User Tag List

First 4121314151624 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 346

  1. #131
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Why do you think it's not complete?

    I would say that even when you dissect and give the cat it's model, then the model fails to essentially describe the cat in all it's glory. Hence, why even documenting an archetypal cat does not do it justice. Models can be broken down into more models, and can lead into an infinite spiral of dissection.

    Sometimes it's better just to make the model simple or holistic to save yourself the effort.
    You need both.
    And more.

    (I mean, really: I'm a systems person, not a committed deconstructionist. It's not like I don't naturally do the holistic thing.)

    Think about advances in medicine, for example. To really help heal the human body, you need to see how all the parts function together, but you also need to understand how things work on a very minute and specific level.

    Put another way, to write a book, you need to use words and know how words fit together on a very minute detailed level. Books are built out of specific words, spliced into good sentences, spliced into good paragraphs. Yet if you focus on the specifics too much and lose sight of the forest, all the dissected details don't lead to anything. To be truly transcedent, the author has to have a holistic sense as well.
    "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

  2. #132
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Of course. We merely speak that way in order to isolate things, just as anyone in any sort of discipline will isolate items in order to describe a part of them that can't be gotten at another way. I mean, essentially, you're saying that you can't describe a cat by dissecting it and describing all the isolated parts, and you are right; but we still learn something by looking at the parts of the cat. It's just that the cat is more than the sum of its parts, it is also those parts acting in conjunction with each other.
    This. We learn something from the parts, definitely. What needs to be kept in mind, however, is where knowledge of the parts is limited with respect to knowledge of the whole. The picture is much more complicated than some seem to believe. A limited understanding solely based upon a single model or, worse, based upon its individual components, is .. ... well, limited.

    Which is fine, so long as one knows what those limitations are. A model that's 'valid' or 'correct' for 75% of cases can't be extrapolated with absolute certainty to the other 25%.

    Sometimes, a more broad and simple model is better than a detailed one. It's a tradeoff between accuracy and precision.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Do you mean perhaps that if I looked outside of myself I would learn what's real?
    I mean.. yeah, sort of. If one's perspective misses some crucial element that can be found outside of himself--others' opinions, empircal studies, etc--he'd learn what's 'real' by tossing some ideas out there and actually wanting to refine them through feedback via the outside world.

    There's benefit to sharing opinions simply to share them or refining ideas internally, though.

  3. #133
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    This fits. Everything after that is a non sequitur that describes how Ni might manifest in behaviors, rather than what Ni actually is. He's still anthropomorphizing the functions as if they are people, which is a strong indication that he's characterizing his experiences of those who predominately use Ni rather than talking about the functions themselves. In other words, he's stereotyping and not archetyping, which is a consequence of applied typology, and a cause of what SolitaryWalker calls "folk typology".
    But according to what Sim wrote isnt that really what Ni is? I actually feel similiar about Si in regards to "descriptive words or definitions{hint "folk typology"}". Of course this is just Ni speaking and shifting horizontally. Really our E functions are "common" or in-sync with the external world. Our internal functions are "ours". We may borrow others internal [whatever], but dont take ownership. With our E functions we actually take ownership of the external portion of our world. Its what we take part in and become one with our external world.
    Im out, its been fun

  4. #134
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Which is fine, so long as one knows what those limitations are. A model that's 'valid' or 'correct' for 75% of cases can't be extrapolated with absolute certainty to the other 25%.
    And that.

    Models are not dependable unless the limitations / failure rate / limitations type of the model is specified. All knowledge is necessarily boundaried.
    "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

  5. #135
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    What I'd really like to know is...

    What ARE these so called archetypal descriptions anyways? I think stereotypes suck, but that's all I really know in a way.. I just throw them in a pile and try to sift through. There's really not many other options, as far as I know. I've never seen anyone truly offer up some pristine, crystallized, archetypal expression of MBTI functions. And if it's out there, I'll just ask you to show me. Otherwise, wtf. It's dawning on me now what this thread's really about, and it's.... /facepalm material. People like Solitarywalker complain about "folk typology", but yet, he doesn't offer much to alleviate the problem except mastubatory walls of texts..and a smug Spinoza avatar. I get the idea that he's just screwing with everyone.

    Give me some true "archetypal" descriptions.. otherwise, we just have to depend on communicating with stereotypes (some pretty idiotic, but most are harmless, and even helpful).

  6. #136
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Honestly it doesn't really make a difference to me if you and Tater don't believe me when I say that typology can be used to predict people's behaviors and viewpoints.
    Sim, what on earth are you talking about? I was referring to your method of argument, that of dismissing someone's statement with reference to what you presume their types to be, etc. Yer doing it again:

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Wow, all the introverts agree that depth > breadth. There's a shocker.
    ^ Like that. I just can't decide whether it's more boring, or funny. It's boring becuase you keep doing it in a very predictable way, no matter what the subject, but it's also funny for precisely the same reason, and because you responding to people in this way is so predictable. I could almost set my watch by it! Anyway, it's a meaningless generalisation.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It works extraordinarily well for me, so if you'd prefer to miss out on the wealth of valuable information it provides, knock yourselves out.
    Now, do we associate over-excitability and a tendency to caricature with ENTPs?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    [rambles irrelevantly for some time...]
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    And btw, our types are extremely relevant here because they have a strong influence on the way we interpret the ideas in question. If Tater is introverted enough that the lack of certainty/use of inductive guesswork involved in typing others makes him uncomfortable, then he has every right not to use typology. (I do have to wonder what he's doing on a typology forum if that's the case, though.)
    Do you ever stop making deflective and irrelevant personal assertions based on your typological presumptions? This so far as I can see is what a number of people, including Tater, are objecting to in the first place. Tater's decisions on how he wants to use typology, which are not even the subject under discussion for anyone but yourself, have nothing whatsoever to do with the cohesiveness and applicability of your ideas. You're just trying to make it personal, and about someone else, in order to avoid the issue you're being challenged on.

