User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 15 of 15

  1. #11
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    This incident occurred on Facebook right after I posted the above:

    Me posting a comment on something I posted to my newsfeed: Why is it impossible to escape from a black hole? Because once you go black you never go back.

    INFP friend suddenly PMs me:
    Why would you post that crap on my page?

    ME: what crap?

    INFP: I do not wish to have racial comments on my page

    ME: why not? and anyway, I posted it to my time line

    INFP: Oh. My mistake actually

    ME: i haven't messed with your page in a long time
    besides, that joke was taken from a conversation with a black physicist
    that i found on youtube

    INFP: Yeah I don't judge where it came from or the motive, I just don't want it
    My apologies for misconstruing where it was posted

    ME: apology accepted


    Notice he said "racial" not "racist." In the past I've seen that he champions race causes. Si's knee-jerk reaction distorted his thinking into believing that the joke was intended to be personal, posted to his page as some kind of personal attack, even though he's not black.

    On the other hand, I have another (non-deaf) INFP friend who champions the cause of hearing-impairedness. I can post racial jokes to him all I want, and he'll laugh. But I'm not allowed to make any jokes about deaf people, even though he's not deaf, because he identifies with the deaf community.
    "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
    Aspie Idealist TaylorS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    972 so/sp
    Socionics
    EII Ni
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Socially and politically conservative? I'm a freaking COMMUNIST, dude.
    Autistic INFP


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

    Default

    Psycholically developed INFP can differentiate between Si and Fi so that they arent tied together so much.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #14
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    I don't see that as insulting, I'm just disgusted with how quiet this forum is most of the time when it comes to intelligent typological discussion.
    The idea that IN_P's have an "Si" tertiary — and that makes them similar to SJs in ways that NJs and SPs are not — comes from the silly Harold Grant functions model. And for what it's worth, that model is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers.

    But more important than its inconsistency with Jung and Myers (neither of whom was perfect): If that model had any freaking validity at all, there would be pools of data — already! in the decades of data pools that the MBTI folks and independent researchers have gathered — where the relevant correlations had to do with things significantly affected by "Si/Ne vs. Se/Ni," with the result that the SJs and NPs (the "Si/Ne" types) were together on one side of the results and the NJs and SPs (the "Se/Ni" types) were together on the other side.

    But that's virtually never the way any MBTI-related data pool looks. There is absolutely no respectable body of support for the tertiary-function aspect of the Harold Grant model.

    And if you think about it from a theoretical standpoint, that's really not too surprising, right? Start with an INFP. If you flip the N, you get an ISFP, and they're different from INFPs in various ways as a result, right? Now go back to the INFP and flip the P and you get an INFJ, and they're different from INFPs in various ways as a result, right? Now go back to the INFP and flip both the N and the P. Why would you expect the resulting ISFJ (with two preferences flipped) to be more like the INFP than either the ISFP or INFJ (each of whom has just one preference flipped) are? It seems kind of counterintuitive, doesn't it?

    Now, just because a theory is counterintuitive doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. Buuut in this case, on top of being counterintuitive, the fact is that that's just not how the MBTI dimensions actually play out in real people in the real world.

    In the spoiler are membership stats for TC and PerC.


    You couldn't ask for a much better set of results, from the standpoint of the validity of the MBTI dichotomies, than those forum type frequencies. The MBTI doesn't ask people if they use internet forums (or the internet), and it doesn't ask them if they're interested in personality (or psychology). But the type frequency pattern at both forums (involving relatively large samples) is almost perfectly in line with a type-related explanation that says that (1) an N preference has a very large impact on the likelihood that someone will participate in personality-related internet forums, and (2) introversion also has a substantial impact (but not as large as an N preference).

    But from the standpoint of the functions? The top four types are the INs, and they make up 62% of TC's members and 60% of PerC's members (but less than 12% of the general population), and they're a tidy foursome from a dichotomy-centric perspective, but they have three different dominant functions (Ni, Ti and Fi). Good luck coming up with any function-based set of influences on MBTI forum membership that does nearly as good a job of explaining the frequencies as the obvious dichotomy-based explanation.

    In any case, and more generally, I'm here to tell you that I will be very surprised if you or any other Fi-Ne-Si-Te function-model aficionado can point me to any set of data where — because Si vs. Se (and/or Ni vs. Ne, and/or Si/Ne vs. Ni/Se) is the relevant personality component coming into play (with respect to political conservatism or anything else) — the NPs and SJs are together on one side of the spectrum and the NJs and SPs are together on the other. Instead, if the data pool is one where the NPs are at or near one end of the spectrum, you can pretty reliably expect to find the SJs at or near the other end.

    And so, in conclusion, and returning to the part of your post that I quoted: Discussion of the "tertiary Si" of an INFP doesn't really qualify as "intelligent typological discussion." You might as well be talking about somebody's zodiac sign.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    The idea that IN_P's have an "Si" tertiary — and that makes them similar to SJs in ways that NJs and SPs are not — comes from the silly Harold Grant functions model. And for what it's worth, that model is inconsistent with both Jung and Myers.
    I have never heard of Harold Grant or his "silly" theory. However, I am not against "silly" theories or the inconsistencies they have with "non-silly" theories because those are other theories. Theories are going to be inconsistent with each other. But as long as the theory is not inconsistent WITHIN itself then I'll open-mindedly consider it.

