User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 53

  1. #11
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    I don't understand why you feel an academic essay will be a good description of who you are. The best way I find for understanding the personality of a person is through interactions. It's not very useful in saying you are INXX because you do so and so things. Frankly everybody regardless of their type will likely in one time or another do the exact same. Because a well-balanced individual should technically use all 8 functions. It is the degree and familiarity of use that determines type.

    After you learn the basics of the 16 types, then you should step back from it all to look at people as individuals instead of just type. Because you're right, the model is overly simplifying personality. It's good as a starting framework but it's nothing more than that. A framework.
    My stuff (design & other junk) lives here: http://nnbox.ca

  2. #12
    Senior Member jackandthebeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    IXFX
    Enneagram
    tert
    Socionics
    iary
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    I don't understand why you feel an academic essay will be a good description of who you are.
    Because I've heard people saying they can determine functional use from writing samples before, and I believed that that was the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post

    It's not very useful in saying you are INXX because you do so and so things. Frankly everybody regardless of their type will likely in one time or another do the exact same. Because a well-balanced individual should technically use all 8 functions. It is the degree and familiarity of use that determines type.
    *IXFX

    I understand all that. I was trying to demonstrate familiarity with different functions that, according to the 16-type model, you don't have familiarity with simultaneously.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    After you learn the basics of the 16 types, then you should step back from it all to look at people as individuals instead of just type. Because you're right, the model is overly simplifying personality. It's good as a starting framework but it's nothing more than that. A framework.
    Thank you for re-stating what I stated. I realize that. And I'm not overly relying on the model at this point. It is only the framework for, but not the nature of nor the content of, an individual's paradigm.

    But I do feel a greater capacity to connect with individuals whose paradigms exist within frameworks I can better understand, and whose processing styles stimulate mine. Thus the focus on an EXFX. And again, I didn't just decide I was attracted to an EXFX because it made sense conceptually. I have been attracted to a persona for a long time that the type designation EXFX would characterize more than any other, but which is not necessarily the only manifestation of an EXFX.

    After all, the Marquis de Sade is the only other IXFX I am aware of, and I don't identify with him even remotely.

  3. #13
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    I have to wonder what you're doing on this forum, honestly.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #14
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackandthebeast View Post
    It's not that I don't understand type theory, it's that I don't consider it valid. The categories it imposes are arbitrary, something which is not the case when you allow the possibility of being able to combine them.
    You're an INFP. You're honestly only proving it more so.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackandthebeast View Post
    Because I don't have issues with the framework. I have issues with the simplicity of the theory. It isn't specific enough for me to find it useable for myself.
    Its not specific enough, so instead you take a more general approach? :confused:

    No. See, I agree that MBTI isnt specific enough, but what that results in is me adding things to MAKE IT MORE specific:

    Not just ENFJ, but ENFJ 1. Not just ENFJ 1, but ENFJ 1w9, not just ENFJ 1w9, but ENFJ 1w9 sp/sx etc...

    Perhaps Socionics is more your style. Socionics actually describes all the functions experienced in each type (all 8 functions).

  5. #15
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackandthebeast View Post
    Because I hoped I could give people reason to doubt that I was a single type
    If you know what you are and are not and have faith in your own knowing then why the need to convince others?

    What will external validation get you that you cannot provide for yourself?

  6. #16
    Senior Member jackandthebeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    IXFX
    Enneagram
    tert
    Socionics
    iary
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I have to wonder what you're doing on this forum, honestly.
    Well, where should I be with this then?
    If there was actually an audience that agreed with what I'm writing, I might not feel the need to write it. I don't have another viable platform.

    I know I'm coming off as abrasive, but consistently the responses seem to be trying to discredit me by saying that I don't understand the theory or something instead of trying to entertain the notion. Is it really that far-fetched to suggest that you can be equally intuitive and sensing, or perceiving and judging? Or that you can orient both ways, for that matter?
    Wouldn't it make sense for some people to be in the middle?

