User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 52

  1. #21
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Where did that zarc guy's post go?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I guess I meant, not that we can't access it, but that we can't really know if two perceiving functions can happen at the same time.
    Hmm... ya I guess.

    Yeah I don't like that whole area of the brain thing. I just don't buy it. If there's one theme to what I've learned as a cognitive science major, it that the brain is much much more complicated than that.
    Oh snap, I'm dealin' with someone who has actual learnin' in the area?

    Judging can change models in that it can throw out something or validate it. But it can't come up with something novel.
    I didn't mean to imply that. Judging doesn't create new ideas, it just replicates what it sees.

    It's not fast/slow...it's conscious/unconscious. Also, instinct is in the realm of sensing, it's not outside of cognitive functions.
    Mmk. One thing though, if Perceiving is unconscious, and Judging conscious, does that mean that a primary Perceiving type is... more unconscious than a primary Judging type or something?

    You're right. It does process the information. I shouldn't have left that out. Visual information hits the retinas, but it's still sensing until the time it's a three dimensional representation. Same with all senses. Once metaphor and analogy step in, though, it's intuition.
    Mmk.

    I just doubt anyone actually thinks true/false more than "this is important"/"this is not important". Feeling narrows down the possible things you have to think about. If Feeling didn't reign over thinking, we'd be wasting a shitload of time.
    Hmm... not sure about this. It doesn't feel this way for me. It seems as though for me that my Thinking is capable of rapidly comparing information to my model, and the majority of information I receive is already (not necessarily the exact information, but an equivalent) integrated into my model, so is efficiently deal with. I guess I'm saying that Judging (specifically Thinking in this case) is at least somewhat unconscious.

    I don't think they're paired in actuality. I just think they're useful to talk about together because any good idea has to have an extroverted counterpart and introverted counterpart, as well as a perceiving and a judging counterpart.
    Could you elaborate?
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Where did that zarc guy's post go?
    I had a momentary lapse of confidence. I had just thought up most of the ideas Iíd written and I hadnít given myself enough time to ascertain that it waz zall good. Still not sure but Iíll repost anyway. Soonish.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default ze Repost 1

    Iím going to take a stab at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    I think perceiving is actually pretty amorphous. You could claim that only one perceiving function happens at one time, but the whole point is that it's unconscious, meaning there is no way to access it. That's the reason these functions are called irrational. Because we can't really figure out what they're doing, we just know the inputs and outputs. I think Intuition and Sensing can, and have to happen simultaneously (in fact, I don't really think there's anything much different about them, other than an arbitrary label.) They depend on each other.
    It isnít that they are unconscious or that perceiving is considered irrational because of it. Theyíre considered irrational because they deal with oneís perception of reality (P) not interpretation of it (J). We become 'aware' of the information, or conscious, as it occurs to us. That's why it's irrational. Itís not about accessing it or lack thereof. We do know what theyíre doing, theyíre receiving information. Now, do we know what to do with it or how to use it? No, and thatís when J helps out when we choose to use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin
    Also, since you didn't address this, why does it happen that an introverted perceiving seems to get paired with an extroverted judging, and vice versa?
    Iím going to tackle this by first furthering what I meant about P/J:

    Receiving information (P) vs Processing information (J)

    Pi introjection/ internalizes and withholds what it receives
    Pe projection/ externalizes and releases what it receives
    Ji valuation/ sets the value (relative to self standards) of what it is processing
    Je evaluation/ determines the worth (relative to otherís standards) of what it is processing

    To explain in case this is misunderstood:
    Introjection is understood as taking in behaviors or attributes of people or fragments of the surrounding world and turning into them. Replace that with introjection Ďof ideasí or Ďof objectsí instead. The fusion isnít with people or direct objects but with the ideas or the ideas of objects. The action is within the self. By action, I do not mean making an act but of (inner) activity. Pi action is a one way affect.

