User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 81

  1. #51
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    Judging
    Systematic
    Planful
    Early Starting
    Scheduled
    Methodical

    Perceiving
    Casual
    Open-ended
    Prompted
    Spontaneous
    Emergent


    I don't understand the meaning of the two words I bolded.
    Judging (What does that mean in this case, and is it relevant? Myers-Briggs says that judging does not mean being judgemental.)
    Systematic (Yes, in the name of I don't like change, but I am not one to sustain a boring routine)
    Planful (Yes, all "Chart the Course" types are, but what is meant by planful? Do I write them down, no.)
    Early Starting (Yes, if I know what I am to do, I will get started.)
    Scheduled (No)
    Methodical (No)

    Perceiving (What does that mean again, and is it relevant?)
    Casual (Yes)
    Open-ended (Not if it hinders expediency)
    Prompted (I think you were meaning pressure prompted. SPs would prefer deadlines than to keep things too open for extended periods.)
    Spontaneous (Yes, but not when it comes to surprises. My being spontaneous is guaged by the impact that I am seeking which is a core need of all SPs).
    Emergent (I am just not sure what that means in this instance. Emergent because I have let things slide or emergent because I want expediency?)

    Again these can easily be misconstrued on the NJ/SP basis.

  2. #52
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    So... you're saying that you would test as J if you answered the questions without awareness of what they were intended to measure? So in other words, it probably wouldn't throw off an INTP, but it would potentially throw off an ISTP? I admit, I probably wasn't aware of that due to the dearth of S's on this board. Hmm...
    It could also work in the reversal of many mistyping as sensing as well. So we will not even go into practitioners thoughts on this whole rare type thing started by Myers-Briggs and Keirsey.

  3. #53
    Senior Member marm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    134

    Default

    The letters of the type code(including J/P) do accurately describe behavioral traits. There are two difficulties here. The behavioral traits are only general descriptions meaning no one fits them perfectly all of the time. They're just tendencies. Furthermore, behavioral traits only indirectly relate to cognitive functions. We infer the cognitive functions because we can't observe them directly and its even difficult to observe them in ourselves.

    So, the general behavioral traits only generally apply to the general cognitive functions. MBTI makes more sense in the broad pattern than when picking apart the details(the whole is greater than the parts). Traits and cognitive functions are obviously correlative, but they can also be considered as separate ways of looking at a person.

    I'm withholding opinion at the moment about J/P because I don't understand MBTI Step II and I haven't seen MBTI Step III. They seem meaningful to me even though I've talked about them to great extent with Wandering. Exceptions don't disprove the rule. Wandering, do you think your being an exception points to a new rule? (inside joke)

  4. #54
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade View Post
    The letters of the type code(including J/P) do accurately describe behavioral traits. There are two difficulties here. The behavioral traits are only general descriptions meaning no one fits them perfectly all of the time. They're just tendencies. Furthermore, behavioral traits only indirectly relate to cognitive functions. We infer the cognitive functions because we can't observe them directly and its even difficult to observe them in ourselves.

    So, the general behavioral traits only generally apply to the general cognitive functions. MBTI makes more sense in the broad pattern than when picking apart the details(the whole is greater than the parts). Traits and cognitive functions are obviously correlative, but they can also be considered as separate ways of looking at a person.

    I'm withholding opinion at the moment about J/P because I don't understand MBTI Step II and I haven't seen MBTI Step III. They seem meaningful to me even though I've talked about them to great extent with Wandering. Exceptions don't disprove the rule. Wandering, do you think your being an exception points to a new rule? (inside joke)
    It's not about 'exceptions' or 'a rule'. It's about a 'rule' that didn't even exist in the first place that's false.
    -Is that list that I keep seeing on this thread even from the MBTI manual?(something tells me it aint)
    Type is not a 'trait' system of personality. Using conventionally-minded behavioral traits will get you nowhere. Everyone would immediately realize this if they started accurately typing others. They realize that two people that they saw (accurately!) as very different happen to have the same type pattern. There is a wonderfully illustrative book about this by Dario Nardi called "Character and personality type".

  5. #55
    Senior Member marm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    It's not about 'exceptions' or 'a rule'. It's about a 'rule' that didn't even exist in the first place that's false.
    What do you mean by this? It exists as far as MBTI testing goes. Are you saying we should get rid of MBTI and get back to Jung. Personally, I don't see a conflict between MBTI and Jung.

