• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Solecism

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
The answer portrays the object?
The answer portrays the question only.

The question is not irrespective of the field?

The question is a set ground.
The answer is not?

We can have an objective answer?
The answer is not subject to the question?

You do not find what is found.
You are included in what is found.
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The answer portrays the object?
The answer portrays the question only.

Disagree. The answer reveals the color of the tiger's skin beneath the striped fur.

The question is not irrespective of the field?

The question becomes what it examines most closely. It can't help itself.

The question is a set ground.
The answer is not?

The question is a relative point in the deep space of the answer.

We can have an objective answer?

I doubt it.

The answer is not subject to the question?

It is - it "answers" to the question (the voice of authority or demand).

You do not find what is found.
You are included in what is found.

:yes:
 

Nadir

Enigma
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
544
MBTI Type
INxJ
Enneagram
4
The types don't fit people - people fit the types?
Is the result stereotype? If you're ESTJ, does that designation inadvertently tell more about you than who you actually might be and what you actually do?

Then there are two ways I can interpret your title.

1) This is not the appropriate way of using MBTI.
2) I'm wrong.

Uncertainty axes me.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
Disagree. The answer reveals the color of the tiger's skin beneath the striped fur.



The question becomes what it examines most closely. It can't help itself.



The question is a relative point in the deep space of the answer.



I doubt it.



It is - it "answers" to the question (the voice of authority or demand).



:yes:
The question cannot help itself. I agree.
The question is a relative point.. I agree.
You doubt we can have an objective answer. I doubt it, too.
The answer is subject to the question. I agree.

What is the tiger's skin colour beneath the striped fur?
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
The types don't fit people - people fit the types?
Is the result stereotype? If you're ESTJ, does that designation inadvertently tell more about you than who you actually might be and what you actually do?

Then there are two ways I can interpret your title.

1) This is not the appropriate way of using MBTI.
2) I'm wrong.

Uncertainty axes me.
The MBTI has a place. I never said the loopholes are not there.
Nobody is wrong.

Does the designation tell too much?
If you are an extreme ESTJ, no. Then you are in the loophole.

If you are a well rounded ESTJ (the prototype of the American male?), then you are not in the loophole. You are not nearer any other loophole than the ESTJ.

Types may or may not fit people. People may or may not fit types.
Usually they fit to the extent to make the MBTI work.
 

lastrailway

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
508
The answer portrays the object?
The answer portrays the question only.

My take is that the answer can portray the object either within the limitations of the question, or without them. And it depends on the answer, not on the question.
The question chooses some variables and the answer is a set of data that match those variables. There is a whole pool of relevant data, and the answer can include more or less of them.

The question becomes what it examines most closely. It can't help itself.

That, too.

What is the tiger's skin colour beneath the striped fur?

A pinkish white.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
A pinkish white.


I have a calico cat. She's pink under the white fur and grayish under the black fur. Not sure what color is under the tawny fur, that fur has never been shaved. She has a mix of pink and black paw pads, looks like candy corn.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
The MBTI has a place. I never said the loopholes are not there.
Nobody is wrong.

Does the designation tell too much?
If you are an extreme ESTJ, no. Then you are in the loophole.

If you are a well rounded ESTJ (the prototype of the American male?), then you are not in the loophole. You are not nearer any other loophole than the ESTJ.

Types may or may not fit people. People may or may not fit types.
Usually they fit to the extent to make the MBTI work.

So what you mean is that the types indicate tendencies, and may not reflect exactly how people are, because it's only a rough measurement/estimate?
 

lastrailway

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
508
I have a calico cat. She's pink under the white fur and grayish under the black fur. Not sure what color is under the tawny fur, that fur has never been shaved. She has a mix of pink and black paw pads, looks like candy corn.

But does the pink and the gray looks like a real colour, or it's more like white with shadows?
I've never seen any feline without fur, but, given that the skin pigments are normally not active, because of the fur, I just guessed it would be so.
Thinking about it, cats don't have fur in the interior of the ear. The rest of the skin must have pretty much this colour, though less intense, cause the ear skin pigments are likely to be more active.
 

white

~dangerous curves ahead~
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
2,591
MBTI Type
ENTP
The answer portrays the object?
The answer portrays the question only.

