User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 73

  1. #51
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Martoon View Post
    I've always had the understanding that the categorization was based on the following theory:

    Ns are more defined by their abstract, internal process (i.e., what they're thinking or feeling), and how they go about coming up with things. Thinking vs. Feeling is a significant differentiator in how they do this.

    Ss are more defined by their external interaction with the concrete world. Perceiving vs. Judging is a significant differentiator in how they do this.
    I don't see how that's the case, since Thinking and Feeling are the "modes" of the judging function. It sounds to me like comparing peanut butter sandwiches to soup, instead of peanut butter sandwiches to chicken noodle soup, or just sandwiches to soup. Though maybe there is more behind it that I don't see...
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Bella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    No, it's like this: 'Let's just define those big ole lumpy S's by their ''external interaction with the concrete world", they don't do much feeling or thinking in any case, now do they, heheee, dumb ogres, heehheee.'

    Whatever.
    yesiknowimamiserablegrouchnowgoawayovmeleor

    It's Mizzz ST, thank you...

  3. #53
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    U.S. Population breakdown according to type

    from wikipedia

    ISFJ -13.8%
    ESFJ -12.3%
    ISTJ -11.6%
    ISFP -8.8%
    ESTJ -8.7%
    ESFP -8.5%
    ENFP -8.1%
    ISTP -5.4%
    ESTP -4.3%
    INFP -4.3%
    INTP -3.3%
    ENTP -3.2%
    ENFJ -2.4%
    INTJ -2.1%
    ENTJ -1.8%
    INFJ -1.5%

  4. #54
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Your position is that the groupings mean nothing, and shouldn't be, is that correct? That only the sixteen types themselves are valid classifications?
    No... You are polarizing my position - I stated only that the grouping are arbitary, and when I bothered to respond in any detail, explained that the 4 traits are unique directions of measurement. It's those that define the available groupings.

    You are the one stating that the one grouping is more valid (differential) than the others, because it's something "you see". I'm saying that you see the differences because you *look* for those differences. By definition, each of the traits are unique, and flattening type into any of those dimensions will simple flatten the measurements along those trait lines.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Is gravity a confirmation bias?
    What the hell? No, that's not confirmation bias. Seeing a magnet attract something downward and calling it gravity would be confirmation bias. Seeing only gravity everywhere you look, defining everything by gravity, not seeing anything by gravity would be confirmation bias.

    Yeesh.

    Pardon my ignorance, but I thought it ought to be corrected since, I assume, you were making a point against or for the OP. I was less interested in how it related than the fact that you were wrong.
    Confirmation bias referred to the OP, in context, to the perception of greater differences due to the existing groupings. What you said didn't reject anything I said, it didn't even address anything I said. What do functions have to do with any of this? The groups don't even separate into functions!

    It's more like how you will naturally classify behavior against functions because that's what you see in the world. You will omit information or force information to fit your model, rejecting other ideas, concepts and even data in order to preserve your conceptual model.

    Functions equal gravity, confirmation bias as gravity? Gawd, it's conversations like this that make me question my use of time!

  5. #55
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    What the hell? No, that's not confirmation bias. Seeing a magnet attract something downward and calling it gravity would be confirmation bias. Seeing only gravity everywhere you look, defining everything by gravity, not seeing anything by gravity would be confirmation bias.
    But gravity is everywhere. Everything has it. Even negligible entities like subatomic particles.

    Just like type. It's everywhere. It can't be avoided. You can see it everywhere because it is everywhere. Even the most minute behavior fits in somewhere.

    If understood properly, it does not coerce its proponents to ignore or deny validity of counteracting information.

    Confirmation bias referred to the OP, in context, to the perception of greater differences due to the existing groupings.
    That's true.
    You weren't exactly clear in the post I originally responded to, or any of the ones leading up to it.
    we fukin won boys

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    No... You are polarizing my position - I stated only that the grouping are arbitary, and when I bothered to respond in any detail, explained that the 4 traits are unique directions of measurement. It's those that define the available groupings.

