User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 25

  1. #11
    Senior Member InTheFlesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Enneagram
    CFV
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Just bought a copy
    Thanks for the recommendation

  2. #12
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I'm more impressed by what they have to say and volume of words is not relevant in the criteria.
    Which contradicts your post about me not "elaborating or communicating more."
    I can hardly wait to see what pedantry is yet to come. Be still my beating heart.

  3. #13
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Which contradicts your post about me not "elaborating or communicating more."
    I can hardly wait to see what pedantry is yet to come. Be still my beating heart.
    I apologize. I'm coming across as critical and getting defensive. It's just that I think there is wisdom and knowledge that you have which you could impart better on others. That's all.

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

    Tri-type 639

  4. #14
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Gosh - you were almost acting like a nice person in those first couple of posts Jag. It's a good thing you caught yourself before it was too late.
    Hello

  5. #15
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    It doesn't take a block of text to explain the alternative models, unless you too lack concision.

  6. #16
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    It doesn't take a block of text to explain the alternative models, unless you too lack concision.
    I agree. I was actually thinking about VagrantFarce before he posted. He's one of the most concise communicators on the forum. Sometimes I wonder how much time it takes to be that concise and precise with words.

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

    Tri-type 639

  7. #17
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I apologize. I'm coming across as critical and getting defensive. It's just that I think there is wisdom and knowledge that you have which you could impart better on others. That's all.
    Fair enough. *extends hand to shake, but refuses any tongue action.*

    The reason I held back knowledge for the last year has recently been removed from the forum. Food for thought.
    This comment of yours is spot on:

    Edit: Oh and as far as Jung's stuff goes, while insightful, I find it painful to get through. The man didn't know the meaning of the word "concise". This book is simple and pragmatic.
    Frankly, I do not recommend people read Jung's original work. I read it, and I wanted to stab the guy. Those of us who were masochistic enough to read it all, can help others to understand it. But we must not think that Jung was some type of God. He was just a man, a man whom should be questioned like any other man. And that is why I prefer to use his work as nothing more than a springboard. We can't stay back in 1921 and think that nothing new has been learned. What a travesty that would be! Jung's type descriptions are so severe, they actually read like caricatures, rather than real people.

    This is 2010, not the 1920's. So I applaud anyone who dares to ask, "Did Jung really know what the hell he was talking about?" It's a crucial question! So while some people in this forum used to think they "knew Jung better than anyone," if they were really smart, they would know that's nothing to brag about. It's merely knowledge, that was the result of what one man saw when he viewed people through his own personal lens. Can you imagine what photographs would look like if we were allowed to use only one type of lens, aperture, and shutter speed? The same applies to people.

    Bringing in new models, and new ways of thinking to impart a deeper understanding is where my interests have always been, and always will be.
    This is why I cringe when anything new is posted and certain individuals obsessed with MBTI feel compelled to immediately scream out correlations, failing to see that maybe, just maybe, they don't always correlate and more importantly, they don't have to.

  8. #18
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Frankly, I do not recommend people read Jung's original work. I read it, and I wanted to stab the guy. Those of us who were masochistic enough to read it all, can help others to understand it. But we must not think that Jung was some type of God. He was just a man, a man whom should be questioned like any other man. And that is why I prefer to use his work as nothing more than a springboard. We can't stay back in 1921 and think that nothing new has been learned. What a travesty that would be! Jung's type descriptions are so severe, they actually read like caricatures, rather than real people.

    This is 2010, not the 1920's. So I applaud anyone who dares to ask, "Did Jung really know what the hell he was talking about?" It's a crucial question!
    I agree with every word of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Bringing in new models, and new ways of thinking to impart a deeper understanding is where my interests have always been, and always will be.
    This is why I cringe when anything new is posted and certain individuals obsessed with MBTI feel compelled to immediately scream out correlations, failing to see that maybe, just maybe, they don't always correlate and more importantly, they don't have to.
    If I'm understanding you correctly, I agree that they don't always correlate and don't need to. However, I think it's natural though to compare the different models and look for connections and that MBTI is a reference point because there is so much written on it. So, to look for correlations between MBTI type, Enneagram, DISC, or whatever - it is natural to do this.

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

    Tri-type 639

  9. #19
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Nice to know, Jag.

    I've wanted to hear your thoughts a bit more in depth than you've seemed willing to divulge, so hopefully we will get to see that side of you now.

    I feel the same way about Jung: that which I have read has been extremely turgid.

    Would you mind sharing a bit more about the alternative models and/or ways of thinking that Thompson presents in this book?

  10. #20
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Nice to know, Jag.

    I've wanted to hear your thoughts a bit more in depth than you've seemed willing to divulge, so hopefully we will get to see that side of you now.

    I feel the same way about Jung: that which I have read has been extremely turgid.

    Would you mind sharing a bit more about the alternative models and/or ways of thinking that Thompson presents in this book?
    Tell me, when you were in college and the prof gave you assigned reading, did you blow it off and expect everyone to just give you all the answers?
    I think you have been sitting poolside in Kaleeeeeforneeeeeyaaaaaaa, eating chocolate bon bons too long.
    Yes, I know this is the Internet age, and I have been online for about 13 years, but that doesn't mean books are now obsolete.

    Guesseeeee what oooooo can dooooooo.
    Oooooo can go to Amazoneeeeeeee dot commer and order them thar bookie.

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] Jung’s Function-Attitudes Explained by Henry L. Thompson
    By highlander in forum Typology and Psychology Book Reviews
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-08-2014, 10:53 PM
  2. Imagine adding Me and Mi (motion) to the list of function attitudes.
    By Retmeishka in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-26-2011, 04:01 AM
  3. Jung and functions, primary, auxiliary and inferior functions plus typology
    By slowriot in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-29-2010, 07:35 PM
  4. The 7 Deadly Function-Attitudes
    By "?" in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-18-2009, 09:05 PM
  5. Can the type functions be explained by neuroscience?
    By maerzhase in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-25-2009, 07:42 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