The question is not irrespective of the field?

The question is a set ground.
The answer is not?

We can have an objective answer?
The answer is not subject to the question?

You do not find what is found.
You are included in what is found.

Limitations. Wildcat, you're coming from this from the XXXX thread, I believe?

The MBTI can only describe personalities if they exist within the 4 dichotomies it defines.

Hence the question is a set ground, and as far as answers (personalities), can fit within the frame of the MBTI polarities, we will be included. This means we're subject to the framework of the question.

Your loopholes refers to personalities which are beyond the descriptions of the MBTI. The XXXX was one example. A person to whom the polarities does not matter - does it make him less of a person, does it mean he does not have a personality?

That was how you derived the 50% chance of an XXXX, wasn't it? Either a personality can be described by the MBTI. Or not at all. But it does not mean he does not exist. Loopholes due to limitations.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
Your loopholes refers to personalities which are beyond the descriptions of the MBTI. The XXXX was one example. A person to whom the polarities does not matter - does it make him less of a person, does it mean he does not have a personality?

That was how you derived the 50% chance of an XXXX, wasn't it? Either a personality can be described by the MBTI. Or not at all. But it does not mean he does not exist. Loopholes due to limitations.

Is that approach too much all or none? Let's do away with what personality means theoretically for a moment. Personality is simply descriptors that describe a person's general tendencies. I meant that for personality traits. MBTI gives you 4 traits... 4 traits might not adequately describe a person. It doesn't necessarily mean though that one of those traits might not fit the person.

And the probability is really irrelevent. Numbers are only meaningful in relation to the question at hand. Or rather, the numbers only mean something when you answer the question in a specific way.:doh: The boundaries of the XXXX problem has not been formally defined. You get out of it what you've put in. Put in a hand-wavy question... get a hand-wavy answer.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
lastrailway.

In the search for the answer you come to data that is outside of the limitations of the question.
Yes.

This is the subject of the thread.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
Limitations. Wildcat, you're coming from this from the XXXX thread, I believe?

The MBTI can only describe personalities if they exist within the 4 dichotomies it defines.

Hence the question is a set ground, and as far as answers (personalities), can fit within the frame of the MBTI polarities, we will be included. This means we're subject to the framework of the question.

Your loopholes refers to personalities which are beyond the descriptions of the MBTI. The XXXX was one example. A person to whom the polarities does not matter - does it make him less of a person, does it mean he does not have a personality?

That was how you derived the 50% chance of an XXXX, wasn't it? Either a personality can be described by the MBTI. Or not at all. But it does not mean he does not exist. Loopholes due to limitations.
Yes. Indirectly.

I have used the word "loophole" to describe an MBTI type.
I have no objection to the assumption that there exists 16 loopholes.

In the beginning, when I began the search more than twenty years ago, I did not know a thing about the Jung typology. I used numbers which form geometric patterns. I began with a vertical and a horizontal continuum. Deriving from these I fixed the IP/EJ and the EP/IJ continuum.

I came across the N/S continuum and what I called the R/D.. (R for Reflection (=Ti) and D for Demonstration of Feeling (=Fe). My mistake was to fix them with the position. The Te/Fi I nailed down diagonally opposite.
Then it was easy to derive the others, and to find their fixed positions.

Because I had fixed all of the positions I could derive only 8 loopholes within the multiple X continuum. If I had not fixed all of the positions I could have had all the 16 loopholes.

Are they fixed? Fifty per cent is fixed. Not 100 per cent as I thought.

I lost fifty percent of the loopholes but I did not ignore the multiple X continuum. The creators of the MBTI had all the 16 loopholes but they did not get the multiple X continuum.

You can understand my interest when I came across the MBTI in the summer of 2005. I saw what I should have seen twenty years ago.

The loopholes personalities can be described by the MBTI.
The others, as you say: Not at all by any definition of exactness.

Half and half.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
So what you mean is that the types indicate tendencies, and may not reflect exactly how people are, because it's only a rough measurement/estimate?
The types are not a rough measurement. I find them exact.
There is more to the system than the 16 types.
 
Top