User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 53

  1. #31
    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
    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.
    I don't think I used the word "exactly," although I am not able to view my post while I'm typing this. I definitely did not intend to; nor did I intend to suggest that I use all my functions "exactly equally all the time". I am saying that I do not value N nor S, nor J nor P, enough over the other that I could fairly designate myself with one of them.
    I would hope your definition of inequality isn't .0001 percent; however I'm going to assume that that was a semantic tactic instead of making a ridiculous attack on your sense based on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    ]My new guess is ISFP.[/U][/B] 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.
    First of all, I never claimed that I was an N. I claimed that I was an X on that score.
    I don't feel the need to debate your perception of my intuitive abilities. From my linked blog with my Facebook posts, another user said that I radiated Ne, and a few other people have typed me as INFP. Constructing some elaborate argument beyond that as a demonstration that I value N seems, ironically, counter-intuitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    ]
    If you arent into theories, you might not be an N.
    :yim_rolling_on_the_

    Since when have I said that I'm not into theories?
    And again, I'm not an N. I'm also not an S. I'm an X.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    ]
    It seems to me that you have a priori problems with any theory because it doesnt match "exactly" with your face value perceptions (Se).
    No. I have trouble with theories when they're too generalized (without clearly defined boundaries or structure), as when there aren't clearly defined boundaries I don't know how far they're supposed to be taken. The enneagram is too generalized for me to be able to engage with, and regardless of whether other individuals find it to be an adequate qualification of a basic personality type as far as characterizing them, I don't. It also is another system that, while it may be used with the Myers-Brigg, doesn't lend a greater specificity to that particular one. X designations do.

  2. #32
    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 jackandthebeast View Post
    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 don't think you're being abrasive ('course, what would I know about that anyway?) And I don't think anyone necessarily wants you to leave...there are a number of people who hang around the forum complaining about how much MBTI and various personality theories suck. I'm not entirely sure why they're here either, but I wouldn't say they're "not welcome here."

    I just think you're kind of missing the point--the theory is designed such that no one can be an X type. That's in the definition. If you don't think the theory is an adequate description of reality, then fine, but if that's the case then I don't understand why you're posting on a forum about it. What do you hope to gain here? You don't seem like the trolling type, really.

    Sometimes it takes a while to really figure out your type correctly. Many people go through believing they're several different different types until they learn enough to genuinely know which one fits best. The probability that you are motivated by N/S and P/J in precisely the same proportions is pretty low. (In functional terms, this would imply that you're equally influenced by Fi, Si and Ni in precisely equal proportions, among other structural issues.)

    So yeah, it seems likely that you aren't really too familiar with functions, because IxFx doesn't really make sense from that perspective. It's theoretically possible (though extremely unlikely, since you'd have to place precisely the same emphasis on N/S and P/J) from a functionless four-dichotomies-only standpoint, so in that way there's an outside chance you're just a really rare and special hybrid type.

    But I think it seems more likely you just haven't learned enough about this to determine your type accurately yet--especially given your insistence that several of your friends are also X types. If pure, exactly 50/50 Xs exist in four-dichotomy MBTI theory, they'd have to be incredibly rare--which makes your case for being an X type even weaker.

    You can continue citing outlandish functional preferences, but you've already made enough missteps to show that you can't discern functions accurately anyway, so your functional self-analysis doesn't mean much.

    But trust me, Victor has already taken care of the lion's share of the anti-typology preaching around here for quite some time. Everyone's already heard the news.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #33
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    I fear this is going to turn into a LOGIC lesson being given by an ENFJ. This will ironically show you how someone can 'identify with Ti' and still not be ENXX, "running simultaneous function models"...

    Quote Originally Posted by jackandthebeast View Post
    I don't think I used the word "exactly," although I am not able to view my post while I'm typing this. I definitely did not intend to; nor did I intend to suggest that I use all my functions "exactly equally all the time".
    IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT WORD YOU USED. Your ideas IMPLY with absolute necessity, that you use the functions exactly equally.

