User Tag List

First 891011 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 102

  1. #91
    Senior Member IndyGhost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    I know one INFJ who has and is seriously preparing for a possible apocalypse. But I also know of one ISTJ who is as well, and two INFP's.

    I'm still bad at fully describing or really understanding the differences between Ne and Ni. But I see Ne as scanning for possibilities, which is what my ex was doing with his signs and symbols. Perhaps he wasn't as serious about his ideas as I had thought. And he wasn't always talking about that sort of thing... but over time, this aspect of him got stronger and stronger to the point it was as though that was all he had to talk about, were various readings that I saw had little rationale.
    "I don't know a perfect person.
    I only know flawed people who are still worth loving."
    -John Green

  2. #92
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyAnnaJoan View Post
    I wasn't trying to be mean or rude if it came off that way. It's simply that, my ex was an INFP, and at first everything was incredibly interesting. I loved it and loved entertaining the ideas he threw out there. But it was beginning to push it for me, and I just had a hard time fully trusting his ideas that he felt solid about. The above is one of the examples. Synchronicity's he was big into. As was I. But for him, he was finding rocks and eventually was attempting to read the future through those rocks. I find little bearing in that, personally.
    If he was throwing out thoughts like that, he wasn't INFP. It's blatantly Ni.

    Both INTPs and INFPs can understand some of the frame of thought of Ni.. and do point out to consequences of things, but they don't take it seriously. They're just as inclined to doubt themselves with some other possibility. INTPs are said to be one of the most self-critical types of all, and this is a big reason. Besides that, they're both governed by Ti or Fi, and revolve a lot of their ideation within a Ji framework of sorts - and become skeptical of things outside of it. While in ENTPs and ENFPs case, they just have random ideas and don't latch on to deeper visions about rocks or something.. you'll find abandoning things almost soon after they said it. If you hear anything crazy, it was probably for the lulz.

    Here's the wikisocion EII take on Ni:

    The individual is quite adept at following discussions on the developments of present trends into the future and at contributing to them on occasion if he feels so inclined, but he does not take that as seriously compared to investigating possibilities in the areas he is interested in at present. He usually dismisses supernatural claims as being silly, wishful thinking, unless they happen to be related to the very specific religion he feels inclined to believe in and which he may be inclined to make part of his leisure activities.

    The individual is also not naive to future happenings. He will often warn others of negative consequences. In this way, he uses his Ni to help the PoLR of his dual. However, unlike an EIE, he will not often take his own advice nor expect others to. His Se PoLR makes it impossible for him to demand that others heed his advice, and his Ne-ego makes him place more value in the possibility that he is wrong - and that things will play out differently - than in avoiding foreseeable disasters.

  3. #93
    Senior Member IndyGhost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    Maybe INFJ, but not INTJ... so not very Ni and more NF? My experience with Ni-dom's, or at least INTJ's is that there's a lot of skepticism and rationality. With my INFP ex, I often felt as though he'd blindly believe. Maybe he smoked too much pot and it skewed the Ne. But I'm completely positive in my assessment of him being an INFP. What he equals out to in socionics, I'm uncertain of.
    "I don't know a perfect person.
    I only know flawed people who are still worth loving."
    -John Green

  4. #94
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Go back through this thread and see who engaged whom. I wasn't even speaking to you. I made a comment to cascadeco and you got upset.
    Yeah, passive-aggressive baiting! (And now, we find out why, below).
    Ah, there's the key word: ORDER. (Not models.) Eric, let's try Katharine Myers' words again, since you aren't listening:

    The irony is, she's the MBTI poster girl. And if Myers can speak that way about type theory then what is your excuse? She doesn't advocate a rigid order or applying any model in a rigid manner. She is clearly stating the likelihood of people developing adaptive variations and that variations may be dropped and new variations supplanted at another time. The bottom line is - anything is possible.
    So she's really saying there aren't 16 types?
    I want to see the context of that. Is that from Gifts Differring? What "pattern"? What "models"? What "development" even? of the dom and aux? or is she talking about beyond those things. Those words can be referring to many things.

