User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 50

  1. #21
    Senior Member Moonstone3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    9, 5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    Is that a question? If it'll get you the job, why wouldn't you? Unless you don't want the job...I've always bullshitted those tests and always will.
    Well, 1 2 of 2 things is clear here:
    1) People like attention-to the point of answering for shock effect.
    2) People are unstable-to the point of morphing to fit their environment.

    These 'jobs' people apply for in this way, must not be very serious. You can't bullshit intelligence for long.
    What is normal to one, is incomprehensible to another.

    ALL anger in this world stems from a lack of control.


    All of reality bows to the illusion of life and death.

  2. #22
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Good descriptive post explaining everything, Eric.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    It's the other way of seeing it people have fallen into, of treating the functions as behaviors or skills sets (hence, "using" them), that has lent itself to what has become called "folk-typology". Even Lenore will sometimes say "use". It's easier to say, in passing. But she is the one who points out that they are the ways we build neurological connections, and that the "product", as she terms it, of an undifferentiated (basically, "shadow") function can come into consciousness as good as anything else, as long as it's going along with the ego and not triggering a complex from the unconsciousness. Hence, it's not really about "using" the function; it's anout consciousness or unconsciousness.
    I don't feel quite committed to a particular view as the exclusive truth here... a big issue with this is that Lenore is claiming this is all neurologically based, yet we have no quantifiable or predictive way to connect neurology to a "perspective" here -- all the logic runs in reverse, we figure out from some other test whether they are "right or left brained" and then assign them a particular type based on it... so the idea is self-verifying to me.

    At the moment, I'm left only with viewing them in the same manner that we view light as a wave AND a particle... "preferred function" is a useful approach in some situations, and "perspective/worldview" is a useful approach in others, and both offer a lot of insight on how what we have arbitrarily labeled as MBTI type might manifest itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by InsatiableCuriosity View Post
    I had never considered before the relationship between the old Transactional Analysis theory and Functions. TA surmises that all interpersonal transactions are undertaken as an Adult, Parent or Child, and crossed transactional roles can become dysfunctional.
    TA's another interesting spin on things. Definitely there's some background in TA that worked its way into the thinking here when roles have been assigned to functions.
    "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

  3. #23
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    The neurological premise sounds like it makes sense. I would think that tying type to neurology would connect it to something testable and give it more scientific credibility. I guess it's a matter of it passsing whatever tests are needed. I have often wondered if this was being tested.

    TA is by Eric Berne, and I have seen his name mentioned in one or more of those Beebe articles I've been linking to, so yes, that is an obvious unfluence on him.
    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. #24
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    I find the direction this is taking a little strange, as TA links specifically to subconscious ego states entered into in interactions with others. Cognitive functions deal with the mental processes by which one builds an understanding of oneself and one's environment; the enneagram is actually far more closely linked to ego, taken as the conscious awareness of self.

    I would question whether cognitive functioning has anything to do with this, except in the sense that certain types/cognitive combinations are perhaps naturally more likely to assume certain roles, such as the Te types that of "Controlling Parent" and the Fe types that of "Nurturing Parent". But even then, the relationship is hazy; since TA fundamentally deals with how humans relate to each other it is far more significantly an indication of how social signals are given out and received between individuals, which is likely to have far more to do with mutual expectations and understanding, and previous experiences, than cognitive functions per se.
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  5. #25
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Precisely what Beebe's model is showing is how subconscious ego states enter into in interactions with others. In much of our discussion, it has been shorthanded into a thing of "using functions", with the functions being assumed to be equated to the archetypes. Hence, your pointing out two separate things. Two things have been conflated, that really should not have been. Yet they do still work together. That is what I have been trying to clear up.

    Beebe has described the hero/parent/child, etc. as each being a complex having at its core an archetype, and that the archetype forms a shell around the function-attitude, which the ego can "scoop out" for its own purposes. (He also said in this light that "the function attitude is not fated to be equal to its archetypal carrier.")
    In other words, the hero/parent/child et al start out as archetypes (models of people in particular roles) in the collective unconscious, and when they enter the personal unconscious (as we gain experiences) they then become complexes, "which will necessarily have an archetypal quality according to the position they are in. Thus we develop an inferiority complex around the inferior function, a superiority complex around the superior function, a “best auxiliary” complex (the caretaker) around the auxiliary function, and an “eternal child” complex around the tertiary function."
    (This goes along with Lenore's statement "WHEN a complex is activated, the behaviors will reflect the function associated with it").

    The hero and child are owned by our egos fairly early, as well as the parent in many people; hence they are more conscious. The rest usually are in fact, "subconscious ego states".
    ("Parent" is just the archetype that envelops the auxiliary function for all types; not something associated with Te or Fe "controlling/nurturing parents", unless perhaps Te or Fe actually is their auxiliary function).
    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. #26
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    I enjoyed reading people's different perspectives here, especially Eric B as usual.

    There is a danger into becoming too attached to a particular way of interpreteing MBTI though when it's something so under-researched. Perhaps I need to read more Jung. but oculd someone point me to texts where the very basic distinction between "function" (in the sense of 'worldview') and "behaviour" is set out?

    Becuase while it's an interesting idea, it would seem it falls down once behaviour is brought into the definitions of the functions (as it is on most popular MBTI sites). So you would need descriptions of the functions which don't reference specific behaviours.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  7. #27
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    It should be kept in mind that the functions are little more than illustrations, rather than any sort of established truth. There's no real neurological or empirical basis for any of it beyond
    turn-of-the-century observation and introspection. It's easy to get carried away with terminology and not actually recognise what the system is trying to illustrate.

