User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 137

  1. #111
    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
    Just responding to your "part and parcel" comment about EP types.



    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.



    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.



    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.



    Doesn't this directly contradict the Jung quote you provided?



    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.




    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.




    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.




    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.
    I basically don't know what the fuck you're talking about and how you got all this from my post.

    And I have no idea why you have twisted my post up and make me out to be some Jungian model rejector. It's really, really quite amazing to me. I wouldn't quote Jung if I didn't respect and buy into his work! That doesn't mean I take everything he believed and internalize it. I rarely take everything everyone writes or hypothesizes for granted, or as my truth.

    Look, the fact is you are unusually difficult to communicate with. I'm not really sure why. You seem to not really want to meet in the middle, based on your tone and actions, which is totally fine. This stuff is really not worth being so hostile over. I really just don't work that way, or think that way.

    Furthermore, I disagree (again) with our fundamental differences about how functions work. I'm (again) not sure why you get so aggravated about it all, when I'm obviously pretty open to exploring new concepts. But when you come at it all with such a negative and hostile vibe, it just kills all desire for me to want to learn, or share, anything with you.

    Til me meet again!
    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


  2. #112
    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
    I basically don't know what the fuck you're talking about and how you got all this from my post.

    And I have no idea why you have twisted my post up and make me out to be some Jungian model rejector. It's really, really quite amazing to me. I wouldn't quote Jung if I didn't respect and buy into his work! That doesn't mean I take everything he believed and internalize it. I rarely take everything everyone writes or hypothesizes for granted, or as my truth.

    Look, the fact is you are unusually difficult to communicate with. I'm not really sure why. You seem to not really want to meet in the middle, based on your tone and actions, which is totally fine. This stuff is really not worth being so hostile over. I really just don't work that way, or think that way.

    Furthermore, I disagree (again) with our fundamental differences about how functions work. I'm (again) not sure why you get so aggravated about it all, when I'm obviously pretty open to exploring new concepts. But when you come at it all with such a negative and hostile vibe, it just kills all desire for me to want to learn, or share, anything with you.

    Til me meet again!
    sigh

    You're not even trying.

    The reason you're being repeatedly corrected is that, from the Jungian perspective, you have some misconceptions about the way functions are defined.

    When this happens, you respond by telling everyone to be more open-minded to your different way of seeing things. I would be delighted to do that, if you would stop making claims that violate the basics of the Jungian model yet still claiming that they fit into it! I'm not saying your ideas don't have any merit, just that you're repeatedly using already established terms and concepts incorrectly. If you want to make up your own model instead, that's great and I'd love to hear about it, but if you don't like Jung's idea of functions, why don't you just make up new terms for your own model of cognition?

    You're trying to redefine basic components of the existing model in your own way, but refusing to listen when people point out that you aren't lining up with the framework of the existing model. If you don't believe that the Jungian model is a useful interpretation of cognition and would rather make up your own, that's up to you, but it's very confusing when you use Jung's terms but assign them whatever different meaning you made up for your own personal model.

    I don't know how else to tell you that I'm really not trying to berate you here--all I'm trying to do is point out how your interpretation contradicts basic Jungian function principles. I'm not saying you can't interpret cognition in any other way, just that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too by continuing to use Jung's terms according to definitions that Jung didn't intend. Does that make any sense?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #113
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Meh...
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Muwahahah!!

    -----Personal Argument:

    I think the real root problem here is that AGA took Sim's attempt at greater precision too personally. And from there she continued to reinforce negative emotions using words such as "yawn".

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Just another cocky (and inaccurate) entp remark. :yawn:
    ---
    Here's the main idea:

    "If you want to be respected, respect them first."
    ---
    Here's what happened:

    1. Sim argued that this test was too open and thus ineffective and therefore, those who followed it were also wrong in trusting it.

    2. Aphrodite felt insulted though it was meant as impersonal criticism. This is where the difficulty in communication began.



    -----Personality Type/MBTI/Cognitive functions Argument:

    I don't know if whether this picture is enough to say anything but what I do know is that percentages of correctness depends on the number of pictures(attempts) shown. I mean each of us do have 4 cognitive functions, if you know what I mean.

    ---
    I also think that, though functions can only be used one at a time, they affect each other in the many ways we behave.

