User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 81

  1. #61
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,652

    Default

    Hm for each of the four statements, I feel pretty confident. Unconfident in:

    how people feel towards me
    forcing others to believe in what I do
    separating from my emotions and other people's needs while thinking


    Somewhere between 2 and 4 for word list...
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.

  2. #62
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,652

    Default

    Orrrr... I just greatly overestimate my own capacities in these areas.
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.

  3. #63
    Senior Member captain curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    BIRD
    Enneagram
    631 sp
    Posts
    3,275

    Default

    ILI. What is with socionics tests trying to make me INTx?
    Jarlaxle: fact checking this thread makes me want to go all INFP on my wrists

    "I'm in competition with myself and I'm losing."
    -Roger Waters

    ReadingRainbows: OMG GUYS
    ReadingRainbows: GUESS WHAT EXISTS FOR ME
    hel: fairies?
    Captain Curmudgeon: existential angst?


    Johari Nohari

    https://www.librarything.com/profile/wheelchairdoug

  4. #64
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captain curmudgeon View Post
    ILI. What is with socionics tests trying to make me INTx?
    Well, when you consider what they use to distinguish S from N...

    Don't read if you haven't taken test yet...


  5. #65
    Senior Member captain curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    BIRD
    Enneagram
    631 sp
    Posts
    3,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Well, when you consider what they use to distinguish S from N...

    Don't read if you haven't taken test yet...

    It's not just this test though.
    Jarlaxle: fact checking this thread makes me want to go all INFP on my wrists

    "I'm in competition with myself and I'm losing."
    -Roger Waters

    ReadingRainbows: OMG GUYS
    ReadingRainbows: GUESS WHAT EXISTS FOR ME
    hel: fairies?
    Captain Curmudgeon: existential angst?


    Johari Nohari

    https://www.librarything.com/profile/wheelchairdoug

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by senza tema View Post
    Ep = Pe dom, Ej = Je dom, Ip = Pi dom and Ij = Ji dom. And the first question tests for preferred N/S and F/T. And put together, those two questions suggest functions.

    It's not that eccentric. I'm not saying the test directly looks for functions but dichotomies + temperaments and functions aren't completely unrelated.
    I didn't say "completely unrelated". Just that they aren't the exact same thing. And that's definitely worth noting. Do you get now what I meant?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    No, you clearly didn't.

    Your "response" was a bunch of irrelevant, poorly written tripe that showed you have a very weak handle on typology.
    It wasn't irrelevant. I think it's you here who's got the weaker handle on typology.


    Try actually slinging together a few sentences that wouldn't get you a D on a 4th grade English test, and maybe I'll respond.
    This ad hominem attack just shows you're full of bullshit.

    How many foreign languages do you speak fluently? If more than two, we can discuss this further.


    When the few sentences you do offer are an utter incoherent mess, it usually means your thoughts are as well.
    It wasn't incoherent, you just didn't understand.


    And what senza said to you above is accurate; you, once again, are misguided.

    Notice how the test even puts the function combinations in the results?

    It's cuz the functions are implied by the answers to the test.
    Apparently my point still didn't get across. It was that the correlation between functions and dichotomies is far from perfect. This has been shown in studies. You said nothing here that refutes that point.

    And that is important because it means you can't just blindly draw certain conclusions when trying to type people going by dichotomies or by functions. It also invalidates your earlier speculation that I originally responded to.

    Specifically, based on this test or its results for someone, you cannot state it as a fact that "there is no questioning that this test shows exactly what I have been saying all along: that one should have the same cognitive functions in both systems, but one system simply emphasizes (...)"

    Seriously man, you need to figure out the difference between fact and speculation. This is why I responded originally.

  7. #67
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    It wasn't irrelevant.
    Yes, it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    I think it's you here who's got the weaker handle on typology.
    No.

    I just wasn't talking about the empirical evidence about testing for dichotomies and how doing so relates to type and the functions. I was talking about the theory. All you've done is bring up a completely different frame of reference, and act as if it proves something. It doesn't. You've just brought up a different frame of reference that wasn't even being discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    This ad hominem attack just shows you're full of bullshit.
    No, actually, your sentence addressing my post was extremely poorly written, and sense could not be made of it. Whatever sense could be made was clearly not well enough argued to do any damage to the argument it was purporting to somehow contradict.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    How many foreign languages do you speak fluently? If more than two, we can discuss this further.
    I speak two of the most widely spoke languages fluently, and I don't go on message boards for ones in which I don't, try to make nitpicky arguments about empirical evidence when what is clearly being discussed are the theoretical implications, and offer sentences that are so poorly written that they are essentially meaningless in the language they are intended to be written in.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    It wasn't incoherent, you just didn't understand.
    No.

    This is a horribly written sentence:

    And that thing about people having opinions on how much J or P FiNe is etc, opinion seriously?
    ...and brought absolutely nothing to the table to contradict what I'd said.

    The rest of it was presenting nothing new, nothing I didn't already know, and nothing that wasn't already stated in, and either perfectly compatible with, everything I'd said in the post it was attempting to respond to, even though you clearly wrote it with the belief that it did, or something I clearly disagree with, have plenty of support to back up my argument with, and which you presented absolutely no support to in your argument, showing that either you didn't understand what I wrote, or did nothing but issue a one sentence claim, thinking, wrongly, that this issue isn't already incorporated into my perspective, and offered absolutely no support for your argument (i.e., that the functions are different in the two systems [even though it's all based on the same fundamental conceptual source, 'Psychological Types', has the same names, and the same shorthand]).

