User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 43

  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 meant to give some kind of assessment of your analysis, @superunknown, but that would now require reading through all the stuff the INTJs have said to make sure I wasn't being redundant and I'm just not that invested.

    I will say that I found it funny that they piled on in the way that they did. The possibility of Coriolis being ISTJ evidently threw all their shit into question. Protect the hive!!! Save the queen!!! Ect.

    Anyways, I'm back to request your assessment of my type, or alternatives to consider. It'd be fitting if you were to come up with something more suitable than ENTJ given that I was the one who first put ISTP bug in your ear.

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    What does Si vibe to you?
    Snips, snails, puppy dog tails.
    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
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    @superunknown - while it is quite possible you are right about jung's original definitions, many of the tests & descriptions developed since tend to bring about the current notions of Se - the same one you dismiss early on as being Se-related... and people usually type themselves according to the later.

    so the question comes up: do you see a relationship between them? any relationship between the current "physical embodiment"/ "in the now" / "situational awareness" / "i have jock hiding inside of me" notions of Se and your interpretation of jung's view of Se as the most realistic fact-based perception mechanism?

  3. #23
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    I meant to give some kind of assessment of your analysis, @superunknown, but that would now require reading through all the stuff the INTJs have said to make sure I wasn't being redundant and I'm just not that invested.

    I will say that I found it funny that they piled on in the way that they did. The possibility of Coriolis being ISTJ evidently threw all their shit into question. Protect the hive!!! Save the queen!!! Ect.

    Anyways, I'm back to request your assessment of my type, or alternatives to consider. It'd be fitting if you were to come up with something more suitable than ENTJ given that I was the one who first put ISTP bug in your ear.
    I recently encountered this link on another site: http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2...-as-an-s-type/ The author of that article argues that Jung considered Newton to be an S type. More specifically, he described Newton as "concretistic".

    It makes sense, if you think about it: it isn't obvious to most people how intuition plays out in INTJs, especially once an INTJ has figured out how to translate ideas into math and language. Most everything an INTJ tends to talk about is more or less concrete; they don't tend to divulge their really crazy ideas or their feelings and impressions.

    In Newton's case, I don't think Jung is employing a very deep knowledge of who Newton was and what he did. Consider his religious writings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_N...eligious_views. These are not the thoughts of an Si type, in our more modern parlance: he takes religious ideas apart and puts them back together in a way that makes sense to him. This is the main thing I sense as an "Ni vibe" from others, this notion of re-synthesizing ideas, even "re-inventing the wheel" so to speak. That's how Newton did his physics: he took what was already known, and re-synthesized it so that it made sense to him. And since he was something of a genius, it turned out to make sense to most of the rest of the world, too, and became the foundation of modern physics.

    What matters isn't whether so-and-so is or isn't an ISTJ or INTJ. What matters is having a shared understanding of the typology being used. As noted and acknowledged earlier in this thread, Jung's typology isn't about the functions we talk about on typology forums. The latter is derived from the former, but is not the same thing. I would guess that if Jung met Newton in person, he'd type Newton as an "introverted thinker," by which he would not mean what we mean in our derived typology by "Ti", but something more along the lines of the MBTI-ish code of "INTx".
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  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 uumlau View Post
    What matters isn't whether so-and-so is or isn't an ISTJ or INTJ. What matters is having a shared understanding of the typology being used. As noted and acknowledged earlier in this thread, Jung's typology isn't about the functions we talk about on typology forums. The latter is derived from the former, but is not the same thing. I would guess that if Jung met Newton in person, he'd type Newton as an "introverted thinker," by which he would not mean what we mean in our derived typology by "Ti", but something more along the lines of the MBTI-ish code of "INTx".
    Your points are well taken, and I'll beg your pardon for being glib about something you deemed worthy of deeper consideration.

    I will point out though that, if my understanding of superunknown's rationale for typing Coriolis ISTJ was accurate, then the issue isn't actually shared framework or lack thereof. Super's entire perceived cognitive model for Coriolis was at odds with any definition I've ever heard for an INTJ, and if there was anything to what he said, then she probably isn't INTJ. It wasn't just that he and I had diverging nomenclature for the same phenomena; there was a divergence in the perception of reality itself.

