User Tag List

First 5678917 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 393

  1. #61
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    How would you address people talking about NiFi or NeTe or any such variation? Are you saying that if Ni is involved, then it has to use Te or Fe, no exceptions?
    I wouldn't say that any one function definitively necessitates the use of any other function.

    Ni/Ji loops happen, and so do Ne/Te loops. The former occurs when one is extremely introverted and a bit shut off from reality. The latter occurs when one depends too much on external information to for self validation.

    In order to be cognitively healthy and mentally productive, however, I'd say that Pi necessitates Je while Pe necessitates Ji.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    +a lot

    I am really tired of people asking for proof that a made up labeling system's method is "proven."
    -1

    The labeling system isn't founded on nothing. There is an abstract theory that backs up the labels and the way we've chosen to assign the labels.

    Maybe I'm giving Z too much credit, but I don't think he was ever looking for a definitive proof of why Je/Pi-ers should be labeled judgers, and why Pe/Ji-ers should be labeled perceivers. I've only skimmed the thread, but my immediate impression is that he's looking for some kind of conceptual explanation for why Pe/Ji are labeled "perceivers" and why Pi/Je are labeled "judgers." Ie, what conceptual definition does Pi carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pi-ers appear "judgmental" in contrast to Pe-ers, and what conceptual definition does Pe carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pe-ers appear "perceptive" in contrast to Pi-ers.

    (I think a better title for this thread would have been "Pi = judger, Ji = perceiver; why?")

    Anywho, maybe you could try being contemplative, speculative, and perhaps a bit instructive, rather than criticizing someone for their inquiry before you really even understand the question.

    Double

  2. #62
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    OK, so to get the thread back to its original purpose:

    So, given all this discussion, do you not find it the slightest bit odd that Ni and Si are in the dom or aux of all Judgers.

    I mean, I understand that it's just like that according to the framework, but, assuming that the framework is actually representative of reality (I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying let's assume), then it would seem that Ni and Si are just as correlated to whether one is a Judger as having Te or Fe as one's dom or aux.

    Assuming the framework is representationally true, do you think it's merely a case of correlation but not causation that Ni and Si are 100% correlated with Jness, or do you think the underlying relationship is just as causal as the Fe and Te correlation?

    Isn't it at least interesting that all NJs have Ni, and all SJs have Si?
    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I'm sorry, Z, but this sounds like, "isn't it the least bit interesting that an antiparticle has the opposite charge of its corresponding particle?" It's definitional.

    It is part of the whole "Ji goes with Pe and Je goes with Pi" architecture of MBTI. It's like being amazed that not only does one plus one equal 2, but 2 minus one equals one!

    Unless there's some core empirical kind of observation that you'd like to make that might reach new conclusions, I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at.
    An understandable response, but not really a valuable one. I mean, I already lead with this exact notion in my post.

    The nugget I was trying to get at, which Tesla got but both you and Sim missed, is the potential relevance, importance, and causes of Pi/Je aux/dom and Pe/Ji aux/dom correlation if MBTI theory is representationally true vs being simply internally consistently true.

    You and Sim chose the cynical route; Tesla kept her mind open to the potentially deeper truth, and wrote a perfect response enumerating the details of what I was trying to point to.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Z, I'm sure you understand that definitively speaking, according to the labeling system, Pi goes with Je, and Ji goes with Pe. You're just looking for some kind of conceptual explanation for why the two are correlated, beyond the labeling system. Why the labeling system is the way it is, so to speak.
    Exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Judgers internalize the information that they gather externally to fit some kind of impersonal construct, and the construct itself has no judgments attached to it (Pi). However, judgers use this construct made from information in the external environment to make judgments of value/worth (Je). Without the construct, no reasonable judgments about reality could be made, but since the construct aids in judgment about reality, Pi-ers are labeled as judgers.

    For judgers, judgment is founded and aided by perception.

