User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 214

  1. #91
    Senior Member ObliviousExistence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    loco
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    178

    Default

    one last thing, to those who proclaim the validity and unshakable foundations of mbti based on the fact that it has been used for years and by thousands of people. Since when did the majority of people believing something is true make it an actuality?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Everything's right there in that paragraph:

    • She had her own ideas first. (1917)
    • Later, Jung published his (1921) and she saw them after 1923 or so.
    • She realized the similarity between his and her ideas and basically made a mix of the two.
    where can I find this?
    [*]She had her own ideas first. (1917)
    you mean this, "She identified meditative types, spontaneous types, executive types, and sociable types", lol, please be serious.


    I got this from wikipedia
    Katharine Briggs read Carl Jung's book, Psychological Types and recommended it to Isabel Myers; the mother and daughter then formulated the MBTI together. Later in life, Myers collaborated with Mary McCaulley to conduct tests of her research and of the MBTI.

    The other thing is that myers cognitive functions are very similar to Jungs function-types(most differentiated functions) so its obvious she took it from him. According to Jung perceiving and judging are on opposite ends of the scale, the preference for one involves the suppression of the other. Feeling and thinking and factors used for juding. Before Jung Myers understanding of types went as far as this..."She identified meditative types, spontaneous types, executive types, and sociable types", lol, you don't need to be a psychologist to figure out the existence of such basic types.

    "When Katharine Briggs discovered C. G. Jung's book, Psychological Types, she reported to her daughter, 'This is it!' and proceeded to study the book intensely. Mother and daughter became avid 'type watchers' over the next twenty years.

    EUREKA!


    have a look at Jungs ideas on perception and judgement and tell me what you think
    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    Speaking generally a judging observer will tend to seize the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be influenced more by the unconscious character, since judgement is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening.
    ...
    refering to rational types:
    The reasonableness that characterizes the conscious management of life in both these(extr. thinking & extr. feeling) types, involves a conscious exclusion of the accidental and non-rational. Reasoning judgment, in such a psychology, represents a power that coerces the untidy and accidental things of life into definite forms; such at least is its aim. Thus, on the one hand, a definite choice is made among the possibilities of life, since only the rational choice is consciously accepted; but, on the other hand, the independence and influence of those psychic functions which perceive life's happenings are essentially restricted. This limitation of sensation and intuition is, of course, not absolute. These functions exist, for they are universal; but their products are subject to the choice of the reasoning judgment. It is not the absolute strength of sensation, for instance, which turns the scales in the motivation of action, but judgment, Thus, in a certain sense, the perceiving-functions share the same fate as feeling in the case of the first type, or thinking in that of the second. They are relatively repressed, and therefore in an inferior state of differentiation. This circumstance gives a particular stamp to the unconscious [p. 455] of both our types; what such men do consciously and intentionally accords with reason (their reason of course), but what happens to them corresponds either with infantile, primitive sensations, or with similarly archaic intuitions.
    ...
    In reference to extraverted irrational types (Extr. intuition & sensing)
    I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not. One might reverse it and say that we apply the term law-determined to the occurrence appearing so to our reason, and where its regularity escapes us we call it accidental. The postulate of a universal lawfulness remains a postulate of reason only; in no sense is it a postulate of our functions of perception. Since these are in no way grounded upon the principle of reason and its postulates, they are, of their very nature, irrational. Hence my term 'irrational' corresponds with the nature of the perception-types. But merely because they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite incorrect to regard these types as unreasonable. They are merely in a high degree empirical; they are grounded exclusively upon experience, so exclusively, in fact, that as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience. But the functions of judgment are none the less present, although they eke out a largely unconscious existence.

    This rational presentation is exclusively valid for the rational types; it by no means applies to the irrational, whose rapport is based not at all upon judgment but upon the parallelism of actual living events.