    1. MBTI is a self reporting inventory. Type is not a "real thing". It is by definition, an arbitrary label that exists only as an operational definition of something people inventory on a 16 type test.

    2. The MBTI, by definition, is about labeling preferences. Its "arbitrary", but thats the point. ANY typological system is going to be "arbitrary" because they make use of "labels" that are only true by definition.

    3. If you claim to have no preference, then by definition, you are rejecting the MBTI null hypothesis of preferring some things over others. It doesnt matter what nut job theory you come up with about simultaneous function use. The "null" is that people are able to 'rank' and 'inventory' their preferences. If you cant do that, then by definition:
    --you are confused about your own preferences
    --or you use the functions in exactly equal proportions (if this wasnt true: you would in fact have preferences, be able to rank them and have an MBTI type)

    1 + 1 = 2, with absolute necessity. All bachelors are unmarried, because its true by definition. You literally are not grasping that MBTI has defined processes and purposes. By rejecting the MBTI null, you are by definition, claiming that you use each function exactly equally.

    First of all, I never claimed that I was an N. I claimed that I was an X on that score.
    I don't feel the need to debate your perception of my intuitive abilities. From my linked blog with my Facebook posts, another user said that I radiated Ne, and a few other people have typed me as INFP. Constructing some elaborate argument beyond that as a demonstration that I value N seems, ironically, counter-intuitive.

    :yim_rolling_on_the_

    Since when have I said that I'm not into theories?
    And again, I'm not an N. I'm also not an S. I'm an X.
    And now we see it...once pushed, she freely and willingly fights to demonstrate her preferences...

    No. I have trouble with theories when they're too generalized (without clearly defined boundaries or structure), as when there aren't clearly defined boundaries I don't know how far they're supposed to be taken. The enneagram is too generalized for me to be able to engage with, and regardless of whether other individuals find it to be an adequate qualification of a basic personality type as far as characterizing them, I don't. It also is another system that, while it may be used with the Myers-Brigg, doesn't lend a greater specificity to that particular one. X designations do.
    I take it then, that in your opinion, a better theory would have 6.5 billion types? Why dont we just use people's full names + birthdate as the label then for each type? They'll will all be so unique and specific! Its almost like the utility of having a typological system of 6.5 billion would be infinitely better than a petty and generalized number like 16, you know, a number of frameworks that humans can actually meaningfully use to group and categorize people...

  4. #34
    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 don't think you're being abrasive ('course, what would I know about that anyway?) And I don't think anyone necessarily wants you to leave...there are a number of people who hang around the forum complaining about how much MBTI and various personality theories suck. I'm not entirely sure why they're here either, but I wouldn't say they're "not welcome here."

    I just think you're kind of missing the point--the theory is designed such that no one can be an X type. That's in the definition. If you don't think the theory is an adequate description of reality, then fine, but if that's the case then I don't understand why you're posting on a forum about it. What do you hope to gain here? You don't seem like the trolling type, really.
    Well, I did hope to gain acceptance for the theory, but I can see now that at this point and with the lack of tangible data I have now, this isn't a venue that would be open to it. It did introduce me to a member with similar opinions on the MBTI, so it wasn't exactly a loss, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Sometimes it takes a while to really figure out your type correctly. Many people go through believing they're several different different types until they learn enough to genuinely know which one fits best. The probability that you are motivated by N/S and P/J in precisely the same proportions is pretty low. (In functional terms, this would imply that you're equally influenced by Fi, Si and Ni in precisely equal proportions, among other structural issues.)
    Actually, I shouldn't have stated that I use Fi, Ni, and Si equally. A member did do a functional analysis on my essay, and did identify strong usage of Ni and Si, but noted that much of my decision-making seems to be based on Fi. I admit that there is a lot of ambiguity when it comes to interpreting what functions in other places actually means, and that I don't know exactly what I'm talking about in regard to it because I don't know how I should evaluate how the structure actually manifests. So I haven't been stating this, but for an IXFX, Fi is in positions 1 and 5 (using the Lenore Thompson model; using the regular model it's 6), and Ni and Si are both in positions 1,3,5, and 7. I had thought that Ni and Si, as first functions, would still be used more than Fe would, but strictly from a function block standpoint the order of emphasis would be Fi>Fe>Si/Ni>Ne/Se>Ti>Te

