User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 95

  1. #61
    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
    Is it not a possibility that Jung could be wrong and MBTI right?.
    Its not possible because they don't contradict each other. Jung is concerned with the laws of the human mind, MBTI with personalities.







    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Feeling is distinct from Thinking, agreed. However, I disagree with your definitions of Feeling and Thinking, as I've previously posted.?.
    In that case we are not talking about the same thing. What I am talking about is the tendency to process emotion and the tendency to reason dispassionately. This is my, Neo-Jungian working definition of these cognitive faculties.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    I'd like some elaboration on how Thinking analyzes emotion before I respond to this..?.
    I get pinched. A stimulus is fed into my mind (Feeling), my mind recognizes the stimulus on some level (Thinking), and hence because I have become aware of the stimulus, I now process it.

    Hence, Thinking analyzes emotion on a deeply unconscious level. Your mind is conditioned to associate certain stimuli with certain mindstates, if you get pinched, you immediately associate it with pain. Yet someone who's body is numb, does not respond to such a stimulus.

    For the sake of another example, when somebody tells you a dramatic story, your mind processes these ideas on an unconscious level. For instance, suppose someone said your mother died in a car accident. In order for you to experience the emotion of angst associated with her death you need to understand the fact of her death. This requires dispassionate judgment, or the cognitive activity which simply recognizes ideas devoid of any emotional implications. This is an instance of Thinking analyzing emotion.

    For the sake of the third example, consider the following. When somebody asks you how you feel, you need to reflect on how you mind-state to be able to tell them. That is where analysis comes in, or dispassionate contemplation of your mind-state. If you did not engage in the dispassionate contemplation of your mind-state and simply emote, you would just groan or giggle. But then again, in order to groan or giggle in response to such a question you must dispassionately identify the question, this presupposes the use of Thinking.

    Hence, it is simply not possible to understand emotion without engaging in dispassionate contemplation of emotion to some degree at least.








    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Indeed. Thinking uses logic, but is not logic in itself. ..?.
    Thinking is simply an unconscious disposition to engage in dispassionate contemplation. This in itself is not the use of logic, but only a tendency to use logic. Dispassionate contemplation is use of logic itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    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:..?.
    Inevitably, Feeling is to some degree related to logic, but ipso facto does not lead to logic directly as Thinking does. Note, when you get pinched, your mind works in such a way that you cannot help but wonder what it is that pinched you. When you do this, you inevitably engage in dispassionate contemplation.

    What this shows is not that Feeling uses logic, but that functions are intimately intertwined. Feeling in itself is merely a tendency to process emotion. Thinking is a tendency to contemplate dispassionately. Thinking has a distinct tendency to use logic, yet Feeling only a subtle one. Thinking directly leads one to use logic, Feeling only indirectly so and at the price of self-sacrifice. Feeling (note the getting pinched example) may inspire one to think about the causes of one's situation, however because Thinking is dispassionate, it causes for Feeling to diminish. As for example, it is quite natural for us to be led to have our emotions cool down when we sit down to seriously contemplate something.


    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Data A is received.
    • If sad move to sad column.
    • If happy move to happy column.
    :..?.
    Yes, but it is Thinking that is concerned with such organization because recognizing something as either happy or sad requires dispassionate contemplation. It is feeling however that allows for us to have the data that could be recognized as either happy or sad to begin with. Feeling only offers potential for such judgments, it is the Thinking that performs the judgment in itself.

    Is this not logical?



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    It's known the effects, its unknown the cause. This is true of essentially everything. For example, how the universe came into existence.

    You could argue that Feeling motivates us to do all things. For instance, even when I use thinking or work through an intellectual problem, I only have the ambition to do so because it feels positive to me. However, the feeling in itself does not get me the answer to my problem, only gives me the fuel to move further. It seems inconceivable to me that the mere tendency to process emotion is what grants one knowledge of a solution with regard to a difficult problem.

    *Note how I have defined Feeling and Thinking above.*

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    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?


    At the end of the day we study MBTI to better understand reality of human nature. MBTI is means to the end, not an end in itself. Hence, I have offered a method that is superior to MBTI which shall conduce to us arriving at our foremost objective.


    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    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.?
    What we are talking about here is one specific explanation for why something is, not the fact that something is. So I know that X exists, but I dont know the explanation for why X exists. Hence, I cannot assert that Y is the explanation for the existence of X.
    "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/

  2. #62
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    Yawn.

    I could go on and on. Neither of our opinions are correct to the other, so therefore arguing is futile. We obviously see things in a different light. What is interesting about this fact is that things will always work one way, yet we see in two different lights.

