User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 38 of 38

  1. #31
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    And hell, the baby I think is an ISTP might end up being INTP, but my point is that when you tune in, it's really not that hard to tell. And why would a baby at one week of age, select via simple life experience for Ti over Se or some random other function, or perspective. All they know is sleeping, or mom's arms, or mom's boob, or other simple things.
    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. #32
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    werent jung an intp? if so he probably figured out the whole typology thing and moved on studying something new and interesting in the same area to figure out the whole human mind thing better. conscious and unconscious relate heavily on typology imo

  3. #33
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Well, it sounds like from the quote following (down there somewhere) that she really doesn't believe in nature anyway.

    It's really a tough one. I went back to Jung, but all I found was this:

    In originally reading that, I took "disposition" to mean inherent nature or biology, but it could be interpreted more loosely than that, as some sort of type preference, I guess. The flavor I got in many places in his book though, was that he believed some unknown and inborn catalyst was the reason we end up the type we end up, barring severe stress, not that our type is a result of our environment. Perhaps he spoke to it somewhere else though.

    Is Thompson looking at humans' limbic systems as more primitive than they are? We have instincts that tell us to suckle and tell us to cry and tell us to hang on, these are obvious in babies. These are instincts that our mammal relatives have as well. But humans have been around long enough to have evolved personality. It seems as if she's saying that we are born with a blank bundle of reflexes, and on this is imprinted choices that end up giving us our personality. I totally disagree with that. I think that human beings have evolved personalities and we receive this from the alleles we get from their parents, just like we receive alleles to code for eye color.

    A baby's personality is present from day one, and all parents witness this, especially those who have had more than one child for comparison. Stressful environment can assuredly cause a dysfunction in a child's personality, but I firmly believe that when a baby is conceived, if we knew what to measure, and could measure it, we could see what that child's personality would be from the moment of conception, assuming no major life stressors got in the way.

    I don't mean to get all anecdotal, but I think it's pertinent. My baby is most definitely an ISTP. From his first week of life, he looked at people intently, checking them out in depth and seeing every movement they made. My others did not do this. I have no children with dominant Se that I know of yet either. And I doubt this baby will be dom Se because none of my kids so far, except maybe one is an extravert (infj/istp parents). Perhaps he's using Ti when he's looking at something so intently. Then, at an early age, he began to exhibit daredevil behavior, not caring if he stayed by my side or not (like the others had), slide, run, climb, fall, laugh, fall, slip, etc. He also does not like to cuddle, like my others did (except the istj--she did not like to cuddle either). I raised my children in basically the same way. I nursed them all and I reared them similarly. I think all children are very S when they are new, and I agree that you can tell introversion/extraversion from early on, but I can look back and see signs of my kids types from very very early, before their environment could really be that much of a determinant.
    Again, I can't comment on this too much, as I have not studied this aspect of personality (focusing more on the cognitive and archetypal aspects, again), and then the conversation ended before she could really clarify some of this more. It does sound like she's making the limbic system really primitive, and "we are born with a blank bundle of reflexes, and on this is imprinted choices that end up giving us our personality". Since it's taking me time to completely figure that, I don't want to possibly misrepresent her view.

