User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 95

  1. #51
    Magical BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,002

    Default

    How can anyone believe your side SolitaryWalker if you don't provide evidence?
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  2. #52
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Solitary Walker
    It doesn't mean I agree with what you posted.
    Carry on folks, while I ponder. I find Fi perplexing.
    It makes me stand up for people in situations, that if it were just me I wouldn't do so. It makes me into a warrior women, where logically it's not in my best interests. Oddly I feel at my best, when in these moments.
    I don't think Fi changes, I think the data that feeds into it does. That why in real life, I try to be very careful about acting until I have all the information at hand. It seems to me though it's a pretty cold function though.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #53
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    So you're trying to say I can't envision a world based on how I feel it should be based on emotions because it relies on logic? It isn't based on logic about how I feel the world should be, I didn't use logic in constructing this. Yet I still have this vision in mind, or as he calls it a model of the world. This isn't a paradox, you can do things entirely with emotions. You misinterpreted his point about constructing a model of the universe. You need to explain why you think it requires logic..
    How is it possible to construct a model of the universe without using logic? (Note, you may think you did not use logic, but if you have a coherent vision of the world your mind did so on an unconscious level)

    So you assert that it is possible to construct a model of the world without using logic, its your responsibility to explain how.

    Here is my argument for how logic is the only way of constructing a vision of the world. Logic represents our basic reasoning and only through reasoning can anything be figured out. Hence, anyone who constructs a vision of the world reasons or uses logic.


    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    Why do I have to organize my emotions to know what I'm feeling? I know exactly how I'm feeling all the time, and it's not organized in a logical way. You will know if you're angry very clearly, you will know if you are happy, you will know if you are sad...
    Because you are conditioned to use logic on a deeply unconscious level.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    This doesn't require being organized in a logical way. It's a moot point to be arguing this because a feeler will use logic, and they will know how they are feeling in more complicated situations because of this logic. From that you can say that the person won't be manipulated into feeling a different way, since Fi users most of the time clearly know why we feel the way we do, and from that we can't simply be manipulated about feeling a different way about something unless someone convinced us that the source of how we feel is illogical and/or makes no sense....
    With basic emotions (that they could figure out through unconscious thinking) yes. Understanding more complex emotions requires conscious thinking. In that case they often dont understand how they really feel (only mistakenly believe that they do) due to poor analytical reasoning skills.



    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    Why are you arguing this? Fi users employ their Te to analyze their feelings regardless, whether they know it or not. It's an unconscious process in our minds. Just because it's inferior doesn't mean it isn't used. ....
    Usually it means its poorly used.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    That's like saying an INTP will be oblivious to all emotions unless he uses feeling to analyze it the situation and come up with an emotion to feel. Everyone thinker unconsciously feels emotions, as does every feeler unconsciously use logical reasoning to some degree.....
    An INTP will not properly process most emotions unless he uses Feeling well.



    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    What about an emotional contradiction? This is what he meant. We realize that what we are feeling about something doesn't quite fit anymore, so we change. The process is entirely logical......
    All contradictions require logical thinking. If a contradiction is difficult to spot, a Feeler with underdeveloped thinking wont find it easily as finding such a contradiction requires laborious conscious scrutiny.



    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    This just seems misinformed. Logic =/= thinking whatsoever, not in this case. People don't use reasoning differently if they have Ti or Te, it's all apart of being a human being. It transcends MBTI. This seems to be where your points are flawed.
    We all use all functions, you're right. Just some more than others.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    How can anyone believe your side SolitaryWalker if you don't provide evidence?
    I did provide evidence. Will do it again if you ask me specific questions. Otherwise, I am not sure of what your concerns are with regard to my argument. If you think I did not provide evidence, you need to re-read my posts more carefully.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #54
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Perception collects data. Thinking unconsciously organizes the data. Feeling regards the data that has been organized as either good or bad. Feeling does not in itself organize data, it only comments on what has already been organized.
    Perception collects data. Judging judges the data. Both thinking and feeling organize data. Assigning the labels of good and bad is organization.

    Thinking creates such a model, Feeling does not.
    A simple contradictory statement is not a good argument.

    Understanding your emotions requires processing them and analyzing them. People with supressed F dont understand it because they dont properly process it, people with supressed T dont understand it because they dont analyze it properly.
    Please provide evidence for this claim.

    Re-read my posts.
    I did. I see no evidence. Maybe I missed or misunderstood it. So I ask you to repost it in very clear simple logic that will be unlikely to be misunderstood.

    What is Thinking if not the use of logic?
    Something different than logic. Objective judging. Judging and categorizing of data without subjective interpretation.