    Projection is thought of as taking out behaviors or attributes of yourself onto people of your surrounding world. Replace that with projection Ďof ideasí or Ďof objectsí instead. The infusion isnít with people or direct objects but with the ideas or the ideas of objects. The interaction is outside the self. By interaction, I do not mean speaking with people but activity between ideas or objects. Pe interaction is a two-way effect.

    Valuation places an estimate on the value.

    Evaluation means to examine the worth.

    The last two seemed easiest to understand so I haven't written more just yet. Later.

    When paired:

    IJ: Pi internalizes what it receives and then Je determines the worth
    EP: Pe externalizes what it receives and then Ji sets the value
    IP: Ji sets the value of what it is processing and then Pe externalizes
    EJ: Je determines the worth of what it is processing and then Pi internalizes

    As for the 'why' of pairing... let's use INTP, Ji and Pe. Why not Ji and Pi? Let's try Si first.

    If Ti is constantly setting importance to a logical framework of its understanding how would it get new information in order to factor it in and continue? Si wouldn't give it anything new. It might even make an INTP paranoid because, while they're not able to get the necessary info they need through Ne, Si is just mounting up all the knowledge that they have but is meaningless in furthering their understanding. Ti would end up going over and over information with Si, causing nothing but mental frustration. (See Lenore's Tertiary Temptation for when an INTP seems 'put upon' when highly stressed, though you probably have).

    As for Ni, it would give a new meaning or give it a new point of view (even various points of the same view) but how useful is that to Ti? Ti has already determined what it wants, now it wants to further the frame, not change it's understanding of it. Both forms of Pi aren't needed immediately for Ti. Why not Se, it's Pe too, right? Well... for an INTP, they don't care much for Se because they'd have to mentally engage their physical environment and that's essentially useless information for what Ti wants. (But give Se information to an ISTP and they'd love it). Ne is most useful because it will interpret Ti's framework, giving it possible scenarios and connecting the relation of each new one from which Ti will set a value, discarding which seems improbable.

    Je and Ji? Ti doesn't need to create a shared objectivity based on external measures, it needs no structure or efficiency of its model or to determine the worth of it, as it still doesn't know how to further its blocks from which to keep building, so Te is useless. Same for Fe. Ji through Fi would confirm the value of how one feels about the framework, which is especially useless to Ti.

    Of course Si, Fe, or any other function will at various times be used but while an INTP's Ti is trying to figure something out, it's not necessary or vital to their existence at the time. Only Ne can further Ti's goal. That's why Ji pairs with Pe. It's also why the pairs not only exist but show how they work best together. Try it out with the rest of the types and you'll see it.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default 2

    Hmmmm. Evan, as for your un/conscious-ing of P/J. I've already said I think Perceiving functions are consciously accessed. But Iím guessing this next bit. If a perceiving function is conscious (Si) but paired with its similar perceiving function (Ni), then the other one becomes unconscious when accessed. So, it might work more along the lines of N being an unconscious perception for an S type while S is an unconscious perception for an N type.

    So, let me apply and rework that to this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    Anyway, back to introversion/extroversion...so...perceiving functions. Introversion of a perceiving function is like a feedback loop. The more introverted the P function, the more it focuses on the data that is relevant to the current unconscious process (and the less it focuses on ALL data). The more extroverted the P function, the less it cares about what it's doing and the more it picks up ALL information it possibly has access to. So Pi is hopelessly looped on itself, with absolutely no chance of getting out of its own confirmation bias (because it only sees what it wants). But Pe cares hopelessly much about every single piece of data in the world. A pure Pe couldn't think anything about his or herself. So the way it's set up, Pi (or, the half of the spectrum I refer to when I say that) is focused on depth at the cost of breadth. And vice versa.
    So that would apply to N only, the S being an unconscious perception. Ni tries to consciously filter through the information it needs which is now unconscious and stored (Si). Ni canít take hold of all of the information directly (shadow Si) so it tries to grasp at one. And so, when stuck, Pi only sees what it wants there to be -- because when the loop begins, Ni keeps furthering itself away from reality, entirely focused. Ne tries to consciously adapt through all of the information that is unconsciously present at the moment (Se). Ne canít keep hold of the information directly (shadow Se) as it keeps trying to grasp at more than one. When stuck, Pe only keeps on patterning what it's seeing. -- Ne keeps interpreting all scenarios aimlessly, becoming unfocused. When no longer stuck, both take from their unconscious (S) environments, whether internal or external, and create what seemed inconceivable (N).

