User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 127

  1. #41
    mod love baby... Lady_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/so
    Posts
    18,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chaoticbrain View Post
    There busy with writing their book right now, so that's why their not making videos. I am going to suggest that maybe some of us forum members should just make one of these videos.

    I can try vreading any of your guys pics or videos if you guys want btw, I've been doing this for about 5 months, so my reads have a decent accuracy at this point .

    One thing to keep in mind too, is that this isn't MBTI, we define all of the functions differently than MBTI, and it isn't even the same thing as Jung either. Such systems aren't compatible with what we're seeing the functions as.
    who are you? define we please?
    There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
    -Jim Morrison

  2. #42
    Member chaoticbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    6 sx
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady X View Post
    who are you? define we please?
    The cognitive types group, couldn't you tell from the thread title ? Of course maybe it's odd I'm saying "we" considering it's not like I've had some major contribution to the theory, but I guess that's how I like to phrase things.

  3. #43
    mod love baby... Lady_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/so
    Posts
    18,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chaoticbrain View Post
    The cognitive types group, couldn't you tell from the thread title ? Of course maybe it's odd I'm saying "we" considering it's not like I've had some major contribution to the theory, but I guess that's how I like to phrase things.
    possibly would've made that assumption had it been your thread and you discussed it in the op. out of context nope.

    but thanks.
    There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
    -Jim Morrison

  4. #44
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,809

    Default

    I'm almost....almost tempted to post some videos of me in here.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  5. #45
    Member chaoticbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    6 sx
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainheart View Post
    Wow. Yes, it definitely is a different system then. Then I agree with @senza tema. Why are you using the same labels if they are going to bear almost no resemblance? If you can have very high use of lower functions, why call them lower functions? Shouldn't the order for a FiNe who uses lots of Te not be termed as FiNe but something else entirely?

    And why is it then that certain people you type with your method also are typed the same by cognitive function/MBTI methods? For example-

    Andrew Garfield (FiNe/INFP)
    Cate Blanchett and Carey Mulligan (NiFe/INFJ)
    Katie Couric (SiTe/ISTJ)
    Well, one reason might be because those types don't have a high use of lower functions, and therefore they do actually fit MBTI stereotypes. I suppose "SiTe's are going to bare almost no resemblance" is an exaggeration on my part, certain SiTe's who happen to have a onesided-ness in their function pairs will resemble their MBTI pairs. Bill o-reilly would be a TeSi who fits MBTI for instance.

    When I said CT is a different system, and I mean that in the same way the MBTI is different than Jung, and socionics is also different from MBTI/Jung.

    As far as Ti being a non-empirical process, this is something Jung talked about, he used Charles Darwin as a leading example of Te type, and specifically noted that Ti is a non empirical process. A lot of MBTI websites classify Charles Darwin as a Ti type, and this simply not a correct understanding of Ti. Ti can innovate in science, but even then it's different, and generally not as common.

  6. #46
    Infinite Bubble
    Guest

    Default

    I thought it wasn't a new system, but a new theory proposing how the Jungian functions physically manifest.

  7. #47
    Member chaoticbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    6 sx
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Bubble View Post
    I thought it wasn't a new system, but a new theory proposing how the Jungian functions physically manifest.
    Depends what you mean by new system, a lot of people talk about socionics, kersey, MBTI etc. as different "systems".

  8. #48
    Paranoid Android Video's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ESI Fi
    Posts
    3,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chaoticbrain View Post
    Depends what you mean by new system, a lot of people talk about socionics, kersey, MBTI etc. as different "systems".
    What is the capacity of a type obtained in this VR system for informing about one's type in systems that use similar notation?

    If someone obtained the same type in VR and MBTI, would there be a reason? If someone obtained two different types, why could that be?
    4w3 6w5 1w2 sx/sp ISFP

    RLOAX (don't do it)
    Melancholic Hufflepuff
    A lonely island where only what is permitted to move moves, becomes an ideal. Jung

    Kiss Kiss [johari] Bang Bang [nohari]

  9. #49
    Stansmith
    Guest

    Default

    I've noticed that I don't do Se lock-ons at all, at least not on tape.

  10. #50
    brainheart
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chaoticbrain View Post
    Well, one reason might be because those types don't have a high use of lower functions, and therefore they do actually fit MBTI stereotypes. I suppose "SiTe's are going to bare almost no resemblance" is an exaggeration on my part, certain SiTe's who happen to have a onesided-ness in their function pairs will resemble their MBTI pairs. Bill o-reilly would be a TeSi who fits MBTI for instance.

    When I said CT is a different system, and I mean that in the same way the MBTI is different than Jung, and socionics is also different from MBTI/Jung.

    As far as Ti being a non-empirical process, this is something Jung talked about, he used Charles Darwin as a leading example of Te type, and specifically noted that Ti is a non empirical process. A lot of MBTI websites classify Charles Darwin as a Ti type, and this simply not a correct understanding of Ti. Ti can innovate in science, but even then it's different, and generally not as common.
    Thanks for clarifying. Although I think "MBTI stereotypes" might be a little harsh. How about they fit the traditional/standard model of the type? It seems that this system perhaps considers those with more developed inferior functions to be, er, more developed and thus better- is that the case? If you're following Psychological Types, then wouldn't these lesser functions always be subordinate and to an extent more repressed/primitive/negative/childish? Jung says that if, for example, someone has equally developed thinking and feeling then both are actually rather undeveloped, because they by nature contradict each other. (It brings to mind a sort of Chinese finger trap.) If that's the case, why would a Fi/Ne who has developed Te, as you give in your example, potentially be a brilliant mathematician/scientist? Wouldn't the 'well roundedness' create a more mediocre person rather than a genius? Conversely, the auxiliary function is supposed to be a complementary, yet subordinate function which serves the aims of the dominant function. If that's the case, someone who is more true Fi/Ne would seem to be functioning in a healthier way. Maybe there's something you could link me to that explains this in greater detail.

    Yes I realize that Jung describes Ti as a subjective function vs the objectivity of Te. And I agree that people often confuse the two.

    Edit: Never mind on giving me a link, or answering all of this, actually. Found the thesis: http://cognitivetype.com/thesis/

Similar Threads

  1. A question about use of cognitive functions in different types.
    By Cat Brainz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-05-2016, 11:45 AM
  2. Physiognomy Project: Visually Reading Cognitive Configuration
    By Auburn in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 06-17-2012, 04:00 PM
  3. First Description You Read of Your Type
    By FireShield98 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-13-2011, 11:19 PM
  4. Visualizing the Functions of each Type
    By Misty_Mountain_Rose in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-19-2009, 08:42 PM
  5. Tell-Tale Signs of the Types
    By RansomedbyFire in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 11:30 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