User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 42

  1. #31
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    I can feel the funk @Evan's funky definitions
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #32
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Hence, behaviors can only allow us to understand the mind inferrentially at best. For this reason, there are more effective ways of understanding how the mind works than merely listing behaviors. One of such ways is taking note of the principles upon which the mind tends to function.
    Behavior is the only data anyone ever has. We can only understand the mind inferrentially.

  3. #33
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Behavior is the only data anyone ever has. We can only understand the mind inferrentially.
    Surely, however, what I suggest is not attempting to understand the mind by doing something other than surveying behaviors, what I suggest is using behaviors to acquire insight into the nature of the mind by examing the few behaviors that we are already aware of and not merely listing all the possible behaviors. The second endeavor is jejune through and through.
    "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. #34
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Surely, however, what I suggest is not attempting to understand the mind by doing something other than surveying behaviors, what I suggest is using behaviors to acquire insight into the nature of the mind by examing the few behaviors that we are already aware of and not merely listing all the possible behaviors. The second endeavor is jejune through and through.
    I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what I was trying to say anyway.

    I listed some behaviors then put "etc." I wasn't trying to list them all, I was just trying to give enough examples for the readers to make the intuitive leap towards understanding. Everything that's unconscious that's not sensing is intuition and vice versa.

  5. #35
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    The problem is that you titled your work 'as function definition'. That is a mistake because judgments such as these lead people to make crude and simplistic assertions about typology such as 'extroverts are those who are loud', 'if you arent smart, you're not an NT' and so on.

    The reason why this is the case is because people are believed that to be a certain type merely means to have a few vague characteristics we associate with this type, if you don't have them, than you don't have the type. Intellectually irrseponsible writers of typology like you are the cause of such absurdities simply because they are the ones proclaiming that the definition of the type/function is a limited to a small set of characteristics. (Yes, you did say etc but not until the very last post. (you don't have the 'etc' remark in your opening post, doubtlessly the reader will be led to believe you're saying a type is limited to the personality characteristics you've listed) which means that you do not maintain that a type can be described only in terms of those characteristics, however this was overshadowed by what you wrote in your thread title. 'FUNCTION DEFINITION'. No error could be more sinister.)

    In the most technical sense if it is said that X,Y and Z are characteristics of A it is not asserted that the characteristics of A are limited to X, Y, and Z, yet the readers here do not have the critical evaluation skills to notice this. The onus is therefore on the writer to avoid misleading them.
    "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/

  6. #36
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    The title does say "EVAN's function definitions", so the sense I got were that these were just his attempts at a concise "in a nutshell" description. (not supposed to be an exhaustive list of all the definitive traits that have been "limited" to just a few). And it was basically comparing the introverted and extraverted attitudes, again, not any atttempt at a complete definition.
    It doesn't strike me as the 'extroverts are those who are loud' kind of assumption at all.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  7. #37
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The problem is that you titled your work 'as function definition'. That is a mistake because judgments such as these lead people to make crude and simplistic assertions about typology such as 'extroverts are those who are loud', 'if you arent smart, you're not an NT' and so on.
    It seems weird to me to define a function as a tendency, because literally, a function is an input/output relationship. A tendency towards certain cognitive behaviors should not be called a "function" by the definition of the word.

    I really don't see how anyone could be stupid enough to look at my definitions and draw any conclusion about any type. I didn't at all talk about function relationships. Everyone uses Sensing and Intuition as I've defined them literally all the time (it doesn't even make sense to talk about specific instances of perceiving functions), and Thinking and Feeling are each used multiple (5+) times a minute.

    The reason why this is the case is because people are believed that to be a certain type merely means to have a few vague characteristics we associate with this type, if you don't have them, than you don't have the type. Intellectually irrseponsible writers of typology like you are the cause of such absurdities simply because they are the ones proclaiming that the definition of the type/function is a limited to a small set of characteristics.
    I didn't proclaim anything of the sort. I expect readers to use their brain; if they can't, it's really not my problem. You seem to be specifically looking to misrepresent what I said just so that you can assert your superior writing abilities (or Thinking abilities!). The truth is, no one else reading my post made anything like the same conclusions you seem to be afraid people will make, and it's because they try to understand, not try to misunderstand.

    (Yes, you did say etc but not until the very last post. (you don't have the 'etc' remark in your opening post, doubtlessly the reader will be led to believe you're saying a type is limited to the personality characteristics you've listed)
    I think maybe you should reread what I wrote. And "doubtlessly"? Really?

    which means that you do not maintain that a type can be described only in terms of those characteristics, however this was overshadowed by what you wrote in your thread title. 'FUNCTION DEFINITION'. No error could be more sinister.)