    I'm done with this thread I believe (for now, until I see something worth responding to).

    *observes*
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  3. #63
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Note: I was really tired while making this post. This may effect the quality.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Its not possible because they don't contradict each other. Jung is concerned with the laws of the human mind, MBTI with personalities.
    I don't understand this statement. It's not possible that only one of them is true because they don't contradict?

    In that case we are not talking about the same thing. What I am talking about is the tendency to process emotion and the tendency to reason dispassionately. This is my, Neo-Jungian working definition of these cognitive faculties.
    That has become apparent that we are not talking about the same concepts. Your conglomeration of F and T and my Fi both do the same thing, so arguing which one is correct will likely prove difficult.

    I get pinched. A stimulus is fed into my mind (Feeling), my mind recognizes the stimulus on some level (Thinking), and hence because I have become aware of the stimulus, I now process it.
    Wouldn't that be Sensing?

    Hence, Thinking analyzes emotion on a deeply unconscious level. Your mind is conditioned to associate certain stimuli with certain mindstates, if you get pinched, you immediately associate it with pain. Yet someone who's body is numb, does not respond to such a stimulus.
    Physical pain is not an emotion.

    For the sake of another example, when somebody tells you a dramatic story, your mind processes these ideas on an unconscious level. For instance, suppose someone said your mother died in a car accident. In order for you to experience the emotion of angst associated with her death you need to understand the fact of her death. This requires dispassionate judgment, or the cognitive activity which simply recognizes ideas devoid of any emotional implications. This is an instance of Thinking analyzing emotion.
    Thinking is used to determine whether something is true or not, I can agree with this. However, this is not Thinking analyzing emotion, it is examining the factual accuracy of the statement. Feeling would judge the statement in comparison to its model. It might determine that your mom dying would make you feel bad, it might determine that the person is lying to try and hurt you, it might determine that your mom was a bitch and your glad shes dead.

    For the sake of the third example, consider the following. When somebody asks you how you feel, you need to reflect on how you mind-state to be able to tell them. That is where analysis comes in, or dispassionate contemplation of your mind-state. If you did not engage in the dispassionate contemplation of your mind-state and simply emote, you would just groan or giggle. But then again, in order to groan or giggle in response to such a question you must dispassionately identify the question, this presupposes the use of Thinking.

    Hence, it is simply not possible to understand emotion without engaging in dispassionate contemplation of emotion to some degree at least.
    Actually, Fi users seem to pretty much know how they feel, and they aren't just emoting it, especially IFPs. I think you may be projecting your need to analyze to figure out your emotions onto others.

    Thinking is simply an unconscious disposition to engage in dispassionate contemplation. This in itself is not the use of logic, but only a tendency to use logic. Dispassionate contemplation is use of logic itself.
    Te does not engage in dispassionate contemplation. This is apparent from the behaviour of ETJs. Furthermore, how is dispassionate contemplation a use of logic?

    Inevitably, Feeling is to some degree related to logic, but ipso facto does not lead to logic directly as Thinking does.
    So you admit Feeling can use logic?

    Note, when you get pinched, your mind works in such a way that you cannot help but wonder what it is that pinched you. When you do this, you inevitably engage in dispassionate contemplation.
    Could not your contemplation be emotionally motivated, perhaps by a feeling of anger and revenge?

    What this shows is not that Feeling uses logic, but that functions are intimately intertwined. Feeling in itself is merely a tendency to process emotion. Thinking is a tendency to contemplate dispassionately. Thinking has a distinct tendency to use logic, yet Feeling only a subtle one. Thinking directly leads one to use logic, Feeling only indirectly so and at the price of self-sacrifice. Feeling (note the getting pinched example) may inspire one to think about the causes of one's situation, however because Thinking is dispassionate, it causes for Feeling to diminish. As for example, it is quite natural for us to be led to have our emotions cool down when we sit down to seriously contemplate something.
    Relevant anecdote: I have been talking with BlackCat, and he commented that he listens to music in order to get himself emotionally charged up for a debate.

    Yes, but it is Thinking that is concerned with such organization because recognizing something as either happy or sad requires dispassionate contemplation. It is feeling however that allows for us to have the data that could be recognized as either happy or sad to begin with. Feeling only offers potential for such judgments, it is the Thinking that performs the judgment in itself.

    Is this not logical?
    This would indeed be logical, assuming the premises were true.

    You could argue that Feeling motivates us to do all things. For instance, even when I use thinking or work through an intellectual problem, I only have the ambition to do so because it feels positive to me. However, the feeling in itself does not get me the answer to my problem, only gives me the fuel to move further. It seems inconceivable to me that the mere tendency to process emotion is what grants one knowledge of a solution with regard to a difficult problem.