    The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself.
    ...
    Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience,
    ...
    5. Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types (Intr. Feeling & Intr. Thikinking)
    Both the foregoing types are rational, since they are founded upon reasoning, judging functions. Reasoning [p. 496] judgment is based not merely upon objective, but also upon subjective, data.
    ...
    refering to the introverted intuitive:
    As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem...
    have a look at the bolded sections

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    its just not the truth. it's not that Ti folks are called INTP, its that INTP are accused of Ti. Ti folks are called INTJ and they are accused of Ni. this is because the four letter code adresses archetypes. its not something you can define as you wish. you can not. perceivers and judgers existed before anyone had discovered and labeled them. its only that some are unaware of their or anyone's archetypes (because the have no perceptive skills), but possibly aware of their functions, so they identify with the false function order and fake their archetype, meaning their 4letter dichotomy results. they cant fake their cognition though. nor their behavior. nor their enneagram types. so J-dominant people will always be "Judgers" in all dimensions but that of make-believe. you can not create reality by creating a theory. you just don't realize it, because you have never met reality. as jung points out, you stop at thinking.

    it's as easy for Pdoms to identify with their J while taking a 4 letter code test, as it is for Jdoms to identify with their P, we just have to focus on aspects that we actually do have "somewhere". it not a crime or a sign of madness. temporary identification is mostly subjective. but we can not fake our true preferences. they remain obvious from the outside.


    it's funny, even mbti agrees that perceivers are right brained, because that is obvious and some mbti guru guy and another copycat author write that they have aligned/compared brain types with 4-letter-dichtotomy-tested-people and they found out that introverted perceivers are right brained. but instead of reporting this as they have found it, they map the brain types with an unproved made up wishfull function-order-theory according to which introverted perceivers are attributed with Ti and ever since we read nonsense like "Ni is leftbrained". no its not. and Ti-Doms are not right brained either. IXXp (PiJe) are right brained. and the archetype of a perceiver is not available for definition, it's an obvious thing to any observer who is actually observing as opposed to projecting. the obvious archetype of the perceiver is in alignment with Si and Ni types meaning with right brained introverted people. and even more so with them, than with extroverted perceivers, as their archetype is a different animal which is primarily related to interaction and manipulation and the creative aspect of their perception is automatic/unconscious, while the original perceiver (the introverted one) is concerned with the conscious art of perception and unification of the world by means of perception, aka synthesis.
    my thoughts exactly, thank you.
    "He was free, free in every way, free to behave like a fool or a machine, free to accept, free to refuse, free to equivocate; to marry, to give up the game, to drag this death weight about with him for years to come. He could do what he liked, no one had the right to advise him, there would be for him no Good or Evil unless he thought them into being." JP Sartre

  2. #92
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    from another thread, to avoid off topic
    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    If this is your sig:
    "Intuitive Ethical Introvert [Ni/Si] [Fe/Te]. Perceiver is perceiving you."
    then how are you not a J???????????
    i am P because P is more important to me than J and contrary to J people I would or could never stop at J, skipping P.
    however, J can become the searchquery of my Pi.

    more importatly i am able to do all the Pi things that most people can't do, which makes for my talent-profile. it's what makes my race. there is hardly anything unique about my average Je. i can be nice and accommodating better than many (Fe) and responsive (Te) (not excelling at that) but often i am lazy about both. it drains me, distracts me from my original source.

    while i can more or less use all the j functions consciously, prefering Je, i can go without conscious usage of them and i do for long periods every day when i don't work on something specific, other than shaping my immediate perception, meaning when i am not searching for specific insight.

    also i am not at an early stage of development, i am at stage 6 (integral vision logic), so i am almost as much J as I am P. however stages transcend and include their predecessors. P is still my entry point and it is still who i am basically ("my self" rather than "me") as far as i can tell it will always be that way. it still shapes my livestyle, which to my best understanding, is influenced by Ni and Se quite a bit more than by Fe or Te. i must admit that i have lost some specific P powers, i am not so much an idiot savant any more, like i used to be as a child, as my savant(island)* became greater during my youth, but my P is really just less specific because it includes so much more possibilities, its not weaker in terms of volume, but less focus. *(island of my ability, "island-gifted" is the german word for idiot savant: inselbegabt )

  3. #93
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Eh, I don't know. For me, the description of the Introverted Thinking and the Introverted Thinking Type is the epitome of my entire life. I cannot relate to introverted intuition in the least. I am not sure your reasoning, but if it's because you fail to see how a perceiver can have a judging function as their dominant function, well then it's a problem with how Myers/Briggs defined a perceiving type or a judging type than anything else: it's really just a classification issue. Is a rose by any other name still a rose? Same issue here.

