User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 346

  1. #91
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Is this going to be a repeat of the "Public Service Announcement to Paranoid Fi doms" thread?

  2. #92
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Is this going to be a repeat of the "Public Service Announcement to Paranoid Fi doms" thread?

    Yes.

  3. #93
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Introverted intuition will, and does, work anywhere, anytime. Like any introverted function, it snatches information away from the outer world and sets to work on it in whatever way is suitable to the function. Its value as a variation on the function Intuition lies in the creation, or perhaps discovery, of formally unprompted connections.

    Naturally I trust my intuition implicitly and will make outrageous claims as to the efficacy of the function: the insight it produces is unparalleled, and all your perspective are belong to us. But, to be honest, all your perspectives are and will always be found to be lacking because in merely collecting perspectives there isn't the synthesis step. And Ni is introverted, so there will be a synthesis step, the part where I introvert to discover my perspective.

    It's one of the interesting things about being an introvert, this independence. And there is some big long thing to be said or written about how that independence is possible. And whether or not it is meaningful.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  4. #94
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Introverted intuition will, and does, work anywhere, anytime.
    I thought it's an irrational function, which implies it comes suddenly and randomly?

  5. #95
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Introverted intuition uncovers, while extraverted intuition discovers. If Ni motivates us to uncover something, then that something must be previously covered. By what, you ask? Immediate sense impression, otherwise known as Se. This is why Se is inferior to Ni and vice versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I thought it's an irrational function, which implies it comes suddenly and randomly?

    The "irrational" function, according to Jung, is typical for mental and perceptual activity that predominantly (and, for the most part, unconsciously) operates with opportunities, i.e. various possible outcomes and sensations result from some premises and sensations, mostly driven by unconscious processes. People with predominantly "irrational" thinking see the world as a structure that can take various forms and outcomes. (otherwise known as perceiving)

    Personality Type

  6. #96
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I thought it's an irrational function, which implies it comes suddenly and randomly?
    That too. But the peculiar properties of introversion--the timelessness, the independence of place--were what I was aiming at emphasizing. That an introverted function is formally decoupled from immediate environmental stimuli allows, indeed creates, longer term thought projects, likely often life-long. The actual functioning of the function may be sudden and random, but there's a continuity of focus over time that, presumably, accounts for the layering and "depth", or more exactly, for the insights that other people hadn't seen.

    It's interesting then to try and work out how an introverted function doesn't become moribund.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #97
    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 MagnificentMind View Post
    I liked Lex Talionis. He repeatedly pointed out all of the negative aspects of the other types and then used that to define a type, and he didn't afraid of anything. He wad a pretty cool guy, if you ask me.
    Huh? -especially the underlined portion-
    Most NTJs structure their lives around putting themselves into positions of power and influence. They want to control economic resources because that grants them the highest degree of control over others, the external world and ultimately their own lives. They enjoy feeling powerful and influential.

    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentMind View Post
    What the fuck?.
    Next time an NTJ you know makes fun of someone he considers to be lesser than himself, listen to the undertones. Listen to what NTJs target when they try to belittle someone--it almost invariably includes:

    "He has a low IQ",
    "He can't see how limited his perception is, but I can because I have the magic meta-perspective, hahaha", and/or
    "He has no money/power/influence over anything",

    because these are the things NTJs tend to value. Unfortunately many of them consider anyone who isn't looking for those things to be a complete idiot, and the air of arrogant self-supremacy that accompanies this view can be outright smothering.


    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    Sim, might I suggest a bit o' Ayn Rand? It would give a really interesting insight into what you are seeing. I would, as always for any type, be hesitant to assign motives onto the INTJs, as that would be highly presumptious, however the Se inf function does give a very practical, productive, even slightly materialistic tint to their worldview-always think in terms of function pairs...NeSi or NiSe....otherwise you only have half the picture.
    I despise Ayn Rand. I've read The Fountainhead and that was quite enough far rightist NTJ wet dream babble for me, thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Yes, but so is professional psychology. However, if a group of psychologists were discussing psychology, they wouldn't evaluate each others' reasoning based on their psychological states. Imagine if you were diagnosed with depression, mania, or some other sort of disorder; you raised your hand in a psychology class at the local college to state your opinion. Instead of evaluating your opinion based on either the logical consistency or the evidence (against/for) it, he just said, "Oh, well from a depressed persons perspective..."
    Unfortunately different functional perspectives have different ideas about what constitutes "truth" and "correctness", so the totally objective standard for evaluation that you're arguing for doesn't really exist in practice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    I know that psychological types aren't disorders. My point is that you're mixing typology as a basic science with typology as an applied science, and in doing so you commit the common fallacy of judging the interocular instead of the argument.
    I'm not actually saying those perspectives are wrong; in fact, I'm trying to point out that since no perspective is ultimately better than any other, there's no universally objective standard we can apply to evaluating any sort of argument or position at all...which is the problem.

