User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 37 of 37

  1. #31
    Lay the coin on my tongue SilkRoad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,939

    Default

    I'm inclined to think that N's are perfectly capable of having conversations about extremely concrete things, and S's about extremely abstract things, but both are likely to lose interest faster, and perhaps not go quite as deep.
    Female
    INFJ
    Enneagram 6w5 sp/sx


    I DOORSLAMMING

  2. #32
    The Iron Giant
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilkRoad View Post
    I'm inclined to think that N's are perfectly capable of having conversations about extremely concrete things, and S's about extremely abstract things, but both are likely to lose interest faster, and perhaps not go quite as deep.
    I think a lot of function theory bears this out, too, to some extent. Jung's description of the extraverted intuitive type leans heavily on a kind of addiction to novelty. In his eyes, Ne doms love to see and do new things, and lose interest quickly because those things stop being new too quickly for their tastes. He describes Se doms as loving to see and do pleasurable things, meaning there's less of an interest in whether those things are new, as long as they feel good (either they're comforting, or they're exciting, or they taste good if it's food, etc). Then he describes Si doms as living in a magical world, detached from reality and hardly able to connect with the object. Of course, Jung's descriptions all are of the abnormal, so they're extremes of these types, which we might call unhealthy. Also, this doesn't speak to the rational types, as their perceiving functions are auxiliary.

  3. #33
    The Iron Giant
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Keirsey doesn't believe in the functions, so that's moot with him. (There's a person named Janet Germane who supports the NP and NJ groups. Those are actually part of the Interaction Styles when factored with E/I, as are ST/SF).
    Keirsey's temperaments are simply those that match Plato's four kinds of men, and indirectly through those, the classic temperaments.
    I don't think it is moot. Keirsey built his ideas on Jung's, and shares the labeling system with MBTI. That invites comparison and criticism, particularly when his system groups types in ways that violates those systems. I can accept that his perspective on these differs from theirs, but he could have gone without calling his guardians "SJs" and his rationals "NTs." The latter annoys me doubly so because the term "rational" was taken in typology (by Jung) as well, and conflicts with his definition.

    (BTW, I can tall an N when they can have a conversation with me about deeply conceptual stuff like this. I've always had problems striking up good discussions with S's).
    As an S, I might give you mixed results. It depends what you're talking about. If it's something I've covered in the past and don't have an interest in, I won't really want to talk about it unless we're good friends and I see it as a kind of "let's compare notes" thing. If it's totally new, I probably will find it very interesting. If it's something I'm really interested in, like typology, psychology, philosophy and such, I'll enjoy it a lot. If it's something totally ridiculous that sounds like you're pulling my leg, I will instinctively want to leave the conversation.

  4. #34
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilkRoad View Post
    I'm inclined to think that N's are perfectly capable of having conversations about extremely concrete things, and S's about extremely abstract things, but both are likely to lose interest faster, and perhaps not go quite as deep.
    it's less about the thingness. not so much concrete or abstract things, when all things can be treated as concrete or abstract. because to some extent, all things must be both, because they do take on relatively consistent experience that is based both on immediately tangible experience and those aspects of experience that are less discrete and more based on a larger pattern where the individual tangible features start to only be predictive of what the thing might be (and being comfortable feeling this predictiveness in statues of continual flux).

    so what i'm saying is that it's not whether you talk about concrete or abstract things as much as it is the WAY you talk about things in general. it's a way of rendering your experience. how much you can live in a virtual space (either internally or externally) made by synthesizing patterns, through analogy, rather than treating things as if they simply were a list of features and effects that was itself unchangeable and discrete.

    in an awake, alert mind, all parts of the mind work simultaneously in all individuals. but a well-placed floodlight or two makes a world of difference in your ability to be at home in a place and truly thrive. and signifies a massive investment strategy for how you will be responsive and adaptable to a world that requires you to constantly learn.

  5. #35
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
    I don't think it is moot. Keirsey built his ideas on Jung's, and shares the labeling system with MBTI. That invites comparison and criticism, particularly when his system groups types in ways that violates those systems. I can accept that his perspective on these differs from theirs, but he could have gone without calling his guardians "SJs" and his rationals "NTs." The latter annoys me doubly so because the term "rational" was taken in typology (by Jung) as well, and conflicts with his definition.
    Well, he's certainly fixed that in his latest book. He's dropped all the letters (only mentioning them briefly in his "history of personality" in the beginning), and anything even corresponding to E/I altogether!
    As an S, I might give you mixed results. It depends what you're talking about. If it's something I've covered in the past and don't have an interest in, I won't really want to talk about it unless we're good friends and I see it as a kind of "let's compare notes" thing. If it's totally new, I probably will find it very interesting. If it's something I'm really interested in, like typology, psychology, philosophy and such, I'll enjoy it a lot. If it's something totally ridiculous that sounds like you're pulling my leg, I will instinctively want to leave the conversation.
    I guess that's it. I find that the SJ's I've known seem to be more "let's compare notes", and most of them aren't interested in the same things I am. Even if you did find something interesting, it would probably be overkill the way I break it down and go on and on about it.
    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

  6. #36
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Probably if you're going to tell if someone else is something, the first thing you do is recognise what you look for. You'll hear and attend to those signs of cognition you prefer, and be stymied by their absence. I, for instance, can hear Ni in ESPs. Beyond that, you might do well to note how your own cognition messes with the applicability and meaning of whatever we have left of Jung's models. It's not like you can do any typing of your own if you haven't decided what is and isn't true, right? Then at some later point we might try identifying the patterns underlying another person's cognition. The usual party trick is to show someone some abstract art and ask what they see. Ns make up stories; Ss list detail.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #37
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    so what i'm saying is that it's not whether you talk about concrete or abstract things as much as it is the WAY you talk about things in general. it's a way of rendering your experience. how much you can live in a virtual space (either internally or externally) made by synthesizing patterns, through analogy, rather than treating things as if they simply were a list of features and effects that was itself unchangeable and discrete.

    in an awake, alert mind, all parts of the mind work simultaneously in all individuals. but a well-placed floodlight or two makes a world of difference in your ability to be at home in a place and truly thrive. and signifies a massive investment strategy for how you will be responsive and adaptable to a world that requires you to constantly learn.
    Yeah, it kind of just stands out when someone's attention is engaged by the same kind of details. It's almost like having a similar range of vision to certain degrees of light (if there were different 'types' of vision of the electromagnetic spectrum)- there will be a reaction in some people to certain degrees of light that other people will either barely notice or won't notice at all; and those with similar preferences have more understandable reactions. Though I think there's something comforting about being around those who seem to understand that which is less perceptible, because it helps make sense of that which seems vague- still *something* seems kinda clear when people see things in the same light.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. how do you tell if you're depressed vs just the glums
    By prplchknz in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-25-2011, 10:36 PM
  2. Replies: 115
    Last Post: 08-31-2011, 06:41 PM
  3. How do you tell if you're transgendered?
    By Haphazard in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 10:00 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