User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 137

  1. #101
    Senior Member sciski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    NSFW
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    468

    Default

    Erm... I'm just going to respond to the OP.

    First thoughts:
    BIG For Sale sign.
    'Shopped.
    Happy family.
    What an unfortunate skirt pattern.


    I think the title of the thread series might skew the results though, unless you have a dastardly ulterior motive that is not related to Si or Ni at all... in which case I would applaud you!

  2. #102
    Senior Member sciski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    NSFW
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I'm not really seeing any inherent "patterns" being established, I'm just seeing people projecting the cog functions we've already imposed prior to our "test."
    I will add a hearty to this.

    A better test? Grab someone who doesn't know what type they are or what MBTI is, ask them their response to this test, record it, then figure out their type afterwards. Then you might have some unbiased data for correlation purposes. Repeat this with 10,000,000 other people for extra data.

    Actually, double-blind it... the experimenter just gets the response-to-picture data and establishes patterns with it. Afterwards, the experimenter can get the type data (but named as "type A", "type B", etc) and see if there are matches between patterns of response and each type. When all the items are matched, only then are the types actually revealed.

    And then to make things more laborious, tell all the subjects their type, give them a flattering type description, show them yet another picture, record responses, then see whether the correlation between responses and type becomes stronger.

    I'm betting it does.

    Oh gosh, to be truly evil, tell all the subjects a WRONG (but similar) type, give them a flattering type description and perform the experiment.

    Maybe it's bed-time for me.

  3. #103
    Carerra Lu IZthe411's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Dad saw a mouse, screamed like a 5 year old girl and ran out the house. His family followed.

  4. #104
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    My immediate reaction is if you want immediate reactions, you're asking Se.

    In other words, I got nothing. The colours are pretty.
    Yep, I kind of got that as well.

  5. #105
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Actually most people try to point out my Fe use when they want to insult me or make me uncomfortable. I get stuck in Ne+Fe loops sometimes. As for Si, not so much, but it does the whole "I'm afraid everything will always be stuck the way it is now" thing sometimes.
    Are you implying that I was/am in a loop? Because I'm not. You were insulting me as some sort of inferior 'thinking type.' But insults don't go too deeply with me when I'm mired in Ti land, which is good for you.



    You think I'm nitpicking a trivial distinction just to be pedantic. I'm not. You just vastly underestimate the importance of this distinction. Why do you think numerous people (not just Ti-ers) are telling you that?

    It's not just Ti users that are correcting your terminology. You may find the distinction insignificant, but imho, that's because you don't yet understand what a big difference there is between your "I use Ne to see patterns and then Fe to be nice to people" model and the model of functions as attitudinal orientations. This leads you to constant mistakes in assessments of functional "use" because you think every time someone performs x action, he must be "using" y function, which is a HUGE difference from what function theory actually says.
    This is really the only substantive thing we are talking about in all this mash. Do I understand functions? I realize I am a new student to typology, and would never want to assume I know more than I do in that regard. However, I simply have not seen much thus far that has challenged my thinking or intuition? in that regard very much. I suspect, like Nightning says (and perhaps Kalach), that we really just don't know much about how our brains work at all, so everything I read about functions is floating around and within, the context of a big soupy mess of undiscovered patterns and cognition.

    You must understand that you will appear condescending to me until you truly respect that I have a different focus than you; that I am not all about knowing everything ever written about functions. Perhaps that is a weakness, perhaps not, because it allows me to open up my energy and psyche to new thoughts, my preferred way of being. I respect that you are more thinking-oriented to facts and existing theories, and understanding all. That's great. I admire that in Ne/Ti users. But it does not seem that I get the same respect in this regard. The fact that I feel condescended to means that I am being condescended to, because until you grasp the valid differences in us, you will not fully appreciate, nor understand, my way of thinking or being; and I consequently will not derive any/much benefit from these discourses, because the way I learn is by asking questions and brainstorming solutions.

