User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Folk Typology

  1. #31
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    At the very least, it's a helpful reminder of how difficult it is to predict behavior as a function of type.
    It's not supposed to predict behavior though. It's supposed to describe processes of interacting with the world. Type then, which builds on the functions, is just an abstract representation for how people, for one reason or another, have a proclivity to certain processes.

    But those processes have to exist because of the way they are defined. For example, introversion and extroversion as a process over time means that as a person is introverting, they are philosophically having the world impact them more than they aim to impact the world; think about that. And vice-versa for extroverts. Where everyone seems to get hung up is that they don't understand that to explain say Ti, you also need to understand how it relates to Fe; in other words, to understand the process of introverted thinking, one needs to know how extroverted feeling leads into it as a culminating process of conscious Ti and unconscious Fe. People that separate the two and say that you develop unconscious functions will never get more than a shallow understanding.

    And people that correlate these processes to what they create are also going to have a shallow understanding. For example, it's often said that Fi is about values, but no that's what the process creates, not what is going on in their qualia; and so does Ti create value, but in different ways. The value itself might imply a particular causation in a certain context, but the process of Fi(Te) or Ti(Fe) do not and are not intended to. There is nothing to predict, but only to understand.

    I hope bolding that doesn't make it seem condescending, but I want to highlight that. Does that make more sense?

    Is an Fi user more likely than a Ti user to prefer his fries with ketchup? What if Fi/Ti were in the inferior position; does the answer change??
    People that think Fi and Ti are about preferences are going to be confused, no doubt. I think after ruminating about all of this for so long out of curiosity that I can say with little doubt that this is misuse of the types.

  2. #32
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    It's not supposed to predict behavior though. It's supposed to describe processes of interacting with the world. Type then, which builds on the functions, is just an abstract representation for how people, for one reason or another, have a proclivity to certain processes.
    Well said. I'll just say that I only mean 'behavior' in the same way that it's meant in 'human behavior modeling'--which boils down to pretty much anything that manifests outside the head, as a function of whatever takes place in the head.

    Yeah, typology is really not supposed to predict specific behavior. When people do so, they're trying to take these models out of their intended domains--with, of course, mixed results.

    At the very least, we've gotta be careful when doing so because of ethical concerns and because our predictions probably won't mean anything.

    Where everyone seems to get hung up is that they don't understand that to explain say Ti, you also need to understand how it relates to Fe; in other words, to understand the process of introverted thinking, one needs to know how extroverted feeling leads into it as a culminating process of conscious Ti and unconscious Fe.
    I know that the functions are difficult to isolate and describe out of context, but I'm not sure whether the context is necessarily a combination of it and 'opposite' function (e.g. Ti and Fe), a combination of introversion and extraversion, or human cognition in general.

    You hit upon something important, though--that the functions are difficult to extract from their context. And since they're so hard to extract, they're difficult to explain; since they're difficult to explain, they're difficult to get any sort of meaningful predictions from.

    How should we extract and explain the true meaning of the cognitive functions? Can they be taken in isolation, or must they be taken in pairs?

  3. #33
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I know that the functions are difficult to isolate and describe out of context, but I'm not sure whether the context is necessarily a combination of it and 'opposite' function (e.g. Ti and Fe), a combination of introversion and extraversion, or human cognition in general.
    That's the really interesting part though! Let's use Ti as an example. If someone undergoes a Ti process, they are removing themselves in part from having an impact on the world and attempting to devise some sort of containing architecture of thought that relates and differentiates things in terms of some weight. This creates personal value I guess some could say in navigating and understanding the world.

    But what's the point of this introversion if it doesn't lead to extroversion? That value is meaningless unless it asserts itself through making an impact via extroversion. So perhaps we could then say that a Ti user could extrovert through Te or Fe. So the question then to me becomes "what is the difference in relationship between Te and Fe to Ti?"

    Well, think about it another way, what would be more natural, using Te to impact the result of that Ti directly, or using Fe, which requires that the result of that Ti orients itself in a more foreign capacity through Fe compared to Te? Most people don't dispute this difference, but then there's the more important difference in that to use a Ti process requires repression of Fe by its completely opposing orientation; Te on the other hand, while not being used when Ti is used, can be simply ignored to do this. Ti and Fe have a philosophical duality going on here similar to the duality of good and evil, but there is not one with Ti and Te. To properly understand how that Ti process manifests, it will depend on how it is in conflict with Fe. But by conflict I don't imply that a person is weak in the process, but that they feel a need to not use it, or repress it.

    The functions are then a lot deeper than most people seem to appreciate. I don't know if I'd say that type is innate then because it's ignorant to say either way, considering the problems of philosophy this would conflict with and how everyone is different and has different experiences that can change them in various ways. But does that make sense?

    You hit upon something important, though--that the functions are difficult to extract from their context. And since they're so hard to extract, they're difficult to explain; since they're difficult to explain, they're difficult to get any sort of meaningful predictions from.
    Perhaps, but we understand lots of abstractions that are taken for granted like how something can be pretty or hot or cold or how we can be sad or whatever, which I'm sure you understand.

    In a way it's like comparing how a person understands a book after reading it the first time compared to the third time reading it. It takes time to understand what these abstractions represent. But, much more importantly and intuitively, you'd probably find most of it is already taken for granted by our psyches without understanding what those parts are (Socrates answer to Meno's Paradox brilliantly explains what I'm saying). I would imagine that's what the functions aim to elucidate then, an awareness of knowledge that we already have. Otherwise, we're fabricating ideas and what's the point then; because what we're really looking for is insight in understanding the nature of our seemingly open-ended existence, right?

    How should we extract and explain the true meaning of the cognitive functions? Can they be taken in isolation, or must they be taken in pairs?
    I believe they have to be taken in pairs to understand them correctly in isolation. It's like understanding what it is that makes up a human being. If you only aim to understand parts of a person and don't consider how those parts form the whole person as well, what do you really know about that particular person? We're both the sum of the parts, as much as the parts of the sum? Or does that seem like a contradiction?

  4. #34
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    stuff
    You've given me some things to think about. I'm mulling over the whole of it

    In the meantime.. maybe some Jungologists out there can clarify for me, but it seems that Jung's writings are full of x type repressing x' (where x' is the opposite). e.g. this, for Te:
    Since feelings are the first to oppose and contradict [p. 438] the rigid intellectual formula, they are affected first this conscious inhibition, and upon them the most intense repression falls. No function can be entirely eliminated -- it can only be greatly distorted. In so far as feelings allow themselves to be arbitrarily shaped and subordinated, they have to support the intellectual conscious attitude and adapt themselves to its aims. Only to a certain degree, however, is this possible; a part of the feeling remains insubordinate, and therefore must be repressed.
    So I think the notion of defining the functions in terms of duality is an interesting and promising one.

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] Typology Central Members Personality Type Survey
    By Nonpareil in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 570
    Last Post: 11-11-2017, 09:46 PM
  2. Post your typological Profile, EVERYONE!
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 09-17-2017, 11:29 AM
  3. Typology Central Valentine Exchange Program
    By Ivy in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 303
    Last Post: 02-06-2015, 07:14 PM
  4. Notes on typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-04-2012, 09:04 AM
  5. Typology Test
    By suzyk in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 02:36 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