User Tag List

First 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 163

  1. #31
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Why? There's no reason it should be. Those who receive the proper result based on the four pref's have been categorized, and the only necessary next step is to analyze them. We don't have to apply functions to their psyches, we can analyze their behavior. The observable is all that matters in some schools of thought.
    I agree that the observable is all that matters (it's the only information we have anyway).

    You seem to have a different definition of MBTI than I do anyway, so we're gonna keep missing unless we're defining our terms (this is a problem throughout this forum, unfortunately).

    Anyway, the reason I responded to your first post was that with the four dichotomies perspective, I don't fit the result I get. I'm more I than E (correct), more N than S (correct), more T than F (a problem...), and more J than P (correct). The problem here is that I don't identify with the INTJ description. INFJ is a better fit even though I use Thinking more than Feeling.

    According to the data I've observed (which is all I have to go on, obviously), I trust logic more than value judgments. In fact, I don't trust my value judgments much at all, unless I can reason them out and fit them into my framework.

    I don't see how it makes any sense for you to claim to know that I use Feeling more than Thinking, as you obviously have much less data than I do. I get that you are defending the system -- it's understandable (Si).

    If you take the function perspective, this whole thing can be explained like this: my Thinking is introverted and my Feeling is extroverted. Even if I'm Ni>Ti>Fe, my Feeling function is still my first extroverted function, which may be what you're seeing. Or you may be seeing my Intuition and calling it Feeling (which is actually what I think is the case). Many Ti dominants have problems understanding Intuition dominants. Intuition is definitely irrational, and it is my dominant function. In that sense, I do rely more on an irrational function than my Thinking function. But I don't rely on Feeling more than Thinking (Feeling is rational, anyway). You may be confusing emotion and Feeling. Feeling is defined as conscious value judgments. Emotion is actually more in the realm of perceiving functions.

    Also, I'm not the only person I know that this applies to. I know another INFJ that seems to use Thinking more than Feeling, and I know an ISTJ (my mother) that definitely uses Feeling more than Thinking. This is why I'm suggesting that a prescribed function order should be thrown out. At least from the function theory perspective, it's possible for auxiliary and tertiary functions to be switched around.

    That seems self contradictory to me as a whole.
    I may have explained it better above. If not, please explain why this is contradictory. It's possible I assumed you would make an intuitive leap and left out a step of reasoning.

    Idea vs. idea, fair play.
    It's fair play when it's discussion. It's not fair play when it's dismissal.

    If my claim is so laughable, why take it seriously? Of course, I don't personally think it is.
    I take it as an attack -- you can't expect me not to defend myself. In fact, I'm sure you DID expect me to defend myself.

    No, it's just that when I think you or anyone is wrong, I think it better to provide an argument, for the sake of the world. A blog is better suited to unanswerable rhetoric than a message board, which is better suited to dialog.
    Hm, I would say the same thing to you. I don't see what you would call "unanswerable rhetoric" in my first post -- care to quote what you're talking about?

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I agree that the observable is all that matters (it's the only information we have anyway).

    You seem to have a different definition of MBTI than I do anyway, so we're gonna keep missing unless we're defining our terms (this is a problem throughout this forum, unfortunately).

    Anyway, the reason I responded to your first post was that with the four dichotomies perspective, I don't fit the result I get. I'm more I than E (correct), more N than S (correct), more T than F (a problem...), and more J than P (correct). The problem here is that I don't identify with the INTJ description. INFJ is a better fit even though I use Thinking more than Feeling.
    So you test incorrectly, that's not uncommon. Analysis is best anyway, and we both agree you're INFJ.

    According to the data I've observed (which is all I have to go on, obviously), I trust logic more than value judgments. In fact, I don't trust my value judgments much at all, unless I can reason them out and fit them into my framework. I don't see how it makes any sense for you to claim to know that I use Feeling more than Thinking, as you obviously have much less data than I do.
    I happen to think you rely on F more often as a driver, and trust it, using T to support F notions, whereas a T has habitually less F drive, and more natural T processing. If you disagree, and you seem to, that's life.