    That's a little bit different than what you were pointing to, and is what I found to be so intriguing about what he had to say. Whether his fundamental perceptions differed from my own were actually a function of his misappropriations of archaic definitions is a deeper question, but beyond the scope of my point. In any case, your use of the word "synthesis" stuck out to me, because it's the one I most closely associate with Ni. What I was trying to get at (in my own flowery way) when I said that massive parallelism is a hallmark of introverted intuition was that very ability to pull information from multiple sources and process it virtually simultaneously to arrive at an unique insight. I think that in a discussion of Ni, the "a priori"/"a posteriori" distinction that Super alluded to is kind of mooted in light of the fact that the process by which intuition derives its insights is neither unidirectional, unidimensional nor linear. Not to say there's not a logic to it, but it's not so clear cut, in other words, as saying that Ni is "top-down" or Si is "bottom-up" in its reasoning. My own experience of Ni is that it's fairly promiscuous in it's research as long as the results are accurate.

    In any case, my interest in Super is same that it is in anyone who has a consistent but perhaps idiosyncratic point of view--to understand it. There's something that he's picking up on that I don't. While it may not be The Truth, some element of it is derived from something real and worth exploring. If for no other reason than to satisfy my curiosity about how it works.
    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
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    @Wind-Up Rex

    I'm sorry for the delayed response. I've had the bulk of my assessment typed since the night you first requested, but I wanted to study the rational functions more in-depth to give you the shake you deserve. Though I haven't done this half as well as I'd like (I'm honestly having trouble generating interest), I cannot break from the thought that you are a leading T function (the notion of further study mostly stemmed from my consideration of senza's sake, having identified the most with Fi. Without a doubt, this is my least understood function).

    I should first put the notion of Te/Ni under the microscope. Once I had a manager who could project a lesson to you regarding anything that happened - right or wrong, good or bad. It was almost like being in boot camp (and perhaps by extension, militaristic operations in general), where the objective is not to be fair to the circumstance, or reason beyond the immediate perception - the objective is to serve the end product; to extrapolate towards a shared interest within the psyche. I would like to say he lives in a world of strict duality - things that serve, and things that do not. Things that do not are of the smallest importance to him, such that they may as well be non-existent to his purpose. This man is ENTJ, as true as I've ever reasoned, currently on his way into his forties. His character does not preclude you from the status, but it does casts rays of curiosity into the nature of both my personal understanding as well as my perception of others' understanding of typology.

    I introduced you to my best friend (the Nigerian lawyer) specifically because I knew both of your personalities had a similar 'flavor' - I knew something interesting would happen bringing you both within my perception, and I wasn't wrong. You are both incredibly similar in character - easy going, personable, selfless, nimble... you have this aura I can feel, that there are a trillion charged spikes across your surface waiting to arc against something worthwhile. I have trouble discerning what this is relative to, regarding typology. It was and still is difficult concluding him (my friend) a P type or a J type, an S type or an N type... you both have this very playful carefree demeanor stacked in front of a powerhouse full of reasonable opinion and determination. I likely would not deviate far from your leading function of Te, but again, I wonder if that does not undermine the true attitude to your character...

    I think of @Kamishi once typing you ESFP. I wonder the scenario leading to this assessment? One done of spite, or legitimate interest, perception, and application of knowledge?

  6. #26
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I recently encountered this link on another site: http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2...-as-an-s-type/ The author of that article argues that Jung considered Newton to be an S type. More specifically, he described Newton as "concretistic".

    It makes sense, if you think about it: it isn't obvious to most people how intuition plays out in INTJs, especially once an INTJ has figured out how to translate ideas into math and language. Most everything an INTJ tends to talk about is more or less concrete; they don't tend to divulge their really crazy ideas or their feelings and impressions.

    In Newton's case, I don't think Jung is employing a very deep knowledge of who Newton was and what he did. Consider his religious writings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_N...eligious_views. These are not the thoughts of an Si type, in our more modern parlance: he takes religious ideas apart and puts them back together in a way that makes sense to him. This is the main thing I sense as an "Ni vibe" from others, this notion of re-synthesizing ideas, even "re-inventing the wheel" so to speak. That's how Newton did his physics: he took what was already known, and re-synthesized it so that it made sense to him. And since he was something of a genius, it turned out to make sense to most of the rest of the world, too, and became the foundation of modern physics.

