User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 95

  1. #71
    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 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.
    Distinguished sir, cite specifically what claims of others I am not addressing what points of mine you think I need to support. If you do that, I would be more than happy to address your concerns.

    However, since you have not done this yet, your charges are illegitimate.

    (I do see however, how it may seem to the reader that I avoid certain claims or don't back up some of my own. I avoid discussing some ideas because I deem them as irrelevant to my inquiry, and I avoid some justifications that a reader may deem necessary because I also deem such justifications as irrelevant to what I have to say. There likely will be disagreements with regard to what is relevant and what is not. The very definition of relevance is simply what relates to the current point being made. You, Costrin and I seem to be concerned with different ideas. So what may well be irrelevant to my ideas could be very relevant to yours and Costrin's. For this reason you may easily think that I am ignoring claims that need to be addressed or not making justificatory claims that need to be made.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    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*

    The first time I quoted you ( I quoted this symbol and a few symbols right before it (*[/QUOTE]). Technically I should have quoted this symbol alone ([/QUOTE]), yet by mistake I included the symbols before it. )
    "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. #72
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Interesting.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  3. #73
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Distinguished sir, cite specifically what claims of others I am not addressing what points of mine you think I need to support. If you do that, I would be more than happy to address your concerns.

    However, since you have not done this yet, your charges are illegitimate.
    I don't want to say what I think is wrong. In the end I will get a halfway satisfying response, then I will ask another question, get another halfway satisfying response. You will also get a halfway satisfying response whenever someone quotes one of your questions. It's nice and pointless.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  4. #74
    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 don't want to say what I think is wrong. In the end I will get a halfway satisfying response, then I will ask another question, get another halfway satisfying response. You will also get a halfway satisfying response whenever someone quotes one of your questions. It's nice and pointless.
    I think this problem could be solved by both parties striving to communicate as clearly as possible. That is indeed very difficult as complex ideas are often difficult to describe clearly as language offers very direct and concrete symbols for ideas which in themselves are highly abstract.

    Its very rewarding in the end because discoveries are made as a result which means we all get closer to knowing the truth.
    "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/

  5. #75
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    I've never witnessed my own values change.

    When I 'change my mind', as the saying goes, it's due to realising that I can better serve my values acting in a different way.

    I started off life not knowing what my own values were, then, as I slowly learnt why I behaved like I did, I realised one core value is driving all others.

    I realised this core value effectively created all the other values it overrides, and any value that overrides another in a situation has been better proved to serve the 'master' value, than the one it overrides. Of course, sometimes this is false due to flawed reasoning on my part, or instincts interfering.

    As I got closer and closer to discovering what this core value was, I was better able to make decisions that 'served' my values, including re-evaluating (changing) lesser values to better 'serve'.

    Despite this, the reason for my solid answer above is that it is not infact my values that are changing in that case, merely flawed reasoning that a certain rule would 'serve' my only actual value.

    Constant experience, analysis, and evaluation of this value system is what I see as Fi. It's essentially an 'image' of existence that's always with me. The image may change, but the projector remains the same.

    It seems more an interpretation of the universe than an explaination. It could be though, I guess.

    EDIT: It's strange that Fi seems so distanced from the outside world. It's probably a defence mechanism to stop one from becoming distracted away from the main value/s that drives oneself. Maybe it helps one feel values intensely during a crisis or extreme situation, where alien sensations flood the mind and lead to distraction.

    EDIT2: Hmm, I made this post about 5 months ago:-

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Scientific laws are an idealisation of reality. A seperate image that can be used to describe what is going on in the world. They aren't the world though. (Chicken or egg there but meh.)

    Fi is of the same nature, it is an idea version of reality. A seperate image that can used to relate to what is going on in the world.

    Fi is normally values and empathy. Both of which are images made from the world. However, Fi is difficult to describe since language isn't really used for the same purpose as Fi is. Art has always been a better form of expressing it (Fi is of archetypal nature so you can't see it, only the result of it clearly, which is often shown through art). If you want to express it through language, an intersubjective experience of the matter is needed. Like describing red to a blind person, they need to have seen it first. Art can help someone else see it first, I guess.

    It's most commonly used to home in on what's important in a situation to persons or things.

    It's technically Fi that creates the image of the world, and is not the image itself. It is a function after all, not a result.

    The image is a feeling, not necessarily an emotion. It's more about the feeling of happiness than the happiness itself, and happiness is a feeling the same as touching your arm is one.

    Fi: Constructing an image of the world based on feelings or constructing an image of the world made out of feelings.

    I tried.
    It might be consistent with this post. It's probably missing feelings and images being manipulated by values and vice versa. The images and feelings probably are the values. I wonder how much of Fi is values anyway? Hmm.