    I get that you are defending the system -- it's understandable (Si).
    I defend nothing which I don't understand and agree with. I don't defend it because it's an "old standard" by any means. I've openly dismissed Myers' theory and others countless times.

    If you take the function perspective, this whole thing can be explained like this: my Thinking is introverted and my Feeling is extroverted. Even if I'm Ni>Ti>Fe, my Feeling function is still my first extroverted function, which may be what you're seeing. Or you may be seeing my Intuition and calling it Feeling.
    They're both there, so I think I'm seeing both.

    Also, I'm not the only person I know that this applies to. I know another INFJ that seems to use Thinking more than Feeling, and I know an ISTJ (my mother) that definitely uses Feeling more than Thinking. This is why I'm suggesting that a prescribed function order should be thrown out. At least from the function theory perspective, it's possible for auxiliary and tertiary functions to be switched around.
    It's hard to say from here, but I would probably disagree with you in saying an ISTJ uses more F than T. What I would propose, hypothetically, is that emotions have led the user into uncertain territory, but T is still trusted more. I've seen some "troubled" ISTJs before, and it's a barrel of monkeys.

    I may have explained it better above. If not, please explain why this is contradictory. It's possible I assumed you would make an intuitive leap and left out a step of reasoning.
    To have one's cake and eat it too, as they say? Either function application to people is necessary or not. I don't think it's necessary, and I think the most common theories are incorrect, but I think mine stands to reason--That still doesn't make it necessary. It's an addition.

    It's fair play when it's discussion. It's not fair play when it's dismissal.
    I dismiss the above as an opinion I disagree with.
    I take it as an attack -- you can't expect me not to defend myself. In fact, I'm sure you DID expect me to defend myself.
    I was hoping you wouldn't.

    Hm, I would say the same thing to you. I don't see what you would call "unanswerable rhetoric" in my first post -- care to quote what you're talking about?
    I mean if you don't want it "dismissed," as you put it, a blog's better. I put up with plenty of dismissal myself, because it comes with the territory.

  3. #33
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    So you test incorrectly, that's not uncommon. Analysis is best anyway, and we both agree you're INFJ.
    Yes.

    I happen to think you rely on F more often as a driver, and trust it, using T to support F notions, whereas a T has habitually less F drive, and more natural T processing. If you disagree, and you seem to, that's life.
    How are you defining Feeling? (I actually made an edit to my post after you pressed quote.)

    I think that I use an irrational function more than I use Thinking. That would be Intuition. Perceiving is defined as any processing that is not conscious. Emotion falls in the realm of Perceiving. The emotions that you see in me are attributable much more to Ni than Fe. When it comes to conscious processing, though, I use Thinking more than Feeling (Thinking = internal consistency of concepts, Feeling = value judgments of concepts, such as "that concept is bad" or that concept is "good" or "cool" or "evil" or whatever). I do acknowledge that I am sometimes emotional. But emotion is not Feeling. I consciously think things like "x makes sense" or "x doesn't make sense" much more than things like "x is scary" or "x is good". That doesn't at all mean I'm not emotional, it just means that I don't rely on value judgments as much as true/false judgments.


    I defend nothing which I don't understand and agree with. I don't defend it because it's an "old standard" by any means. I've openly dismissed Myers' theory and others countless times.
    K.

    They're both there, so I think I'm seeing both.
    I can't think of that much I say on this forum to the effect of "that stuff is evil" or "that stuff is good". I usually talk about whether things make sense or not, or flaws in theories.

    My writing style is probably not incredibly clear, though. Certainly not as clear as Thinking dominants. I assume people will make some of the same intuitive leaps (inductive reasoning, whatever you want to call it) that I make, and probably leave certain small steps out of my reasoning. At least on this forum, I'm commonly misunderstood by Thinking dominants because they're looking for step by step deductions. I sometimes rely more on induction than they are comfortable with.