    Perceivers, on the other hand, react more immediately to the information they gather externally (Pe). What allows them to do that is the existence of a priorly formed internal construct based on values that are derived internally according to the self (Ji). Without this construct, Pe-ers would have no long-established structure to aid them in their on-the-fly reactions to their environment. Since Ji serves to aid in perception, Pe/Ji-ers are called perceivers.

    For perceivers, perception is founded and aided by judgment.
    All brilliant.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Both Ps and Js have perceiving and judging functions. One is just extroverted while the other introverted, and the one that is extroverted is the one that contributes most to their outward personality that's observable by others, so we label them according to the one that's extroverted.
    So, that being said, do you think the Socionics notation or the MBTI notation is better (taking that word to mean whatever you want it to) on this issue?

    I used to write Socionics off, because, among other things, I didn't understand the reason why it's j/p labeling wasn't consistent with MBTI's J/P labeling, but, having just come to understand it, I think there's a lot of merit to Socionics' method.

    What do you think? Which makes more sense?

    Labeling one a J if one has Je in one's dom or aux, or labeling one a j if one's dominant function is a J function?

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    If you're wondering why Je-ers can't also be Pe-ers and why Ji-ers can't also be Pi-ers, I'd say it's due to a cognitive inconsistency between Pi/Ji and Pe/Je that just doesn't compute well. It doesn't make any sense for someone to simultaneously see the environment as something to empirically evaluate before garnering an impression (Je) while also responding immediately to it, according to momentary sense impressions, before understanding it empirically (Pe). Likewise, it doesn't make sense to build an internal construct that's derived subjectively (Ji) while also building an internal construct that's made from external information (Pi).
    Now here's the controversial part, which uumlau points to in his next question (and which Sim provides a good answer to in his post).

    Before this part of your post, everything rang with absolute truth.

    In this paragraph, that ringing stopped sounding so true...

    The words that I've bolded just don't carry much force.

    I'm not sure whether they lack force because they aren't necessarily representationally true, and thus you're having a hard time making a strong case about this part of the theory, or whether you are actually capable of a strong explanation of these matters, but just got tired or lazy.

    And with regards to the latter two sentences: don't we rather regularly talk about PeJe and PiJi loops?

    (Note: I see you address these in your post directly above this one, and I think your claim about how they relate to healthy/unhealthy cognition and mental productivity/unproductiveness has a load of merit to it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    So according to this logic, the only way for one to have both a perceiving and judging function juxtaposed in the primary two functions, one would need Je/Pi or Pe/Ji.
    And now we're back to mere internal consistency.

    Honestly, though, great post.



    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    How would you address people talking about NiFi or NeTe or any such variation? Are you saying that if Ni is involved, then it has to use Te or Fe, no exceptions?
    As mentioned above, great question.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You just realized this?
    Honestly, yes.

    And I didn't even do so alone; it was while talking with SS about it.

    Furthermore, I didn't even make the connection that it extended beyond just Ni to Si (and thus Pi as a whole) for another day or two, and then later that day I finally made the last connection that Pi aux/dom inherently meant Je dom/aux.

    I've never really read a book on MBTI, I've only been participating on the forum regularly for a month or so, and the whole J/P logic was really the last piece of the puzzle that I hadn't yet figured out.

    Until I had this realization, I'd been spending most my MBTI thinking time on a whole nother issue (although, J/P balance was a significant part of that other issue, which is what eventually led to the conversation that led to this realization).

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    In addition, all TPs are Ti dom/aux, TJs are Te dom/aux, FPs are Fi dom/aux and FJs are Fe dom/aux.

    Also, TPs are Fe tert/inf, TJs are Fi tert/inf, FPs are Te tert/inf, FJs are Ti tert/inf, NPs are Si tert/inf, NJs are Se tert/inf, SPs are Ni tert/inf, and SJs are Ne tert/inf.
    Yeah, most all of these one's I'd realized.

    It was the broader categorization of Je/Ji and Pe/Pi that I hadn't yet come to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    This is the kind of structural pattern NeTi thinks about all the time!


    Yes, yes it is.

    Which is why I started this thread: to benefit from that thinking.

    I'd been spending all my time creating my own theory relating quantum theory and probability to functional balance and type theory.