    She said, "I see a candle light, which reminds me of candles, which reminds me that I want to watch 'Sixteen Candles,' which reminds me I can't because youtube won't play it."
    What I actually see here is 3 functions being used in the order of Ne Si and Fe. Ne notices a pattern, Si pulls out memory information and compares it with the current one and Fe simply does the actual talking. What's her type?

  4. #114
    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 Craft View Post
    -----Personal Argument:

    I think the real root problem here is that AGA took Sim's attempt at greater precision too personally. And from there she continued to reinforce negative emotions using words such as "yawn".


    ---
    Here's the main idea:

    "If you want to be respected, respect them first."
    ---
    Here's what happened:

    1. Sim argued that this test was too open and thus ineffective and therefore, those who followed it were also wrong in trusting it.

    2. Aphrodite felt insulted though it was meant as impersonal criticism. This is where the difficulty in communication began.



    -----Personality Type/MBTI/Cognitive functions Argument:

    I don't know if whether this picture is enough to say anything but what I do know is that percentages of correctness depends on the number of pictures(attempts) shown. I mean each of us do have 4 cognitive functions, if you know what I mean.

    ---
    I also think that, though functions can only be used one at a time, they affect each other in the many ways we behave.



    What I actually see here is 3 functions being used in the order of Ne Si and Fe. Ne notices a pattern, Si pulls out memory information and compares it with the current one and Fe simply does the actual talking. What's her type?

    If you are going to post, or have any validity in a thread about cognitive functions, and criticize people within that thread, at least post your MBTI type. No mystery, you must be some sort of NT.



    I am tired, so tired, of being told by NTs that I (or other NFs) take things too personally, when I've simply called out rude and derogatory (non-working, non-learning) communication styles. It's as if you guys think seeking truth is excused from the way you deliver it, and instead of owning that, you simply say, "Oh, NF is projecting their hurt feelings into things."

    You are obviously biased, if you cannot see how negative and belligerent sim is being in some of his posts, especially the last one, yet point out that I (who am trying to retain an aire of equanimity) am feeling hurt. Puleeze.

    Finally, and get this straight. I am not taking his criticism personally. I don't even understand how you get that. My feelings are not hurt, for fuck's sake. I am simply frustrated that someone as smart as sim, cannot adopt an aire of decorum, and not defensiveness, even a meager one, when debating something. If someone cannot mind the rules of good arguing/debate, and continues nearly verbally abusive behavior, I will not discuss things with said person, beyond a few tries. What's the point? He could just as easily have said, "I see you might disagree with Jung here, which is a contradiction to your ealier statement (see quote). Can you explain this stance?"
    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


  5. #115
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    If you are going to post, or have any validity in a thread about cognitive functions, and criticize people within that thread, at least post your MBTI type.
    I have an idea of it but i have to increase my confidence. I doubt doubt will ever vanish I'm afraid.

    No mystery, you must be some sort of NT.
    Hm....


    I am tired, so tired, of being told by NTs that I (or other NFs) take things too personally, when I've simply called out rude and derogatory (non-working, non-learning) communication styles. It's as if you guys think seeking truth is excused from the way you deliver it, and instead of owning that, you simply say, "Oh, NF is projecting their hurt feelings into things."
    I can say that I've experienced arguing out of emotion and failed. Though I am perhaps a thinker. It happens to everyone. The conditions are just different: Pride, values, emotions, principles, beliefs etc.

    You are obviously biased, if you cannot see how negative and belligerent sim is being in some of his posts, especially the last one, yet point out that I (who am trying to retain an aire of equanimity) am feeling hurt. Puleeze.
    Hm...

    Finally, and get this straight. I am not taking his criticism personally.
    Perhaps not but the original offense is yours.

    I don't even understand how you get that. My feelings are not hurt, for fuck's sake. I am simply frustrated that someone as smart as sim, cannot adopt an aire of decorum, and not defensiveness, even a meager one, when debating something. If someone cannot mind the rules of good arguing/debate, and continues nearly verbally abusive behavior, I will not discuss things with said person, beyond a few tries. What's the point? He could just as easily have said,
    I've simply based my opinion on earlier interactions. I believe that's the root of the problem.


