User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 214

  1. #121
    @.~*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 nanook View Post
    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.
    I agree with the gist. I'm a conceptual thinker/theorist, but it is important to me that the ties to real data be present... otherwise one could just be fooling oneself, even if the system has integrity internally and detached from the environment.

    On the other hand, aren't Pe people always scanning the environs for data?

    ...btw, your link did not clarify the stages as I had hoped. It offered some interesting framework for the theory but no detailed clarification.
    "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

  2. #122
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    *Ahem*

    The stated purpose of the J/P distinction is to distinguish IPs according to which of the two top functions are extroverted. If you extrovert a judging function, you're a J; and if you extrovert a perceiving function, you're a P.

    They could have done a classification according to which of the top two is introverted and given us INTJ meaning the Ji is introverted (aka MBTI INTP) and INTP meaning Pi is introverted (aka MBTI INTJ).


    Is there anything in this topic that goes beyond discussion of simple classification nomenclature? If there is, the principle theoretical argument for MBTT as it stands seems to be that there is an adaptive advantage to cognitive polarisation: one doesn't need functions of the same orientation that have directly conflicting priorities. Or something like that.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  3. #123
    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 Kalach View Post
    *Ahem*

    The stated purpose of the J/P distinction is to distinguish IPs according to which of the two top functions are extroverted. If you extrovert a judging function, you're a J; and if you extrovert a perceiving function, you're a P.
    Right, that's the MBTI method--nanook is arguing that the Socionics method (having P/J refer to which function is dominant instead of which is extroverted, which inverts P/J for introverts) is somehow objectively superior and that you can determine this factually through observation. (???)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    They could have done a classification according to which of the top two is introverted and given us INTJ meaning the Ji is introverted (aka MBTI INTP) and INTP meaning Pi is introverted (aka MBTI INTJ).
    Sure, and that would work equally well. It's just a question of how you choose to label the same ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Is there anything in this topic that goes beyond discussion of simple classification nomenclature? If there is, the principle theoretical argument for MBTT as it stands seems to be that there is an adaptive advantage to cognitive polarisation: one doesn't need functions of the same orientation that have directly conflicting priorities. Or something like that.
    Not really--nanook and oblivious are arguing that P/J should refer to which function is dominant instead of which one is extroverted. You hear this crap from Socionics advocates all the time--it's not that they're wrong, just that they're so sure their system is objectively superior that they don't realize how insignificant these little labeling differences really are.

    MBTI's system isn't better either--it just doesn't really matter much which one you use.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #124
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    @kalach: you are apparently ignoring what has been said. i realize you cant share (validate) my perspective as you do not have my insights but try to use your imagination to understand what has been said, so you get the hypothesis right. no further repetitions.

    to be fair, i ignore most of what you say myself. i just check to see whether you are on the track or make an effort to stay away from it, then - in the latter case - i skip ..

    i'm sorry for being unkind, its quite stressing to be surrounded by people who make arguments about the posters cognition when this is only distracting from the topic. i realize though that you don't realize how it is really not related at all. i can understand, sort of.

  5. #125
    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
    @kalach: you are so totally ignoring what has been said. i realize you cant share (validate) my perspective as you do not have my insights but try to use your imagination to understand what has been said, so you get the hypothesis right. no further repetitions.
    lol no, actually he summarized your entire position when he said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Is there anything in this topic that goes beyond discussion of simple classification nomenclature?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    And what we're seeing in this thread is a reinvention of that classification, which happens to be opposite to Izzy's? We are NOT seeing the suggestion that INTPs have special magical non-systematic access to, *gulp*, my realm? Phew.
    You are quickly becoming my favorite INTJ.


    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    "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"
    Ah, the truth surfaces. You resent having the word "Judging" in your type label because you're dominant in a Perceiving function, and also extremely introverted, with poor command of your secondary Judgment faculty.

    HINT: Most introverted J types in MBTI actually are pretty decent at their secondary Je function, as it's by far the most efficient way for them to deal with the outer world effectively--but even this is irrelevant because the term "Judging" in an MBTI context only refers to "the strongest extroverted attitude."

    You don't like that because you don't have a strong extroverted attitude, but that's a problem with your personal imbalance that you've erroneously projected onto a majority of introverts, not a problem with MBTI's P/J classifications. In this context, the word "Judging" doesn't necessitate that you are proficient in a Judging process; it merely signifies that your strongest natural extroverted attitude would be the Judging one! You seem to have decided arbitrarily that being a J type must inherently imply strength in a Judging function, but it doesn't.

    Note that your leading with two introverted functions also leads to over-dependence on personal/subjective perspectives and a general inability to consider external input. That's what you're supposed to be using that Je function you suck at for, but hey, why bother balancing yourself when you can just badmouth extroversion all day and never bother learning about its value?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #126
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    There is some scheme here, some grand joke.




