User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 14 of 14

  1. #11
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mal12345 View Post
    Is there a difference between the Ames room illusion and the moon illusion? "The moon illusion is one of the most famous of all illusions. Stated simply, the full moon, when just above the horizon, appears much larger than when it is overhead. Yet the moon, a quarter of a million miles away from the earth, always subtends the same angle wherever it is in the sky, roughly 0.5 degrees."
    I never heard of the moon illusion before and wikipedia says that there is debates on the causes and lists few possible explanations for it.

    But why does it matter?
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  2. #12
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    The moon illusion does not require any special rooms. All it requires is nature. You can see it every time you watch the moon rise and set.

    I think one of the problems I have with the Quenk book is that I don't identify with the INTPs in the examples Quenk provides. Their methods are not my methods, for example, the INTP mother who only wants to focus on whatever is rational.

    Part of the problem is that the people described that book are in some ways beneath me. They only think up a very few limited methods to apply to life challenges, and they believe those methods are the only tools available. And in the case of the 50-year-old INTP mother in another example, who feels she has emotionally neglected her family, she has merely repressed her "mommy" traits and is not expressing inferior Fe at all. We are both INTP but I can't see the similarity between us.

    It can't ALL be reduced to functions. Believe me. Reductionism is a powerful intellectual tool, but it leaves out any content that does not agree with its formula. This is just as true of materialism/behaviorism as it is with Jungianism. Materialism cannot explain the spiritual side of life - it cannot even explain consciousness itself; but Jungianism cannot explain how the inferior function delivers its unconscious content to the tertiary without appealing to a materialistic explanation. (Jung had no concept of a tertiary function, by the way.)
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  3. #13
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    I dont think i have ever seen moon rise or set. It usually is up already before it gets dark and cant really see the horizon because all the forest and buildings.

    Well the example INTP there was pretty Fe retard, i mean i have figured out that the Fe approach in this sort of situations works long time ago, and im just turning 25.. someone being 50 and not having this figured out sounds more like an exception.

    Anyways, you dont seem like an INTP at all to me.

    Reductionism doesent have to leave out what doesent fit, if you do that, thats just lying to yourself and others, not scientific in any level.
    For example jung reduced his system not to have neurological aspects in it, simply because there was so little info about it at the time, and even today, i doubt that he would find more answers from neurological point of view, anyways its not there and because its not there, his model is reductionistic, every model in the world is, because you cant include everything to everything. Nevertheless his ideas of archetypes, functions, ego, unconscious etc fit the neurological view also.

    What comes to jung and third, yes jusg had the idea of third, third is quite essesntial part of his typology.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #14
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    I imagine Jung as a pyschologist in his practice in inpatient facilities, and I think about how he must have gotten so bored of seeing the same psychoses and neuroses every day, that his Ne couldn't help but notice patterns in how different people perceived and processed data, leading to his discovery of some of the fundamental working of our higher brains, and how it made us have different expressions while at the same time not necessarily being unique in the human context; how we all, being human, basically perceive or intuit, and feel or think, with either an extroverted or introverted persuasion.

    His theory, while awesome, was just scratching the surface of our minds and what's makes us us. He preferred to delve into unconscious wanderings and lose himself in how our primitive brains tie into ancient wisdom and even metaphysical resonances. Thereby effectually ..... deflecting? any further mind explorations of how the psyche worked. But how much further could he have gone anyway? Science needs to contribute to our knowledge of how the brain works, and how the mind/body connection manifests, which makes our personality.

    Jung discovered fundamental tools our minds use to help us be in our world. But, you are right, that does little to explain our emotions and why we feel and behave the way we do. I think that is why we have to explore further, and flesh out, Jung's work with perhaps Freud's ideas on the id, superego, and ego. I think these help explain what is missing in Jung's work regarding the mind.

    That is also why I don't like to get into debates on function hierarchy past the first few preferred functions. And actually Jung seems to really just speak to two main functions in people as well in P.T. Because in the context of a human being's life and maturity, a juvenile human seems to definitely, given a controlled environment allowing for natural growth and expression, prefer one or two functions as they develop. One is how they prefer to perceive/intuit, and one is how they rationalize their world. Once they are matured, which is up for debate but somewhere between the ages of ?15-24?, I think function development becomes more heavily reliant on environmental factors than inherited traits, though they all work together, of course. If environment is constant as a human grows and matures, it will have less influence on the natural innate functions that manifest. As environment changes, as when a child leaves home around 18+, environment will play more of a role in function usage. If environment is always fluid and never reliable, then that might manifest as even the first two preferred functions being less set, resulting in a more fluid personality type; however, there IS an innate preference for personality that is heritable.

    Jungian is perhaps nature, and we need to incorporate how nurture affects our personality.

    I think enneagram and the instinctual stacking (especially) does a good job of bridging this gap of how our ego development affects our typology, making for a unique expression of how we are in our world as individuals; bringing in the 'human' component which you aptly describe is lacking in a strict Jungian view of personality. Am I a 4 sx/so/sp because I am melancholy and authentic due to my environmental influences? I think so, which is also, for me, why it feels more subject to change based on phases I've gone through in my life, where I've been more 2-ish, or 5-ish for example.

    Typology shouldn't change because it IS our inherent personality that we given when we are conceived.



    And, yes, I think the Ames room concept is similar to the Moon Illusion your referred to. And for fun, here is an optical illusion for you. Is the hill going up or down?



    But no matter what you see, or feel, about it, the hill is, and always was, going down to meet the sea...


    EDIT: lol. well, there is a spot on the hill where you don't believe what you see/feel, though you cannot see the illusion in that photo.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-10-2011, 04:19 AM
  2. Cognitive functions & preference for quiet or not so quiet study environments
    By Usehername in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-02-2008, 03:16 PM
  3. Why are philosophers so curious about god?
    By Nocapszy in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 04:57 PM
  4. [NT] What are you most concerned about?
    By Lucifer in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 05:52 PM
  5. N: what are we actually speaking about ?
    By developer in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-15-2007, 05:05 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