    And if you don't know where I'm getting this from, again, I use all the patterns simultaneously:

    Fi Ne Si Te Ni Fe Ti Se
    Fi Se Ni Te Si Fe Ti Ne
    Ni Fe Ti Se Fi Ne Si Te
    Si Fe Ti Ne Fi Se Ni Te
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

    What is absolutely clear in this model though is that I value Ni more than Ne, Si more than Se, and Fi more than Fe, and that is something I have been saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    So yeah, it seems likely that you aren't really too familiar with functions, because IxFx doesn't really make sense from that perspective. It's theoretically possible (though extremely unlikely, since you'd have to place precisely the same emphasis on N/S and P/J) from a functionless four-dichotomies-only standpoint, so in that way there's an outside chance you're just a really rare and special hybrid type.
    I never said once that I took a functionless four-dichotomies-only standpoint. I mentioned that the possibility was there from that standpoint, but I have been discussing functions and function patterns the whole time, and I just wrote down my functional model for my type (same type of structure for X types in general) because it seems that you not only have to explain your mode of operation but to show it for people to believe that you have one.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    But I think it seems more likely you just haven't learned enough about this to determine your type accurately yet--especially given your insistence that several of your friends are also X types. If pure, exactly 50/50 Xs exist in four-dichotomy MBTI theory, they'd have to be incredibly rare--which makes your case for being an X type even weaker.
    Looking from a standpoint of functional patterns rather than dichotomies makes that possibility a whole lot less rare. The dichotomies are only really expressions of the functional patterns, and are in addition subject to a whole lot of bias based on what people like to see themselves as. Because of this, I would go so far as to say that someone who tested between 40-60 percent on a scale is possibly an X type.
    But again, I'm relying on the combined functional model, not the four-dichotomy MBTI theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You can continue citing outlandish functional preferences, but you've already made enough missteps to show that you can't discern functions accurately anyway, so your functional self-analysis doesn't mean much.
    Or maybe that, as purplesunset has stated, my level of confusion regarding my functions makes sense, because, having a combination of four different functional patterns; and, in addition (this part I'm saying), having all of them pertain to introversion and feeling (end my statement) makes there a lot to be confused about. [/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    But trust me, Victor has already taken care of the lion's share of the anti-typology preaching around here for quite some time. Everyone's already heard the news.
    Was the choice of the word "preaching" intentional? Because honestly, the first effect reading this had was to make me think of how a preacher would frame his response. Which was kind of unpleasant.
    Seriously, if everyone's already heard the news then why don't people seem to be actively working on reforming the system?

  5. #35
    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
    3. If you claim to have no preference, then by definition, you are rejecting the MBTI null hypothesis of preferring some things over others. It doesnt matter what nut job theory you come up with about simultaneous function use. The "null" is that people are able to 'rank' and 'inventory' their preferences. If you cant do that, then by definition:
    --you are confused about your own preferences
    I am not claiming to have no preference. I have very strong preferences of I over E and F over T.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post