    I'm actually more interested in what we don't know than what we know. That might not be your perspective as much as an Ne dom. That's what could potentially be interesting with having Ni/Ne discussions. But to constantly point out that I don't understand something is sort of a mute point with me. If I need to understand it, I will learn it, and I will learn it well. Otherwise, I don't have the energy to divert to it. It is a fundamental and interesting (to me) difference in how you and I are. Additonally, however, I think I understand more than you realize (and you probably as well), but the gaps in our ways of being are so great that we cannot see that. So, to move on, I will quote Jung from p495:

    The products of all functions can be conscious, but we speak of the "consciousness" of a function only when its use is under the control of the will and, at the same time, its governing principle is the decisive one for the orientation of consciousness..........This absolute sovereingty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, because the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily produce a different orientation which, partially at least, would contradict the first.
    I consider cognitive functions, as identified by Jung, to be unconscious processes that we use to perceive and process data to help us be in the world. And that we have definite preferences for certain functions, including attitudes of those functions; but that we can utilize, as our life experience allows, all functions accordingly. I suspect that there are more than 8 cognitive functions, just that those were the easiest to see by Jung in his professional career.

    [On another note, this same page yields an interesting context for my earlier arguements about how we can use two preferences with ease, depending on our genetic predisposition.....but depending on how this 'discussion' goes, I may or may not be expounding on that.......]

    So, anyway, I don't know why I appear so ignorant to you. I don't feel ignorant, but perhaps I am. Who knows? I feel strongly I'm speaking more about functions and trying to define them, than anyone on this board, except perhaps Kalach and nightning, as of late anyway; I realize many are interested in functions but we don't collectively ever get very far because you NTs seem to constantly want to pose and defend and cut down our knowledge base through hostility and condescension instead of build it up through more appropriate communication and fair arguing.




    Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to help you move past A. I think you're a smart woman and you do bring interesting perspectives to things sometimes. You just won't budge because you think I'm making trivial distinctions just to be pedantic, when in reality the distinctions I'm drawing are far more important than you give them credit for.
    Who are you to move me past A? Did I say I wanted to move past A? Do I need to move past A? Amazing. Do you want to save me from myself? I kinda like how I think and how I am.



    Maybe this is due to crappy Fe, but I don't understand this. It would seem to me that my first comment, directed at nothing but criticism of the testable validity, is not nearly as personally offensive or grossly generalized as your initial response:
    Isn't this what you accuse me of when you say I don't understand the functions?



    Your comment not only questions my personal competency, it also implies that incompetence is a frequently occurring quality in ENTPs.
    Hey, I don't think being ENTP necessarily means you need to be condescending or to discount others' viewpoints. Many ENTPs on here can debate well, are very smart, and can still entertain other viewpoints in a nonhostile way. I think it just comes down to maturity and consideration. And perhaps individual egos as well.


    I didn't comment on what a typical Si user would say--I commented on what the test expected a typical Si user to say, as a means of implying that the test was poorly designed.

    Seriously, you got the exact opposite meaning than I intended out of those comments about the Si-er--I was mocking the test's design and expectations, not claiming that every Si-er would respond that way.
    I know. I know. You still don't get it. You weren't even responding in a mocking way the way an Si-er would respond, imo. I am only remarking on this triviality to point out that I get sarcasm, so you can save your 'you don't understand anything' comments for more substantive issues.

    Besides, do you really think most people really posted the very first things they thought of? Maybe some people wanted to offer unique, interesting interpretations that hadn't yet been posted?

    The thread turned more into, "Who can come up with the most interesting interpretations of this photo?" than "What was the very first thing that occurred to you about it"? This is another flaw in the testing process.
    Absolutely agree. I never made claims about the potential validity or problems with this 'test,' I only said using pictures was a good, unexplored, way to reach the way people think. If you still disagree, awesome, I'll not talk anymore about it with you.

    blame it on being a dumb extrovert.


    Oh, I think you're plenty smart now. I don't think either of us thinks you're stupid. I think we both just suspect that you have some reading to do on this particular topic.

    'Course, Jaguar suspects the same of me, so, maybe I should order a new book while I'm at it.
    For the record, I don't think you're dumb at all. You're just young....and cocky. :chicken: But if you catch it now, you might be able to remain, or learn, a more open-minded approach to interacting, whether for your online persona or not. I am a real person, whether I'm behind a computer screen or in front of your face; I deserve respect and your best effort at communication.

