User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 37 of 37

  1. #31
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    So if I am understanding BlueWing correctly, it is impossible for people to be say ENXP, one is either a thinker or a feeler, there is no in between. There is no "I am sometimes a thinker and sometimes a feeler depending on circumstances." We hold our unconscious preferences no matter the outside circumstances.
    You hold your unconscious preferences, but that does not make your non-preffered process conclusions inherently less worthwhile. There are also people who might have a preference but are so unconscious/compensating/making themselves right that they never use the preferred process well. Also, both of the archetypes for tertiary and inferior can obscure preference. The aspirational role continually states its importance, and the tertiary rides a roller coaster from high to low confidence, and on the high points it can make us second-guess a preference. I don't think there would be an in-between in preference, but all actual behavior is somewhere in between.

  2. #32
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    xNTp
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wedekit View Post
    I thoroughly enjoyed this thread. I don't have any questions or anything, but I would be interested in reading anything else.
    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    Yes, I agree, a very illuminating thread.
    Me three, I certainly gained a better understanding of MBTI theory from reading this thread. Thank you Bluewing and dissonance for allowing us to "eavesdrop" on your "conversation."


    P.S. I guess it might be safe for me to put an "i" where the "x" is.

  3. #33
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    "You're welcome" on "their" be"half".
    we fukin won boys

  4. #34
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    xNTp
    Posts
    5

    Default

    huh... yeah, I got it right.

  5. #35
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    One must not forget the main purpose of the behaviorist is not to understand the mind or even the person. They merely seek to predict an individual's behavior. To such, the mind is a functional blackbox... all he care about is the effect of situations (inputs) affects behavior (outputs). With that said, I highly doubt Keirsey ,or to generalize to any type theorists, can be behaviorists.
    We should not use typology to answer the questions of behaviorists, namely why people do things that they do. Those should be placed within the realm of personality, which Jung's typology has little to do with.


    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Type is indeed amorphous... if it, in fact, exists in the first place. I've previously brought up my views to you in private communications. I do believe people have certain tendencies which manifest themselves as traits... and perhaps these traits can be grouped and named... with MBTI labels I/E, S/N, T/F, J/P. However I do not see why dichotomy between traits must exists. Empirical evidence from the population suggests it does not. Trait distribution follows a bell curve..
    Type is but an unconscious tendencies towards acqusition of certain habits of mind. It would be of great temerity to insist that some of us dont have a stronger natural predilections towards memorization of facts than others. Some of us have a stronger natural predilection towards learning empathy or logic, etc.

    This is especially manifest in small children. Kids' Personality Portraits




    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    With this in mind... I have to raise the question concerning whether temperament and distinct types truly exists. Perhaps that are merely due to artifical categorizing. Following that line of thought, the validity of the underlying judging and perceiving cognitive functions pertaining to specific types must also be questioned. .
    The categorization is quite general and devoid of artificial categorization you mention, as simply saying one is Intuitive means a natural predilection towards the imagination over sensation. Such taxonomy depicts the simplest and most distinct aspects of human nature rather than man made semantics.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #36
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    We should not use typology to answer the questions of behaviorists, namely why people do things that they do. Those should be placed within the realm of personality, which Jung's typology has little to do with.
    Much agreed... the two subjects are unrelated.

    Type is but an unconscious tendencies towards acqusition of certain habits of mind. It would be of great temerity to insist that some of us dont have a stronger natural predilections towards memorization of facts than others. Some of us have a stronger natural predilection towards learning empathy or logic, etc.

    The categorization is quite general and devoid of artificial categorization you mention, as simply saying one is Intuitive means a natural predilection towards the imagination over sensation. Such taxonomy depicts the simplest and most distinct aspects of human nature rather than man made semantics.
    Natural tendencies are readily observed and I am not denying their existence. I simply question the proposed dichotomy between traits. That people can be so neatly divided into one or the other that give arise to these 16 distinct types.

    Why does 16 types exist?

    People tried to derive at independent traits in people... using the lexicon approach and factor analysis they've obtained 5... The so-call Big 5... openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism. So why not have 2^5 = 32 types?

    16 types seems a little arbitrary to me.

    (Before giving me the temperament theory explanation, which I'm quite aware of, what I'm asking for here is hard evidence to back the theory. Not metaphysics.)

  7. #37
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post

    Why does 16 types exist?

    People tried to derive at independent traits in people... using the lexicon approach and factor analysis they've obtained 5... The so-call Big 5... openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism. So why not have 2^5 = 32 types?

    16 types seems a little arbitrary to me.

    (Before giving me the temperament theory explanation, which I'm quite aware of, what I'm asking for here is hard evidence to back the theory. Not metaphysics.)
    Big 5 isnt at all relevant to typology because those are but personality traits not directly associated with our apriori cognitive predilections.

    There is no dichotomy. This should be viewed on a continuum. Some of us have a very strong natural predilection towards Intuition for example, over sensation. Some of us have a strong, but not greatly so preferrence for Intuition. In the case of the former, where we have the very strong preferrence for Intuition, our predilection towards Sensation must be weak. In the second case where predilection towards Intuition is strong, but not extremely so, predilection towards Sensation should be weak, but also not extremely so.

    Hence in the second case, our preferrence for Thinking for example, may be stronger than our preferrence for Intuition. In such a case the predilection towards Thinking is the strongest of all and towards Feeling the weakest. In most cases it is obvious which trait we naturally have the easiest time with. But this is not at all to imply that everyone with the strongest tendency towards Thinking for example, is equally at ease with Thinking as all others who also have the strongest tendency towards this faculty. Again this is a continuum. We have a faculty that we are most comfortable with, and the faculty that is directly opposed to this one, we must be least comfortable with. Yet there is no rigid and exacting specification to what degree we must all be comfortable with our most easily handled faculty.

    Must definitions of Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensation be rigid? No, each of these terms encompasses a myriad of psychological tendencies, which only in general terms are best alluded to what we refer to as Thinking, Feeling and Intuiting in colloquial terms. Yet certainly it would be quite difficult to mistake any of those tendencies most easily associated with Thinking for Feeling, or those with Intuition for Sensation. Despite that they are quite abstract and amorphous, they are far from meaningless.

    As for hard evidence, we simply notice that Thinking children tend to test better in logic and mathematics than Feeling children. (Not those who merely score Thinking on an MBTI test, but the children we have thoroughly examined and established that their strongest natural predilection is towards Thinking.) Intuiting children do best in activities which require imagination and manipulation of abstract variables. Sensing children do best at tasks which require concrete, hands on activities and applications, as well as memorization of facts. Feeling children do best in activities that test our ability to relate to other people and understand our own emotions. The correlation between those factors is significant to the point where it cannot be ignored.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution of typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 01-31-2013, 05:33 AM
  2. Problem of Religious bigotry
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 03:57 PM
  3. how typology turned into a a problem of my soul
    By nanook in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-29-2011, 07:19 AM
  4. A Note on the Problem of Induction
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:47 AM
  5. Problem of Problematicality
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 05:36 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