    And wouldn't it make sense then that you could still use the cognitive charts, understanding the functions as being in multiple places at once? Because if you were an EXTP, your Se and Ne would still having conflicting priorities where only engaging with the one is unfulfilling and is considered useless to one's priorities. Not to suggest that people are types, but to illustrate the functions being in multiple places at once, it would be like two people tied to the waist for life (or Siamese twins), where the only way to achieve individual goals is to compromise.

    I guess I can't blame people for seeing me as an INFP, since what I'm demonstrating in communicating is mostly my values, and my values are very P. A friend/mentor figure has told me before that I behave in a very J way but that what I want out of life is very much in line with what Ps want. I don't know how to make my behavior come across though.. Basically, I just really want to give the idea enough credibility that *XFXs who might otherwise dismiss the system entirely would label themselves as such, and I would be able to find them.
    That's why I'm on the boards.
    Are you saying that my proselytizing of a deviation from the basic theory makes me unwelcome here?

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    If you know what you are and are not and have faith in your own knowing then why the need to convince others?

    What will external validation get you that you cannot provide for yourself?
    There are some who think that she's just an indecisive INFP who wants to be special and doesn't want to fit into a box.

    I think what the OP is trying to do is show that there is shortcoming in the theory (as everyone already knows).

    However, according to those with a strict interpretation of MBTI, the theory is inflexible, and people who label themselves "X", are somehow just unhealthy, indecisive, or don't know what they're talking about.

    I disagree with that strict, overly prescriptive view of MBTI because I myself can identify with being unclear/ambiguous about my type. It's certainly not due to simply ignorance, or misunderstanding.

    It's less about wanting external validation, and more about wanting to show that, while she knows herself, the theory doesn't allow for enough possibilities to fix neatly unto her.
    The purple sun won't heal my purple bruises :ouch:

  8. #18
    Senior Member jackandthebeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    IXFX
    Enneagram
    tert
    Socionics
    iary
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    You're an INFP. You're honestly only proving it more so.



    Its not specific enough, so instead you take a more general approach? :confused:

    No. See, I agree that MBTI isnt specific enough, but what that results in is me adding things to MAKE IT MORE specific:

    Not just ENFJ, but ENFJ 1. Not just ENFJ 1, but ENFJ 1w9, not just ENFJ 1w9, but ENFJ 1w9 sp/sx etc...
    It's not a more general approach when you look at the functions as being in multiple places at once because you're using multiple patterns simultaneously.

    e.g:
    Ti Se Ni Fe Si Te Fi Ne
    Si Te Fi Ne Ti Se Ni Fe

    And the Ennegram is just a bunch of basic descriptions. That stuff I consider to have no validity, as I'm sure I could find at least five Enneagram subtypes that describe me. I think I actually did at some point. The only reason I place any weight on the Myers-Brigg at all is because it has a structural pattern with elements that interact in a way that I can understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    [/I]
    Perhaps Socionics is more your style. Socionics actually describes all the functions experienced in each type (all 8 functions)
    I've actually looked at the descriptions of the functions in different positions, and it aligns with my theory, even if i think Lenore Thompson's model makes more sense. But I have the same basic issue with Socionics that I do with the Myers-Brigg.

  9. #19
    Senior Member jackandthebeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    IXFX
    Enneagram
    tert
    Socionics
    iary
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by purplesunset View Post
    There are some who think that she's just an indecisive INFP who wants to be special and doesn't want to fit into a box.

    I think what the OP is trying to do is show that there is shortcoming in the theory (as everyone already knows).

    However, according to those with a strict interpretation of MBTI, the theory is inflexible, and people who label themselves "X", are somehow just unhealthy, indecisive, or don't know what they're talking about.

    It's less about wanting external validation, and more about wanting to show that, while she knows herself, the theory doesn't allow for enough possibilities to fix neatly unto her.




  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackandthebeast View Post



    Aww...the only reason I understood you is because I'm in a similar position myself. INXX here :
    The purple sun won't heal my purple bruises :ouch:

Similar Threads

  1. What tool is available to break the hold of apathy?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-22-2009, 04:53 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-06-2009, 09:01 AM
  3. Type the authors of these writings....
    By am_i_evil666 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-23-2008, 11:46 AM
  4. To understand the object of study is to leave it
    By wildcat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-23-2007, 03:18 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