    When I point out function usage in others I'm trying to show that their arguments and positions are predicable based on their functional outlooks. That doesn't make their opinions invalid, but if I judge their arguments directly we're not going to get anywhere because I'm going to use an NeTiFeSi standard to evaluate their points, which will not make sense to them because they approach those ideas from a totally different set of premises.

    So I don't judge the interocular to show that he's wrong, but rather to show that there are basic fundamental differences in the way each of us conceptualizes reality that will prevent us from ever agreeing on certain topics. It's not so much that, "Oh well you're an Fi dom, of COURSE you think that!" is intended to imply that said Fi position is wrong, just to illustrate that it's rooted in a basic assumption about the nature of reality that's too different from mine for us to come to a consensus (sometimes.)

    This is why most arguments never really get solved--agreement would require abandonment of the axioms of our preferred functional perspectives, which is nigh impossible.

    Typology isn't a science at all, by the way, but rather a philosophy.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    I'm referring to this thread. Most of what you said prior to my post in this thread were negative. My point was that as long as you evaluate peoples' opinions according to their type, you're free to either appreciate them or depreciate them. What you should be doing is evaluating peoples' statements based on whether they are true or not.
    lol if only "truth" were as clear cut and objective as you want it to be. Unfortunately every functional perspective has a different idea of what "truth" is, so there's no simple universal objective standard for evaluating it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    How about you do neither and make it more sober instead of laminating typology with emotional bias?
    Well first of all no one ever, ever, ever escapes emotional bias. It's absolutely unavoidable no matter who you are--we all have deep emotional attachments to the axioms of our preferred functional perspectives.

    And secondly, pointing out the common strengths and weaknesses of each perspective (including the mistakes people of each type commonly make) helps to improve our understanding of how to interact more effectively with others and, even if we can't agree with them, understand what motivates them to behave and think the way they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    No, I am offended. What's your point?
    And since Fi, as your dominant function, has the biggest influence on your sense of identity out of any of your functions, it's reasonable to say that your Fi is offended.

    My point is that your function attitudes create your identity--you don't have an identity without them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    I've been paying attention to this thread, which is what I'm referring to. Not your long history of posting; but if I recall correctly you even toted a bias against Fi oriented people around in my first thread around 6 months ago.
    Well that's true; I have since done a fair bit of learning about Fi. I am not against Fi itself, just especially annoyed with certain selfish Fi-motivated behaviors.

    Living with an INFP has been a big challenge, but it's taught me a lot. I like to think I understand the value in that perspective a little more than I did say, 6 months ago.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #98
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    That too. But the peculiar properties of introversion--the timelessness, the independence of place--were what I was aiming at emphasizing. That an introverted function is formally decoupled from immediate environmental stimuli allows, indeed creates, longer term thought projects, likely often life-long. The actual functioning of the function may be sudden and random, but there's a continuity of focus over time that, presumably, accounts for the layering and "depth", or more exactly, for the insights that other people hadn't seen.

    It's interesting then to try and work out how an introverted function doesn't become moribund.
    Now I see your point. In that case I agree with you.

  9. #99
    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 SillySapienne View Post
    Sim, you must admit that what he says about you here is true, I've heard you state it over and over, how much you can't stand Fi.

    I'm starting to think that Fi and Ni are kinda similar.

    That's just a working hypothesis, though, as I just came up with it a couple of hours ago.
    Well, true. See my above response to Tater regarding my relationship with Fi.

    And Fi and Ni are similar in that they are both very subjective and very personal, but other than that they don't have too much in common.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Sim, I actually think your last post was pretty good.
    Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I still think you're letting your relationships with Jaguar, your dad and/or your brother taint your entire perspective on NTJs, and that you harbor an obsession with pointing towards the 2% (Orobas' figure) of the time when Ni-doms are not actually bringing to the table an accurate, largely-encompassing view of the matter at hand, due to your issues with one or more of these relationships.
    Anyone who's only wrong 2% of the time would be profoundly brilliant, far moreso than any real person existing in the world today.

    Anyway, my father and brother are actually far less inclined toward the problems I have with NTJs. I have very good relationships with both of them; the resentment you speak of comes entirely from NTJs to whom I am not related biologically.

    Jaguar is certainly one of them. Talk about spoiled rich kid who had never had to grow up because Daddy's Money handed him everything from day one. I'm hard pressed to think of a better example of horribly unbalanced Te+Se loop, tbh.

    Frankly I think his Ni sucks and that he spends a lot of time spouting Te+Se rhetoric--he just needs to believe he has brilliant Ni and thus never shuts up about how deep and brilliant and perceptive he is (and how everyone is totally shallow, durrrr), when in reality he has some of the worst Ni of any NTJ I've ever met.