    Are there differences in how the functions are described in each system? Yes. Just like, if two painters were asked to paint the same scene, they would each make their own portrait of the scene, and each would come out a bit differently. But it doesn't mean the underlying scene is not the same. Same applies here. Hell, various "MBTI theorists" paint each function a bit differently than one another as well. That doesn't mean they're not still talking about the same underling concept.

    So why the hell would Extroverted Intuition (Ne) in one system, based on the Extroverted Intuition expounded by Jung in 'Psychological Types', all of a sudden reverse and flip into Introverted Intuition, or Extroverted Thinking, or Introverted Thinking, or any of the other function-attitudes, in another system, even though that second system is also based on the same fundamental conceptual source? That argument makes absolutely no credible sense, and just because you seem to have a preference for empirical measurement over theoretical abstraction and argument, doesn't mean, conceptually, these ideas would just make some stupid, inane switch like that, and start turning into one another. Extroverted Intuition in one system, while possibly described a bit differently than in the other, is still trying to point to the same function, Extroverted Intuition. And same goes for all the other function attitudes. To make any other argument is to make an argument that makes absolutely no conceptual, abstract, or theoretical sense. And no, your preference for empiricism over theorizing, conceptualization and abstraction does not trump that fact..

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Apparently my point still didn't get across. It was that the correlation between functions and dichotomies is far from perfect. This has been shown in studies. You said nothing here that refutes that point.
    Cuz it's not the fucking point that was being discussed.

    If you want to talk about that topic, go create a thread about it.

    As it stands, you're nitpicking about something that no one was talking about.

    We were not having a discussion about empirical evidence regarding dichotomy-testing and function-testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    And that is important because it means you can't just blindly draw certain conclusions when trying to type people going by dichotomies or by functions.
    Congratulations.

    You are correct.

    It is not good to blindly draw conclusions.

    Theoretically, tho, an ENFp in Socionics has Ne and Fi has their top two functions.

    Same goes for MBTI and an ENFP: Ne and Fi.

    Those are definitional.

    Empirically, tho, the tests can be sloppy.

    Woo. fucking. hoo.



    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    It also invalidates your earlier speculation that I originally responded to.
    No, actually, it does not.

    As shown above.

    You've simply attempted to change the frame of reference from concepts, theory, and abstraction, to empirical measurement.

    If I'd been making an argument about empirical measurement, then maybe your point would have some relevancy.

    As it stands, I was not, and, in the frame of reference I was coming from -- concepts, theory, and abstraction -- it means nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Specifically, based on this test or its results for someone, you cannot state it as a fact that "there is no questioning that this test shows exactly what I have been saying all along: that one should have the same cognitive functions in both systems, but one system simply emphasizes (...)"
    I was basing it off of the structure of the test, the underlying logic behind it.

    And, based on that, everything I said was completely, 100% true.

    Is it empirical? No. It's theoretical.

    But the fact that you prefer empiricism over theory is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Seriously man, you need to figure out the difference between fact and speculation. This is why I responded originally.
    You need to figure out how to conduct yourself, express yourself, and realize that, when someone is speaking from one frame of reference (conceptualization, abstraction, theory), that just because you bring in a totally different frame of reference (empiricism), it doesn't mean you've contradicted what they've said.

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I just wasn't talking about the empirical evidence about testing for dichotomies and how doing so relates to type and the functions. I was talking about the theory. All you've done is bring up a completely different frame of reference, and act as if it proves something. It doesn't. You've just brought up a different frame of reference that wasn't even being discussed.
    If you were talking about theory, then don't end your conclusions with claiming crap like this is fact and no debate can be made about it. As I already mentioned, this is what I took issue with (beyond your original argument that I've seen so many times before and which is just empty speculation).

    As simple as that.


    No, actually, your sentence addressing my post was extremely poorly written, and sense could not be made of it. Whatever sense could be made was clearly not well enough argued to do any damage to the argument it was purporting to somehow contradict.
    You're still full of bullshit.


    I speak two of the most widely spoke languages fluently, and I don't go on message boards for ones in which I don't, try to make nitpicky arguments about empirical evidence when what is clearly being discussed are the theoretical implications, and offer sentences that are so poorly written that they are essentially meaningless in the language they are intended to be written in.
    1) It wasn't just nitpicking. 2) Not meaningless, only to you.


    This is a horribly written sentence:

    "And that thing about people having opinions on how much J or P FiNe is etc, opinion seriously?"
    Now I at least see what your problem was with my style of writing.

    Now darling, I wasn't writing an academic paper here. Don't expect me to be all stuck up like that. You are obviously very pedantic but I'm personally not interested in that on a generic forum. I did care when necessary, e.g. at university.


    ...and brought absolutely nothing to the table to contradict what I'd said.
    Oh you and your theoretical contradictions. I personally believe that theory needs to be based on empirical reality. You can theorize all to your heart, no worries, as long as it stays connected with the tangible.

    But anyway, I'll explain below why it did bring quite something to that table of yours.


