User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 214

  1. #131
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Re: OP- so in leyman's terms (for those of us who ahven't read The Phenomenology of the Spirit and aren't well-acquainted with Kantian subjectivism), the theory goes:

    Ni intuitively percieives the essence of a thing or situation, while Ti logically deconstructs a thing or situation, while Ne intuitively percieves the the connections between things and situations, while Te rationally organizes connections between things and situations?

    Now to be fair, I'm not a fan of subjectivist/idealist/"phenomenological" philosophy, but to give Charlie Jung his credit, his was the only description of the functions that was clear enough for me to actually understand the above (despite various noble attempts by others to explain it to me in their own words). Big up Carl J!
    "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.

  2. #132
    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 aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    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.
    I'm not going to try and skewer you, but I just want to point out that while you have a point about people sometimes using the supposed non-preferred function attitudes, I think you can see through observation that everyone prefers one type of attitude over the other.

    That wasn't exactly nanook's point; he was saying that introverts shouldn't be labeled P or J according to the orientation of their secondary attitude. He didn't say much about shadow functions in that post.

    Could I possibly hear some examples of this frequent use of both orientations of each function in everyone you know? If you're INFJ it seems very strange that you'd have Ne and Ni in equal proportions. How does that work, exactly? Not to be insulting, but I suspect this may have to do with errors in functional interpretation.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #133
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    ...wouldn't an Introverted Intuition-dominant INTP be an INTJ?
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  4. #134
    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 Haphazard View Post
    ...wouldn't an Introverted Intuition-dominant INTP be an INTJ?
    They're arguing that the labeling shouldn't be done that way because it puts a "Judging" label on introverts who are dominant in a Perceiving function and vice versa.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #135
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'm not going to try and skewer you, but I just want to point out that while you have a point about people sometimes using the supposed non-preferred function attitudes, I think you can see through observation that everyone prefers one type of attitude over the other.

    That wasn't exactly nanook's point; he was saying that introverts shouldn't be labeled P or J according to the orientation of their secondary attitude. He didn't say much about shadow functions in that post.

    Could I possibly hear some examples of this frequent use of both orientations of each function in everyone you know? If you're INFJ it seems very strange that you'd have Ne and Ni in equal proportions. How does that work, exactly? Not to be insulting, but I suspect this may have to do with errors in functional interpretation.
    What bothers me most about current function theory, as I understand it, is that there is an all or nothingness about using N or S or T or F. I simply find that people use both N/S or T/F oftentimes; the proportion depends on how much they've inherited or nurtured in their lifetimes. The next most bothersome thing for me is that assumption that attitudes alternate neatly, yes.

    An INTJ who has 100%T is going to look quite different from an INTJ who is 60% T and 40% F. If he is then 55/45 N/S, the situation could arise where his T is used more comfortably than his N, which, by function theory would make him more INTP, than INTJ, yet Ni and Ne are nothing alike. If we continue to ignore the use of all functions in many people, or their preference for certain attitudes of those functions, we will miss the primary seeds needed for growth and cultivation of better, more applicable personality theories; forever enticing us to use folk typology.

    I want to see a function theory mesh with archetypes more neatly than they do now. That's all. I'm not sure how to go about it though. If another function is added and the J/P is taken off, it allows for more description, yet that takes you further from understanding a pattern, or an archetype. So you know the individual better, but it puts you further away from developing an algorithm, which is the goal.


    Thanks for being gentle with me. That was quite pleasant, really.
    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


  6. #136
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    What bothers me most about current function theory, as I understand it, is that there is an all or nothingness about using N or S or T or F. I simply find that people use both N/S or T/F oftentimes
    All types have N, S, T & F in their top four functions. The all-or-nothing aspect of MBTI typing isn't really all-or-nothing, it's "given a free and comfortable choice, which function would you prefer to use to judge and which to perceive?" MBTT and Jungian theory, as I understand it, takes it for granted that such preference exists, it persists, and it founds a personality. It describes how the person prefers to be, and they grow into expressing it fully and comfortably, acquiring the benefits of specialisation. Put the person in a psychically uncomfortable or compellingly different environment, and they'll cast about for ways to deal. But even without psychic discomfort, any person will use N, S, T and F in their daily lives, and they'll have distinct preferences for how much and in what orientation.

    In the context of that theory, talking about someone who is x% T and y% F, that is, talking about someone who may genuinely during the day switch a letter in their 4-letter code, is talking about someone who hasn't specialised their cognitive workings. The basic structure of their personality is weak and likely under-developed. On the inside, they're not a real person.

    However, if what you're seeing is, say, an INTJ sometimes using, say, N in a particular orientation, namely Ni, and sometimes using, say, S in a particular orientation, namely Se, and it sometimes seems you can put a percentage on how much, like say 80% Ni and 20% Se, and so on for the other functions, then you're seeing a normal INTJ.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #137
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    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.
    I love you man. Don't take the Americans so seriously when they are blunt and shoot around with dumb theories. It's their way to handle things but on the inside they are just as dumb as we are.

