User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 109

  1. #21
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Well, even type differences (which is like an oroboros devouring its tail).

    I mean, there is linear thought/processing vs spatial processing.
    People tend to be better at one than the other.
    "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. #22
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Well, even type differences (which is like an oroboros devouring its tail).
    Ouroboros or Uroborus? Or is it Oroboros?

  3. #23
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Whichever one allows for the most oroborosity possible.





    EDIT: Out of curiositosity, I google'd oroborosity... and it actually showed up in a search.
    "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

  4. #24
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    Gender differences could also play a role.
    I had this thought as well.

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

    Tri-type 639

  5. #25
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Because I know them extremely well. There is always a slight possibility that I'm wrong but don't think so.
    So, because you think so. Mmkay.

    I don't like to type anyone, for many reasons. There is no way to truly discern whether what you are observing in another person is concious or unconscious. In all probability, you are actually seeing more of what is unconscious in the person, than what is conscious. The contents of the unconscious are constantly being mixed with what is conscious. In many cases, the unconscious can come across so strongly, the person is mistaken for a completely different type. To think you can sort it all out, as an observer, is as naive as thinking you can tell me what musical instrument is dominating in an orchestra, while all instruments are playing simultaneously.

    As Jung once said, " . . . one has to admit that only too often, a man's unconcious makes a far stronger impression on an observer than his consciousness does,
    and that his actions are of considerable more importance than his rational intentions.


    Von Franz, Jung's most well-known student and colleague continues,
    "It does no good to think of what matters most when discovering one's type, rather ask: What do I habitually do most?"


    For example, I can "hear" a particular member's Ti playing. Now, you don't really think I am silly enough to think he's INTP do you? Not a chance. That is the most common behavior I see in this forum where people will pick out a function they "hear", and subsequently slap it in the dominant position. Convenient, but likely to be dead wrong. How do I know what is most habitual for that person? I assure you, I am not toting around a crystal ball like other forum members are. Maybe I should ask them to gaze into their balls for me and let me know what is in fact most habitual for him. Only he has the power to reflect on his life and arrive at an answer. I can't do that for him, nor would I want to.

    Finally, not everyone is a clear type. Even in the MBTI practitioner's manual it states not everyone is a type. I could cite case, after case, after case, where psychologists discuss the role of childhood environment, school environment, and career demands, affecting a person's function development so dramatically, again, that they appear to be a completely different type. That's because the demands of the particular evironment may have encouraged, or discouraged, certain function development to such an extent, someone appears to be another type, or a type that doesn't even exist in the group of 16.

  6. #26
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    So, because you think so. Mmkay.

    I don't like to type anyone, for many reasons. There is no way to truly discern whether what you are observing in another person is concious or unconscious. In all probability, you are actually seeing more of what is unconscious in the person, than what is conscious. The contents of the unconscious are constantly being mixed with what is conscious. In many cases, the unconscious can come across so strongly, the person is mistaken for a completely different type. To think you can sort it all out, as an observer, is as naive as thinking you can tell me what musical instrument is dominating in an orchestra, while all instruments are playing simultaneously.

    As Jung once said, " . . . one has to admit that only too often, a man's unconcious makes a far stronger impression on an observer than his consciousness does,
    and that his actions are of considerable more importance than his rational intentions.


    Von Franz, Jung's most well-known student and colleague continues,
    "It does no good to think of what matters most when discovering one's type, rather ask: What do I habitually do most?"


    For example, I can "hear" a particular member's Ti playing. Now, you don't really think I am silly enough to think he's INTP do you? Not a chance. That is the most common behavior I see in this forum where people will pick out a function they "hear", and subsequently slap it in the dominant position. Convenient, but likely to be dead wrong. How do I know what is most habitual for that person? I assure you, I am not toting around a crystal ball like other forum members are. Maybe I should ask them to gaze into their balls for me and let me know what is in fact most habitual for him. Only he has the power to reflect on his life and arrive at an answer. I can't do that for him, nor would I want to.

    Finally, not everyone is a clear type. Even in the MBTI practitioner's manual it states not everyone is a type. I could cite case, after case, after case, where psychologists discuss the role of childhood environment, school environment, and career demands, affecting a person's function development so dramatically, again, that they appear to be a completely different type. That's because the demands of the particular evironment may have encouraged, or discouraged, certain function development to such an extent, someone appears to be another type, or a type that doesn't even exist in the group of 16.
    The things you bring up all make sense. I recall a debate about a particular forum member - are they INTJ or ENTJ? Really, that person is in the best position to determine it. How do you tell what is dominant and what is auxiliary? I think it can be pretty hard to tell. I also agree with you that there are some people that don't seem to fit any type.

