User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 77

  1. #21
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saslou View Post
    Please .. Oh i am enjoying this .. Continue insulting me .. I can't host for shit ..
    That is unfortunate... kind of like an INTP who sucks at logic.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  2. #22
    Senior Member incubustribute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Yeah, I have a problem with more than just names. To put INTJs and ISFJs in one category, and ISTPs and INFPs in another is totally bunk. That's the equavalent of claiming that tigers and zebras are the same species because they both have stripes.

    Anyway, the only ideals or rules that ISTP guys tend to go by is "don't call me a faggot"
    I like the animal analogy, but I'm not sure if it's a strong analogy. I see what you're saying, but my main goal in using Je/Ji/Pe/Pi is to put a finger down on the person's main mode, the dominant function. Key word: Function
    If this is true, than what I'm really doing is lumping tigers and spiders together because they are both carnivores.
    Coincidentally, if I actually saw a spiger, I think I might forget everything I know about MBTI and move to another planet that is not inhabited by terrifying creatures.

  3. #23
    A Benign Tumor PoprocksAndCoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by incubustribute View Post
    I don't know about you, but the INTP's I know kind of are...at least on the basis of logic.
    I'm not an INTP. But somewhere along the line I met one and picked up some sarcasm.
    "In order for the light to shine so brightly, the darkness must be present." -Francis Bacon

    "No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." -George Chakiris

  4. #24
    Senior Member incubustribute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoprocksAndCoke View Post
    I'm not an INTP. But somewhere along the line I met one and picked up some sarcasm.
    Now I'm confused...do you or do you not believe that INTP's are idealistic? Sarcasm would imply that you meant the opposite your first post, which stated that INTP's are soooo idealistic. I (thought I) caught the sarcasm.

    :confused:

  5. #25
    A Benign Tumor PoprocksAndCoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    614

    Default

    I do not believe that they're idealistic, no worries.
    "In order for the light to shine so brightly, the darkness must be present." -Francis Bacon

    "No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." -George Chakiris

  6. #26
    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 Jeffster View Post
    Keirsey's temperaments make sense because they are based on observable behavior, while yours just looks like a bunch of assumptive gibberish.
    Ever consider that this is just because you don't fucking get it?

    I mean look man, you're a nice guy and all and I like you, but you need to stop trying to evaluate intuitive concepts in sensory terms. You're missing a lot here and you don't even remotely grasp the mechanisms that make this sort of thought meaningful.

    Please make a genuine effort to grasp what you're missing here. It's a lot more than "assumptive gibberish"; you just don't know what the hell is going on and you're making it very obvious how uninformed you are on the topic of functional theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Let's see.. ISTP as The Idealist... ESFJ as The Leader...

    The crack pipe, sir. Lay it on the ground and slowly back away.
    You two should start an "I'm too lazy to study things but I still love shooting them down without bothering to know what I'm talking about" club.

    If you're going to make a serious critique of these ideas, then make a serious critique, but just bluntly declaring that it's stupid (or "voodoo" as you so lovingly termed it) and then failing to provide any support beyond "I don't get it" doesn't really do much beyond make it evident that you haven't bothered to study this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Yeah, I have a problem with more than just names. To put INTJs and ISFJs in one category, and ISTPs and INFPs in another is totally bunk. That's the equavalent of claiming that tigers and zebras are the same species because they both have stripes.

    Anyway, the only ideals or rules that ISTP guys tend to go by is "don't call me a faggot"
    You don't have the necessary background to understand why this categorization is meaningful. We're categorizing based on learning styles and attitudes toward planning and organization. IxxP types all share a most pronounced preference for introverted Judgment; that is, they are similar because they operate first by organizing a rigid internal structure of principles (Ji) and then by adapting and rearranging them to fit whatever external context is necessary (Pe.)

    Likewise, ExxJ types all share a preference for extroverted Judgment; they tend to take a decisive, leading and commanding role that involves actively delegating tasks to others and organizing the external world.

    If you bother to study functional theory, you'll notice that all ExxJ types share the same Je, Pi, Pe, Ji order in terms of their learning styles and organizational priorities. MBTI is an oversimplified beginner version of Jungian functional theory; if you operate purely on the "four sliding scales" system you're still using training wheels. It's unfortunately far more complex than that.

    I used to agree with you. I thought observable surface behaviors were the only thing worth paying attention to (you can go find an old post I wrote denouncing functional theory purely as "wishful thinking")--until I bothered to read about it and realized that it adds tremendous depth and utility, and that MBTI's simplistic four dichotomy system was created purely as a simplified form of functional theory in the first place.

