User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 30

  1. #11
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    You could zoom in and find plenty of differences between people that share a type.
    but an apple IS different form an orange and just because some oranges have 6 seeds and some apples have 6 seeds does not make them the same type, except the typology applied is stupid, which is what happens in the reality of human's thinking. yet, there are pure types, if we understand them or not. they can be a different or similar as they want, but oranges are never apples. just by zooming out and refusing to see a difference between apples and oranges you wont make them compatible in reality. all that relativism does not contribute to understanding nature it only insists on a specific human stupidity, as if it could not be overcome some day.

    The concept of a "type" is an artificial construct that tries to summarize and categorize your most frequently observed habits.
    "type" as theory is handled very differently by different typologists. thus its different/various perspectives on a real thing. the map is not the territory. let aside those typologists who understand nothing about the territory but only their arbitrary constructed map, which they copied from other maps, "improving" it for sake of symmetry or something, there should be a lot of typologists who have actual perspectives on the territory, meaning perceptions. the more different perspectives (methodologies) are applied to the territory, the better the actual territory is understood, the more accurately the territory will be represented by our map(s) - but only if those perspectives don't try to fight/dominate/overwrite each other.

    has nothing to do with the topic though (yes, i don't really get the original question myself, but i don't care).

    no, type does not explain prodigious talent, it only describes some modulations / form giving aspects to talent.

  2. #12
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    but an apple IS different form an orange and just because some oranges have 6 seeds and some apples have 6 seeds does not make them the same type, except the typology applied is stupid, which is what happens in reality. yet, there are pure types, if we understand them or not. they can be a different or similar as they want, but oranges are never apples. all that relativism does not contribute to understanding nature it only insists on human stupidity.
    We're not talking apples and oranges here. There are no functions that one person uses that other people don't use.

    Also..."there are pure types"... what do you mean?

  3. #13
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    We're not talking apples and oranges here. There are no functions that one person uses that other people don't use.
    none of that is know, and by pure types, i mean that a type, if defined (understood) correctly can be applied to a layer of structure IN a human being, that has this typological layer at the stage where it has been observed on other humans on the same stages. its just silly to assume that type is supposed to describe and explain whole human beings. it's supposed to be an abstract map layer that captures (signifies) an structural aspect of the actual territory. if thats not possible, than it must be improved. also: if structure disassembles outer appearance of type at some point in development, than type must not be applied to individuals who have grown to that point, but it can be applied to their history. and whatever makes people individual besides type, is not relevant to type theory. i don't know, if present type theory is any good, but i am here to find out, and i insist, that type is supposed to be good, meaning it is supposed to match actual patterns of the territory (like apples or oranges), or else it is not a typology, by definition. else it is just a statistical tool, like saying there are 66 people with short hair and 34 people with long hair. this is not a typology, by definition. typology does "talk apple and orange". except we are talking about fruits that may transform into butterflies or stuff. so, typology does not say, an apple will always be an apple. but an apple who grows wings, is still somehow a (transformed) apple on the inside, even if now he should be classified together with winged oranges, because the fact that both have grown wings indicates a higher layer of structure and on that layer, both are suddenly the same type, but the same type in a totally different typology. they are winged fruits as opposed to ananas and kiwi who will grow no wings but branchias after transformation. so, you are one type of one typology, and remain that type, but if you transform, you are in addition another type of another typology. all of this is not subjective theory of zooming in and out, because nature actually does act in stages and types. types are also called holons. holons act in a self preserving manner, meaning that the will fight for their independence. a marriage of two holons does not destroy the holons, but only alters their appearance and also creates a single entirely new higher holon. every molecule is a type. every brain hemisphere is a type (holon). every organ is a type. the lung is not a part of the stomach, it is a separated on its own level, but only on a lower level it seems to be connected (ie by a sea of protein), but the lower level does not concern the lungs properties as holon. on a higher leven (thorso) lung and stomach seem to be connected as well. they are, but only on that higher level of structure. type is either a separated structural holon in our spirit (or a constellation of interactive holons, ie functions), or it is false = it is not a type, it is a theory that is wrong and deluded and should be abandoned. we don't know, we need to find out.