    I allege no direct, nor even indirect connection to Victor. All the same, may I have my tinfoil hat, please?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #127
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default RANT

    Nanook: I am seriously intimidated to enter this thread. I usually wouldn't touch a thread teeming with so many ntps with a 10 ft pole, but you resonate so strongly with me that I must speak out. I have been grapplng for quite a while myself (ever since I discovered mbti, jung, typology, etc) to reconcile these theories with what I observe in people I know, predominantly family, but friends too.

    Reading your posts made me realize the whole thing I've had trouble getting my mind around, and correlating to my observations, has been the whole J/P dichotomy! I have been saying people are a mix of N/S and T/F. The degree of divide is variable, depending on primarily genetics, but also somewhat on environment. To think in terms of INF or EST or ISF makes so much of a better fit with how I see people use functions. I test great on Ne and Fi, which I'm not 'supposed to.' I think it's falling out in my mind something like this. I know it won't be good enough for Ti-ers, but I hope it makes sense to someone.

    If you are close on the N/S, T/F divide, you might be more likely to use different perceiving functions or different judging functions. Whereas if you are at the extreme N, S, T, or F end of the scale, you would use more both attitudes of the same function . For example:

    I am nearly all N, as clearly as I can test, looking at my genetics (as best as I can guess), and in pondering my perceiving functions. And I am better at Ni. I am, however, only moderate F, with my mother having been an intj, and noting that I can be very T in my humor, interaction, etc. I am an INF. So that means for me, I use Ni/Ne, Fe/Ti.

    My daughter is very close on her N/S divide, getting strong N from me and strong S from her father, and she lives in an environment where both S and N are fostered. She, however, is more moderately T. She is IST, so I would call her functions out to be: Si/Ni, Te/Ti.

    Lemme do another one: My son is about 80%N/20%S, almost all T, INT. So I would say he is Ni/Ne, Te/Ti.

    Get it? Haha. You guys are so gonna crucify me. I DO believe a balance of functions is necessary, of the extraverted versus the introverted persuasion. But the whole J/P thing just, in my mind, confounds things and makes rules where no rules should be.


    As far as telling if a peson uses more of a perceiving or judging function, well, that will have to determined some other way. But does it even really matter? We perceive, we judge. Those two are the ying/yang of who we are. Is it really accurate to put one first? Does it invite more misleading interpretation than clarity?
    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


  8. #128

    Default

    I'm with you, actually. I use quite a bit of Ni, Te and Fi
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  9. #129
    @.~*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 aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    As far as telling if a peson uses more of a perceiving or judging function, well, that will have to determined some other way. But does it even really matter? We perceive, we judge. Those two are the ying/yang of who we are. Is it really accurate to put one first?
    Apparently in the eyes of the theorists, there are definable distinctions between those who prioritize perceiving over judging or vice versa. *shrug* Otherwise the distinction would be dropped, because it would signify nothing.

    (And I am inclined to note such distinctions. There seems to be a difference in whether we judge inwardly and perceive outwardly, vs the inverse.)

    So yes, I guess it does matter... but not as much as world poverty or space exploration.

    All that being said, "textbook" MBTI is really only ever found in a textbook; in real life, there's a lot of variance.
    "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

  10. #130
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    We perceive, we judge. Those two are the ying/yang of who we are. Is it really accurate to put one first?
    i would love to think that everyone can do both and there is no way i would abandon my own J when it comes to understanding things, but experience show that some people do a very good job at excluding as much as possible of the capabilities of their secondary functions and the resulting informations. it begins with behavior and even i exclude Fe and Te from most of my live time, being alone with myself, just staring at the void, at my vision of unification. but the exclusion goes on to affect the mind of some people. they have plenty of attitudes that serve to exclude their secondary functions from their views.

    it's important to keep in mind that not all perceivers or judgers are the same, and when they are radicalized and exclude their secondary, the results will be different. Ne people who abandon Ti into their shadow have not much in common with Ni people who abandon Fe into their shadow, albeit both are perceivers who abandon conscious judgement.

    and another thing that people don't get:

    not consciously using a function means this:
    a) not using it is often the result of the activity of another function, albeit it is natural in young people to not use more than one function.
    b) not using it means that someone can't adjust it. it does not mean, that someone does not have it.
    c) as it is not adjusted sensitively to the current situation, it is the source of most acted out pathology and of prejudice and projection.
    d) so the cause of exclusion of a function might be the first function, but the content of any resulting projection or prejudice shows in the quality of what is reported about the products of other functions.

    all the unconscious functions throw their contents into the conscious realm and then the conscious function(s) deal with it as they desire.
    so introverted people are not cut of from the world, if they are cut of from their secondary function.

    there is only one world, by the time cognition comes into play the whole world is allready in our heads and functions are applied to it.

