Are we over-assigning N to people here?

[garbage]

Maybe MBTI statistics under-assign N to the general population.

Agree with this

Just gonna put this out there: It'd probably be more useful to devise a system in which the dichotomy splits hover around 50/50. Rearrange some definitions, ask different questions.. whatever needs to happen.

 

[Kalach]

Jung's theory of bipolarity was tested years ago by June Singer and Mary Loomis. Jung's bipolarity claim, didn't hold up. It failed.
99.9% of those in this forum either don't know it's true, or choose to ignore it.

Or don't understand what the fuck it means. I looked it up. They criticised Jung or MBTI? Or Jung is criticised by extrapolation when they discovered that non-forced choice testing frequently generates type results different to those from MBTI? Google wouldn't tell me.

Bipolarity is in effect the claim that from the dominant function on "down" through the function order, the functions are as in opposition as they can be, right? That is, where a function in order is perceiving (judging) and introverted (extroverted), then the next function down the order will be judging (perceiving) and extroverted (introverted). (Or bipolarity is just the claim that there are cognitive dichotomies? Same-difference, since such dichotomies lead to that kind of personality structure, right?)

And Singer and Loomis discovered that people get different type results if they check their type via questions that don't force a dichotomy choice? Which proves the dichotomies aren't dichotomous?

 

[Jaguar]

Google wouldn't tell me.

Then do your research better.

 

[tcda]

^^^You're not very pedagogic are you Jaguar?

 

[simulatedworld]

I think people are over-assigning N to themselves based on flawed testing mechanisms.

The most common is ISJs thinking they're INJ.

 

[Jaguar]

^^^You're not very pedagogic are you Jaguar?

When it comes to certain people, I have little patience.
Kalach has an annoying history of flipping out should anyone-or anything- upset his little function applecart.

Frankly, I don't know how he calls himself INTJ.
He's desperate to keep things the same.
If anyone dares question conventional thinking, he shits his pants.

 

[Kalach]

Then do your research better.

So, their result is that uninspiring, huh?

If anyone dares question conventional thinking, he shits his pants.

Dude, "conventional"? Please.

Are you aware of anyone hereabouts offering anything more than conventional nay-saying to Jungian typology?



EDIT: no, seriously, I'm still boggling at this use of "conventional". Jag, Jung is conventional thinking? You have a remarkably high estimation of the people hereabouts if you're saying that for them, Jung is conventional.




(Hmm.... I'm showing too much contempt for the local populace, perhaps... Rest assured, people of Earth, I haven't properly grasped Jungian typology yet either (either?)... but I will one day, and you should probably try to keep up too (too?). Or I shall shit my pants.)

 

[tcda]

When it comes to certain people, I have little patience.
Kalach has an annoying history of flipping out should anyone-or anything- upset his little function applecart.

Frankly, I don't know how he calls himself INTJ.
He's desperate to keep things the same.
If anyone dares question conventional thinking, he shits his pants.

OK.

To be fair though I sympathized with him, because I was also quite interested to read about the study you mentioned, but could only find abstracts of articles you then have to pay for,a nd which in themselves don't explain much. So while I was interested by your post I had no way of finding out more. I very much doubt my local library has anything on it either.

so if you're in a pedagogic mood sometime let me know and I'll read any good link or explanation you post.

 

[the state i am in]

When it comes to certain people, I have little patience.
Kalach has an annoying history of flipping out should anyone-or anything- upset his little function applecart.

Frankly, I don't know how he calls himself INTJ.
He's desperate to keep things the same.
If anyone dares question conventional thinking, he shits his pants.

what you say you do and what you do are two different things. in this situation, you are being questioned and providing nothing but an unearned dismissive attitude. if kalach is anything like me, he just gets frustrated that you display little ability to understand or think critically, while making claims that only get in the way of people who are trying to understand the system.

the whole "conventional" vs "unconventional" thing you are trying to pull is REALLY amateurish. is the beebe model conventional? lenore thomson? keirsey? an attempt at an original reading of jung? myers briggs? are you angry at myers for developing a test and winning popularity by creating a methodology for testing? does that invalidate the function model that underlies their system?

maybe demonstrate that you can ask an intelligent question, that shows you actually have a nuanced understanding of the system, and people who aren't just looking for blatant republican fear-mongering and conspiracy skepticism will respond to you.

 

[Jaguar]

you display little ability to understand or think critically

I've always thought that of you.

 

[the state i am in]

I've always thought that of you.

a perfect, one size fits all fortune cookie response. the less words the better.

 

[Jaguar]

a perfect, one size fits all fortune cookie response. the less words the better.

i started mb a couple of weeks ago and it randomly clicked after an introduction years ago. so far i like that this gives me a freedom to openly challenge myself in front of other people. i don't have to edit anything, and the infj desire to abstract and become more elliptical and obtuse and schizy poetic is delicious.

i struggle with decision-making unless i have the Ni flash, Fe to me is not grounding, and Ti makes me feel like an intp and relational but neither True nor Right.

Critical thinker? Oh, please.
You're cute.

 

[Kalach]

Jag, you're not ragging on :horor: Ni :horor:

Are you?



Join us, Jag. Join us. To believe is to be free.

 

[miss fortune]

to take different preexisting beleifs and synthesize them into something that you CAN beleive in is to be free!

 

[Jaguar]

Jag, you're not ragging on :horor: Ni :horor:
Are you?
Join us, Jag. Join us. To believe is to be free.

What Ni might that be, Kalach?
Cause we know you can't possibly be speaking of your own.
I'm going to start calling you Riggie. That's a nickname for rigidity.

 

[Kalach]

On the Jag Personality Inventory I'm ISTJ?

I assume I don't have to be ashamed of that result, right?

 

[Jaguar]

On the Jag Personality Inventory I'm ISTJ?
I assume I don't have to be ashamed of that result, right?

I know ISTJs more open-minded than you.

 

[ThatGirl]

I have, at times, confused creativity or analytical insight with intuition.

Truth is I still do not know how the fuck to recognize intuition, I only know that some conversations with some people take on dimensions that conversations with others do not.

 

[Ginkgo]

Is this forum representative of the whole world? Praise be to Buddha that it's not. Jesus Christ man. That's a terrifying assumption.

 

[Kalach]

I know ISTJs more open-minded than you.

They may be on drugs. Do they live in California?