User Tag List

First 891011 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 108

  1. #91
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    36

    Default

    You could actually link the want to be an INTJ to the subconscious mind and its structural subroutines of boosting the self-ego. Do some research into the subconscious mind if you don't believe me.
    To extend off that idea, a lot of people end up classifying themselves as INTJs. A lot of INTPs do, as do ISTJs and INFJs. I think one of the problems is the concept of Ni, and the ambiguity behind it. A lot of people express it as "If you don't understand it, you aren't INTJ" or "Ni is unexplainable" or "Ni is a blackhole that sucks in data", but none of those accurately convey Ni. Even the founders of MBTI had some issues with Ni.
    I often think that the fact that there are so many subjective definitions of each function (and not everyone agrees with each definition!) may in itself be a failing of MBTI as a theory. It is rather hard to make predictions of the model when no one can definitize a function, least of all understand it.
    There is also an issue of neuroplasticity and the changing structure of the brain that can lead to issues with MBTI.

    I've been studying MBTI for almost a year, and I still can't decide on a type. I've gone from INTJ, to INTP, and I am now seriously considering INFP given my childhood (it shows glaring dominant Fi that even I can't ignore.) MBTI is a frustrating theory; it is open to much discussion, which is a bonus, but it also has issues with tying itself up into a recognizable form.

  2. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tessertime View Post
    You could actually link the want to be an INTJ to the subconscious mind and its structural subroutines of boosting the self-ego. Do some research into the subconscious mind if you don't believe me.
    To extend off that idea, a lot of people end up classifying themselves as INTJs. A lot of INTPs do, as do ISTJs and INFJs. I think one of the problems is the concept of Ni, and the ambiguity behind it. A lot of people express it as "If you don't understand it, you aren't INTJ" or "Ni is unexplainable" or "Ni is a blackhole that sucks in data", but none of those accurately convey Ni. Even the founders of MBTI had some issues with Ni.
    I often think that the fact that there are so many subjective definitions of each function (and not everyone agrees with each definition!) may in itself be a failing of MBTI as a theory. It is rather hard to make predictions of the model when no one can definitize a function, least of all understand it.
    There is also an issue of neuroplasticity and the changing structure of the brain that can lead to issues with MBTI.

    I've been studying MBTI for almost a year, and I still can't decide on a type. I've gone from INTJ, to INTP, and I am now seriously considering INFP given my childhood (it shows glaring dominant Fi that even I can't ignore.) MBTI is a frustrating theory; it is open to much discussion, which is a bonus, but it also has issues with tying itself up into a recognizable form.
    This is interesting. I would say Ni is the ability to see clearly that which has never existed, inside of ones mind, just as Si clearly sees that which has existed. In other words, it is "imagination" in the strictest sense, what we often call "vision".

    Je then works towards implementing that vision.

    This puts aside all the bullshit about "premonitions". Of course that is not the case! What are in fact seen, are projections about the future based on instinct (called "intuition" by MBTI theory), tied with desires and fears. We all have that capacity, just only some some have it as a dom or aux function.

    Really, I don't think it's that hard to understand. And I say that as an ixtp. However it took until very recently for me to develop some Ni and understand this function.

  3. #93
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    The reality is often different of course. But people get obsessed with the imagined ideal.
    QFT!

    It was nice imagining and pretending for years that I was a sensitive, introverted, organized person. In reality, I'm a butthat, debate constantly and quickly, and can barely organize my closet, let alone crap in my job.

    On the other hand, lots of people are like that, I have found, so at least I am not alone as I imagined.

    ENTPs want to be INTJs, ISTJs, INFJs, or whatever other type sounds really good to them in theory depending on their life circumstances (and circumstances can be anything - do you want to be rare? Be an IN-- type, even though five billion other people claim to be IN-- types on the Internet! Do you want to be efficient and pragmatic? Pretend you are an ISTJ, even though you are wasting time arguing with strangers online over theoretical stuff! Etc.). Getting a second opinion, and actually getting over their egomania to consider they might be wrong, can really help put Si reality - their least preferred function - into perspective.

