User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 163

  1. #101
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    I agree that they oversimplified the distinction between thinking and feeling. It's always tough whe typing a person, and you come to the T vs. F aspect..I usually consider that Ts are more prone to do what's logically correct, whereas Fs usually are more emotional when making desicions, are focus on more of the..if I do this, who's feelings will it hurt?
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  2. #102
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    There are two ways you can throw out the function order. Claim that there is only one function. (Pretend that other functions do not exist).

    Or proclaim the following absurdity, the members of each pair of functions and attitudes are not antithetical to each other, extroversion and introversion, sensation and intuition, thinking and feeling, judgment and perception. (I have already explained thoroughly elsewhere why they are antithetical. Principles of Typology)
    I'm not saying there is NO order to functions for a specific person. I'm saying that not all people of the same type have the same function distribution.

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    The axioms of Junging typology are as follows.

    Axiom 1: 8 Functions and 2 attituded exist.

    Axiom 2: For every function and an attitude that exists, there is another function or an attitude that is antithetical to such a function.

    Axiom 3: Because the system contains an antithesis to each function, no two functions can have an equal amount of natural influence. This is the case because if the two antithetical functions in question had an equal amount of influence, cognitive paralysis would ensue. Or quite simply one would not be able to think in any particular way at all.

    The entailment of axioms 2 and 3 is that all of the functions must be placed in a specific order. There will be a function that is the most prevalent of all, therefore the function that is an antithesis to that function would be the most supressed. Then there will be a function that is the second most prevalent of all, and the antithesis to that function will be the second most supressed of all. What I have described above is the model for the order of functions.
    K.

    In MBTI, a Thinker is one who is more comfortable using logic than relying on emotions for decision making. In Jungian typology a Thinker is one who has a stronger natural disposition towards dispassionate judgment than processing of emotion. This often entails a personality trait described by MBTI, but does not necessitate it. What this means is that a Feeler is less likely to be logical than a Thinker, but it is possible for a Feeler to be more logical than a Feeler. Humans, unlike animals have the ability to do differently from what their instincts or dispositions urge them to do. Hence, we can do contrary to our typological dispositions and develop a function that we have a weaker natural disposition towards using more than the function that we have a stronger natural disposition towards using.
    We don't disagree.

    In MBTI it does, in Jungian typology it does not.
    Right, which is my problem with MBTI, which is the whole reason I've been posting in this thread.

    I don't know about that, you do utter many absurdities.
    Or maybe you just don't follow my intuitive leaps

  3. #103
    Senior Member Kollin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Ehm...I got the impression that the OP was saying that the T/F dichotomy shouldn't be characterized as "serves others"/"serves self" because it is inaccurate. I then got the impression that you were agreeing with this very characterization. That led me to wonder (and subsequently question) why you thought you were agreeing with the OP. Here:

    What the OP says:



    And here's what you said:



    Totally opposite thoughts, yet you thought you were agreeing...And (s)he is suggesting that we stop using this as a legitimate way to distinguish between thinking and feeling. (S)he is also suggesting that the original reason that we currently think of thinking and feeling in this way is because of class based ideological domination.
    Ok, you got me...
    AKA: Choss

    It's not theoretically possible

    Interesting novel thoughts proliferate

    Incessently needing to ponder

    I never think practically

    It's never too precise

    Insane nerds throwing parties

    I'm not the problem

    I'm not that popular

  4. #104
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    No no no no no. Both forms of Thinking are entirely deductive. Anything that can be labeled inductive logic (at least the inductive leap itself) is Intuition. The thing with inductive logic is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This is exactly the type of thing that Intuition does -- make educated guesses.
    Wait a damn minute... if Ni has logical properties by itself, why--say, in an INTJ--would a "deductive" Te play Ni's game? If Ni is being all inductive, why would a deductive Te not get just as offended as the average INTP sitting around trying to listen to an INTJ? A deductive system, by definition, will reject an induction.

    In any type, isn't the auxiliary supposed to balance the dominant--to provide focus and structure which by itself teh dominant doesn't have?

    Or to put it another way, if Ni in INXJs has some logical properties of its own, what does Si in ISXJs have?


    And for that matter, why doesn't an INFJ just explode? Their Ni is doing some kind of inductive trick, the Fe is making emotional judgments about it, and Ti is sitting in the background weeping because none of it can make any sense--there being such rapid and wild leaps from any decision to the next... Ask an INTP--Ti recoils at induction.

    I dunno. I'm just running down the concepts as they appear to me. And Ni, as far as I know, is unregulated extrapolation. Nothing at all stops it leaping from "big fish" to "chocolate soap" unless and until some exterior judgment function steps in. To say that Ni has regulated logical properties of its own kinda defeats the purpose of systematising the existence of other judgment functions into a whole MBTI story, doesn't it?

    However, I am not at all sure I have it right. I shall reflect more.


    A good way of finding out is counting the number of times you think "x is true/false" and counting the number of times you think "x is good/bad" and comparing the two to each other over some amount of time. It's essentially impossible to do this way, but you can approximate.
    That really isn't, you know. In any reasoning system at all, evaluations are just evaluations. True/false, good/bad, beautiful/ugly... they're all essentially (well, syntactically) the same as "positive"/"negative". It's not entirely suitable to use one positive term in place of another, but there's an extra thing in INFJs that makes it okay, I think...

