User Tag List

First 456

Results 51 to 58 of 58

  1. #51
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Eric, after this, I think we'd better take this to PM or something, because we're starting to veer off from the main issue.
    I don't think so. The topic is the usefulness of functional analysis, and now we're basically testing it out.
    My best friend in high school was an ISFP, so I'm in a somewhat privileged position to underline the differences. She was someone who I obviously related to on some levels or else we wouldn't have been friends: we were both creatures of emotion, for instance, and we had many of the same concerns in life. We had our marked differences, though, and the relevant ones touch on her use of Se.

    To start with, she had what I would call an inner diva. In her imagination, she saw herself as something like a pop star in the making; she thought she was cool, and this sense of stylishness was very important to her identity. It was not for mine. To be sure, I had my own sense of style--who doesn't?--but mine did not involve trying new hairstyles, wearing unique clothing, or plastering things with stickers. My sense of style revolved around a unique outlook on life that transcended the physical in every way.

    The other thing that set us apart was that, unlike me, she had a certain restlessness about her that it's hard for me to pin down. Part of this was a certain physicality that I've always lacked; she seemed to be on the go, wandering almost, and she was always interested in some physical activity, whether it was painting or playing sports or getting in an altercation with someone. This, and her overall there-and-now-ness, was something that always struck me as quaint, almost amusing. I think she must have felt the same way about my strange, almost alien take on everything.
    She does sound like she has a stronger Se, and possibly an ESFP. Or perhaps, just strong E (since I believe that I/E can have varying degrees). Still, I belive an ISFP does not necessarily have to be like that. Though I do not know enough of them.
    I wouldn't call myself terribly artistic, so this is another thing that sets me apart from ISFPs. The only form of art I do is write, and my writing is easily some of the most abstract, intuitive stuff I've seen in print. When it comes to physical details, I struggle; I write in abstractions more than I do in details, and what details I do manage always take on a dreamy, otherworldly quality.

    Extraverted sensing is something I only recently learned to do, and even now I only use it on a shallow epistemological level. I relate to literally nothing else about the process except that I sometimes struggle not to go on binges or lose control of myself when angry. So negative is this other side of Se, that I would say I struggle to keep the process chained down almost as much as I do Ti.
    Secondly, I've been extremely intuitive for as long as I can remember, whereas I've only accepted Se as my philosophical foundation in recent years.
    Epistemology is the study of knowledge. So you're saying that you only demand concrete facts when dealing with that subject?
    Of course, I don't know the whole context of what you are saying, but then maybe it is playing a sort of trickster role (or more accurately, acting out a trickster complex) by childishly demanding hard facts? With me; it's usually pointing out current facts to beat someone in an argument or get them off my back.
    Or maybe it's just undifferentiated. But it's just the way you are articulating it that makes it sound like it is differentiated.

    I also love looking at richly colored LED lights. (Was just out in Times Square last night). But I know that is not Se preference, because I can never just look at things for what they are. It always has to be tied to some concept or something (like how all the colors are made from the three primaries; and the symmetries involved). I first saw this when reading Berens' books, and there was an exercise telling you to just look at a picture and not try to analyze or find meaning, etc.
    This doesn't sound like me at all. Number one, my main goal is always to achieve something in the outer world; ethical judgments are only a means to that end.
    But you're professing INFP now, and that would be the same as ISFP in being dominant with ethical judgment (Fi). If ego's main goal is the outer world, then you are by definition, an extravert.

    However, the extraverted functions are generally more noticeable then introverted ones, so perhaps that's why you would see it like that.
    So you're telling me that you believe Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre were SPs? What I've described is the phenomenological reduction, which was core to all three of those philosopher's methods.
    I don't know who they are (probably heard of a couple of the names), so I can't say.
    As you said, profiles are filled with stereotypes, so I'm somewhat reluctant to even answer this question. I'll do it anyway, just to illustrate. The profile below is taken from MyPersonality, and I've crossed out everything that contrasts with me:

    I trust that my point is slightly clearer now.
    And a lot of the stuff you crossed out sounds like it might be somewhat stereotypical, plus you have words in there like "many", allowing that not all are like this.

    "This is how things appear to be, now let's proceed from here." That simple attitude, which I often neglect to exercise, encapsulates almost the whole of my experience with Se. This is why I can say I'm bad at using the process.

    I use plenty of Ne, but I don't take it quite as seriously as the typical NP. I like to be playfully imaginative, I enjoy being random, and I can easily sense patterns which clue me into the deeper meaning of things. I don't tend to use Ne as an arbiter of truth, though, and I'm not one to actively collect data and link it together. My connection-making, at least in its serious mode, is rooted inwardly, in the form of introverted intuition.
    It's about what is true from my point of view, not what is true based on a bunch of misleading external evidence. For this and other reasons, I would much sooner call myself an INFJ or even an INTJ than an ISFP.
    Yeah, that's what this is sounding like now. So you would still be iNtuitive, yet Se would be a less mature function, but still nevertheless ego-compatible and would come up as you say. You would basically "aspire" to it (as Berens puts it), and this would manifest in your epistemological context.

