User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 50

  1. #31
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slowriot View Post
    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.
    ...
    Alright, god damn it, this was in reference to the post about MBTI testing in the workplace. It's not hard to fake those tests and if there are 'more advanced' tests for higher paying jobs, I'm sure it's not hard to fake them either. I mentioned the interview stuff because it always felt like the same kind of faking to do that in an interview as well. I'm not going to argue with you about semantics or what you think this is about. That's why I posted it and I don't really have an opinion on other aspects at this time, so don't include me with them.

    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 wasn't talking about a job where your main function is to be on the telephone. I was talking about jobs where using the telephone is a big supporting function, like working as an IT technician for a company and going to locations to fix things for people or help them over the phone if you can. NOT helpdesk or tele-marketing bs or secretary crap.

    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.
    Well that's great. I'm going to assume you are just stating that as a fact of reference herein to statements that say otherwise and aren't attempting to have a conversation where we speculate on a great number of reasons why that might have been the case, because it will put us no closer to actually determining any truth outside speculation, and that would be pointless for both of us.

    ROLY POLY

  2. #32
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,903

    Default

    Very interesting thread. Don't know how I missed it. Will come back.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  3. #33
    Uniqueorn William K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    986

    Default

    I think it comes down to how you see yourself and your brain/mind

    i) I control my brain
    ii) My brain controls me
    iii) I = my brain
    iv) I have no brain
    v) None of the above

    If you believe you can control your brain, then you could argue that you can consciously use functions.
    4w5, Fi>Ne>Ti>Si>Ni>Fe>Te>Se, sp > so > sx

    appreciates being appreciated, conflicted over conflicts, afraid of being afraid, bad at being bad, predictably unpredictable, consistently inconsistent, remarkably unremarkable...

    I may not agree with what you are feeling, but I will defend to death your right to have a good cry over it

    The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell

  4. #34
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    simulatedworld - "You don't 'use' your functions"

    What an interesting statement.

    I'm not exactly sure what prompted simulatedworld to make this assessment, but he recently made a post about it on another forum. I'm wondering if he said this because he observed many posters here claiming to 'use' functions that were supposedly out of their preferred orientation, or if he said this because of the connotation that the word "used" gives off - as if one uses their functions in the same way that one uses a hammer or a chair, or if there was some misunderstanding between him and other people. In any case, I'm trying to find out what the reality of the situation is.

    When I first heard this, I thought it was a minor detail about semantics that hardly pertained to the truth, but rather to how we communicate about it. Maybe the truth is found therein.

    I thought that maybe don't "use" functions as if we are consciously manipulating them, but instead we "use" functions in the same way that we use white blood cells in our bodies - subconsciously and out of our control. But then I reconsidered - because our functional orientations are in some ways conscious, are we not using them consciously? Ah! But if our functions shape the way we consciously perceive the world, then are our functions not "using" us? So I arrived at the conclusion that because, on some level, we are our functions, and our functions are us, the question of whether we can "use" them should be answered with a positive "yes", in the same way we can exploit ourselves, control our own actions, and exercise our free will.

    The primary problem lies within the understanding of "use".

    Any thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Sim is spot on on this!
    His basis of speaking against "using" fuctions is that functions are perspectives or "world-views". the example he used that made it click for me was that instead of "using Te" to organize a desk, you see he desk through the lens of Te, which then seeks to create maximum external efficiency.
    From here, I saw how this works with the archetype theory, and extended it as such:

    If the person has Te as the "hero" function (ETJ), then organizing the desk might be his way of "saving the day". If it's "parent" (ITJ), organizing the desk might tend to come out more in the form of instructing the other person who left it messy. If Te is child or inferior (FP's), the act of straightening the table may be more like a good deed, done innocently, perhaps to win approval, or just because they gain some relief doing so. If it's shadow (TP/FJ), the circumstances surrounding organizing might tend to be more negative, and they likely won't even be conscious of this.
    An ITP might become stubborn about external order (matching an internal blueprint) if the ego feels threatened in any way by some other order, and externally setting and maintaining that order will end up coming off as "oppositional". An ETP will tend to be even more critical of others concerning the order. An IFJ might tend to make mistakes, such as throwing out important papers. An EFJ might work up a frenzy and totally wear themselves out organizing the desk for others, when the others might not even care. The need to organize stems from their extraverted Feeling, but if they are under stress, the perspective changes, and they over-focus on the impersonal logic aspect of the ordering. The normally less relevant functional perspective ends up surfacing in a "huffy" manner that we can loosely associate with an archetypal manifestation.

