User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 53

  1. #31
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    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.
    All kinds of things go on here, even (*gasp*) deceitful typings, or playing games with others in determining one's own type. (I.e., trolling the typologists.)

    Also, try to remember that Jung's typings were done in person, not over some electronic media, so the OP is limited to his technological context.
    "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.”

  2. #32
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    I have no idea what you're talking about.
    That's alright. I don't think you know what you're talking about, either.
    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

  3. #33
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    That's alright. I don't think you know what you're talking about, either.
    Instead of being rude, why don't you explain to the forum what you meant?

    For example: "superior synthesizers of raw data."
    And your "Pe dom or auxiliary" which has nothing to do with the OP argument.
    And: "people who were Je were more attuned to motivation, which would imply a subconscious impetus/less differentiated function to me."
    Yes, "to you," but not to Jung, since both conscious and unconscious motivations exist.
    "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.”

  4. #34
    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
    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."
    How is getting hung up on one particular word but failing to see how it fits into a larger context not being hung up and nitpicky?

    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.
    But the theory attempts to desribe people.

    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.
    Sigh. I even fail to see how this point is relevant. What you are getting hung up here seems to be persona, not necessarily actual cognition.

    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.
    Never assumed such a thing. The flawed logic in your argument is that you completely and utterly fail to understand the logic of my argument to begin with.

    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)
    Yes. Exactly. Because perception is that, perception. And all types that lead with perception i.e. ENP, ESP, INJ and ISJ focus on perception first, judgement later, because the dominant function is a perception function.

    "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.
    No. You don't seem to understand how judgement and perception works. Ni can for example be very focus on intent and finding meaning, and Fe can too. How do we separate them? On the kind of information they look out for and how the Ni type differs in trying to make sense of things compared to the Fe type.

    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.
    Less complicated? It's convoluted as fuck. Lack of self-awareess describes why people fail to see their own cognition. This may hhave several causes, some of which I mentioned to support my reasoning. I would say that my explanation is quite simple - it doesn't try to justify why people lack awareness by formulating a convoluted logical system.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, only that yours is a different way of looking at this.
    Of course it is, because I don't share your cognition.

    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.
    Then why even assert that your point of view has prominence over other point of views to begin with, even if implicitly?

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

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

  5. #35
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    We disagree because some people re good at typing, and some are bad.

    So, some people are rights, and some others are wrong. That's just that.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  6. #36
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Instead of being rude, why don't you explain to the forum what you meant?

    For example: "superior synthesizers of raw data."
    And your "Pe dom or auxiliary" which has nothing to do with the OP argument.
    And: "people who were Je were more attuned to motivation, which would imply a subconscious impetus/less differentiated function to me."
    Yes, "to you," but not to Jung, since both conscious and unconscious motivations exist.
    I could leap through all these Ti hoops, or I can just feed into your belief that J's are all out to shit in your applesauce.

    Think I'll go with the latter.
    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

  7. #37
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    I could leap through all these Ti hoops, or I can just feed into your belief that J's are all out to shit in your applesauce.

    Think I'll go with the latter.
    I don't care. The trolls can have this thread. My idea presented in the OP stands unaffected.
    "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. #38
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    I don't care. The trolls can have this thread. My idea presented in the OP stands unaffected.
    We'll always have Paris.
    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

  9. #39
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    In the quote, Jung distinguishes between "judging observers" and "perceiving observers." They are simply observing types of people; but you're right, his distinction between judgers and perceptives is obscure because I didn't give enough context.

    The context that matters here is the application of judgment versus perception, and this application is external. Whereas for a Ti-dom, this application is internal.
    There's quite a lot of stuff in Psychological Types that reasonable people can disagree about, but I don't think this is one of them. In talking about "judging observers" and "perceiving observers" in that quote from Chapter 10, Jung is talking about J-doms and P-doms. One reason we know this is that Jung made the exact same point in Chapter 4. In explaining why Jordan (an Ni-dom) viewed introverts as the "more impassioned" types and extraverts as the "less impassioned" types, Jung explained that it was because irrational types (P-doms) like Jordan — and note that Jordan was a Pi-dom, not a Pe-dom — tend to type people based on their unconscious sides. And Jung explained that, by contrast, rational types (J-doms) like himself tend to type people based on their conscious sides. As he put it: "Thus Jordan's formulations accord on the whole with reality, though not with the reality as it is understood by the rational types, but with the reality which for them is unconscious."

    And in Chapter 10, after making the same distinction in that paragraph you quoted, Jung reiterated the fact that, as a Ji-dom, his own tendency was to type people on the basis of their conscious sides. As he put it (in his summary of the "extraverted rational types"):

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    But we have to consider whether by "rational" we are speaking from the standpoint of the individual's subjective psychology or from that of the observer, who perceives and judges from without. This observer could easily arrive at a contrary judgment, especially if he intuitively apprehended merely the outward behaviour of the person observed and judged accordingly. On the whole, the life of this type is never dependent on rational judgment alone; it is influenced in almost equal degree by unconscious irrationality. If observation is restricted to outward behaviour, without any concern for the internal economy of the individual's consciousness, one may get an even stronger impression of the irrational and fortuitous nature of certain unconscious manifestations than of the reasonableness of his conscious intentions and motivations. I therefore base my judgment on what the individual feels to be his conscious psychology. But I am willing to grant that one could equally well conceive and present such a psychology from precisely the opposite angle. I am also convinced that, had I myself chanced to possess a different psychology, I would have described the rational types in the reverse way, from the standpoint of the unconscious—as irrational, therefore.

    So, contrary to your interpretation, it seems clear to me that Jung thought that an irrational observer (N-dom) would tend to type a subject based on their unconscious side whether the observer was an Ne-dom or an Ni-dom (like Jordan) and that a rational observer (J-dom) would tend to type a subject based on their "conscious psychology" whether the observer was a Je-dom or a Ji-dom (like Jung).

  10. #40
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    There's quite a lot of stuff in Psychological Types that reasonable people can disagree about, but I don't think this is one of them. In talking about "judging observers" and "perceiving observers" in that quote from Chapter 10, Jung is talking about J-doms and P-doms. One reason we know this is that Jung made the exact same point in Chapter 4. In explaining why Jordan (an Ni-dom) viewed introverts as the "more impassioned" types and extraverts as the "less impassioned" types, Jung explained that it was because irrational types (P-doms) like Jordan — and note that Jordan was a Pi-dom, not a Pe-dom — tend to type people based on their unconscious sides. And Jung explained that, by contrast, rational types (J-doms) like himself tend to type people based on their conscious sides. As he put it: "Thus Jordan's formulations accord on the whole with reality, though not with the reality as it is understood by the rational types, but with the reality which for them is unconscious."

    And in Chapter 10, after making the same distinction in that paragraph you quoted, Jung reiterated the fact that, as a Ji-dom, his own tendency was to type people on the basis of their conscious sides. As he put it (in his summary of the "extraverted rational types"):


    So, contrary to your interpretation, it seems clear to me that Jung thought that an irrational observer (N-dom) would tend to type a subject based on their unconscious side whether the observer was an Ne-dom or an Ni-dom (like Jordan) and that a rational observer (J-dom) would tend to type a subject based on their "conscious psychology" whether the observer was a Je-dom or a Ji-dom (like Jung).
    I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But I am curious to know why you've changed your call on Jung's type from ISTP to something ending with a J.
    "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