  4. #94
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    This is interesting. I would say Ni is the ability to see clearly that which has never existed, inside of ones mind, just as Si clearly sees that which has existed. In other words, it is "imagination" in the strictest sense, what we often call "vision".

    Je then works towards implementing that vision.

    This puts aside all the bullshit about "premonitions". Of course that is not the case! What are in fact seen, are projections about the future based on instinct (called "intuition" by MBTI theory), tied with desires and fears. We all have that capacity, just only some some have it as a dom or aux function.

    Really, I don't think it's that hard to understand. And I say that as an ixtp. However it took until very recently for me to develop some Ni and understand this function.
    You could argue that Ne is also the ability to make connections of things that don't exist. If Ne and Ni often come to the same conclusions, than that would be quite the paradox if Ne doesn't hold a similarity to Ni.
    Back to subjective definitions, many people put Ne and Ni within the same scale. You could go as far, if you wish, to to tie Ne as real time, and Ni as imaginary time, if you want to get into defining the terms abstractly through physics.
    I don't entirely disagree with your concept though, but one has to wonder if "never has existed" is entirely accurate. Ni does conceive of ideas that many individuals see as groundbreaking (Newton is an example) but that is more the realm of seeing what does exist, but within the background. Consider the Wizard of Oz and the man behind the curtain. Ni would collect data and intuit the man behind the curtain. Ne would connect everything around, and uncover the man behind the curtain (assuming it isn't distracted.)

  5. #95
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by karmacoma View Post
    QFT!

    It was nice imagining and pretending for years that I was a sensitive, introverted, organized person. In reality, I'm a butthat, debate constantly and quickly, and can barely organize my closet, let alone crap in my job.

    On the other hand, lots of people are like that, I have found, so at least I am not alone as I imagined.

    ENTPs want to be INTJs, ISTJs, INFJs, or whatever other type sounds really good to them in theory depending on their life circumstances (and circumstances can be anything - do you want to be rare? Be an IN-- type, even though five billion other people claim to be IN-- types on the Internet! Do you want to be efficient and pragmatic? Pretend you are an ISTJ, even though you are wasting time arguing with strangers online over theoretical stuff! Etc.). Getting a second opinion, and actually getting over their egomania to consider they might be wrong, can really help put Si reality - their least preferred function - into perspective.
    Fora like this are the domains of intuitives actually. I guess I can see Si dominants being on here as well (maybe), but extraverts unlikely. The types that would be prevalent in fora like this would be:
    INTJ
    INFJ
    INTP
    INFP
    ISTJ

    Those types are most likely (with ISTJ being the least likely) to be online, so I wouldn't be surprised if those "billions of people online" were intuitives.

  6. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tessertime View Post
    You could argue that Ne is also the ability to make connections of things that don't exist. If Ne and Ni often come to the same conclusions, than that would be quite the paradox if Ne doesn't hold a similarity to Ni.
    Back to subjective definitions, many people put Ne and Ni within the same scale. You could go as far, if you wish, to to tie Ne as real time, and Ni as imaginary time, if you want to get into defining the terms abstractly through physics.
    I don't entirely disagree with your concept though, but one has to wonder if "never has existed" is entirely accurate. Ni does conceive of ideas that many individuals see as groundbreaking (Newton is an example) but that is more the realm of seeing what does exist, but within the background. Consider the Wizard of Oz and the man behind the curtain. Ni would collect data and intuit the man behind the curtain. Ne would connect everything around, and uncover the man behind the curtain (assuming it isn't distracted.)
    I would say Ne plays around with an all-encompassing vision of this reality, seeing it in multiple possible "dimensions" simultaneously. But always very tied to this reality.

    Ni, constructs one alternative reality, in depth. It does not view multiple relaities at once. But it is more "free" in the sense that it is much less limited by current reality.

    Both have their limiting factors and their strong points (whichever way you look at it)

    Hopefully my post makes sense to someone other than me!

