User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 53

  1. #21
    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
    Aww...the only reason I understood you is because I'm in a similar position myself. INXX here :
    Well, I appreciate it.

    I think it's isolating to not have access to the same community of people of similar type or temperament just because there isn't a forum (used figuratively here) for that.

    And that capacity requires designation on a larger scale.

  2. #22
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    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.

    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 strength of the message is lost in the massive wall of solid text in the OP that strains the eyes and the objectiveness is lost in the personal focus. it comes accross as a plea for public focus on her inner self rather than her trying to teach anything to anyone. The presentation is too egocentric to be useful as a teaching aid to anyone else but the OP.

  3. #23
    Senior Member jackandthebeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    IXFX
    Enneagram
    tert
    Socionics
    iary
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    The strength of the message is lost in the massive wall of solid text in the OP that strains the eyes and the objectiveness is lost in the personal focus. it comes accross as a plea for public focus on her inner self rather than her trying to teach anything to anyone.
    Every time I've tried to explain my understanding of the theory I'm accused of being too vague or not having a real-world understanding of the Myers-Brigg, so I figured putting myself up for demonstration would be more conducive for getting my point across.

    I've used a personal approach before, but not this much, and specifically because people don't seem to want to engage with the concept unless I have a body of knowledge to back it up. I agree that it wasn't the smartest approach but it was just me trying another tactic when nothing else has worked so far.

    Yeah, the solid wall of text was me demonstrating a lack of common sense. I should edit that out.

  4. #24
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackandthebeast View Post
    Every time I've tried to explain my understanding of the theory I'm accused of being too vague or not having a real-world understanding of the Myers-Brigg, so I figured putting myself up for demonstration would be more conducive for getting my point across.

    I've used a personal approach before, but not this much, and specifically because people don't seem to want to engage with the concept unless I have a body of knowledge to back it up. I agree that it wasn't the smartest approach but it was just me trying another tactic when nothing else has worked so far.

    Yeah, the solid wall of text was me demonstrating a lack of common sense. I should edit that out.
    The text is fine, it just requires breaks between the paragraphs because many people can't read that long without a break and if one takes a break, it can be hard to find the spot again. You irritate your readers when you do this and show a certain careless disregard for other people's experiences.

    If you want to use yourself as example, that's fine but it has to have a strong structure, you have to guide the reader through a series of thesis statements and then use examples of yourself as "proof" just like with an essay paper. Otherwise it looks like you are just putting a blurting of raw material up for public analysis.

  5. #25
    Senior Member jackandthebeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    IXFX
    Enneagram
    tert
    Socionics
    iary
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    The text is fine, it just requires breaks between the paragraphs because many people can't read that long without a break and if one takes a break, it can be hard to find the spot again. You irritate your readers when you do this and show a certain careless disregard for other people's experiences.

    If you want to use yourself as example, that's fine but it has to have a strong structure, you have to guide the reader through a series of thesis statements and then use examples of yourself as "proof" just like with an essay paper. Otherwise it looks like you are just putting a blurting of raw material up for public analysis.
    I think I might hold off on that for now. I'm currently trying to generate a body of examples of subtypes of public figures, and that might be easier for me to construct an argument from, including links to interviews. The only issue with that is that I'm not all that savvy with regard to public figures, so I don't know that many; but I think I'll probably be able to find enough people via Netflix, Youtube, and existing pages of type designations which I can evaluate for myself.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Important Addition: The fact that the OP has two X's instead of one is actually very telling.

    Based on the way functions work, it makes more sense to be ambiguous about two traits as opposed to just one.

    For example, if someone had only one X and called herself an INFX, there is a bigger chance that that person is just indecisive, or has misunderstood something, compared to someone with two X's such as IXFX.


    If you are unsure of whether your dominant function is a perceiving function or a judging function , then it makes sense that there is no way to tell if your auxilliary function is a judging or a perceiving one. In introverts, the auxilliary function determines whether your trait is a P or a J.
    The purple sun won't heal my purple bruises :ouch:

  7. #27
    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
    Important Addition: The fact that the OP has two X's instead of one is actually very telling.

