User Tag List

View Poll Results: INFPs: Which type do you think is your ideal romantic match?

Voters
78. You may not vote on this poll
  • ESTJ

    3 3.85%
  • ISTJ

    0 0%
  • ESTP

    5 6.41%
  • ISTP

    3 3.85%
  • ENTJ

    4 5.13%
  • INTJ

    5 6.41%
  • ENTP

    4 5.13%
  • INTP

    12 15.38%
  • ENFJ

    16 20.51%
  • INFJ

    7 8.97%
  • ENFP

    6 7.69%
  • INFP

    8 10.26%
  • ESFJ

    0 0%
  • ISFJ

    2 2.56%
  • ESFP

    3 3.85%
  • ISFP

    0 0%
First 142223242526 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 258

  1. #231
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    ^Your posts don't make sense to me, so I don't know how to respond.
    I think of functions as metaphorical buckets for holding ideas about different ways of engaging with reality. As such they exist, even if they have no fine-grained neural correlates to map onto. One doesn't have to accept any particular ordering scheme or other dogma about how functions interact in order to accept their existence.

    They exist simply because we have a language for talking about them, and that language represents aspects of reality as we experience it. A kind of shorthand.
    Insofar as a concept has utility, it has validity.
    It's as senseless to say there is no such thing as Fi as to say there is no such thing as integrity. Can we prove integrity has objective existence? Not really. Nevertheless, it's a useful idea.

    Your analogy is strange. I'm not sure how it relates to use/non-use of Ti.
    Excuse me. My analogy was suggesting situations where Ti is perfectly operational but a person's external focus or fixation on the external world means that the individual in question does not listen to it or even acknowledge it exists - to their detriment.

    I agree with you on the definition of "function." The image I had in mind in terms of advancement would be an increasingly refined knowledge of the brain, to the point where a "function" needs to be divided into multiple smaller classifications so the theory maintain consistency to the evidence (e.g. Fi-I, Fi-II where each have their own individual and perhaps non-overlapping workings) perhaps to the point where a person would use hundreds if not thousands of "cognitive functions" and that hundreds if not thousands of MBTI types would exist as a result. Although "functions" haven't been disproven it becomes obsolete in the sense which Jung originally envisioned.

  2. #232
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    Excuse me. My analogy was suggesting situations where Ti is perfectly operational but a person's external focus or fixation on the external world means that the individual in question does not listen to it or even acknowledge it exists - to their detriment.
    Ah, ok. I think the nature of consciousness is such that a function cannot be "perfectly operational" if it is consistently disregarded/disfavoured. Much as a muscle cannot be perfectly operational if it isn't stretched from time to time.

    Edit. Increased knowledge of the brain is unlikely to lead us into the territory you describe. Essentially, JCF is about mind not matter, it has more to do with philosophy than neuroscience. Jung was more mystic than scientist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  3. #233
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Ah, ok. I think the nature of consciousness is such that a function cannot be "perfectly operational" if it is consistently disregarded/disfavoured. Much as a muscle cannot be perfectly operational if it isn't stretched from time to time.

    Edit. Increased knowledge of the brain is unlikely to lead us into the territory you describe. Essentially, JCF is about mind not matter, it has more to do with philosophy than neuroscience. Jung was more mystic than scientist.
    You raise a good point. Perhaps I should replace "perfectly operational" with "a suitable amount of resources which could be utilised for this purpose if the individual in question chose to focus enough so it would be utilised."

    As for paragraph 2 I would say that supports my previous comment that MBTI is a load of crap outside of pop psychology to entertain yourself with. The scenario I envisioned required the adjustment of the theory so that it did correspond more with matter e.g. Thomson or Nardi though with a lot of extra work.

  4. #234
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Mind and matter are incompatible/alternative approaches. Neither is inherently superior.

    Mind may well be an emergent phenomenon and as such, we won't be able to dissect it and label it with anything approaching clinical precision.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #235
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    I agree completely. Determining the nature of a "cognitive function" would have its roots in guesswork and conjecture, for example in "experiments" like those carried out by Thomson or Nardi. "Wow, it lights up there when this fellow claims to be using Te. It doesn't matter whether he's not using Te or is perhaps using Te along with another function, let's label that part of the brain Te!" From that point they only empirically narrow down on the area they "believe" to be Te.

    The idealist in me however does like to entertain the idea that (assuming mind is an illusion and consciousness purely exists as a creation of the material brain of course) that with significant technological gains and the completion of a hypothetical complete reverse engineering of the human brain project we would be able to completely chart the dimensions of both the subconscious and conscious mind and if a "cognitive function" can be measured in any conceivable form measure it.

  6. #236
    Junior Member AverOblivious1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    ^Your posts don't make sense to me, so I don't know how to respond.
    ....
    'Remember that, like love, resistance to temptation makes the heart grow stronger' - Stephen King

    FiNe, for now.
    Sp/So/Sx

  7. #237
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Also content-free, yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    I agree completely. Determining the nature of a "cognitive function" would have its roots in guesswork and conjecture, for example in "experiments" like those carried out by Thomson or Nardi. "Wow, it lights up there when this fellow claims to be using Te. It doesn't matter whether he's not using Te or is perhaps using Te along with another function, let's label that part of the brain Te!" From that point they only empirically narrow down on the area they "believe" to be Te.
    You're doing that weird INFP thing of asserting complete agreement where there is none.
    It's cute.

