User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 43

  1. #11
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    That's funny--a certain self-described authority on the topic thinks I have an excess of Te, and yet here you are insisting that I need more. Thanks for proving my point about subjectivity of functional interpretation.
    wow. someone seriously missed the irony i was going for (the reason why i seperated it from all of my analysis... )


    Ummm....I don't want it to be more precise. That's exactly the opposite of my point, which (no offense), I think you missed. The point was that I think a lot of people expect an unrealistic level of precision from it, and it leads to overconfidence in amateur psychoanalysis.
    I should have clarified. Im right there with you that its generally a mistake to try to externally type people based on functions. There was even a post asking about what functions were in use for playing "basketball" and i went on to show how one person playing basketball could be described using a myriad of functions combinations.

    So we are in agreement up to that point. But whats wrong with people using functions to describe their own behavior?

    we agree that there is no Te organ, no Te "pathway", and that externally typing behavior as "Te" is problematic. But if someone reads the description of Te and Fe and then decides "you know, that Te description REALLY fits the way i tend to think about what actions to take", what is psudoscientific about that? No in is claiming that its scientific when they describe their own processes as fitting rather well with the Te description. If it helps them describe how they relate to other TJs with 'more precision' (assuming the TJs are all reading a Te description and tend to see a "part" of themselves) than simply saying "TJ", then who cares?

    You're using functions in the first way I described--a rehashing of MBTI letters. If you're only using them as descriptions/groupings of externalized behavior, then you don't really need them, because they don't really add anything new beyond the basic preferences described by the four two-letter dichotomies. It's just the same concept reworded.
    People want more specificity. Simply looking at ENFJ and ENTJ and saying the difference is simply "feeling" doesnt quite tell the whole story. If you give the ENFJ and ENTJ a description of Fi and Fe, I would bet that most ENTJs will relate a lot more with Fi than Fe and the ENFJs will relate more to Fe than Fi. Clearly this gives more precision than simply saying the difference between them is "feeling". Its self reporting, which is significant simply because 'people' will pick one at non-random.

    it doesnt have to be scientific. trust me, i agree with that a lot of psychology is bullshit (your talking to a biology major), but i see the functions as doing more good than harm in describing personality, as long as they arent over used in describing other people. The fact that we cant 'view' the true process as you imply, doesnt really matter. For the very fact that we cant view the true processes, is what makes 'self reporting' the best we got. When modern science gets better at descibing how peoples brain structures affect how they think and do, then we may have a reason to say that the functions are harmful.

    this is all my opinion. Im ok with saying that. Functions arent scientific. they simply have a lot of utility in describing things.

  2. #12
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Even just skimming I can assure you that you're wrong.
    we fukin won boys

  3. #13
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    It is of use when it does something more than that : make predictions about you and your behaviour which you did not already know. A good example is shadow types (which one may not have faced in life, and yet still have them lurking underneath).
    Agree with the above. Learning about shadow Te has been very, very helpful for me.

    I disagree about cognitive functions being useless. I think they are the only truly helpful thing about typology and only really helpful for the individual.

  4. #14
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So where does this cognitive function thing come in? How do we make the leap from grouping behaviors and using them to predict similar behaviors in similar situations to actually explaining the internal cognitive processes
    You've missed the point. Again.
    I've explained this explicitly once before, but I suppose I'll try once more.

    Cognitive processes don't predict.
    Cognitive processes don't explain internal processes.

    They only name them. When we observe, and then we analyze, the product will fit into one of those 8 boxes. If it fits into two, then actually, you've got two smaller behaviors, each of which fits into one of the 8 boxes.

    It's nothing but a name.
    Until you understand that, you can never advance.

    I know I'm on your ignore list but for everyone who is reading, you're welcome.
    we fukin won boys

  5. #15
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocap View Post
    You've missed the point. Again.
    I've explained this explicitly once before, but I suppose I'll try once more.

    Cognitive processes don't predict.
    Cognitive processes don't explain internal processes.

    They only name them. When we observe, and then we analyze, the product will fit into one of those 8 boxes. If it fits into two, then actually, you've got two smaller behaviors, each of which fits into one of the 8 boxes.

    It's nothing but a name.
    Until you understand that, you can never advance.

    I know I'm on your ignore list but for everyone who is reading, you're welcome.
    Is Sparrow ENTP? (just curious)



    oh and ya, i found your post helpful.

  6. #16
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    super LOL (@thread)

    EDIT:

    i actually agree with the first post for the most part. MBTI has its place but it is misused big time on these forums (for example, the last thead i was in was "who is the most evil type"...wtf is that?). the reason you (poster) may see MBTI as the way you do (it is NOT sophisticated name calling, its a model for the human cognition, which, admittedly, cannot and should not be limited to 8 letters...but it has a ton of application in the field of neuroscience or anything related to the brain. there are proven links between chemicals in your brain and type, so it does have relevance.) is because this forum does not consist of neuroscientists or phd psychologists, just a bunch of people that are trying to understand a (simple) system with very little documentation on its uses and actual applications. if you want REAL information on MBTI an its applications, go to keirsey's personal forum. keirsey's son actually posts on there and answers questions.

    and sorry for putting you down typoc... i still love (most of) you guys.
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

  7. #17
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    Agree with the above. Learning about shadow Te has been very, very helpful for me.

