a thing to keep in mind about functions (Ni as example)

[Mal12345]

Ni has an attitude where the world as sensed (what we see, hear, smell, touch) is illusory and merely a phenomena which blinds us from what is. I think Kant is a classic Ni user when he insists on "things-in-themselves" and "numena" which cannot be known but are also truer.

You are confusing transcendental idealism with empirical idealism. Kant did not argue or state that "things-in-themselves" and "nuomena" are truer or that reality is illusory. That is a common misconception about Kant that is even taught in colleges. Read Kant's Refutation of Material Idealism, Henry Allison is also helpful.

 

[garbage]

The question is, did Jung believe that someone can be a pure type?

Perhaps a line of questioning like:

Did Jung believe that someone can be a pure type?
Can someone be a pure type?
Is it useful to think of people as pure types? Is it useful to talk of pure types?

They probably have similar answers, but separating the questions might be a useful exercise.

 

[Mal12345]

Perhaps a line of questioning like:

Did Jung believe that someone can be a pure type?
Can someone be a pure type?
Is it useful to think of people as pure types? Is it useful to talk of pure types?

They probably have similar answers, but separating the questions might be a useful exercise.

Isn't he only considering these types abstractly, AS IF pure types could exist? That's what such abstraction is for, and it is not necessary for real examples to exist at all.

 

[Poki]

Isn't he only considering these types abstractly, AS IF pure types could exist? That's what such abstraction is for, and it is not necessary for real examples to exist at all.

Then what is the point of it...isnt it nothing more then Sci-Fi at that point? Pure entertainment.

 

[miss fortune]

can anyone be truly evaluated in an unbiased way with a self reporting test? worth looking at before dragging up arguments by Kant perhaps

 

[garbage]

Isn't he only considering these types abstractly, AS IF pure types could exist? That's what such abstraction is for, and it is not necessary for real examples to exist at all.

That's my understanding, at least.

Then what is the point of it...isnt it nothing more then Sci-Fi at that point? Pure entertainment.

Ideals that we can strive for or attempt to understand have a purpose, even if they're unreachable. Christians strive to be like Jesus, for example, even though they maintain that being exactly like him is impossible.

can anyone be truly evaluated in an unbiased way with a self reporting test? worth looking at before dragging up arguments by Kant perhaps

Here, we've gotta be careful to separate the instrument from the thing it's trying to measure. I'm not talking about the MBTI itself.

 

[Poki]

Ideals that we can strive for or attempt to understand have a purpose, even if they're unreachable. Christians strive to be like Jesus, for example, even though they maintain that being like him is impossible.

Yeah, I guess, if you need that kind of thing. I prefer to focus on actual people and real life to reach forward.

 

[miss fortune]

Here, we've gotta be careful to separate the instrument from the thing it's trying to measure. I'm not talking about the MBTI itself.

I've never been much of one for putting faith in test results or anything of the sort just because people can't view themselves accurately... it's like trying to say what your voice sounds like without listening to a recording, only to the way that you hear yourself through your jawbone and inner ear

 

[Mal12345]

Yeah, I guess, if you need that kind of thing. I prefer to focus on actual people and real life to reach forward.

I have an idea for you: Do both.

Good golly Miss Molly, I thought we were all aware that an ESTP doesn't exist outside an intellectual construct.

 

[Mal12345]

I've never been much of one for putting faith in test results or anything of the sort just because people can't view themselves accurately... it's like trying to say what your voice sounds like without listening to a recording, only to the way that you hear yourself through your jawbone and inner ear

You should try yodeling in the canyon sometime.

 

[miss fortune]

I thought we were all aware that an ESTP doesn't exist outside an intellectual construct.

*pokes at self* I feel pretty real to ME

You should try yodeling in the canyon sometime.

I'm sure that would terrify all of the nearby fauna into hiding... I'm tone deaf

 

[garbage]

I've never been much of one for putting faith in test results or anything of the sort just because people can't view themselves accurately... it's like trying to say what your voice sounds like without listening to a recording, only to the way that you hear yourself through your jawbone and inner ear

Yeah, don't let the MBTI as an instrument color your perception of all survey methods. There are great, more reliable techniques in the field, and the field is just advancing all the time!

Here, I talk about the functions as if they're actually valuable or accurate constructs, regardless of how well the MBTI itself captures them. To me, they're just ways of categorizing and organizing how we talk about the stuff that happens in our brain. Thus, we separate the functions from the thing that's supposed to measure how those functions play in our own heads.

I call for a further separation of those functions (as ideals) from how they actually do play out in our heads, just because of the confusion it causes--again, they're not superpowers.

But then...