    So looking at them as perspectives made it all finally fall into place for me. And both of us were influenced by Lenore, so while we might not agree with everything she says, she has been an invaluable additional perspective to understanding the eight functions.

    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.
    So, I'm reading all of the stuff in this thread and I'm scratching my head.

    Why does this need to be so complicated?

    Perhaps my view is overly simplistic but I look at the functions as processes. Each process has inputs and it has outputs. Something happens in the middle.

    They might be used in combination (in parallel) or sequentially.

    Do I use the process? Yes, I use the processes in combination to perceive and decide. My combination of process strengths and ordering helps to shape how I think.

    Are they skill sets? If I have the ability/talent to use a particular process, and that process is exercised and strengthened over time, then I suppose it could be considered a skill in a manner of speaking. One can look at each process and its characteristics, and for a particular individual, assess strength on a scale from 1 - 10 (for example), where 1 is you don't use it or are not aware of it and 10 is you use it frequently and have confidence in the results.

    So, I don't really agree with Sim I would suppose. His words seem to focus on the outcome of the process vs. what happens in the middle. I think both are reasonable ways to view things.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  5. #35
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wired View Post
    I do think that by strengthening and focusing on specific things, you always lose in other areas.
    And I've seen this but for the life of me cannot understand why it would be true.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  6. #36
    Yeah, I can fly. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILE Ti
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    simulatedworld - "You don't 'use' your functions"

    What an interesting statement.

    I'm not exactly sure what prompted simulatedworld to make this assessment, but he recently made a post about it on another forum. I'm wondering if he said this because he observed many posters here claiming to 'use' functions that were supposedly out of their preferred orientation, or if he said this because of the connotation that the word "used" gives off - as if one uses their functions in the same way that one uses a hammer or a chair, or if there was some misunderstanding between him and other people. In any case, I'm trying to find out what the reality of the situation is.

    When I first heard this, I thought it was a minor detail about semantics that hardly pertained to the truth, but rather to how we communicate about it. Maybe the truth is found therein.

    I thought that maybe don't "use" functions as if we are consciously manipulating them, but instead we "use" functions in the same way that we use white blood cells in our bodies - subconsciously and out of our control. But then I reconsidered - because our functional orientations are in some ways conscious, are we not using them consciously? Ah! But if our functions shape the way we consciously perceive the world, then are our functions not "using" us? So I arrived at the conclusion that because, on some level, we are our functions, and our functions are us, the question of whether we can "use" them should be answered with a positive "yes", in the same way we can exploit ourselves, control our own actions, and exercise our free will.

    The primary problem lies within the understanding of "use".

    Any thoughts?
    Sim's idea on the matter, as I understand it, is that rather than determining what we do, what we're interested in, etc. functions determine our motivations. That is, why we do what we do. Which is all fine and dandy, except that it's bullshit. Jungian cognitive processes determine our our cognitive reasoning style, that is, how we think, not what motivates us (that would be the Enneagram). The theory is that all thought processes occur using one of the eight functions, of which Perceiving functions are used to absorb information, and then Judging functions are used to make decisions.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Teacher (Idyllic), ESE-IEI (Si-ESFj), SLue|I|, Sanguine-Melancholy
    Sage, True Neutral (Chaotic Good), Type III Anti-Hero
    Inventive > Artistic > Leisurely > Dramatic
    7w6 > 4w3 > 9w8, weakside sp/so

    Dark Worker (Sacrificing)
    Freewheeling Designer

    Hayekian Asshole


  7. #37
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    I don't think it's hard to think of the functions as perspectives, nor do I think it over-complicates the issue - they filter/colour the way we think and perceive, naturally tilting our focus toward a certain way of thinking. They're like colour filters, certain combinations of functions creating their own unique perspective:



    This isn't just focusing on the end-result, because to be involved in a process is to be constantly making decisions - and the functions help us understand the criteria on which we base our decisions.
    Hello

  8. #38
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,903

    Default

    This is a great analogy and description. I agree with everything you've said.

    However, the question though is this - is this a "filter" or is it a more robust and complex process behind the operation of the filter. I think it is both, if that makes any sense.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  9. #39
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    However, the question though is this - is this a "filter" or is it a more robust and complex process behind the operation of the filter. I think it is both, if that makes any sense.
    I agree, I think they're ultimately part of the same thing. Whatever it is.
    Hello

  10. #40
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    You use your functions as much as you use your internal organs.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

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