    Yeah; I think something is hardwired in us that inclines us to make those choices in response to the same circumstances others face alongside us, but on the other hand, I have always seen a question mark raised on this, and a possibility allowed that the differences start when we are really young, and this included "temperament" theories (The Christian theorists are really the only ones who insist on inborn, "God-given" temperament), so it doesn't seem 100% certain. And I don't yet have her answer to that.
    So if we call them perspectives, what do we use to define our personality? Saying I'm a dominant irrational who extraverts feeling, will give someone who knows the lingo a pretty good idea of my personality archetype. Sure, we all have the basic mammalian limbic system underneath it all. We can all see, hear, taste, smell, feel, anticipate, react, adapt, etc., but those are primitive instincts such as animals have and as you say below, it is autonomic and instinctive. It's on top of this that we write our personality, and that we have preferences or perspectives, if you prefer, where we tend to differentiate behavior from others. There is no way I am very much S and I never have been. I have (barely) enough to survive, but even that might be debatable without someone to look out for me.
    Well, it's as you said; personality is defined by those preferences which shape our perspectives. The primitive instincts cannot be included in that, because everybody does those, (including animals). It's when senses form a particular perspective of data gathering that it becomes a differentiated personality aspect.
    Have you heard of economic theory as it regards society?
    May have heard of that, but never studied it.
    I'm new to the concept of it, but I really dig it. It makes sense that collective man evolved in a way that selected for varying skills. People skilled at making tools, passing on stories, caring for children, finding and hunting food, etc. All were important and necessary for a tribe to survive. I don't think it's a coincidence that SJs/SPs are more common now, because they would have been able to contribute more substantially to a community than Ns would have. If we have more SJs and SPs now, that means something in our past selected for this and that this was the most stable state, because it is what got passed down to us. However, there are Ns as well, though not as many. In this day and age, when it's not as apparent that we need a certain type like SJs or SPs anymore, why is there still a surplus of them? Evolutionary theory says it's because those traits got passed along in our genes. It's not that an SP dad is taking his blank-slate baby and teaching him how to forge iron. It's that this information has been passed down for generations upon generations, because that's how society survived best.
    That would seem about right. I have suspected a biological basis of temperament, and it was first Eysenck who first suggested this.
    Yes, in some types of animals, I think people would claim that they can feel and think. Perhaps they have some sort of primitive personality. I've seen threads on here dedicated to it.
    Yeah, the ones closest to us such as the mammals are considered by some as "soulish", and have some emotion and such. It's still not "T/F" as we experience it.

    I just don't see anything that improves very much on Jung for myself. I have had to conceed to myself that the J/P dichotomy is insightful, and a good addition to the three he identified.
    Yeah, made it much helpful in eventually mapping temperament to type. The extraversion of judgment or perception is much more evident in behavior [particularly, responsive behavior], than the dominance of j or p functions. That only tells you what the ego's operating charter is. The temperament theories (called "affective", and Keirsey's variation is also "conative") are geared for personal interaction (through behavior), and that is MBTI and Keirsey's focus.
    So I believe both external behavior, and internal reasons for the choices we make, are important for understanding personality. (Doesn't have to be one or the other, as some treat it). Hence Berens' overall premise being the best.
    My particular area of interest is in what happens to us when our instinctual needs do and do not get met from infancy on. I think this is where we get great variation in our personalities, and what can influence certain cognitive functions to be pulled into play, along with other less fundamental personality 'traits' like, I don't know, how belligerent we are or how emotional we are, how personally we take things, all those variables that affect our behavior but are hard to measure and define, and which don't really fall under functions or perspectives.
    I think that might be covered in shadow integration. You become forced to pay attention to the perspectives you were naturally inclined to suppress, so it appears that you have "developed" all of these opposing functions, and you seem different from any of the types you weigh between that prefer one or the other.
    Last edited by Eric B; 06-17-2010 at 08:14 PM.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #34
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    He's making the mistake many of us have made, and that is conflating function, archetype and complex. The four shadow functions aren't what a person "doesn’t want to acknowledge them about themselves" (this confused the heck out of me when I used to hear bits and parts of this theory from one source in discussions); it's the complexes, which are the personalized version of the archetypes, which simply adopt the associated functions as their main perspectives.

    Also, you can see in this the dispute over what Jung really mean by some of his concepts. Like I know Lenore as well often speaks of "the differentiated function" as the dominant. The guy in the link cites Jung as saying only the dominant is conscious. The auxiliary and tertiary have archetypes associated with them, and archetypes lie in the personal unconscious, but in these discussions (influenced by a combination of general MBTI teaching, and Berens' take on the theory, which in turn takes from Beebe), the aux and tertiary are generally considered conscious "ego-syntonic" functions. So there's some ambiguity as to what some of this means.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  5. #35
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    How can she [Lenore] not believe in nature vs nurture?
    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Well, it sounds like from the quote following (down there somewhere) that she really doesn't believe in nature anyway.
    OK, I've found where I did save the correspondance where she addressed this. So you were right. She said:

    As for blank slatism, I don't believe in the whole nature/nurture dichotomy. Infants three months old are capable of mirroring others' behaviors. How would a newborn even know he had a face, never mind know how to use it to imitate the actions of a caretaker? Some of this stuff is obviously inherent, but it's inherent for everybody.

