User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 214

  1. #111
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    kallach, my opinion is not my own. it's that of jung to begin with. and you know, there are others.
    i am only arguing about strait edge logic, dealing with six years ob observation of theory of mind. if that makes me sound ENTj, then i am proud of it. after all i am trans-rational, i should sound rational-inclusive. i am still a perceiver.

    what this thread is about: two words: developement, meaning that common people are characterized by their first function and their shadow-peak (like Fe for Ti) more than by their second function. this is my knowledge, not my theory. if you can not see this for your self, you have nothing to judge away this thread nor anything to contribute to it. second word: logic: it is insane to name-call the majority of people by a trait that is not characterizing them at all. if you want to argue with this, have fun - without me.

    btw i was an mbti believer for a very long time, i have come a long way or seeking proof. i stood in your place, arguing against the truth, but direct evidence (looking right into people) teached me better.

  2. #112
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    ^ No, because the OP is whining about a trivial labeling discrepancy and pretending it represents a dramatic misunderstanding of Jung's ideas. Ti seems to understand this whereas Ni does not.
    I'm less apt to ascribe it to a function and more apt to ascribe it to individuals who don't have checks and balances on said functions.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #113
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I'm still a little lost.

    There are, like, two people in this thread who seem to be having these ideas... and pretty solidly all the Ti+Ne people are saying WTF??! So why are you attributing this to us?

    Is there an NTP here who is in support of the OP?
    Jack Flak

    Although all he really did was change Ti into N.



  4. #114
    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 nanook View Post
    my opinion is not my own. it's that of jung to begin with. and you know, there are others.
    i am only arguing about strait edge logic, dealing with six years ob observation of theory of mind. if that makes me sound ENTj, then i am proud of it. after all i am trans-rational, i should sound rational-inclusive. i am still a perceiver.

    what this thread is about: two words: developement, meaning that common people are characterized by their first function and their shadow-peak (like Fe for Ti) more than by their second function. this is my knowledge, not my theory. if you can not see this, you have nothing to judge away this thread nor anything to contribute to this. logic. it is insane to name-call the majority of people by a trait that is not characterizing them. if you want to argue with this, have fun - without me.
    Umm...read the MBTI definitions of P/J. In MBTI's terms, it doesn't mean leading with that function; it means extroverting that function. So again, in Jung's terms, rational types are EJ/IP and irrational ones are EP/IJ. There's no erroneous claim being made that people leading with a P function are rational or that people leading with a J function are irrational; it's just the same information sliced up a little differently.

    I am not "calling a majority of people by a label that does not characterize them", because the MBTI P/J label has a different meaning from the Socionics one. If you stop assuming P/J to mean "the function you lead with" and just recognize what it means in an MBTI context (the function you extrovert), then this entire problem immediately evaporates.

    Jung never actually wrote any four-letter type codes, so he had no opinion on this. You seem to believe that you can determine the most "accurate" system of arbitrary labeling through observation, but you can't, because it's still just arbitrary labeling.

    I understand that in your opinion using P/J to mean "the function you lead with" seems more efficient than using it to mean "the function you extrovert", but each method of labeling has its own organizational advantages and disadvantages and there's no inherently or objectively "better" method. You cannot use observation to determine factually which arbitrary labeling method is superior.

    In defense of MBTI's labeling method, though--with MBTI the functions line up more evenly with type codes...for instance:
    Ne = xNxP
    Si = xSxJ
    Fe = xxFJ
    Ti = xxTP

    But how does this work in socionics? When we talk about Ne, we might be referring to ENxp, or we might also mean INxj. The utility in MBTI's labeling is that the functions always line up consistently with the same letters, so we can use terms like "SFPs" as shorthand for "people whose top two functions are Se and Fi."

    Socionics is a little more confusing in this regard because "SFp" could refer to an Se+Fi user, or to an Si+Fe user, depending on context. Socionics labeling has its advantages too, since it's easier to understand which type of function is leading, but it also has proportional disadvantages. I suggest you drop the self-righteous assertion that your labeling method is objectively superior, because that's silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I'm less apt to ascribe it to a function and more apt to ascribe it to individuals who don't have checks and balances on said functions.
    Fair enough.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #115
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I'm still a little lost.