    The rest of it was presenting nothing new, nothing I didn't already know, and nothing that wasn't already stated in, and either perfectly compatible with, everything I'd said in the post it was attempting to respond to, even though you clearly wrote it with the belief that it did, or something I clearly disagree with, have plenty of support to back up my argument with, and which you presented absolutely no support to in your argument, showing that either you didn't understand what I wrote, or did nothing but issue a one sentence claim, thinking, wrongly, that this issue isn't already incorporated into my perspective, and offered absolutely no support for your argument (i.e., that the functions are different in the two systems [even though it's all based on the same fundamental conceptual source, 'Psychological Types', has the same names, and the same shorthand]).
    Now you revealed lack of knowledge. Socionics functions only have the same shorthand that MBTI ones do because western socionists made them. Socionics originates from Russia and there they used other symbols and even other names for the functions. The whole socionics theory doesn't even really just come from 'Psychological Types'. It incorporates some other theoretical frameworks. Even the definitions of things as basic as I or E are pretty different.

    Anyhow, I didn't write my original post to you to present new information (I suppose I did now though), I wrote it to point out where your reasoning was jumping to conclusions too fast. To show why it wasn't "fact" and why it *can* be up for debate.


    Are there differences in how the functions are described in each system? Yes. Just like, if two painters were asked to paint the same scene, they would each make their own portrait of the scene, and each would come out a bit differently. But it doesn't mean the underlying scene is not the same. Same applies here. Hell, various "MBTI theorists" paint each function a bit differently than one another as well. That doesn't mean they're not still talking about the same underling concept.
    The painter analogy proves nothing. Nice illustration, nothing more. And no, you cannot be sure it's still the same. How do you determine there is an unifying underlying concept for everything when you only have various function definitions, and just the definitions, no actual evidence how they exist in reality. Well, you don't.


    So why the hell would Extroverted Intuition (Ne) in one system, based on the Extroverted Intuition expounded by Jung in 'Psychological Types', all of a sudden reverse and flip into Introverted Intuition, or Extroverted Thinking, or Introverted Thinking, or any of the other function-attitudes, in another system, even though that second system is also based on the same fundamental conceptual source?
    Can you for one second step outside this extremely narrow framework of 8 functions and consider that Ne in one system is something else in another system but this something else is not described by any of the 8 functions but by something else entirely?

    Or say something less extreme, example, socionics Ne could be partially described by the MBTI Ne and partially by something else.

    Do you never ever feel it's such a narrow limiting framework trying to stick to whatever 8 functions all the time? Open your mind to more psychology! More science! (I'm not being sarcastic, honestly.)


    That argument makes absolutely no credible sense
    I didn't actually even make that argument. I explain the alternative above.


    and just because you seem to have a preference for empirical measurement over theoretical abstraction and argument, doesn't mean, conceptually, these ideas would just make some stupid, inane switch like that, and start turning into one another.
    That now makes no sense honestly. Did you really think I was reasoning that way? Lol.

    I do like empirical measurement but how on earth did my previous posts seem to indicate - to you - such a weird jump in logic to the second half of your sentence here???


    Do note what I already mentioned in this post; when talking about how Ne in MBTI means one thing and Ne in socionics means another thing (or even while staying with MBTI, e.g. Ne in MBTI is one thing vs an E and an N preference is another thing), it does not mean that one specific idea "turns into" another idea (say, socionics Ne wouldn't have to equal MBTI Ni). No one in their right mind would try to think that way Thinking differently about this is easily achieved by widening the narrow categorization framework of the world of the mind, stepping past the idea that everything is just 8 single entities of functions.

    So if someone is INFP NeFi in MBTI, and INFp NiFe in socionics, it doesn't mean MBTI Ne has just turned into MBTI Ni.

    (Yep, right, I don't like that the notation is too similar to MBTI esp in "western" socionics. That does cause confusion and not just for beginners.)


    Extroverted Intuition in one system, while possibly described a bit differently than in the other, is still trying to point to the same function, Extroverted Intuition.
    AND NOW... What's this "same function, Extroverted Intuition"? What's the ultimate definition, what's the scene the painters are trying to paint? Hello?

    Honestly though, I wasn't even getting into this can of worms before. I was only arguing for there being only correlations instead of actual causal links. Now we are into that can though... and a big can.


    And same goes for all the other function attitudes. To make any other argument is to make an argument that makes absolutely no conceptual, abstract, or theoretical sense. And no, your preference for empiricism over theorizing, conceptualization and abstraction does not trump that fact.
    OMG, WHAT FACT AGAIN?!

    And praytell why cannot it make any theoretical sense to make an argument against your original argument? (Noting again that the framework of 8 functions isn't the "entire world" thus there's definitely ways to argue against it.) Again, we're back to how you stated it was fact and not up for debate. You're terribly deeply wrong in thinking that, though.


    Cuz it's not the fucking point that was being discussed.
    Yes, I was responding directly to the point (=attacking it) that you were discussing.


    We were not having a discussion about empirical evidence regarding dichotomy-testing and function-testing.
    No, however if you want to make a statement that something is fact, empirical evidence will HAVE TO be involved.


    Theoretically, tho, an ENFp in Socionics has Ne and Fi has their top two functions.

    Same goes for MBTI and an ENFP: Ne and Fi.

    Those are definitional.
    Definitionally there are differences. Let's not mention empirical ones.


    You've simply attempted to change the frame of reference from concepts, theory, and abstraction, to empirical measurement.
    Nope, I was talking about and/or implying a lot more than that. I wasn't changing frame of reference for some points, specifically the one about how functions are not the same; not even definitionally.



    As it stands, I was not, and, in the frame of reference I was coming from -- concepts, theory, and abstraction -- it means nothing.
    Well as for the idea that theories should truly stand alone separate from reality, I would say that idea is simply psychotic.

    Abstraction is all great but it does need to come from somewhere. The connection between concept and empirical observation may be really far/faint/indirect but it's still there. Unless one's psychotic, of course. No I'm not saying you are. I'm talking in general.


