User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 53

  1. #21
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,981

    Default

    I think it's an interesting idea presented in the OP, but wouldn't it make more sense to orient this around the attitude of the perceiving rather than judging function? If people who are Je tend to hone in on motivation, it's more likely because they're Pi, than Je, per se.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  2. #22
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    I think it's an interesting idea presented in the OP, but wouldn't it make more sense to orient this around the attitude of the perceiving rather than judging function? If people who are Je tend to hone in on motivation, it's more likely because they're Pi, than Je, per se.
    We're addressing the conscious attitude of the type-observer here. Pi in this case is relatively unconscious, even if it is auxiliary to Je.
    "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. #23
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    So I could say as an internal judger that I scan this thread as some kind of detailed defense of the writer's perspective or even a semi-veiled criticism of those who have annoyed him by disagreeing so consistently, but I would be viewed in terms of behavior by a perceiver as acting in a way that is unnecessarily disruptive to the ideas being laid out in this thread?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #24
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    We're addressing the conscious attitude of the type-observer here. Pi in this case is relatively unconscious, even if it is auxiliary to Je.
    What do you mean by "conscious attitude"? There's nothing I've ever come across that suggests that the auxiliary is "unconscious". It can be underdeveloped, but it's by definition not an unconscious function.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  5. #25
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    It doesn't matter if you call them "doms." Ti is a judging function - according to Jung, subjective judging. Whereas, type calling is an objectively-oriented judgment in Jung's example.
    Getting hung up on small words here. Seems to miss out the context. It is possible that Jung is simply referring to Je, but it doesn't change anything in what I've written in the above. It still holds true.

    Of relevant matter here is the lack of real-world (objective) judgment of the INTP/INFP/ISTP/ISFP types. Their judgment is more effective when oriented inward - on value-systems or logic-systems. Externally, when making type calls, they don't see type the same way as the external judgers.
    I would argue no person sees type exactly the same since that is indeed affected by personal cognition and no person thinks exactly the same, even though there are various heuristics that still attempt to systematize this to varying degrees. Seeing differences in how to understand type is not just something that introverts are therefore fallacious to. This is by itself flawed logic since if introverts perceive the world differently to extroverts, then ideally none in fact truly see type fully for what it is, but merely those introverted or extroverted reflections that they are more interested in understanding when it comes to type theory.

    You indeed also see this a lot where extroverts regardless of Pe or Je are more inclined to refer to and focus on the externalization of type i.e. behavior, what it says about type X in descriptions etc. Sensors are also subject of this to a very large degree.
    My theory also explains why some people on this forum are great at typing others, but lousy at typing themselves. The latter is a subjectively-oriented process of determining type, since we can't very well see ourselves from the outside.
    That's a very over-complicated way of trying to make sense of it. The and probably more accurate answer is self-awareness, or lack thereof. For some people, especially extroverts whose consciousness is naturally oriented towards the extroverted world, it is difficult to perform the sufficient introspection required to first see what it is inside themselves and reference this back to the outside, rather than first seeing what exists outside themselves and try to map their experiences this way.

    Sensors also suffer a similar problem in that they often have difficulties grasping the theoretical and intuitive depth that personality type theory is ultimately founded upon, in that personality is not something tangible and concrete that which they can observe with the five senses but exists beyond the physical world. They thus tend to become overly pre-occupied in trying to understand type from what can be tangibly observed. I think a good example of this aspect of human psychology the ability to read body language and how this infers to people's true motivations, thinking patterns etc.

    @Jennifer As a dominant perceiver, what I am focused on when understanding this thread is how the content of the thread and the OP matches my understanding of the system(s). Are the impressions I receive congruent with my internal model? This is why I thought I was an INTP because I thought I judged information based on its logical nature and to a degree yes, of course, logic matters, but insofar that logic is capable of reinforcing the intuitive points and patterns that I perceive.

    Is the argument to support this conceptual framework reasonable? I care more about the concepts than I care about the logic in that logic must carry the concepts rather than vice versa, and this is how we understand the difference between dominant perception and judgement.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  6. #26
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    What do you mean by "conscious attitude"? There's nothing I've ever come across that suggests that the auxiliary is "unconscious". It can be underdeveloped, but it's by definition not an unconscious function.
    I'm just going with Jung here. "Unconscious" is fairly equated with "undifferentiated." As a function becomes more conscious, it becomes more differentiated from the other functions, therefore it is more under the control of volitional choice. Undifferentiated functions operate unconsciously, which Jung states causes them to become mixed up with the dominant function (which is the function most differentiated from the rest).

    According to the OP and Jung, those who are objectively judging a type see the function that is most differentiated, i.e., dominant. Those who are objectively perceiving a type don't see any "deeper" than judgers, they are just more prone to finding the undifferentiated functions.
    "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.”