    (If it's a matter of eight function-attitudes "developing" whenever, in whatever order, then there are basically 40,320 "variations", which you claimed I was making things up with.)

    I am wide open to variations and I would expect them in people. Quite frankly, I can't imagine anyone not realizing how people can vary, and by doing so, it's their way of adapting in the world. And if by DEFINITION that means they're not one of 16 types, so what? BFD. You, however, expect people to be A-B-C-D. Not because it's accurate, but because it's simple. Let's jam a size 12 foot into a size 9 shoe and shout, "Eureka! It fits!"
    Most people here believe in 16 types. Not just me. I didn't make it up. (And I remember you last time comparing me to another person who doesn't believe in the theory, yet stays here doing nothing but just scoffing at it!)

    And I'm the one constantly saying that A-B-C-D is not as much as people make it out to be. It's mostly roles in a person's psyche, which is what both Beebe's order and the ship order are dealing with.

    As far as Singer and Loomis are concerned, what impressed me most about those two ladies is the fact they chose to question Jung's basic assumption of bimodality. Oh, dear. They dared to ask questions and poke holes in an old theory. The horror of it all. Say it isn't so.

    If in fact people prefer S or N, T or F, altering the testing method should change nothing. Guess what - it did change. The alleged "preferences" didn't hold true. It's not an increase in # of types that matters, it's what Singer and Loomis discovered that matters.
    Worse yet, are Jung's basic types, which are based on only one function. Needless to say, that's why Jung's types read like caricatures of people, rather than actual people. Is it any wonder Gary Hartzler wrote:

    Has it ever occurred to you that natural deviations are what are required to balance an individual on his, or her, terms and not some standard, rigid, structure which has been ordained? My goal isn't to create 16 types, 160 types, or even 1600 types. My goal is for people to accept they don't have to follow a particular order.
    You apparently do not understand the point of Jung's theory. It's not about "which functions develop in which order". It's about how we take in information, and make decisions on it. That's what makes it "bimodal" in the first place! We're not looking [necessarily] for "strongest functions".

    The functions are all there from birth, but not yet "differentiated". They're not even really distinguished from each other, but simply tied to the emotions. One will differentiate, and then for BALANCE, another function of the opposite attitude and opposite j/p mode serves as the "auxiliary". The assumption is that they develop in a particular order, but not as much is being made of this as you seem to think. Someone asked here about typing by the "tertiary" function, but I did not even support that idea. Type is based on a person's perception and judgment, not a stack of arbitrary things called "functions".

    So you can have your SiNiSe... or whatever it is you want. To Jung and type theory, if we assume Si is the dominant, then the person's type will be completed by Pe. It doesn't matter if you think those other functions "developed" first, or are "stronger". Nobody is calling the person "unhealthy" or whatever you complained.
    If a person is all perception functions like that, then how does he make decisions? There must be one function he will prefer for that, and that will complete his type.
    If you determine a person is "SiNiSe...", what does that even mean? What is the point of it? "OK, my 'strongest' is Si, and my 'next strongest' is Ni, and my next strongest after that after that is Ne". OK, now what do we do with that? The Beebe and ship models suggest psychic roles they might fall into. These are basically parts of the ego structure. If a function is "strong", then it might mean an associated complex is simply one that surfaces a lot. I've found this to be accurate, in myself, and others I've discussed this with. If one thinks they don't fit, then remember these things are usually unconscious anyway. (Those of us who discuss them are looking for them, and thus become more aware of them)

    These things aren't gears that you shift between; one, two, three. That's basically what your premise would assume, just as much as the "A-B-C-D" you're criticizing. So ironically, you're the one whose apparent views assume a really rigid concept. You simply allow them to be jumbled around any which way and argue that it still means something useful.

