User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 214

  1. #141
    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 Fecal McAngry View Post
    What is a non-behavioral approach?

    I really don't see this dichotomy as existing, but perhaps I am missing something.
    I don't know; ask solitarywalker. His position is that the only relevant behaviors are "cognitive tendencies" which can only be determined by studying a person's most private and personal works.

    According to him, any typological approach involving studying/categorizing any behaviors other than these private/personal cognitive tendencies constitutes "folk typology" and is therefore almost entirely worthless.

    He justifies this by saying that people will often behave in ways contrary to their type due to external pressures, which is true, but you can still observe behavioral trends and make inferences about people's types that become increasingly accurate as you gather more information.

    The fact is that each type really does tend toward certain behavioral patterns on average, so you can use induction to make reasonably good guesses--but this is unacceptable to SW because it doesn't focus exclusively on "cognitive tendencies" and requires induction/guesswork. (Basically, it requires induction via extroverted perception and doesn't fit squarely into his little Ti+Si box, so it's worthless.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Fecal McAngry View Post
    All the Wise Olde Fartes 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 characteristic 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....
    I agree with you. SW maintains that Jung observed only cognitive tendencies, which are entirely unrelated to "everyday behaviors", apparently.

    SW is kind of vague in explaining which behaviors qualify as relevant to typology--he says only a person's most private thoughts and writings about the nature of life can be used as legitimate typological data, and that using any other sort of behavior is inherently invalid and a total waste of time.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #142
    Senior Member paintmuffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    eNTP
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Can I just say something to the OP?

    You seek to prove that a type DEFINED by its dominant Ti is really Ni-Dom. You are making a new system here, not proving MBTI wrong.
    There was something wrong with this thread BEFORE everyone started calling BS on something they hadn't read....
    A colleague of the great scientist James Watson remarked that Watson was always “lounging around, arguing about problems instead of doing experiments.” He concluded that “There is more than one way of doing good science.”
    It was Watson’s form of idleness, the scientist went on to say, that allowed him to solve “the greatest of all biological problems: the discovery of the structure of DNA.” It's a point worth remembering in a society overly concerned with efficiency.

  3. #143
    Senior Member Two Point Two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    200

    Default

    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 seems odd. If I've got you straight - and I'm not sure that I have - you think that the people who currently believe they are, say, TiNe INTPs are actually INTPs, but they're using NiTe instead without realising it?

    Given that so many people look to functions in order to work out their type to begin with, wouldn't you expect the majority of people thinking that they're TiNe INTPs to actually be TiNe 'INTJs'? Or, if not the majority, at least a decent chunk - all those who turned to functions in their typing, and managed to identify their strongest few?

    This would make the distinction terminological. Call a TiNe whatever you want, it doesn't really change the theory. But, if you're not saying that - if you are indeed saying that all the so-called INTPs are NiTe and those who think they're INTJ are TiNe - then I'm wondering how so many people can have gotten it so wrong.

    As for which terminology is better - they both have merits. Calling all P-doms Ps and J-doms Js would be conveniently straightforward, but then calling all people who use a combination of Pi with Je by one term nicely captures the easily observable commonalities associated with Je (and the same for Pe with those who use Pe and Ji).

  4. #144
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Two Point Two View Post
    This seems odd. If I've got you straight - and I'm not sure that I have - you think that the people who currently believe they are, say, TiNe INTPs are actually INTPs, but they're using NiTe instead without realising it?

    Given that so many people look to functions in order to work out their type to begin with, wouldn't you expect the majority of people thinking that they're TiNe INTPs to actually be TiNe 'INTJs'? Or, if not the majority, at least a decent chunk - all those who turned to functions in their typing, and managed to identify their strongest few?

    This would make the distinction terminological. Call a TiNe whatever you want, it doesn't really change the theory. But, if you're not saying that - if you are indeed saying that all the so-called INTPs are NiTe and those who think they're INTJ are TiNe - then I'm wondering how so many people can have gotten it so wrong.

    As for which terminology is better - they both have merits. Calling all P-doms Ps and J-doms Js would be conveniently straightforward, but then calling all people who use a combination of Pi with Je by one term nicely captures the easily observable commonalities associated with Je (and the same for Pe with those who use Pe and Ji).
    I think that what nanook is trying to say is that there's a difference between MB Ni and Jungian Ni, and if you were to take an Ni-dom from the MBTI you would find that this person is not an Ni-dom according to Jung. I disagree with that--I'm definitely an Ni-user, even by Jung's definition, and I would say that a lot, if not all other NJs are as well. But that's just me.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  5. #145
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default Typology for Dummies

    Thanks to everyone who responded to me in this thread. I appreciate your time and input. I know there is something to be said for quote-response format, and that NTs seem to prefer it, which is highly understandable. But I don't do well chopping my thoughts into pieces, as I am afraid some tangential clinging nuance will get lost to the void that way (and that would be a tragedy ), so I will respond in essay format, and I invite you to read if you like.

