User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 128

  1. #81
    Senior Member ICUP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I'm not just talking about Psychological Types, but his ideas as a whole. It seemed like he had been working a lot of philosophy out from a more detached point, from an early age. "The years when I was pursuing my inner images were the most important of my life - in them, everything essential was decided. It all began then; the later details were only supplements and clarifications of the material that burst forth from the unconscious, and at first, swamped me. It was the prima materia for a life's work." Memories, Dreams, and Reflections pg 225 (hey look, a citation. I'm getting better at this).
    Some ISTP's deal with inner-images and revelationary periods as well. This excerpt doesn't prove detachment.
    I mostly stayed in the house for two solid years because I was so overcome by images and revelations..... lol..... Yes, I know how being swamped feels.
    Many introverts go through similar experiences, so I don't see how this could build a case for a type.
    ISTP 6w5 sx/sp
    6-8-4/6-9-4 Tritype

  2. #82
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ICUP View Post
    Some ISTP's deal with inner-images and revelationary periods as well. This excerpt doesn't prove detachment.
    A whole early period of life though is pretty extreme.

    I had some revelatory periods too. But they were aided by LSD. And staring at rotten tomatoes, while listening to Barry Manilow...

    Nevermind.

  3. #83
    Senior Member ICUP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    A whole early period of life though is pretty extreme.

    I had some revelatory periods too. But they were aided by LSD. And staring at rotten tomatoes, while listening to Barry Manilow...
    Mine were not. Many introverts of any type carry inner images, and have revelationary periods. That's what some istp's do when they are alone, is think about happenings and make judgements and draw theories on meaning. Sometimes it just hits you and all comes flooding in at once...... thank goodness for me.

    My point being that some people are more complicated than any description can cover, and Carl Jung is one of those people. That's why it's ridiculous for one to believe they can type him as simply as people try to do to David Lee Roth, for example.
    ISTP 6w5 sx/sp
    6-8-4/6-9-4 Tritype

  4. #84
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    I'd really like to talk with you about this, but there are so many problems with talking about typology that I feel like even trying makes me a fool.

    1. You've got people arguing innate behavior versus conditioned behavior, which is philosophically oppositional to each other if you refuse to accept that they both can exist, which creates a paradox.

    People don't care about answering questions like:
    What should be considered innate and why?
    What is often considered to be conditioning and why?

    2. An abstract concept such as the functions can be interpreted within many different contexts of point 1 above. And these contexts can be in complete opposition to each other, where each person will assert that their contextual understanding is somehow better.

    One person might see that Fe has more to do with people being moody, whereas another might know a more stable Fe user that uses Fe to boost their well-being and others. Neither is necessarily biased or wrong until we talk about what things are innate and what are a result of conditioning.

    3. People use number 2 to justify using multiple typology systems at once, while asserting that they should not be combined or confused between each other when that's a bit of a contradiction.

    For instance, if a theory starts to focus more on evaluations of behavior over innate cognitive thinking and vice versa, then suddenly we get a split in what people believe should be what. And if you try to talk about either within the context of the other, people treat you as if you're ignorant, when you're more knowledgeable than them. And this can make some knowledgeable people think they don't know anything or think it isn't worth discussing anything because no one will listen.

    4. All systems of typology have to have some axioms that support it. If a theory doesn't discuss openly the limitations that their axioms can place on thought, but instead focuses on what it hopes to achieve while ignoring criticism with circular reasoning, it becomes intellectually dishonest and supports a self-fulfilling belief in the typology.

    For instance, this creates groups of people that start to believe they know more than they do and will be unwilling to listen to or consider criticism. This freaking sucks because nothing you say or do will end up being constructive. It also means that even though a typology system may be based on empirical evidence, there are ways it will be questionable or have problems, even or perhaps especially, if your name is Carl Jung or you invented MBTI loosely based on Jung without knowing the limitations of the axioms to begin with.

    5. Jung said a lot of things. He changed his mind at times. He was contradictory at times. He explained his axioms as processes that occurred in people, some processes that we are all technically capable of, and some processes that are more thought to be innately structured.

    Until people understand enough, they can't get past using things that he's said as some sort of definitive fact or way to ignore people that know more than them when they should be learning. But who can blame with problems 1 through 4 already in place.

    6. A lot of people can't grasp that there is a philosophical structure of the functions that Jung based his empirical processes on.

