• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Evan's function definitions

527468

deleted
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
1,945
Again, I've said nothing about type.


Yes, and this is one way Extroverted Intuition is used, though not the only.

Instead of solely critiquing about completion, can you give some other function uses that are generally agreed upon, specifically make comparisons like Evan has? I'm sure this will strengthen the understanding.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Hey look, another thread being wrecked by Mr Walker. Who honestly gives a shit what it's called? It's safe to assume that depending on how inferior a function is for a type, that you can reduce the use of the function for someone. Can't you just leave it at that and not do a non stop debate?
 

527468

deleted
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
1,945
Hey look, another thread being wrecked by Mr Walker. Who honestly gives a shit what it's called? It's safe to assume that depending on how inferior a function is for a type, that you can reduce the use of the function for someone. Can't you just leave it at that and not do a non stop debate?

I want to hear what he has to say though.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I want to hear what he has to say though.

Oh ok. Well he should at least say his opinion on it rather than tearing down everyone else's with no proof besides his own logic.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think everyone should abide then. At least for now :p

You can compare opinions to gain more knowledge, tearing down an opinion will do nothing but boost your ego. And ego is pointless.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Instead of solely critiquing about completion, can you give some other function uses that are generally agreed upon, specifically make comparisons like Evan has? I'm sure this will strengthen the understanding.

As I have mentioned earlier, Ne could be used to envisage the same situation from the same perspective. It could also be use do all the things that Ni does. I see no reason to attempt an exhaustive list as there are too many things to list. Moreover, its not important to have such a list. If we understand how functions work in principle (how Ne works for example) we could figure out all activities it could perform if we need to.

In short, instead of helping Evan list all the behaviors of a function, I insist that his method is fundamentally in error. If we are interested in finding all the behaviors of the function, we should not attempt to accomplish this by merely observing how a function works and listing behaviors as we go, but instead note how the function works in principle and use this information to deduce all the possible ways it could operate, should we find this necessary. It is doubtful that we will, as this activity is trivial at best because such a list would be lengthy and ambiguous, it would be difficult for us to commit all items on the list to memory. It is an efficient way to do typology, as behaviorism tends to be inefficient with regard to the matters of philosophy of psychology.

The efficient way to deal with the problem consists not in observing behaviors, but in understanding the underlying causes of behaviors.
 

527468

deleted
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
1,945
The efficient way to deal with the problem consists not in observing behaviors, but in understanding the underlying causes of behaviors.

Cause and effect can be interchangeable and I don't believe you can find all the answers to this question by adopting the original rule. Correlating two behaviors can be just as beneficial as correlating a cause and effect. Causation says that any one relation can cause the other. If an Ni type exhibits a certain behavior, you should be able to find trends between both cause and effect of Ni, definition and behavior. I agree that there is fault when an analogy is mislabeled as a definition, because it, at least harm, creates a search for structure that was once there, at most it leads to a misunderstanding of all other behaviors.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Cause and effect can be interchangeable and I don't believe you can find all the answers to this question by adopting the original rule. Correlating two behaviors can be just as beneficial as correlating a cause and effect. Causation says that any one relation can cause the other. If an Ni type exhibits a certain behavior, you should be able to find trends between both cause and effect of Ni, definition and behavior. I agree that there is fault when an analogy is mislabeled as a definition.

Not sure if I understand your point.

My argument was that philosophy of psychology (which typology is part of) is concerned with understanding how the mind works. Behaviors are only manifestations of how the mind works and not the essence of the mind itself. 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.
 

527468

deleted
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
1,945
Not sure if I understand your point.

My argument was that philosophy of psychology (which typology is part of) is concerned with understanding how the mind works. Behaviors are only manifestations of how the mind works and not the essence of the mind itself. 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.

I agree that principle is the key importance by designation, but that analyzing behaviors and trends will both advance the understanding of the principle that is partially known by others, thus allows a unity of current understanding, and causation of behaviors can improve upon the principle as well. Why is the definition there in the first place? There was a principle but the only way we could understand it was by first looking at the facts or behaviors, and there has not been a complete understanding of the correlation or the causation of these facts or behaviors, so the definition of the principle is inadequate because of not only a lack of introspection, but a lack of research, including making these lists and analyzing trends. I agree with you about misunderstanding analogy or behavior to be a definition, and that a modus like miswording will deteriorate an understanding. However analyzing behaviors is essential to the definition we use, as long as the focus is the principle and philology remains unflawed.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I can feel the funk @Evan's funky definitions :D
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
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.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
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.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
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.
 

Xellotath

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
176
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
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
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
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...
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.

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.

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.



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?


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.

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.
 
Top