- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 26,585
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 6w5
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
Thats why i said personality, not functions.
You said that MBTI model is wrong, if you make that claim, you should be able to tell whats wrong with it and why. You know i hear new people coming up with their crazy ideas all the time about the organization of functions and none of them were any good. So excuse my pessimism towards your ideas before you actually explain your ideas.
Well what does it say about the I/E of tert function there?
Okay.
Though I don't believe Jung was right about everything, either. More sensible than basic MBTI, of course.
Yes I'm able to tell you by citing psychology books... However I will not do that in one single forum post. Will not fit in one post. If you're interested, go read psychology books. I do call BS on some specific ideas when I run into them and I do often like to mention other psychology research in those cases.
You have not read my post very carefully; don't try to pigeonhole me if you only skim my posts. I already said I don't really have ideas, I only have observations of contradictions. I do not wish to build a new theory on functions or anything because I believe it's the wrong framework ultimately.
Do you disagree with it or what?
Why is it that, according to this, Fi just seems like a crudely specialized version of Ne?
Wel if we are talking about some ultimate right answers, there is no other correct answers than human anatomy and physics(both classical and quantum).
I have read quite a lot of psychology(personality, developmental, cognitive, research methods, neuro-, psychiatry, analytical, alchemy, buddhism, psychology of religion etc etc).
You havent showed that you understand the existing models, therefore i cant know if you see contradictions due to not understanding the systems or why -> those words are empty and mean nothing.
I couldnt find what the page says about the orientation of tert. And there is a reason why i chose that subject, i just wanted to see if you could pick up the reasons for "why orientation of tert question"
When researching the brain, it's not just anatomy however. But yes I'm a reductionist, meaning I need to see the connection from the most basic physical level to the highest mental level.
And have you not noticed any contradictions between these theories and MBTI even without making observations?
By the way, alchemy and buddhism are not part of the science of psychology.
So you have never ever seen any issues during your MBTI related observations? Seriously?
You also cannot find what it says about the orientation of the inferior.
It does mention the orientation of the auxiliary and when considering that you will then enter a can of worms
Another can of worms will be opened when considering this: http://www.myersbriggs.org/type-use-for-everyday-life/mbti-type-at-work/
The Fi one is one I am not happy with. The same could be said of the Se one and the Fe one.
Though I'm not sure what different I would conclude...
No time for thinking at the moment.
And I don't know, INTP. You know as much or more about this than I do, you tell us.
I think the whole building the fence thing is pretty stupid.
Well there are two point of views to human psyche, the subjective point of view(which can be divided into two, conscious and unconscious) and the objective point of view(anatomy). Both point of views are true, but the subjective view to psyche is only a part of the truth and the objective point of view is not complete(and i dont think that humans will be ever able to grasp the subjective experiences completely just by looking at the anatomy, but nevertheless the complete truth lies within anatomy).
MBTI is a reductonistic model of the personality, it doesent even try to sum up all personality, it just looks at what is useful for its use. What comes to contradictions, its really just about definitions and different systems use different definitions. Also the field of MBTI is quite divided and some of them are in contradiction with a lot of stuff. CPP has pretty good model(which is the official model) tho and i dont really see much major contradictions with their model and other stuff and even if i saw some, how could it be possible to determine which model is the flawed one? And yes i could look up some studies, but there isnt enough good studies about MBTI. But it correlates with learning styles, big 5 and many other stuff that has been accepted by the scientific world(cuz they have enough research done to them).
Also one major flaw in MBTI is that there isnt any tests that could determine the type. MBTI is not even trying to do that, its just offering a possible type, which should be verified by professionals and the person taking the test, but this doesent caunt as science cuz subjective.
A lot of psychology isnt "real science", take freud or most of jungs work for example. What comes to alchemy or buddhism, they do have stuff that qualify as psychology as much as freuds theories do. Here is one example about alchemy http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...iew-individuation-learning-use-functions.html . When it comes to buddhism, ill use their ways of meditation as an example, this is basically an process aiming to better ones psyche and it has been proven to work according to scientific method.
Ofc i have(and i have intentionally trying to dodge the question since my opinion is not relevant on trying to understand your opinions), but its mostly related to stuff like issues in testing type, people having weird theories about MBTI(that doesent go hand in hand with CPPs model or try to add to it) etc.
Originally MBTI said INTP would be TiNeSeFe(and other types follow similar pattern), later many practitioners have started to doubt the orientation of the tert and now tert is often left without I or E(TiNeSFe), some use the TiNeSiFe model and some still use the TiNeSeFe model.
[MENTION=20622]valaki[/MENTION]
The fence building problem was one websites approach to define how each function would act when approached with the task of building a fence. It goes like this:
Ne - I want to design the fence
Ni - Why do they want to do this and what is the deal with fences anyway? Is this necessary?
Se - I want to decorate the fence and make sure that it looks stylish and appealing
Si - I’ll take care of looking at the instructions and making sure that we follow the established guidelines
Te - Is doing this cost effective? Will it be useful?
Ti - I want to analyze the structure and placement of the fence
Fe - How will it affect the neighborhood, and what will the neighbors think?
Fi - I want it to be my own special fence that I can share with others over time
Reading over it today I think there are some errors they've made in the simplification of the functions - namely, this is one cause why I never identified with Se and so strongly with Ne. But merh. If I care so badly for people to get "right" information I should host my own material