    What matters isn't whether so-and-so is or isn't an ISTJ or INTJ. What matters is having a shared understanding of the typology being used. As noted and acknowledged earlier in this thread, Jung's typology isn't about the functions we talk about on typology forums. The latter is derived from the former, but is not the same thing. I would guess that if Jung met Newton in person, he'd type Newton as an "introverted thinker," by which he would not mean what we mean in our derived typology by "Ti", but something more along the lines of the MBTI-ish code of "INTx".
    Maybe newton was an ISTP.

    ISTP's are probably the most underrated intellectuals there are. Well, more specifically, LSI's.

    Those INFJ's who have an "Se Fetish"?

    ISTP's.

    Those INFJ's who are cold and calculating?

    ISTP's.

    Those INTJ's who are actually really decisive instead of "pondering all manners of truth"?

    ISTP's.

    Those ESTJ lookalikes who aren't fucking retarded? (Dr Phil and Vladmir Putin)

    ISTP's.

    Those ISTJ's who are tall, scary, monumental looking, and don't give a shit if their feet are bleeding because they just walked 20 miles in flip flops?

    ISTP's.

    More specifically, socionics LSI's. Cyber hacking tango dancing muai tai kickboxing sexual badasses. Especially the women. I'd put on on a pedestal any day of the week.

  7. #27
    untitled Chanaynay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Arendee View Post
    ISTP's are probably the most underrated intellectuals there are. Well, more specifically, LSI's.

    Those INFJ's who have an "Se Fetish"?

    ISTP's.

    Those INFJ's who are cold and calculating?

    ISTP's.

    Those INTJ's who are actually really decisive instead of "pondering all manners of truth"?

    ISTP's.

    Those ESTJ lookalikes who aren't fucking retarded? (Dr Phil and Vladmir Putin)

    ISTP's.

    Those ISTJ's who are tall, scary, monumental looking, and don't give a shit if their feet are bleeding because they just walked 20 miles in flip flops?

    ISTP's.

    More specifically, socionics LSI's. Cyber hacking tango dancing muai tai kickboxing sexual badasses. Especially the women. I'd put on on a pedestal any day of the week.
    I bet a lot of them would make good gamblers too.
    7w6 - 2w3 - 8w7 sx/so


  8. #28
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chanaynay View Post
    I bet a lot of them would make good gamblers too.
    My ISTP friend is a daytrader

  9. #29
    untitled Chanaynay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Arendee View Post
    My ISTP friend is a daytrader
    Hah! I was thinking more like poker but I can definitely see that too. Actually I think there's an ISTP gambler who seems like a cold and calculating INFJ in Dangan Ronpa (I just finished reading the translation of it a few weeks ago so I love referencing it whenever I can).



    *flees before I get too off topic*
    7w6 - 2w3 - 8w7 sx/so


  10. #30
    Unapologetic being Evolving Transparency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ESI Fi
    Posts
    3,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post

    It makes sense, if you think about it: it isn't obvious to most people how intuition plays out in INTJs, especially once an INTJ has figured out how to translate ideas into math and language. Most everything an INTJ tends to talk about is more or less concrete; they don't tend to divulge their really crazy ideas or their feelings and impressions.

    In Newton's case, I don't think Jung is employing a very deep knowledge of who Newton was and what he did. Consider his religious writings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_N...eligious_views. These are not the thoughts of an Si type, in our more modern parlance: he takes religious ideas apart and puts them back together in a way that makes sense to him. This is the main thing I sense as an "Ni vibe" from others, this notion of re-synthesizing ideas, even "re-inventing the wheel" so to speak. That's how Newton did his physics: he took what was already known, and re-synthesized it so that it made sense to him.
    Yea this is a very good way to explain Ni. The taking things apart and puting them back together the way it makes sense to me is what i am doing all the time
    "Once the game is over, the Pawn and the King go back into the same box"

    Freedom isn't free.
    "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ~ Orwell
    I'm that person that embodies pretty much everything that you hate. Might as well get used to it.
    Unapologetically bonding in an uninhibited, propelled manner
    10w12

Similar Threads

  1. Recommendations for books on the Functions?
    By StarsPer in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-02-2012, 06:50 AM
  2. OK, check this one out! (On the eight functions)
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-10-2010, 09:33 AM
  3. On the never-ending shadow function debate
    By simulatedworld in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-12-2010, 05:11 PM
  4. Another Perspective on the Functions:objects, motion, holistic and linear
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 08:15 PM
  5. New theory of mine on the cognitive functions
    By BlackCat in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-23-2009, 11:58 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