    (And working 60 hours a week...)

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    NiFi is usually described as an INTJ with poor command of Te...so he turns to tertiary Fi for judgment because it's more comfortable, being oriented in the same direction as the dominant. Poor command of aux seems to correlate with extreme introversion/extroversion and the associated problems.
    Exactly.

    The even messier answer is when you get into issues like an INTJ who (and I know you take objection to these kinds of claims, Sim, but this is what my above-mentioned theory-in-development is all about) claims to use Ne and Ti and how his Ni and Te might work in tandem with these other functions.

    THAT is the really high level shit that I haven't even really gotten to working on yet (and to which uumlau's question referred).

    If anyone already has or wants to take up that ball, I plan on getting into it over the next three months or so and would appreciate a summary of any smart person's already-trodden thought-paths...

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Ne+Te is an ENFP with ineffective Fi leading to difficulty with subjective self-reflection, etc.
    Read: Happy Puppy.

    Except I'm not sure, at least with her, it has so much to do with difficulty with subjective self-reflection so much as suppression of Fi due to traumatic emotional experiences in the past.

    Orobas: thoughts? feelings?



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    +a lot

    I am really tired of people asking for proof that a made up labeling system's method is "proven."
    Meh.

    As I said above: you and uumlau seem to be comfortable resigning to cynicism and settling with MBTI theory as being merely internally consistently true.

    Maybe you've already gone through the battles I'm going through, and I'll eventually end up in the same spot... or maybe Tesla and I are just a little less cynical and a little more open-minded...

  3. #63
    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 teslashock View Post
    -1

    The labeling system isn't founded on nothing. There is an abstract theory that backs up the labels and the way we've chosen to assign the labels.

    Maybe I'm giving Z too much credit, but I don't think he was ever looking for a definitive proof of why Je/Pi-ers should be labeled judgers, and why Pe/Ji-ers should be labeled perceivers. I've only skimmed the thread, but my immediate impression is that he's looking for some kind of conceptual explanation for why Pe/Ji are labeled "perceivers" and why Pi/Je are labeled "judgers." Ie, what conceptual definition does Pi carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pi-ers appear "judgmental" in contrast to Pe-ers, and what conceptual definition does Pe carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pe-ers appear "perceptive" in contrast to Pi-ers.

    (I think a better title for this thread would have been "Pi = judger, Ji = perceiver; why?")

    Anywho, maybe you could try being contemplative, speculative, and perhaps a bit instructive, rather than criticizing someone for their inquiry before you really even understand the question.

    Double
    I don't think Z was looking for that either. I was responding to uumlau's general criticism that people are asking for proof of arbitrarily designated labels.

    There is an abstract theory, sure, but it's still just a made up labeling system based on subjective criteria. I think his point was that ideas like every Pi dom is a J, etc. are definitionally built into the naming system, so it's meaningless to ask for proof of this.

    Since psychological type in Jungian terms cannot be empirically tested we're forced to treat it as subjective. So there's no proof that an INTP is an INTP. I didn't say the theory was based on nothing--but since all type classifications are ultimately subjective, it's meaningless to ask for proof that the categories exist in the first place.

    As for the reasoning Pe+Ji/Ji+Pe is called "P" and Je+Pi/Pi+Je is called "J", I already answered that: it's because the labels "Perceiving" and "Judging" are intended as descriptions of the person's preferred method of engaging the external world. (As opposed to a system like Socionics, where they're intended as descriptions of the dominant function.)

    The advantage in the MBTI J/P system is in its ability to correlate each function with a two-letter combination. e.g., all NJs are dom/aux Ni users, etc.

    That system doesn't work in Socionics because when we talk about "NJs" we could be referring to either ENxj or INxp types...it's not really certain.

    The advantage to the Socionics system is that it's a little easier to understand whether perception or judgment is dominant, since there's no confusion with Ji doms being labeled xxxP and Pi doms being labeled xxxJ. It's just a difference in the way the systems define the terms Perceiving/Judging.