    INFJs don't deal only in "subjective good" and "subjective bad", do you guys. You deal in what's really good and really bad. Fe provides a judgment, and months and years of experience provide a library of insights that sharpen that Fe judgment even further... AND Ti checks truth. So INFJs at their best do not merely say "it's good/bad"; they can and rightly do say, "It's true that this is good/bad."

    Good or Bad?

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digesthisickness View Post
    speaking for myself, but definitely as a T, you couldn't be more wrong about our reasoning.
    And you're surprised?

  6. #106
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kollin View Post
    Ok, you got me...
    Just sayin'...
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #107
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Wait a damn minute... if Ni has logical properties by itself, why--say, in an INTJ--would a "deductive" Te play Ni's game? If Ni is being all inductive, why would a deductive Te not get just as offended as the average INTP sitting around trying to listen to an INTJ? A deductive system, by definition, will reject an induction.

    In any type, isn't the auxiliary supposed to balance the dominant--to provide focus and structure which by itself teh dominant doesn't have?
    Induction and deduction actually work incredibly well together. Inductive leaps are essentially the premises that Thinking uses to deduce from. Once Thinking finishes a deduction, Intuition can expand the scope or change the topic entirely, providing Thinking with new deductive problems.

    All reasoning is some induction + some deduction. That's what N and T do, and that's why NTs are usually good at abstract true/false reasoning.

    Or to put it another way, if Ni in INXJs has some logical properties of its own, what does Si in ISXJs have?
    Si also has inductive properties, but it stays in the realm of the concrete. Again, perceiving overall provides premises for judging to deduce from. Feeling is also a deductive function, by the way, in which the outputs are good/bad instead of true/false. In computer science terms, perceiving provides the arguments (premises, inputs, whatever) to a judging function, which merely parses the inputs with a bunch of if/then statements and produces a deductive output.

    This is a point I've been making throughout the thread -- Feeling is rational. It just approaches different sorts of problems and outputs different sorts of answers than Thinking.

    And for that matter, why doesn't an INFJ just explode? Their Ni is doing some kind of inductive trick, the Fe is making emotional judgments about it, and Ti is sitting in the background weeping because none of it can make any sense--there being such rapid and wild leaps from any decision to the next... Ask an INTP--Ti recoils at induction.
    That's a ludicrous point. If you think for a minute that Fs aren't capable of logical thinking, you need to restructure your understanding of the MBTI. MBTI is about preference, not ability. It's descriptive, not predictive.

    Thinking is necessary, just like all other functions. Just because you prefer a different process doesn't mean you have no ability to Think.

    To think that Ti is sitting in the background weeping is entirely missing the point. Ti does the same thing for INFJs as for INTPs. It makes true/false deductions based on an internal standard (or framework, or whatever you want to call it). There's no reason that an INFJ couldn't be very logical. I personally am an example of this, as a math/logic freak...

    I dunno. I'm just running down the concepts as they appear to me. And Ni, as far as I know, is unregulated extrapolation. Nothing at all stops it leaping from "big fish" to "chocolate soap" unless and until some exterior judgment function steps in. To say that Ni has regulated logical properties of its own kinda defeats the purpose of systematising the existence of other judgment functions into a whole MBTI story, doesn't it?
    No no. Intuition is certainly not unbounded -- otherwise it'd be almost useless. First, there are two kinds of Intuition, extroverted and introverted, which have different focuses -- extroverted focuses on breadth, introverted on depth -- Ne makes inductions about environmental information, Ni makes inductions about the internal state, as in, the current thought process + unconscious state. Second, Intuitive leaps have to come from somewhere -- they also use premises to guess a conclusion from. Intuition has a massive storehouse of information, refined throughout a lifetime -- it would look like a giant web of concepts, with hundreds of connections from concept to concept. New Intuitions are based on this structure.

    (Edit: perceiving is defined as unconscious and judging conscious, if that helps at all. So anything unconscious is by definition perceiving and everything conscious blah blah.)

    Again, I don't see what problem Thinking would have with inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is incapable of expanding scope or coming up with anything new. Unless there's constant induction going on, Thinking is just going to sit there with no problems to solve.

    A point I do want to hammer home, though, is that everyone uses all functions. Just because someone is an F doesn't mean they don't constantly use Thinking. It doesn't mean Thinking somehow is kept in a prison in the mind, constantly beaten down until its will is broken. In fact, I know plenty of Fs that constantly outperform most Ts in logic puzzles or math or physics or computer science (coughmyselfcough).

    That really isn't, you know. In any reasoning system at all, evaluations are just evaluations. True/false, good/bad, beautiful/ugly... they're all essentially (well, syntactically) the same as "positive"/"negative". It's not entirely suitable to use one positive term in place of another, but there's an extra thing in INFJs that makes it okay, I think...
    Yes. This is an essential point. Thinking and Feeling don't really do different sorts of things. They just focus on different sorts of problems. You could really just use the overarching term Judging. Thinking is just the part of judging that works from a framework of True/False, Feeling is the part that works from the framework of Good/Bad. But they both take data, parse it, and deductively spit out results.

