User Tag List

First 212930313233 Last

Results 301 to 310 of 346

  1. #301
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    Müller runs and he scores !!!!!!!! goaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall

    a cent per bad joke and we gonna be rich in notime
    You're not doing it right unless people are paying you to NOT crack bad jokes.

  2. #302
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    *judges you all... maintains edge*


    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Ni, specifically, is supposed to be able to find the connection that others can't. It's supposed to be that Ni creates knowledge as opposed to discovering it from outside. The distinction is slim, and is a perceived difference based on Ni being introverted--it perceives itself to be independent of the outside world. An Ni user will understand himself to be manipulating or synthesizing connections, finding what wasn't there before.
    I don't see how it could be called a true connection, if it wasn't already there.

    And, if the connection was already there, it would rightly be called a discovery, not an invention.

    It would seem that, if the connection isn't really there, then it would be a false connection...

    The obvious caveat is in the creative realm, but, even then, that only makes sense regarding the actual creative process, not the critique or analysis of art.

    If a critic pointed out an aspect or quality of a film, and you yourself had not seen that aspect or quality in the film beforehand, but, after hearing it, you can either immediately, or upon going back and rewatching the film, see that the aspect or quality is indeed in the film and is as clear as day, well, it would seem the aspect or quality had been there in the film all along, but you just hadn't seen it...

    (A common refrain is that, if the director didn't intend to create that particular aspect or quality, then it doesn't "really" exist in the film; however, as I was told would happen back in college by one of my favorite professors, as I've gotten older and grown more comfortable with analyses of art, I have let go of the need for the creator's intention to necessarily be the end-all, be-all of what's true about a piece [aka, The Death of the Author].)

    Even the creative process, though, comes under some suspicion when you poke at it. What sculptor was it who said something along the lines of, "The way I make my sculptures is that I see the finished piece within the marble, and then I chip away everything else." I mean, is that, when you really get down nitty gritty and analytical-like, truly invention, or is it discovery?

    Ask yourself, do you ever feel that sometimes, when you are writing a post, you are actually trying to execute the exact post that you already knew you wanted to write. In some sense, that ideal post "existed" in the future/your mind and you did not really invent it (consciously at least), so much as express what was already in (some mode of) existence.

    Some people will call this kind of talk claptrap, but I truly do believe it.

    Been playing around with the idea long enough to see manifestations of it many times.

    Kinda like seeing that previously unrecognized aspect or quality in a movie -- you might not have considered it before, but it's still out there...



    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Introverted functions are cut off, deliberately, from external checks. There is some reality checking involved, but too much of that kind of nonsense, ironically, leads one astray--we map too closely to the real world and don't see the rest of what's there to see.


    I like to fact check to see if what I'm coming up with is indeed in accordance with reality. It's like I start with a bunch of raw data and connections I have accumulated over the years, new data comes in and/or I try to create new connections with the data and connections I already have, and *bam* new connections are made.

    Then, to verify whether the connections I have come up with are really out there or not (i.e., are true), I'll constantly be on the lookout (whether consciously or unconsciously) for data that either contradicts or confirms my speculative connections. If the new data doesn't reconcile, then the connections must be reconsidered, the flaws must be figured out, and new connections must be made. The ex post facto fact-checking then proceeds again. Rinse and repeat.

    The more a particular connection is able to repeatedly and reliably pass the fact-check, the truer it is deemed to be...

    So, anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is: why would I want to make connections that aren't really out there already (apart from creative reasons, which I've second-guessed anyway)? And, if I make these connections with the desire for them to be true, then why wouldn't I go back and fact-check them to verify whether they really are true?

  3. #303
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I don't see how it could be called a true connection, if it wasn't already there.

    And, if the connection was already there, it would rightly be called a discovery, not an invention.

    It would seem that, if the connection isn't really there, then it would be a false connection...
    Yeah, but we're talking of "connections", content relationships between concepts. How are they ever going to be "really there"? The Ne users probably have an answer for that, and it'll be something like "they just are", but us, the introverted connection makers? The connections will have been really there if once they were discovered, some constructive process could be built on them. As such the connections can have an indirect objective life but, as befits the products of a perception function, the issue for the connections is not really their truth or falsity, but that they were perceived at all. At least, this would be something like what it is to have introverted intuition be a dominant process taking all precedence over other functional perspectives. In a subordinate role or in an introvert where dealings with the world are emphasized, then fact checking would be a more substantial part of the cognitive ideology.

    Ask yourself, do you ever feel that sometimes, when you are writing a post, you are actually trying to execute the exact post that you already knew you wanted to write. In some sense, that ideal post "existed" in the future/your mind and you did not really invent it (consciously at least), so much as express what was already in (some mode of) existence.
    I notice that when INTJs want to speak of things of the world, we use the verb "think" and when we speak of the inside, we use "feel". Even we downplay "intuit" as a verb. I once surprised an INFJ with the word. As part of an prior conversation she'd asked, "Is that what you think or what you know?" I said, "It's an intuition." "Intuition!" she said. "I like that word." (Freakin Ti users.) But it's interesting, this use of "feel". It makes the fact checker for interior things be feeling.