    Maybe you ought to take your own advice about placing criticism before comprehension


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Honestly, yes.

    And I didn't even do so alone; it was while talking with SS about it.

    Furthermore, I didn't even make the connection that it extended beyond just Ni to Si (and thus Pi as a whole) for another day or two, and then later that day I finally made the last connection that Pi aux/dom inherently meant Je dom/aux.

    I've never really read a book on MBTI, I've only been participating on the forum regularly for a month or so, and the whole J/P logic was really the last piece of the puzzle that I hadn't yet figured out.
    Oh, ok. Well, now you should see the interval vs. external organizational focus difference, right? Js try to keep the external life organized carefully (Je) but allow more open internal perspectives of experience (Pi), while Ps insist on consistent internal organization (Ji) but keep their outward lives more open to change (Pe.) Focusing on J/P as a percentage dichotomy will hold back your understanding of functions, imho.

    I know the MBTI literature tends to show lists of "J traits" or "P traits", but these are not the definition of xxxJ or xxxP. They're just general observations by the authors, many of which are kind of questionable.

    The actual definition of xxxJ vs. xxxP is dependent on how functions are oriented.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Until I had this realization, I'd been spending most my MBTI thinking time on a whole nother issue (although, J/P balance was a significant part of that other issue, which is what eventually led to the conversation that led to this realization).



    Yeah, most all of these one's I'd realized.

    It was the broader categorization of Je/Ji and Pe/Pi that I hadn't yet come to understand.





    Yes, yes it is.

    Which is why I started this thread: to benefit from that thinking.

    I'd been spending all my time creating my own theory relating quantum theory and probability to functional balance and type theory.

    (And working 60 hours a week...)



    Exactly.

    The even messier answer is when you get into issues like an INTJ who (and I know you take objection to these kinds of claims, Sim, but this is what my above-mentioned theory-in-development is all about) claims to use Ne and Ti and how his Ni and Te might work in tandem with these other functions.

    THAT is the really high level shit that I haven't even really gotten to working on yet (and to which uumlau's question referred).

    If anyone already has or wants to take up that ball, I plan on getting into it over the next three months or so and would appreciate a summary of any smart person's already-trodden thought-paths...
    I don't think INTJs are incapable of experiencing the Ne or Ti perspectives, but that they'll be noticeably less natural than Te or Ni. I don't think you can be "borderline P/J" because changing P/J implies totally different functions.



    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Read: Happy Puppy.

    Except I'm not sure, at least with her, it has so much to do with difficulty with subjective self-reflection so much as suppression of Fi due to traumatic emotional experiences in the past.

    Orobas: thoughts? feelings?

    Well, I imagine the latter would lead to the former, no?

    Another good example of NeTe loop ENFP: Little Linguist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Meh.

    As I said above: you and uumlau seem to be comfortable resigning to cynicism and settling with MBTI theory as being merely internally consistently true.

    Maybe you've already gone through the battles I'm going through, and I'll eventually end up in the same spot... or maybe Tesla and I are just a little less cynical and a little more open-minded...
    That's what I was trying to tell you...there is no "correlation" to be researched between Pi and xxxJ types, because "extroverts the preferred Judging function and introverts the preferred Perceiving function" is, definitionally, the only thing "xxxJ" actually means. It doesn't mean, "anal retentive about schedules" or "insists on having a plan for absolutely everything" or any of the other common J stereotypes. (Some of those things are common among Js, but they are not what makes someone a J--functional orientation is.)

    It's not as if there's a set of "J qualities" to be compared to and correlated with "Pi/Je qualities"; they're definitionally the same thing. A "J quality" is simply the combined set of all qualities true of all Pi+Je and Je+Pi types.