  7. #97
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    I would say Ne plays around with an all-encompassing vision of this reality, seeing it in multiple possible "dimensions" simultaneously. But always very tied to this reality.

    Ni, constructs one alternative reality, in depth. It does not view multiple relaities at once. But it is more "free" in the sense that it is much less limited by current reality.

    Both have their limiting factors and their strong points (whichever way you look at it)

    Hopefully my post makes sense to someone other than me!
    Ne I can clearly understand. I hold Ne in my functions. I'll stick with intuitively understanding Ni; I am not going to waste my time trying to definitize Ni, as I would end up writing an essay in my own explanation.

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    @Tessertime and @Il Morto Che Parla both of you fellas are having a very intriguing discussion here that threatens to fissure the foundations of the whole typology theory since you brought up the ever changing state of the brain and how these functions such as Ni that folk so dearly desire have poor definitions which lack sufficent empirically gathered data to prove their validity is what I am gathering. Keep this conversation going my friends!

  9. #99
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    I think I would steal their type because I am envious of their swimmingly superior time management skills.
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

  10. #100
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    @Tessertime and @Il Morto Che Parla both of you fellas are having a very intriguing discussion here that threatens to fissure the foundations of the whole typology theory since you brought up the ever changing state of the brain and how these functions such as Ni that folk so dearly desire have poor definitions which lack sufficent empirically gathered data to prove their validity is what I am gathering. Keep this conversation going my friends!
    I was once a strong advocate for MBTI. But that was before I expanded my knowledge-banks to neuroscience, not to mention my own collective research on the functions. Now, I put forward the proposition that typology is an inaccurate, and rather flawed, theory that attempts to simplify a very complex and diverse system that has only recently been explored in-depth within the mid to late 90's (you could even pinpoint rapid advances to the early 2000's) and we still don't know much!
    A theory is a theory if it follows two distinctive traits:
    (1) It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model, and
    (2) It must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.
    These are generally held to standard in physics, but I don't see why it couldn't hold weight to theories in other scientific fields.

    MBTI often has a hard time meeting those two criteria.

    Typology theories, like MBTI to use as the prime example here (most familiar with) attempts to configure personalities that overlap, and often contradict, the core of each established identity. I could point out that the brain is a complex system of chemical and electrical reactions/impulses, ones that can be quantized, and would therefore fit in to the uncertainty principle. If you wanted to expand the uncertainty principle to a larger concept, you could propose that the more you attempt to define and pinpoint a person's personality, the less certain you can predict how it is moving. On the flip side, the more you attempt to predict where a person's personality is going, the less certain you can predict where it is at.
    That may be entirely untrue though, as quantum mechanics is quantized, whereas in physics the level of personalities would fall under the threshold of General Relativity (if the only connection to General Relativity is the abstract view.) But I wouldn't the uncertainty principle maintains an important connection to personalities.

    Furthermore, in the realms of neuroscience, the brain's structure can change over time, which then presents the dilemna of fixated personalities. Some neuroscientists and psychologists have argued against typology as the changing structure can throw typology into realms of questionable limits.

    To add to the frustration is a myriad of subjective definitions of each function, with a unified definitization of each function non-existent, if not entirely vague. Few people like to refer to Jung, as his results are questionable. Even Myers's results could be questioned.

    Edit - You can't discount that people like MBTI because it does have aspects of simplicity to it, and can be used with some ease. It is like comparing Newton's Laws to Einstein's General Relativity: Newton's laws, like gravity for example, have proven inaccurate, but it is also easy to use and not fully innacurate! General Relativity is far more precise, but Newtons's is not too shabby.

    It is interesting to hear about, and discuss, the different angles of the theory of MBTI.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] Why are there so many INFPs here...
    By rooo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-07-2016, 11:04 PM
  2. Replies: 113
    Last Post: 01-13-2011, 12:33 AM
  3. [NT] Why does so many people fail to get rich?
    By yenom in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 09:32 PM
  4. Replies: 135
    Last Post: 07-04-2009, 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