    What we have, as far as I understand this, is an overabundance of neural potential, which is what makes adaptation to many different environments possible. Experience and temperament (biologically speaking) prune some of these connections and refine others over time. And some of our frontal cortex isn't fully developed until we're well into our twenties! Which is one good reason I don't believe you can "type" children successfully.

    The point, however, is that all manner of human resources are absolutely a part of our factory-installed equipment for adaptation.
    I take it, "nature" means we are born with our personality, while nurture represents the "blank slate", where we are "nurtured" into our personality; right? I still don't understand why that isn't nature vs nurture. It sounds like a denial of just "nurture", if I have that correctly. I guess it's the theory of "nurture" that takes on the entire label of "nature vs nurture"?

    What prompted the question about blank slatism for me was the fact that she initially dismissed "the four temperaments" and said that our type preferences weren't inborn, so then it looked to me like she was saying we start out as a blank slate, as I understand temperament and functions to make up our personal "nature". So I was confused when she seemed to deny the whole premise of blank slatism. Yet I didn't pursue that further, as blank slatism is not my interest.
    But the conversation finally resumed, and in answer to my pointing out that Pavlov identified the four temperaments in dogs, who are purely limbic creatures (where we also have the frontal cortex for our cognitive functions), she seems to be allowing that we can have different temperaments, and that they are inborn.

    When she first discussed temperament as general "affective" things such as mood, irritability, etc. I thought that precluded "the four temperaments" as we use them, in favor of the generic "temperament" described in mainstream psychology. But apparently she doesn't, necessarily. She just sees them as separate from cognitive preference, whereby Linda Berens theory connects them by associating Si preference with a "Stabilizer" temperament, and Se with an "Improvisor", etc. To me, that makes perfect sense, so I argued that I again see a definite connection between having a "Guardian (Stabilizer)" conative temperament (initiating less self-motivated action, hence "cooperative", and independent, hence trusting concrete "structures"), and naturally gravitating towards an "introverted Sensing" preference.

    Now I'm understanding the contexts of stuff Lenore said in her earliest letters, such as "most theories privelege 'the body' as though the psyche were merely a derivative of a person's affective chemistry", where Jung wanted to focus on why we make the decisions we do ("The body" in this case, refers to limbic factors such as temperament), and that he dismissed all the temperament models he knew of as insufficient to the data of consciousness, and concluded that temperament theory operates as little more than a value judgment. (This is what really made me think she was totally dismissing four temperaments. Like she pointed out groups such as NF and NT more stereotype than anything else. But I think that's just people misusing them, and taking them further than than they can reasonably go. Like I mentioned the notion of NT's as "Spocks").

    So again, she's not really discrediting temperament as I assumed; I guess you could say, just trying to create some sort of 'balance' she feels she is needed in the overall theory of personality, and not allow the theory to be enveloped back into limbic stuff such as temperament.

    But it goes to confirm to me the notion that temperament is the core of personality rather than the functions. I/E, for instance, which is present in dogs (at least, of animals), and really young children (according to Personality Page, which says I/E and J/P are the first letters to develop, before the functions), is therefore independent of any "dominant function attitude". The dominant function takes on its attitude from the predetermined I/E preference when it differentiates.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  6. #36
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    yeah, i think i was missing my frontal cortex as a kid.

  7. #37
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    The big question I have with blank slate conceptualizations is that something has to factor for material influences on cognition. An example of this would be the influence of high levels of testosterone on male thinking compared to female thinking.

  8. #38
    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 onemoretime View Post
    The big question I have with blank slate conceptualizations is that something has to factor for material influences on cognition. An example of this would be the influence of high levels of testosterone on male thinking compared to female thinking.
    Well, from the recent reading I've done, studies have shown a statistically significant difference between men and women only in empathy and assertiveness. I think this is a T/F thing. Otherwise we appear to be fairly analogous personality-wise.

    Do you have some other examples?
    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


Similar Threads

  1. Why did Jesus have to die?
    By antireconciler in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 02-06-2013, 08:36 PM
  2. [NT] NTs why did you embrace religion?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 03:56 PM
  3. Why did Dick Dastardly never win Wacky Races?
    By Mort Belfry in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-18-2008, 01:51 PM
  4. Why did you choose your user name?
    By Natrushka in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 09:52 AM
  5. Why did you choose your current (or past) avatar(s)?
    By Totenkindly in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 11:03 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