    Based on the way functions work, it makes more sense to be ambiguous about two traits as opposed to just one.

    For example, if some had only one X and called herself an INTX, there is a bigger chance that that person is just indecisive, or has misunderstood something, compared to someone with two X's such as IXTX.


    If you are unsure of whether your dominant function is a perceiving function or a judging function , then it makes sense that there is no way to tell if your auxilliary is a judging or a perceiving one. In introverts, the auxilliary determines whether your trait is a P or a J.
    I'm sorry. I don't understand your line of reasoning. Wouldn't an INTX also have both P and J leading and auxilary functions?

    Do you not believe people can be on the border of only one trait, or that it's less likely for them to be? [I wasn't setting the two parts of the question up as alternatives to one another]

    Can you explain further?

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackandthebeast View Post
    I'm sorry. I don't understand your line of reasoning. Wouldn't an INTX also have both P and J leading and auxilary functions?
    There's only two things that an INTX should be worrying about: whether they lead with Ti or Ni.

    An IXTX, on the other hand has many other functions to worry about, so to me, it makes sense why such a person would be unclear about where they stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackandthebeast View Post

    Do you not believe people can be on the border of only one trait, or that it's less likely for them to be? [I wasn't setting the two parts of the question up as alternatives to one another]
    I did not say that being on the border of only one trait is impossible.

    I was just saying that being ambiguous about two traits makes a heck of a lot of sense, perhaps even more sense, because there are more potential variables involved and consequently more to be ambiguous about.
    The purple sun won't heal my purple bruises :ouch:

  9. #29
    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's only two things that an INTX should be worrying about: whether they lead with Ti or Ni.

    An IXTX, on the other hand has many other functions to worry about, so to me, it makes sense why such a person would be unclear about where they stand.



    I did not say that being on the border of only one trait is impossible.

    I was just saying that being ambiguous about two traits makes a heck of a lot of sense, perhaps even more sense, because there are more potential variables involved and consequently more to be ambiguous about.
    I didn't really think you did, I just didn't understand your rationale, so I was looking for you to clarify. Thanks.

  10. #30
    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 a more general approach when you look at the functions as being in multiple places at once because you're using multiple patterns simultaneously.
    this basically translates to: "I can do everything at once!...Im super woman!... Im totally logical, but I'm also a sensitive feeler...Im intuitively theoretical, yet also practical and aesthetic."

    Basically, you want to have your cake and eat it too. People on this board basically are admitting to the fact that they are different and have different preferences and strengths. By not listing myself as INTJ, I admit that I dont do things/think some things as they do. You though, appear incapable of admitting your strengths and weaknesses.

    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.
    Its all making sense to me now. You actually refuse to understand the theories. Just because sometimes I appreciate how something looks aesthetically doesnt mean I prefer or excel at Sensing. Just because I got an A in math doesnt mean im a Ti user. Basically you are saying that because you dont want to take the time to use distinctions and analysis, that you throw up your arms and say,

    "you know what, I use them all exactly equally"
    --are you sure that they are EXACTLY equal??? you dont see that one is even .0001 preferred over another?
    "nope, they are all EQUAL".

    Your main complaint is that these categories are arbitrary, "why should I arbitrarily pick one over another, when I can do them all at once?". No one is denying that these categories are arbitrary. However, you're being just as arbitrary to claim that you use all of the functions exactly equally all the time.

    My new guess is ISFP. ISFPs are Fi doms (who tend to think of themselves as uncategorizable and accuse everything of being "cold, arbitrary and unauthentic"). In my experience of discussing MBTI with Fi doms, they tend to conflate their Fi with N'ness. They are so "pro" authentic, that they think "Oh Im so reflective and deeeeep". They get really upset when I point out that they are S's. Being authentic and "deep" doesnt make you N.

    If you arent into theories, you might not be an N. It seems to me that you have a priori problems with any theory because it doesnt match "exactly" with your face value perceptions (Se).

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