    Your four sliding scales wouldn't even exist without Jung's functional theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by incubustribute View Post
    Too much theory, eh? That's cool! I dig it...thanks for your input.
    Jeffster is about the least intuitive person on this entire message board. He's great fun and all, but anything that isn't spelled out in literal black and white just flies right over his head.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #27
    Senior Member incubustribute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Perhaps I should have made it more clear that this is intended to delve moderately into Jungian functions. If your knowledge of MBTI stops at Jung, than this might not be something you can offer valid input on. But I do appreciate all the comments - any improvement suggestions are more than welcome as well.

  8. #28
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I mean look man, you're a nice guy and all and I like you, but you need to stop trying to evaluate intuitive concepts in sensory terms. You're missing a lot here and you don't even remotely grasp the mechanisms that make this sort of thought meaningful.
    I don't think you know what I NEED to do. The person who started this topic presented it as an "alternative to Keirsey's classifications," not as "I love function theory and would like to marry it!" I wouldn't have bothered to comment on the latter. I'm not Victor or Jaguar or one of those other people on some sort of mission to try to convince people they're all in some brainwashed cult or something. If somebody presents something as an "alternative to Keirsey" then you would think that it would be something classifying the same things as Keirsey, not an entirely different subject with absolutely no examples of anything given. You want to live in what somebody else on this forum referred to as "fantasy theory land" or something like that, knock yourself out. But don't present it as somehow making more sense than Keirsey's groupings, and then say I don't get it because I'm expecting it to actually have something to do with reality.

    Please make a genuine effort to grasp what you're missing here. It's a lot more than "assumptive gibberish"; you just don't know what the hell is going on and you're making it very obvious how uninformed you are on the topic of functional theory.
    Actually, dude, I was very open to "functional theory" when I first started studying this personality stuff. I think you could find several topics where I indeed made "a genuine effort to grasp" it. There are many people on this site who use those theories to augment the real study of people, and explained some things I had trouble with before. I've posted about how the function stuff filled in some gaps in my own evaluation of my personality and how it seemed to be different when I was a child. The whole concept of functions sort of developing or "activating" over time as one matures makes a whole lot of sense when I examine my own behavior and others that I've known. The problem comes when people present long strings of theory but don't relate it to anything. Then, yes, I am going to stick up for a simple system of observing people over something that is "intuitive concepts." You're being silly for thinking that I'm not ALWAYS going to look at it in "sensory terms." That's how I look at things. I'm a Sensor!

    So, it IS assumptive gibberish until you actually apply it to something. Don't put it on me if you're incapable of doing that.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  9. #29
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post

    You two should start an "I'm too lazy to study things but I still love shooting them down without bothering to know what I'm talking about" club.
    Hey daddio, I work with things that work. I've read enough about cognitive functions to know that they are useless in day to day interactions with people. Now you can attempt to give me a mental reach around all day long by saying "the reason you don't think it works is because you don't get it", but that kind of approach only annoys me, at best.

    I follow Keirsey's typing style and groupings because of ALL the MBTI offshoots out there, they were the only ones that seem to have an actual practical application.

    You don't agree? Maybe it's because you are too lazy to study it but still love shooting it down without bothering to know what you are talking about.

    Now as far as I am concerned, any Myers Briggs derivative theory that claims that INTJs and ISFJs are in the same grouping will automatically get my scorn. I have no interest in wasting my time figuring out exactly how wrong they are. Once I come across blatant prima facia evidence that it is wrong, I move on to other things with my life. You on the other hand, can mentally masturbate all day long.

    Hope that clears up my thoughts on the matter.