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbPY4sFeU6c"].[/YOUTUBE]
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  8. #138
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    What bothers me most about current function theory, as I understand it, is that there is an all or nothingness about using N or S or T or F.
    Who say dat!!??

    Nobody eye red an eye red lotsa peeps.

  9. #139
    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 aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    What bothers me most about current function theory, as I understand it, is that there is an all or nothingness about using N or S or T or F. I simply find that people use both N/S or T/F oftentimes; the proportion depends on how much they've inherited or nurtured in their lifetimes. The next most bothersome thing for me is that assumption that attitudes alternate neatly, yes.
    Where did you get the all or nothing idea? That's definitely not the case. Every function theory I'm aware of says that everyone uses all four functions S, N, T and F, and has a preferred orientation for each one. Most theories say you also use the other orientations (the "shadow functions") sometimes, but not as often as your preferred directions.

    As for the order of the functions, they only represent a theoretical ideal as to what would make the most balanced people. There are lots of people who do things like relying more on the tertiary than the secondary, so there's no insistence that that particular order is always the case, just that it's an ideal that creates personality balance.

    For instance, if our INTJ relies more on Fi than on Te, he probably depends too much on introversion and lacks balance because he doesn't know how to extrovert very effectively. If you rely primarily on two extroverted functions, you depend too much on validation from others/the outer world, but relying primarily on two introverted functions results in too much dependence on subjective values and not enough ability to interact effectively with the external world.

    If you depend primarily on two perceiving functions, the result will be indecisiveness and inability to plan and organize effectively. If you rely primarily on two judging functions, you become rigid, stubborn and unable to change and adapt when necessary. These imbalanced personalities absolutely do happen frequently in practice; the theory just says that they'd have better results in life if they had a good balance between introverted/extroverted and perceiving/judging functions.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    An INTJ who has 100%T is going to look quite different from an INTJ who is 60% T and 40% F. If he is then 55/45 N/S, the situation could arise where his T is used more comfortably than his N, which, by function theory would make him more INTP, than INTJ, yet Ni and Ne are nothing alike. If we continue to ignore the use of all functions in many people, or their preference for certain attitudes of those functions, we will miss the primary seeds needed for growth and cultivation of better, more applicable personality theories; forever enticing us to use folk typology.
    I'm kind of curious as to where all this is coming from. Have you read Lenore Thomson or any of the other prominent current authors? An INTJ who is 60/40 on T/F will just use his Te more often and Fi less often than an INTJ who is 55/45 on T/F, and so on.

    If his Te is more comfortable than his Ni, then he's ENTJ by definition, not INTP. There's no insistence that he can't use the shadow functions, either, just that he doesn't trust them as much as his preferred directions. Where did you get the idea that functional preferences must be all or nothing?

    If you're using SW's definition of folk typology, by the way (since he came up with the term), it refers to any typology that attempts to categorize type based on behavioral observations--which includes Lenore, Berens, Beebe, Myers-Briggs and pretty much any non-Jungian approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I want to see a function theory mesh with archetypes more neatly than they do now. That's all. I'm not sure how to go about it though. If another function is added and the J/P is taken off, it allows for more description, yet that takes you further from understanding a pattern, or an archetype. So you know the individual better, but it puts you further away from developing an algorithm, which is the goal.
    I suggest you check out Lenore Thomson. You seem to have some ideas about the archetypes that necessitate them being much more strict than they actually are. There is no author that I know of that insists that INTJs never use Feeling; I don't know where you got that.

    Most of the popular theories today would describe INTJ as someone who is dominant in Ni, and prefers Ni over Ne, Te over Ti, Fi over Fe and Se over Si--but can still sometimes use the less preferred attitudes.

    Most authors also do not insist that the INTJ's secondary/tertiary/inferior functions go precisely in the order Te-Fi-Se in all cases, just that this tends to be the healthiest arrangement that produces the most balanced personality and best results in most life situations for this archetype. Lenore describes in detail what happens to each type when it depends too much on the tertiary/inferior and ignores the secondary--it tends to result in significant imbalance.

    You can see lots of people on the forum here who rely primarily on dominant+tertiary and have poorly developed secondary functions. The theory is that they would be more balanced and better off if they improved the secondary, not that their secondary must necessarily always be better than the tertiary/inferior in every person.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #140
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    If you're using SW's definition of folk typology, by the way (since he came up with the term), it refers to any typology that attempts to categorize type based on behavioral observations--which includes Lenore, Berens, Beebe, Myers-Briggs and pretty much any non-Jungian approach.
    What is a non-behavioral approach?

    I really don't see this dichotomy as existing, but perhaps I am missing something.

    All the Wise Olde Farts of MBTIville seem to be aware of certain factoids: that the tests are imperfect, should be answered as one would behave in an ideal world where outcomes did not matter, that type falsification is one of the most destructive things one can do as a human bean, and that types have certain behavioral characteristics when acting in both healthy and unhealthy ways. Jung certainly described behavioral characteristics as well as psychological metabolisms, as do all past and present writers, so...baby, it's like, all good....

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