    Wondering about the correlation between the two is like wondering about the correlation between F types and having an F function in their top two. That's the sole definition of "F type" in the first place.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #64
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I don't think INTJs are incapable of experiencing the Ne or Ti perspectives, but that they'll be noticeably less natural than Te or Ni. I don't think you can be "borderline P/J" because changing P/J implies totally different functions.
    Well, wait til you see my theory. That is exactly what it addresses.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Well, I imagine the latter would lead to the former, no?
    Perhaps. Not sure if it necessarily does, but, to be honest, I went back and read what you wrote and what I wrote an hour or two ago, and what I wrote was a bit sloppy. You talked about an effect; I talked about a cause. I just used general enough language to somewhat conflate the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    That's what I was trying to tell you...there is no "correlation" to be researched between Pi and xxxJ types, because "extroverts the preferred Judging function and introverts the preferred Perceiving function" is, definitionally, the only thing "xxxJ" actually means.

    It's not as if there's a set of "J qualities" to be compared to and correlated with "Pi/Je qualities"; they're definitionally the same thing. A "J quality" is simply the combined set of all qualities true of all Pi+Je and Je+Pi types.

    Wondering about the correlation between the two is like wondering about the correlation between F types and having an F function in their top two. That's the sole definition of "F type" in the first place.

  5. #65
    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 Zarathustra View Post
    Perhaps. Not sure if it necessarily does, but, to be honest, I went back and read what you wrote and what I wrote an hour or two ago, and what I wrote was a bit sloppy. You talked about an effect; I talked about a cause. I just used general enough language to somewhat conflate the two.



    What is it that you're looking for, again? You want to know what commonly listed "J traits" in MBTI literature are associated with Pi dominance?

    oh btw, I made an edit or two above that you may have missed.


    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Ie, what conceptual definition does Pi carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pi-ers appear "judgmental" in contrast to Pe-ers, and what conceptual definition does Pe carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pe-ers appear "perceptive" in contrast to Pi-ers.
    Pi-ers appear "judgmental" (relative to Pe-ers) to most external observers because they prefer using Je to deal with the external world.

    Pe-ers appear "perceptive" (relative to Pi-ers) to most external observers because they prefer using Pe to deal with the external world.

    The strongest extroverted function is what most other people see most often when they interact with you. It's that simple.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #66
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I don't think Z was looking for that either. I was responding to uumlau's general criticism that people are asking for proof of arbitrarily designated labels.
    uumlau's "general" criticism was a specific response to Z's inquiry about why Pi = judging while Pe = perceiving. Read:

    I'm sorry, Z, but this sounds like, "isn't it the least bit interesting that an antiparticle has the opposite charge of its corresponding particle?" It's definitional.

    It is part of the whole "Ji goes with Pe and Je goes with Pi" architecture of MBTI. It's like being amazed that not only does one plus one equal 2, but 2 minus one equals one!

    Unless there's some core empirical kind of observation that you'd like to make that might reach new conclusions, I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at
    and the fact that you supported this criticism ("+a lot...ramble, ramble") implies that you also believe Z's specific inquiry is more or less trivial.

    It was not unfair for me to assume that this was your stance, given the context of the posts. Z drew the conclusion that you were criticizing his inquiry as well, so obviously my "comprehension" is not that off.

    You can go back on your claim regarding a specific criticism and say that you were making a general one, not targeted at Z, but I'm not buying it.

    There is an abstract theory, sure, but it's still just a made up labeling system based on subjective criteria. I think his point was that ideas like every Pi dom is a J, etc. are definitionally built into the naming system, so it's meaningless to ask for proof of this.

    Since psychological type in Jungian terms cannot be empirically tested we're forced to treat it as subjective. So there's no proof that an INTP is an INTP. I didn't say the theory was based on nothing--but since all type classifications are ultimately subjective, it's meaningless to ask for proof that the categories exist in the first place.
    Ok, that's great. I think we'd all agree with you on that. But what's your point?

    I don't think Z's idea for this thread was to prove that a perceiver is a perceiver or that a judger is a judger. Again, it was merely to inquire about how Pi is corollary to judgement while Pe is corollary to perceiver, outside of being definitively true.

    Maybe you ought to take your own advice about placing criticism before comprehension
    Maybe you ought to maintain your position in a discussion rather than trying to subtly change your meaning to make your opponent look wrong.

    That's a pretty typical ENTP maneuver, but I'm not buying it.

