User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 110

  1. #61
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I never said the first two most used functions can't both be introverted or extroverted.
    Then you acknowledge all possibilities? If so, that's a welcome surprise.

    My approach is exactly like that of Singer and Loomis.
    All MBTI assumptions are thrown out, and then test each function with true independence.
    An unbiased test will allow a person to answer a question, without it affecting any other component.
    That means if someone answers a question indicating a preference for Se,
    it will not reduce the score of the person's Ni, at the same time.

    Here is one example of a team leaderís type mode profile.
    The double-dominant is not a mistake.
    This is from the (SL-TDI) Singer and Loomis Type Deployment Inventory:

    • Extraverted Sensation Dominant
    • Extraverted Thinking Dominant
    • Extraverted Intuition Auxiliary
    • Introverted Feeling Mid-Mode
    • Introverted Thinking Mid-Mode
    • Introverted Sensing Mid-Mode
    • Extraverted Feeling Least Developed
    • Introverted Intuition Least Developed

    Clearly, you can see this demands a complete break with what MBTI has claimed for decades.
    Singer and Loomis-both Jungian analysts- not only set out to challenge MBTI, but to also challenge Jung's long-held assumptions.
    In the end, they found the majority of the assumptions did not hold up.

    My biggest problem with MBTI is simple:
    They never ran a check to see if the function orders they claim to be true, are actually true.
    People have always just assumed they were true.

    The way I define types is to look for the first most used function. The tiebreaker is the first most used opposite direction function of the opposite J/P. For example, if Ti is the most used function, the difference between ISTP and INTP is whether Ne is used more or Se is used more. That doesn't mean some other function can't be used more than both of them.

    You are then making an assumption there is only one leading function.
    I don't see it that way.
    I contend our brain has flexibility and plasticity.
    I do not believe we have to lead with one function 100% of the time,
    or even the same function 100% of the time.

    I will ask you to look back at the Singer-Loomis type profile I posted.
    There are two dominant functions listed for that particular person.
    Notice I said: "particular."

    I refuse to make an all-encompassing claim about ALL human beings. Each person is unique.
    I have no problem accepting the possibility that one person could have a SINGLE dominant function,
    while another person has more.

    No doubt if I reviewed a couple hundred results of the SL-TDI,
    I would see a pattern emerge rather quickly: All people would be unique.
    And most certainly, there would not be 16 types.
    For all I know there are hundreds of thousands of types, just as Singer and Loomis have suggested.

    The bottom line for me is: What is possible and what is true.
    I'm not looking for a "convenient" result.


    I'm going to digress here, and bring up one of your other quotes:

    Ne attaches metaphorical meaning to all the information it gets. Ni attaches more meaning to things that are relevant to the current thought process, potentially missing out on assigning meaning to all data.
    There are many people who appear to have both Ne and Ni well-developed.
    Opinion?

  2. #62
    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 Jaguar View Post
    Then you acknowledge all possibilities? If so, that's a welcome surprise.
    Why do you continually insist that no one except you allows for different possibilities, even after we've explained our positions to you repeatedly and shown that we do?

    You can win all the arguments you want when you define your opponents' positions for them...at least in your own mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    My approach is exactly like that of Singer and Loomis.
    All MBTI assumptions are thrown out, and then test each function with true independence.
    An unbiased test will allow a person to answer a question, without it affecting any other component.
    That means if someone answers a question indicating a preference for Se,
    it will not reduce the score of the person's Ni, at the same time.
    You've still done nothing to solve the problem of self-report. How can you expect any sort of validity or reliability from such tests when they are solely dependent upon a person's ability to honestly reflect upon himself and his own abilities? Won't many people still just test how they'd like to be rather than how they are?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Here is one example of a team leaderís type mode profile.
    The double-dominant is not a mistake.
    This is from the (SL-TDI) Singer and Loomis Type Deployment Inventory:

    • Extraverted Sensation Dominant
    • Extraverted Thinking Dominant
    • Extraverted Intuition Auxiliary
    • Introverted Feeling Mid-Mode
    • Introverted Thinking Mid-Mode
    • Introverted Sensing Mid-Mode
    • Extraverted Feeling Least Developed
    • Introverted Intuition Least Developed

    Clearly, you can see this demands a complete break with what MBTI has claimed for decades.
    Singer and Loomis-both Jungian analysts- not only set out to challenge MBTI, but to also challenge Jung's long-held assumptions.
    In the end, they found the majority of the assumptions did not hold up.
    How did they solve the problem of confirmation bias via self-report? How do they purport to have tests for inherently unquantifiable concepts, and how can they claim that their tests are any more "accurate" than anyone else's?

    What proof could they possibly have?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    My biggest problem with MBTI is simple:
    They never ran a check to see if the function orders they claim to be true, are actually true.
    People have always just assumed they were true.
    How the hell do you "run a check" when you're working with nebulous philosophical concepts that can't be quantified, objectively tested or empirically verified?

    And really, if you still think we support iron-clad function orders in 100% of cases, you simply are not reading our posts.




