User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 93

  1. #11
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mal12345 View Post
    My question for the forum is: how am I supposed to read someone's mind in order to gain knowledge of their cognitive functions? All we have to go on are externalities: style of clothing, manner of speech (e.g., choosing to say "think" instead of "feel," talking more slowly than quickly), and body language. All the evidence has to be tossed into a pile and carefully sorted through. There is no mind-reading.
    All of which is true... but too extreme.

    Just because you can't see what is under the surface doesn't mean you can't gather some decent ideas about what is under there, either if it is expressed directly (because sometimes people DO express such things via words, describing their own inner states) or by the way the person moves in the external world.

    (You can't see the wind either, but you can guess when it is present by observing the things you can see and seeing them behave in certain ways.

    We can also often tell when people are lying because things don't quite add up to the truth on the surface in terms of body language, context, tone of voice, whatever else. I think maybe lie detection is a good one, because there are many people who follow a bunch of contrived rules to somehow determine what is a lie and are typically wrong, whereas others are watching context, how things are expressed, etc., rather than relying on the rules and can sense when something is "off.")
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mal12345 View Post
    Bedrock? Isn't that just a village in the Flintstones? The MBTI is a patchwork of ideas, JCF theory does not by itself imply any four-letter designations. In fact, I was reading over on PersN that the original theory can be used to form 32 types, not just 16.
    I would go the other way and say it forms 8 types. The rocketscientists at pern haven't got that far yet; although between sending me harassing skype messages simulatedgodoftypology/gambling and losing was willing to countenance it.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    I would go the other way and say it forms 8 types. The rocketscientists at pern haven't got that far yet; although between sending me harassing skype messages simulatedgodoftypology/gambling and losing was willing to countenance it.
    John Fucgjack, or whatever his name is, also predicted 32 types, once the basic MBTI flaw is removed. And he doesn't hang around these forums.
    "If you try to build something that is idiot-proof, the universe will build a better idiot."
    I'm an extrovert trapped within an introverted soul.

  4. #14
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    7,807

    Default

    Consider this. You can categorise human beings as one type. Human beings. Or you can break it down to colour, black, red, yellow and white. Or you can break it down to ethnicity or culture. Or you can break it down to individuals.

    You're looking for perfection in an imperfect system where there are no perfect systems.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Consider this. You can categorise human beings as one type. Human beings. Or you can break it down to colour, black, red, yellow and white. Or you can break it down to ethnicity or culture. Or you can break it down to individuals.

    You're looking for perfection in an imperfect system where there are no perfect systems.
    Actually, I was criticizing dogmatism and a religious attitude regarding typology. So you should be criticizing me for expecting perfection out of people.

    But what I'm seeing here is not a "lack of perfection." Everybody makes mistakes. What I am seeing is a perfect lack of reason.
    "If you try to build something that is idiot-proof, the universe will build a better idiot."
    I'm an extrovert trapped within an introverted soul.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    You're looking for perfection in an imperfect system where there are no perfect systems.
    No one is looking for perfection.

    A decent level of accuracy, however, is not an unreasonable expectation.
    Considering the large number of people who have repeatedly claimed their responses to many test questions would be "both," if allowed to answer truthfully, is enough to create reasonable doubt that a decent level of accuracy exists.

  7. #17
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mal12345 View Post
    Thinking you have found the Answer is not a problem for me. Everybody has their own answer. But that's just it - it's YOUR answer. I will debate with you logically over the validity of your answer.
    Fine by me. I already know that we all interpret these personality type systems in different ways. I emphasize the 8 original types, and at the same time I do not care for most of behavior or appearance based typing, but I also know that there are my own biases in this and that this way of looking at it doesn't work for everyone.

    The main problem with Jung's theory is that he moved from cognitive functions to personality types without regard to any scientific study whatsoever.
    Why is there always the demand for scientific study? Since when are personalities supposed to be easily made scientific? I can't see how personality type could really be made scientific until we are able to read other people's minds over a significant course of their lifetime. Until then, we just have to trust that what they think what they are is correct.

    So far I haven't seen anybody who has spiritually profited from JCF.
    My aim isn't spiritual profit. It's an interesting thing to study that has been very helpful in understanding me and other people. How much more do I need to get from it?

    Personality typing is about the whole character of the person, not these few cognitive functions you can barely manage to identify, if at all.
    Yeah, I mostly agree with you there.... there has to be a combination of the holistic and the reductionisitic.

    For us, the clues to personality are always external to the person, not hidden in the secret recesses of their minds.
    But why does it have to be at either of these two extremes? Why can't it be internal to the person but at the same time in full view to them?


    My question for the forum is: how am I supposed to read someone's mind in order to gain knowledge of their cognitive functions?
    We can't really read each others minds. It all is sort of a big guessing game based on what people say or represent about how their minds work.

    The basic assumption of the MBTI is, for example, that "Introverted Sensing with Thinking" means ISTJ. Jung's theory never implied it, and I don't see why he would ever have allowed it.
    Ummm, that's just the way MBTI defined it. It's kind of hard to argue stuff that's just true by definition.

    I've stated the basic assumption of JCF already: Jung asserted that cognitive functions create a certain character. You can read this for yourself in Personality Types. His discussions of the individual types are divided into two distinct parts. The first part discusses the function itself; the second part analyzes the character produced by this function. All I'm saying is that there is no proof that the first part leads to the second.
    This is interesting though..... I'll have to come back to you on this one.

  8. #18
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    7,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    No one is looking for perfection.

    A decent level of accuracy, however, is not an unreasonable expectation.
    Considering the large number of people who have repeatedly claimed their responses to many test questions would be "both," if allowed to answer truthfully, is enough to create reasonable doubt that a decent level of accuracy exists.
    Any personality testing is only as accurate as understanding of the questions, validity of the questions, honesty and self-knowledge of the individuals taking them.

    I don't consider MBTI or JCF to be the blueprint of people. But I do think it has uses, in its insight into people through categorisation.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Any personality testing is only as accurate as understanding of the questions, validity of the questions, honesty and self-knowledge of the individuals taking them.

    I don't consider MBTI or JCF to be the blueprint of people. But I do think it has uses, in its insight into people through categorisation.
    There isn't going to be much insight into anyone if they're miscategorized to begin with. It should have been obvious that miscategorization becomes inevitable if people are not permitted to answer questions truthfully. MBTI types are frequently nothing more than an artifact of a forced-choice testing method, rather than a tool yielding any significant level of insight.

    If you want insight, try conversing with a person like any rational human being would.
    That way you won't be operating on little more than sloppy assumptions.

  10. #20
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    The thing that I don't quite understand is why people would want to deal with absolutes in the first place, especially when it comes to theories and even more so physiologically unproven ones like these.

    Take what you need and leave the rest. You don't have to accept the theory in its entirety. I don't think anyone could. This same debate comes up time and again and ends in the same way. Let the horse sleep in his grave!

Similar Threads

  1. Answer them or don't.
    By Saslou in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 06:30 PM
  2. [SP] Ask an SP, get a practical answer
    By BlackCat in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 05:06 PM
  3. [ISTJ] ISTJ's will you answer this please?
    By cornflakegirl in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 07:12 PM
  4. Answer me!
    By Atomic Fiend in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 06-23-2009, 05:51 PM
  5. I am the answer.
    By Rhu in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-23-2007, 10:33 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