  6. #76
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    Nice. The more people that post, the more understanding will be had. I can relate to what you said erm it makes a good amount of sense to me. You just had to put it into words.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  7. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    What is the point of talking about Fi only? It functions based on the Extroverted Perception function backing it. I mean sure, someone who just uses Fi will be totally illogical. Anyone who just used one function would be illogical.
    It's fun to talk endlessly about abstract concepts. That's the point. It's fun.

    You don't need thinking. Fi and Se will suffice.
    My values don't change much.




    wolfy smashing stereotypes since '70

  8. #78
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Most IFPs rely very heavily on Fi and rely little on Thinking ... Hence, the values of most Fi people are malleable.
    You make conclusions but provide no evidence in order to support statements such as these. Have you personally studied Fi dominant groups or individuals? How do you know these values are as "malleable" as you claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I would agree that Fi has some kind of a foundation.
    It is fascinating that you find a way to back-hand Fi continually with the written word. Is it a function you personally disdain or fear?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    What is light? Why is Fi light?
    This was a metaphor to help you grasp a concept. And you know it.

    .........................

    SolitaryWalker, I do admire your tenacious discourse, but when I read your posts I continually do this in my mind on your behalf:

    If you want people to grasp your methodologies, it would be a benefit to minimize the combative use of point - counterpoint techniques to defend them.

    And, dare I say, your posts can come across with a smack of arrogance that most will find difficult to ignore, and this is a shame because you have much to offer.

    What I humbly offer is the following advice - try to truly listen, to "hear", and then extrapolate from what others have to say, build on it instead of feeling a need to tear it down. Dare I say you don't have it all down pat yourself. And if you are concerned with technical accuracy, it can only behoove you to do so.

  9. #79
    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
    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.
    I agree with this.

    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.
    This contradicts what you said previously:

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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.
    You said that Feeling was responsible for receiving the information.

    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.
    If you honestly cannot see the difference, then I'm not sure what to say. Consider this though: Is seeing an emotion? Touching your keyboard? The sound from your feet hitting the ground? The taste of your food and smell of your food? All physical pain is, is your sense of touch, but emphasized.

    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.
    You previously stated that the majority of people heavily use their dominant functions to the point where they would look like like someone who only uses that function:
    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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.
    However, you also state that both Feeling and Thinking are required for the most rudimentary of tasks:
    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    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.
    So the majority of people would be nearly non-functional?

    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.
    What do you mean by "deeply"?

    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.)
    And if reworded, you get something like this:
    The dog saw two paths, determined that it was true that the object is down one of those paths. When the dog went down path A and did not find the object, the dog determined that it was true that the object must be down path B.

    Plus (I assume) dogs do not Thinking or Feeling or other cognitive processes. Does this not show it is possible to apply logic without the use of Thinking?

    How, in principle could Feeling (the cognitive tendency to process emotion) do this?
    It has a model. It is a logical model (logic is not solely the realm of Thinking).
    In this model, information is connected together. Among the information connected together is the emotional reaction experienced to it. So when new information is received, it judges what kind of information it is, and then judges the emotional reaction previously experienced to this kind of information. This new information is then assimilated into the model.

    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.
    So essentially you are saying that the majority IFPs are either lying or mistaken. I argue that IFPs do use logical analysis, just in a slightly different manner and with different information than Ts.

    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.
    Lets go back to this example I provided earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Data A is received.
    • If sad move to sad column.
    • If happy move to happy column.
    That is a logical judgment. You agreed to this. Our disagreement lies in that you think that all use of logic must come from Thinking. Yet here you state that one's personal circumstances are irrelevant to logic.

    I think that personal circumstances are alogical. They are just another piece of data, which is then used in a logical process.

    If one's goal is to be happy, and it has been determined that during X circumstances one is happy, then it is logical to conclude that X circumstances are the cause of your happiness. And furthermore, that one should set up X circumstances to become happy in the future.

    You would say of course that that is Thinking in action, and not feeling. I then point to the dog example. The dog does not have Thinking, and yet is capable of making logical decisions. Thinking != logic.

    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.
    First, why are you making up quotes of me?

    Second, what do you propose is a better way of understanding cognitive processes? Clearly personal introspection at best can only give you an idea of those cognitive processes that one posses.

    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)
    Please define "inspired by the internal/external world".

    Feelers certainly can, that is, if they use their Thinking function.
    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Inevitably, Feeling is to some degree related to logic, but ipso facto does not lead to logic directly as Thinking does.
    Then please elaborate on what you meant by "related to logic".

    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.
    So contemplation is not entirely the realm of Thinking.

    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.
    So you assert that Feelers will believe whatever random new idea comes up?
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  10. #80
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    SolitaryWalker has posted a lot before (though well hidden) about his disdain and disrespect of feelers, especially INFPs. He even made a post about it. That would explain your question PeaceBaby.
    () 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