    if you want a statistical tool about length of hairs, or amounts of aggression .. go for it, we had plenty of these in the past, we still have the DSM or five temperaments, but they don't deserve the name typology. not only do they not refer to actual types, a lot of them do not even refer to horizontal differences (differentiations of holons on a common level of structural complexity), but to vertical differences of different levels, meaning that in some falsely labeled "typologies" you could grow from one type (ie primitive) into another type (ie educated). such statistical tools of arbitrary "zooming in or out" are not typologies, neither are statistical tools that have a grasp on not arbitrary but actually separated stages of structural order.

  4. #14
    Reigning Bologna Princess Rajah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    1,774

    Default

    I bought my entp at Wal-Mart. I couldn't resist the rollback prices.


    I... suppose. Yeah!

  5. #15
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greed View Post
    Let's try this again.

    Typology systems and definitions of cognitive processes are a human construct intended to classify traits of human cognition, which are given to us at birth, and the innate strengths and weaknesses that said traits bestow upon us.

    There.
    Ah now I get it. So the questions is are you born with certain traits or not. Yeah thats a good one, ultimateviley resulting in a 4 question long MBTI Test for newborns
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  6. #16
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    none of that is know, and by pure types, i mean that a type, if defined (understood) correctly can be applied to a layer of structure IN a human being, that has this typological layer at the stage where it has been observed on other humans on the same stages. its just silly to assume that type is supposed to describe and explain whole human beings. it's supposed to be an abstract map layer that captures (signifies) an structural aspect of the actual territory. if thats not possible, than it must be improved. also: if structure disassembles outer appearance of type at some point in development, than type must not be applied to individuals who have grown to that point, but it can be applied to their history. and whatever makes people individual besides type, is not relevant to type theory. i don't know, if present type theory is any good, but i am here to find out, and i insist, that type is supposed to be good, meaning it is supposed to match actual patterns of the territory (like apples or oranges), or else it is not a typology, by definition. else it is just a statistical tool, like saying there are 66 people with short hair and 34 people with long hair. this is not a typology, by definition. typology does "talk apple and orange". except we are talking about fruits that may transform into butterflies or stuff. so, typology does not say, an apple will always be an apple. but an apple who grows wings, is still somehow a (transformed) apple on the inside, even if now he should be classified together with winged oranges, because the fact that both have grown wings indicates a higher layer of structure and on that layer, both are suddenly the same type, but the same type in a totally different typology. they are winged fruits as opposed to ananas and kiwi who will grow no wings but branchias after transformation. so, you are one type of one typology, and remain that type, but if you transform, you are in addition another type of another typology. all of this is not subjective theory of zooming in and out, because nature actually does act in stages and types. types are also called holons. holons act in a self preserving manner, meaning that the will fight for their independence. a marriage of two holons does not destroy the holons, but only alters their appearance and also creates a single entirely new higher holon. every molecule is a type. every brain hemisphere is a type (holon). every organ is a type. the lung is not a part of the stomach, it is a separated on its own level, but only on a lower level it seems to be connected (ie by a sea of protein), but the lower level does not concern the lungs properties as holon. on a higher leven (thorso) lung and stomach seem to be connected as well. they are, but only on that higher level of structure. type is either a separated structural holon in our spirit (or a constellation of interactive holons, ie functions), or it is false = it is not a type, it is a theory that is wrong and deluded and should be abandoned. we don't know, we need to find out.

    if you want a statistical tool about length of hairs, or amounts of aggression .. go for it, we had plenty of these in the past, we still have the DSM or five temperaments, but they don't deserve the name typology. not only do they not refer to actual types, a lot of them do not even refer to horizontal differences (differentiations of holons on a common level of structural complexity), but to vertical differences of different levels, meaning that in some falsely labeled "typologies" you could grow from one type (ie primitive) into another type (ie educated). such statistical tools of arbitrary "zooming in or out" are not typologies, neither are statistical tools that have a grasp on not arbitrary but actually separated stages of structural order.
    I hate to burst your bubble, dude, but there's no reason to believe (empirically or even theoretically) that MBTI is anything more than a statistical tool. It's merely a dimensionality reduction.