    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    You are then making an assumption there is only one leading function.
    I don't see it that way.
    I contend our brain has flexibility and plasticity.
    I do not believe we have to lead with one function 100% of the time,
    or even the same function 100% of the time.

    I will ask you to look back at the Singer-Loomis type profile I posted.
    There are two dominant functions listed for that particular person.
    Notice I said: "particular."
    No, he is making the assumption that one leading function leads a majority of the time, which is pretty clear from reading his posts.

    No one believes that only one functions leads 100% of the time; once AGAIN we're only making generalized statements about trends. "He's Fe dominant" just means that Fe leads his thought processes more often than any other function, NOT 100% OF THE TIME.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    I refuse to make an all-encompassing claim about ALL human beings. Each person is unique.
    I have no problem accepting the possibility that one person could have a SINGLE dominant function,
    while another person has more.
    That's fine on its own, but it seems intuitively improbable as it would require a person to use two functions in precisely the same proportions. I'll grant you that people like this probably do exist somewhere, but they're also probably very uncommon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    No doubt if I reviewed a couple hundred results of the SL-TDI,
    I would see a pattern emerge rather quickly: All people would be unique.
    And most certainly, there would not be 16 types.
    For all I know there are hundreds of thousands of types, just as Singer and Loomis have suggested.
    That'd be great if psychological type were a quantifiable or testable proposition. Unfortunately, due to problems created by confirmation bias and the fact that all of the "tests" are dependent entirely upon self-report, it's not, and so your point is entirely irrelevant. Congrats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    The bottom line for me is: What is possible and what is true.
    I'm not looking for a "convenient" result.
    Then you need to stop looking for a way to empirically test inherently unquantifiable concepts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    I'm going to digress here, and bring up one of your other quotes:



    There are many people who appear to have both Ne and Ni well-developed.
    Opinion?
    Whether or not they actually do--how would you know the difference? Test results mean nothing because there's absolutely no way to verify any of this as empirical truth. How would you know if someone was strong in both Ne and Ni?

    The fact that you're open to different functional order possibilities is great, but it's rendered almost meaningless by your myopic and dogmatic insistence that any of this is inherently testable. Why don't you open yourself to the possibility that your test results (and indeed, all typology test results) might be total bullshit because psychological type can't be quantified?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #63
    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 Evan View Post
    The premises of a deductive argument entail the truth of a set of statements. In other words, the logical content of the combination of premises is a set S. The conclusion of a deductive argument, then, is limited to S. It can either be a subset or the entire set. No matter what, then, the conclusion is either restating the logical content of the premises, or just restating a part of that logical content. Basically, you can always rewrite the premises to include the conclusion itself.

    So you can always take the premises and play around with some logic rules and rewrite them as the conclusion itself.

    A->B
    A
    Therefore
    B

    can be rewritten as

    A->B
    A
    B
    Therefore
    B

    can be rewritten as

    blah blah
    B
    Therefore
    B

    If B wasn't a part of the premises, it couldn't be logically valid to conclude B.

    An analogy would be something like
    6-2
    therefore
    4

    you can rewrite 6-2 as 4, so you're basically saying
    4
    therefore
    4
    A deductive argument must always consist of conditional if-then statements, yes, but that's not what circular logic is. Anyway I'm moving on to the next part now because this one didn't turn as interesting as I thought it would.



    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    No, you used S to see the body language, then you used N to synthesize what you saw and come to a possible interpretation of what it means.
    Which form of S did I use and how do you know?



    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    People just trade between S and N multiple times per second. The combination of the two create things like perceiving the meaning of body language.

    S by itself would just give you images with no meaning or symbols attached. N by itself would have nothing to work with.
    Ok, I can accept this explanation for the moment.



    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    External information is taken in through Sensing, always. Intuition attaches possible meanings to that information. By the time the information bubbles up to consciousness, it's an amalgamation of sense data (S) and metaphorical meaning (N).
    If external information is always taken in via Sensing, what exactly does Ne do and why is it referred to as an extroverted function?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Extroverted judging functions don't take in any external information at all. They just make conclusions based on the data they have, with a bias towards including premises that are relevant to the environment. Introverted judging functions are biased towards using premises that are relevant to the current thought process, regardless of environmental relevance.
    No, but extroverted perceiving functions (including Ne) do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    The difference between Se and Si is that Se tries to pick out sensory data about as many different pieces of the environment as possible, whereas Si tries to pick out sensory data that's specifically relevant to the current thought process.
    So Si does pick up information directly from the outside world? Why is it an introverted function? As far as I'm aware, introverted functions do not interact directly with the external world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Ne and Ni are different analogously to Se and Si -- Ne attaches metaphorical meaning to all the information it gets. Ni attaches more meaning to things that are relevant to the current thought process, potentially missing out on assigning meaning to all data.
    So Ne and Ni are both inherently introverted and never communicate with the outer world? That doesn't seem likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Extroversion is like breadth, Introversion is like depth. Pe looks to everything, Pi looks deeply at a few things. Je factors in everything, Ji factors in more stuff about fewer things.
    That's fine, but it doesn't make any sense to label Ne an extroverted function if it doesn't actually operate outside the subject himself. It would just be a third form of Pi.