    Now to apply it to S, the N being an unconscious perception. Si tries to consciously filter through relevant information that it has collected but it canít represent how that information was viewed now that itís become unconscious (shadow Ni). Unlike Ni, Si can keep track of the information but the problem lies in which representation was the right one (Ni). Conversely, when stuck, Pi only wants to see what it has seen -- because when the loop begins, Si is unable to remove itself from its familiar reality, entirely focused. Se tries to consciously adapt as situations occur but itís not filtering all of the unconscious possibilities that could be created (shadow Ne). Unlike Ne, Se can notice the change of information but it has a problem integrating the interpretation of patterns that are possible (Ne). When stuck, Pe only keeps experiencing what it's seeing. -- Se keeps adjusting to changes aimlessly, becoming unfocused. When no longer stuck, both take from their unconscious (N) environments, whether internal or external, and alter what is conceivable (S).

    Iím guessing thatís why Si/Ni and Se/Ne are so opposed to each other for IJs and EPs. I think similar perceiving functions, though possibly unconscious, are easier to access than the opposite perceiving function... which seem unavailable when we need them, never mind inaccessible.

    Ex. when opposite S/N Pe fuck with the IJs:
    -ISJ know what they want to say (Si) but may have trouble interpreting the relation of it (Ne) or seeing an alternate path of what's possible (Ne).
    -INJ know what they want to convey (Ni) but may have trouble figuring out the immediate context of words to explain it (Se) or adjusting their information so that it's accessible to what is available now (Se).

    Ex. when opposite S/N Pi fuck with the EPs:
    - ESP follows what it is experiencing (Se) but may have trouble understanding the likely effects (Ni) or a new way of conceptualizing their experiences (Ni).
    - ENP follows what it is interpreting (Ne) but may have trouble stabilizing the information into something recognisable (Si) or applying it to past accumulated data (Si).

    I hope you enjoyed my version, though it mostly is a huge guess on my part, but I doubt it'd have been inspired without what you'd written.

    --I'm well aware that using terms like "shadow" for an unused process will probably not go over so well but ignore that and focus on the info plz. kthx.

  5. #25
    Senior Mugwump Apollanaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    S - 5 senses data.
    N - Ideas.
    T - Objective Judging.
    F - Subjective Judging.
    Costrin, I think you've done an excellent description and analysis of the various type functions. There are just a few points where I think the terminology is muddling your definitions of the functions a little.

    I prefer the definitions of "objective" and "subjective" used by Carl Jung himself, as explained by Lenore Thomson in "Personality Type - An Owner's Manual". Here are some of my own attempts at definitions of the complex terminology used to describe the type functions:

    Objective relates to the object, as in something outside the subject. It is therefore a quality of all of the extraverted functions.

    Subjective relates to the subject, as in something personal to the subject. It is therefore a quality of all of the introverted functions.

    Perceiving functions are irrational, meaning that they are unpredictable and inconsistent (as is the nature of perceptions).

    Sensing is perception via the five senses, whether relating to external objects (Se) or internal images (Si).
    Intuition is perception via the unconscious, whether triggered by external objects (Ne) or internal images (Ni).

    Note: this does not mean that Ne and Ni themselves are unconscious, merely that they delve into the unconscious (both personal and collective) to make their perceptions.

    Judging functions are rational, meaning that they are predictable and consistent (as is the nature of judgements).