    It's hard to say from here, but I would probably disagree with you in saying an ISTJ uses more F than T. What I would propose, hypothetically, is that emotions have led the user into uncertain territory, but T is still trusted more. I've seen some "troubled" ISTJs before, and it's a barrel of monkeys.
    My mom is quite crazy. She does trust her Te a lot, but Fi takes over more often because she's incredibly emotionally unstable (Borderline Personality Disorder in my opinion). She talks about "good" and "bad" and such all the time when she's not calm (which is probably more often than when she is calm). So I guess she's not the best example because she's got some non-normative personality issues.

    To have one's cake and eat it too, as they say? Either function application to people is necessary or not. I don't think it's necessary, and I think the most common theories are incorrect, but I think mine stands to reason--That still doesn't make it necessary. It's an addition.
    Did I use the word necessary? If so, that was probably a bad word to use. None of this stuff is necessary. I personally feel more comfortable using functions than using four letter codes because I think it allows for a bit more fluidity. As long as whatever system you're using is internally consistent, it shouldn't matter much.

    I mean if you don't want it "dismissed," as you put it, a blog's better. I put up with plenty of dismissal myself, because it comes with the territory.
    Maybe we're using the word "dismissal" differently. What I mean is that it seems you were attacking my reputation as a way to throw out my argument as opposed to questioning the premises of my argument or the logical steps. I have no problem with people arguing with me -- that's the reason I come on this forum anyway, to get feedback on my ideas and hopefully see ideas I haven't thought of myself. I'd appreciate polite disagreement with a list of reasons for why you disagree as opposed to just calling me wrong.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Jung calls F & T conscious, but I'm not so sure, especially with F. I don't use that angle at all, normally, in order to skirt the issue.

    I define Feeling as the emotional processing of information, resulting in judgments, one example being "This is morally right." It can be separated from Thinking, the logic engine, because T is not concerned with end states, it only provides impersonal conclusions. What occupies more concentration would decide a preference. Abstractly, the person who makes 1000 internal F judgments per day and 600 T judgments is F.

  5. #35
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Jung calls F & T conscious, but I'm not so sure, especially with F. I don't use that angle at all, normally, in order to skirt the issue.

    I define Feeling as the emotional processing of information, resulting in judgments, one example being "This is morally right." It can be separated from Thinking, the logic engine, because T is not concerned with end states, it only provides impersonal conclusions. What occupies more concentration would decide a preference. Abstractly, the person who makes 1000 internal F judgments per day and 600 T judgments is F.
    Well that's why we're disagreeing. You are saying Feeling results in judgments, I'm saying Feeling IS the judgments. According to your definition, I probably use F more than T. According to mine, I use T more than F. I think mine falls more in line with Jung's, but honestly it doesn't matter. Semantics.

    This exchange didn't have to be so adversarial.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Well that's why we're disagreeing. You are saying Feeling results in judgments, I'm saying Feeling IS the judgments. According to your definition, I probably use F more than T. According to mine, I use T more than F. I think mine falls more in line with Jung's, but honestly it doesn't matter. Semantics.
    Ah, I assume you're thinking along the lines of Ni-Fe still. Fe is a bad way to describe the INFJ (below). Fi-Ne a la Socionics is a better fit (Though I have to say "still flawed") going by Jung's writing.