    The point I was trying to make, no doubt in a foggy way, was that a person can test INTJ, be a definite introvert, fit the INTJ MBTI archetype well, yet still test out on functions higher on his Te (or Ti depending on the person, although it would undoubtedly be rarer) than Ni. Yes, by function theory you would call him ENTJ, but if he's a definite introvert you are stuck between two systems. You see it on here quite often. Am I an XXXJ or an XXXP? Without function theory to save us, these peeps would be destined to Xville and ambiguity forever. *shudder*

    Some people seem to fit well with the MBTI archetypes. Some don't. Yet we still rely on MBTI tests to tell us our type. Therefore, we rely on MBTI archetypes, which as Sim has pointed out, can get us close to understanding people, and with experience and induction, can even provide some useful means of interpreting people. Some take this to extreme and say you can even predict one's behavior based on their type, hence the Keirseyan followers.

    SolitaryWalker has attempted to fill the pure typology gap between MBTI and Jung by merging the typical 16 archetypes with a truer function interplay exploration of the first 4 most accepted functions per type according to current function theories, and provided a sholastic desription of them, but he iterates vehemently that these studies must fall under the subject of philosophy, and not psychology. His descriptions are the best I've seen of each type, despite his lofty prose, but they are not very expansive comparatively, once you've gotten used to pop typology predictors.

    To confound the situation further, there are function theories that have been put forth by some MBTI adherers that overshoot what actually happens with functions in observable real life. Beebe and Thompson being at least two that seem to have gotten caught up in some introverted thinking loop and haven't fueled their research with real people, but assumed an a priori justification for their propositions. This has added to much confusion surrounding function usage. Which brings me to my primary thrust, and the reason I got involved in this thread.

    There needs to be a better conceptual model for function theory. Before an accurate model can be developed, however, there needs to be more research done regarding functions indepedent of the 16 MBTI archetypes, and in relation to them. The current linear model for functions is represented usually like this: Ni>Fe>Ti>Se>yadayadayada not only doesn't reflect accurate usage of some functions, but it loses validity the farther you get from the beginning.

    Furthermore, regarding the nontypical INTJ--and reasserting what it appears is difficult for people to understand--current function theory does not take into account (Kalach did address this, but insufficiently) is that an INTJ with 20%Si (not Se, because if he is dominant introverted perceiver, and his primary function is less than 75-80% expression via testing, he will be Si along with Ni [that's my proposition anyway]) and 80%Ni, there will be more usage of Si than the linear model represents. Much more. I therefore see a more representative model for INTJ looking something like this:

    Ni>Te>Fi *fill in two arrows connecting upper and lower levels*
    Si>Fe>Ti

    *i don't know where you would put the last two functions, i'm just playing here*

    With the two lines intersecting more easily and more often than a linear model allows.

    Evidently, the MBTI people are, and have, developed more descriptive tests called, "Step II and Step III," and it remains to be seen what depth of substance it will contribute to the subfield of personality type within its parent field, psychology. Unless they are turning back to understanding the actual cognitive functions, which seem to be the common denominators across time, it is unclear how useful this data will be.