    Furthermore, my impetus here is learning and growing. I am naturally interested in psychology and how the mind works, with an emphasis in genetics. If you guys can offer some fun and rewarding convos in that, that would be awesome. But I don't really care if you think I'm smart or not; I just don't like the ad hominem attacks on my intelligence. I will actually entertain them from people who I feel have earned that right, and who I respect, more than those who just sit back and criticize without offering any real material or debate, like Jaguar. Despite repeated attempts by me to ellicit his knowledge-base and ideas, he has refused, which is well within his right, but I will not then turn around and accept his disavowal of my adequacies regarding typology, and I resent that you do, because I have not personally seen anything that warrants his superiority in this. So the fact that you defend him, in the wake of our arguements, makes me think you are copping a power play.

    Until later.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  6. #106
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Simple. A picture that's intended for some other purpose and is not really what it seems. A fake.

    But if not, The Kid is INTJ saying "I don't like this.". The Dad is ISFP and is pleased and the mother is ENFP and is concerned over something else.

  7. #107
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    This leads you to constant mistakes in assessments of functional "use" because you think every time someone performs x action, he must be "using" y function, which is a HUGE difference from what function theory actually says.
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    you can associate certain cognitive strengths with certain abilities in related tasks.

  8. #108
    #005645 phthalocyanine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    681

    Default

    this family is moving out of this house to a new home. they're looking back at their first home together for the last time. my first impression is that the mother and son seem more in tune with one another than either of them with the father (this is not only evidenced by the colors theyre wearing, but by body language). the son seems a bit detached/in his head, where the mother appears more present in the moment and immersed in feeling. the dad's vibe is less serious than those of the others.

    the boy seems NT - he's wondering why he's moving and what will happen next. he's aware his mother is feeling a bit wistful at the moment but does not wish to tangle with these kinds of emotions if he can avoid it. he wonders how his pet gerbil feels about the move, and then deduces that it's probably just hungry and confused like usual; it's just a gerbil.

    the husband/father is a little sad to leave this house, but he's less sad than he is excited to be moving into a new house. i think perhaps he has uprooted his wife and son from a home they liked for his new job, or maybe he just wanted a bigger house with a hot tub!


    the mother is very nurturing toward her son. he trusts her immensely, and goes to her for advice most times, because mother is more pragmatic, and a better listener than dad. but dad better knows how to have fun... so much so that he might be a touch irresponsible/reckless. he tries not to let that interfere with being a good family man, though. he plans to have a beer fridge in the new garage.

    he also vehemently refuses to get his pants tailored despite his wife's pleas.

  9. #109
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sciski View Post
    I will add a hearty to this.

    A better test? Grab someone who doesn't know what type they are or what MBTI is, ask them their response to this test, record it, then figure out their type afterwards. Then you might have some unbiased data for correlation purposes. Repeat this with 10,000,000 other people for extra data.

    Actually, double-blind it... the experimenter just gets the response-to-picture data and establishes patterns with it. Afterwards, the experimenter can get the type data (but named as "type A", "type B", etc) and see if there are matches between patterns of response and each type. When all the items are matched, only then are the types actually revealed.

    And then to make things more laborious, tell all the subjects their type, give them a flattering type description, show them yet another picture, record responses, then see whether the correlation between responses and type becomes stronger.

    I'm betting it does.

    Oh gosh, to be truly evil, tell all the subjects a WRONG (but similar) type, give them a flattering type description and perform the experiment.

