User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 98

  1. #41

  2. #42
    Senior Member Uytuun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    nnnn
    Posts
    1,633

    Default

    So you boss people around? :p

  3. #43
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Lol... again, I am answering the actual words that you uttered -- I've precisely answered your question.

    Look at it again.

    ...Are you really always willing to change them?
    Yes. I am always really willing to change them.

    I have the intent to change if I realize I'm wrong.
    I will not refuse to change my mind out of stubbornness
    or revenge
    or a vendetta
    or embarrassment
    or whatever other hell of a reason you can offer me.

    This is unlike some people. I know many who will fight, and deny, and refuse, and circumvent, and whatever else. They are NOT willing and often even know they are not willing. Because they don't want to change their mind.

    But, just as I said above, willingness has nothing to do with it.

    If I realize I'm wrong, I'm changing.
    If I think you're wrong, I might sometimes even WANT to change my answer, because sometimes I just want to get along, or might feel like being viewed favorably or what not... but I can't. Instead I have to endure your annoyance with me for not agreeing with you. (Note: "You" meant in the general sense.)

    I've tried to do otherwise and it doesn't work, I feel like crap.

    So, dear friend, your question here -- "If giving you a reason to change your beliefs is nigh impossible, are you really always willing to change them?" -- is really non-sensicial to me. Logically, I can be 100% willing to change while at the same time you remain unable to show me that I'm wrong. *shrug*

    ... Sorry for the Long Version, but the Short Version did not appease you.
    This question was intended more abstractly than you interpreted it. I was questioning your definition of "willingness to change" in order to illustrate Ti's inherent inflexibility in a lot of situations. The point was that Ti can be a very limiting perspective that can sometimes prevent us from realizing the true reason we refuse to change. I'm well aware that you aren't consciously realizing you're wrong and then refusing to change your position anyway--I didn't accuse you or any INTPs of any such thing.

    I find that it's often difficult to get INTPs to look at anything from any non-Ti perspective, and this seems to happen more often than with other types because INTPs are really good at coming up with justifications to ignore all non-Ti perspectives.

    The idea that you're willing to change "if shown that you're wrong" sometimes sounds like a cop-out because it often seems impossible to convince an INTP that he's wrong, once he's made up his mind about something.

    Let me stress again, though, that you seem much more flexible and open to non-Ti ideas than do most INTPs, and that I didn't have you in mind when I wrote my criticisms of them.

    P.S.,

    Wasn't the earlier version even longer than this one?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #44
    Senior Member Two Point Two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    NTJs see words as inherently meaningful. NTPs see words as abstract representations of something inherently meaningful.
    No.

    I think trying to make type based distinctions at this level of specificity is doomed to failure.

    I don't think words ever have meaning at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld
    How do you know it's "supposed to be closer to universal"? I would argue that your desire to look at things this way is just part of the Ni+Te perspective, and not an inherent property of certain theoretical realms.
    I guess another way to put the point is this: if Ti's definitions are, in a given instance, wrong, and Ne fails to detect a change that would allow Ti's definitions to change, then how do you go about fixing your situation? How would you ever come to accept that you were wrong?

    Universal theories were just supposed to be an example of an instance in which situational variables won't come in to play - if there is something absolute and unchanging, then, with respect to that, nothing will trigger Ne into making any revisions.

    To Ne+Ti, given enough time for trial and error, everything can be explained according to precise sets of situational variables.
    And yet, logic is universal?

    I also think that we may be getting into the realm of too-specific-for-type here, since I'm almost certain there are NTPs who think that there are true universally applicable theories (or at least that these are possible).

    Anyway, I wasn't really intending to argue that the NTJ way is better, I was merely pointing out what annoys me, thinking this may be relevant since I am an NTJ. But as I said, I think I've encountered this in a range of types including both Ps and Js, so who knows.