    That's what I was trying to tell you...there is no "correlation" to be researched between Pi and xxxJ types, because "extroverts the preferred Judging function and introverts the preferred Perceiving function" is, definitionally, the only thing "xxxJ" actually means.

    It's not as if there's a set of "J qualities" to be compared to and correlated with "Pi/Je qualities"; they're definitionally the same thing. A "J quality" is simply the combined set of all qualities true of all Pi+Je and Je+Pi types.
    I think the purpose of this thread was to understand why Pi is corollary to judging, or in other words, why Pi is corollary to Je or why Pi is labeled as a judging function. We get that Pi falls under the definition of xxxJ, and that by the sheer fact of being labeled this way, it is, but the purpose here is to explore why.

    Wondering about the correlation between the two is like wondering about the correlation between F types and having an F function in their top two. That's the sole definition of "F type" in the first place.
    I disagree. I think wondering about the correlation between Pi/Je and why Pi aids in judgment is analagous to wondering about the correlation between all pairs of functions that work together and build off of each other (Ti/Fe, Te/Fi, Ne/Si, Se/Ni).

    I know that you readily admit that Ti/Fe, like all the other aforementioned pairs, go hand-in-hand, as we've had conversations on the matter. The purpose of Z's inquiry was to better understand why Pi/Je go hand-in-hand.

  7. #67
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post

    Pi-ers appear "judgmental" (relative to Pe-ers) to most external observers because they prefer using Je to deal with the external world.

    Pe-ers appear "perceptive" (relative to Pi-ers) to most external observers because they prefer using Pe to deal with the external world.

    The strongest extroverted function is what most other people see most often when they interact with you. It's that simple.
    Fair enough, that's a start as to why Pe-ers are deemed perceivers while Je-ers (and thus Pi-ers) are deemed judgers, and that's pretty much exactly what I said in my post to Z a couple pages back.

    Rather than assuming that his inquiry was based on pure hogwash, I responded to him by giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he wasn't asking for an empirical proof regarding a system that doesn't use empirical data to define itself.

    You could try that next time rather than jumping the gun onto your high horse about how MBTI and cognitive functions are just arbitrary labeling systems! I think we all understand that by now.

  8. #68
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    So, that being said, do you think the Socionics notation or the MBTI notation is better (taking that word to mean whatever you want it to) on this issue?

    I used to write Socionics off, because, among other things, I didn't understand the reason why it's j/p labeling wasn't consistent with MBTI's J/P labeling, but, having just come to understand it, I think there's a lot of merit to Socionics' method.

    What do you think? Which makes more sense?
    Socionics looks like a convoluted mess to me, and I've never really tried to make sense of it, so I can't really offer much further discussion on that matter.

    Labeling one a J if one has Je in one's dom or aux, or labeling one a j if one's dominant function is a J function?
    But yeah, from what I know, that's what socionics does. I see merit to labeling based on the extroverted function (since that's what we most often see) as well as labeling based off of the dominant function, and in truth, it doesn't matter too much to me which label is used. Understanding the labels is the most important part.

    We could start calling INTJs banana-doms and ENTPs apple-doms, and that essentially wouldn't make any difference regarding the actual cognitive traits we assign to these two types (we'd just get a little hungry during the discussion probably).

    Before this part of your post, everything rang with absolute truth.

    In this paragraph, that ringing stopped sounding so true...

    The words that I've bolded just don't carry much force.

    I'm not sure whether they lack force because they aren't necessarily representationally true, and thus you're having a hard time making a strong case about this part of the theory, or whether you are actually capable of a strong explanation of these matters, but just got tired or lazy.

    (Note: I see you address these in your post directly above this one, and I think your claim about how they relate to healthy/unhealthy cognition and mental productivity/unproductiveness has a load of merit to it.)
    Ok. Well you seem to come to terms with what I've said here, so I don't really know what else to say to this.

    And now we're back to mere internal consistency.

    Honestly, though, great post.