    Maybe it's bed-time for me.
    Awesome ideas. I swear, I wish I had real time to do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by phthalocyanine View Post
    this family is moving out of this house to a new home. they're looking back at their first home together for the last time. my first impression is that the mother and son seem more in tune with one another than either of them with the father (this is not only evidenced by the colors theyre wearing, but by body language). the son seems a bit detached/in his head, where the mother appears more present in the moment and immersed in feeling. the dad's vibe is less serious than those of the others.

    the boy seems NT - he's wondering why he's moving and what will happen next. he's aware his mother is feeling a bit wistful at the moment but does not wish to tangle with these kinds of emotions if he can avoid it. he wonders how his pet gerbil feels about the move, and then deduces that it's probably just hungry and confused like usual; it's just a gerbil.

    the husband/father is a little sad to leave this house, but he's less sad than he is excited to be moving into a new house. i think perhaps he has uprooted his wife and son from a home they liked for his new job, or maybe he just wanted a bigger house with a hot tub!


    the mother is very nurturing toward her son. he trusts her immensely, and goes to her for advice most times, because mother is more pragmatic, and a better listener than dad. but dad better knows how to have fun... so much so that he might be a touch irresponsible/reckless. he tries not to let that interfere with being a good family man, though. he plans to have a beer fridge in the new garage.

    he also vehemently refuses to get his pants tailored despite his wife's pleas.
    Wow. You are really a deep person. Very, very feeling oriented. Is this how you think about people all the time? It's sounds fatiguing.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  10. #110
    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 aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Are you implying that I was/am in a loop? Because I'm not. You were insulting me as some sort of inferior 'thinking type.' But insults don't go too deeply with me when I'm mired in Ti land, which is good for you.
    Just responding to your "part and parcel" comment about EP types.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    This is really the only substantive thing we are talking about in all this mash. Do I understand functions? I realize I am a new student to typology, and would never want to assume I know more than I do in that regard. However, I simply have not seen much thus far that has challenged my thinking or intuition? in that regard very much. I suspect, like Nightning says (and perhaps Kalach), that we really just don't know much about how our brains work at all, so everything I read about functions is floating around and within, the context of a big soupy mess of undiscovered patterns and cognition.
    You've mostly just ignored the numerous challenges people have offered. Agreed that we don't know that much about cognition in general from a biological standpoint, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    You must understand that you will appear condescending to me until you truly respect that I have a different focus than you; that I am not all about knowing everything ever written about functions. Perhaps that is a weakness, perhaps not, because it allows me to open up my energy and psyche to new thoughts, my preferred way of being. I respect that you are more thinking-oriented to facts and existing theories, and understanding all. That's great. I admire that in Ne/Ti users. But it does not seem that I get the same respect in this regard. The fact that I feel condescended to means that I am being condescended to, because until you grasp the valid differences in us, you will not fully appreciate, nor understand, my way of thinking or being; and I consequently will not derive any/much benefit from these discourses, because the way I learn is by asking questions and brainstorming solutions.

    I'm actually more interested in what we don't know than what we know. That might not be your perspective as much as an Ne dom. That's what could potentially be interesting with having Ni/Ne discussions. But to constantly point out that I don't understand something is sort of a mute point with me. If I need to understand it, I will learn it, and I will learn it well. Otherwise, I don't have the energy to divert to it. It is a fundamental and interesting (to me) difference in how you and I are. Additonally, however, I think I understand more than you realize (and you probably as well), but the gaps in our ways of being are so great that we cannot see that. So, to move on, I will quote Jung from p495:
    Oy vey. Ne doms are among the most interested in the unknown. Being more concerned with facts and what's already established has nothing to do with Ne at all.

    The focus on what's already known is just the launchpad from which we blast off into the unknown. If NT is repeatedly correcting you on known, basic facts, it just means s/he thinks you haven't even built the launchpad yet, not that s/he is uninterested in exploring the unknown!

    Indeed, exploring the unknown is the whole point; we just generally consider it necessary to possess basic competence before drifting out into space. If we don't, we tend to waste a lot of time "solving" problems that have already been solved instead of just listening to what other, more experienced people have already figured out and then trying to build on it.

    There's no sense in reinventing the wheel when you could be using that wheel to build better cars.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I consider cognitive functions, as identified by Jung, to be unconscious processes that we use to perceive and process data to help us be in the world. And that we have definite preferences for certain functions, including attitudes of those functions; but that we can utilize, as our life experience allows, all functions accordingly. I suspect that there are more than 8 cognitive functions, just that those were the easiest to see by Jung in his professional career.
    That's a pretty good definition. It just flies in the face of some other statements you've made, such as, "I know I use Ne frequently because I can see patterns in the way people post." You sometimes just focus a little too much on what is happening instead of why when you define and observe functions.