    I was basing it off of the structure of the test, the underlying logic behind it.
    The underlying logic isn't necessarily correct.


    Btw when you said in your original post that "one system simply emphasizes Jish qualities for individuals whose dominant function is a Judging function and Pish qualities for introverts whose dominant function is a Perceiving function (Socionics), while the other emphasizes Jish qualities for individuals whose first extroverted function is a judging function and Pish qualities for individuals whose first extroverted function is a Perceiving function (MBTI).".

    I didn't dispute that part because it's pretty much true. This is obviously how these two systems define things. My issue was not this, my issue was 1) you using the word "fact" wrong 2) using the assumption that functions are the same in both systems.

    The latter was a problem because you brought this assumption into your reasoning without any real grounds to it. And I can prove this without going far from the theoretical definitions. Simply, this test shows nowhere that it or socionics in general uses the exact same function definitions that MBTI uses. You just saw some INFP testing as INFp in the test and jumped to this conclusion. You picked one example and made up an explanation for it.

    That's fine, explain things as you like, but don't call them fact and don't say it's not up for debate.


    You need to figure out how to conduct yourself, express yourself
    I'm still not writing a thesis for my degree on this forum. So no. End of story. Heh.

  9. #69
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    If you were talking about theory, then don't end your conclusions with claiming crap like this is fact and no debate can be made about it.
    There is such a thing about fact when it comes to discussing a theory.

    One can be wrong, or right, according strictly to logic.

    That's what my argument was based on, and it still holds true as fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    As I already mentioned, this is what I took issue with (beyond your original argument that I've seen so many times before and which is just empty speculation).

    As simple as that.


    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    You're still full of bullshit.
    I can see someone won't be here long.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    1) It wasn't just nitpicking. 2) Not meaningless, only to you.
    It was irrelevant to the matter at hand, and not what was being discussed.

    Hence, meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Now I at least see what your problem was with my style of writing.
    Didn't see how horribly written and meaningless your sentence was til I pointed it out?

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Now darling, I wasn't writing an academic paper here. Don't expect me to be all stuck up like that. You are obviously very pedantic but I'm personally not interested in that on a generic forum. I did care when necessary, e.g. at university.
    You don't really have a place talking about being pedantic when you came in here with the post that you did.

    I also wasn't requiring academic level writing.

    Just, you know, try to make your sentences actually make some semblance of sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Oh you and your theoretical contradictions.
    Yes, there are actually such things.

    It's called internal consistency.

    You may not be good at it, or prefer it, but it does actually matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    I personally believe that theory needs to be based on empirical reality.
    I prefer for theory to correspond to reality as well.

    But sometimes the theoretical isn't necessarily testable or falsifiable.

    And other times what can be tested and falsified, isn't really all that valuable or relevant.

    There are plenty of other issues as well, but none of this means that we should not keep theorizing.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    You can theorize all to your heart, no worries, as long as it stays connected with the tangible.
    I actually don't need you to tell me how I can theorize and how I cannot.

    And the meaning of "connected to the tangible" is just a sliding signifier anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    But anyway, I'll explain below why it did bring quite something to that table of yours.
    I don't doubt you'll try.

    I just doubt you'll be right.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Now you revealed lack of knowledge.


    I'm sure you would like to think so.

    Because you clearly have a psychological fixation when it comes to this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Socionics functions only have the same shorthand that MBTI ones do because western socionists made them. Socionics originates from Russia and there they used other symbols and even other names for the functions. The whole socionics theory doesn't even really just come from 'Psychological Types'. It incorporates some other theoretical frameworks. Even the definitions of things as basic as I or E are pretty different.
    Apparently you don't realize that Lithuania is not Russia.

    The internal contradictions in your argument are too obvious, blatant and boring to even cover.

    Needless to say, nothing you've written is new to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Anyhow, I didn't write my original post to you to present new information (I suppose I did now though)...
    No, actually, you didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    ...I wrote it to point out where your reasoning was jumping to conclusions too fast. To show why it wasn't "fact" and why it *can* be up for debate.
    And on this point you've failed.

    Nothing you've said isn't something I already knew.

    And nothing about your arguments have actually contradicted what I wrote.

    The only thing you've done is tried to switch the frame of reference from theory to empiricism.

    And, seeing as how I was not trying to be empirical, that part as well is really irrelevant to what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    The painter analogy proves nothing. Nice illustration, nothing more. And no, you cannot be sure it's still the same. How do you determine there is an unifying underlying concept for everything when you only have various function definitions, and just the definitions, no actual evidence how they exist in reality. Well, you don't.
    Because they come from the same fundamental source, 'Psychological Types'.

    It doesn't matter that other elements were added, and the theory took off in its own direction.

    Conceptually, they come from the same primary well-source.

    Introversion, Extroversion, Intuition, Sensing, Thinking, Feeling, Attitude of Consciousness, Cognitive Functions, Extroverted Intuition, Introverted Intuition, Extroverted Thinking, Introverted Thinking, Extroverted Sensing, Introverted Sensing, Extroverted Feeling, Introverted Feeling, Cognitive Functions, sixteen types, and plenty more: the use of these terms and concepts did not just happen randomly, as if they arose independently, out of nowhere, just happening to utilize so many of the same terms and concepts, but having no common ancestor.

    These are not independent fields.

    They are they same thing, different painters.

    Yes, there is variation, just like when two one species starts evolving in two different locations, and grow apart from one another.

