User Tag List

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 84 of 84

Thread: Functional Orientation ? Typological Orientation

  1. #81
    Senior Member Array Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    So you're basing your entire argument around something you pulled out of your ass?
    One would usually have to go to a bowling alley to find someone of your stature.
    If this is the best of possible worlds, what then are the others?
    ― Voltaire, Candide

  2. #82
    Dreaming the life Array onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    One would usually have to go to a bowling alley to find someone of your stature.

    Try harder. Certainly that's not the best you've got?

  3. #83
    Freshman Member Array simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    7w6 sx/so


    ^ Jaguar isn't such a big a fan of them nee-gruhs...Look at how violently he reacted to my implication that he bears any resemblance to Jay-Z.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #84
    Senior Member Array sciski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    hey! just to clarify the hartzler thing so you know where i was coming from, on page 6, they say that "two patterns are emerging from their research" and that one is the dom and aux in the opposite attitudes are the 3rd and 4th. since that is so far off from beebe's theory, i extrapolated that meant that (for me) beebe's theory wasn't panning out. no, they were not so bold as to say that. beebe's theory is just that. a theory.\
    I think Beebe acknowledged that people do not use the functions in a reliable order, ie First function most, second function second most, etc. Someone can use Fe, then Si, then follow it up with some Fi.

    Here's a quote from an article by Beebe (cheers to EricB for providing the original link).

    we should recognize that not all of the eight functions follow hero psychology in being measurable by their degree of strength. They do not, in actual experience, follow a descending hierarchy of differentiation
    from first (superior) through fourth (inferior) to eighth.

    Rather, the strength, and the kind of strength, a function of consciousness displays is a consequence of the archetypal role associated with it, and archetypes are differently developed in different people. The numbering of the positions is a bit of an anachronism, left over from the early days of Jungian psychology and of Isabel Briggs Myers’ adaptation of that psychology to the analysis of the MBTI® findings. When I use numbering today, in these post-heroic times, the numbers are meant to be read as qualitative rather than quantitative, much the way the numbers of streets can be read in a well-differentiated city that one is intimately acquainted with.
    Thus the “second” and “third” functions are identified, like avenues in New York City, by the qualities experience has taught us to recognize when we are actually in those places.

    Not saying that Beebe is necessarily correct, but that this may be a point of misunderstanding of Beebe's theory.

Similar Threads

  1. Etype and Parental Orientation
    By Santosha in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-05-2012, 07:51 PM
  2. The orientation question!
    By Antimony in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 03-06-2010, 01:42 AM
  3. Detail Orientation for NPs
    By ygolo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-06-2008, 08:56 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