    So, rather than think of Ne as "the processes of seeing external patterns", you could try thinking of it as "an attitude that encourages us to connect new information to larger external patterns that will ultimately change the original meaning once viewed in a larger context."

    Just because you can see patterns between things doesn't mean Ne is the attitude that caused you to do it. To assess functions you need to understand someone's value system and what beliefs/attitudes led to the way s/he is behaving...not just observe what s/he is doing.

    Your mistake (from the perspective of the Jungian model!) is that you think you're observing people "changing between all the functions all the time" because you seem to think every time a person performs an action that people strong in function x tend to be good at, that person is necessarily "using" function x. Like when you told me, "I know I use Ne because I observe patterns in the way people post." You can observe patterns without the "use" of any particular function. It's not what you're doing that implies Ne use; it's why you did it, that is, what part of your overall attitude and orientation toward life motivated you to approach considering information this way.

    But frequently they're not using function x, because "using function x" implies subscribing to a much broader and more inclusive set of values and tendencies in a variety of situations--not just performing one single action that people who orient by that function are usually proficient in.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    [On another note, this same page yields an interesting context for my earlier arguements about how we can use two preferences with ease, depending on our genetic predisposition.....but depending on how this 'discussion' goes, I may or may not be expounding on that.......]
    Doesn't this directly contradict the Jung quote you provided?

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    So, anyway, I don't know why I appear so ignorant to you. I don't feel ignorant, but perhaps I am. Who knows? I feel strongly I'm speaking more about functions and trying to define them, than anyone on this board, except perhaps Kalach and nightning, as of late anyway; I realize many are interested in functions but we don't collectively ever get very far because you NTs seem to constantly want to pose and defend and cut down our knowledge base through hostility and condescension instead of build it up through more appropriate communication and fair arguing.
    I'm just confused because the Jungian model (combined with some more recent authors) already has a pretty clear and consistent definition of what functions are. If you don't like the Jungian model that's fine, but it seems curious that you would use Jung's terms and then try to twist the definitions into something they're not.

    If you want to invent your own typology system, have at it, but why bother starting with already defined pieces of another one and then force the terms to mean something other than what they've already been designated as? Just invent your own terms and your own system and go from there.

    NTs are not trying to cut down your knowledge base. You don't seem to read our motivations very well (which is in itself the crux of functional analysis.) We're trying to correct your misapplications of the already existing model. If you don't like the already existing model, that's fine, but what are you doing on a forum dedicated to studying from the perspective of that model?

    Isn't this kind of like going to a physics message board to argue that the particles inside atoms shouldn't be called protons/neutrons/electrons? I mean, if that's your opinion, we can't really say that you're wrong; it's just that if you're going to reject the current model and invent your own, it would seem to make more sense to invent your own terminology so as to avoid confusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Who are you to move me past A? Did I say I wanted to move past A? Do I need to move past A? Amazing. Do you want to save me from myself? I kinda like how I think and how I am.
    I don't have any idea why you've taken this personally. By "move you past A" I meant try to help you get a grasp on the basic ideas of the Jungian model so that you can apply it to more things.

    Of course, if you choose to reject the Jungian model and try to develop your own, go for it...but using Jung's terms to describe your new and totally different model seems awfully strange.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Isn't this what you accuse me of when you say I don't understand the functions?
    No, when I say you don't understand the functions, I mean you're missing the basic point of the definition of a function. For instance, when you say something like, "I observe my daughter using Si"--in order to observe your daughter using Si, you would need to recognize a certain type of fundamental belief system in your daughter representative of the Si worldview.

    You cannot "observe her using Si" simply because you saw her do something that Si people are commonly good at.

    That's like saying, "I observe my son using Catholicism when he drinks the Communion wine." Well, he may be doing something that Catholics do often, but you don't really "use" Catholicism unless you subscribe to the belief system it entails and apply it to all areas of your life.

