User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 127

  1. #81
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Well, at least we can agree that typology is unscientific and purely a form of philosophy. Half the people here are still hung up on looking for scientific proof of a system that doesn't even purport to be scientific.
    I believe that Jung would endorse this view and in fact, the main message of my Principles of Typology was that typology is a philosophical discipline rather than psychological.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...iscipline.html

    Amazon.com: Principles of Typology (9781438927145): Aleksey Bashtavenko: Books

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    ^^^philosophy can and should be scientific.

    also re the other points raised prior to the interjections about Jung, folskiness and philosophy: if I'm both bullying and self-victimizing does that make me the master debater manipulator? or just a twat?
    Typology isn't ready for scientific inquiry as neuroscience is not advanced enough to investigate the cognitive tendencies Jung had in mind. However, typology should make a shift from philosophy onto neuroscience as soon as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    yeah I don't really know how to express it, as I will make any number of semantic errors.

    I'm not a "scientist" but I know that it's at least not accepted by all scientists, that "science=empiricism". I mean I know Marxist scientists who believe strongly in dialectical materialism (there's a good book called The Dialectical Biologst by two, umm, biologists, called Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin).

    I don't think anyone has a monopoly on the term "scientific" and find it hard to accept that, the observance of tendencies whcih you support with empirical evidence, and then making hypotheses based on them, can't be called "scientific". Would you say Freud was "unscientific" for example?

    But, I digress. And from my own thread no less.

    There may be many different scholarly definitions of the term science, however, they all have one item in common: there must be a certain standard of rigor regarding empirical investigation and all scientific investigation is by definition empirical. An empirical method is rarely the sole feature of the scientific method, however, it is an indispensible part thereof. Hence, empiricism is a necessary though an insufficient condition for the definition of the scientific method.
    "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/

  2. #82
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    There may be many different scholarly definitions of the term science, however, they all have one item in common: there must be a certain standard of rigor regarding empirical investigation and all scientific investigation is by definition empirical. An empirical method is rarely the sole feature of the scientific method, however, it is an indispensible part thereof. Hence, empiricism is a necessary though an insufficient condition for the definition of the scientific method.
    Yes, I agree completely with this. I'm not a post-modernist who thinks empirical research is pointless. It's just that some people present it as if anything not reductible to empirical research, is not science, so I wary of some uses of the term.

    I like the quote by Marx "if essences were the same as appearances, there would be no need for science".
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  3. #83
    Luctor et emergo Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I believe that Jung would endorse this view and in fact, the main message of my Principles of Typology was that typology is a philosophical discipline rather than psychological.

    [. . .]

    Amazon.com: Principles of Typology (9781438927145): Aleksey Bashtavenko: Books
    Ha, that was you?

    I swapped a socionics book with a guy called Waddlesworth from the16types for your book. I read some of it, but I found it difficult to really take seriously. Don't take offence. It's just because it wasn't well structured enough, and seemed inconsistent. For example, why is the ENTP description, which is around thirty pages long, longer than the ESTP description, which is about five pages long? Most personality books address each type with equal consideration. It seems to have been written with a kind of unearned authority on the subject, based completely on subjective evaluations with very little backing.

    Also, WRT the spelling, grammar and overall confusing layout, did you actually get it edited before it was published? I would've been happy to do this for you for free. Moreover, some of the headings for some types are completely lacking for others (e.g. functional descriptions are given for some types, but not for others). In fact, there was barely any structure to the writing at all. This is what annoyed me most about it. Because there were definitely some good observations there which could've been far more effectively utilised and elaborated upon with clarity. I think this book had much more potential.

    At the end of the day though, fundamentally if you believe we should take a philosophical rather than psychological approach to typology, even though this doesn't excuse quality consideration when writing a book, I disagree with you anyway. Typology is a psychological - and perhaps sociological - exercise about people's beliefs and motivations. There is nothing philosophical about it.

