive functions (Te/Ti....), Katherine Briggs was working on her own theory but read Jung and realized that his theory coincided with hers therefore Isabela Briggs and Peter Myers expounded on Jung and Katherine Briggs' theories by creating a test that would indicate which cognitive preferences are dominant and by creating the four letter code to show which type one prefers, Keirsey was already working in behavioral psychology using the ancient temperaments when he begin reading Katherine Briggs' work and realized that his theory coincided with hers resulting in his adopting the Myers-Briggs four letter codes and Linda V. Berens was a student of Keirsey who fine tuned his theory and bringing it closer to coinciding with Myers-Briggs.

    The Tiegers and Otto Kroeger only used the four letter codes but devised a way to make the theory easier for those who do not want to study the subject indepth by referring to the four letter codes and merely using the type functions in general (TSNF...)

    As I see it when it comes to cognitive functions:

    Jung=very indepth
    MBTI=less indepth
    Keirsey=general
    Berens=hybrid of MBTI/Keirsey
    Tiegers & Kroeger=something different all together

    They're all good works and can help one learn about each other, but they all have distinct differences that can become confusing when you attempt to correlate.

  10. #90
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    What I am specifically arguing against, as edcoaching points out correctly, is the theory that people seem to use where they see both the what and the where as a what. In other words I disagree that Ti and Te are two separate entities. I disagree because I don't think they are entities themselves but rather one singular entity with a side note upon where the subject prefers to apply that entity.
    This seems to connect pretty well with my experience. I don't seem to have a strong preference between using any function--T or N especially, I've noticed--in an external or internal sense. I do know many individuals for which the classic functional ordering imposed by their MBTI type makes sense, but it doesn't seem to for me.

    There was another thread that described where each of the eight functions was located in the different parts of the brain, and I display many left-handed tendencies despite being right-handed. Could a balance between left and right brain functions lead some to see the functions (T, F, N, S) as belonging together?

Similar Threads

  1. The alternative/real function orders
    By Virtual ghost in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 10-11-2009, 03:25 PM
  2. How Function Order dictates behaviour
    By VagrantFarce in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-28-2009, 06:31 PM
  3. [JCF] What is the function order?
    By INTJ123 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-16-2009, 04:34 PM
  4. Function Order Game
    By StephMC in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-10-2009, 03:18 PM
  5. Function order
    By Poki in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 06:09 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