    How exactly does it do that?
    Unknown. Scientists haven't figured it out yet.

    What reason is there to believe in this? You made the claim, the onus is on you to support it.
    True. I'm afraid I'm gonna back out of this one though. It's not exactly relevant, and my evidence is mostly anecdotal and theoretical in nature anyway.

    You need to re-read my posts many more times. Most people rely heavily on their dominant function yes. So, T doms would rely little on Feeling and as a result would resemble the kind of a person who uses only Thinking.
    As above, I clearly must have missed your evidence, so please repost it.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  5. #55
    Magical BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,002

    Default

    I'm pretty sure "logical thinking" and "logical reasoning" has nothing to do with MBTI. MBTI's definition of thinking has to do with how said reasoning/thinking is employed, and if someone puts a lot of weight on this style of employment. This is why I think all of these things we have been debating about are doable without MBTI's thinking. This pretty much is my response to what you said, it conveys the point more clearly as to what I'm trying to make you understand. Religious following of MBTI won't get you anywhere, you have to understand humanity and how humans work and put that before MBTI.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  6. #56
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Perception collects data. Judging judges the data. Both thinking and feeling organize data. Assigning the labels of good and bad is organization. .
    Note, MBTI defines Judging functions as those that organize data. Jung however, has defined Judging functions as the rational functions, which for him merely meant conscious.

    MBTI theorists took this idea unwarrantedly a step ahead and decided such functions are the ones that organize information. One can argue how Thinking could do this, but Feeling cannot.

    Note, I am not discussing the functions as they are defined in MBTI, but as they are stationed in the human psyche.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    A simple contradictory statement is not a good argument..
    There is a cognitive faculty in the human mind which is responsible for merely processing emotion. This is what I call Feeling. There is a cognitive faculty in the human mind that is responsible for dispassionate reasoning, I call it Thinking.

    Hence, ipso facto, Feeling is distinct from Thinking. A type theorist who uses on term to depict both Feeling and Thinking does not clearly describe the cognitive processes of our mind.





    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Please provide evidence for this claim...
    What is an emotion? A mind-state. Hence, it is a psychological phenomenon that we need to understand. We need to feel emotion or to allow ourselves to consciously process it, and then we need to analyze it to get a clear idea of what it is. If you don't do one of the two, you wont be able to understand it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    I did. I see no evidence. Maybe I missed or misunderstood it. So I ask you to repost it in very clear simple logic that will be unlikely to be misunderstood....
    Ask me specific questions. Its inconvenient for me to re-explain my views in entirety again.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Something different than logic. Objective judging. Judging and categorizing of data without subjective interpretation.....
    How is it possible to organize ideas without using logic? Logic is the method of organization of all things, or the method of thought itself.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Unknown. Scientists haven't figured it out yet......
    If its unknown, you're not in the position to assert that it is true. That is just like me saying that it is an unknown that Johns is a thief and I know that Johns is a thief.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #57
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    I'm pretty sure "logical thinking" and "logical reasoning" has nothing to do with MBTI. MBTI's definition of thinking has to do with how said reasoning/thinking is employed, and if someone puts a lot of weight on this style of employment. This is why I think all of these things we have been debating about are doable without MBTI's thinking. This pretty much is my response to what you said, it conveys the point more clearly as to what I'm trying to make you understand. Religious following of MBTI won't get you anywhere, you have to understand humanity and how humans work and put that before MBTI.
    No, it doesnt have anything to do with MBTI, and I don't write about MBTI either. Logical reasoning however is a cognitive faculty of our mind. That is what I call 'Thinking', I was not referring to the MBTI notion of Thinking.

    Perhaps you should read my book on typology, your view of my ideas will change significantly after you do that.

    http://www.authorhouse.com/Bookstore...x?bookid=56047
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #58
    Magical BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,002

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    If its unknown, you're not in the position to assert that it is true. That is just like me saying that it is an unknown that Johns is a thief and I know that Johns is a thief.
    Just because something is unknown doesn't mean it can't be. Why do we exist? It's unknown. If we don't know why we exist, going by your logic, then we cannot exist. Fi does exactly what you said was impossible. It's coming from a dominant. How can you deny it?

