User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 102

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Well, gentlemen, explosive but ultimately I can see there are a few different perspectives.

    This doesn't seem to be based on knowledge and understanding of the cognitive style models but ultimately on how the cognitive archetypes are defined. There is a massive problem with typology that everyone reads the same books but seems to come to wildly different conclusions even though the experiences of the types they have seems to be the same.

  2. #72
    ⒺⓉⒷ 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
    Everything doesn't have to fit. If that's too difficult for you to grasp, do something about it.
    Nobody said anything about "have". You're the one making an issue, not me, so why should I have to do anything? I still don't see why it's any problem to you.

    You're making things up as you go along.

    It's impossible to take you seriously, at this point.
    Well, I thought I suddenly remembered you mentioning the Singer-Loomis once, and by criticizing me for "trying to make everything fit" just for mentioning different function order models in relation to MBTI type (not even other systems like DISC or APS in this discussion), and that a person should be able to have any "variation", you seem to be arguing that function orders don't even correlate with MBTI. That's all that was being correlated in this discussion, which was originally about typing by the tertiary function.
    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

  3. #73
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Not too long ago, there was one or two people whose order came out TiTeNeNiSeSiFiFe, or something like that, and I think there was someone on the F side like that as well)/ I did not try to force them into any "paint by numbers" or anything like that. I pointed out that probably was just reflecting their general function preference, and that they were strong in both attitudes of each. If someone else's results come out similar to the ship order; I'll point that out (and since people are mentioning Socionics, that's another one where #7/8 in Beebe's order ends up 3rd and 4th). There were a couple of people whose order was so out of place, I really could't make anything of it, and I probably turned to temperament/Interaction Styles instead.
    I think what I don't really understand about this approach is that it seems then that none of these models are actually 'right', or the 'truth', then. What I hear you saying is that if one model doesn't work for someone, then you go to another one, and if that model doesn't work, you go to another one. It's almost like...one might as well start creating an infinite number of models - and just start making some up while one is at it - just so as to be able to fit the person in a model. Doesn't matter which one.. as long as they fit ONE of the many, then it's all good. I'm not sure what this proves though, really. If not everyone applies to one modelling system, and it doesn't reflect reality, then what's the point of a given system at all?

    I remember a few years ago, I became incredibly frustrated/confused with the vast number of systems out there, and methods to typing. I want there to be definitively one and only one - the Truth. lol. I concluded at that time that they didn't all seamlessly connect, and tie off nicely. Many contradicted one another. Definitions were disagreed upon. A person could conceivably be typed as one thing in one system, and another in another system. Which is 'right'? Does it matter? And what's the point of these various systems anyway if they don't integrate and if not everyone can fit into one system under the same unambiguous rules?

    I guess all of it goes to show precisely why none of this is actually scientific, and it's all still evolving and very much in theory stage, not been totally crystallized yet.

    Ah yes, my quarterly rant. lol.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  4. #74
    Senior Member IndyGhost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    I thought it was a good idea... and it makes sense to me.

    We're referring to the tertiary of our shadow, correct? I think this is definitely the one we have the most distaste for.

    For me, that's Ne. I just have so little trust in Ne.

    For INTJ's, it's Fe. And it's Fe that get's me and my INTJ boyfriend into fights.

    For ESFJ, it's Ni... which is certainly where me and my sister clash. She sees me as a paranoid, against the system, hippie. (Though there are certainly Fi/Fe and Si/Se clashes as well. It's Ni that really makes her see me as weird.)

    I am following you correctly, right?
    "I don't know a perfect person.
    I only know flawed people who are still worth loving."
    -John Green

  5. #75
    Senior Member IndyGhost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    Isn't this more of the point of most resistance?
    "I don't know a perfect person.
    I only know flawed people who are still worth loving."
    -John Green

  6. #76
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascadeco View Post
    I think what I don't really understand about this approach is that it seems then that none of these models are actually 'right', or the 'truth', then. What I hear you saying is that if one model doesn't work for someone, then you go to another one, and if that model doesn't work, you go to another one. It's almost like...one might as well start creating an infinite number of models - and just start making some up while one is at it - just so as to be able to fit the person in a model. Doesn't matter which one.. as long as they fit ONE of the many, then it's all good. I'm not sure what this proves though, really. If not everyone applies to one modelling system, and it doesn't reflect reality, then what's the point of a given system at all?

    I remember a few years ago, I became incredibly frustrated/confused with the vast number of systems out there, and methods to typing. I want there to be definitively one and only one - the Truth. lol. I concluded at that time that they didn't all seamlessly connect, and tie off nicely. Many contradicted one another. Definitions were disagreed upon. A person could conceivably be typed as one thing in one system, and another in another system. Which is 'right'? Does it matter? And what's the point of these various systems anyway if they don't integrate and if not everyone can fit into one system under the same unambiguous rules?