    But there is still so much similarity, and to imagine that the Function Attitudes themselves, made some radical changes, such that a liver is no longer a liver, but is now a spleen, and a lung is no longer a lung, but is now a colon, is fucking stupid.

    I have already come to realize this, as I have worked through all the arguments, and discussed the matter with others who are just as, and likely more, knowledgeable on this matter, than you are.

    You can belabor the point all you want -- I've already seen all your arguments -- but none of them trump what it is I have said.

    Which is why, as I said, it is fact that what I said above about the theory is 100% accurate and true.

    It's not up for debate, but (ignorant) people will continue to debate it.

    The logic for the other position simply does not hold up.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Can you for one second step outside this extremely narrow framework of 8 functions and consider that Ne in one system is something else in another system but this something else is not described by any of the 8 functions but by something else entirely?
    I'm sorry, that was so general, unspecific, and poorly worded it was essentially meaningless.

    I see why you stay out of the realm of abstraction and theorizing and conceptualizing.

    If all you're trying to say is "consider that Ne from one system is not Ne, or any other function, in the other, that they're just completely different things", and this was just your poorly worded, or perhaps even intentionally vague and deceptive, way of saying that, then yes, I can take that step, and already have, and, ultimately, came to realize that doing so is absolutely fucking stupid, for the sound reasons I already laid out above.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Or say something less extreme, example, socionics Ne could be partially described by the MBTI Ne and partially by something else.
    Wow.

    Look.

    You're back to my painter analogy.



    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Do you never ever feel it's such a narrow limiting framework trying to stick to whatever 8 functions all the time? Open your mind to more psychology! More science! (I'm not being sarcastic, honestly.)
    You have no idea how I think, what else my mind is open to, etc.

    And, as such, clearly all you're doing here is projecting, and likely projecting issues that you've faced yourself.

    Guess what, bub, I'm not you, and that image you're projecting onto me is certainly not me.

    So, no, I don't need your preaching that presumably you need yourself.

    I've got my own opinions and notions about the limitations of Jungian typology (and plenty of other things).

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    I didn't actually even make that argument. I explain the alternative above.
    In my laying out the alternative argument, I only expounded one example of it, the others are the ones you've expounded, and I was just as aware of those when I originally wrote what I wrote (and have been for years). I simply laid out the most extreme and idiotic of them. Regardless, I've heard all of them made, by various people, and considered all of them in their entirety, playing the devil's advocate with myself. And the fact of the matter is, they still don't hold water to the position I have laid out. In fact, they are part of, and subsumed in, the position I have laid out. Which is why I said what I said about my position being fact. Those other positions simply don't hold water.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    That now makes no sense honestly. Did you really think I was reasoning that way? Lol.

    I do like empirical measurement but how on earth did my previous posts seem to indicate - to you - such a weird jump in logic to the second half of your sentence here???
    Already explained above.

    That's just one example of the same position that you have taken.

    It is the most extreme example, but they all have the same underlying flaw.

    That the primary source material for this is all Jung and 'Psychological Types'.

    And, as such, the painter analogy is undeniably the most fitting explanation.

    As is the Darwin's finches metaphor.

    As are several others.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    AND NOW... What's this "same function, Extroverted Intuition"? What's the ultimate definition, what's the scene the painters are trying to paint? Hello?
    It's pointing to the purported underlying function that Jung was purportedly pointing to originally.

    The label he coined for it, and that both systems now use, is Extroverted Intuition.

    Here, try out this thread, so maybe you can actually be on topic:
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ad.php?t=37554

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Honestly though, I wasn't even getting into this can of worms before. I was only arguing for there being only correlations instead of actual causal links.
    Yes.

    Once again, all you were doing was shifting the framework from the theoretical -- which we were discussing -- to the empirical -- which we weren't.

    I'm glad you're starting to realize what I've realized (and been saying) all along.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Now we are into that can though... and a big can.
    And I really don't even feel like going into it with you, cuz you really haven't proven yourself to be a worthwhile interlocutor.

    I've already examined these ideas thoroughly myself, and with other interlocutors better than yourself.

    No need to mine the same material with a less worthwhile partner.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    OMG, WHAT FACT AGAIN?!
    That "[t]o make any other argument is to make an argument that makes absolutely no conceptual, abstract, or theoretical sense."

    I feel like someone should tell you to "check your preference".

    It would seem you have an imbalanced preference for Te.

    Try learning to accept that there are other kinds of and ways of arriving at truth than just Extroverted Thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    And praytell why cannot it make any theoretical sense to make an argument against your original argument? Again, we're back to how you stated it was fact and not up for debate.
    Many of the reasons have been stated above.

    It should be added that my language was not precise enough in what you were quoting, tho: it's not that it can't make any sense, at least not in the sense that one cannot attempt to make that argument, and do so within some semblance of reason; it's that, upon full evaluation of all the arguments that exist, that one ends up being false, and then makes no sense (there's a temporal problem, or a Catch-22, in some sense, when it comes to its sense, in that you cannot understand why it does not indeed make sense, until you have actually tried to make the argument, make it make sense, and then evaluated the counterargument, and realized the counterargument actually undeniably makes way more sense, and so much so that the other argument, while understandable to have made in the first place, clearly must eventually be thrown out, as, compared to its counterargument, it simply doesn't make good sense).

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    You're terribly deeply wrong in thinking that, though.
    No, actually, I'm not.

    You just have not realized yet why what I've stated is the winning argument in that debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Yes, I was responding directly to the point (=attacking it) that you were discussing.
    No, you weren't.

