User Tag List

First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 95

  1. #81
    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 FireyPheonix View Post
    As a "feeler", I can assure you that last statement is not true. I don't just accept something because it makes me feel good. It doesn't work like that.
    It works like that to SW, and he will go out of his way to make sure it's logical and makes sense, and will deny any real proof (aka Fi users) aside from his own. We have spoken, you have not said anything back really aside from things that don't make sense or things that aren't true to how we work.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  2. #82
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    So you assert that Feelers will believe whatever random new idea comes up?
    As a "feeler", I can assure you that last statement is not true. I don't just accept something because it makes me feel good. It doesn't work like that.
    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. #83
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    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?.

    If you think that I did not support my claims, you simply misunderstood my posts. You need to go back and re-read them. If you still have problems ask specific questions and I'll be glad to answer them. No, I have not studied Fi individuals. Remember, Fi is not a personality notion, it is a cognitive tendency. In principle, the study of Fi can be conducted without empirical investigation.



    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    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.
    There is no combative use of point. Just healthy criticism of ideas which is necessary for a thorough and incisive inquiry.
    "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. #84
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    It works like that to SW, and he will go out of his way to make sure it's logical and makes sense, and will deny any real proof (aka Fi users) aside from his own. We have spoken, you have not said anything back really aside from things that don't make sense or things that aren't true to how we work.
    I know that well enough I've had run-ins with him before (hasn't most INFP's?)
    I still can't resist responding, when he says something that's blatantly not true.

    He just can't resist being around us
    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]

  5. #85
    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 FireyPheonix View Post
    He just can't resist being around us
    Maybe he's trying to tell us something.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  6. #86
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    Maybe he's trying to tell us something.
    That we actually kinda hard to figure out? We'er kinda mysterious to him?
    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. #87
    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 agree with this.



    This contradicts what you said previously:?

    You said that Feeling was responsible for receiving the information.


    No, it does not. I maintained that Feeling is one function that perceives information. I did not state that it is the only one.







    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    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.

    Not all sensations entail emotions directly. Getting pinched is one that does, seeing something is one that does not.




    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    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:However, you also state that both Feeling and Thinking are required for the most rudimentary of tasks:
    Surely, I use my dominant Thinking function a lot, however much I use it though, I must use Feeling to some extent. (As Thinking without feeling is not possible.

    Where is the contradiction. I state that we use all functions, yet we heavily rely on our dominant and rely little on our inferior. It would be a contradiction if I said that we do not rely on the inferior at all.




    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    So the majority of people would be nearly non-functional?:
    Explain how you derived this thesis.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    What do you mean by "deeply"?
    Significantly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    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.
    Correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    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?.
    Why do you assume that?



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    It has a model. It is a logical model (logic is not solely the realm of Thinking). ?.
    Why is that? You made the claim, the onus is on you to support it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    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.?.
    How is it possible to construct such a model without using logic? Again, how could there be non-logical thinking?


    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    It So essentially you are saying that the majority IFPs are either lying or mistaken..?.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    I argue that IFPs do use logical analysis, just in a slightly different manner and with different information than Ts. ..?.
    Okay, that is the conclusion. Where are your premises? There is only one way to reason. That is deductively validly. Whoever doesn't reason in this manner is simply making mistakes. That is the case with IFPs. (For reasons mentioned earlier)






    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    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...?.
    The dog does have Thinking, just on a much more primitive level than we do.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    First, why are you making up quotes of me?
    Where am I doing that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    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.?
    There needs to be a more rigorous analysis of the data collected in introspection than what you seem to have in mind.



    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Please define "inspired by the internal/external world"..?
    Example of what is inspired by the external world.

    X happened right in front of me. I was compelled by X to do Z.

    Example of what is inspired by the internal world.

    X happened in the external world, I thought about X, and have come up with the idea of Z based on my own thoughts and not circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    So contemplation is not entirely the realm of Thinking.
    I maintained that contemplation can be done by Feelers, yet I did not claim that contemplation is done by Feeling.
    "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. #88
    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
    No, it does not. I maintained that Feeling is one function that perceives information. I did not state that it is the only one.
    Does Thinking also perceive information?

    Not all sensations entail emotions directly. Getting pinched is one that does, seeing something is one that does not.
    What is the difference?

    Surely, I use my dominant Thinking function a lot, however much I use it though, I must use Feeling to some extent. (As Thinking without feeling is not possible.

    Where is the contradiction. I state that we use all functions, yet we heavily rely on our dominant and rely little on our inferior. It would be a contradiction if I said that we do not rely on the inferior at all.
    You said that most people operate as if they only used their dominant function.