    But I digress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I don't know if it's that your dad and/or brother and/or Jaguar "look down on you" for what it is that you are doing with your life, but I suspect this is the source (particularly with your family) of much of your obsession with pointing out that Ni doms don't really see the "whole picture" (i.e., in your case, that material gain, etc. is not that important).
    Haha it's actually not my dad or my brother at all. Like I said I get along really well with them. I think both of them are exceptionally insightful and neither strikes me as exceedingly arrogant; I think they're both smart enough to recognize the limitations on their own perception and it keeps their egos in check. I really love them both deeply and we rarely have any serious disagreements.

    But I can't say the same for a lot of the other NTJs I know. Even the ones I consider very intelligent often fall into the same traps I've mentioned but are too arrogant about their supreme perception skills to admit it to themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yes, their values make them desire for you to do something that they see as "productive" with your life -- and these desires are undoubtedly biased by their Te -- but to constantly obsess over pointing out a particular type's "blind spots", which, invariably, do exist, seems to be driven more by your personal experiences than a drive for accuracy or truth, and thus pushes you towards behavior that you wouldn't otherwise be engaging in.

    I don't know. Maybe I'm completely off base. I don't know you that well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    But it just always seems like you have a personal axe to grind with NTJs.
    You're right; some NTJs really do consistently piss me off. It's not that they have a preset way of assigning value to things; everyone has that, it's that coupled with the way many of them assume that their value system is The Correct Value Systemâ„¢, end of story, because everyone else is too stupid to understand the REAL truth the way only NTJs do.

    When you introduce typology to these types, their response tends to be not, "Oh, I see now that there are lots of different value systems and none is any better than any other", but rather, "Oh, now I get it--NTJs are the smart people! Now I can explain why everyone who doesn't think like me is a total ingrate moron!" (*cough* Lex Tali-tard *cough*)

    Rather than use it as a way to recognize the subjectivity of their own perspectives, as it's intended, they just use it to bolster their own delusional arrogance and reinforce the idea that their value system is objectively better than everyone's. It's pretty sickening.

    Example: A certain ENTJ who shall go unnamed once said she "didn't have any values." Think about the sheer arrogance contained in that statement. She's literally saying, "Everything I believe clearly constitutes totally objective truth. I am so immune to bias of any kind that nothing I believe contains any degree of subjectivity whatsoever; I simply see the absolute, perfect objective truth as it is and no personal bias ever comes into play."

    Honestly dude you are way smarter than most NTJs I've come across--it's just that no type group is ever as consistently arrogant about its intelligence and perceptive abilities as NTJs, which drives me up the fucking wall because so many of you are simultaneously mired in perceptual bias yet arrogantly obsessed with the fantasy that you're immune to it.

    It's infuriating.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    You just told me that what I said was true, meaning that breadth can be found in introversion and depth can be found in extraversion. Yet you persist in your previous stance prior to that because you hold my statement captive as though you can't accept it.
    Uh, no...I said your statement was true from an introverted perspective. I can't believe I mistook you for an Ni dom before--you're far too attached to the idea that there's one universally, objectively correct perspective or that truth exists outside human interpretation for that to be the case.

    "JUST JUDGE ARGUMENTS ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE TRUE LOL" doesn't really work here because different perspectives have different ideas of what truth is. It may seem obvious to you what's true and what's false, but that's just a function of interpretation. There is no universal truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    The fact is that having depth means that you plunge the innards or deepness of a thing, which is quite possible in referring to external input (which is what extraversion is). Having breadth means that you can examine a broader range of input, which is also quite possible when you are referring to a more intrinsic or internal input.
    I don't understand your point. Obviously every real person has both introverted and extroverted functional attitudes, so yes, we are all capable of both breadth and depth. The point here is that those dominant in introverted perspectives tend to favor depth, while those dominant in extroverted perspectives tend to favor breadth. I did not intend to imply that either type is incapable of valuing the opposing perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    What a crock of shit.

    The accuracy of a statement is entirely contingent upon reasoning, whether you're referring to internal or external data.
    Unfortunately for you, different functions reason in different terms and there's no universal standard making any one more right than any other. That's what I'm getting at when I point out the functional perspectives motivating people's opinions--that we can't really ever completely agree because we conceptualize reality and ourselves according to fundamentally different axioms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    What do you mean by "precision"? Certainly, one can formulate an idea in one's head until it is pristine and then communicate it with perfect clarity. The subjective bounds of another's' interpretation is what prevents that clarity from having an identical effect in their own psyche.
    No, the idea can never be communicated to others with perfect clarity because others do not share your consciousness. When you move an idea outside your own head into the realm of dealing with others and the outer world, you are inherently decreasing its precision/accuracy in order to increase its external applicability. This is the crux of shifting from introversion to extroversion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Note that undervaluing a perspective may not be the cause of introversion, but it may just be that's your perspective isn't correct.
    Correct? What does "correct" even mean? Consistent with your FiTe idea of correctness, you mean?