    I guess all of it goes to show precisely why none of this is actually scientific, and it's all still evolving and very much in theory stage, not been totally crystallized yet.

    Ah yes, my quarterly rant. lol.
    Again, I look at them as evidences. there's nothing hard or set in stone. The whole theory is often dismissed for being too abstract and not having about concreteness to it).

    So yes, we're all affected differently by our circumstances. If we're comparing function orders, I believe the different models point to different inclinations that might surface. the original four function model just shows the natural development of the primary function-attitudes. Beebe's extended model just shows how the opposite attitudes "shadow" the primary ones. (along with the corresponding archetypes, whose emotional images the functions translate). It was not intended to indicate strengths or even "development" order.
    So if a person has "#8" or "#7" coming up "strong", then, there are two other models which explain why they might appear to be 3rd or 4th in order. Like the influence of the J/P preference, which the brain hemisphere model is ultimately about.
    This is not to say it has to be that way for everyone. Other factors might change it.

    Type is determined purely by the dominant and auxiliary. It's often been said that the other functions are more "up in the air". Well, there are different models to explain different ways they might appear.

    So again, it's all about looking at a complex system through different angles.
    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. #77
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Nobody said anything about "have". You're the one making an issue, not me, so why should I have to do anything? I still don't see why it's any problem to you.
    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.

    Well, I thought I suddenly remembered you mentioning the Singer-Loomis once, and by criticizing me for "trying to make everything fit" just for mentioning different function order models in relation to MBTI type (not even other systems like DISC or APS in this discussion), and that a person should be able to have any "variation", you seem to be arguing that function orders don't even correlate with MBTI. That's all that was being correlated in this discussion.
    Ah, there's the key word: ORDER. (Not models.) Eric, let's try Katharine Myers' words again, since you aren't listening:

    Developmental models imply there is one particular pattern to be followed for 'healthy' development. According to type theory, however, each person develops variations of the pattern whether through choice or adaptation. It is important not to apply any model, including this one, too rigidly to oneself and certainly not to others. A particular adaptation may be serving one well; another may have been useful in the past but is no longer productive.
    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.

    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!"

    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.

    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. 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.

    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. 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:

    Jung's model focused on the Dominant and suggested that all the other functions had to develop in the opposite attitude in order to “balance” the dominant. His descriptions of the eight types were based almost solely on the Dominant and feel unbalanced to those of us who have worked with type in the post-Myers period.
    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.

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

    Give up all you have ever believed, and then perhaps you will discover something new.

  8. #78
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I'll point that out (and since people are mentioning Socionics, that's another one where #7/8 in Beebe's order ends up 3rd and 4th)
    Socionics does not order 7/8 as 3/4. I mean, it's not simple. That's the block where one is least adept. i.e. It's still 7/8, in Beebe's terms.

    All it's doing is listing a type's main strengths and weaknesses in the first two blocks. 1 and 2 (dominant and auxiliary) comprise the ego block. 3 and 4 are not tertiary and inferior. They are tertiary opposite and inferior opposite. It's called the superego block, and is rejected for comfortable use of the ego block. The Super Id block (MBTI tertiary and inferior) is used (and appreciated in others).

  9. #79
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyAnnaJoan View Post
    I thought it was a good idea... and it makes sense to me.

    We're referring to the tertiary of our shadow, correct? I think this is definitely the one we have the most distaste for.

    For me, that's Ne. I just have so little trust in Ne.

    For INTJ's, it's Fe. And it's Fe that get's me and my INTJ boyfriend into fights.

    For ESFJ, it's Ni... which is certainly where me and my sister clash. She sees me as a paranoid, against the system, hippie. (Though there are certainly Fi/Fe and Si/Se clashes as well. It's Ni that really makes her see me as weird.)

    I am following you correctly, right?
    I don't think Ni PoLR would work that way necessarily. It could be more about their lack of ease with the development/future outcome of things. Does she display any of that? They rely on a more detailed, sequential approach to stay on top of matters. This can make some controlling or want to plan and run things. And instead of seeing you as paranoid, they'd be the paranoid ones at times. Perhaps they'd be a person who asks you to do something and gives you detailed instructions to insure it gets done exactly as they see fit. And the minute they see you deviate from it, they might get paranoid and crack down, so to speak (this is just an example btw.. not necessarily what they'd all do). The same could apply in how they simply tell you a story.. they may want to be detailed there too, filling in gaps, not trusting others to make the connections.

    Then again, if she's invested a lot in "the system" (lol), and finds security in how it charts the future for her, then I can see her clash with you on that as well.

  10. #80
    Senior Member IndyGhost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    Am I at least following the right trail of thought? I'm not as familiar with socionics and certainly not PoLR. I tried to look it up a bit, but with failed results. And then sort of got bored hoping you kids would fill me in.

    But, I might be able to see what you mean... this would be typical of ESxJ's in general, correct?
    "I don't know a perfect person.
    I only know flawed people who are still worth loving."
    -John Green

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