    In the meantime, personality followers mix up the different disciplines in their attempt to better understand and utilize personality archetypes. This is becoming more popular because it does lend some much needed, if vaguely reliable, indication of sub-type. For example, knowing a person's enneagram (which has an awesome conceptual model, btw), along with their type, can help bridge some of the very large chasm that exists intra-type. However helpful, using different theories and systems lacks a cohesiveness that, while might not be felt currently, will become obvious as our understanding of our minds and the expression of personality expands. It would be in our best interests, therefore, to combine our efforts and develop some methodology for assessing a person's cognitive functions. From there, qualitative studies could be performed, and from there more quantitative studies would follow. Then, finally, some more rigorous and true archetypes could be (re)defined, and personality type more positively used as a tool for interaction among individuals and societies.
    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. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paintmuffin View Post
    There was something wrong with this thread BEFORE everyone started calling BS on something they hadn't read....
    It was painfully obvious from the start that the OP wasn't to be taken seriously. There were signs that he wasn't going to deliver on his promises and he didn't actually have anything substantial to contribute. Most people instinctively decide there and then that it would not be worth their time and energy to bother. If an established member of the community (say, SolitaryWalker) had posted something like that, I can promise you it would have been read.
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  7. #147
    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 visaisahero View Post
    It was painfully obvious from the start that the OP wasn't to be taken seriously. There were signs that he wasn't going to deliver on his promises and he didn't actually have anything substantial to contribute. Most people instinctively decide there and then that it would not be worth their time and energy to bother. If an established member of the community (say, SolitaryWalker) had posted something like that, I can promise you it would have been read.
    As for my part, I didn't care about the OP. I got involved because something Nanook said inspired me. I think it's kind of cool when threads meander other places. Sometimes it can be really great when that happens.
    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. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    As for my part, I didn't care about the OP. I got involved because something Nanook said inspired me. I think it's kind of cool when threads meander other places. Sometimes it can be really great when that happens.
    My Ne is so turned on right now
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  9. #149
    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
    The point I was trying to make, no doubt in a foggy way, was that a person can test INTJ, be a definite introvert, fit the INTJ MBTI archetype well, yet still test out on functions higher on his Te (or Ti depending on the person, although it would undoubtedly be rarer) than Ni. Yes, by function theory you would call him ENTJ, but if he's a definite introvert you are stuck between two systems.
    It's impossible for him to be dominant in an extroverted function and be an introvert. By definition, being dominant in an extroverted function means your most preferred method of cognition involves interacting with the external environment.

    Cognitive functions tests don't really accomplish much of anything because they depend on self-report, so it doesn't really matter if someone tests INTJ on an MBTI test but Te dominant on a cognitive functions test. It doesn't invalidate the model; it just means the person has inaccurately described himself somewhere along the way--the very definition of Te necessitates that introverts cannot be dominant in it. This is the problem with self-report tests--whatever the person erroneously believes about himself (or would like to believe about himself) comes out as "the truth" in his test result.

    For instance, I know a blatantly obvious introvert who tested ENTJ because he'd like to believe he's more extroverted than he actually is. Does the bad test result make him ENTJ? No. If he tested Te dominant on a cognitive functions test, would that make him an ENTJ? No. Tests are almost meaningless and the best they can do is point you in the right direction for personal study.

    If a person tests INTJ on an MBTI test but Te dominant on a cognitive functions test, it doesn't make him a Te-dominant INTJ. It most likely means that he erroneously believes his dominant function to be Te, when it's actually Ni. People frequently mix up their own function orders and it often takes a long time and a lot of study (and talk with others who know about the topic) to really accurately determine one's type. Taking a 20-minute internet test is not going to figure this out for you.

    Many people identify most consciously with the secondary function because the dominant is often so ingrained into our perspectives that we don't even realize its effects on us.

    And no, we don't rely on MBTI tests to tell us our type. You are vastly overestimating the predictive value of tests. Typology tests, at best, can give you a general idea of where to look, but the only way to know your type is to study the functions and determine which ones fit you best--all of the tests give blatantly inaccurate results to many people because psychological type cannot be empirically tested.


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    To confound the situation further, there are function theories that have been put forth by some MBTI adherers that overshoot what actually happens with functions in observable real life. Beebe and Thompson being at least two that seem to have gotten caught up in some introverted thinking loop and haven't fueled their research with real people, but assumed an a priori justification for their propositions. This has added to much confusion surrounding function usage. Which brings me to my primary thrust, and the reason I got involved in this thread.
    No, they don't. Have you actually read Lenore? No one claims that the functions always occur in that exact order in practice; the function orders only represent ideal balances that offer the most well-rounded personalities.

    (Lenore is an INTJ, by the way--a self-described Ni dominant whose preferred mode of thinking is extroverted.)


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    There needs to be a better conceptual model for function theory. Before an accurate model can be developed, however, there needs to be more research done regarding functions indepedent of the 16 MBTI archetypes, and in relation to them. The current linear model for functions is represented usually like this: Ni>Fe>Ti>Se>yadayadayada not only doesn't reflect accurate usage of some functions, but it loses validity the farther you get from the beginning.
    I have to wonder here if you actually read my post.

    Once again, the function models offered by Lenore, Beebe, Berens, etc. do not necessitate that functions always occur in that precise order.

