User Tag List

First 6789 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 81

  1. #71
    #KUWK Kierva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Uh no, it doesn't change.

    MBTI/JCF is about your cognitive preferences, the way you think -- not behavior. You will usually "consult" your dom + aux function of <insert type here> unless under stress, in which you will use your other functions (including shadow).
    C#2-C#5-F#5
    3 octaves, 2 notes and 1 semitone
    Supported range: F#2-F#4-C#5

  2. #72
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    i listened in school, thats why i was able to write that stuff. they talked about this on personality psychology, neuropsychology and little on developmental psychology courses.

    the basics:



    before you start to disagree with this, would be nice to hear where you got your info from. i mean if you just refuse to listen to me(not trying to understand me) and say that im narrow minded, it just means that you are the one who is narrow minded to my(scientific) approach. if you wont be able to support what you say in any way, its not narrow minded for me to not believe you, because what you offer is narrow..
    Thats great and all that you sat in on some social science lectures. Unfortunately for us... it seems you never attended that "introduction to logic" lecture that would have gone over inductive vs deductive methods, scientific method as an example of inductive reasoning, and maybe even some kantian epistemology...

    If we are to ignore people's actions, then what they hell are we going to go off of? People's thoughts? The problem is... people are horrible at being honest with themselves. People in hindsight often commit acts thinking one thing, and then later rationalize that they must have been thinking another thing. It'd be one thing we had certain brain flows mapped to functions, but that would be impossible, as we dont have "transcripts" of peoples thoughts. All we have is transcripts of blood flow and brain activity in certain regions. It's not proof of any function world views, because we cant record people's thoughts.

    If the theory of MBTI is isolated from external data (ie peoples actions and thoughts) then factual statements about MBTI are basically going to fall into one of two categories: true by definition (2+2 = 4), or true "just because"/metaphysical.

    So our options are:
    <> accept jungian MBTI as a synthetic a priori (ie metaphysics..."MBTI religion")
    <> pretend MBTI is as necessary and universal as 2 + 2 = 4 (analytic a priori)
    <> accept that MBTI needs to be measured to external data... aka people's behavior (synthetic postriori)
    Mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, my list is...


    Also, your rambling about twin studies and environment, and genetics interactions... You do realize that without an environment, there is no place for genetics to interact with, and without a genetics, there is nothing to take place in an environment. Basically, nature vs nurture is impossible to pin point as being x% environment and y% genes. You need all of both for a life to unfold. The twin study is simply a relic of the eugenics past that originated in the US of A. Racial hygiene was taught at Stanford University! Some professor blabbering on social sciences can't change logic. It couldn't in 1904 and it can't now.

  3. #73
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Venom View Post
    Thats great and all that you sat in on some social science lectures. Unfortunately for us... it seems you never attended that "introduction to logic" lecture that would have gone over inductive vs deductive methods, scientific method as an example of inductive reasoning, and maybe even some kantian epistemology...

    If we are to ignore people's actions, then what they hell are we going to go off of? People's thoughts? The problem is... people are horrible at being honest with themselves. People in hindsight often commit acts thinking one thing, and then later rationalize that they must have been thinking another thing. It'd be one thing we had certain brain flows mapped to functions, but that would be impossible, as we dont have "transcripts" of peoples thoughts. All we have is transcripts of blood flow and brain activity in certain regions. It's not proof of any function world views, because we cant record people's thoughts.

    If the theory of MBTI is isolated from external data (ie peoples actions and thoughts) then factual statements about MBTI are basically going to fall into one of two categories: true by definition (2+2 = 4), or true "just because"/metaphysical.

    So our options are:
    <> accept jungian MBTI as a synthetic a priori (ie metaphysics..."MBTI religion")
    <> pretend MBTI is as necessary and universal as 2 + 2 = 4 (analytic a priori)
    <> accept that MBTI needs to be measured to external data... aka people's behavior (synthetic postriori)
    Mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, my list is...