    I take it then, that in your opinion, a better theory would have 6.5 billion types? Why dont we just use people's full names + birthdate as the label then for each type? They'll will all be so unique and specific! Its almost like the utility of having a typological system of 6.5 billion would be infinitely better than a petty and generalized number like 16, you know, a number of frameworks that humans can actually meaningfully use to group and categorize people...
    I think you know as well as I do that adding another variable into the mix only brings us up to 81. And it's highly unlikely that an XXXX exists, so that brings us down to 80.
    I get that the 16 type model allows for expediency, and I'm not saying that you can't still use that in situations where expediency is necessary. I do believe that when it comes to using the model for personal understanding or understanding of others it can lose its meaning, depending on whether there are, in fact, X types involved; and I don't think it allows for those individuals to easily find and interact with others of their type the way forums like this one makes it possible for INFJs or ENFPs, for example.
    And even with 80 types, at least a third of those types probably aren't going to be common, meaning that the options people would regularly be dealing with in typing aren't going to suddenly become unmanageably large. It's also a lot easier to observe characteristics of multiple types when you're actually interacting with people as opposed to trying to type them online.

  6. #36
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    And if you don't know where I'm getting this from, again, I use all the patterns simultaneously:

    A. Fi Ne Si Te Ni Fe Ti Se
    B. Fi Se Ni Te Si Fe Ti Ne
    C. Ni Fe Ti Se Fi Ne Si Te
    D. Si Fe Ti Ne Fi Se Ni Te
    ....1...2..3..4..5..6...7..8
    1. You said yourself that you prefer I over E and F over T. (cross them, and you get introverted Feeling; you yourself said you weren't using a 4 dichotomy model).

    2. Of the above 4 functional patterns, the last two (C and D) have a dominant function you identify with, followed by two that you definitely do not identify with (I have not heard any endorsement of Fe or Ti from you).

    3. A and B both have a dominant function that you identify with, followed by at least 1 out of 2 that you have stated to identify with.

    #1, #2 and #3, at the very least, point to you you being IXFP. This is based on your reported preferences. How does that sound?

  7. #37
    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
    1. You said yourself that you prefer I over E and F over T. (cross them, and you get introverted Feeling; you yourself said you weren't using a 4 dichotomy model).

    2. Of the above 4 functional patterns, the last two (C and D) have a dominant function you identify with, followed by two that you definitely do not identify with (I have not heard any endorsement of Fe or Ti from you).

    3. A and B both have a dominant function that you identify with, followed by at least 1 out of 2 that you have stated to identify with.

    #1, #2 and #3, at the very least, point to you you being IXFP. This is based on your reported preferences. How does that sound?
    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    1. You said yourself that you prefer I over E and F over T. (cross them, and you get introverted Feeling; you yourself said you weren't using a 4 dichotomy model).

    2. Of the above 4 functional patterns, the last two (C and D) have a dominant function you identify with, followed by two that you definitely do not identify with (I have not heard any endorsement of Fe or Ti from you).

    3. A and B both have a dominant function that you identify with, followed by at least 1 out of 2 that you have stated to identify with.

    #1, #2 and #3, at the very least, point to you you being IXFP. This is based on your reported preferences. How does that sound?
    The biggest reason I wouldn't agree with the designation of myself as P is that Ps have extroverted judging processes first, meaning that they kind of have an ability to just exist in their surroundings rather than feeling the need to constantly evaluate everything in order to feel engaged. I really like this example of orienting, and think it could be applied to function preferences as well as just in general: Orienting

    As far as Fe goes, whether it suppresses or works in conjunction with my Fi determines whether or not it's valued in that instance. I'm careful to distance myself from anything not in line with my personal values or that I can't interact with in a way that doesn't contradict them, because by engaging with it for too long, I'm perpetuating a relationship between myself and that aesthetic, thing, person, vibe, etc. that suggests that that's who I am and fills me with an emotional vibe I'm not attracted to. This lack of openness makes me come off as extremely J and is why my XXXP friend criticized me heavily. And as I tried to open myself up in response to his criticisms and it abnegated me, my selective accessibility isn't unfounded. I am slowly rebuilding my psychological walls.

    When I like something, I want to attach myself to it as much as possible, so much that I treat my interactions with people, aesthetic vibes, and ideas I'm compelled by, and even food as kind of divine integration rituals. This also makes me easily influenced by people I'm attached to.