    The boy can't be described as "using Catholicism" based on one isolated instance of doing something that Catholics commonly do. Calling him Catholic implies an entire set of beliefs and tendencies that cover a lot more ground than this one instance of drinking Communion wine.

    So if your daughter frequently behaves, speaks and thinks in ways that are representative of the Si value system, maybe she's using Si...but observing one isolated instance of remembering something from the past doesn't make her an Si user because it's not enough to establish that she adheres to the Si orientation to cognition.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Hey, I don't think being ENTP necessarily means you need to be condescending or to discount others' viewpoints. Many ENTPs on here can debate well, are very smart, and can still entertain other viewpoints in a nonhostile way. I think it just comes down to maturity and consideration. And perhaps individual egos as well.
    If you have a completely different, non-Jungian viewpoint on how we should view cognition, I would be glad to hear that. The reason NTs are taking issue with you is that you're taking the terms from an already existing model and insisting that they mean something else, which creates a lot of confusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I know. I know. You still don't get it. You weren't even responding in a mocking way the way an Si-er would respond, imo. I am only remarking on this triviality to point out that I get sarcasm, so you can save your 'you don't understand anything' comments for more substantive issues.
    I'm afraid your opinion on the intended meaning of my words is less significant than mine, given that I wrote the words in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Absolutely agree. I never made claims about the potential validity or problems with this 'test,' I only said using pictures was a good, unexplored, way to reach the way people think. If you still disagree, awesome, I'll not talk anymore about it with you.
    I don't disagree with that at all. But that's not at all how the OP presented it. If she had just said, "Everybody look at this picture and tell me your first reaction because I'm curious how people will respond", there'd be no issue whatsoever.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    For the record, I don't think you're dumb at all. You're just young....and cocky. :chicken: But if you catch it now, you might be able to remain, or learn, a more open-minded approach to interacting, whether for your online persona or not. I am a real person, whether I'm behind a computer screen or in front of your face; I deserve respect and your best effort at communication.
    And I've been trying very hard to communicate with you, but you still just dismiss everything I say as trivial nitpicking for the sake of pedantry.

    If I didn't truly believe these distinctions were meaningful in the framework of Jungian typology I wouldn't continue trying to explain them so many times.

    The problem that many NTs run into is with people who claim to be operating within a given model, then break the basic definition of that model. This is what you're doing. If you don't want to operate within the Jungian model, then fine, don't--but it doesn't make sense to continue using Jung's terms for your own ideas if you reject his model.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Furthermore, my impetus here is learning and growing. I am naturally interested in psychology and how the mind works, with an emphasis in genetics. If you guys can offer some fun and rewarding convos in that, that would be awesome. But I don't really care if you think I'm smart or not; I just don't like the ad hominem attacks on my intelligence. I will actually entertain them from people who I feel have earned that right, and who I respect, more than those who just sit back and criticize without offering any real material or debate, like Jaguar. Despite repeated attemtps by me to ellicit his knowledge-base and ideas, he has refused, which is well within his right, but I will not then turn around and accept his disavowal of my adequacies regarding typology, and I resent that you do, because I have not personally seen anything that warrants his superiority in this. So the fact that you defend him, in the wake of our arguements, makes me think you are copping a power play.

    Until later.
    I have never attacked your intelligence. In fact I've made a point of complimenting it several times. All I have attacked is your understanding of this particular model.

    Jaguar isn't bothering with you because NTJs usually don't bother entertaining the ideas of people who haven't shown enough understanding of the ideas they're interested in to warrant the effort.

    I think your ideas would meet with a much more welcome reception if you'd drop the pretense that you're operating within the Jungian model and just tell everyone you're inventing an entirely new approach to conceptualizing cognition, and stop using Jungian terms to designate non-Jungian concepts.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. Se vs Si compared to Ne vs Ni -- Some personal impressions
    By YUI in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2015, 03:39 AM
  2. Socionics Ni vs Si
    By jixmixfix in forum Socionics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-19-2012, 08:54 AM
  3. Ni vs. Si comparative Si TEST
    By musttry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-30-2010, 11:35 AM
  4. Ni vs Si, and more
    By Cimarron in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 11:58 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