    Also, your rambling about twin studies and environment, and genetics interactions... You do realize that without an environment, there is no place for genetics to interact with, and without a genetics, there is nothing to take place in an environment. Basically, nature vs nurture is impossible to pin point as being x% environment and y% genes. You need all of both for a life to unfold. The twin study is simply a relic of the eugenics past that originated in the US of A. Racial hygiene was taught at Stanford University! Some professor blabbering on social sciences can't change logic. It couldn't in 1904 and it can't now.
    we did go through inductive and deductive ways to come up with a personality theory, didnt talk much about kant, because im not studying philosophy. i dont really see what this has to do with the subject. that is ofc if you are saying that inductive theories are the only ones that can be truth. i see alot more truth in jungian types(mostly deductive) than in big 5(inductive). you simply cant explain the human mind properly with purely inductive research, its far too complicated for that, thats why big 5 is so simplistic and jungian types offer more. you should know that since you are acting like you know what you are talking about.

    no one is talking about ignoring actions, but actions isnt what jungian typology is trying to explain, naturally cognitive processes do effect the actions(cognitive psychology is looking at behavior, but from the point of view of the brain processes(then there is the cognitive neuroscience that is looking to find neural connections to cognition)), but because actions vary sooo much even in the same situation because of different cognitions, its stupid to look at behavior without looking at cognition first. pure behaviorism has been abandoned many years ago already in the field of psychology, cognitive sciences replaced it simply because behaviorism fails to do what it was meant to do.

    i really dont understand why you want to isolate MBTI from peoples thought processes, because thats exactly what MBTI is. that just doesent make any sense. but since we can see difference in types with EEG, its not necessary to look at behavior at all, its enough to make the patient think and let EEG read his brain waves. you could make a computer program that analyzes the brain waves and shows the right stuff on the screen to activate brains for measurements and you would get a type by showing computer screen to someone.

    i know that environment activates genes and lack of environment would leave genes unactivated to some extend, i already said that.. i didnt say anything about % of nature vs nurture, dont put words into my mouth. i said that big 5 test could vary some % with identical twins(same genes), due to differences on environment activating genes and trying to repress natural tendencies of genetic behavior that has already been activated. gene for extraversion seems to be activated in already with babies under 3 months and its not dependable that much of environment(they havent studied putting a I and E new born babies in dark room yet and seeing if there would be difference when they hit 3 months, like there is if they have some interaction with the environment).

    i really cant believe that you are comparing twin studies in personality research to racial hygiene

    here is something you should watch:
    http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/11

    i know they talk about big 5, but this works the same way in jungian typology
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #74
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    I would also like to add that adaptive use of unprefered cognative functions may also be mimic behaviour using already prefered cognative functions. And thus they are not the use of unprefered cognative functions at all.

    I notice this in my customer relations, where I mimic behaviour that would otherwise be labeled as good use of Fe, without actually using actual Fe at all, just using the understanding of what Fe does on the surface.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  5. #75
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    we did go through inductive and deductive ways to come up with a personality theory, didnt talk much about kant, because im not studying philosophy. i dont really see what this has to do with the subject. that is ofc if you are saying that inductive theories are the only ones that can be truth. i see alot more truth in jungian types(mostly deductive) than in big 5(inductive). you simply cant explain the human mind properly with purely inductive research, its far too complicated for that, thats why big 5 is so simplistic and jungian types offer more. you should know that since you are acting like you know what you are talking about.

    no one is talking about ignoring actions, but actions isnt what jungian typology is trying to explain, naturally cognitive processes do effect the actions(cognitive psychology is looking at behavior, but from the point of view of the brain processes(then there is the cognitive neuroscience that is looking to find neural connections to cognition)), but because actions vary sooo much even in the same situation because of different cognitions, its stupid to look at behavior without looking at cognition first. pure behaviorism has been abandoned many years ago already in the field of psychology, cognitive sciences replaced it simply because behaviorism fails to do what it was meant to do.

    i really dont understand why you want to isolate MBTI from peoples thought processes, because thats exactly what MBTI is. that just doesent make any sense. but since we can see difference in types with EEG, its not necessary to look at behavior at all, its enough to make the patient think and let EEG read his brain waves. you could make a computer program that analyzes the brain waves and shows the right stuff on the screen to activate brains for measurements and you would get a type by showing computer screen to someone.