  5. #45
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Two Point Two View Post
    I guess another way to put the point is this: if Ti's definitions are, in a given instance, wrong, and Ne fails to detect a change that would allow Ti's definitions to change, then how do you go about fixing your situation? How would you ever come to accept that you were wrong?

    Universal theories were just supposed to be an example of an instance in which situational variables won't come in to play - if there is something absolute and unchanging, then, with respect to that, nothing will trigger Ne into making any revisions.
    What's an example of a situation where situational variables don't come into play?

    If any such situation existed, Ti would have a much easier time with it because the rules stay static, which Ti is good at.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #46
    Senior Member Two Point Two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    200

    Default

    I'm not talking about situations, I'm talking about theories. Or, about aspects of a situation that aren't variable, because of some underlying universal regularity. The vibration of strings may change, but that objects are composed of vibrating strings does not, for totally ignorant and endorsement-neutral example.

    I'm not arguing that there necessarily are any such things, it's just that if there are, I don't see how NTPs could possibly ever refine a theory about them, according to your description of the NTP reliance on being able to clue in to situational change. Since, by their very nature, such aspects would be unchanging, Ne would never notice a change that would enable a revision of definitions.

  7. #47
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Two Point Two View Post
    I'm not talking about situations, I'm talking about theories. Or, about aspects of a situation that aren't variable, because of some underlying universal regularity. The vibration of strings may change, but that objects are composed of vibrating strings does not, for totally ignorant and endorsement-neutral example.

    I'm not arguing that there necessarily are any such things, it's just that if there are, I don't see how NTPs could possibly ever refine a theory about them, according to your description of the NTP reliance on being able to clue in to situational change. Since, by their very nature, such aspects would be unchanging, Ne would never notice a change that would enable a revision of definitions.
    Which would be much more convenient because no revision of definitions would ever be necessary. It's the fact that the rules change routinely that gives Ti a hard time in the first place--if it can just absorb one set of governing principles and no external variables will ever cause them to change, that's even better for Ti's thinking style.

    Why do you think so many college professors are NTPs? They work best with theoretical ideas that stick to an unchanging set of internal principles, and in this field they can discuss the endless theoretical implications without ever having to apply them in real life.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #48
    Senior Member Two Point Two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    200

    Default

    But if they never entertain the possibility that they are wrong without some situational change to indicate this possibility, then if they are wrong, they will never revise their mistaken definitions where they pertain to the universal.

    Yes? No? And do you see this as a problem?

  9. #49
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Two Point Two View Post
    But if they never entertain the possibility that they are wrong without some situational change to indicate this possibility, then if they are wrong, they will never revise their mistaken definitions where they pertain to the universal.

    Yes? No? And do you see this as a problem?
    A "situational change" could be something as simple as, "I was discussing the theory with someone else and he introduced a point that made my interpretation seem inconsistent--so I had to change my definitions."

    This could easily apply to a purely hypothetical theory--in fact this is usually how NTPs learn and change their perspectives.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #50
    Senior Member Two Point Two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    200

    Default

    So...something as simple as an NTJ suggesting that you look at it in some specific other way could, theoretically, be enough of a situational change to trigger a revision, should the result be shown to be more consistent with some other internalised set of principles?

    Of course, this is not something that seems to happen when instances of refusal-to-revise annoy me, but then, I don't know what internal principles other people are operating on.

Similar Threads

  1. ZNP's bad analysis of two economic theories and it's relation to MBTI (NTJ vs NTP)
    By ZNP-TBA in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-14-2016, 08:52 AM
  2. [ISFJ] Does this description sound like an ISFJ?
    By chalky_lemon in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-25-2015, 01:30 AM
  3. [ISTJ] What are the signs of a ISTJ liking or being attracted to you?
    By Tish211 in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 06-20-2011, 10:17 PM
  4. Percentage of each function? What does this mean to us?
    By dee in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 02:24 PM
  5. How does this seem it would work in World of Warcraft?
    By Zergling in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-17-2008, 10:39 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