    Originally Posted by ragashree
    ... your attempt at rebuttal seems to be leaning too much on the ad homineum, which I believe illustrates the points Tater has been making. Tater's functional orientation is as irrelevant as yours for the purpose of addressing the question of whether or not anything useful or valid can be determined about others from the way you're using typology. Are you able to address Tater's anyone's criticisms, without resorting to typologically grounded assertions?
    I only have to repeat myself with minor variations. But perhaps my question was rhetorical in the first place, eh?
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  7. #137
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I mean.. yeah, sort of. If one's perspective misses some crucial element that can be found outside of himself--others' opinions, empircal studies, etc--he'd learn what's 'real' by tossing some ideas out there and actually wanting to refine them through feedback via the outside world.

    There's benefit to sharing opinions simply to share them or refining ideas internally, though.
    I was taking a shot at Ms Sap for warning me to take an extroverted attitude and conform my understanding to the objective world. Lord, the number of people who don't recognise the intemperate demands of their own dominant attitude! Cheap shot, needless to say. Moving right along...

    Breadth and depth...

    An objective perspective takes the world as a given. In a sense the perspective hammers up against the world as it is, and splatters out sideways, collecting accuracies--mapping--as it goes.... breadth. A subjective perspective accumulates content over and again in the same spot, altering and varying without restriction to the object itself, making maps from subject to idiosyncratic subject... depth.

    Neither of these can be said to reflect any personality if neither of them has some way of stepping back from their perspective. Breadth without something idiosyncratic is mere mirror. And depth without some accuracy is empty. So... the compensatory attitudes needed, are they automatically acquired by involving some other function? An e function contains no depth because there's some i function standing by, and likewise an i has no wider outreach than what can be provided by some e hanging around? The e will mirror and the i will tunnel into a hole? You HAVE to have more than one function to be a person? Or is there some accidental depth to every e and some incidental breadth to every i? A little bit of Fi in every Fe, a smidge of Ne in every Ni, a dollop of Xe leavening every Xi and some stain of Xi in the Xe? Or what?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  8. #138
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I was taking a shot at Ms Sap for warning me to take an extroverted attitude and conform my understanding to the objective world.
    Please quote anywhere in this thread where I "warned you to take an extroverted attitude and conform your understanding to the objective world"?

    Seriously, I implore you, find where and when I did this, oh wait, I never did that which you accuse me of.

    Pitiful.

    Now, you're just a liar.
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  9. #139
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I was taking a shot at Ms Sap for warning me to take an extroverted attitude and conform my understanding to the objective world. Lord, the number of people who don't recognise the intemperate demands of their own dominant attitude! Cheap shot, needless to say. Moving right along...
    Oh yeah, you successfully got that one across The question just got me thinking, and a 'non-sarcastic' version of it actually warranted an answer.

    Breadth and depth...

    An objective perspective takes the world as a given. In a sense the perspective hammers up against the world as it is, and splatters out sideways, collecting accuracies--mapping--as it goes.... breadth. A subjective perspective accumulates content over and again in the same spot, altering and varying without restriction to the object itself, making maps from subject to idiosyncratic subject... depth.

    Neither of these can be said to reflect any personality if neither of them has some way of stepping back from their perspective. Breadth without something idiosyncratic is mere mirror. And depth without some accuracy is empty. So... the compensatory attitudes needed, are they automatically acquired by involving some other function? An e function contains no depth because there's some i function standing by, and likewise an i has no wider outreach than what can be provided by some e hanging around? The e will mirror and the i will tunnel into a hole? You HAVE to have more than one function to be a person? Or is there some accidental depth to every e and some incidental breadth to every i? A little bit of Fi in every Fe, a smidge of Ne in every Ni, a dollop of Xe leavening every Xi and some stain of Xi in the Xe? Or what?
    I'm biased, but I'm glad that there are so many posts along the lines of 'dude, we've all got our blind spots' from people who list themselves as a wide variety of types.

    I'm inclined to believe that the functions indicate what sort of perceptions and judgments we tend to trust--given a choice between two approaches, all else being equal, which do we prefer? That's not to say that we can't transcend one approach and take on another when a situation warrants it, though. That is often the 'blind spot' of evaluating everyone based upon predictions from some set of archetypes.

    How that approach-changing phenomenon occurs--whether one uses the extroverted version of their introverted function at times, whether a balanced approach represents strength in one's 'tertiary' and 'inferior' functions--I personally have no idea. That's a pretty difficult question, and arguments can be made for either of those.

  10. #140
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    How that approach-changing phenomenon occurs--whether one uses the extroverted version of their introverted function at times, whether a balanced approach represents strength in one's 'tertiary' and 'inferior' functions--I personally have no idea. That's a pretty difficult question, and arguments can be made for either of those.
    My own opinion, or current position anyway, is there's no mechanism for switching attitude on a function. If it happens, it has to be a product of choice or environmental trigger. But if you can choose the orientation of your function, then functions are subordinate to personality and we're looking at the wrong stuff if we're saying functions are where personality is at. And if it's environmental, then doesn't that make us all fundamentally extroverted, being that we're triggered by and conform to environmental stimuli?

    Functions are viewed too simply, I think. That any function has a history seems like it should be important too. Conceivably functions really are very, very simple mechanisms, but the fact that there'll always be some complex history of use to any function in a person means........ dunno. Maybe nothing. Maybe having a history makes sense for introverted functions only. Which would be to assert the primacy of introverted functions in personality, and possibly wrong.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

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