    Thinking is logical, meaning that it prefers to "step out" of a situation to provide impersonal judgments which exclude emotions.
    Feeling is value-based, meaning that it prefers to "step in" to a situation to provide personal judgments which include emotions.

    Hence:

    Se is objective, irrational and perceives via the senses.
    Ne is objective, irrational and perceives via the unconscious.

    Si is subjective, irrational and perceives via the senses.
    Ni is subjective, irrational and perceives via the unconscious.

    Te is objective, rational and logical.
    Fe is objective, rational and value-based.

    Ti is subjective, rational and logical.
    Fi is subjective, rational and value-based.

    I also believe that only one type function can be used at a time, but that we can rapidly switch between functions, making it seem that we are using more than one simultaneously. By "rapidly", I mean that we are capable of flipping between functions at a rate of several times per second!
    INFJ 9w1 sx/sp/so

    "A wizard is never late. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to." - Gandalf The Grey

    And if I only could,
    I'd make a deal with God,
    And I'd get him to swap our places,
    Be running up that road,
    Be running up that hill,
    With no problems.

    - Kate Bush

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apollanaut View Post
    Perceiving functions are irrational, meaning that they are unpredictable and inconsistent (as is the nature of perceptions).
    Perceptions are not unpredictable or inconsistent. If they were, P Doms would be in mental institutions. They wouldnít have a firm grasp on their version of reality or their perception of reality would always be unpredictable. (Thatís kinda cool to think about, actuallyÖ)

    Considering you mentioned Lenore's book (if you read the bits on Pi), I'm surprised. Taken from her wiki on Introverted Perception:

    p. 67: "Introverted Perception dictates an interest in represented experience--words, facts, numbers, signs, and symbols: the kind of data that can be acquired or explored in the mind."
    Introverted and Extraverted perception is able to change within their respective environments but that doesnít mean what was previously perceived was inconsistent to what is newly perceived. The understanding (Pi) or observation (Pe) of it changed. P Doms merely adapt to the change. And not all new perceptions cancel out the rest. If it still relates to the understanding or improves it, the new piece of information merely fits itself to their never ending puzzle.

    The outside world can seem unpredictable and inconsistent to Introverted Perceivers, to both Si and Ni Doms, and this is why they maintain a consistent one within their minds. Be sure, they will take in all new information but they arenít so easy to accept itís validity until after theyíve ruminated over and dissected it so that there either is congruence to what they understand or that it isnít wrong. Once theyíre certain all is sound, they adapt.

    More Wiki goodness:

    Perhaps what Lenore means by Introverted Perception is an attitude of putting things you experience into categories, where the categories are chosen on the basis of whatever seems to you to fit the things, without serving a predefined purpose or criterion.

    Taking an Si perspective, then, you simply find categories to put things in, and use these categories to build a rich network of mental associations that guide you to attend to the things that matter to you--to find those things in the midst of a predominantly overwhelming perceptual field.

    Taking an Ni perspective, you attend to the nature of whatever categories you come across: what they contain and what they leave out, what they assume about the context where they're applied, what (probably unstated) purposes are served by those categories, what cannot be said in terms of those categories (and that, if said, might unravel their power to seem real and meaningful).

    Si leads you to gradually accumulate a factual map of the world, or at least the parts of it that are of interest to you. Ni leads you to gradually accumulate an understanding of how different maps operate and to be able to compare the assumptions of different maps against each other.
    Intuition is perception via the unconscious, whether triggered by external objects (Ne) or internal objects (Ni).
    Intuition has nothing to do with the unconscious. If there is any sort of ďtriggering" by an external or internal object, tell me then, how is that not a form of being conscious of them? You're aware yet unconscious?

    Judging functions are rational, meaning that they are predictable and consistent (as is the nature of judgements).
    Iím thinking this is half right but I canít quite figure out what I think is wrong (if at all). So, hereís some quick take on it. Judgments, themselves, are not predictable and consistent. Judgments are liable to change but not after an examination of prior ones. There is a judgment on information which makes it easier for J Doms to move forward once itís been established.