    i know that environment activates genes and lack of environment would leave genes unactivated to some extend, i already said that.. i didnt say anything about % of nature vs nurture, dont put words into my mouth. i said that big 5 test could vary some % with identical twins(same genes), due to differences on environment activating genes and trying to repress natural tendencies of genetic behavior that has already been activated. gene for extraversion seems to be activated in already with babies under 3 months and its not dependable that much of environment(they havent studied putting a I and E new born babies in dark room yet and seeing if there would be difference when they hit 3 months, like there is if they have some interaction with the environment).

    i really cant believe that you are comparing twin studies in personality research to racial hygiene

    here is something you should watch:
    http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/11

    i know they talk about big 5, but this works the same way in jungian typology
    1. its imperative that everyone who has an interest in genetics and its potential application understand the track record of academics and genetics, genetic determinism and how american academics basically created the eugenics movement that started the holocaust. My comment on twin studies relates to their dubious origin in eugenics, and how genetic determinism is a farce, although many social scientists conduct studies as if it were fact.

    2. I bring up Kant because what we are talking about here involves epistemology, and how to prove something as "factual". Mapping brain waves to activities doesn't map MBTI "cognitive world views" to certain activities. It merely proves brain waves match certain activities. To actually prove the "world view" aspect of MBTI, you'd have to have a (currently fictional) window into people ACTUAL thoughts. Minus that sort of "window into stream of consciousness though" that would provide empirical justification for a DIRECT LINK between MBTI functional world views and brain waves, you'd have to accept MBTI as a first principle. Because it's not necessary and universal, it's basically akin to accepting a religion, and is not like accepting a first principle such "all bachelors are unmarried". Basically, MBTI has very weak epistemological basis of actually being factual rather than simply a "the map is not the territory".

    3. I don't get my jollies from stirring shit up, I swear . I'm just writing out some arguments...

  6. #76
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    It's definitely possible, brain wiring changes. Biggest example is an extrovert who has terrible stuff happen and for the rest of their life use introversion as a coping mechanism, losing trust in the outside world. I bet if we studied their brain, since the E/I axis does have an observable basis in brain chemistry, that their brain would look like an introvert brain, and be one. And by extension that would change the functions.

  7. #77
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    bold is simply a false view at MBTI, socionics and big 5 is represented that way, not MBTI/jungian typology.

    http://www.aptinternational.org/asse..._1105_apti.pdf

    too bad if you dont have access to full text, but abstract says few things
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11190091
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...151.x/abstract

    use google scholar for more
    In reference to the top one, (since it's a full article, and skimmed it.)

    And what I gleaned, (correct me if I'm wrong.)

    A 2005 article where the latest quoted study was from 1985.
    The percentages of people of each type differ from the supposed percentages within the general population
    Study is not even remotely randomized- majority of test volunteers are female, all volunteers, college students, of a certain age group, only about 35 people.
    No control groups

    Yes, this is the definition of a pseudoscience as far as I can tell.

    Is there a such thing as "peer reviewed" google scholar?
    or "truely science" google scholar?

    If so, I'm all over it.

    Maybe this isn't the best study we have?
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  8. #78
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    In reference to the top one, (since it's a full article, and skimmed it.)

    And what I gleaned, (correct me if I'm wrong.)

    A 2005 article where the latest quoted study was from 1985.
    The percentages of people of each type differ from the supposed percentages within the general population
    Study is not even remotely randomized- majority of test volunteers are female, all volunteers, college students, of a certain age group, only about 35 people.
    No control groups

    Yes, this is the definition of a pseudoscience as far as I can tell.

    Is there a such thing as "peer reviewed" google scholar?
    or "truely science" google scholar?

    If so, I'm all over it.

    Maybe this isn't the best study we have?
    MBTI has pseudoscience up the wazoo. But even if you had a control group, and even if your demographic of test takers was broad enough to be a good representative, the MBTI doesn't demonstrate one's MBTI type.

  9. #79
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    I would also like to add that adaptive use of unprefered cognative functions may also be mimic behaviour using already prefered cognative functions. And thus they are not the use of unprefered cognative functions at all.