  4. #84
    Luctor et emergo Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    534

    Default

    And to answer the thread (perhaps to re-rail it if it has been derailed): I don't see how INTPs are at all manipulative in the general sense of the word. Nor do I think INTJs are particularly manipulative, although if I had to choose, I'd say INTJs were more manipulative than INTPs.

  5. #85
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    What errors in structure do you see?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    For example, why is the ENTP description, which is around thirty pages long, longer than the ESTP description, which is about five pages long? .

    Point out other aspects of the book that you think are inconsistent.

    The faculty of Intuition is far more complex than Sensing, thus from the standpoint of my book there was more to say on the ENTP than the ESTP. However, most typology books however focus not on the cognitive tendencies of types but their behavior and their role in the Western culture. From their perspective, one can indeed compose a similar length profile for both the Sensing and the Intuitive types, from mine this is much more difficult to accomplish.

    In other words, the fact that the profiles for the intuitive types are much longer than the profiles for the sensing types is simply not evidence of conceptual inconsistency. It is only a reflection of the fact that more material is available on the Intuitive types rather than the sensing types.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Most personality books address each type with equal consideration. It seems to have been written with a kind of unearned authority on the subject, based completely on subjective evaluations with very little backing..
    Note: this was not a personality book. Subjective evaluations? The first chapter spelled out the method of my inquiry clearly, I even composed a long list of key terms all of which have been defined thoroughly and precisely. The rationale behind the profiles was very subtle and almost impossible for anyone to understand who has not carefully read the first chapter.


    Very little backing? Read it again more carefully, especially focus on chapter one. The whole book grows out of the material established in that section of the work, if you do not understand it, you'd fail to see how the arguments are supported. The conclusions of the book were supported extensively both in the introductory and the concluding chapter, as well as the 16 profiles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Also, WRT the spelling, grammar and overall confusing layout, did you actually get it edited before it was published? I would've been happy to do this for you for free. Moreover, some of the headings for some types are completely lacking for others (e.g. functional descriptions are given for some types, but not for others). In fact, there was barely any structure to the writing at all. This is what annoyed me most about it. Because there were definitely some good observations there which could've been far more effectively utilised and elaborated upon with clarity. I think this book had much more potential...
    The book hasn't been proofread. As far as structure is concerned, it had some rather than none. For the very least, a chapter was alotted to the introduction of the system, another one to the conclusion as well as summary and of course, each of the 16 profiles has been addressed in a separate chapter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    At the end of the day though, fundamentally if you believe we should take a philosophical rather than psychological approach to typology, even though this doesn't excuse quality consideration when writing a book,.
    There has been a quality consideration of this topic, especially in chapter one and also in chapter 18. Have you read either of those or have you just browsed through the profiles and derived your general conclusions about the book from that superficial overview alone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    AlsoAt the end of the day though, fundamentally if you believe we should take a philosophical rather than psychological approach to typology, even though this doesn't excuse quality consideration when writing a book, I disagree with you anyway. Typology is a psychological - and perhaps sociological - exercise about people's beliefs and motivations. There is nothing philosophical about it.
    On what grounds do you disagree? In addition to the arguments I've presented in the book, I have also addressed this matter here. http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...iscipline.html

    What about you? Are you going to make an effort to support your conclusions with arguments?
    "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/

  6. #86
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    slight derail..................please forgive.



    Thank you, SWsquared (SW and SimWorld), for inspiring me to learn more about Carl Jung. It has been refreshing to be mentally stimulated again, and for that I am very grateful. I have enjoyed reading both of your posts, and your writings on typology, SW, and am looking forward to your book! And I ordered Jung's Types as well.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  7. #87
    That's my name biotch! JoSunshine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    eNfj
    Enneagram
    2
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Gee, I don't know. I dated both...the INTJ would get me to do what he wanted with hardly saying a word...he was gooooood! Half the time I was like, "Oh here let me get that for you....wait, why I am doing this again?" He had a way of making you feel like a baffoon if you didn't do things his way...once again without really saying much. It was like some wierd INTJ mind control

    The INTP was more passive about getting his way. He would just say, "Yes, dear" and then do whatever he wanted to do anyway. I guess that's a kind of passive manipulation...