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    But more important than its inconsistency with Jung and Myers (neither of whom was perfect): If that model had any freaking validity at all, there would be pools of data — already! in the decades of data pools that the MBTI folks and independent researchers have gathered — where the relevant correlations had to do with things significantly affected by "Si/Ne vs. Se/Ni," with the result that the SJs and NPs (the "Si/Ne" types) were together on one side of the results and the NJs and SPs (the "Se/Ni" types) were together on the other side.

    But that's virtually never the way any MBTI-related data pool looks. There is absolutely no respectable body of support for the tertiary-function aspect of the Harold Grant model.
    I'm skeptical about what is considered "respectable" or not. Euclidean geometry was considered respectable for over two thousand years until it was finally proven wrong. Euclidean geometry is true in a sense, but only if you consider it as true in itself, via imagining a perfectly flat plane that doesn't exist in reality.
    The danger is assuming that the real world corresponds to this geometrical imagining. In terms of JCF or MBTI, or Harold Grant, the danger is in imagining that people correspond to the theory based on real data that has been shaped to conform with the imaginary system.

    The latter is why some typologists consider JCF and MBTI to be unscientific.

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    And if you think about it from a theoretical standpoint, that's really not too surprising, right? Start with an INFP. If you flip the N, you get an ISFP, and they're different from INFPs in various ways as a result, right? Now go back to the INFP and flip the P and you get an INFJ, and they're different from INFPs in various ways as a result, right? Now go back to the INFP and flip both the N and the P. Why would you expect the resulting ISFJ (with two preferences flipped) to be more like the INFP than either the ISFP or INFJ (each of whom has just one preference flipped) are? It seems kind of counterintuitive, doesn't it?

    Now, just because a theory is counterintuitive doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. Buuut in this case, on top of being counterintuitive, the fact is that that's just not how the MBTI dimensions actually play out in real people in the real world.
    My purpose is to resolve inconsistencies between theory and reality. What reality? Mine. My reality. The reality of people around me, either now or in the past. I'm not considering them in terms of how they conform to theory, but in terms of how their behavior does not conform to theory. I don't intend to knock down Jung - I don't have that much chutzpah - but simply to add to it. If nobody believes me, then so be it. I'll just carry on as usual because nobody can tell ME how I am supposed to think, not Jung, not Rand, not Kant, not my parents, not forum members - NOBODY.

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    In the spoiler are membership stats for TC and PerC.


    You couldn't ask for a much better set of results, from the standpoint of the validity of the MBTI dichotomies, than those forum type frequencies. The MBTI doesn't ask people if they use internet forums (or the internet), and it doesn't ask them if they're interested in personality (or psychology). But the type frequency pattern at both forums (involving relatively large samples) is almost perfectly in line with a type-related explanation that says that (1) an N preference has a very large impact on the likelihood that someone will participate in personality-related internet forums, and (2) introversion also has a substantial impact (but not as large as an N preference).

    But from the standpoint of the functions? The top four types are the INs, and they make up 62% of TC's members and 60% of PerC's members (but less than 12% of the general population), and they're a tidy foursome from a dichotomy-centric perspective, but they have three different dominant functions (Ni, Ti and Fi). Good luck coming up with any function-based set of influences on MBTI forum membership that does nearly as good a job of explaining the frequencies as the obvious dichotomy-based explanation.

    In any case, and more generally, I'm here to tell you that I will be very surprised if you or any other Fi-Ne-Si-Te function-model aficionado can point me to any set of data where — because Si vs. Se (and/or Ni vs. Ne, and/or Si/Ne vs. Ni/Se) is the relevant personality component coming into play (with respect to political conservatism or anything else) — the NPs and SJs are together on one side of the spectrum and the NJs and SPs are together on the other. Instead, if the data pool is one where the NPs are at or near one end of the spectrum, you can pretty reliably expect to find the SJs at or near the other end.

    And so, in conclusion, and returning to the part of your post that I quoted: Discussion of the "tertiary Si" of an INFP doesn't really qualify as "intelligent typological discussion." You might as well be talking about somebody's zodiac sign.
    Okay, then let's discuss astrology. It's all good fun.
    "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.”

Similar Threads

  1. [Si] INFP Tertiary Si
    By Amargith in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 09-18-2014, 07:49 PM
  2. [Si] more tertiary Si for NTPs
    By Feline in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 11:27 AM
  3. [INFP] Post songs that best describe "INFP"
    By Eluded_One in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-01-2014, 01:34 PM
  4. [JCF] Dissecting the INFP Fi-Si Loop
    By Udog in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 02-17-2013, 01:00 AM
  5. What do Inferior Te + Tertiary Si and Inferior Si + Tertiary Look Like?
    By Savage Idealist in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-21-2011, 03:27 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