    Explain how you derived this thesis.
    You need both perceiving and judging in order to act. If the majority of people lack one of those, they would not be able to act.


    Significantly.
    Define "significantly". How is deeply or significantly unconscious different from unconscious?

    Why do you assume that?
    Good question. Assuming makes an ass out of u and me.

    Why is that? You made the claim, the onus is on you to support it.
    I have been.

    How is it possible to construct such a model without using logic? Again, how could there be non-logical thinking?
    It isn't possible. That's why I am saying that Feeling uses logic.

    Okay, that is the conclusion. Where are your premises? There is only one way to reason. That is deductively validly. Whoever doesn't reason in this manner is simply making mistakes. That is the case with IFPs. (For reasons mentioned earlier)
    You didn't respond to this part of my post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    So essentially you are saying that the majority IFPs are either lying or mistaken.
    Do you accept or deny this?

    My premises are the words and actions of IFPs saying they do this. You seem to deny the truth of their words, though.

    The dog does have Thinking, just on a much more primitive level than we do.
    Well, I honestly don't know very much about the psyche of dogs, so if you could provide evidence for this, then I likely won't object.

    Where am I doing that.
    You quoted me as saying this:

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

    There needs to be a more rigorous analysis of the data collected in introspection than what you seem to have in mind.
    Please elaborate.

    Example of what is inspired by the external world.

    X happened right in front of me. I was compelled by X to do Z.

    Example of what is inspired by the internal world.

    X happened in the external world, I thought about X, and have come up with the idea of Z based on my own thoughts and not circumstances.
    I'm a little fuzzy on that last example, could you elaborate?

    I maintained that contemplation can be done by Feelers, yet I did not claim that contemplation is done by Feeling.
    Ok. So contemplation is an uncommon activity for dominant Feelers?

    You also ignored this part of my post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    So you assert that Feelers will believe whatever random new idea comes up?
    Do you believe this to be true or not?

    Also, could you provide an example of what you think a dominant Feeler's though process would look like, and the difference between a dominant Thinker's.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  9. #89
    Feelin' FiNe speculative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    LoL
    Posts
    929

    Default

    I now better understand Solitary Walker's modus operandi. Only his definitions are correct in the world, no one else's are if they happen to disagree with his, because by definition only Solitary Walker has provided the best reasoning for his definitions. And even if you agreed with SW's definitions, you cannot possibly reason as well as him, so your definitions or reasoning are still not as correct as his, even if you arrived at the same conclusion.

    If he asks you to show him how his definitions or reasoning are invalid and you try to do so, you have already failed before you begin the attempt. Because, if you disagree with him you are wrong, as his logic is the best. (This is by definition, and remember, SW chooses the definition and his are always correct because he has defined that by using reason which he has also defined, and so-on in a never-ending cycle of definitions all of which are only correct if they originate from SW and not from another, as no other human in the world is as valid as SW.) If you tried to discuss this with him, he would try (in vain) to strip ego from the conversation and say that of course his reasoning is the best because it is the more reasoned than the other reasoning on the forum. Why is it more reasoned? Well, SW himself is the arbiter, apparently, of that as only his definitions are valid, or are the most valid even if others arrive at the same conclusions through another method. This has already been admitted by SW himself, as he has stated his definitions are better than the MBTI definitions. So, really, anything anyone says on this forum is invalid because it does not follow SW's logic and reasoning but instead uses MBTI models.

    This is pretty plain for us to see, so why are we still wasting time on this? In short, the only one who could point out an error in SW's ways is SW, because only his definitions and only his reasoning are correct, and that is by definition, and SW is the arbiter of all definitions and reasoning. Again, he would try to strip away ego from the situation by saying, well prove me wrong then. But, you could only prove SW wrong by using logic that follows SW's definitions and reasoning. So, what I see is someone trapped inside themselves. SW can never truly interface with the rest of us because he cannot accept that he could be incorrect and another could be correct. So, there is no possibility for understanding on his part. This is huge bait for us INFPs as we are helpers/healers and have been attempting a "recue" effort. But, there comes a time to realize when that rescue effort is not wanted nor warranted. Without change, there cannot be true understanding, and there is zero possibility for change in the world of SW as he is the sole arbiter of his world. In fact, I'm not even sure the rest of us exist unless SW has thought us up in his head... (And I thought us INFPs had a problem with living in our inner worlds! )
    "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. #90
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Wild speculative theory of amusingness:

    SW and Victor are the same, except opposite on the F/T axis.
    "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