    The problem is, that we have gotten too much into eight function attitudes, and I had gotten caught up in that as well (From the influence of Berens/Nardi and their followers) and precisely what I have been doing in many threads is to backtrack and point out that is is not a rigid eight complete function-attitudes, but the four functions, S, N, T, F, and the orientations held separately and blended with the functions. The best way to illustrate it is teamtechnology's Mental Muscles (and didn't you praise that one once, too?) I've been coming to appreciate that one more. So once you break up the eight back into the four, then you get a less rigid system that can explain a lot of variations.

    I created the DiSC thread so people could look at something in a NEW way. Not an old way, a new one. But no, Eric had to storm the thread and hit everyone over the head with his old MBTI hammer.
    So it looks like this is some sort of payback, because you felt your topic was derailed or something. (And that does seem to be when you started this periodic challenging of me over practically nothing afterward, and now you keep mentioning this).
    Difference was, I was just giving out ideas, not scoffing and heckling any theories. Now, I'm not even comparing different systems; I was remaining completely within MBTI/Jung theories in this one, but you choose to [continue] tak[ing] out your resentment or whatever by criticizing me for "correlating" everything, or "a "rigid order", when I was actually pointing out how the order is not as rigid as it would be to assume you can type by a tertiary. (It may not look the same in everyone).

    So I don't know what you want from me now.
    All you're doing is throwing out a lot of sarcastic snark. ("oh dear", "oh the irony", "say it isn't so", etc; doesn't even disprove my points, but sure must feel good saying). Just your way of getting even for something where there was no ill will intended.

    Well, sorry if you thought your thread was "stormed" or whatever. This is a place of sharing ideas, and not everything is going to be what you agree with. (I actually thought there could be some common ground there with DISC. How was I to know you were basically trying to ditch MBTI?)

    Even DiSC was updated to reflect the fact that most people do not fall into a single D,I,S or C category (as previously thought) but are more often found to be a blend. DiSC has its roots in the Galen Humors, not MBTI.
    And that's precisely what I've been saying all along (including whenever the subject of DISC comes along). When I first saw it (before I even know about MBTI) I recognized it as the four temperaments. And I'm sure I said that in that thread. (So just like then, you just go on the attack, and you don't even know what you're attacking). That was probably the second system I came to know, and what led me to see a common thread in the expressive/responsive matrix, with the Assertive/Passive and Open/Controlled factors it uses.

    And Berens is the one who compares them to the Interaction Styles. That provides one at least possible connection between the theories.
    And if you recognize that both Interaction Styles AND Keirsey's temperaments represent the four Galen temperaments, then guess, what; each type ends up a BLEND of Galen temperaments! That's the main "correlation" I've been making the whole time. My whole starting point or "home base system" is in fact the Galen temperaments, not MBTI. When I first saw MBTI, its cognitive functions looked like another angle of personality that would be useful. So I sought out to find how it corresponds. The results might not be perfect, but they most have been darn close, at least.

    I applaud DiSC theory being updated to reflect a person more accurately which is more than I can say for MBTI, or the type profiles, which are based on nothing more than the first two functions.
    And that's the good of finding possible correlations between the systems. Then you realize that functions is looking at personality through ONE angle, and temperament is looking at it through another. If one doesn't explain something, then you can try the other.

    So even if one finds the functions don't seem to line up right, then the temperament combo is another clue.

    This is the TiNe approach. It's a different perspective. It's not WRONG just because you disagree with it.

    Oh, the irony of ending with Jung's words:

    Give up all you have ever believed, and then perhaps you will discover something new.
    And that's what you need to do, since you seem to be just reacting to some past offense (or whatever) or stuff said in the past, and not even seeing what's really being said now.
    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

  5. #95
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Yeah, passive-aggressive baiting!
    You know what - go away and stop wasting my time.
    This has now become silly. I stand by my comments in my prior posts.
    If you don't agree, frankly, I don't really care. Our conversations over the years accomplish nothing.