    You were shifting the frame of reference from the theoretical to the empirical.

    Your arguments above, indeed, have addressed the point I was discussing, but they are indeed wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    No, however if you want to make a statement that something is fact, empirical evidence will HAVE TO be involved.
    No, actually, it need not.

    As I said before, once again, check your preference.

    There are theoretical truths, things that, simply by the principles at hand, are true due to their internal consistency.

    Perhaps they are not correspondentially true (which Te and empiricism are more concerned with), perhaps they are not pragmatically true (with Te also tends to be concerned with as well), but they are true simply from the fact that, according solely to the rules of logic, and well as the principles at hand, the linguistic and conceptual framework that is being dealt with, that they make sense, they are accurate, they are internally consistent.

    Three different types of truth my man: correspondence, internal consistency, and pragmatic.

    The theoretical deals,at first, at least, with the second, and secondarily hopes to achieve the first. This is more Ti-inclined.

    Te, and empiricism, which you decided to shift reference to, deals more with the third and the first (although sometimes, when it comes to the latter, as Jung said, in a shallow way).

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Definitionally there are differences.
    Yes.

    The painters paint different pictures of Extroverted Intuition and Introverted Feeling.

    But they are still attempting to point to the same underlying phenomena.

    Which painters are more accurate, that's up for discussion.

    Imo, each has their merits at times.

    There's not even just one Socionics painter, nor one "MBTI" painter, so we can really talk about all different kinds of painters, and the different ways in which they see and paint the scene.

    But the scene they are trying to paint is still Extroverted Intuition, in something akin to what is often called the dominant position, followed by Introverted Feeling, in something akin to what is often called the auxiliary, or backup, position.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Let's not mention empirical ones.
    Unfortunately, that's how you started this whole thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Nope, I was talking about and/or implying a lot more than that. I wasn't changing frame of reference for some points, specifically the one about how functions are not the same; not even definitionally.
    Blah blah blah I'm really getting bored and have better things to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Well as for the idea that theories should truly stand alone separate from reality, I would say that idea is simply psychotic.
    That's not what I was saying, and I'm pretty sure everything else you wrote is going to be boring, pointless and unnecessary too.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Abstraction is all great but it does need to come from somewhere. The connection between concept and empirical observation may be really far/faint/indirect but it's still there. Unless one's psychotic, of course. No I'm not saying you are. I'm talking in general.
    Hey look, I was right.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    The underlying logic isn't necessarily correct.
    Depends on what you mean by correct.

    If you mean empirically, then no, it isn't necessarily.

    If you mean by how Socionics' model is set up (i.e., theoretically), then actually you're wrong.

    And, seeing as how that's what I was talking about, we have now come back full circle and can see why you were wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Btw when you said in your original post that "one system simply emphasizes Jish qualities for individuals whose dominant function is a Judging function and Pish qualities for introverts whose dominant function is a Perceiving function (Socionics), while the other emphasizes Jish qualities for individuals whose first extroverted function is a judging function and Pish qualities for individuals whose first extroverted function is a Perceiving function (MBTI).".

    I didn't dispute that part because it's pretty much true. This is obviously how these two systems define things.
    Yes, I already knew this.

    Hence it being the basis of what I was talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    My issue was not this, my issue was 1) you using the word "fact" wrong
    Wrong.

    As laid out above.

    In short: check your preference.

    (And, actually, if you really get all the way down to it, considering everything I stated indeed follows from the principles of the systems, there's even a sound argument that what I said is, in a sense, empirically true, if what is being empirically tested is the truth of the statements I made about the systems, relative to the actuality of the systems [which there is].)

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    2) using the assumption that functions are the same in both systems.
    I actually never said this.

    As implied by the painter analogy, the functions are painted differently by different theorists (even within Socionics, and within "MBTI").

    What I will say is that one should have the same functions in each system, but that, if the descriptions of the functions, or the model for how the interrelate, are completely fucked up in one system, vs the other, then the one in which the descriptions are fucked up will be a far less useful system, and should basically be looked at as too divergent from reality.

    The goal is to have the definitions of the functions, and the model defining how the functions interrelate, come as close to corresponding with reality as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    The latter was a problem because you brought this assumption into your reasoning without any real grounds to it.
    False.

    (As shown [repeatedly] above.)

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    And I can prove this without going far from the theoretical definitions.
    False.

    (As shown below.)

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Simply, this test shows nowhere that it or socionics in general uses the exact same function definitions that MBTI uses. You just saw some INFP testing as INFp in the test and jumped to this conclusion. You picked one example and made up an explanation for it.


    Honestly, this is too ridiculous to even respond to.

    Thank you for showing, right near the end, the quality of your interlocution.

    I will remember never to waste my time ever discussing anything with you again.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    That's fine, explain things as you like, but don't call them fact and don't say it's not up for debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Heh.
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ad.php?t=68486
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ad.php?t=68750

    Heh.

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    @Zarathustra

    Firstly, I'm not going to waste my time on responding to most of the ad hominem parts. It's irrelevant and obviously unfounded bullshit.

    I will also try to avoid repeating myself too much.

    Overall, I don't really care for you responding to each little line just to try and attack me out of whatever need you have for doing so, getting off track with ad hominem crap etc., I'd prefer you to stick to the relevant points. If you don't, it will be a waste of your time as I will just ignore that crap.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    There is such a thing about fact when it comes to discussing a theory.

    One can be wrong, or right, according strictly to logic.
    Then say that instead.