    It makes it ludicrous to talk to anyone that thinks two systems of typology that use these same basic Jungian principles can be valid, but can define them completely differently from Jung, ignoring most or all of what Jung said, and asserting that Jung is invalid, incompatible, or a weak system of thought. It's like stealing the basic conceptual plans for the combustion engine and using it to build an electric car and still claiming that it's a combustion engine - it's completely absurd.

    adklfjsaldjfsdfdkfjaskldfjsdgasdf

    edit:
    7. Some people really don't care if they are biased and don't want to take this seriously at all.

    Self-explanatory.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    "6. A lot of people can't grasp that there is a philosophical structure of the functions that Jung based his empirical processes on."

    Perhaps a lot of people can grasp this, but they aren't aware of this.

    I've mentioned Kant as a Jung predecessor on this forum, at least stylistically if not in terms of the a priori conditions of human psychology.

    So I hope you weren't referring to yours truly at point 6.
    "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. #86
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mal12345 View Post
    It's easy to castigate something as "bad" based on one aspect, even a minor one. With Socionics, it is the "typing by face" aspect. Typing by face is an unproven method of typology. But it isn't specific to Socionics, and in fact I've known some Enneagrammists to base e-type on facial features.

    Socionics has done something right, however; and that is, to change the nomenclature by which types are named. INTP in Socionics theory is INTj. This is the way things are going anyway, even in MBTI circles. The J is nothing more than to place dominance on Thinking. Every dominant F/T type gets a j, and every dominant S/N type gets pegged with a p.

    This effectively eliminates all descriptive content from the labels P and J which traditionally mean perceiving and judging as well as a slew of other things. For some, Se has even been limited to merely "looking." Such confusion has arisen from this function talk that even an intellectual such as Carl Jung is considered by some - an ISTP, as if he were some motorcycle mechanic or something.

    So the way things are going, the Socionics labeling system may as well be adopted. At least we can see from its nomenclature that a Ti is not only a thinker and an introvert, but is also judging in accordance with those thoughts, as according to the idea of what is logical and what is not logical.
    Complemention is the key.
    Look directly.

    IE
    NS
    TF
    PJ

    ESFJ is the complementary party of INTP.
    Socionics does not complement.

    What comes around, goes around.
    A double standard does not loci.

    TF is only about TF.
    It is not about NS.

  7. #87
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Complemention is the key.
    Look directly.

    IE
    NS
    TF
    PJ

    ESFJ is the complementary party of INTP.
    Socionics does not complement.

    What comes around, goes around.
    A double standard does not loci.

    TF is only about TF.
    It is not about NS.
    "Loci" is not a verb.
    "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.”

  8. #88
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mal12345 View Post
    Doesn't the fourth category describe lifestyle? Isn't that how Myers-Briggs developed it?
    Yeah, I don't remember.. I can't be assed to recall the specific terms that MBTI and Socionics use, but the former boils down to treatment of the outside world and the latter to attitude. The point is a return to a discussion of what the fourth dichotomy should reflect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    5. Jung said a lot of things. He changed his mind at times. He was contradictory at times. He explained his axioms as processes that occurred in people, some processes that we are all technically capable of, and some processes that are more thought to be innately structured.

    Until people understand enough, they can't get past using things that he's said as some sort of definitive fact or way to ignore people that know more than them when they should be learning. But who can blame with problems 1 through 4 already in place.
    Thank you, for your post and for this point especially. I'll never know why such a flowy, meandering work is taken as scientific gospel rather than simply a decent stab at a description of the psyche.

    Jung's ideas are out there. MBTI's and Socionics's reinterpretations differ in some way from each other and from the original ideas.

  9. #89
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    I understand Socionics wanting to go back to the original meaning of dominant function for the fourth dichotomy, but I think they (F&D?) should have used something other than j/p, to avoid confusion. Like "R" for Jung's original; "rational", and perhaps "A" for "a-rational".
    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

  10. #90
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Yeah, I don't remember.. I can't be assed to recall the specific terms that MBTI and Socionics use, but the former boils down to treatment of the outside world and the latter to attitude. The point is a return to a discussion of what the fourth dichotomy should reflect.
    Thank you for just now showing us that the original MBTI has been forgotten and replaced with Jungian analysis, with the original MBTI lettering system kept in place perhaps out of tradition.
    "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. All news is bad news?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-20-2016, 04:02 PM
  2. Type me, for socionics. Is this even where I am supposed to ask this?
    By Evolving Transparency in forum Socionics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-20-2012, 01:42 AM
  3. Socionics is amazing
    By Unique in forum Socionics
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 05-13-2012, 04:40 PM
  4. Wirty Dords - They Is Bad?
    By Arthur Schopenhauer in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-10-2010, 02:52 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