    "Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of. traditional or generally valid standards of some sort. I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate 'beautiful' or 'good', not because I find the object 'beautiful' or 'good' from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie -- it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate 'ugly' might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function.
    In precisely the same way as extraverted thinking strives to rid itself of subjective influences, extraverted feeling has also to undergo a certain process of differentiation, before it is finally denuded of every subjective [p. 447] trimming. The valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or at least chime in with certain traditional and generally known standards of value. This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre, to concerts, or to Church, and what is more, with correctly adjusted positive feelings. Fashions, too, owe their existence to it, and, what is far more valuable, the whole positive and wide-spread support of social, philanthropic, and such like cultural enterprises. In such matters, extraverted feeling proves itself a creative factor. Without this feeling, for instance, a beautiful and harmonious sociability would be unthinkable. So far extraverted feeling is just as beneficent and rationally effective as extraverted thinking. But this salutary effect is lost as soon as the object gains an exaggerated influence. For, when this happens, extraverted feeling draws the personality too much into the object, i.e. the object assimilates the person, whereupon the personal character of the feeling, which constitutes its principal charm, is lost. Feeling then becomes cold, material, untrustworthy. It betrays a secret aim, or at least arouses the suspicion of it in an impartial observer. No longer does it make that welcome and refreshing impression the invariable accompaniment of genuine feeling; instead, one scents a pose or affectation, although the egocentric motive may be entirely unconscious.
    Such overstressed, extraverted feeling certainly fulfils ęsthetic expectations, but no longer does it speak to the heart; it merely appeals to the senses, or -- worse still -- to the reason. Doubtless it can provide ęsthetic padding for a situation, but there it stops, and beyond that its effect is nil. It has become sterile. Should this process go further, a strangely contradictory dissociation of feeling develops; every object is seized upon with feeling- [p. 448] valuations, and numerous relationships are made which are inherently and mutually incompatible. Since such aberrations would be quite impossible if a sufficiently emphasized subject were present, the last vestige of a real personal standpoint also becomes suppressed. The subject becomes so swallowed up in individual feeling processes that to the observer it seems as though there were no longer a subject of feeling but merely a feeling process. In such a condition feeling has entirely forfeited its original human warmth, it gives an impression of pose, inconstancy, unreliability, and in the worst cases appears definitely hysterical."

  7. #37
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    I'm confused as to what you mean. With Jung's functions, do you think I'm more Ni/Fe or Fi/Ne?

    Out of Jung's functions, I think I fit most with Ni, 2nd most with Ti, and 3rd most with Fe. But I definitely think I use Fe a lot -- it's my first extroverted function, like I said before. So any time I'm doing object-oriented processing, it's my first function.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I'm confused as to what you mean. With Jung's functions, do you think I'm more Ni/Fe or Fi/Ne?

    Out of Jung's functions, I think I fit most with Ni, 2nd most with Ti, and 3rd most with Fe. But I definitely think I use Fe a lot -- it's my first extroverted function, like I said before. So any time I'm doing object-oriented processing, it's my first function.
    They were never meant to be applied rigidly. I'd say Fi-Ne would be more accurate than anything else for the INFJ, if only using them as written.

  9. #39
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    They were never meant to be applied rigidly. I'd say Fi-Ne would be more accurate than anything else for the INFJ, if only using them as written.
    Hm. This is a definitional difference, then.

    I define MBTI types by the most used functions. An INJ, by my definition, is someone who uses Ni more than any other function. An INFJ prefers Fe/Ti (in any order) to Te/Fi. MBTI, in this perspective, is merely a code for dominant function + direction of the aux. and tertiary. So, based on the way I use the letters, if I used Fi most often, I would be an IFP.

    So if you used my system, you would call me an INFP.

    How do you use your system, then? Each letter in the code is a dichotomy?

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Hm. This is a definitional difference, then.

    I define MBTI types by the most used functions. An INJ, by my definition, is someone who uses Ni more than any other function. An INFJ prefers Fe/Ti (in any order) to Te/Fi. MBTI, in this perspective, is merely a code for dominant function + direction of the aux. and tertiary. So, based on the way I use the letters, if I used Fi most often, I would be an IFP.

    So if you used my system, you would call me an INFP.

    How do you use your system, then? Each letter in the code is a dichotomy?
    P means S or N leads, J means T or F leads.

    INFJ is Feeling/Intuition, and Introverted.

    (That's how Socionics functions work too, aside from the fact that orientation is included, so it's Fi-Ne.)

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