    There are, like, two people in this thread who seem to be having these ideas... and pretty solidly all the Ti+Ne people are saying WTF??! So why are you attributing this to us?

    Is there an NTP here who is in support of the OP?
    No. By "apparent protagonists" I meant Nanook and Oblivious. There's some Fi rationale for not naming the idea originators specifically, but I have no clear idea of why it suits me to be delicate that way.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  6. #116
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    you gonna have to accuse everyone who subscibes to socioncis of having the same type, if you want to blame the arguments of this thread on the subjective fail of a single function. if you have to get personal because you don't understand the topic, you can go and argue with some of the big entps behind socionics. always fun arguing with entps. however arguing will not teach you about the truth. only further observation does. it would be decent to acknowledge this. like: "hey, if I should ever find out, that a huge amount of people are not characterized by their second function because they exclude it rather than integrate it with their dominant function, then i would have to come to the conclusion, that you are right about how its insane (illogical) to associate them with an archetype that is entirely unrelated to what characterizes them"

  7. #117
    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 nanook View Post
    you gonna have to accuse everyone who subscibes to socioncis of having the same type, if you want to blame the arguments of this thread on the subjective fail of a single function. if you have to get personal because you don't understand the topic, you can go and argue with some of the big entps behind socionics. always fun arguing with entps.

    I've demonstrated that I very clearly understand the topic, thanks. I don't blame it on the subjective fail of a single function; I just noticed that the factions in this particular thread seem to line up across Ti vs. Ni lines...as Jennifer noted when she asked, "Is there an NTP in this thread who agrees with OP?" I don't actually believe that 100% of Ni users would agree with you or that 100% of Ti users would agree with me. I'm kind of surprised I had to point this out to an Ni dom, honestly--I thought you guys didn't tend to take things literally.

    If you read my last post I've described the entire issue in detail and demonstrated a clear understanding of the discrepancy behind this issue, and also its ultimate triviality.

    If you want to use P/J to mean "the function you lead with", that's great and I'm not telling you you're wrong; the only thing I'm telling you is that your method is not somehow objectively superior to using P/J to mean "the function you extrovert" instead. Just two different ways of describing the same idea, nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    however arguing will not teach you about the truth. only further observation does.
    Yes, and I observe that you're making a huge deal out of nothing just to support your arbitrary assumption that P/J must refer to the leading function instead of the extroverted one. The system works just as well either way; you just have to understand what P/J means in each context.

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    btw i was an mbti believer for a very long time, i have come a long way or seeking proof. i stood in your place, arguing against the truth, but direct evidence (looking right into people) teached me better.
    For the 26th time, it's just a labeling discrepancy. There's no "direct evidence" that P/J as a description of the leading function is "better" than P/J as a description of the extroverted function. I directly observe that Ni dominant people are dominant in a perceiving function the same way you do; I just choose to label them IN_J instead of IN_p because I'm using P/J to refer to the extroverted function instead of the leading one. This is really not that hard; I don't understand your rambling about the "truth" of your choice in labeling systems.

    MBTI's P/J dimension refers only to how one deals with the external world, NOT to which function is dominant.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #118
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    you gonna have to accuse everyone who subscibes to socioncis of having the same type, if you want to blame the arguments of this thread on the subjective fail of a single function. if you have to get personal because you don't understand the topic, you can go and argue with some of the big entps behind socionics. always fun arguing with entps. however arguing will not teach you about the truth. only further observation does.
    Pe.

    And Pe way higher in the function order than anything T, to boot.


    Now if you'd said, only further reflection, then you'd be in i territory.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  9. #119
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    you have no idea what Ni does. synthesis, remember?

    also i might be estp, its 100 percent irrelevant to the topic
    its objective truth that you can not find out the truth behind typology, without making observation your primary goal.
    its unscientific, pre-rational not to do so. knowing this, does not "make" me any type.

  10. #120
    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 nanook View Post
    you have no idea what Ni does. synthesis, remember?
    That's cool and all, but this discussion is about the way the types are labeled. By calling Ni dominant people "J types", I am not implying that they lead with a Judging function; I'm simply implying that the Judging function is their preferred method of dealing with the external world.

    Whether or not I know anything about Ni (which I do, btw) is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

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