    EDIT: This is a debate about MBTI, so if you don't write about MBTI then why are you debating this?
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  9. #59
    Feelin' FiNe speculative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    LoL
    Posts
    929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Here is my argument for how logic is the only way of constructing a vision of the world. Logic represents our basic reasoning and only through reasoning can anything be figured out. Hence, anyone who constructs a vision of the world reasons or uses logic.
    Perhaps we're talking about different points along the time-line. Values for example originate in F to start with, but then from there would be further investigated by S/N, conceptualized by T, and either implemented or not implemented by P/J. Reasoning cannot figure out what a person's values are in the sense of choosing them or originating them, but it can figure them out in the sense of conceptualizing how they apply to the real world. Otherwise, what we are discussing are not values in the first place, but logical, rational decisions. (Which are not the topic of this thread: values are.) There's nothing wrong with rational decisions, but they are not values.

    Perhaps a more clear example is love. Love is derived from F. Figuring out when you're in love is one of the most important decisions of your life. There are many movies that focus on a main character who can't figure out that they're in love because they are too stuck in their head (T) and don't find happiness until they learn to follow their heart (F). This is the best example I can currently think of regarding how F makes decisions/processes information completely outside the realm of T. T cannot make my heart warm when she is near me; only F can do that. And it's a warm heart, not a calculated logical deduction, that tells me I am in love.

    When discussing values, we're looking at a model of humanity (values), not a model of the universe (things). I feel that perhaps that language that we are all using is confusing. Or, if this thread has perhaps gone that far afield of the original topic maybe it would best be split into a new thread. If by "model of the universe" you're talking about Einstein and the Big Bang Theory, or quantum mechanics, or things like the economy, then I wholly agree that T is what gets the job done. Math, for example, is derived from T. I cannot "feel" a fractal into existence; I must "reason" one into existence. A value cannot be "thought" into existence (otherwise it is a logical decision and not a value); a value must be "felt" into existence. Values are derived from F. Maybe you could use F to possibly further mathematics in some way after they are brought into existence by T, but math will never derive directly from F to exist in the first place. You can also use T to adjust values, but you cannot use T to originate values, as it can only originate logical reasoning and values are not based on logical reasoning.

    If you try to originate values from T instead of F, you will arrive at something akin to Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." This is the best illustration I can think of to try to communicate the point I'm trying to make. Of course, once values exist, all the other functions combined, none less important than T, go into conceptualizing and then implementing those values...
    "How can I be, all I want to be,
    When all I want to do is strip away these stilled constraints
    And crush this charade, shred this sad, masquerade"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGeq5v7L3WM

  10. #60
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Note, MBTI defines Judging functions as those that organize data. Jung however, has defined Judging functions as the rational functions, which for him merely meant conscious.

    MBTI theorists took this idea unwarrantedly a step ahead and decided such functions are the ones that organize information. One can argue how Thinking could do this, but Feeling cannot.
    Is it not a possibility that Jung could be wrong and MBTI right?

    Note, I am not discussing the functions as they are defined in MBTI, but as they are stationed in the human psyche.
    Noted.

    There is a cognitive faculty in the human mind which is responsible for merely processing emotion. This is what I call Feeling. There is a cognitive faculty in the human mind that is responsible for dispassionate reasoning, I call it Thinking.

    Hence, ipso facto, Feeling is distinct from Thinking. A type theorist who uses on term to depict both Feeling and Thinking does not clearly describe the cognitive processes of our mind.
    Feeling is distinct from Thinking, agreed. However, I disagree with your definitions of Feeling and Thinking, as I've previously posted.

    What is an emotion? A mind-state. Hence, it is a psychological phenomenon that we need to understand. We need to feel emotion or to allow ourselves to consciously process it, and then we need to analyze it to get a clear idea of what it is. If you don't do one of the two, you wont be able to understand it.
    I'd like some elaboration on how Thinking analyzes emotion before I respond to this.

    Ask me specific questions. Its inconvenient for me to re-explain my views in entirety again.
    I shall then.

    How is it possible to organize ideas without using logic? Logic is the method of organization of all things, or the method of thought itself.
    Indeed. Thinking uses logic, but is not logic in itself. Feeling also uses logic, but is not logic in itself. Feeling notes the data, notes the emotional reaction to it, and labels the data accordingly. For a very rudimentary example:

    Data A is received.
    • If sad move to sad column.
    • If happy move to happy column.


    Is this not logical?

    If its unknown, you're not in the position to assert that it is true. That is just like me saying that it is an unknown that Johns is a thief and I know that Johns is a thief.
    It's known the effects, its unknown the cause. This is true of essentially everything. For example, how the universe came into existence.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

Similar Threads

  1. How current are your current events?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-09-2017, 01:49 AM
  2. How strong are your functions?
    By Stansmith in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-01-2013, 05:04 PM
  3. [Fe] What are your "values"?
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 12:42 AM
  4. [MBTItm] INFJs-how developed are your 'sensing' skills
    By karenk in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-03-2008, 12:45 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