User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 57

  1. #41
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    I guess the greatest problem concerning MBTI I have is, there is absolutely no german reference. I searched the web, I found nothing that explained any of the functions or types in words, I understand a 100% aswell.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #42
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Think about the thing about pushing people back, who want to get close to you.

    You hit my weak spot on purpose . I might seem infp due to this fact, meaning getting closer to people, but I aint because I dont. I respect your thoughts and your insights thats why I want to get closer. That's no Fi thing.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  3. #43
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    The flipping was a large catalyst in my decision to minimize thinking about functions at all. The socionics system retains Jung's functions, and since I'm INTP and INTp, I have two mutually exclusive dominant functions listed, Ti and Ni, and they both make sense on their own terms. When you can do that, something's wrong.
    See this is where things get blurred. I prefer Ti-Se per Jung, regardless of what system it is. Jack what you are implying is that you prefer Ti-Ne as defined by one system (MBTI) and Ni-Te as defined by the other (Socionics). Clearly they are different functions so I have always asked people who come to the same conclusion as you, are the two systems defining the cognitive functions that differently or is it the reader?

  4. #44
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    But I think we most agree that Keirsey only confused things when he used Myers-Briggs' four letter codes instead of staying with his titles. Since his theory is not based on the same thing, he has muddled things for those who attempt to correlated the two systems. Besides Myers-Briggs saw temperaments from her system as ST-SF-NT-NF.

    Berens also used the four letter codes, however as she develops her system more and weens herself from Keirsey she refers to her titles more. The two word titles are good because they have meaning for the individual as they see themselves and for those who see the person differently, hence Analyzer/Operator (ISTP), Designer/Theorizer (INTP) etc.

    When I considered the three letter codes, I was basing it more on Jung's theory than MBTI. Since Myers-Briggs believes that the dominant function is less prevalent in introverts my codes reflect Jung's thoughts that the dominant function is prevalent (regardless of attitude) and the auxiliary is in clear subordination:
    I wondered why Keirsey didn't just make up his own letter code, since he replaces two of the MBTI factors with two of his own. So you could have something like this:
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tml#post194150

    I guess he wanted to hook on to what was popular.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  5. #45
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Actually I question why he uses codes at all since he gives his descriptions names. The difference is that although I do relate to the SP core values (even more since Berens/Nardi modified the temperaments), I do not relate to any of Keirsey's individual descriptions in that core. The INTJ sounds more like me. Thus he could have went with his names, but it would have not been as impactful as using the MBTI codes. Nevertheless his system in my opinion is the least like MBTI.

  6. #46
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    This system was actually listed somewhere in Jung's book, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, your system makes more sense functionally speaking and in Jungian terms. It also brings MBTI theory into closer accord with Socionics.

    Although there is one thing I have a concern about, though... J/P seems to measure something. It seems to me that Js are people who get things done on time, think about what they'll do to reach their goals, and have something of a self-preservation instinct. Ps, on the other hand, are all adventurous and everything, just run around all over the place, take risks they don't stand to gain from, struggle to make themselves do anything they don't want to, have a poor understanding of boundaries/priorities, etc...

    Can you explain why this is? Does it have more to do with rationality/irrationality than J/P?
    Your description of P is rather inaccurate, and unkind as well, especially insinuating that Ps are irrational.
    You make them sound flighty and incapable rational thinking.
    You named all the bad qualities of being P but none of the good ones,
    besides the fact that not all Ps have all those bad traits.

    I understand how you could think that way though,
    because to a J, especially a TJ, Ps certainly LOOK that way.

    P desires to keep its options open as long as possible believing that closing off options quickly might prevent the "best" solution from coming about.
    P is constantly weighing opportunities and advantages.
    They don't want to exclude anything from possibly being used in whatever application they're looking at.