    You don't really have a place talking about being pedantic when you came in here with the post that you did.
    You're wrong if you think you can tell me what I shouldn't talk about.


    Yes, there are actually such things.

    It's called internal consistency.
    Actually, I like it if a theory is logical, what I take issue with is if there's too much unfounded speculation.


    But sometimes the theoretical isn't necessarily testable or falsifiable.
    That's called an unscientific theory then. I prefer science over that.


    There are plenty of other issues as well, but none of this means that we should not keep theorizing.
    Theorizing is okay if it's done in a sensible way, not just as mental masturbation.


    Because you clearly have a psychological fixation when it comes to this issue.
    I love how you try to guess things about me without knowing me at all.


    Apparently you don't realize that Lithuania is not Russia.
    Darling, I do, I live pretty close to Lithuania so for me it would be pretty weird if I didn't know it wasn't Russia. I never said anything that implied this.


    The internal contradictions in your argument are too obvious, blatant and boring to even cover.
    Oh that's just BS if you're incapable of saying what the contradictions are.


    The only thing you've done is tried to switch the frame of reference from theory to empiricism.
    Nope you fail to see that I was doing more than that. However, unless you have a specific question for clarification that I can answer, I don't know how to explain in another way to you. I've tried a couple times, that's enough.


    Because they come from the same fundamental source, 'Psychological Types'.

    It doesn't matter that other elements were added, and the theory took off in its own direction.
    You are someone who claims internal consistency is important, so how can you say all these things here don't matter??? WTF MAN.


    Introversion, Extroversion, Intuition, Sensing, Thinking, Feeling, Attitude of Consciousness, Cognitive Functions, Extroverted Intuition, Introverted Intuition, Extroverted Thinking, Introverted Thinking, Extroverted Sensing, Introverted Sensing, Extroverted Feeling, Introverted Feeling, Cognitive Functions, sixteen types, and plenty more: the use of these terms and concepts did not just happen randomly, as if they arose independently, out of nowhere, just happening to utilize so many of the same terms and concepts, but having no common ancestor.
    Do not confuse notation with meaning. Again, you originally said consistency mattered to you :/


    These are not independent fields.

    They are they same thing, different painters.
    By your own theory, sure. But that's just a theory and it cannot be proven in a meaningful way. You will never be able to stifle all the counterarguments.


    Yes, there is variation, just like when two one species starts evolving in two different locations, and grow apart from one another.
    ...And at one point they can no longer mate and produce offsprings.


    But there is still so much similarity, and to imagine that the Function Attitudes themselves, made some radical changes, such that a liver is no longer a liver, but is now a spleen, and a lung is no longer a lung, but is now a colon, is fucking stupid.
    Wrong analogy.


    I have already come to realize this, as I have worked through all the arguments, and discussed the matter with others who are just as, and likely more, knowledgeable on this matter, than you are.

    You can belabor the point all you want -- I've already seen all your arguments -- but none of them trump what it is I have said.

    Which is why, as I said, it is fact that what I said above about the theory is 100% accurate and true.

    It's not up for debate, but (ignorant) people will continue to debate it.

    The logic for the other position simply does not hold up.
    If you really think about it this way then you are living in your own theory, unable to see further. And it's sad that you have this God complex of thinking you are the only one who can be correct on this matter. You forget that actually no one holds the perfect theory on anything. That's actually a beautiful thing about science, it's willing to improve models, willing to ditch whatever got refuted and will not deal with theories that are not formed in a fashion allowing for falsification. (At the same time it's great that these models are logical not only in a pragmatic sense. They are beautiful on their own without having any practical use yet.) If you cannot agree with this way of thinking, then we have nothing to talk about in future.


    I'm sorry, that was so general, unspecific, and poorly worded it was essentially meaningless.
    Meaningless only if you have not studied psychology in general yet beyond the MBTI crap. Do consider studying more about the mind.


    I see why you stay out of the realm of abstraction and theorizing and conceptualizing.
    I never said I stayed out of those realms. I only dislike useless speculation. Abstraction, theorizing or conceptualizing per se are not equal to fruitless speculation.


    If all you're trying to say is "consider that Ne from one system is not Ne, or any other function, in the other, that they're just completely different things", and this was just your poorly worded, or perhaps even intentionally vague and deceptive, way of saying that, then yes, I can take that step, and already have, and, ultimately, came to realize that doing so is absolutely fucking stupid, for the sound reasons I already laid out above.
    By different things I don't mean a lung is a liver. No. Maybe you didn't see the edit I added to my post later. Perhaps that will help in clarifying what I was referring to.

    (This one: "Do note what I already mentioned in this post; when talking about how Ne in MBTI means one thing and Ne in socionics means another thing (or even while staying with MBTI, e.g. Ne in MBTI is one thing vs an E and an N preference is another thing), it does not mean that one specific idea "turns into" another idea (say, socionics Ne wouldn't have to equal MBTI Ni). No one in their right mind would try to think that way Thinking differently about this is easily achieved by widening the narrow categorization framework of the world of the mind, stepping past the idea that everything is just 8 single entities of functions.

    So if someone is INFP NeFi in MBTI, and INFp NiFe in socionics, it doesn't mean MBTI Ne has just turned into MBTI Ni.