    this means for example that Ni-dominance is applied to the products of Fe and Fe is applied to the products of Ni.

    cut off Fi people are feeling into the world, especially the world of Se or Ne and Ti.

    cut of Ni people are seeking to understand their world via Ni synthesis which is applied to their world which is consisting of a lot of Fe or Te and Se products and less frequently the products of other functions.

    early in development they cant fine tune the production of the other functions, they have to accept them or they can become suspicious and avoid any responsiveness to their inner (their only) world, which creates radical introversion.

    when they interact with the world, the behavior is habitual and out of control, regulated by the shadow. perfectly normal behavior for a lot of self-confident people. in america it is considered to be a problem, if someone is "self-conscious". if your shadow functions produce content without corrupting it, you can be poplular and just be "yourself" and have a very active social life. also introverted kids are very much interacting with their parents without being self-conscious. every introverted person remembers this pain from kindergarden in their bones about being judged for a behavior that is out of their control and that they are not even identified with. i mean being judged for how they deal with the worldspace of extroverted functions. of course extroverted people get judged for unconscious things too. like maybe enfp for Fe violations.

    conscious functions add the ability to fine tune consciously. of course this is bound to getting to know and understand the function, and also helps to understand that function in others.

    extroverted functions need not be conscious in order to give information and also not to create interaction with the world.

    only sensitivity and honesty and care and doublechecking and differenciating perceptions or feelings or thoughts from projections and so on requires conscious access to the functions. also theory of mind. if your mother is a mad ENFj and you are Ti with an Fe shadow, you can respond to your mother perfectly, but you have no idea why she is that way.

    being a perceiver means to be sensitive and actively involved in fine tuning perception or in the case of extroverted perception it means being sensitive about interaction and response. once you have developed a lot of functions, you can be sensitive about both P and J. but a tendency to retract from the complexity will remain. in the lazy mood, one will continue to use the objects of secondary and further functions that have been fine tuned in the past, but without double checking them. this is classical predjudice. the objects of perception are very poor in dominant judgers, and while they will occasionally have enough mental space to refine them, they will not do so on every occasion. this leads to a well thought theoretical word without much reality in it. the concepts of perceives are very poor in dominant perceives and while they will occasionally have enough mental space to refine them or learn new ones they will usually repeat what has been achieved in the past. the introverted dominant perceiver can only accept new concepts that are suited to match the collected products of the synthesis of introverted perception. the introverted dominant thinker will only accept new perceptions if they are helping with the current project of introverted thinking. the extroverted perceive will only accept concepts that are useful for manipulation/interaction. the extroverted dominant judgers will only accept new insights that can be "accepted" by the priorities of extroverted judgement. if any of those are smart, they will redraw from interaction with the world, so they have time to become conscious of secondary and further functions and to fine tune their shaping. discussions are never helpful because then the focus will go back to the strongest functions and only one will used sensitively..

    so Ne seeks to be opportunistic and to manipulate and Ti seeks to be honest or incorruptibly, but if Ti is cut off, then Ne is manipulating using it's intuitive access of random spontaneous Ti, without being able to fine tune it. so Ti is only throwing the same old concepts into the mix of Ne, whichever can be used for the goal of Ne. so the subjectivity of Ne is shaped by all those prejudices and Ne is playing football with them, like there is nothing new in the world and they know how to deal with everything. nothing incurruptible about that. so NeTi is opportunistic and TiNe is incorruptibly stubborn. TiNe is totally J. if you are truly Ti you may make a lot of conscious effort to use Ne when you research something, but when you are put into your archetypal function of action, which is that of a director then you are the most stubborn dog. when the Ne person is thrown into a function they go wild.

    none of my opinions are related to myself. i might as well be nonexistent. infact the notion that i am a insane fata morgana was the first thesis of my exploration of typology. as a kid i fell from a table and from a tree and from a 2nd floor window and i must not be an example for any type. all of this is observation of other people. i might very well find out that i am ENFj, ESTp, INTj, INFj, ENFP and this would affect nothing of what i have to say (except that one has to be conscious of functions to understand them in other people, which was probably over the top, but its true if we talk about very deep understanding). to know myself in terms of typology i must first know typology and to know typology (and validate it) i must first understand ALL people, then see if its possible to fine tune typology so that it matches all of my understanding of people. and this is a work in progress and i take no short cuts. i am not in a hurry. understanding the world of the human condition is supposed to take a lifetime and then some. however disapproving of mbti is possible in this stage of my work. this does not prove socionics to be right at all. its not even clear if its valid to talk of cognitive functions like they are entities. and most of what is say is not considered by myself to be the truth, it is only true enough, in comparison to contradicting concepts that have been disproved. since my mind is firmly seated in vision i am not afraid to abandon the literal aspects of theories, the concrete T stuff, but language forces me to become concrete to say anything at all.

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