    Whoa! Having a Victor moment. Over-generalising into claustrophobic interiority. Which raises the fact checking question again. Too much interior vision creates a sickness of vision. Fact checking, real world bench-marking remains vital. God bless the auxiliary function.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  4. #304
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    blerp blerp
    `
    '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

  5. #305
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Something interesting I just put together.

    I know some of you don't like to assign any value to this data, but I (and many others) think it's relevant.

    This data comes from that study that looked at some 5,700+ "gifted" high school students, based on their MBTI results.

    Interestingly enough, I was probably part of this study.

    Anyway, a few months ago, I'd taken that data and sliced it and diced it many different ways in Excel, but Silly and I recently came up with a new way of slicing it (her Ne-ism came up with it, my Ni-ism focused and figured out how to put something together) that came out very interestingly.

    Here it is:

    Function Gifted % Norm % Ratio
    1. Ni 12.3% 4.4% 2.79x
    2. Ne 26.8% 12.5% 2.15x
    3. Ti 15.3% 7.7% 1.98x
    4. Fi 12.6% 9.3% 1.35x
    5. Si 9.6% 13.7% 0.70x
    6. Te 9.7% 18.9% 0.51x
    7. Fe 7.9% 17.6% 0.45x
    8. Se 5.8% 15.9% 0.37x

    The column directly to the right of each individual function (Gifted %) represents the % of gifted students who had that function as their dominant function.

    The next column to the right (Norm %) represents the % of the overall population who had that function as their dominant function.

    The next column to the right (Ratio) forms a ratio of the % of gifted students who had that function as their dominant relative to the % of the overall population who that function as their dominant function.

    As such, assuming the data is meaningful, the Ratio column should indicate how much each function is associated with giftedness when it's in the dominant position.

    I've sliced this data a hundred other ways as well; if you're interested in seeing it, let me know, and I'll send it to you.

  6. #306
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    I dunno Z...

    I have an MBTI manual full of stats....I also just admin the step II to ten folks....the results are fucked up. So just understand that anything that traces back to MBTI results should immediately come under question....

    Id trust the MMTI-c results though.

  7. #307
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    MMTI-c results??

    No idea what you're talking about...

  8. #308
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    MMTI-c results??

    No idea what you're talking about...
    Personality Assessment for Children, MMTIC

  9. #309
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    Id trust the MMTI-c results though.
    I just saw the sample items and they're ridiculous.

    What bothers you more:

    Not knowing the answer
    People getting angry

    As a child I would answer BOTH.

    Kids who steal should be:

    Helped to stop stealing
    Punished

    BOTH.

    Choose the word you like better:

    Challenge
    Helpful

    BOTH

    I can't stand any more of their questions.

    Common knowledge about MBTI:

    "The T-F scale tends to have the lowest reliability of the four scales. "
    "T-F scales show relatively weak validity"

  10. #310
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Something interesting I just put together.

    I know some of you don't like to assign any value to this data, but I (and many others) think it's relevant.

    This data comes from that study that looked at some 5,700+ "gifted" high school students, based on their MBTI results.

    Interestingly enough, I was probably part of this study.

    Anyway, a few months ago, I'd taken that data and sliced it and diced it many different ways in Excel, but Silly and I recently came up with a new way of slicing it (her Ne-ism came up with it, my Ni-ism focused and figured out how to put something together) that came out very interestingly.

    Here it is:

    Function Gifted % Norm % Ratio
    1. Ni 12.3% 4.4% 2.79x
    2. Ne 26.8% 12.5% 2.15x
    3. Ti 15.3% 7.7% 1.98x
    4. Fi 12.6% 9.3% 1.35x
    5. Si 9.6% 13.7% 0.70x
    6. Te 9.7% 18.9% 0.51x
    7. Fe 7.9% 17.6% 0.45x
    8. Se 5.8% 15.9% 0.37x

    The column directly to the right of each individual function (Gifted %) represents the % of gifted students who had that function as their dominant function.

    The next column to the right (Norm %) represents the % of the overall population who had that function as their dominant function.

    The next column to the right (Ratio) forms a ratio of the % of gifted students who had that function as their dominant relative to the % of the overall population who that function as their dominant function.

    As such, assuming the data is meaningful, the Ratio column should indicate how much each function is associated with giftedness when it's in the dominant position.

    I've sliced this data a hundred other ways as well; if you're interested in seeing it, let me know, and I'll send it to you.
    If it's the study I'm thinking of, wasn't the highest correlation with "INxx" as being the most gifted, overall, with fairly insignificant differences between the options for xx?

    It sort of made sense to me, in that "INxx" basically means, "spends lots of time thinking about things in an abstract way, without much social interaction."

    The reason that Ti and Fi are "scoring lower" in your list above is that you're bringing in ISFP and ISTP to aggregate with the INFP and INTP results. This isn't to suggest that Se isn't as bright, but they don't dwell on abstract ideas in the same way, and abstract ideas tend to correlate with the classical definitions of IQ and "gifted." INxx as a type would imply that one gets a lot of practice "just thinking," hence a high correlation with skill on IQ tests and the like.

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