    Thomson didn't do any work on this personally and her source has been thoroughly discredited. Nardi's "research" is incomprehensible. He doesn't even offer a hypothesis for his findings to support.
    Something of a dead end. We simply do not understand enough about how the brain works to draw any kind of conclusion. For example, we can't even say whether an area of the brain that "lights up" does so because it is active or because it is inhibiting another part. Also, "lighting up" implies a lot of mental effort which is incompatible with the idea of skilled use requiring minimal effort and efficient energy use.
    It would be very foolish and premature to attempt to draw advanced conclusions when the basic research is yet to be done.

    Far from being idealistic, your second paragraph is strongly materialistic...
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  8. #238
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Also content-free, yes.

    You're doing that weird INFP thing of asserting complete agreement where there is none.
    It's cute.

    Thomson didn't do any work on this personally and her source has been thoroughly discredited. Nardi's "research" is incomprehensible. He doesn't even offer a hypothesis for his findings to support.
    Something of a dead end. We simply do not understand enough about how the brain works to draw any kind of conclusion. For example, we can't even say whether an area of the brain that "lights up" does so because it is active or because it is inhibiting another part. Also, "lighting up" implies a lot of mental effort which is incompatible with the idea of skilled use requiring minimal effort and efficient energy use.
    It would be very foolish and premature to attempt to draw advanced conclusions when the basic research is yet to be done.

    Far from being idealistic, your second paragraph is strongly materialistic...
    Hey look who it is! I trust you have been well I'm going to do the cute INFP thing again and completely agree with you. I reserve the right (no matter how ignorant it could potentially make me seem in certain situations) to focus and agree on the gist of what you are saying whilst not noticing or utilising the more precise details. Can be really messy, working on it.

    In my view the brain is much like a foreign language where a cipher or perhaps a key to begin translating may or may not exist. My scenario assumed that a number of steps not mentioned had taken place, one being that the brain was at least understood to a point where much of the brain's workings could be deductively determined beyond reasonable doubt so a model of it (with an "acceptable" margin of error) could be created where function "research" similar to Nardi or Thomson (preferably a version which isn't completely rubbish) being worked into if not completely superimposed onto the model and after that point make continued confident deductive steps.

    I hope it doesn't look like I'm moving the goalposts here (there's a time and place for that.) Your feedback is making me consider things from new directions and I appreciate your help modifying them. Thanks. Also I can't help but feel you have already long since considered every point of view or idea I have suggested in these various threads

    As for idealism, I consider it idealistic as I consider the potential destination the material's application could lead to as essentially world changing and on the whole an ultimate destination...but perhaps beyond implausible to the point of being pure pipe dream.

  9. #239
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Goddamn. What does a girl have to do to get into an argument around here?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  10. #240
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Goddamn. What does a girl have to do to get into an argument around here?
    You can try insulting me or hitting me with something. It's not my fault if I agree with your views! Show me one I can't agree with! Or alternatively, try a different thread?

    I shall now perform my latest ballad: "The burden of the Devil's advocate."

    No offence Salomé but your views suck the big one. You made a serious mistake criticising Nardi's work and if a part of the brain is inhibiting another part of the brain when it "lights up" then are we seriously supposed to believe that all activity in the inhibited part went unnoticed? Not a single indicator that two parts of the brain are in use through any of the finest technology money can buy? If it managed to completely suppress it without leaving a single trace then you have one fucking brilliant cover-up there. Wait, I don't know if I'm actually playing Devil's advocate anymore...

    Anyhoo, women should be out in the kitchen cleaning my shoes rather than wasting time online discussing things they shouldn't be thinking about.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • :hi:
  • :bye:
  • :)
  • :hug:
  • :happy2:
  • :wubbie:
  • :smile:
  • :D
  • :wink:
  • ;)
  • :newwink:
  • :cry:
  • :(
  • :doh:
  • :mad:
  • :dry:
  • :unsure:
  • :shock:
  • :huh:
  • :shrug:

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTJ] ENTJs: Which type do you think is your ideal romantic match?
    By Zarathustra in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 09-06-2016, 06:54 PM
  2. [ENFJ] ENFJs: Which type do you think is your ideal romantic match?
    By Zarathustra in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-29-2012, 10:17 PM
  3. [INFJ] INFJs: Which type do you think is your ideal romantic match?
    By Zarathustra in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 10-31-2012, 01:47 PM
  4. [INTJ] INTJs: Which type do you think is your ideal romantic match?
    By Zarathustra in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-24-2012, 01:35 PM
  5. [ENFP] ENFPS: Which type do you think is your ideal romantic match?
    By Zarathustra in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08-15-2012, 12:48 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