    But then, with INFJ you're losing Fi, in favor of Fe. With INTJ, you're going back to Thinking preference again of course).
    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

  2. #52
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I don't think so. The topic is the usefulness of functional analysis, and now we're basically testing it out.
    I feel that we've taken this more into the realm of "What type am I?" than functions analysis as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B
    Epistemology is the study of knowledge. So you're saying that you only demand concrete facts when dealing with that subject?
    Not exactly. What I mean is that I'm careful to make a distinction between metaphysics and objective reality. Objective reality is that which can be seen and touched, while metaphysics deals with various schematics for interpreting that reality. When I say that objective reality takes priority over metaphysics, what I mean is that the observable world should serve as the foundation for any rigorous line of speculation. One must start by observing things exactly as they appear, as free of bias as possible, and from there move on to interpretations, taking care to remember that interpretations is all that they are. This is in contrast to the person who believes that his ideas are objectively true and thereby loses much of his flexibility and depth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B
    I also love looking at richly colored LED lights. (Was just out in Times Square last night). But I know that is not Se preference, because I can never just look at things for what they are. It always has to be tied to some concept or something (like how all the colors are made from the three primaries; and the symmetries involved). I first saw this when reading Berens' books, and there was an exercise telling you to just look at a picture and not try to analyze or find meaning, etc.
    I always have an abstract response to sensory detail--always. The difference between us seems to be that I've taught myself to stay attuned on some level to the concrete reality against which that process plays.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B
    But you're professing INFP now, and that would be the same as ISFP in being dominant with ethical judgment (Fi). If ego's main goal is the outer world, then you are by definition, an extravert.
    I'm not sure if we have the same thing in mind with the word "goal." By calling the outer world my goal, I don't mean to say that it's there that I want to spend my time. I don't. It's simply that my goals in life revolve around achievements in that word. How it could be otherwise, I don't know, for my ethics have already been resolved; all they require is that I follow my leading, whatever it may be. On the other hand, the external world is filled with all kinds of things that I would like to achieve but which remain out of reach. And I have to believe that's the case for most people, even if they're strong introverts. I think everyone seeks to accomplish something external, even if it's only so they can sink back into the comfort of their cave.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B
    I don't know who they are (probably heard of a couple of the names), so I can't say.
    Really? You need to get busy, then, young man. And to think, you're an INTP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B
    Yeah, that's what this is sounding like now. So you would still be iNtuitive, yet Se would be a less mature function, but still nevertheless ego-compatible and would come up as you say. You would basically "aspire" to it (as Berens puts it), and this would manifest in your epistemological context.

    But then, with INFJ you're losing Fi, in favor of Fe. With INTJ, you're going back to Thinking preference again of course).
    This is where I feel we reach the limits of a personality model. No one is going to fit a personality type to perfection any more than a real instance of red is going to be purely "red." Just as red is always intermixed with other colors, people too are a mix of the seemingly contradictory.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  3. #53
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Not exactly. What I mean is that I'm careful to make a distinction between metaphysics and objective reality. Objective reality is that which can be seen and touched, while metaphysics deals with various schematics for interpreting that reality. When I say that objective reality takes priority over metaphysics, what I mean is that the observable world should serve as the foundation for any rigorous line of speculation. One must start by observing things exactly as they appear, as free of bias as possible, and from there move on to interpretations, taking care to remember that interpretations is all that they are. This is in contrast to the person who believes that his ideas are objectively true and thereby loses much of his flexibility and depth.

    I always have an abstract response to sensory detail--always. The difference between us seems to be that I've taught myself to stay attuned on some level to the concrete reality against which that process plays.
    Sounds kind of like an Ni/Se tandem.
    I'm not sure if we have the same thing in mind with the word "goal." By calling the outer world my goal, I don't mean to say that it's there that I want to spend my time. I don't. It's simply that my goals in life revolve around achievements in that word.
    It doesn't have to be about spending time, but rather more the "revolving around" part.
    Really? You need to get busy, then, young man. And to think, you're an INTP.
    But now that's getting into a stereotype of INTP's. Like they have to know all philosophers. My line of interest just has never pushed me towards those particular people and their subjects.
    This is where I feel we reach the limits of a personality model. No one is going to fit a personality type to perfection any more than a real instance of red is going to be purely "red." Just as red is always intermixed with other colors, people too are a mix of the seemingly contradictory.
    True. That's why it's supposed to be simplified into a preference of two functions. But of course then, what if both are introverted, or both are judgment, etc. That's when the archetype model will help, because the order won't be based on strength, but rather role. But then, that's making it less simple, and that might not fit either, (or at least the person might be aware of the roles). After that is when you try to take into consideration experience and stuff like that.
    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

  4. #54
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post


    Nah... you needed to know what's normal cause the conformists got to you first... give me time... give me time...