    INFJs don't deal only in "subjective good" and "subjective bad", do you guys. You deal in what's really good and really bad. Fe provides a judgment, and months and years of experience provide a library of insights that sharpen that Fe judgment even further... AND Ti checks truth. So INFJs at their best do not merely say "it's good/bad"; they can and rightly do say, "It's true that this is good/bad."
    I don't know what you're really trying to say. Good/Bad is always going to be subjective, because it always depends on premises. You can say, given these ethical principles, x is wrong or x is right. But you can never call x in and of itself wrong or right. Just like you can't call a concept true unless you define the problem you're approaching about the concept first.

    Good or Bad?
    Bad.

  8. #108
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    This is a point I've been making throughout the thread -- Feeling is rational. It just approaches different sorts of problems and outputs different sorts of answers than Thinking.
    Well that's not the whole truth.

    There are many dimensions represented by Feeling/Thinking.
    This is why people make assumptions like the one about it being a false dichotomy.
    They blame it on the concept, when really it's their own inability to cope with complexity.

    Dig this guys: Evan is actually right about what he said except for one part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    This is a point I've been making throughout the thread -- Feeling is rational. It just approaches different sorts of problems and outputs different sorts of answers than Thinking.
    The word "just" is not applicable. It's true that Feeling attempts to tackle different problems, but it's also true that it attempts to tackle the same ones.

    Same as Thinking types often screw up their relationships because the other party is acting irrationally, Feeling types screw up their calculations of a situation.

    Example: The rules for what's good and not made by Feeling don't have to be consistent. The Thinker frequently fails to recognize this and will assume they can get away with things only to be trounced by the F.
    The same Feeler misunderstands the goal of a T's project, or the prevalence it may have, and, while hoping to help in the workshop, might destroy said project, having a poorer understanding of the operating principles of the parts.
    Now everyone hates eachother.

    But true enough, they do tread on one another's turf.


    Now for the other dimension: T/F approaches whatever problems with different intentions. So the very goal or motivation is entirely different.

    And now we'll give it a third: T/F would employ different techniques when solving a problem.

    It's even likely I'm leaving one out, but I don't care.

    In the end, anyway, the point is, Feeling is not rational; it's definitively not rational; it was only given the name because it might yield rationale.

    Jung was an idiot when it came to language, and was rather careless, about that fact.
    There are far too many reckless mistakes on his part.
    we fukin won boys

  9. #109
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    It is true that Jung was careless, perhaps naive, with his wording. This is one situation where nothing is wrong though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    In the end, anyway, the point is, Feeling is not rational; it's definitively not rational; it was only given the name because it might yield rationale.
    I find this statement more ironic than usual because I believe it's the first time Nocapszy has chosen to use the word "definitively". What definition is he referring to, exactly?

    Well, here we go again:

    [Rational]

    adjective-
    1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
    2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
    3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
    4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
    5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
    6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
    [Rationale]

    noun
    1. the fundamental reason or reasons serving to account for something.
    2. a statement of reasons.
    3. a reasoned exposition of principles.
    Well, that was pretty vague. Let's look at some of the words that keep coming up in those definitions.

    [Reason]

    noun
    1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
    2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
    3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
    4. sound judgment; good sense.
    5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
    [Judgement]

    noun
    1. an act or instance of judging.
    2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, esp. in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.
    3. the demonstration or exercise of such ability or capacity: The major was decorated for the judgment he showed under fire.
    4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.
    5. the opinion formed: He regretted his hasty judgment.
    If you look at these carefully, you'll notice these words keep twisting back together. They're pretty heavily related, and they also happen to be pretty broad. In examining it, you will also notice that nothing in these definitios seems to rule out Feeling. If you go through the whole loup, and come full circle back to the world "rational", you won't find a reason in their to exclude Feeling. Perhaps one reference to objectivty being the most notable, but still minor thing, for us to question the place Feeling. That itself is highly debateable, though.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #110
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    If you go through the whole loup, and come full circle back to the world "rational", you won't find a reason in their to exclude Feeling. Perhaps one reference to objectivty being the most notable, but still minor thing, for us to question the place Feeling. That itself is highly debateable, though.
    Yes, Magic, there is absolutely no reason to claim that the definition of rational does not include feeling. Virtually anything can be regarded as rational. Whether it is the barking of a dog, a feeling I get at consuming chocolate. Its whatever you want truly! Remember, most importantly of all, the term rational has noting at all to do with logical reasoning! Whatsoever!
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] Adam-12: GREAT Display Of Thinking Vs. Feeling
    By LauraIngallsWalton in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2017, 04:19 AM
  2. Thinking vs Feeling
    By Eastwood in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-25-2015, 04:07 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Thinking vs Feeling
    By Doomkid in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 05-12-2014, 06:49 AM
  4. Thinking Vs Feeling
    By oxymoron in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-18-2010, 05:14 PM
  5. Thinking vs. Feeling: What if...
    By Nonsensical in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 11:43 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