    Ti :workout:

  9. #69
    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 teslashock View Post
    uumlau's "general" criticism was a specific response to Z's inquiry about why Pi = judging while Pe = perceiving. Read:



    and the fact that you supported this criticism ("+a lot...ramble, ramble") implies that you also believe Z's specific inquiry is more or less trivial.

    It was not unfair for me to assume that this was your stance, given the context of the posts. Z drew the conclusion that you were criticizing his inquiry as well, so obviously my "comprehension" is not that off.
    I don't think I actually said anything about what I thought Z meant. I just read uumlau's post and it reminded me of a common mistake that a lot of people on the forum make.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    You can go back on your claim regarding a specific criticism and say that you were making a general one, not targeted at Z, but I'm not buying it.
    Suit yourself.



    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Ok, that's great. I think we'd all agree with you on that. But what's your point?
    The point was to explain why the answer to his question is definitionally obvious...

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I don't think Z's idea for this thread was to prove that a perceiver is a perceiver or that a judger is a judger. Again, it was merely to inquire about how Pi is corollary to judgement while Pe is corollary to perceiver, outside of being definitively true.
    Neither do I, but you know what I meant better than I do.



    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    Maybe you ought to maintain your position in a discussion rather than trying to subtly change your meaning to make your opponent look wrong.

    That's a pretty typical ENTP maneuver, but I'm not buying it.
    While I do think the answer to Z's question is pretty obvious, I don't think I said he was looking for proof of the categories...if you look at my response directly to him (rather than the part to uumlau) you can see that I directed my efforts toward explaining why his question is obvious.



    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I think the purpose of this thread was to understand why Pi is corollary to judging, or in other words, why Pi is corollary to Je or why Pi is labeled as a judging function. We get that Pi falls under the definition of xxxJ, and that by the sheer fact of being labeled this way, it is, but the purpose here is to explore why.
    Sorry, I guess I just thought that was really obvious. Since P/J denotes the type of function that is the strongest extroverted process, shouldn't it be obvious that it's referring to the person's preferred way of dealing with the external world?

    I guess I just figured this wouldn't be that hard to figure out.



    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I disagree. I think wondering about the correlation between Pi/Je and why Pi aids in judgment is analagous to wondering about the correlation between all pairs of functions that work together and build off of each other (Ti/Fe, Te/Fi, Ne/Si, Se/Ni).

    I know that you readily admit that Ti/Fe, like all the other aforementioned pairs, go hand-in-hand, as we've had conversations on the matter. The purpose of Z's inquiry was to better understand why Pi/Je go hand-in-hand.
    The answer to that is the same reason any combination of dom/aux functions is opposed in terms of both rationality and orientation: balance.

    Pi provides the best assistant to Je and vice versa because that way we get a balance between extroversion/introversion and perception/judgment.

    The strongest extroverted function is the one most visible to others, and thus Perceiving/Judging is a description of preference for dealing with the external world: in a more open-ended (Perceiving) or decisive (Judging) fashion.

    What is so difficult about this?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #70
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    i think jungs idea(where j and p is based on first function instead of extraverted function) of j and p is totally shitty. jung intp and entp use totally different functions, and mbti intp and entp use the same functions. both judge whats inside their heads and perceive the outer world without judgment. even tho intp uses judging function as first function they are not judgmental towards the outer world, like entp is not judgmental towards outer world either. however intj(jung intp) judges the outer world, just like entj..

    i know entp(with high introversion and low extraversion) and intj and im much more like the entp guy than what the intj is. so i think it would be wrong to label the intj as intp since his functions are totally different(he clearly thinks differently) from entp.

Similar Threads

  1. The purpose of Pi, Je, Pe, and Ji
    By Robopop in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-12-2011, 11:48 AM
  2. Differences between Judgers and Perceivers
    By Robopop in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-21-2010, 11:45 AM
  3. first-borns, family responsibility, and Pi vs Pe
    By the state i am in in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-19-2009, 11:14 PM
  4. Judgers and Perceivers in Online Courses
    By Ozz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 06:14 AM
  5. Pe/Ji vs Pi/Je
    By substitute in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-06-2009, 04:40 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