    I'd like to hear your thoughts though.
    I have nothing more to add than to enforce this post. I experience the same. Ti rules me, Ni is alien to me.

    edit: Oi, was a bit late, 10 pages already. This post was just initial response to OP. Carry on, I got some reading to do.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  4. #94
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    and how does it make perfect sense to call someone judger who does not use a judging function?
    (meaning a perceiver (Ni-dom) who stops at perception, cause he hasn't developed past it.)
    that's where observation (of development) comes into play.
    and how does it make sense to call someone perceiver who does not know how to use a perceiving function ...

    lol - not a classification issue. more like a classification retardation.

  5. #95
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Did anyone work this thread out yet? is it about Socionics INjs or is it the claim that MBTI INPs have introverted intuition as their dominant function?

    The second option is more interesting (a) because it's stupid--you guys are reinventing definition, not making reference to realities, and (b) same as option a really but the other way around.

    Introverted thinking (or feeling) that gets a jump start when extraverted intuition provides data is not introverted intuition.

    And that's about all I have to say about that because as far as I can tell no one has said anything stronger than, gee, everything might be different, y'know?...

    Which is what you get if you're using an Ne philosophy to maintain a bunch of inner convictions that you don't talk about from some Ji you asses. Ni doesn't do that. Ni would say "If everything were different, then blah would come and XYZ would follow, and ooo, that means these two other things are the same, holy crap, would look at that, I wonder what that means! And then this could happen, and jesus I just know that this other thing would pop up, which would mean...

    Is that what you big ole Ni users are doing?




    PS. it doesn't matter how you answer because I didn't characterise Ni properly, so you're still wrong.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  6. #96

  7. #97

    Default

    I believe TiNe; but who am I to judge? >_>
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  8. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ObliviousExistence View Post
    one last thing, to those who proclaim the validity and unshakable foundations of mbti based on the fact that it has been used for years and by thousands of people. Since when did the majority of people believing something is true make it an actuality?
    It may not be true; of course. Nothing ever really is, nor can really be proven to be. You could say the same about any field of human understanding- just because we all believe in something doesn't mean it won't be proven obsolete in a few years time- in fact, it is the likeliest option!

    Regardless, systems that seem to work are allowed to remain until better alternatives are conceived and assimilated by the general public.

    All great geniuses and their groundbreaking ideas face ridiculous opposition before they are accepted. Sucks, huh? That's the way it is when you're dealing with an ignorant flock of sheep.
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  9. #99
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Just out of interest, if Ni is the dominant function for INPs, and you also have the, I guess now auxiliary Ji, what's your extraverted function? Do you have one? Do you face the world at all?


    Just waiting on the demonstration that INTJs are dom Ne.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  10. #100
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Just out of interest, if Ni is the dominant function for INPs, and you also have the, I guess now auxiliary Ji, what's your extraverted function? Do you have one? Do you face the world at all?


    Just waiting on the demonstration that INTJs are dom Ne.
    Basically, all introverted types would flip flop. MBTI INTJs would be TiNeSiFe, INTPs NiTeFiSe.



Similar Threads

  1. [Ni] Do You Think Introverted Intuition Is Focused On The Future
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-04-2016, 10:55 AM
  2. [INFJ] Extraverted feeling and introverted thinking processes in INFJs functional stack
    By Darlene in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-12-2015, 08:45 AM
  3. [JCF] THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXTROVERTED THINKING AND INTROVERTED THINKING!
    By Chick24 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-17-2014, 02:09 PM
  4. (Ni) Introverted Intuition and Critical Thinking?
    By Ribonuke in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-03-2012, 10:17 PM
  5. Introverted Thinking - The Form of the Inferior - EFJs
    By Cegorach in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-14-2010, 08:52 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