    You are the one stating that the one grouping is more valid (differential) than the others, because it's something "you see". I'm saying that you see the differences because you *look* for those differences. By definition, each of the traits are unique, and flattening type into any of those dimensions will simple flatten the measurements along those trait lines.
    I can see with crystalline clarity that you're avoiding stating an argument so you "can't be defeated." I've had the confidence to state my position. What is yours? I asked plainly if it was that grouping further than 16 types was nonsense, and you say "No." So, you must believe splitting into fewer than 16 categories is sensible, but won't admit in what way, yet still claim that my choice of grouping is arbitrary, and therefore invalid. The entirity of personality study is arbitrary, meaning based on someone's perception and analysis.

    Claiming that I'm looking for the differences I want to see would normally be considered an insult, but it only illustrates perception problems on your end, because it simply isn't true.

  7. #57
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    I can see with crystalline clarity that you're avoiding stating an argument so you "can't be defeated." I've had the confidence to state my position. What is yours? I asked plainly if it was that grouping further than 16 types was nonsense, and you say "No." So, you must believe splitting into fewer than 16 categories is sensible, but won't admit in what way, yet still claim that my choice of grouping is arbitrary, and therefore invalid. The entirity of personality study is arbitrary, meaning based on someone's perception and analysis.
    Blah blah.

    I said that any division of categories is arbitary and serves to flatten those traits. Nothing wrong with that, and as I have said before, more than once, nothing special about it either. You positively assert that one asymmetrical grouping is superior than the others, and I disagreed. You can reread post 30 and 40, of mine, where I clarified my stance and explained why I thought that way, respectively. Feel free to point me to any post in which you actually supported your position (preferrably not the ones where you told me you don't intend to).

    In case you don't find my older posts enough: You aren't wrong when you group, only when you say that one is dominant over the other. Dominant requires you to observe particular traits->behaviors more than others (hence, if you do believe it to be dominant, it is confirmation bias).

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    You weren't exactly clear in the post I originally responded to, or any of the ones leading up to it.
    I would of clarified, but I had no clue what you were referring to (granted, those posts were just jabs with Jack, so I agree that they weren't clear - I certainly didn't put any effort in them.)

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I said that any division of categories is arbitary and serves to flatten those traits. Nothing wrong with that, and as I have said before, more than once, nothing special about it either. You positively assert that one asymmetrical grouping is superior than the others, and I disagreed. You can reread post 30 and 40, of mine, where I clarified my stance and explained why I thought that way, respectively. Feel free to point me to any post in which you actually supported your position (preferrably not the ones where you told me you don't intend to).
    On what basis am I supposed to support my position when I have nothing to compare it to? Am I to say my system is better than a tree? Than God? Than mathematics? You're asking me to redefine the word good.

    You can insult the analyst for bothering to think about things, and classify things, but if you have nothing to offer, and no stance of your own, why not let him go about his business?

    Your niche in this thread has been nothing but "the antagonist," inconsequential and simply irritating.

  9. #59
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    On what basis am I supposed to support my position when I have nothing to compare it to? Am I to say my system is better than a tree? Than God? Than mathematics? You're asking me to redefine the word good.
    If your group is better than the other groupings, then maybe you could justify your grouping compared to... you know... the other possible groupings.

    Or, you could even explain why you think your grouping has any meaning at all! It wouldn't prove your statement, but at least it'd have content.

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    If your group is better than the other groupings, then maybe you could justify your grouping compared to... you know... the other possible groupings.

    Or, you could even explain why you think your grouping has any meaning at all! It wouldn't prove your statement, but at least it'd have content.
    Here's the rub, Chuck. Most people already agree with me. I don't like to debate without good reason, because there's stress involved. But if you want to present a clear position and try your hand against mine, let's have it.

    (Still, I'm sure most of my reasons are in Please Understand Me II, so I'd be rehasing the old. Not because it's my Bible, because the reasoning makes sense.)

Similar Threads

  1. why is it that people get butthurt and call others trolls
    By prplchknz in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 08-09-2012, 09:32 PM
  2. Why is it devided, NF, NT, SP, SJ?
    By magil in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 09:28 PM
  3. Why is it wrong to oppress people?
    By Journey in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 04-14-2008, 01:29 PM
  4. Why is it so hard to not feed the trolls?
    By Zergling in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 05:23 AM
  5. WHY can't I become someone else? Why is it not possible to really change?
    By mysavior in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 02:40 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