    *Note how I have defined Feeling and Thinking above.*
    Clearly we need to get this definition problem resolved.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  4. #64

    Default

    Maybe we should get types to list their thinking steps on various tasks in a thread. To see the difference in approach.

    If we start looking at the problem from a brain perspective rather than a social perspective it will help also. Different parts of the brain may be favoured by different types. Strong Se might have increased sensory ability or focus (ISTP sister is amazing at night). Others might be stronger through the memory part of their brain. etc. Maybe feeling runs more through whatever part works in that way.
    Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

  5. #65
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    That's a good idea. And I'll try not to be random
    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]

  6. #66
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    One of the tasks should be putting together a piece of furniture from Ikea (theoretically). I'd really like to know does any one manage to have any spare parts left over or a part missing?
    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]

  7. #67
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    How is it possible to construct a model of the universe without using logic?
    Use lots of fuzzy rainbows.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  8. #68
    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
    I don't understand this statement. It's not possible that only one of them is true because they don't contradict?.
    You're right,I should have been more careful. Suppose X is writing about mathematics and Z is writing about anthropology. Their ideas are unrelated to each other, yet it is possible that one of them is right and the other is wrong.

    The point I wished to make was that the correctness of one has no bearing upon the correctness or the incorrectness of the other. It could be the case that MBTI theory is right and Jung's theory is wrong, but if that is the case the correctness of MBTI theory would have nothing to do with the incorrectness of Jung's views.











    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Wouldn't that be Sensing??.
    Part of it would be Sensing. The part I have in mind is the following; simply the physical activity of my receiving the pinch (this is where I Sense, or exercise my Sense of touch, more specifically being touched). However, the emotion reaction that follows will be a result of Feeling as Feeling is the cognitive facutly that enables us to process emotion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Physical pain is not an emotion.
    If that is true than pain is not an emotion. (What I experienced when I get cut with a knife). I do not see any reason to regard this physiological reaction as not an emotion. One may say that the real 'emotion' is a result of some psychological occurence, for instance my reaction to the news that somebody close to me has died. I would experience pain as a result of this. However, the intrinsic make up of such a reaction is pain. The fact that it is a result of some psychological process and not a physical one is not relevant. Or quite simply, the main difference between psychological pain and physical pain is in the origin of such a mindstate, and not in the intrinsic make up of such a state.




    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Thinking is used to determine whether something is true or not, I can agree with this..
    Noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    However, this is not Thinking analyzing emotion, it is examining the factual accuracy of the statement...
    Thinking is the activity of dispassionate contemplation. Regarding statements as either true or false is only one of the functions of Thinking, yet not the only. Thinking also works on an unconscious level. We are always engaged in the process of putting our perceptions together (this is why we easily regard a chair as a chair and not merely an object of disconnected set of properties). At this point I merely wish to point out that our mind engages in dispassioante contemplation that is both conscious and unconscious, for this reason it is a mistake to regard dispassionate contemplation (Thinking) as a cognitive process that is concerned only consciously distinguishing true statements from false ones.

    Here is another example with regard to us Thinking on an unconscious level in an endeavor to figure things out. Suppose you are in a crowded airport. You notice your bag is missing. You look down and see its not there, your natural instinct is to look to the left and right, to go around the airport once more. (You have hunches that this is what you should do without having thought things through.) This shows that our mind, on a deeply unconscious level is doing elementary logic. Simply if not A, then B or C or D.

    Even when a dog is commanded to find a hidden object and arrives at a point where it could take either path A or path B. It goes down path A and does not find the object. Hence, it concludes that it should go down path B. This shows that a dog, on a basic level performs elementary logic. (On an unconscious level as a dog is not capable of consciously and coherently performing logical reasoning or distinguishing true statements from false statements). (The dog must have been doing logical reasoning on a basic level because it could not have been following instincts to change its course so radically. After it has gone down path B, it has already lost the scent of the object. Hence, it must engage in some kind of basic contemplation to figure out where the object may be.)



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Feeling would judge the statement in comparison to its model....
    How, in principle could Feeling (the cognitive tendency to process emotion) do this?

    It might determine that your mom dying would make you feel bad, it might determine that the person is lying to try and hurt you, it might determine that your mom was a bitch and your glad shes dead.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Actually, Fi users seem to pretty much know how they feel, and they aren't just emoting it, especially IFPs. I think you may be projecting your need to analyze to figure out your emotions onto others.....