    Sometimes the P way is better than the J way.
    In actuality, they each have their pros and cons.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    See this is where things get blurred. I prefer Ti-Se per Jung, regardless of what system it is. Jack what you are implying is that you prefer Ti-Ne as defined by one system (MBTI) and Ni-Te as defined by the other (Socionics). Clearly they are different functions so I have always asked people who come to the same conclusion as you, are the two systems defining the cognitive functions that differently or is it the reader?
    What's most important is that the functions and their descriptions are but one attempt to describe what's actually going on inside the head. It's fundamental, everything else follows that. Once you accept it could be flawed:

    Depending on the school, alternate function descriptions can overlap and make equal sense to the supposed bearer, as in my case. When I read Jung's Psychological Types, I identified much with (I'll use function shorthand just for convenience) his descriptions of types Ti, Ni, Ne, and Te almost equally, to be perfectly honest. That done since his day stole a bit, made up some more, threw some strange bedfellows together, and called it good. The only author I'm aware of who took a step back was Keirsey.

    So I'm confident I'm an "Intuitive Thinker," but to get more specific doesn't provide me with any satisfaction.

    I should note that I am quite sure those of a type such as INTP have things in common beyond the preferences, but I stick to what can be observed, not conjected.

  8. #48
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    This system was actually listed somewhere in Jung's book, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, your system makes more sense functionally speaking and in Jungian terms. It also brings MBTI theory into closer accord with Socionics.
    Hmmm. I have never seen the system before. If someone has seen it please let me know since I do not want to be passing off someone elses work as my own.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Although there is one thing I have a concern about, though... J/P seems to measure something. It seems to me that Js are people who get things done on time, think about what they'll do to reach their goals, and have something of a self-preservation instinct. Ps, on the other hand, are all adventurous and everything, just run around all over the place, take risks they don't stand to gain from, struggle to make themselves do anything they don't want to, have a poor understanding of boundaries/priorities, etc...
    At one time you claimed to prefer INFJ did you not? So I will refer you back to one of my original threads started on behalf of the INFJ.COM author. I am in agreement that when most discuss J/P, they are not really talking about type any longer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Can you explain why this is? Does it have more to do with rationality/irrationality than J/P?
    J/P dichotomy was created in my opinion for Myers-Briggs to expound on her theory and introduce her instrument. Jung references to J/P merely in distinguishing T/F from S/N, nothing else. The J/P dichotomy in the succession of codes is redundant since it only points out what extraverted cognitive function is being preferred. Its just my opinion but Myers-Briggs also created the final code to coincide with her theory for reversing the letters for introverts, however her reasons outlined in Gifts Differing appear to misstate that Jung gave little notice of how introverted types engage their environments which is untrue.

  9. #49
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    You mean the pee way ?

    Sry I know that was totally childish
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  10. #50
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    What's most important is that the functions and their descriptions are but one attempt to describe what's actually going on inside the head. It's fundamental, everything else follows that. Once you accept it could be flawed:

    Depending on the school, alternate function descriptions can overlap and make equal sense to the supposed bearer, as in my case. When I read Jung's Psychological Types, I identified much with (I'll use function shorthand just for convenience) his descriptions of types Ti, Ni, Ne, and Te almost equally, to be perfectly honest. That done since his day stole a bit, made up some more, threw some strange bedfellows together, and called it good. The only author I'm aware of who took a step back was Keirsey.

    So I'm confident I'm an "Intuitive Thinker," but to get more specific doesn't provide me with any satisfaction.

    I should note that I am quite sure those of a type such as INTP have things in common beyond the preferences, but I stick to what can be observed, not conjected.
    Keirsey did not take a step back. His work is based on the temperament school of thought that has been around since Aristotle. Temperament naturally takes a step back, which is why they call it behaviorism since it groups people, not individualize. The cognitive functions created by Jung are said to be recognized by both Myers-Briggs and Socionics in applying their schools of thought. So Ti is or should be the same in either system. There is no overlapping.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2017, 11:18 AM
  2. Changes in the brain from adolescence to 20s
    By Robopop in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-12-2010, 01:45 AM
  3. DO NOT BE ALARMED: Change to the rep system
    By proteanmix in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 188
    Last Post: 05-07-2008, 04:43 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