  6. #96
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    :17026:
    You're the one constantly coming after me (directly or indirectly), out of some kind of grudge. I don't go after you commenting on who you like or reference. So I'm not the one who needs to go away. Stop wasting your own and everyone else's time.
    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

  7. #97
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    You're the one constantly coming after me (directly or indirectly), out of some kind of grudge. I don't go after you commenting on who you like or reference.
    The forum has been down for about 10 days but you still want to keep this going?
    If I want to make a remark about Lenore Thomson, I'll do it whether you like it or not.

    For the 13645987th time, DISC and the Galen Temperaments/Humours were not designed to correlate with MBTI, and all models do not have to "fit." That has been my point from the get-go, no matter how many times you try and make this into something personal, when it's not. This is about the application of theory, or in your case, the misapplication of theory.

    There are singles, doubles, and triples in DISC.
    There are singles, doubles, and triples in the Galen Temperaments.

    Just because two people are a certain MBTI type, doesn't mean they will have the same DISC blend, or even the same Galen blend. To create a chart which suggests they all neatly "fit" together, is misleading. You'd think you'd have learned that by now since people of the same MBTI type don't necessarily have the same enneagram type. Just like DISC and the Galen Temps, the Enneagram was not designed to correlate with MBTI, either.

    If you still think this is personal, Eric, rather than seeing my argument is about the application of theory, then it's unfortunate you can't see things clearly.

  8. #98
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    The forum has been down for about 10 days but you still want to keep this going?
    If I want to make a remark about Lenore Thomson, I'll do it whether you like it or not.
    Well, after my last post, the thread must have been up only a few seconds before the ten day outage began (it seemed to be down for good as soon as I made the post), and you managed to get your shot in.

    Now, you say it's a waste of your time, but do you want to discuss a legitimate difference of opinion sensibly, or are you just doing the stuff you've been in trouble for doing to others before?

    I don't mind being challenged, but if you're just going to resort to stuff like that last post, I'm just going to begin taking appropriate action.
    And I only do that, because it is OT here, and a waste of time outside the graveyard. We've already gone off topic, and I'm getting messages to ignore you. But only since this post I'm responding to was a bit more reasonable engagement of the discussion, I'm giving it one more shot.

    So if you want to discuss, then we'll discuss. If it's a waste of your time except to shoot cheap shots, (and then try to make it look like I'm just taking something "personally" for no reason) then you can either quit, or maybe go back to the graveyard a third time.
    If you still think this is personal, Eric, rather than seeing my argument is about the application of theory, then it's unfortunate you can't see things clearly.
    For the 13645987th time, DISC and the Galen Temperaments/Humours were not designed to correlate with MBTI, and all models do not have to "fit." That has been my point from the get-go, no matter how many times you try and make this into something personal, when it's not.
    You keep saying it isn't, but it is clear there is some sort of resentment, particularly from when I mentioned MBTI in your DISC thread (from LAST SUMMER already!); the proof being that you would bring up my whole "pattern" and what I said to others.

    That is personal! And making remarks about how "enamored" I am with Lenore has nothing to do with the application of any theory at all. Just keep all that out of it, and things will be fine. I don't see anyone else doing that (expect in flame wars that get moved to the graveyard, with people getting chastised).

    I just went back and looked over that thread, and I saw that for a lot of people, it was matching, or at least coming close, so all I did was point that out. I had no idea it would piss you off so much.

    I had no problem with you questioning that, and me then explaining my position. But because I still hold my position and still suggest it to others, that's when you begin making an issue out of it like I'm being "closeminded" or something. It's just a hypothesis, for crying out loud!
    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