    I agree with Sim/Eric B etc. in that the functions aren't tools that you pick from a tool bag when they're needed - they seek to illustrate how our minds colour the world and how we choose to make decisions as individuals. One good way of thinking of the functions is looking at them as appealing to different authorities ("authority" here being a set of criteria rather than a person or group). Their position in the function order simple dictates our preferences, e.g. we may abandon the inferior or auxiliary and cling to the tertiary when stressed or lacking confidence.

    For example, an introvert may favour the individual's subjective judgements over external judgement - "thinking for yourself" or "being yourself" regardless of what others might suggest or tell you to do. When egotistic or lacking confidence, they may disregard the opinions of others entirely and rely on their own subjective judgement to guide them. Similarly, extraverts may rely too much on external factors to guide them if they lack confidence - constant dizzying movement, dogmatically clinging to external structure or externally derived factors etc.

    These rules aren't set in stone (and they certainly don't reflect a person's overall personality or drive), but they paint a "good enough" picture so that one can then spot the dynamics that they try to illustrate.
    Hello

  8. #28
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    I would say I experience somewhat "Ne-like" thoughts, without "willing" it, but I tend to put it to the side. And if it's from someone else, it's even more the case. I know an INxP (probably T) that accused me of purposely being obtuse or something once.. she knew I could follow her train of thought, but at a certain point, I had to rein it in. I wasn't obtuse, it was really hurting my head. :P

    I'm not sure how this applies to the overall discussion.. I'm naturally comfortable with Se, but I also purposely enforce it at times too.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InsatiableCuriosity View Post
    I don't think I consciously could - I would be terrified I would get the job and be obligated to not be myself

    "self determination" is not something I would readily trade even for a job unless I were starving.
    huh...that's interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by slowriot View Post
    how do you know what they want and what will fit the position best in their eyes? Or have you only applied for low paid jobs where no one cares?
    Some things are pretty obvious. If you're going to be on the phone a bit then a person who gives off the impression that they love talking to people is going to have a better chance. Even in high paying jobs, they are going to hire the guy that knew about the company, asked a lot of deeper questions about what they do, and seemed energetic, friendly and bright, even if his credentials are less than the stoic guy that takes forever to answer simple questions and doesn't show any kind of inquisitive energy in the job interview. I suppose you could offset this by being really bright and knowledgeable so that the interviewers are impressed and don't really care if you seem friendly or not, but I'm sure most can't or don't know how to pull this off if they had the proper cognitive ability because it requires education as well. This is probably what most would call a 'genius'; that's what I call a genius.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Couldn't that be like wearing a crown and pretending to be King when you have no idea how to govern?... Why would you want a job that you're not acclimated to?
    I've never really felt acclimated to anything so I've learned how to wing a great deal of shit, even if I'm still not that successful in my goals. Maybe that's a bad thing, I don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moonstone3 View Post
    Well, 1 2 of 2 things is clear here:
    1) People like attention-to the point of answering for shock effect.
    2) People are unstable-to the point of morphing to fit their environment.

    These 'jobs' people apply for in this way, must not be very serious. You can't bullshit intelligence for long.
    I'm not talking about intelligence. Intelligence is symbiotic with knowledge. It can be grown in this way. But the ability to figure out what people like in a person and give them what they want as long as it doesn't become detrimental to your health is what I'm referring to. People do it all the time in customer service jobs, although granted, I think most would say they hate them, but that's not the point I was making.

  10. #30
    He who laughs
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    Some things are pretty obvious. If you're going to be on the phone a bit then a person who gives off the impression that they love talking to people is going to have a better chance. Even in high paying jobs, they are going to hire the guy that knew about the company, asked a lot of deeper questions about what they do, and seemed energetic, friendly and bright, even if his credentials are less than the stoic guy that takes forever to answer simple questions and doesn't show any kind of inquisitive energy in the job interview. I suppose you could offset this by being really bright and knowledgeable so that the interviewers are impressed and don't really care if you seem friendly or not, but I'm sure most can't or don't know how to pull this off if they had the proper cognitive ability because it requires education as well. This is probably what most would call a 'genius'; that's what I call a genius.
    hmmmm and this have to do with tests in what way? Thats normal common sense. But theres a difference between the application and the interview. In the application you provide info about your profile in regards to the ability to hold the job. In the interview they figure out if you fit in to their organization and if they are skilled enough they'll know if you are not being who you are saying you are. So it makes no sense to try and wing it at the interview.

    Plus most introverts would only choose a job where using the telephone was your main tool at work if they are in dire need of a job or cant get anything else. If they have any common sense they'll know that they are going to hate their job within a week.

    I have worked in jobs where they in their job profile wrote I extroverted as an ideal requirement. And I still got the jobs. When I go to interviews I get about 40-50% of the jobs I get interviewed in. And I dont change myself for them. For reference Ive had around 12 jobs in the last ten years.

Similar Threads

  1. What you've used your functions for?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-20-2012, 07:50 AM
  2. How do YOU use your functions?
    By StephMC in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-16-2012, 04:50 AM
  3. [MBTItm] When You Don't Want To Believe Your Intuition
    By Betty Blue in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 06-12-2010, 11:57 AM
  4. You don't live your life well if...
    By nolla in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 12-30-2008, 06:17 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