    In the most technical sense if it is said that X,Y and Z are characteristics of A it is not asserted that the characteristics of A are limited to X, Y, and Z, yet the readers here do not have the critical evaluation skills to notice this. The onus is therefore on the writer to avoid misleading them.
    Actually I think most of them do. It's really pretty damn simple.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Xellotath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    181

    Default

    Dear Mr. Solitary Walker,

    I'm a big fan of yours.
    To make something like a public confession, I joined the boards immediately after reading the profile you wrote on ENFPs. I have developped a little favorable bias for your opinions (apologies if it's not a rational reaction, alas true to my stereotype, I trust my passions).

    Your objections on Ne - Ni are valid in my eyes, I've been persuaded of the rightness of that particular view..

    However, I don't understand why you would level the charge of "responsibility" against the author of the thread and I fail to understand how it is so important.

    Consider the context, this is an online board about typology, there's thousands of posts and threads where people go "Ne = [insert definition here]", is it fair to pick on this particular case and not all the rest?

    Perhaps I am a little callous, but if someone is actually stupid enough to take a single definition in a random thread as the exclusive truth... in a board filled with millions of other inputs on that definition, I would submit that person -deserves- whatever disastrous outcome you envision.

    Regardless, I still value your input more than most.
    Your (not so secret) intellectual admirer,

    -Xellotath

  9. #39
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xellotath View Post
    Dear Mr. Solitary Walker,

    I'm a big fan of yours.
    To make something like a public confession, I joined the boards immediately after reading the profile you wrote on ENFPs. I have developped a little favorable bias for your opinions (apologies if it's not a rational reaction, alas true to my stereotype, I trust my passions).

    Your objections on Ne - Ni are valid in my eyes, I've been persuaded of the rightness of that particular view..

    However, I don't understand why you would level the charge of "responsibility" against the author of the thread and I fail to understand how it is so important.

    Consider the context, this is an online board about typology, there's thousands of posts and threads where people go "Ne = [insert definition here]", is it fair to pick on this particular case and not all the rest?

    Perhaps I am a little callous, but if someone is actually stupid enough to take a single definition in a random thread as the exclusive truth... in a board filled with millions of other inputs on that definition, I would submit that person -deserves- whatever disastrous outcome you envision.

    Regardless, I still value your input more than most.
    Your (not so secret) intellectual admirer,

    -Xellotath
    You speak as if my definitions are incorrect...so...what's wrong with them? Which objections of his have you been persuaded of? He hasn't even said anything...

    Also, he knows I understand this stuff as we've been talking on AIM on and off for 6 months...

  10. #40
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    It seems weird to me to define a function as a tendency, because literally, a function is an input/output relationship. A tendency towards certain cognitive behaviors should not be called a "function" by the definition of the word..
    Yes, it is weird, but this is what a function is in the context of Jungian typology. We are not disputing the prudence of Jung's semantical work, merely pointing out the conclusions he has arrived at. The fact is that you have misrepresented his ideas much like many posters on this site and adherents of conventional MBTI theory did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I really don't see how anyone could be stupid enough to look at my definitions and draw any conclusion about any type...
    You are not writing to scholars. When you mention a type such as 'Introversion', 'Intuition' and so on, they are inclined to assume you are making a generalization about a type. They will do so unless you specify that your intended claims were not this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I didn't at all talk about function relationships. Everyone uses Sensing and Intuition as I've defined them literally all the time (it doesn't even make sense to talk about specific instances of perceiving functions), and Thinking and Feeling are each used multiple (5+) times a minute....
    I do not see the relevance of this. Moreover you should note that Jungian typology presupposes a relationship between functions. The existence of one type is impossible without the other as Introversion for example is defined to a significant extent by opposition to Extroversion, Thinking in opposition to Feeling and so on.



    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I didn't proclaim anything of the sort. I expect readers to use their brain;....
    That is very naive of you. You've been here for a year, and have learned nothing of your readers?


    Quote Originally Posted by Xellotath View Post


    Consider the context, this is an online board about typology, there's thousands of posts and threads where people go "Ne = [insert definition here]", is it fair to pick on this particular case and not all the rest?
    I agree with you that on this board most people post careless remarks regarding typology and it is not fair to single out just one person. (I think this was your claim)

    However, I think things should not be this way and people need to take responsibility for what they say. Otherwise we cannot hope to avoid the many confusions about the subject that it is fraught with today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    He hasn't even said anything......
    My criticisms could be summarized as follows.

    1) You have improperly defined the Jungian function. You have stated that it is merely a set of cognitive behaviors. (E.G, Ne is seeing many possibilities). What you have defined is a manifestation of a function or a description of it, but not the intrinsic essence thereof. Hence your definition is analogous to a function as the following definition is to a car; it can be used to go fast forward and back. (I have also argued regarding what a function truly is, here and elsewhere)

    2) You have neglected to state that a function can be described in more ways than it has been by you.
    "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/

Similar Threads

  1. Definition of the 8 cognitive functions with real life examples?
    By DreamBeliever in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-07-2015, 12:02 PM
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Costrin's Super Amazing Function Definitions
    By Costrin in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 08-09-2009, 01:54 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