  9. #99
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    This is about the application of theory, or in your case, the misapplication of theory.
    According to you. (Which theory, even? None of them were designed to exclude the others either, so if they happen to correlate somewhat closely, then it is to some extent a coincidence, and not a misapplication).
    There are singles, doubles, and triples in DISC.
    There are singles, doubles, and triples in the Galen Temperaments.
    And there are doubles built in to type (though discovered later)--the Keirsey temperaments and Interaction Styles, which are the Galen temperaments. (If by doubles and triples, you mean blended types).
    The triple in the system I discuss I have used as one possible explanation of the discrepancies in the correlations. Another is the moderate blends (in the FIRO/APS matrix) where people are essentially inbetween temperaments or types. Bologna (Greed) was a prime example of this.
    There are 2197 combinations in the version of Galen I discuss. So the lack of correlation with MBTI would most likely be from it only having 4×4 blends instead of 13×13×13. So you want to put down MBTI as too narrow, then go ahead. I try to popularize the other system, because I believe it accounts for more variations better. So there shouldn't even be any disagreement on that point. That still doesn't mean there isn't at least a partial correlation.

    Just because two people are a certain MBTI type, doesn't mean they will have the same DISC blend, or even the same Galen blend. To create a chart which suggests they all neatly "fit" together, is misleading. You'd think you'd have learned that by now since people of the same MBTI type don't necessarily have the same enneagram type. Just like DISC and the Galen Temps, the Enneagram was not designed to correlate with MBTI, either.
    I have always said that the correlations were rough, or approximate, and could vary. Some people I just let go trying to get it to fit. Never that the comparisons were "neat" or perfect. Still, most are at least pretty close, and some, right on the mark.
    It shouldn't be hard to see why an ENJ or EST "In Charge" would likely be an E8 or a Dominating or Choleric in one area or another. Same two dimensions; extraversion and task focus, whether you call it "Assertive/Controlled" or "Initiating/Directing".

    If it doesn't fit for a person, then there are a whole bunch of possible reasons why that can be looked at. If you don't agree; no one is forcing it on you. So if I want to reference Lenore or compare systems, why can't I do that whether you like it or not?
    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. #100
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Well, after my last post, the thread must have been up only a few seconds before the ten day outage began (it seemed to be down for good as soon as I made the post), and you managed to get your shot in.

    Now, you say it's a waste of your time, but do you want to discuss a legitimate difference of opinion sensibly, or are you just doing the stuff you've been in trouble for doing to others before?

    I don't mind being challenged, but if you're just going to resort to stuff like that last post, I'm just going to begin taking appropriate action.
    And I only do that, because it is OT here, and a waste of time outside the graveyard. We've already gone off topic, and I'm getting messages to ignore you. But only since this post I'm responding to was a bit more reasonable engagement of the discussion, I'm giving it one more shot.

    So if you want to discuss, then we'll discuss. If it's a waste of your time except to shoot cheap shots, (and then try to make it look like I'm just taking something "personally" for no reason) then you can either quit, or maybe go back to the graveyard a third time.

    You keep saying it isn't, but it is clear there is some sort of resentment, particularly from when I mentioned MBTI in your DISC thread (from LAST SUMMER already!); the proof being that you would bring up my whole "pattern" and what I said to others.

    That is personal! And making remarks about how "enamored" I am with Lenore has nothing to do with the application of any theory at all. Just keep all that out of it, and things will be fine. I don't see anyone else doing that (expect in flame wars that get moved to the graveyard, with people getting chastised).

    I just went back and looked over that thread, and I saw that for a lot of people, it was matching, or at least coming close, so all I did was point that out. I had no idea it would piss you off so much.

    I had no problem with you questioning that, and me then explaining my position. But because I still hold my position and still suggest it to others, that's when you begin making an issue out of it like I'm being "closeminded" or something. It's just a hypothesis, for crying out loud!
    If the mods want to move our posts to the OT area, it's probably a good idea at this point.

Similar Threads

  1. The Hardest Type to be in The Enneagram
    By Stansmith in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 453
    Last Post: 07-19-2017, 05:23 AM
  2. Why You Should Be At The Giza Pyramids on Dec 3, 2012!
    By Mal12345 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-21-2012, 09:15 AM
  3. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-24-2011, 06:23 PM
  4. Why there should be other purpose in life than...
    By alcea rosea in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-05-2009, 08:10 PM
  5. It should be against the law....
    By Little Linguist in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-29-2008, 08:03 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