User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 19 of 19

  1. #11
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    So you think this whole idea applies equally to the Judging functions? I would think that Perceiving is driven by context (ie. a framework; shifting or solid) and Judging is driven by criteria (ie. a yardstick; personal or impersonal).

    And why "receptivity"? Can you expand on what you mean by that?
    Your context or framework depends on receptivity, where the latter term simply means "openness to experience." Our perceptions are open to whichever context is habituated and then termed a 'function.' In my previous post I gave examples of the two basic types of receptivity, Ji and Pe. The rest is explained in that post.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  2. #12
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Looking back at the OP, I'm not seeing a big distinction in what we're respectively saying. I just don't think 'context' is the right terminology to use.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  3. #13
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    This would be all well and good if people subjectively viewed it in this way, but they don't. Firstly, this basically tells us nothing useful regarding behaviour; it's cold and meaningless as an explanation. Secondly, the reality is people are always going to seek to get something more useful out of it. This can be positive or it can end in prejudice, and partly why I'm trying to rethink things is to offer an alternative to the language that generates bias. Thirdly, as soon as even experts actually apply this they're going to start saying more about what it suggests; what it means for how we behave. Clearly there are underlying factors even within your definition - aspects that are fundamental to understanding how these things operate that are worth exploring. Also, it fails to address the way we shape our own perception; what we choose to see and the way we choose to see it. Perception is not like film in a camera, capturing the reality as it is (although even this idea is problematic). Perception is merely a representation of reality.

    The truth is, I'm not actually trying to do away with your definition. I'm just trying to get something more productive out of it.
    I mean if you say to someone who doesent know type that he is subjectively objective and secondarily expansively expansive, how much do you think the person gets out of your definition of him?

    Then if you tell the same person this instead:
    a thinking attitude is oriented by the principle of logic; a sensation attitude is oriented by the direct perception of concrete facts; intuition orients itself to future possibilities; and feeling is governed by subjective worth. -Jung

    And you ask him what type of attitude he generally has and what he lacks the most and he will know at least something about his type.

    Or you tell him:
    thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is important or unimportant for us, sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the background, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation. -Jung

    Or if you simplify these things to:
    S = sense perception
    T = logical definition
    F = judging personal worth
    N = seeing the hidden possibilities via unconscious process


    The definitions of jungs time were little different from what the definitions are now, which is:
    Quote Originally Posted by http://allpsych.com/psychology101/sensation_perception.html
    Sensation refers to the process of sensing our environment through touch, taste, sight, sound, and smell. This information is sent to our brains in raw form where perception comes into play. Perception is the way we interpret these sensations and therefore make sense of everything around us.
    Or well the definition for sensation is still the same, but at jungs time perception was more general term used also in sensation.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    the concept of Receptivity should always play a part in describing the perceiving functions. Receptivity is a matter of fine-tuning one's consciousness to either a broader or more specific context. Ji, which is risk-aversive, prefers to narrow in like a laser beam on a more specific context. Pe, which is risk-taking, prefers to broaden their context, ever-expanding and taking in even more contexts all at the same time.

    In practice, you will see that Ji has a more-or-less narrow viewpoint that focuses on only a limited number of contexts. At the extreme, there is only one goal and only one method to achieving the goal. Safety is the prime motivator here, they practice the virtues of "tried and true," "never switch horses in the middle of a stream," and "slow and steady wins the race."

    In practice, you will see that Pe has a very broad-minded and flexible viewpoint from which to derive contexts of various sorts. At the extreme, it is hard to get them tied down to any specific notion, they fly from one notion to the next. They draw broad comparisons between ideas and/or objects that often don't make sense to others. The Pe implicitly follows such ideas as, "The mind that opens to a new idea never returns to its original size" (Einstein).
    Disagree heavily with Ji. Most ixtjs fall under your explanation then and ixtp.

    I actually apply more contexts and ideas then most and make an attempt to properly balance these and to also categorize them into a certain priority that is context based.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poki View Post
    Disagree heavily with Ji. Most ixtjs fall under your explanation then and ixtp.