    So yea, we may be in agreement lol

  7. #27
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zarc View Post
    Iím thinking this is half right but I canít quite figure out what I think is wrong (if at all). So, hereís some quick take on it. Judgments, themselves, are not predictable and consistent. Judgments are liable to change but not after an examination of prior ones. There is a judgment on information which makes it easier for J Doms to move forward once itís been established.

    So yea, we may be in agreement lol
    It's my opinion that Jung should not have had two words to name judgements.

    He had "judgement" and then he had "rational."
    In fact, he meant to use rational to describe them, but because he used a homespun definition of rational, it works just the same way as a name.

    Now what judgements are, their own entities. Each decision can be molded. That is, decisions are changed.

    Actually, Costrin has it backwards. It's the perceptions that don't change. What happens actually, is that when new perceptions come in that don't coalesce with the previous ones, one of them has to be thrown out. But they're not changed. Judgement decides which perceptions are good and which are faulty. But even still, those perceptions are still there, they're just usually ignored.

    Ultimately, what judgement boils down to are decisions.

    Anyway, a decision can change when new perceptions come in. Especially when gaps are filled.


    Anyway, by rational and irrational, jung more acutely meant conscious and unconscious, but even these aren't very good.
    we fukin won boys

  8. #28
    Senior Mugwump Apollanaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    550

    Default

    Zarc, by irrational I did not mean crazy! I just wanted to point out that perceptions do not follow the same rational laws and principles as judgements and are therefore difficult to predict in advance. Here's an alternative explanation from the same wiki: Rational and Irrational

    "a rational attitude is one that orients by laws, and an irrational attitude is one that simply takes each new thing independently. A rational attitude tends to derive its conclusions by applying laws or principles to irrational data. Its conclusions are always indirect: mediated by principle in some way. An irrational attitude lacks a derived aspect: what seems to be true via an irrational attitude simply seems to be true, with no possibility for doubt or explanation."

    I think we are actually on the same page here, I am in complete agreement with this:

    "Introverted and Extraverted perception is able to change within their respective environments but that doesnít mean what was previously perceived was inconsistent to what is newly perceived. The understanding (Pi) or observation (Pe) of it changed. P Doms merely adapt to the change. And not all new perceptions cancel out the rest. If it still relates to the understanding or improves it, the new piece of information merely fits itself to their never ending puzzle.

    The outside world can seem unpredictable and inconsistent to Introverted Perceivers, to both Si and Ni Doms, and this is why they maintain a consistent one within their minds. Be sure, they will take in all new information but they arenít so easy to accept itís validity until after theyíve ruminated over and dissected it so that there either is congruence to what they understand or that it isnít wrong. Once theyíre certain all is sound, they adapt."

    As for intuition, it does indeed rely on the unconscious mind. As I stated, it is usually triggered by an external object or an internal image, from which the unconscious mind generates an idea or thought (an "intuition") which itself becomes conscious. However, the person having the intuition may remain entirely unconscious of the original triggering factor. For example, my own intuition generates an unending stream of thoughts, speculations, ideas and fantasies. If I pay attention to a particular idea or train of thought I might be able to track it back to its source ("Where did this idea come from?") but more often than not, I have no idea what triggered the intuition in the first place.
    INFJ 9w1 sx/sp/so

    "A wizard is never late. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to." - Gandalf The Grey

    And if I only could,
    I'd make a deal with God,
    And I'd get him to swap our places,
    Be running up that road,
    Be running up that hill,
    With no problems.