    "I see you might disagree with Jung here, which is a contradiction to your ealier statement (see quote). Can you explain this stance?"
    Have you disagreed with Jung? Have you contradicted your earlier statement? If you haven't, then we're looking at a false dilemma.

    --
    Am I hallucinating? Why do I sense some hostility in your words? If you are, why? There's no need to hit the stubborn rock. If not, then I suggest altering some of the words you use. or maybe I'm the problem?

  6. #116
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    If you are going to post, or have any validity in a thread about cognitive functions, and criticize people within that thread, at least post your MBTI type.
    Ignorant comments like that could be used as evidence to fuel Victor's crusade.

    People don't need to post an MBTI type, to post in this forum.
    People don't need to post an MBTI type, to post in a cog function thread.
    People don't need to post an MBTI type, to have "validity."
    People don't need to post an MBTI type, to criticize.

    Any other crazy comments you want to make- send them to your congressman.

  7. #117
    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 Jaguar View Post
    Ignorant comments like that could be used as evidence to fuel Victor's crusade.

    People don't need to post an MBTI type, to post in this forum.
    People don't need to post an MBTI type, to post in a cog function thread.
    People don't need to post an MBTI type, to have "validity."
    People don't need to post an MBTI type, to criticize.

    Any other crazy comments you want to make- send them to your congressman.
    If you are on a typology forum, don't post with any real substance on such forum, criticize members who do attempt to post substantively, then I will call you out on not posting your type. Even "introverted thinker" is acceptable. How can you have any validity in your criticism if you don't even know enough to know your primary or auxiliary cognitive functions? You are basically just wasting my time.
    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


  8. #118
    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 Craft View Post
    I have an idea of it but i have to increase my confidence. I doubt doubt will ever vanish I'm afraid.



    Hm....



    I can say that I've experienced arguing out of emotion and failed. Though I am perhaps a thinker. It happens to everyone. The conditions are just different: Pride, values, emotions, principles, beliefs etc.


    Hm...


    Perhaps not but the original offense is yours.



    I've simply based my opinion on earlier interactions. I believe that's the root of the problem.




    Have you disagreed with Jung? Have you contradicted your earlier statement? If you haven't, then we're looking at a false dilemma.

    --
    Am I hallucinating? Why do I sense some hostility in your words? If you are, why? There's no need to hit the stubborn rock. If not, then I suggest altering some of the words you use. or maybe I'm the problem?

    Original offense? haha. Whatever. That is such a mute point now, so much has transgressed since then. Plus I have a different reality of the 'original offense' anyway, and we will probably never agree on it, so ce la vi.

    I don't see that my posts were emotional in a negative way at all. So, again, judge me how you will, but you obviously don't understand me.

    Criticize me all day about how I argue badly. I couldn't care less. I'm sure I need to argue better, but that is not my thrust in life, I do it to learn more, and I attempt to follow good communication techniques, but I can't be the only one stretching and making effort in that. If someone has a problem relating with others, it really is beyong the scope of this thread, and perhaps this forum, to accomodate them, although I will help and make attempts to keep communication open with them, as long as I feel that someone is genuinely trying.

    Furthermore, your judgment of my behavior is just ridiculous and superfluous. I was not asking anyone for advice in how to deal with sim, nor if I acted appropriately in my response. I'd rather help you figure out your type, than waste time in this purposeless kind of communique.

    So, you think you are a thinker? I'm getting a distinct Ne dom vibe. What do you think?
    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


  9. #119
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    If you are on a typology forum, don't post with any real substance on such forum, criticize members who do attempt to post substantively, then I will call you out on not posting your type. Even "introverted thinker" is acceptable. How can you have any validity in your criticism if you don't even know enough to know your primary or auxiliary cognitive functions? You are basically just wasting my time.
    Your posts are becoming more irrational by the hour.
    The fact that you don't see why, is absolutely frightening.

    No person has to post an MBTI type in order to have "valid criticism."
    For all you know, a person who doesn't post their type is a Jungian analyst by profession.
    Who are you to deem what is acceptable as an "ID Badge" from a forum member?
    Delusions of grandeur are camping out on your front yard.

    The more you talk, the more you prove Sim's case for him.

  10. #120
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    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.
    Wow. You're a wicked researcher.
    (And I mean that in a GOOD way. You know what you're doing.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

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