User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 109

  1. #51
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    The only confusion is what you are creating.
    The "only" confusion? so there's no confusion in this whole "how many can we use at a time" question?

    Didn't you yourself say:
    My brain does not work like 1+1+1=3 or ABCDEFG.
    I read anywhere from 5-10 books at a time, I never start a book at the beginning, and I flip out when anyone says to me, "Now, Jag, one thing at a time."
    Obviously, this whole "gears" view of of the functions is leading to confusion. What I'm saying is one way of trying to clear it up, and you seemed to advocate the Mental Muscles concept of Team Technology, and that would be another way of looking at it.
    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

  2. #52
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    The "only" confusion? so there's no confusion in this whole "how many can we use at a time" question?

    Obviously, this whole "gears" view of of the functions is leading to confusion. What I'm saying is one way of trying to clear it up, and you seemed to advocate the Mental Muscles concept of Team Technology, and that would be another way of looking at it.

    Eric, I'll cut to the chase: As many times as you now use the word, "perspectives," around the forum, you are beginning to remind me of Victor who repeatedly uses the words, "trance" and "cognitive dissonance." Just because you don't approve of the word "process" doesn't mean everyone in the entire forum has to change the word to one you think is better. God forbid, you start in with that "worldview" nonsense. Lenore attempted that with her "J/P worldview." So what silliness should we subscribe to now? A Dom FA "worldview," and a J/P "worldview?" How about a "gallbladder worldview" or a "pancreatic worldview"?

    Furthermore, I don't advocate any "mental muscle concept." What I suggest is that people realize just how easy it is to have highly individualized development and there are no absolutes. Clearly, that flies in the face of your other pet theory which is Beebe, and his witchy-demon-senex-paint-by-number-tuna-in-a-can method.

    X is my senex/witch
    Y is my trickster/ dickster
    Z is my porno queen/playboy bunny

    By the way, considering there are no two human brains alike, to think you can answer the question of what number of X can be in control of a person's consciousness is nothing more than unchecked hubris. What may be true for one, may not be true for another. People can have wildly different levels of consciousness.

  3. #53
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    hmmm..

    I would say at first you use the functions in isolation-taking turns. However each judging function will be evaluating info brought to it by a perceiving function....

    Thus I could have NeFi or FiSi sort of tag teaming a problem.

    It could also be that I use, Ne-Fi explore a problem, then Fi-Si to reflect back into the past, then Ne-Fi to reconsider all future options-each would have about a ten second window.... For me it really feels like looking forward them looking backwards and seems very very obvious.

    Now something really strange starts to happen with the two middle functions for me-Fi and Te. Many problems require one or the other. Some problems require them to take turns.

    A few problems-those that make me feel very confident and very ENFP-those problems require the two judging functions to be working in united concert-almost unified, interwoven, combined into a more complex judging function. At that point the two are no longer taking turns-they are working at the same time.

    Jung talked about the transcendent function. I think this combination of functions was what he meant by that term.

  4. #54
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    I didn't read anything but I'm sure my ideas are original anyways.

    Here's my construction:

    There are two functions.
    1. Perceiving
    2. Judging

    Can you do both at once?

    Yes. You can breath while talking. You can pay attention to driving while thinking. You can Se while Ti'ng.

    The real question: Do you have to?

    Reality requires that we have many processes in our body functioning at the same time, therefore the same must be true in the brain as well. Multi-Processing is essential to survival. We're not germs anymore.

  5. #55
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Eric, I'll cut to the chase: As many times as you now use the word, "perspectives," around the forum, you are beginning to remind me of Victor who repeatedly uses the words, "trance" and "cognitive dissonance."
    Difference is; he was using those to dismiss typology (or at least MBTI) altogether. I'm trying to help clarify it.

    Just because you don't approve of the word "process" doesn't mean everyone in the entire forum has to change the word to one you think is better.
    Where in the world did you get that from? I have NEVER put down the term "process". I have been advising against thinking of them as like "gears" that we shift, or skills that we "use", or strictly as behaviors. That is what is confusing people, when they think of what function they should be "using", or when, now.
    You seem to be the one who thinks terminology or concepts should dissapear because you simply don't approve of them, and I don't remember you ever articulating exactly why you thought they were no good. So you seemed to be more in the league with Victor.

    God forbid, you start in with that "worldview" nonsense. Lenore attempted that with her "J/P worldview." So what silliness should we subscribe to now? A Dom FA "worldview," and a J/P "worldview?" How about a "gallbladder worldview" or a "pancreatic worldview"?
    Yes, "world-view" is another similar alternative, and I do use it occasionally.
    Precisely the point: the functions are not concrete THINGS like a gallbladder or a pancreas. That's why the term doesn't make sense with those things, (but we can speak of "using" them, which causes misunderstanding for abstract concepts like the functions!)
    Furthermore, I don't advocate any "mental muscle concept."
    Well, that was the site you linked to, so I figured that was an explanation you approved of.
    What I suggest is that people realize just how easy it is to have highly individualized development and there are no absolutes. Clearly, that flies in the face of your other pet theory which is Beebe, and his witchy-demon-senex-paint-by-number-tuna-in-a-can method.

    X is my senex/witch
    Y is my trickster/ dickster
    Z is my porno queen/playboy bunny
    You're not understanding the concept. The functions aren't the archetypes. Sometimes we speak of them that way (shorthanding), but this is another area where the concept of "perspectives" is very useful. The archetypes are connected with complexes in the psyche that are separate from the functions. Yet it's these complexes that take the associated functions as their perspective, which we then see situations through.