    That being said, I do try to type people. Not always but sometimes. I start out with a guess (full or partial). There are several reasons for this. First, it is a technique to attempt to understand people better. Generally, I've found that it does help in that regard. Second, it's useful in conflict situations - to understand how or why people may have a different lens through which they view things. It's a piece of the puzzle, but a valuable one. It's tricky though because you can guess wrong, base too much on it, and make incorrect assumptions which leads to other problems. It is very easy to presume too much.

    There are people that I've known for years where I have no idea of their type. My mom is an example. There are others where it is more obvious. I had dinner with an old college friend last weekend. The topic came up in our conversation and I told him about the interest I had in the topic. I'd always wondered what he was. I was pretty sure ISXJ. So, I asked a few questions and guessed ISTJ. He has no idea what this is and so I sent him a profile. He says the description is pretty much dead on and his reaction is "how'd you do that?." Is this important? Not really, but it was a fun diversion.

    So, is trying to type others a fools errand? I think it can be but it doesn't have to be.

    The point you make about the unconscious making a stronger impression than the conscious is interesting. In practical terms, how do you think that translates into how a person would mistype someone? Are you suggesting, for example, that you could perceive their inferior as their dominant or auxiliary?

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

    Tri-type 639

  7. #27
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    What does everyone think about this statement?

    "Only one function can be in control of consciousness at any single point in time"

    For example, I can't be reflecting (introverting) a function at the same time as I'm talkative (extraverting). So, I can't be using my dominant function at the same time as I'm using my auxiliary.
    Well, firstly - reflecting and talking aren't part of the I/E dichotomy.

    Secondly - Only one function can be in control of consciousness at the same time. This is because functions are dichotomous. They do not overlap or bleed into each other. It is illogical for one to be irrational and rational (in the Jungian sense) simultaneously. It is also illogical for one to be introverting and extroverting simultaneously.

    Finally, and most importantly, just because Jungian functions were meant to be mutually exclusive within their respective dichotomies doesn't mean that, for instance, one cannot be both logical and visceral simultaneously. It does not mean that one cannot draw energy from the external world and the internal world simultaneously. In other words, the definitions for the functions don't really follow from the rigid models they were placed in.

    Remember, "simultaneously" means "at the exact same time", the span of which isn't defined. It could be less than a nanosecond. The "present", as we know it, is an infinitely small moment. This means that knowing your mind can only occupy one function at a time hardly has any practical value.

    So the more you depart from dichotomous thinking when you're applying Jungian typology to yourself or others, the more you're going to open the door for a more holistic and realistic understanding of it.

  8. #28
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    There seems to be some confusion here. The whole point of functions is that THEY DON'T OVERLAP.

    Cognition is split into perceiving (unconscious) and judging (conscious). It would be absurd to think you couldn't do conscious cognition at the same time as unconscious cognition. All sorts of stuff is going on up there at the same time. I'm sure you could label a lot of it with different function names in any given instant.

  9. #29
    @.~*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 Evan View Post
    There seems to be some confusion here. The whole point of functions is that THEY DON'T OVERLAP.
    and

    Cognition is split into perceiving (unconscious) and judging (conscious). It would be absurd to think you couldn't do conscious cognition at the same time as unconscious cognition. All sorts of stuff is going on up there at the same time. I'm sure you could label a lot of it with different function names in any given instant.

    Are these two paragraphs connected?
    They don't seem to be.
    "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

  10. #30
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    I don't really agree with this.

    When I think I seem to use both Ti and Ne processes at the same time. They pretty much seem to rely on each other to function. I can't use one or the other.

    In fact, Ti seems to always be present for me. Unless I'm really tired. But that aside. I think cognative functions flow with each other and through each other. Ultimately, our cognition is like one single machine. The defined processes are merely just nametags for different parts of the machine, but the machine doesn't function if they're not all used to some point.

    So I think in a way, all cognative functions are 'on' all the time. The difference in type is just about which parts of the machine are strongest for you and which are the weakest.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

Similar Threads

  1. Is it better to master one skill or be a jack of all trades?
    By Destiny in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-03-2015, 06:08 PM
  2. The best thing you can be in life...
    By Illmatic in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-19-2012, 02:01 PM
  3. The Percieving and Judging aspect is the only thing that can be changed naturally?
    By Illmatic in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-02-2011, 05:47 AM
  4. If you can increase the strength of only one letter, which letter would it be?
    By yenom in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 01-07-2010, 06:10 PM
  5. MBTIc isn't the only one who can change names
    By FFF in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-24-2008, 04:56 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