    I actually apply more contexts and ideas then most and make an attempt to properly balance these and to also categorize them into a certain priority that is context based.
    I didn't say there was anything wrong with the concept of 'context.' I'm just saying that receptivity comes before it. And what you're talking about above is not Pe.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #16
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    Regarding S/N and context, my only deviating thought would be that I don't know if it's accurate to say Se perceives a narrow context... Unless you mean that Se prefers to limit to the "narrow" present context, which I would agree with, though I hesitate to see it as narrow because the present situation technically contains an infinite amount of information, making it equal to what Ne perceives.
    I was a little uncertain of using the word "narrow" because it has a negative connotation - so consider that a temporary placeholder for the idea behind it.

    Yes, I partly mean narrow in that it is very specific to an immediate, emerging context (though not necessarily in the present, physical world, because it can be through creative works or daydreaming, for example). It's expansive in a linear fashion, like a story unfolding. I've actually come to see the function as very narrative-like in nature, as it explores an idea to its full length. Ne on the other hand is related to an overarching, diverging context - it expands outwardly not linearly.

    I think the specificity comes in more because it zooms in on tangible elements, not because it prefers to limit the context, as Se operates in the ever-changing present. Semantics, really, though I figure I'll leave this thought train since the entire thread is devoted to semantics.
    I actually think (like what I was trying to get at with the cyclist example) the tangibility is a indirect result of a desire to limit context. I believe the way they think is what draws them to the tangible world and to engage in their senses. I mean, if you're very aware of the narrative style elements of things, wouldn't you experience your life as if you were a character in a story: taking in your environment and feeling keenly aware of the way things unfold around you.

    Si is surprisingly... Spacious. It can seem very rigid and nostalgic, but when I hear my Si-dom unpack it, it's actually quite beautiful, inquisitive, and seeking. Have you ever seen the .gif where it looks like you are infinitely zooming into fractals within fractals? I see Pi functions kind of like that. It's like the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, the more there is to find. I think the fractals correlate a little better to Ni, because of the retained patterns, but the infinite zooming is very Si, too. Worlds within worlds, details within details. He sees an old photo of downtown and immediately catches that there is a random mailbox on the second story wall of a brick building. He wonders whose box it is... Who lived there... Why it was put there. Details within details. It goes deeper than "comparing the past and present". It's more like seeing iterations and traces of the past infinitely within the present.
    I agree. This is what I'm trying to get at. I'm starting to see Si as a process of unpacking information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glint View Post
    Kross, I like the way you put it! Your explanation addresses well the generally used descriptions of S vs N that have bothered me a lot and caused me to doubt my type. (see my MBTI to the left of this post.)
    Especially the association of S with 'practical' because if you look hard and far enough, just about anything conceivable can have a practical application.
    My insistence on topics having meaning/relevance ("what's the point of blindly memorizing all of these details?") also kept getting me typed as S by other people. hahaha
    You're so right about "practicality" being a very vague term that it can end up having little meaning. Same goes with Intuitives being associated with "conceptual thinking". As I think my example of me and my ENTP cousin demonstrates, concepts can sometimes be more S-oriented.

    Relevance is important; it's just that the way that is defined varies widely between types. As a INFP I can talk for hours about random ideas just for the fun of it, but when my dad randomly asks me to do a specific task for him, I immediately ask "why?". I can't help it. I just need to know what larger purpose it serves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Looking back at the OP, I'm not seeing a big distinction in what we're respectively saying. I just don't think 'context' is the right terminology to use.
    I think we may be.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  7. #17
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    I mean if you say to someone who doesent know type that he is subjectively objective and secondarily expansively expansive, how much do you think the person gets out of your definition of him?

    Then if you tell the same person this instead:
    a thinking attitude is oriented by the principle of logic; a sensation attitude is oriented by the direct perception of concrete facts; intuition orients itself to future possibilities; and feeling is governed by subjective worth. -Jung

    And you ask him what type of attitude he generally has and what he lacks the most and he will know at least something about his type.

