User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 109

  1. #31
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Are these two paragraphs connected?
    They don't seem to be.
    Well yeah kinda, but I admit, the transition was odd.

    What I meant was that if you looked for functions in the brain (I know each one would have certain parts all over the place, but imagine you could highlight the areas responsible for each function). There should be no overlap in the areas. So it's not like one being used makes it impossible to use another at that instant.

    I guess there is limited processing power overall, so using it someplace makes it harder to use it another place, but it's not like each cognitive unit can be described using one function name.

  2. #32
    @.~*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
    What I meant was that if you looked for functions in the brain (I know each one would have certain parts all over the place, but imagine you could highlight the areas responsible for each function). There should be no overlap in the areas. So it's not like one being used makes it impossible to use another at that instant.
    Ah okay, thanks... I follow you now.
    "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

  3. #33
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Maybe I should ask them to gaze into their balls for me and let me know what is in fact most habitual for him.
    That's a really weird pick-up line.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    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?
    For now, take a look at this link. Then just think about it, and what it can mean for people- as an observer, and as someone looking to type themselves.
    It should get you thinking about a lot of possibilities and how what you think you are seeing, just might be something else. The person is the final arbiter, but even we can be blind to what comes natural to us.

    Myers Briggs and Personal Growth

  5. #35
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    For now, take a look at this link. Then just think about it, and what it can mean for people- as an observer, and as someone looking to type themselves.
    It should get you thinking about a lot of possibilities and how what you think you are seeing, just might be something else. The person is the final arbiter, but even we can be blind to what comes natural to us.

    Myers Briggs and Personal Growth
    That's a really outstanding link.

    Great visuals and examples.

    I would give you an award if I could.

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

    Tri-type 639

  6. #36
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    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, I'd have to say that I think Jennifer's post is the most accurate and valuable in this thread.

    She pretty much nails the issue on the head: if multiple processes can switch from one to another at an extremely fast pace, then is the technical truth that only one process is running at any one moment in time, or the fact that this is more or less effectively like multiple processes running at the same time, the more important, relevant, and valuable truth?

    I, personally, take both for what they are, but would tend to side with the latter being the more relevant, important, and valuable of the two, at least in this discussion.

    Secondly, to add to the computer analogy (and, honestly, I know next to nothing about computer processing), I remember talking to an old friend of mine who is doing research at UCI on parallel processing, I believe. From my recollection (this conversation took place several years ago), this would be a break from how computers traditionally process information, and would allow more than one thing to be happening at any one time. I could be wrong, but this is what I gathered from that conversation... If I'm correct here, then couldn't the human brain be more like a parallel-processing computer than the computers we normally use? Once again, I don't know much about this topic, so I'm just throwing out a suggestion here.

    Thirdly, just looking at your presentation here, Highlander, I have to point out that there would seem to be a significant difference between "one function being in control of consciousness at any single point in time" and "not being able to use more than one function at any given time"... You could easily be using multiple functions at any one time, but only one of them might be "in control of consciousness" at any one time (putting the technical vs non-technical definition of using multiple functions at the same time aside -- and replacing it with the more ambiguous terminology of "being in control of consciousness" -- ha...).

    I, personally, think that, technical definition aside, we use multiple functions at the same time a lot of the time.

    We might make the distinction that it's more difficult to use introverted functions and extroverted functions at the same time (although, I think something akin to that is possible, as I believe my Ni and Te certainly work in conjunction with each other, and saying that they're working "at the same time" does not seem altogether unacceptable to me) than it is to use two (or more?) functions of the same attitude (extroverted vs. introverted) at the same time, or that it's less likely or more problematic an assertion that we use two perceiving or two judging functions at the same time (although, I think I do tend to try and balance objective, measurable Te-based rationales with Fi "just what feels right and syncs with my personal values" rationales, which could, in my opinion, be rightfully called "using the two at the same time"), but, given the examples I've given of my own cognitive processes, I think it's a bit overreaching and ludicrous to conclude that, technical definitions aside (and maybe those don't even matter, considering the possibilities presented by the parallel-computing example), we absolutely cannot use two functions at the same time...

    Last edited by Zarathustra; 12-01-2010 at 10:29 AM.

  7. #37
    Carerra Lu IZthe411's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I think we use multiples all the time. At the exact same moment? probably not, but our minds are so quick and complex they work better the best computer out there. For me, the switch between Si & Ne is so fast that I don't consciously recognize the transition. Or when my Si/Fi translates into a Te action......

    It's possible that we never singularly use a single function.

  8. #38
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    Not an expert or terribly knowledgeable about Jungian or psychological theory but why can't two processes be working at the same time, where the conscious mind is processing the information the subconscious mind is gathering or the reverse?

  9. #39
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,439

    Default

    The problem stems from treating the functions as like gears we shift from one to the other. But they're better expressed as "perspectives".

    This site hits the nail on the head, regarding the problems that arise when trying to categorize every behavior as a distinctly differentiated "process use":
    http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exe...tive_Processes

    In "cognitive processes" theories, Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi are categories of conscious mental activity, so that nearly everything we do mentally can be fit into one category. Different versions of "cognitive processes" assign pretty different meanings to the same two-letter codes, but here is a sample of how the approach works: memory, or recalling the past, is Si; envisioning future scenarios is Ni; playing sports is Se; having sex is Se; saying something to put people at ease is Fe; expressing your emotions is Fe; keeping your emotions to yourself is Fi; brainstorming is Ne; finding the leverage points that will repair a system is Ti; making and following a schedule is Te; etc.

    This leads to questions like:
    • "Which cognitive process do I use when stroking my cat? Fi because it's empathic? Fe because it's expressive? Se because it's physical? A combination of those three?"
    • "Which cognitive process is recognizing a face? Se because it's visual? Ne because it involves a pattern? Te because it involves putting something into a category? Si because it's recognizing something known from the past?"

    Another way to put it is that these theories make Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi into something like gears in a car, and you shift between them just like when driving. For example, "It's time to plan next year's budget. Since that's in the future, I'd better use my Ni."

    Hypothesis: Lenore's function attitudes are conflicting forms of mental representation

    Lenore Thomson, by contrast, is describing conflicting ways that the brain structures or represents the self and the environment. Each attitude gives you a different view of the same situation, and it's hard to see in terms of more than one of them at the same time, something like a Necker cube. Having many conflicting ways of looking at the same things was Nature's way of giving you extraordinary adaptiveness, many opposite ways of structuring information creating greater stability than committing stiffly to any one form of coherence. Each attitude gives you a different mechanism for orienting yourself in a situation and navigating through life.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  10. #40
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,431

    Default

    Not this again. Fine. We have 8 "perspectives," and God forbid we have a convo without Lenore and her lasagna. Beam me up some ricotta, Scotty!

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