User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 127

  1. #51
    brainheart
    Guest

    Default

    Okay... so after reading the thesis and thinking about it for awhile, all I can conclude is that it really isn't any different than Jung. So if you non-visually type yourself (or are typed by others) as a Fi Ne (INFP) or any other standard combination following the cognitive function model, you should be the same type by visual typing. If there is an inconsistency then it is either due to a misunderstanding of the cognitive functions (and therefore being mistyped that way) or some flaws in the visual typing method (and therefore being mistyped that way).

  2. #52
    Member chaoticbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    6 sx
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainheart View Post
    Okay... so after reading the thesis and thinking about it for awhile, all I can conclude is that it really isn't any different than Jung. So if you non-visually type yourself (or are typed by others) as a Fi Ne (INFP) or any other standard combination following the cognitive function model, you should be the same type by visual typing. If there is an inconsistency then it is either due to a misunderstanding of the cognitive functions (and therefore being mistyped that way) or some flaws in the visual typing method (and therefore being mistyped that way).
    Or theres a problem with Jung's theory ? Also, you should not talk about Jung using "INFP", those descriptions are not in line with what Jung meant by Fi and Ne at all.

  3. #53
    brainheart
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chaoticbrain View Post
    Or theres a problem with Jung's theory ? Also, you should not talk about Jung using "INFP", those descriptions are not in line with what Jung meant by Fi and Ne at all.
    All I'm saying is the descriptions of the cognitive functions are consistent with those of Jung and the order of those cognitive functions are those of the INFP- Fi Ne Si Te in the cognitive types method. INFP can be used as shorthand for that series of functions, which is what I was doing.

    There is the Fi/Te polarity and tension described in Jung, and there exists a similar, yet not as great polarity in Ne/Si. The cognitive type thesis makes sense to me and is consistent with Jung. It emphasizes that the dominant function remains dominant and the other functions operate more as a method of support when used correctly. In that way I don't see it as something totally different but a system that builds off Jung and subsequent Jung theorists in a perfectly logical way. I like the idea of describing function dynamic as a circle or loop more than something linear. That makes more sense to me, too.

    The difference between Jung and the visual typing method is that Jung leaves a lot nebulous which can adjust to personal interpretation. There's a subjectivity to it. The visual typing method strikes me as more of an objectively standardized approach. When it comes to people, there's going to be some irregularities. All I'm saying is that creating a system for 'measuring' the qualities in a person's face is tricky. I agree that there are often physical similarities- vibes- of people who share cognitive functions, and I really like the idea of exploring that. But I don't know how it could become the absolute method of typing someone. I think it could be one of the key factors, but not the sole factor.

  4. #54
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    I agree there are too many mistypes in their videos to take it seriously. I think it's a sketchy way to type. Too much influence of family, culture, gender, etc, can come into play.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  5. #55
    Member chaoticbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    6 sx
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainheart View Post
    I don't know why you're getting defensive. I didn't mean it in a negative way at all. I'm saying the descriptions of the cognitive functions are consistent with those of Jung and the order of those cognitive functions are those of the INFP- Fi Ne Si Te in the cognitive types method. INFP can be used as shorthand for that series of functions, which is what I was doing.

    There is the Fi/Te polarity and tension described in Jung, and there exists a similar, yet not as great polarity in Ne/Si. The cognitive type thesis makes sense to me and is consistent with Jung. It emphasizes that the dominant function remains dominant and the other functions operate more as a method of support when used correctly. In that way I don't see it as something totally different but a system that builds off Jung and subsequent Jung theorists in a perfectly logical way.
    I wasn't getting defensive, I thought you were saying that a theory that uses Jungian terms must coincide with Jung completely. And I was just arguing against that idea.

  6. #56
    brainheart
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chaoticbrain View Post
    I wasn't getting defensive, I thought you were saying that a theory that uses Jungian terms must coincide with Jung completely. And I was just arguing against that idea.
    Ok. It's cool. You probably didn't notice I changed that before I read your response. I do a lot of editing after posting for about twenty minutes- we'll call it my Fi getting balanced by my Te

  7. #57
    Member chaoticbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    6 sx
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stansmith View Post
    I've noticed that I don't do Se lock-ons at all, at least not on tape.
    Yes, and that's actually why I'd tentatively type you as NeFI right now.

    Why did you decide you were ISFP out of curiosity ?

  8. #58
    Stansmith
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chaoticbrain View Post
    Yes, and that's actually why I'd tentatively type you as NeFI right now.

    Why did you decide you were ISFP out of curiosity ?
    It was a unanimous vote.

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    353

    Default

    They typed me as an ESTP What they failed to take into consideration is that I am usually not very animated (Ti > Se) but that when it comes time to act (aka, to answer some interview questions), then Se may be more manifest than Ti. Overall they did a good job.

  10. #60
    Member chaoticbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    6 sx
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainheart View Post
    All I'm saying is the descriptions of the cognitive functions are consistent with those of Jung and the order of those cognitive functions are those of the INFP- Fi Ne Si Te in the cognitive types method. INFP can be used as shorthand for that series of functions, which is what I was doing.

    There is the Fi/Te polarity and tension described in Jung, and there exists a similar, yet not as great polarity in Ne/Si. The cognitive type thesis makes sense to me and is consistent with Jung. It emphasizes that the dominant function remains dominant and the other functions operate more as a method of support when used correctly. In that way I don't see it as something totally different but a system that builds off Jung and subsequent Jung theorists in a perfectly logical way. I like the idea of describing function dynamic as a circle or loop more than something linear. That makes more sense to me, too.

    The difference between Jung and the visual typing method is that Jung leaves a lot nebulous which can adjust to personal interpretation. There's a subjectivity to it. The visual typing method strikes me as more of an objectively standardized approach. When it comes to people, there's going to be some irregularities. All I'm saying is that creating a system for 'measuring' the qualities in a person's face is tricky. I agree that there are often physical similarities- vibes- of people who share cognitive functions, and I really like the idea of exploring that. But I don't know how it could become the absolute method of typing someone. I think it could be one of the key factors, but not the sole factor.
    I think I kind of see what you mean about the "vagueness" which exists within humans, but if one has no objective standard then imo, it can't be that useful in studying trends in humans. I still think CT would be useful even if it's not measuring exactly the functions, because atleast then we can have a non-ambiguous way of measuring someone's type.

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