    I notice this in my customer relations, where I mimic behaviour that would otherwise be labeled as good use of Fe, without actually using actual Fe at all, just using the understanding of what Fe does on the surface.
    Hey! That's a good point! Plus, it corroberates with the fact that MBTI doesn't reflect one's MBTI type if some self-conscious test taker is wringing out their brain stem to match some un-preferred rubish.

  10. #80
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Venom View Post
    1. its imperative that everyone who has an interest in genetics and its potential application understand the track record of academics and genetics, genetic determinism and how american academics basically created the eugenics movement that started the holocaust. My comment on twin studies relates to their dubious origin in eugenics, and how genetic determinism is a farce, although many social scientists conduct studies as if it were fact.

    2. I bring up Kant because what we are talking about here involves epistemology, and how to prove something as "factual". Mapping brain waves to activities doesn't map MBTI "cognitive world views" to certain activities. It merely proves brain waves match certain activities. To actually prove the "world view" aspect of MBTI, you'd have to have a (currently fictional) window into people ACTUAL thoughts. Minus that sort of "window into stream of consciousness though" that would provide empirical justification for a DIRECT LINK between MBTI functional world views and brain waves, you'd have to accept MBTI as a first principle. Because it's not necessary and universal, it's basically akin to accepting a religion, and is not like accepting a first principle such "all bachelors are unmarried". Basically, MBTI has very weak epistemological basis of actually being factual rather than simply a "the map is not the territory".

    3. I don't get my jollies from stirring shit up, I swear . I'm just writing out some arguments...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vMC3TPuOOo


    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    In reference to the top one, (since it's a full article, and skimmed it.)

    And what I gleaned, (correct me if I'm wrong.)

    A 2005 article where the latest quoted study was from 1985.
    The percentages of people of each type differ from the supposed percentages within the general population
    Study is not even remotely randomized- majority of test volunteers are female, all volunteers, college students, of a certain age group, only about 35 people.
    No control groups

    Yes, this is the definition of a pseudoscience as far as I can tell.

    Is there a such thing as "peer reviewed" google scholar?
    or "truely science" google scholar?

    If so, I'm all over it.

    Maybe this isn't the best study we have?
    1. its a study that, not just a review of studies in the past. ofc it reviewed old results in the intro section like most studies do. you should read it more carefully

    2. it doesent make any difference if the % differs from general population. why would it?

    3. this sort of studies doesent require randomization, because it doesent require experimental research setup. male/female thing doesent make any difference for this, since type fits to both men and women and their brain activity has same effect to thought/perceptions than males. its the same thing with age. yes the sample size was pretty small, but its enough to give direction, especially in a study that doesent have other variables that might effect the outcome and only looks at how one attribute contributes to another.

    4. correct method for this sort of studies is correlational research(studying how one exact attribute(brain activity) contributes to another(MBTI type)). no control groups are needed for correlational research, because you dont need to look at causality with this thing. control groups belong to experimental research and this sort of study doesent need experimental research setup, as it doesent have variables that might have an effect to give false results that you need to control.

    google scholar gives links to sites, just like normal google. if you look at where the study is, you can see if its trusted source. i think its the best search engine available for public, i got access to one much better from school, that gives access to studies that you can only find abstract without passwords(like those two studies i posted earlier).

    here are some trusted sources for studies: Academic Search Complete, Periodicals Index Online, Web of Science, SCOPUS, JSTOR, Proquest Databases, Aleksi, ARTO, Elektra, PubMed, Primo Central Index. but you cant get full texts for most studies from those if you dont have passwords/subscription. google scholar links for at least some of those sites
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

Similar Threads

  1. Why do you or do you not put your MBTI type on your TypoC profile?
    By Esoteric Wench in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 12-08-2017, 02:22 PM
  2. If you were obliged to change your mbti type.
    By Rasofy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 05-25-2011, 02:41 PM
  3. Your MBTI type has changed
    By CuriousFeeling in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-04-2011, 08:32 PM
  4. Does your MBTI type determine what you think is funny?
    By simpleamazement in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-28-2009, 04:51 PM
  5. What expectations about your MBTI type do you not fit?
    By Misty_Mountain_Rose in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-29-2009, 09:12 PM

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