    BTW...I liked them both and I wouldn't consider either to be "highly manipulative".
    "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. " - Dr. Seuss
    I can't spell...get over it

    Slightly ENFJ, totally JoSunshine
    Extroverted (E) 52.5%........Introverted (I) 47.5%
    Intuitive (N) 65.63%..........Sensing (S) 34.38%
    Feeling (F) 55.56%............Thinking (T) 44.44%
    Judging (J) 51.43%............Perceiving (P) 48.57%

  8. #88
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoSunshine View Post
    Gee, I don't know. I dated both...the INTJ would get me to do what he wanted with hardly saying a word...he was gooooood! Half the time I was like, "Oh here let me get that for you....wait, why I am doing this again?" He had a way of making you feel like a baffoon if you didn't do things his way...once again without really saying much. It was like some wierd INTJ mind control
    Really? Someone needs to do a write up on how that works.




    Waitaminite, waitaminite, waitaminite... was that it? That was it, wasn't it. Cool.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  9. #89
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Bullying is manipulation?

    INTJs will overtly limit the number of options available to others in the environment, and will be snappish--perhaps even bullying--about it.

    It's called being directive, bitches.

    It could conceivably be called manipulation in that there's a message of do it my way or I don't like you any more. Find an INTJ who uses that message directly to get results and you'll have yourself a manipulative INTJ.

    But otherwise, aren't we mostly too lacking in enthusiasm for the process to keep up screwing with people for too long? Chart the Course, bitches. We're more likely to actually tell you we're manipulating you.
    I think Bullying can be a manipulating but more likely be done by types other than INTJ. INTJ may direct or bully like a steer in a china shop. However, I don't think there would be secrets while they were doing it or deceit and thus it is not manipulation

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    I'm ENFP and I could be really bossy when I was little. Never forget that ENFPs have tertiary Te, folks.
    Good point

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    It's pretty intersting stuff. I haven't read Jung yet. That's next on my list.
    It's next to my bed - for bedtime reading. I always start falling asleep before I get too far. Will keep trying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    What an INTJ will do is look for emo. That damned tertiary Fi will reach out to people and say, love me, tell me about values, let's be friends and care about things I say together, oh and, do things my way too *eyelash flutter*.

    It ain't pretty, but there it is.

    Yeah, really raising the bar on what counts as manipulative here. Lock up your daughters and hide your wallets, the INTJs are in town.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    If you haven't you shouldn't be commenting on typology, just as you shouldn't be commenting on Christian theology if you've never read the New Testament.
    I find this comment logical and yet to be a little extreme in the practical sense. Call me when I'm full of shit or wrong so it will help me grow. People say stupid things to me all the time - I gently coach them. The ability to communicate meaning to others is an important skill to have. After all, this is a forum for learning and growth, is it not?

  10. #90
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    At the end of the day though, fundamentally if you believe we should take a philosophical rather than psychological approach to typology, even though this doesn't excuse quality consideration when writing a book, I disagree with you anyway. Typology is a psychological - and perhaps sociological - exercise about people's beliefs and motivations. There is nothing philosophical about it.
    Assuming that people do process and perceive the world differently (as typology does), philosophy can certainly be a great way of understanding those differing perspectives. So it's not total bupkis.
    Hello

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] ENTP vs ENTJ: who is more powerful
    By yenom in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 355
    Last Post: 12-09-2015, 12:32 PM
  2. [NT] Who is more concise: INTP or INTJ?
    By Salomé in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 08-26-2012, 10:51 AM
  3. INFP vs ISFP, who is more powerful?
    By Riva in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 04-13-2012, 01:22 PM
  4. [NT] INTPs vs. INTJs: Who are the bigger nerds?
    By ajblaise in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 02:02 AM
  5. [NT] INTJ or INTP: Who is more misanthropic?
    By ajblaise in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 05-27-2009, 08:10 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