    I disagree about cognitive functions being useless. I think they are the only truly helpful thing about typology and only really helpful for the individual.
    Actually, yeah, I think you're right that they are helpful for the individual, since you can understand the subjective experiences of one person: yourself.

    This post was referring mainly to the extension of cognitive functions to try and explain the subjective experience of others, which is pushing it too far, imo.


    Quote Originally Posted by mlittrell View Post
    super LOL (@thread)

    EDIT:

    i actually agree with the first post for the most part. MBTI has its place but it is misused big time on these forums (for example, the last thead i was in was "who is the most evil type"...wtf is that?). the reason you (poster) may see MBTI as the way you do (it is NOT sophisticated name calling, its a model for the human cognition, which, admittedly, cannot and should not be limited to 8 letters...but it has a ton of application in the field of neuroscience or anything related to the brain. there are proven links between chemicals in your brain and type, so it does have relevance.) is because this forum does not consist of neuroscientists or phd psychologists, just a bunch of people that are trying to understand a (simple) system with very little documentation on its uses and actual applications. if you want REAL information on MBTI an its applications, go to keirsey's personal forum. keirsey's son actually posts on there and answers questions.

    and sorry for putting you down typoc... i still love (most of) you guys.
    Can you link to some of the studies proving links between brain chemicals and MBTI type?

    Bolded parts I really agree with! Those were my main points: that MBTI has uses as a way to describe external behaviors, but that when we start trying to describe complex combinations of subconscious motivations for them in others, it gets really Freudian really quick, and that's a problem.

    It gets really problematic when we abandon the basic four-letter descriptions and focus entirely on functions, because when combined with overconfidence in reading the functions of others, we can come to all kinds of ridiculous conclusions. When you place more faith in your ability to read the internal motivations of others than in those people's own descriptions of their behavioral preferences, you have a problem.

    Heart is correct, though, that these internal motivation descriptions are useful for the self. I guess I needed an introvert to point that out


    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    wow. someone seriously missed the irony i was going for (the reason why i seperated it from all of my analysis... )
    Haha ok. I guess I did miss it. Sounded pretty serious at the time, but I guess that's what happens with text/no tone of voice. (Hey look another example of miscommunication of intentions because text is such a limited communication medium!)




    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    I should have clarified. Im right there with you that its generally a mistake to try to externally type people based on functions. There was even a post asking about what functions were in use for playing "basketball" and i went on to show how one person playing basketball could be described using a myriad of functions combinations.
    Word, totally agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    So we are in agreement up to that point. But whats wrong with people using functions to describe their own behavior?

    we agree that there is no Te organ, no Te "pathway", and that externally typing behavior as "Te" is problematic. But if someone reads the description of Te and Fe and then decides "you know, that Te description REALLY fits the way i tend to think about what actions to take", what is psudoscientific about that? No in is claiming that its scientific when they describe their own processes as fitting rather well with the Te description. If it helps them describe how they relate to other TJs with 'more precision' (assuming the TJs are all reading a Te description and tend to see a "part" of themselves) than simply saying "TJ", then who cares?
    Nothing is wrong with that; my post was misleading on that front. I should have clarified; that's perfectly fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    People want more specificity. Simply looking at ENFJ and ENTJ and saying the difference is simply "feeling" doesnt quite tell the whole story. If you give the ENFJ and ENTJ a description of Fi and Fe, I would bet that most ENTJs will relate a lot more with Fi than Fe and the ENFJs will relate more to Fe than Fi. Clearly this gives more precision than simply saying the difference between them is "feeling". Its self reporting, which is significant simply because 'people' will pick one at non-random.
    I dunno, it'd be interesting to see some studies on that. The problem is that one's level of identification with the functional descriptions can clash with that of one's MBTI letters. Edgar, for instance, says Te is his strongest function, and yet his type is INTJ, because he considers himself socially introverted. How do you explain this inconsistency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    it doesnt have to be scientific. trust me, i agree with that a lot of psychology is bullshit (your talking to a biology major), but i see the functions as doing more good than harm in describing personality, as long as they arent over used in describing other people. The fact that we cant 'view' the true process as you imply, doesnt really matter. For the very fact that we cant view the true processes, is what makes 'self reporting' the best we got. When modern science gets better at descibing how peoples brain structures affect how they think and do, then we may have a reason to say that the functions are harmful.

    this is all my opinion. Im ok with saying that. Functions arent scientific. they simply have a lot of utility in describing things.
    Bolded part is spot on. That was really my main point. I think what I'm getting at here, whether I knew it upon writing the first post or not, was that internal functions are something so personally subjective that only the subject in question can really make an accurate determination as to what his internal motivations are. We can watch someone act and then speculate that he may be motivated by functions x and y, but if he responds by explaining to the contrary, it's time to give up and let it go.