    I meant... I needed to know what was normal for an INTJ.

    For instance, one of the things my husband used to complain about to me was the way I would get involved in a project and let all my other responsibilities slide. When I learned that was an INTJ trait, I was able to not be so self-condemning for being that way. And interestingly, once I realized WHY I was doing it, I was able to counter-act the behavior by forcing myself to learn to put a project down and go back to it later... even though I hate doing it that way... because I lose momentum. I still struggle with that, but it's just an example. Self-acceptance has always been very difficult for me... I think because of my enneagram... I've always struggled with believing I was "defective". Anyhow, MBTI profiles have helped me to learn to accept those things that are part of being an INTJ while at the same time not necessarily using that as an excuse for bad behavior.

  5. #55
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Sounds kind of like an Ni/Se tandem.
    It does, doesn't it? But if we're putting weight on the archetypes, might this not be within the bounds of my professed type? Might these not be Ni and Se coming out as a shadowy (as it were) duo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric
    It doesn't have to be about spending time, but rather more the "revolving around" part.
    Perhaps so, but I'm not an extravert, Eric. Not in any way, shape, or form.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B
    But now that's getting into a stereotype of INTP's. Like they have to know all philosophers. My line of interest just has never pushed me towards those particular people and their subjects.
    Well yes, of course. It was only a joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B
    True. That's why it's supposed to be simplified into a preference of two functions. But of course then, what if both are introverted, or both are judgment, etc. That's when the archetype model will help, because the order won't be based on strength, but rather role. But then, that's making it less simple, and that might not fit either, (or at least the person might be aware of the roles). After that is when you try to take into consideration experience and stuff like that.
    This turns the whole thing into a chaotic hodgepodge for me. Preference of two functions. That doesn't work, so we look at the archetypes. Archetypes. That doesn't work, so we look at my experience. But where does that leave me? What can I learn from my experience, vague, varying, and variegated as it is? And where does that leave the MBTI, which by now has done every kind of backtrack and sidestep without ever pinning me down?
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  6. #56
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    It does, doesn't it? But if we're putting weight on the archetypes, might this not be within the bounds of my professed type? Might these not be Ni and Se coming out as a shadowy (as it were) duo?
    What you had said doesn'tsound shadowy. Shadows; even in their good sides, are usually associated with stressful situations somehow. Or, you could just be someone for whom they have developed. My wife is another one who seems ESFJ, but also seems to use functions a lot that contradict that, such as Te, Fi, Se and Ni (all four shadows, in fact). So they could be generic undifferentiated functions, or who knows. Still, Fe dominant is definite, and I say that Si as parent really fits.
    Perhaps so, but I'm not an extravert, Eric. Not in any way, shape, or form.
    But if the extraverted function is auxiliary, it would still be attached to the ego enough for you to describe it in terms of "revolving around"
    This turns the whole thing into a chaotic hodgepodge for me. Preference of two functions. That doesn't work, so we look at the archetypes. Archetypes. That doesn't work, so we look at my experience. But where does that leave me? What can I learn from my experience, vague, varying, and variegated as it is? And where does that leave the MBTI, which by now has done every kind of backtrack and sidestep without ever pinning me down?
    Well, none of this is set in stone, like some concrete absolute. It's just a classification of general preference, and it might not have even been intended to be "perfect fits".
    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

  7. #57
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    I think functions analysis is not only useful, but necessary. I understand the 16 types better because of it.

  8. #58
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B
    Shadows; even in their good sides, are usually associated with stressful situations somehow. Or, you could just be someone for whom they have developed.
    Apparently so, for no matter what you call my type, I'll have healthy use of at least one or two of its shadow functions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B
    But if the extraverted function is auxiliary, it wouls still be bound to the ego enough for you to describe it in terms of "revolving around"
    I see, that makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B
    Well, none of this is set in stone, like some concrete absolute. It's just a classification of general preference, and it might not have even been intended to be "perfect fits".
    I agree with you even more than you agree with yourself.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

Similar Threads

  1. What is an easy way to tell what functions you use?
    By Paris34 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-25-2014, 08:56 PM
  2. Functions Analysis: What's My MBTI Type?
    By 527468 in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 227
    Last Post: 12-22-2010, 02:50 PM
  3. How is this MBTI useful to your life?
    By Xander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-25-2010, 01:22 PM
  4. Is personal analysis so viable?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 09:11 AM
  5. Eight Function Analysis of INTPs
    By Totenkindly in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 05:19 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