    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I've explained a lot of this in my function definitions thread.
    That's cool, but many of them don't seem to hold up.

    Your assertion that Ne never takes in outside information is counterintuitive. Why would it would be called an extroverted function? If it occurs entirely in one's own head, how does it differ in terms of functional direction from Ni? The labeling doesn't make sense under your interpretation because you've declared Ne to be just another introverted function, and essentially declared Si to be an extroverted function because you've said that it can take in information from the external world where Ne apparently cannot.

    That doesn't really seem to make sense. The breadth vs. depth descriptions may very well be true of E vs. I, but you've ignored the most basic property of E/I--one operates internally and the other operates externally. You seem to have decided that this difference either doesn't exist or is totally irrelevant, and I don't think I can get behind that.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #64
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    haha! good eye, jaguar.


    Freudian slip, AO? getting enough?
    Sensotard moment, nothing more.

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Then you acknowledge all possibilities? If so, that's a welcome surprise.

    My approach is exactly like that of Singer and Loomis.
    All MBTI assumptions are thrown out, and then test each function with true independence.
    An unbiased test will allow a person to answer a question, without it affecting any other component.
    That means if someone answers a question indicating a preference for Se,
    it will not reduce the score of the person's Ni, at the same time.

    Here is one example of a team leaderís type mode profile.
    The double-dominant is not a mistake.
    This is from the (SL-TDI) Singer and Loomis Type Deployment Inventory:

    • Extraverted Sensation Dominant
    • Extraverted Thinking Dominant
    • Extraverted Intuition Auxiliary
    • Introverted Feeling Mid-Mode
    • Introverted Thinking Mid-Mode
    • Introverted Sensing Mid-Mode
    • Extraverted Feeling Least Developed
    • Introverted Intuition Least Developed

    Clearly, you can see this demands a complete break with what MBTI has claimed for decades.
    Singer and Loomis-both Jungian analysts- not only set out to challenge MBTI, but to also challenge Jung's long-held assumptions.
    In the end, they found the majority of the assumptions did not hold up.

    My biggest problem with MBTI is simple:
    They never ran a check to see if the function orders they claim to be true, are actually true.
    People have always just assumed they were true.




    You are then making an assumption there is only one leading function.
    I don't see it that way.
    I contend our brain has flexibility and plasticity.
    I do not believe we have to lead with one function 100% of the time,
    or even the same function 100% of the time.

    I will ask you to look back at the Singer-Loomis type profile I posted.
    There are two dominant functions listed for that particular person.
    Notice I said: "particular."

    I refuse to make an all-encompassing claim about ALL human beings. Each person is unique.
    I have no problem accepting the possibility that one person could have a SINGLE dominant function,
    while another person has more.

    No doubt if I reviewed a couple hundred results of the SL-TDI,
    I would see a pattern emerge rather quickly: All people would be unique.
    And most certainly, there would not be 16 types.
    For all I know there are hundreds of thousands of types, just as Singer and Loomis have suggested.

    The bottom line for me is: What is possible and what is true.
    I'm not looking for a "convenient" result.


    I'm going to digress here, and bring up one of your other quotes:



    There are many people who appear to have both Ne and Ni well-developed.
    Opinion?
    I think that our strongest functions are our Dominant and Tertiary. This will be 100% both in the same direction. It is what we use to work through all our problems. Like for Me its TiNi, TiNi is what drives everything I put on here. But we screw up our tertiary because we attempt to use it to understand things its not meant to understand. I have had someone respond that XYZ is very STP of you. It hit me that what I did was basically how I handle everything in my life and how I was trying to apply this somewhere it doesnt belong. Why use T when you have an F that is waiting to be developed.

    I think we can have several functions developed like Ne Ni, but we are best at using our concious functions as a control. I can use TiNi to convince myself and control and steer all my subconcious functions.

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Sensotard moment, nothing more.
    Or wishful thinking

    /\
    |

    INTUITARD moment, lol

  7. #67
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    ^ Isn't Ti supposedly the dominant function of ISTP, not the auxiliary?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #68
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poki View Post
    Or wishful thinking
    Seriously, I can go through my post 3 times and not notice stuff like this sometimes.

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ^ Isn't Ti supposedly the dominant function of ISTP, not the auxiliary?
    Yup, slip of words, fixed. Everything else gets the point across though because I refer to Ti as opposed to my Aux

  10. #70
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    So you meant dominant + tertiary?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

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. How to determine function order and what the functions mean... AS A NINJA
    By BlackCat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-13-2009, 07:59 PM
  3. [JCF] What is the function order?
    By INTJ123 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-16-2009, 04:34 PM
  4. Where does the introverted/extraverted function difference show up?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 11:04 AM
  5. The Influence of Functions on Grammar
    By JustDave in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-29-2008, 11:01 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