    Correctness (just like truth) is in the eye of the beholder. That's the whole point of typology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Cute.
    I try

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    I've already addressed the reasoning you have here. All I'm hearing is you using typology as a scapegoat for evaluating what people have to say, which is laced in depth in many of your posts.
    You're misinterpreting my functional observations as evaluations of people's ideas.

    I'm not evaluating the ideas themselves; I'm evaluating the functional motivation for them. The point I'm getting at is that no idea is universally correct or incorrect, that everyone is subject to personal bias generated by his functional perspectives.

    So when I say something to the effect of, "Wow your opinion is so Te", I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm simply pointing out that continuing to argue further has become a moot point since our disagreement is based on differences in fundamental worldview that are very unlikely to change.

    Note that this doesn't make either of us right or wrong; on the contrary, it's intended to show that neither of us can ever truly be right or wrong in a purely objective sense!

    So it's not, "This guy's opinion is wrong because it's obviously motivated by Ni" so much as, "Ni is the reason this guy holds this opinion, so he won't be able to come to an agreement with anyone who doesn't agree with that initial Ni premise in the first place."

    Most disagreements occur when someone tries to evaluate an idea rooted in one function according to the standards of a different function. I am just as guilty of this as anyone else; it's impossible to avoid. What I intend to point out with such comments is that we cannot evaluate an idea until we understand the basic axioms of the worldview that supports it--if we try to judge Ni ideas in Ti terms, we're bound to fail.


    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    You can't actually think this perspective is a reflection of the broader reality - do you? Listen to yourself.

    Do you actually think we view this as perfect or without flaws? Do you think we aren't well aware of the limitations in knowledge?

    I think you may be overly influenced by your personal reaction to the manner with which the NTJs communicate.
    Unfortunately I am quite serious about this, and if you've managed to avoid meeting any such NTJs in your time on this planet then you should count yourself as very lucky.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #100
    Senior Member burymecloser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Unfortunately different functional perspectives have different ideas about what constitutes "truth" and "correctness", so the totally objective standard for evaluation that you're arguing for doesn't really exist in practice.
    ...
    lol if only "truth" were as clear cut and objective as you want it to be. Unfortunately every functional perspective has a different idea of what "truth" is, so there's no simple universal objective standard for evaluating it.
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    "JUST JUDGE ARGUMENTS ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE TRUE LOL" doesn't really work here because different perspectives have different ideas of what truth is. It may seem obvious to you what's true and what's false, but that's just a function of interpretation. There is no universal truth.
    I realise the above is applicable to many subjects, but surely you acknowledge that there are some things which are objectively, demonstrably true? And that conversely, some things are objectively, demonstrably untrue?

    If I want to prove that Hamlet is better than King Lear, or even that Babe Ruth was a better baseball player than Neifi Perez, maybe I can't do that from a purely objective and inarguable standpoint. But if I say that 2 + 2 = 4, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? If I say that Archduke Ferdinand died in 1914, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? If I say that Ruth hit 714 home runs, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? Aren't many, many things clear cut and objectively true?

    Moreover, isn't there a possibility that imprecision or expediency in a description could lead the audience to misunderstand that subject, regardless of whether the topic is objective or subjective?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    If an idea is not precise, then would this not prevent someone from accessing the truth of it? Forget Ne. This sacrifices the quality of an idea for the quantity of its dissemination. In doing such a thing, you let bad ideas spread like wildfire instead of refining them
    I think this is very well-said and an important question that deserves a thoughtful response, and a detailed rebuttal if you feel there's something wrong here.

    I realise I'm arguing what you call the introvert's perspective here, and that may not be inherently more valuable than what you'd call an extroverted perspective -- but from a purely literal standpoint, from an objective position, isn't Tater right? Isn't "sacrific[ing] precision in order to make the ideas more easily accessible to others" the same as sacrificing the quality of an idea for the quantity of its dissemination?

    And isn't there a danger, by emphasising quantity over quality, that a lot of people would learn bad ideas, rather than a few people learning good ones?
    i just want to be a sweetheart

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] intjs how good is your vizualitation skills
    By chado in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-06-2017, 12:55 PM
  2. How important is a good teacher?
    By yama in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-15-2015, 07:08 PM
  3. I just remembered how good Animal Collective is
    By gmanyo in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-08-2012, 09:27 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-29-2010, 04:34 PM
  5. [NT] How good is your sensing?
    By BrokenSword in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-19-2010, 12:08 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