    MBTI is descriptive, not prescriptive. People that use it prescriptively will no doubt run into problems.

  7. #17
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    but there's no reason to believe
    there is only carl jung, who was skillful in observing and abstracting nature. and this is the kind of abstraction that does find actual patterns, which are not based on statistics, but based on character-recognition, meaning recognition of the intrinsic structure of a single entity, which defines that entity as entity (or holon), because its that intrinsic structure that shows the significant actions of a holon (self preservation among others). this is introverted recognition of patterns. the type is not derived from comparison (differentiation) to other types. it is only this recognition or intrinsic nature that understands typology. a large body of modern type-theory is abuse of the topic by extroverted means. but this is not true type anymore. sorry to break it to you.

    however, the basic intrinsic entities that have been recognized, are the functions, not the types that consist of these functions.
    (sorry, mlittrell but typology without functions is not typology any more)

    so, dichotomies might actually be flexible in a single individual, to the point where the current state of integration of functions might be just random, rather than part of a natural repetitive process of growth.

  8. #18
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    there is only carl jung, who was skillful in observing and abstracting nature. and this is the kind of abstraction that does find actual patterns, which are not based on statistics, but based on character-recognition, meaning recognition of the intrinsic structure of an entity, which define that entity as entity, because its that intrinsic structure that shows the significant actions of a holon (self preservation among others). this is introverted recognition of patterns. the type is not derived from comparison (differentiation) to other types. it is only this recognition that understands typology. a large body of moder type theory is abuse of the topic by extroverted means. but this is not true type. sorry to break it to you.

    however, the basic recognized entities are the functions, not the types that consist of these functions. (sorry, mittrell but typology without functions is not typology any more)
    "Introverted" recognition of patterns is all nice and dandy, but that doesn't mean it's true.

    Also, as a rule, I tend not to care how skilled or smart or creative a person making a theory is. The content of the theory is all that matters...who cares about the author? What I'm saying is: I'm not going to bias my views of a theory because Jung created it. I'll judge it on its merits alone.

    The concept of "Pure types" just makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're talking about prototypes, but those are just averages. They exist like averages exist -- they're useful in theory but mean essentially nothing in practice.

    How can anyone claim to know (more importantly, claim to know that they know) the "intrinsic structure" of anyone else anyway?

  9. #19
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    where is your Ni, btw?
    I like to limit my Ni with Thinking. Unbounded idea generation is much less efficient, since you can go far down paths that are entirely implausible and/or useless.

  10. #20
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    I'm not going to bias my views of a theory because Jung created it. I'll judge it on its merits alone.
    granted, but an N(i) theory must be judged by N(i), (not for instance by the deconstructive shadow of Ti). albeit it must also prove to be integrate-able into the whole of all perspectives. so whatever you understanding of "merits" are .... might me the right way, or might be an intrusion of one discipline into another discipline, which it could not even grasp in the first place.

    i already said myself, that we are here to validate the theory.

    we can not just abandon every theory and every means of intelligence, just because we are still in the process of integrating (comparing/synchronizing disciplines)

    everything i said so far, is about defining what the typology must be. there is no purpose in diluting words. we have typology, and we can have as many statistical tools as we want.

Similar Threads

  1. Where does morality come from?
    By themightyfetus in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-28-2015, 05:33 PM
  2. Type and Reductionism: Is It Time to Move Away From the Eight-Functions Model?
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-21-2011, 08:48 PM
  3. Type and Reductionism: Is It Time to Move Away From the Eight-Functions Model?
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-25-2010, 01:58 PM
  4. Typing children: is it really possible?
    By cfs1992 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 03:11 PM
  5. Where does reason come from?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-03-2009, 06:54 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