    -Is that list that I keep seeing on this thread even from the MBTI manual?(something tells me it aint)
    From what I understand, it comes from MBTI Step II, but I've never taken it myself. Why do you doubt it if you know nothing about it?

    Type is not a 'trait' system of personality. Using conventionally-minded behavioral traits will get you nowhere. Everyone would immediately realize this if they started accurately typing others. They realize that two people that they saw (accurately!) as very different happen to have the same type pattern. There is a wonderfully illustrative book about this by Dario Nardi called "Character and personality type".
    I didn't say that types are traits. I was only speculating that there is a correlation. The MBTI Step II seems to imply this. Besides, common sense tells me that the only way I can type someone is by observing their behavior as I can't enter their head. I agree that cognitive functions are more fundamental, but I'd say they're fundamental to our whole way of being including our behavior(traits). Cognitive functiosn can only be directly observed in ourselves. They can only be experienced subjectively, but not seen objectively.

    I normally think in terms of cognitive functions. Typology only started making much more sense when I explored them. However, I like to explore all angles, and to question the things that I assume I know. I realize that most MBTI practitioners dismiss traits, but I'm not one to take others' opinion on authority. I wish to explore it and decide for myself. I'm just playing around with ideas. The whole reason I'm exploring Temperament and Interaction Styles is to knock my mind out of its normal assumptions of how to understand people. Exploring this is important even if only as a thought experiment.

    I have Nardi's book and have studied it. Its an interesting book. I don't entirely know what to think of it as he says in the intro that its primarily based on observation and not theory. Its not clear what are the differences he is observing. Humans are complex creatures. I will say that what Nardi is describing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with types vs traits.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Ok, rephrasing what I wrote. I will chose to discard the step II because it doesn't agree with Jung (or other stuff I've read) or my own experience. I think it adds a lot of adjectives to the dichotomies that weren't their in Isabel's original conception, and that shouldn't be thier. I also conclude (with a few anectotes) that this is one of the things that led to test-and-tell approaches, where people are described formulaically, given useless advice, and told to leave. I really think that's the result of stuff like this.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Oh my, did I get carried away. Back to you post. what I meant about traits was that, say, you hear about the 'theorist' description and you think 'oh, geeks'. But then you'd find out that you know and ISTJ, ISFP, INTJ, INTP, and an ESFJ all of whom are people you considered really geeky.

    It's PSYCHOLOGICAL type. Everything else is wallpaper.

  8. #58
    Senior Member marm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    134

    Default

    I have no idea what writing by Quenk your referring to. If you want to discuss this, then you're going to have to give me some more information. Did you find this writing on the web or is it from a book?

    In order to genuinely evaluate the MBTI Step II, we'd have to see research done using it. I haven't yet seen any research. If anyone knows where to find it, I'd be glad to see it. Then we could have an actually useful discussion about it.

    Why are you so sure of yourself? Why are you so uninterested in exploring other possibilities?

    Jung and Myers may have been right in some ways, but they might have been wrong in other ways. Jung never had researched any of his theories, and much research has been done since Myers developed MBTI. For instance, the correlations between MBTI and FFM are significant even though theoretically they're different. Research must come before theory if we're ever to determine if theories are accurate.

  9. #59
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade View Post
    I have no idea what writing by Quenk your referring to. If you want to discuss this, then you're going to have to give me some more information. Did you find this writing on the web or is it from a book?

    In order to genuinely evaluate the MBTI Step II, we'd have to see research done using it. I haven't yet seen any research. If anyone knows where to find it, I'd be glad to see it. Then we could have an actually useful discussion about it.

    Why are you so sure of yourself? Why are you so uninterested in exploring other possibilities?

    Jung and Myers may have been right in some ways, but they might have been wrong in other ways. Jung never had researched any of his theories, and much research has been done since Myers developed MBTI. For instance, the correlations between MBTI and FFM are significant even though theoretically they're different. Research must come before theory if we're ever to determine if theories are accurate.
    I'm not interested in exploring other possibilities because I already know that This is what happens as a result:

    Type Insights

  10. #60
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    That's a link to 'horror stories'.

Similar Threads

  1. Clearing Up The Confusion of Type and Functions
    By Krim13 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-07-2017, 04:52 AM
  2. The ESFP "stupid" myth.
    By Mort Belfry in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 846
    Last Post: 10-12-2013, 10:47 PM
  3. St. Louis, keep up the good work!
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-09-2008, 12:40 AM

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