    Looking at your INTJ example, if he prefers Ti over Te then he's not classified as INTJ in the first place, regardless of what he scored on hopelessly inaccurate MBTI or function tests. You are placing way, way, way too much stock in the tests. Testing as INTJ doesn't mean anything because tests are subject to errors in perception of the self, badly worded questions, etc.

    If he relies primarily on Ni+Ti, for instance, then he's classified as a highly introverted INFJ who would probably do well to work on his Fe skills and will find Fe to be the most natural way of dealing the outer world.

    Note that being INFJ does NOT necessitate that his function order be precisely Ni>Fe>Ti>Se; this order only represents a theoretical balance. Lenore describes all kinds of situations in her book where real people do NOT follow this precise function order, but suggests that they'd have more success in balancing their personalities and adjusting to life if they worked on the skills suggested by the orders.

    I don't know how else to tell you that no one's model insists that this precise order is always how it works out in practice. That's just not the case and you need to read these authors before you declare that this is their position.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #150
    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
    It's impossible for him to be dominant in an extroverted function and be an introvert. By definition, being dominant in an extroverted function means your most preferred method of cognition involves interacting with the external environment.

    Cognitive functions tests don't really accomplish much of anything because they depend on self-report, so it doesn't really matter if someone tests INTJ on an MBTI test but Te dominant on a cognitive functions test. It doesn't invalidate the model; it just means the person has inaccurately described himself somewhere along the way--the very definition of Te necessitates that introverts cannot be dominant in it. This is the problem with self-report tests--whatever the person erroneously believes about himself (or would like to believe about himself) comes out as "the truth" in his test result.

    For instance, I know a blatantly obvious introvert who tested ENTJ because he'd like to believe he's more extroverted than he actually is. Does the bad test result make him ENTJ? No. If he tested Te dominant on a cognitive functions test, would that make him an ENTJ? No. Tests are almost meaningless and the best they can do is point you in the right direction for personal study.

    If a person tests INTJ on an MBTI test but Te dominant on a cognitive functions test, it doesn't make him a Te-dominant INTJ. It most likely means that he erroneously believes his dominant function to be Te, when it's actually Ni. People frequently mix up their own function orders and it often takes a long time and a lot of study (and talk with others who know about the topic) to really accurately determine one's type. Taking a 20-minute internet test is not going to figure this out for you.

    Many people identify most consciously with the secondary function because the dominant is often so ingrained into our perspectives that we don't even realize its effects on us.

    And no, we don't rely on MBTI tests to tell us our type. You are vastly overestimating the predictive value of tests. Typology tests, at best, can give you a general idea of where to look, but the only way to know your type is to study the functions and determine which ones fit you best--all of the tests give blatantly inaccurate results to many people because psychological type cannot be empirically tested.




    No, they don't. Have you actually read Lenore? No one claims that the functions always occur in that exact order in practice; the function orders only represent ideal balances that offer the most well-rounded personalities.

    (Lenore is an INTJ, by the way--a self-described Ni dominant whose preferred mode of thinking is extroverted.)




    I have to wonder here if you actually read my post.

    Once again, the function models offered by Lenore, Beebe, Berens, etc. do not necessitate that functions always occur in that precise order.

    Looking at your INTJ example, if he prefers Ti over Te then he's not classified as INTJ in the first place, regardless of what he scored on hopelessly inaccurate MBTI or function tests. You are placing way, way, way too much stock in the tests. Testing as INTJ doesn't mean anything because tests are subject to errors in perception of the self, badly worded questions, etc.

    If he relies primarily on Ni+Ti, for instance, then he's classified as a highly introverted INFJ who would probably do well to work on his Fe skills and will find Fe to be the most natural way of dealing the outer world.

    Note that being INFJ does NOT necessitate that his function order be precisely Ni>Fe>Ti>Se; this order only represents a theoretical balance. Lenore describes all kinds of situations in her book where real people do NOT follow this precise function order, but suggests that they'd have more success in balancing their personalities and adjusting to life if they worked on the skills suggested by the orders.

    I don't know how else to tell you that no one's model insists that this precise order is always how it works out in practice. That's just not the case and you need to read these authors before you declare that this is their position.
    Wow. bolded. k. Yes, I did read your posts before, but now since I'm perusing this and the bolded parts are catching my eyes, and your remarks sound a bit hostile (for lack of a better work atm), I'm finding I don't have enough time right now to deal with this. I will have to come back later to tiptoe through your diatribe.

    Tell me something. Do entps have original thought? I may sound stupid to you, but I'm not that stupid. This is how I learn things and this is how I brainstorm. I will take care not to do it in your realm anymore, mkay?

    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


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