    (Yep, right, I don't like that the notation is too similar to MBTI esp in "western" socionics. That does cause confusion and not just for beginners.)"
    )

    I will also add some more specifics; consider a function as being built from smaller parts of cognitive building blocks. (Whatever these building blocks specifically may be isn't important right now but I can give you examples if that helps.) Now consider that a function with the same notation (e.g. "Ne") in the other system has different blocks. Some may coincide with the function with the same name in the former system and some will not. This does not turn a lung into a liver, but it's no longer a lung either. Also, some building blocks will be the exact opposite thus these two function definitions cannot be reconciled with each other if you don't wish to fundamentally change one or both of the systems.


    Wow.

    Look.

    You're back to my painter analogy.
    Nope. The example of incompatible building blocks does not fit with your painter analogy.


    You have no idea how I think, what else my mind is open to, etc.
    Well sorry but your argument about how there is only 8 functions doesn't sound like a very open-minded way of looking at the mind. You may be open-minded in other areas of life, I don't know you. You also don't know me so stop guessing shit.


    It's pointing to the purported underlying function that Jung was purportedly pointing to originally.

    The label he coined for it, and that both systems now use, is Extroverted Intuition.
    Then why don't you just stick with Jung and quit bothering with other systems? These other newer systems do not really use Jung's system anymore.


    Once again, all you were doing was shifting the framework from the theoretical -- which we were discussing -- to the empirical -- which we weren't.
    You mean my mention of correlations vs causal links? For me a sound theory recognizes the difference between these two. It cannot be internally consistent without that either.


    That "[t]o make any other argument is to make an argument that makes absolutely no conceptual, abstract, or theoretical sense."

    I feel like someone should tell you to "check your preference".

    It would seem you have an imbalanced preference for Te.

    Try learning to accept that there are other kinds of and ways of arriving at truth than just Extroverted Thinking.
    Darling, you don't know fuck about me, you cannot have any idea if I prefer Te and in which system anyway?

    I could be Fe-dom just as much, who for some Fe reason takes up a Te-like position. (I'm not saying I'm Fe-dom, just an example)

    So much for your superficial BS "analysis" of me.


    It should be added that my language was not precise enough in what you were quoting, tho: it's not that it can't make any sense, at least not in the sense that one cannot attempt to make that argument, and do so within some semblance of reason; it's that, upon full evaluation of all the arguments that exist, that one ends up being false, and then makes no sense (there's a temporal problem, or a Catch-22, in some sense, when it comes to its sense, in that you cannot understand why it does not indeed make sense, until you have actually tried to make the argument, make it make sense, and then evaluated the counterargument, and realized the counterargument actually undeniably makes way more sense, and so much so that the other argument, while understandable to have made in the first place, clearly must eventually be thrown out, as, compared to its counterargument, it simply doesn't make good sense).
    I already discussed the issue above in this post, and don't really want to repeat myself much anymore but I'll say that you cannot ever with certainty state that you've fully evaluated every possible argument when confining yourself into such a narrow view of the matter at hand.


    You just have not realized yet why what I've stated is the winning argument in that debate.
    You don't have a winning argument. Doesn't matter how much you'd love to believe so.


    There are theoretical truths, things that, simply by the principles at hand, are true due to their internal consistency.
    That's the domain of mathematics. If dealing with the human mind, you'd better involve some empiricism too; checking out a theory's assumptions, checking if something is a causal link or just a correlation, checking predictions made by the theory, etc. etc.

    If you disagree and think that when theorizing about the human mind's workings, you are justified about not checking out your speculations, then you just do plain mental masturbation and we don't have anything to discuss anymore.


    Three different types of truth my man: correspondence, internal consistency, and pragmatic.

    The theoretical deals,at first, at least, with the second, and secondarily hopes to achieve the first. This is more Ti-inclined.

    Te, and empiricism, which you decided to shift reference to, deals more with the third and the first (although sometimes, when it comes to the latter, as Jung said, in a shallow way).
    What do you get out of categorizing everything along these MBTI or Jungian lines?

    If you used this to guess that I only care about pragmatism, you're wrong.


    (And, actually, if you really get all the way down to it, considering everything I stated indeed follows from the principles of the systems, there's even a sound argument that what I said is, in a sense, empirically true, if what is being empirically tested is the truth of the statements I made about the systems, relative to the actuality of the systems [which there is].)
    Nope, you're still just using assumptions.


    I actually never said this.

    As implied by the painter analogy, the functions are painted differently by different theorists (even within Socionics, and within "MBTI").

    What I will say is that one should have the same functions in each system, but that, if the descriptions of the functions, or the model for how the interrelate, are completely fucked up in one system, vs the other, then the one in which the descriptions are fucked up will be a far less useful system, and should basically be looked at as too divergent from reality.

    The goal is to have the definitions of the functions, and the model defining how the functions interrelate, come as close to corresponding with reality as possible.
    Alright, that makes more sense. I thought you said they are the same in the systems currently.

    So fine, if you want to make a new better system, do that. Then just ignore those systems and use your own

    Don't however go on seemingly mixing MBTI functions with socionics in the manner you were doing it in your original post; No need to confuse with speculation people who are new to these systems.

    I still disagree on the idea that there's just these 8 functions and nothing more, though. And I still think that you're putting too much stock into the fact that there's similar notations.


    Hm? What were you trying to say?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 109
    Last Post: 12-09-2016, 09:26 AM
  2. Areas of Confidence Test
    By Nørrsken in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-29-2016, 02:54 AM
  3. NJs: How do you relate to Ni as the Intuition of time (Socionics concept)?
    By Stansmith in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 05-04-2014, 05:52 PM
  4. The Sound of Confidence
    By VagrantFarce in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-10-2011, 03:23 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