    My primary activities involve evaluating and developing emotional contexts; and I enjoy activities only to the level that I can give them an emotional significance.
    My biggest goal is to find someone I'm compelled by who I can attach myself to utterly without distorting or suppressing my sense of self, and who I can create rituals/emotional contexts/stories with intensively.

  8. #38
    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
    The biggest reason I wouldn't agree with the designation of myself as P is that Ps have extroverted judging processes first,
    Im assuming you meant that Ps have an extroverted perceiving function.

    meaning that they kind of have an ability to just exist in their surroundings rather than feeling the need to constantly evaluate everything in order to feel engaged.
    I think if you took some time to talk to the IXFPs here you would find that that their "Pness" (), doesnt necessarily correlate with just passively existing in their surroundings. In fact, many have commented that the INFJs can appear more "P" because they lead with a perceiving function, and INFPs can appear more "J" because they lead with a judging function. Fi is no less a judging function than Te or Fe. Therefore, I dont think you should toss out IXFP if everything else points to them.


    As far as Fe goes, whether it suppresses or works in conjunction with my Fi determines whether or not it's valued in that instance. I'm careful to distance myself from anything not in line with my personal values or that I can't interact with in a way that doesn't contradict them, because by engaging with it for too long, I'm perpetuating a relationship between myself and that aesthetic, thing, person, vibe, etc. that suggests that that's who I am and fills me with an emotional vibe I'm not attracted to. This lack of openness makes me come off as extremely J and is why my XXXP friend criticized me heavily. And as I tried to open myself up in response to his criticisms and it abnegated me, my selective accessibility isn't unfounded. I am slowly rebuilding my psychological walls.

    When I like something, I want to attach myself to it as much as possible, so much that I treat my interactions with people, aesthetic vibes, and ideas I'm compelled by, and even food as kind of divine integration rituals. This also makes me easily influenced by people I'm attached to.

    My primary activities involve evaluating and developing emotional contexts; and I enjoy activities only to the level that I can give them an emotional significance.
    My biggest goal is to find someone I'm compelled by who I can attach myself to utterly without distorting or suppressing my sense of self, and who I can create rituals/emotional contexts/stories with intensively.
    Im still hearing little Fe and Ti endorsement.


    In light of this and my previous post analyzing your 4 patterns, I still think IXFP is a more accurate answer than IXFX.

  9. #39
    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
    Im assuming you meant that Ps have an extroverted perceiving function.



    I think if you took some time to talk to the IXFPs here you would find that that their "Pness" (), doesnt necessarily correlate with just passively existing in their surroundings. In fact, many have commented that the INFJs can appear more "P" because they lead with a perceiving function, and INFPs can appear more "J" because they lead with a judging function. Fi is no less a judging function than Te or Fe. Therefore, I dont think you should toss out IXFP if everything else points to them.




    Im still hearing little Fe and Ti endorsement.


    In light of this and my previous post analyzing your 4 patterns, I still think IXFP is a more accurate answer than IXFX.
    I'm not suggesting that Ps just passively exist in their surroundings. I mean that even introverted Ps are able to at least periodically "be in the moment," to sit back and observe their surroundings (that is, after all, what extroverted perceiving functions do), while I feel the need to immediately evaluate the significance of the moment and to discuss it.

    Fi and Fe are conflicting value systems. Do I need to endorse Fe to show that I value it? Doesn't the fact that it selectively threatens my Fi mean that I place enough weight on it for it to be a threat to my higher priority?

    Why am I supposed to be endorsing Ti? It's in positions 3 and 7.
    How have I ben endorsing Te?

  10. #40
    Senior Member jackandthebeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    IXFX
    Enneagram
    tert
    Socionics
    iary
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Qualification: people with T seem to also have trouble being in the moment, but for different reasons. I say this because my XXXP friend also has trouble stimulating himself.
    He doesn't, though, feel the need to fill every second with something.

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