  7. #27
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    Getting hung up on small words here. Seems to miss out the context. It is possible that Jung is simply referring to Je, but it doesn't change anything in what I've written in the above. It still holds true.
    Donating two sentences to making a point is not getting "hung up" on it. It simply serves to play into the fact that there is a more relevant idea.
    So try not to get so hung up on my getting "hung up."

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    I would argue no person sees type exactly the same
    Of course they don't. But we're not talking people here, we're talking theories about types of people, i.e., judging types and perceiving types.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    Isince that is indeed affected by personal cognition and no person thinks exactly the same, even though there are various heuristics that still attempt to systematize this to varying degrees. Seeing differences in how to understand type is not just something that introverts are therefore fallacious to. This is by itself flawed logic since if introverts perceive the world differently to extroverts, then ideally none in fact truly see type fully for what it is, but merely those introverted or extroverted reflections that they are more interested in understanding when it comes to type theory.
    The issue you bring up is solved through extensive practice in type-watching. The OP is merely talking about those who haven't learned to see the difference between dominants and auxiliaries. Jung STATES that there are those - not related to type - who after having practiced type-watching become confused by various motives and behaviors.

    The flawed logic in your argument is based on the assumption that I was treating types as describing cognition set in stone. But I am only limiting the discussion to the theoretical level, whereas in practice, introverts and extroverts can overcome the cognitive limitations which are merely cognitive habits set in place by nature and nurture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    You indeed also see this a lot where extroverts regardless of Pe or Je are more inclined to refer to and focus on the externalization of type i.e. behavior, what it says about type X in descriptions etc. Sensors are also subject of this to a very large degree.
    This isn't what Jung says about the situation:

    "[j]udgment is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening."
    (472)

    "The mere happening" is behavioral (what was said and done), while the conscious motivation (the why it was said and done) of the psychic process is that which is controlled by the dominant function.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    That's a very over-complicated way of trying to make sense of it. The and probably more accurate answer is self-awareness, or lack thereof. For some people, especially extroverts whose consciousness is naturally oriented towards the extroverted world, it is difficult to perform the sufficient introspection required to first see what it is inside themselves and reference this back to the outside, rather than first seeing what exists outside themselves and try to map their experiences this way.
    My explanation is no more complicated than yours, and in fact my explanation was shorter and less complicated. And the difference in your spiel only amounts to focusing on extroversion and introversion, whereas I focused on perceiving and judging.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, only that yours is a different way of looking at this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    Sensors also suffer a similar problem in that they often have difficulties grasping the theoretical and intuitive depth that personality type theory is ultimately founded upon, in that personality is not something tangible and concrete that which they can observe with the five senses but exists beyond the physical world. They thus tend to become overly pre-occupied in trying to understand type from what can be tangibly observed. I think a good example of this aspect of human psychology the ability to read body language and how this infers to people's true motivations, thinking patterns etc.
    That again is just a different way of looking at the same subject. Complicated or over-complicated is of no consequence to any of this.
    "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.”

  8. #28
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    I think the OP actually is a little too indepth, the reason I disagree with most of the type calls that are made here on this forum is because they are based upon pretty shallow criteria, the tribal groupings as defined by the division of the forum into subforums even and what that means the NT, SJ, NF groupings.

    Most of the understanding of each are prejudicial and prejorative, so when people type people they're attributing negative qualities or labels to them.

    Alternatively there's some posters who're doing the classic thing of seeking to appear in the know, exhibit knowledge which is different from, perhaps in their view superior to that of other posters and I think that's why when one typology appears exhausted there's the jumping ship to another type usually ahead of everyone else and then when enough people have jumped ship too and picked up enough to match or challenge the knowledge of the early jumpers it happens again.

  9. #29
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    According to the OP and Jung, those who are objectively judging a type see the function that is most differentiated, i.e., dominant. Those who are objectively perceiving a type don't see any "deeper" than judgers, they are just more prone to finding the undifferentiated functions.
    I thought your claim was that people who were Je were more attuned to motivation, which would imply a subconscious impetus/less differentiated function to me. While people who were Pe were more attentive of actual behaviors. Whatever the case, there would have to be some sort of assumption that people who are Pe dom or auxiliary are superior synthesizers of raw data than people who are Pi dom or aux, which is utter crap.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  10. #30
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    I thought your claim was that people who were Je were more attuned to motivation, which would imply a subconscious impetus/less differentiated function to me. While people who were Pe were more attentive of actual behaviors. Whatever the case, there would have to be some sort of assumption that people who are Pe dom or auxiliary are superior synthesizers of raw data than people who are Pi dom or aux, which is utter crap.
    I have no idea what you're talking about.
    "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.”

Similar Threads

  1. Why we disagree on politics - It's genetic
    By Mal12345 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-18-2016, 11:17 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-16-2012, 04:19 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-03-2011, 08:20 PM
  4. why are mbti types called personality types?
    By INTP in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-01-2010, 05:58 AM

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