    It's not absolute. Maybe I used to make it sound like that earlier on, and that was partly from not fully understanding it, and then coming under the influence of a person who often manipulates the concepts to force people into certain types. This is basically what Solitary was calling "folk typology". Hence, an INTP should almost never be seen "using" Fi through outward expressions of emotion, "valuing", "liking" things, etc; else they are either in "demon" mode, or they're mistyped. This is what turned me against this whole notion of "using" functions (as if they were skills sets) in the first place when I found an alternative way of expressing these things, and I have since found more of Beebe's direct teachings, and then got some of Lenore's view to balance it out.
    By the way, considering there are no two human brains alike, to think you can answer the question of what number of X can be in control of a person's consciousness is nothing more than unchecked hubris. What may be true for one, may not be true for another. People can have wildly different levels of consciousness.
    Well, I never claimed to answer that question. My whole point here was that such a question is basically moot.
    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

  6. #56
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Difference is; he was using those to dismiss typology (or at least MBTI) altogether. I'm trying to help clarify it.
    Changing the nomenclature in every book ever written on the topic will clarify nothing. We already have all of the following being used by different authors, to represent the same thing:

    Function Attitudes
    Jungian Processes
    Jungian Functions
    Cognitive processes
    Mental processes

    Take your pick.

    Where in the world did you get that from? I have NEVER put down the term "process".
    Do you recall this exchange?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar
    The mental processes are not "perspectives," Eric. That's your own pet word. Just because you think it's a good idea to rename the cat a "dog," doesn't make the cat a dog.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B
    It's actually Sim's term, and it made perfect sense.
    Else, what do you say the "processes" are? Tools we "use"? Behaviors, or actions like "memory"?
    Look familiar?

    Definition of a process by Linda V. Berens:
    Processes are the activities the system engages in as it functions in day-to-day life and as it grows, adapts, and changes. They are best described using verbs that indicate actions. Processes are dynamic and changing. We can't examine processes directly. To understand them we must look at the behaviors to see evidence of the processes. When trying to describe a process we have to take into account movement over time. Processes are moment-to-moment and repeat in different sequences.

    No single process operates in isolation.
    Source: Dynamics of personality type: understanding and applying Jung's cognitive processes.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=caE...page&q&f=false

    You seem to be the one who thinks terminology or concepts should dissapear because you simply don't approve of them, and I don't remember you ever articulating exactly why you thought they were no good. So you seemed to be more in the league with Victor.
    What are you talking about, Eric? I own every book ever written on the processes and I approve of the way the authors have described them. I always have. It is you and Sim who thought you'd be cute and say, "Oh, no! Let's rename them all something else." Frankly, you and Sim remind me of Victor.

    You and Sim:

    Perspective!
    Perspective!

    Victor:

    MBTI trance!
    MBTI trance!
    You're not understanding the concept.
    I've known Beebe's work for years.
    Just know some of us are not Beebe fans, and let's move on.
    I do not enjoy going over the same material, ad nauseam.
    Hence, an INTP should almost never be seen "using" Fi
    So rather than entertain the possibility Beebe's work is crap, or the possibility that an INTP can use Fi without being "demonic," your only solution was to play a name-changing game. All I can tell you is this:

    Read my sig line.

  7. #57
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    What are you talking about, Eric? I own every book ever written on the processes and I approve of the way the authors have described them. I always have. It is you and Sim who thought you'd be cute and say, "Oh, no! Let's rename them all something else."
    Wasn't it Lenore who came up with the "perspectives" terminology?

  8. #58
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,444

    Default

    Ask Eric and Sim. Lol.

  9. #59
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,124

    Default

    *whatever, as usual in real life, ignores the rest of the thread after scanning it*

    I'd think that it's more like painting with pottery glaze... it takes more than one glaze to make a beautiful finish, even if it appears to be one cohesive unit- like when I was reading about the finishing process on one lovely glazed bowl in the asian exhibit of the art museum. It was well over one thousand years old, but the glaze on it had a certain depth and luminous quality to it... the product of multiple layers of several different glazes, and the end product looked like one fantastic coat. I use a Se/Fe combination rather frequently... and Ti is always sitting in the background processing away on the data- observing. I can't ever fully shut off one and enjoy any other no matter how hard I try to. My personality has welded to one cohesive unit... it's not a fucking stop light on a rapid changing cycle
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  10. #60
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    I'd think that it's more like painting with pottery glaze... it takes more than one glaze to make a beautiful finish, even if it appears to be one cohesive unit- like when I was reading about the finishing process on one lovely glazed bowl in the asian exhibit of the art museum. It was well over one thousand years old, but the glaze on it had a certain depth and luminous quality to it... the product of multiple layers of several different glazes, and the end product looked like one fantastic coat. I use a Se/Fe combination rather frequently... and Ti is always sitting in the background processing away on the data- observing. I can't ever fully shut off one and enjoy any other no matter how hard I try to. My personality has welded to one cohesive unit... it's not a fucking stop light on a rapid changing cycle
    I like the fact that you used an artistic analogy. Some time ago, I had a PM with a pal and I used a symphony orchestra as my analogy. I suggested that ALL the FA's were playing simultaneously with the volume of the instruments rising and falling from our consciousness, but still playing all the while. Just because we hear the violins and horns peaking, doesn't mean the piano isn't playing in the background.

    Like yourself, I don't much care for having a rigid picture of how we operate. To me, the brain flows with ease. It doesn't stop at toll booths to yell, "Hey baby, punch my card so I can head to the next stop!"

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