    They assert that they know how they feel. Yet, unless you are their psychotherapist (or one who has studied them thoroughly) you cannot know if their assertion is true. I argue that an understanding of all complex things requires logical analysis. IFPs struggle at this. You need to make an argument for why they do not.




    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Te does not engage in dispassionate contemplation. This is apparent from the behaviour of ETJs. Furthermore, how is dispassionate contemplation a use of logic?.....
    Logic is the study of proper relations of ideas. An example of this is as follows, if A then B. A , therefore B. One's personal circumstances are not relevant to logic. The above process of reasoning is one of contemplation, and because it is not concerned with personal circumstances of an individual, it is dispassionate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    How is it apparent that Te does not engage in dispassionate contemplation?.

    Observing ordinary people is not a reliable way to understand how cognitive processes work. Cognitive processes, in essence, are concerned with how one's mind works. People (for example Te users) often do not get a chance to behave in accordance to their true nature. For instance, ETJs at a party or a business organization cannot be true to their nature or to analyze the world as their environment forces them to engage in less dispassionate activities.

    What about the ETJs who were able to be true to their nature? How about business CEOs or military leaders? There they were simply able to analyze their external environment in a dispassionate manner as well as to apply their ideas to the external world.

    The definition of Te is as follows, an unconscious cognitive disposition towards dispassionate contemplation which is most easily inspired by the external world. Hence, if one has Te as their dominant type their primary cognitive tendency is that of contemplation, and such contemplation is inspired most easily by the external world. (A Ti dominant type, on the other hand, is most easily inspired to contemplate by the inner life. Hence, the INTP (Ti dominant) is highly represented in logic oriented academic disciplines such as Mathematics, the Exact Sciences and Philosophy. A Te dominant type is highly represented in disciplines where logical analysis of ideas could be easily applied to the external world such as business or military)


    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    So you admit Feeling can use logic?
    Feelers certainly can, that is, if they use their Thinking function.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Could not your contemplation be emotionally motivated, perhaps by a feeling of anger and revenge?

    That would be the case if Feeling took primacy over Thinking for me. This is quite rare for a dominant Thinking type (as his disposition is such that it is much easier to be motivated by Thinking rather than Feeling), but not impossible.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Relevant anecdote: I have been talking with BlackCat, and he commented that he listens to music in order to get himself emotionally charged up for a debate.
    Its quite common for a Feeler because a Feeler's disposition is such that it is easier to be motivated by emotion than by the idea of dispassionate contemplation. In the case of a Feeler it is easier to do something because of how one feels (as you mention for example doing something out of revenge or indignation), yet for a Thinker, it is easier to be motivated to do something due to some objective justification.

    For the sake of further clarity, consider the following. Believing in an idea consists of the following, the thought that an idea is true and positive sentiments attached to that thought. When a Feeler believes in a proposition they easily regard a proposition as true (often without much careful investigation into the question of whether it really is true), and easily attaches a positive sentiment to such an idea. Yet a Thinker would be more likely to believe in a proposition after he sees some objective reason to do so, and only then he will accrue a positive sentiment to such an idea.

    *Note, the above paragraph assumes that in the given instance the persons have the liberty to be true to their type.


    Quote Originally Posted by noigmn View Post
    Maybe we should get types to list their thinking steps on various tasks in a thread. To see the difference in approach.

    If we start looking at the problem from a brain perspective rather than a social perspective it will help also. Different parts of the brain may be favoured by different types. Strong Se might have increased sensory ability or focus (ISTP sister is amazing at night). Others might be stronger through the memory part of their brain. etc. Maybe feeling runs more through whatever part works in that way.

    This certainly would be an interesting activity to conduct when neuroscience matures. This way we will be able to find empirical evidence with regard to the existence of our cognitive dispositions and the way they function. Unfortunately, at this point, neuroscience is not advanced enough.
    "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/

  9. #69
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Ok, this has been bothering for quite a while. Why are you putting random smileys, question marks, periods after my sentences when you quote them in your posts?

    *will reply in a more serious manner to your post later*
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  10. #70
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    I fully understand why every thread dies which SolitaryWalker debates in now lol. It seems like you are avoiding backing up certain things and missing a lot of the points trying to be conveyed, yet you do so in a very stylish way that includes a lot of words (a lot being fancy), making your side seem pretty believable. Once again there is disagreement across the board and misunderstanding across the board. It's a never ending process until one person decides they are bored trying to get their point across, which will never happen. You need a mediator to reach into SW's and Costrin's minds and have this person write down their different opinions in order to solve this, and since that can't happen this will never get resolved.

    But it's always fun watching stuff like this, because you know it will come to it's demise as another useless argument over the internet.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

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