    XOXO,
    Edgar
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  10. #30
    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 Jeffster View Post
    I don't think you know what I NEED to do. The person who started this topic presented it as an "alternative to Keirsey's classifications," not as "I love function theory and would like to marry it!" I wouldn't have bothered to comment on the latter. I'm not Victor or Jaguar or one of those other people on some sort of mission to try to convince people they're all in some brainwashed cult or something. If somebody presents something as an "alternative to Keirsey" then you would think that it would be something classifying the same things as Keirsey, not an entirely different subject with absolutely no examples of anything given. You want to live in what somebody else on this forum referred to as "fantasy theory land" or something like that, knock yourself out. But don't present it as somehow making more sense than Keirsey's groupings, and then say I don't get it because I'm expecting it to actually have something to do with reality.
    There are tons and tons of examples all over reality and everywhere in real life, whether or not you can see them without someone pointing them out to you. Maybe if you'd ask for them before declaring this all totally worthless, people would be inclined to explain.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Actually, dude, I was very open to "functional theory" when I first started studying this personality stuff. I think you could find several topics where I indeed made "a genuine effort to grasp" it. There are many people on this site who use those theories to augment the real study of people, and explained some things I had trouble with before. I've posted about how the function stuff filled in some gaps in my own evaluation of my personality and how it seemed to be different when I was a child. The whole concept of functions sort of developing or "activating" over time as one matures makes a whole lot of sense when I examine my own behavior and others that I've known. The problem comes when people present long strings of theory but don't relate it to anything. Then, yes, I am going to stick up for a simple system of observing people over something that is "intuitive concepts." You're being silly for thinking that I'm not ALWAYS going to look at it in "sensory terms." That's how I look at things. I'm a Sensor!
    The long strings of theory do relate to something; you just don't get it. That's what I'm telling you. If theory-heavy posts really didn't relate to anything, you'd have a great point, but many of them do.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    So, it IS assumptive gibberish until you actually apply it to something. Don't put it on me if you're incapable of doing that.
    Again there's an extraordinary amount of application, whether or not you can see it. Expanding theoretical foundations allows us to explore all kinds of application that we may have previously thought impossible.

    Why don't you try picking out particular sections of these posts and asking for further explanation as to how they apply in real life, rather than simply declaring them garbage before anyone has even heard your specific concerns?


    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Hey daddio, I work with things that work. I've read enough about cognitive functions to know that they are useless in day to day interactions with people. Now you can attempt to give me a mental reach around all day long by saying "the reason you don't think it works is because you don't get it", but that kind of approach only annoys me, at best.
    Grasping people's fundamental value systems and the sources of validation for them is useless in day to day interactions? Really? You can memorize "xxxx type likes to behave this way" all you want, but it doesn't do much in terms of explaining what fundamental life priorities and goals motivate that type of person to behave that way. That is where the utility is; you can move beyond simple categorizations of what and start to learn why.

    MBTI doesn't even touch on the different forms of S/N/T/F; it all just gets lumped into one oversimplified blunt instrument that appeases the masses who find Jung too esoteric. It's great for a quick surface analysis, but you're missing all the depth if you stop there.

    And I think it'd be more like mental sodomy, but we'll get into the specifics of hypothetical gay sex another day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    I follow Keirsey's typing style and groupings because of ALL the MBTI offshoots out there, they were the only ones that seem to have an actual practical application.

    You don't agree? Maybe it's because you are too lazy to study it but still love shooting it down without bothering to know what you are talking about.
    Well no, I used to hold the same position as you because I was introduced to Keirsey first (and I am quite competent in his temperament theory; this is how I know it's inferior) and learned the four-dichotomy system before ever studying Jungian functions. I'm so adamant on this because I've already been through the same thought processes that lead you to think functions are useless and I now realize in hindsight that I really didn't get it at the time.

    I still use MBTI for certain things, mostly just very quick first impressions for which direction to go in when dealing with a new person. But in terms of working to understand and appreciate the value in perspectives different from my own, and I mean really appreciate it for its own sake instead of just considering it as some erroneous belief on the part of others, MBTI hardly does anything. You need a more nuanced system to dig deeper into what truly makes people tick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Now as far as I am concerned, any Myers Briggs derivative theory that claims that INTJs and ISFJs are in the same grouping will automatically get my scorn. I have no interest in wasting my time figuring out exactly how wrong they are. Once I come across blatant prima facia evidence that it is wrong, I move on to other things with my life. You on the other hand, can mentally masturbate all day long.

    Hope that clears up my thoughts on the matter.

    XOXO,
    Edgar
    You haven't encountered blatant prima facie (not facia, btw) evidence of shit; you've just failed to grasp the dynamics of functional theory because you don't yet understand how to apply it. INTJs and ISFJs share quite a number of significant characteristics in terms of their learning processes and organizational methods, and yes, a lot of this applies directly to real life in a number of ways.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. Alternatives to the Pill
    By Reborn Relic in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-05-2017, 12:50 PM
  2. Organized pugilism as an alternative to gun violence ...?
    By iwakar in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-10-2016, 12:10 PM
  3. do you think if a far better more efficent alternative to oil was found,
    By jcloudz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 12:55 AM
  4. An alternative to capatilist profit based Economy
    By bluemountaintree in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-22-2012, 06:02 PM
  5. Alternatives to Champix (a quit smoking thread)
    By CrystalViolet in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-06-2011, 11:48 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