    Or you tell him:
    thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is important or unimportant for us, sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the background, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation. -Jung

    Or if you simplify these things to:
    S = sense perception
    T = logical definition
    F = judging personal worth
    N = seeing the hidden possibilities via unconscious process


    The definitions of jungs time were little different from what the definitions are now, which is:


    Or well the definition for sensation is still the same, but at jungs time perception was more general term used also in sensation.
    I understand what you're getting at. I think your definition is more immediately clear, but my point is that this can still obfuscate things. I think if you asked a Sensor who is not yet typed (or even one that is) if they use "sense perception", they wouldn't find that revealing or something they identified with. Hell, I'm definitely a Feeler, but I would really struggle to pick "judging personal worth" over "logical definition". This makes me think there's something lacking in these kinds of definitions that make it harder to grasp what the function is really about.

    I don't mean to say my descriptions should be put out into the world in the form they are currently in, not do I think it's something that would be good for first time MBTI users. I'm just wondering if this sort of approach is something that may be more useful for make sense of the differences, in a less biased and dissuasive manner, and perhaps going forward, it may help others to type themselves. I mean, I've been reading about MBTI for years and I still find it difficult to verbally define N and S on the spot in a way that doesn't make Sensors sound like idiots. The wording just isn't easy for to connect with and I imagine others feel the same.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  8. #18
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    I understand what you're getting at. I think your definition is more immediately clear, but my point is that this can still obfuscate things. I think if you asked a Sensor who is not yet typed (or even one that is) if they use "sense perception", they wouldn't find that revealing or something they identified with. Hell, I'm definitely a Feeler, but I would really struggle to pick "judging personal worth" over "logical definition". This makes me think there's something lacking in these kinds of definitions that make it harder to grasp what the function is really about.

    I don't mean to say my descriptions should be put out into the world in the form they are currently in, not do I think it's something that would be good for first time MBTI users. I'm just wondering if this sort of approach is something that may be more useful for make sense of the differences, in a less biased and dissuasive manner, and perhaps going forward, it may help others to type themselves. I mean, I've been reading about MBTI for years and I still find it difficult to verbally define N and S on the spot in a way that doesn't make Sensors sound like idiots. The wording just isn't easy for to connect with and I imagine others feel the same.
    You're nitpicking. "Sense perception" isn't a very good description for it, but INTP's first language isn't English.

    If you would find it difficult to pick between "judging personal worth" and "logical definition," then it's probably because you're a little of both. Consider your OP with its logical definitions. That post is as Ti as they come.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  9. #19
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    You're nitpicking. "Sense perception" isn't a very good description for it, but INTP's first language isn't English.
    Wow, a Ti-dom accusing me of nickpicking. That's a scary thought.

    But seriously, it's not my intention to nitpick over INTP's shorthand descriptions. I'm trying to get across my own subjective impression of what appears problematic of MBTI definitions in general - a subjective impression that I have seen mirrored in others' reactions over many years. If I discuss the matter in that way it's because I don't think me saying something like, "it doesn't capture the vibe right" would be an argument most people would really respond to. I'm just trying to use examples and more objective arguments as a means of conveying the subjective impression. I certainly don't want to tear all these structures down and start afresh. I'm just wondering if too many labels on certain types are distorting our view of their real traits. I'm interested in finding ways to define and understand different types in a way that matches their subjective experience of the world.

    If you would find it difficult to pick between "judging personal worth" and "logical definition," then it's probably because you're a little of both. Consider your OP with its logical definitions. That post is as Ti as they come.
    I'm glad I get the Ti seal of approval but it's far to consciously done and forcibly structured to be Ti. What I wrote is merely the closest, comprehensible approximation of how I think about and connect these ideas; it's a translation of Fi. Subjectively speaking, I'm well aware that the way I think differs from Ti users; that their brand of logic is clearly distinct from my own. I'm also aware of a hazy grey between Ti and Fi that is hard to define and differentiate between, and that area interests me - as does the differences between all the functions.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-12-2011, 09:57 AM
  2. New Titles For Extrovert and Introvert
    By Savage Idealist in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-03-2011, 07:25 AM
  3. A poem for a time and place
    By Pseudonym_Alpha in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2007, 12:18 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