    Behaviors that are described as "probably Te" from an external standpoint are only described that way because we've heard people who behave that way self-describe as heavy Te users. This does not make it safe to associate all instances of this behavior in others with this particular function! (I think the catch phrase here is, "Correlation does not prove causation.") It all has to come from personal self-description; there's no way to really get into someone's head and make any sort of accurate determination about what internal functions are governing his behavior.

    I think we're pretty much in agreement, though.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #18
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    Is Sparrow ENTP? (just curious)



    oh and ya, i found your post helpful.
    He is indeed and you're welcome.

    Let the record show that some people prefer mire and toil to paradise in exchange for the right to complain and criticize.
    we fukin won boys

  9. #19
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I dunno, it'd be interesting to see some studies on that. The problem is that one's level of identification with the functional descriptions can clash with that of one's MBTI letters. Edgar, for instance, says Te is his strongest function, and yet his type is INTJ, because he considers himself socially introverted. How do you explain this inconsistency?
    That's actually possible with the Beebe model and the Nardi cognitive processes test.
    If his auxiliary Te simply grew stronger than his dominant Ni, the Ni would still play a "lead" role, making him an introvert, and the Te would continue to play a "supporting" role even if it was stronger. The dominant introverted role would make him still socially introverted. The stronger support role would just shape his decision making.
    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

  10. #20
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Actually, yeah, I think you're right that they are helpful for the individual, since you can understand the subjective experiences of one person: yourself.

    This post was referring mainly to the extension of cognitive functions to try and explain the subjective experience of others, which is pushing it too far, imo.




    Can you link to some of the studies proving links between brain chemicals and MBTI type?

    Bolded parts I really agree with! Those were my main points: that MBTI has uses as a way to describe external behaviors, but that when we start trying to describe complex combinations of subconscious motivations for them in others, it gets really Freudian really quick, and that's a problem.

    It gets really problematic when we abandon the basic four-letter descriptions and focus entirely on functions, because when combined with overconfidence in reading the functions of others, we can come to all kinds of ridiculous conclusions. When you place more faith in your ability to read the internal motivations of others than in those people's own descriptions of their behavioral preferences, you have a problem.

    Heart is correct, though, that these internal motivation descriptions are useful for the self. I guess I needed an introvert to point that out




    Haha ok. I guess I did miss it. Sounded pretty serious at the time, but I guess that's what happens with text/no tone of voice. (Hey look another example of miscommunication of intentions because text is such a limited communication medium!)






    Word, totally agreed.



    Nothing is wrong with that; my post was misleading on that front. I should have clarified; that's perfectly fine.



    I dunno, it'd be interesting to see some studies on that. The problem is that one's level of identification with the functional descriptions can clash with that of one's MBTI letters. Edgar, for instance, says Te is his strongest function, and yet his type is INTJ, because he considers himself socially introverted. How do you explain this inconsistency?



    Bolded part is spot on. That was really my main point. I think what I'm getting at here, whether I knew it upon writing the first post or not, was that internal functions are something so personally subjective that only the subject in question can really make an accurate determination as to what his internal motivations are. We can watch someone act and then speculate that he may be motivated by functions x and y, but if he responds by explaining to the contrary, it's time to give up and let it go.

    Behaviors that are described as "probably Te" from an external standpoint are only described that way because we've heard people who behave that way self-describe as heavy Te users. This does not make it safe to associate all instances of this behavior in others with this particular function! (I think the catch phrase here is, "Correlation does not prove causation.") It all has to come from personal self-description; there's no way to really get into someone's head and make any sort of accurate determination about what internal functions are governing his behavior.

    I think we're pretty much in agreement, though.
    your dead on about the functions. all they do is derive the 4 letters but they have very little application. as far as documentation, admittedly i do not have any, but if you look at neuroscience andn how they do things you see a direct correlation between MBTI and the brain. now, it isn't documented (well it might be, but it isn't public), but Dr. Eric Braverman has an entire clinic set up that helps people get in shape and get healthy, starting with the brain, and it is blatantly based on MBTI. his reviews are phenomenal and his system is very successful. he links NTs -> dopamine (frontal lobe) NFs -> acetylcholine (parietal lobe (as a side note, i find, personally, that many NFs get out of body experiences, this is caused partially in the parietal, that is obvously not documented)) SPs -> serotonin (temporal lobe) SJs -> GABA (occipital lobe) . i saw him speak on the subject and he said it is much much more complex than that but that for general reading purposes, he simplifies it (hes a self proclaimed INTJ). my friend called his clinic and acquired deeper information. *wink wink*. so ya, there is some truth to it, but it is just another tool in the toolbox and most people use it waaaay too much.
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-21-2016, 02:39 AM
  2. [INFJ] Extraverted feeling and introverted thinking processes in INFJs functional stack
    By Darlene in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-2015, 08:45 AM
  3. Jungian Typology: Lesson 4.1 and 4.2: The 8 Cognitive Functions
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-24-2014, 11:41 PM
  4. What cognitive functions are often confused with each other and how are they confused
    By The Great One in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 09-24-2013, 09:55 PM
  5. How long have you been studying/interested in MBTI or Personality Theory?
    By dnivera in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 07:09 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