    - Kate Bush

  9. #29
    Welcome to Sunnyside Mondo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    1,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin
    Ts, being more objective, are less effected by emotions because they have learned (perhaps subconsciously) that it is more effective to not act on their emotions.
    Yes, this is the primary difference between Thinkers and Feelers.
    As my sig states, Thinkers are not robots!!
    MBTI Type: iNTj
    Enneagram Type: 3w4 sp/sx

  10. #30
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    RAWR MULTIQUOTE

    Quote Originally Posted by zarc View Post
    Iím going to tackle this by first furthering what I meant about P/J:

    Receiving information (P) vs Processing information (J)

    Pi introjection/ internalizes and withholds what it receives
    Pe projection/ externalizes and releases what it receives
    Ji valuation/ sets the value (relative to self standards) of what it is processing
    Je evaluation/ determines the worth (relative to otherís standards) of what it is processing
    Hmm...

    Could you elaborate a bit on Je?

    When paired:

    IJ: Pi internalizes what it receives and then Je determines the worth
    EP: Pe externalizes what it receives and then Ji sets the value
    IP: Ji sets the value of what it is processing and then Pe externalizes
    EJ: Je determines the worth of what it is processing and then Pi internalizes
    Mmk.

    As for the 'why' of pairing... let's use INTP, Ji and Pe. Why not Ji and Pi? Let's try Si first.
    Yeah thats basically what I've thought. PeJi/PiJe just naturally fit together, are kinda designed for each other, *blah blah evolution stuff goes here?*.

    (See Lenore's Tertiary Temptation for when an INTP seems 'put upon' when highly stressed, though you probably have).
    Ya I've devoured that wiki. Not the book itself though.

    Quote Originally Posted by zarc View Post
    Hmmmm. Evan, as for your un/conscious-ing of P/J. I've already said I think Perceiving functions are consciously accessed. But Iím guessing this next bit. If a perceiving function is conscious (Si) but paired with its similar perceiving function (Ni), then the other one becomes unconscious when accessed. So, it might work more along the lines of N being an unconscious perception for an S type while S is an unconscious perception for an N type.
    Hmm...

    Under what circumstances are shadow functions accessed?

    Iím guessing thatís why Si/Ni and Se/Ne are so opposed to each other for IJs and EPs. I think similar perceiving functions, though possibly unconscious, are easier to access than the opposite perceiving function... which seem unavailable when we need them, never mind inaccessible.
    You mean Si/Se and Ni/Ne?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apollanaut View Post
    Costrin, I think you've done an excellent description and analysis of the various type functions. There are just a few points where I think the terminology is muddling your definitions of the functions a little.
    Yeah that works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocap View Post
    Actually, Costrin has it backwards. It's the perceptions that don't change. What happens actually, is that when new perceptions come in that don't coalesce with the previous ones, one of them has to be thrown out. But they're not changed. Judgement decides which perceptions are good and which are faulty. But even still, those perceptions are still there, they're just usually ignored.
    I though that was what I said (or maybe what I thought but didn't externalize?).

    Anyway, agree with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apollanaut View Post
    As for intuition, it does indeed rely on the unconscious mind. As I stated, it is usually triggered by an external object or an internal image, from which the unconscious mind generates an idea or thought (an "intuition") which itself becomes conscious. However, the person having the intuition may remain entirely unconscious of the original triggering factor. For example, my own intuition generates an unending stream of thoughts, speculations, ideas and fantasies. If I pay attention to a particular idea or train of thought I might be able to track it back to its source ("Where did this idea come from?") but more often than not, I have no idea what triggered the intuition in the first place.
    Intuition sucks because it is hard to define. Yeah, I said it, sue me.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

Similar Threads

  1. Let's Try Function Definitions again: "Relationships" of Objects
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-20-2014, 09:05 AM
  2. Another crack at root function definitions
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 11:01 PM
  3. The Search for Better, More Elemental Definitions of the Functions, Esp. Judging
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 02:44 PM
  4. Evan's function definitions
    By Evan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 09-29-2009, 09:05 PM
  5. Costrin and BlackCat's super duper typology overview (of doom)
    By BlackCat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 05-11-2009, 10:39 PM

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