Yeah, I guess, if you need that kind of thing. I prefer to focus on actual people and real life to reach forward.

... it seems like separating ideals from the people who embody them to an imperfect extent might not be useful for everyone.

One good way to understand, define, or refine the functions is to see how those who identify with a particular set (e.g. Ne Ti) act. That's akin to the process of validation, where we compare our understanding to the real world to see if our understanding actually matches what happens.

 

[Poki]

I have an idea for you: Do both.

Good golly Miss Molly, I thought we were all aware that an ESTP doesn't exist outside an intellectual construct.

When I find an "Ideal" I may strive for it. I have yet to find one. Maybe because I am looking at the real world. It seems more like "mental masterbation" to me.

 

[miss fortune]

finding a completely accurate method of analysis would be just about impossible to find though considering that any human being changes depending on the situation and experiences and things of that sort... personality is fluid instead of static... fluid more like unmelted wax, in that people aren't different people every day, but nobody is the same person today as they were 10 years ago... sometimes even some of the basic personality fundamentals can change in that time

 

[Poki]

One good way to understand, define, or refine the functions is to see how those who identify with a particular set (e.g. Ne Ti) act. That's akin to the process of validation, where we compare our understanding to the real world to see if our understanding actually matches what happens.

I agree, where does expanding beyond whats real apply?

 

[Poki]

finding a completely accurate method of analysis would be just about impossible to find though considering that any human being changes depending on the situation and experiences and things of that sort... personality is fluid instead of static... fluid more like unmelted wax, in that people aren't different people every day, but nobody is the same person today as they were 10 years ago... sometimes even some of the basic personality fundamentals can change in that time

LMAO...I actually typed something along those same lines and then deleted it because i didnt feel like going that route.

 

[miss fortune]

LMAO...I actually typed something along those same lines and then deleted it because i didnt feel like going that route.

obviously a case of great minds thinking alike!

 

[garbage]

finding a completely accurate method of analysis would be just about impossible to find though considering that any human being changes depending on the situation and experiences and things of that sort... personality is fluid instead of static... fluid more like unmelted wax, in that people aren't different people every day, but nobody is the same person today as they were 10 years ago... sometimes even some of the basic personality fundamentals can change in that time

Yeah, like that one time when a dude got a pole through his freakin' head and his personality drastically changed. Geez! I don't think any typology theory would accurately explain that.

Even still, typology and trait-based theories like the Big Five might still be useful. The thing is, after we've theorized a bit, we've gotta find their limitations. We ask: do these theories hold up for individuals over time? Do they necessarily need to? For example, Multiplicity posits that our traits are situational. I believe that's a valid line of inquiry--probably a result of trying to tie theories back to the real world.

If they don't hold up for people over time, they might still be good as snapshots at points in time, typical representations for personal development, etc. We could use them to guide individuals' direction from the present moment, even if we don't pretend that their personalities are static.

I agree, where does expanding beyond whats real apply?

The way I understand it, it applies in actually developing a theory. The theory is an attempt to explain what's real and generalize/extrapolate beyond what we already know to hypothesize about whatever else is out there. The problem is when we don't try to tie that new theory back into the real world.


I am actually right there with you guys--the question of "are these theories valid?" is not asked enough.

 

[Mal12345]

*pokes at self* I feel pretty real to ME

But you're not AN estp.

I'm sure that would terrify all of the nearby fauna into hiding... I'm tone deaf

If yodeling doesn't reveal your true self, then it's impossible.

 

[Poki]

Yeah, like that one time when a dude got a pole through his freakin' head and his personality drastically changed. I don't think any typology theory would accurately explain that.

Even still, typology and trait-based theories like the Big Five might still be useful. The thing is, after we've theorized a bit, we've gotta find their limitations. We ask: do these theories hold up for individuals over time? Do they necessarily need to? For example, Multiplicity posits that our traits are situational. I believe that's a valid line of inquiry--probably a result of trying to tie theories back to the real world.

If they don't hold up for people over time, they might still be good as snapshots at points in time, typical representations for personal development, etc. We could use them to guide individuals' direction from the present moment, even if we don't pretend that their personalities are static.



The way I understand it, it applies in actually developing a theory. The theory is an attempt to explain what's real and generalize/extrapolate beyond what we already know to hypothesize about whatever else is out there. The problem is when we don't try to tie that new theory back into the real world.

Ok, take his type and create a 3d representation...take a pole and shove it through the 3d representation. Thats his new type.

You realize how hard it would be to find that "snapshot" that applies at that "point" in time. By the time you do the point in time has changed...the person has progressed. A person will always represent his current snapshot though so if you focus on the "person" you will always be working with the current snapshot.