User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 214

  1. #151
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    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.
    I'm confused because then you say this:

    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.
    So, is function order important to typology or not? If so, then an INTJ is an Ni dom, end of story. If not, then an INTJ can have Te as a stronger preference, but still exhibit the traits of an INTJ.

    Then we have the whole issue of whether functions can even stand alone to begin with. Can a perceiving function truly be independent of the judging function it is filtered through? If not, then you would be defined by at least 2 functions used in tandem, say Ne and Ti, for instance. And in some instances, you would prefer to lead with Ti and in others Ne, correct? Why does this have to be a zero-sum, all or nothing equation?

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post

    Tell me something. Do entps have original thought?
    Yes, some of us do. And some of us don't. Just like any other person or any other type.

  2. #152
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    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?
    When it comes to ENTPs like Sim, no, he does not display original thought.
    He is parroting Lenore Thomson.

    Actually, he's stealing her thoughts and passing them off as his own.
    How do I know? I recognize her comments coming out of his mouth.
    It's like watching Provoker rip off René Descartes, in a different thread.

    If I used only Lenore Thomson as a single source of information, I am not ENTJ.
    What she claims is true of ENTJs in her book is frequently 180 degrees from how, and what, I think.

    She's about as innovative in her thinking, as Minnie Pearl.
    Perhaps Minnie is an ENTP, like Sim.



  3. #153
    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
    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?

    Okay, I apologize for sounding hostile. Really that's not what I intended.

    I got a little frustrated because your post repeated several ideas that I'd addressed in my last post and didn't seem to pay any attention to them.

    I don't think you're stupid, honestly. And I'm sorry for sounding like I do. I just find it odd that you say you've read and considered all the information in this thread and then repeated several misconceptions (like the "function orders must always happen in exactly this order" thing) that no prominent authors on the topic really support.

    It feels to me like you're criticizing some of the ideas based on misinformation about how they actually work, and then not responding to clarifications to the contrary. It made me a little irritated that I'd just spent time trying to clarify those ideas and you don't seem to have acknowledged them at all.

    On the topic of hostility, asking if ENTPs have original thought doesn't come off as a little hostile to you? Sure we do, just like anybody, but I was trying to clarify what I see as misinterpretations on your part of the authors you're critiquing.

    Anyway...I really would like to discuss this with you and I'll try to refrain from sounding hostile. My apologies.


    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    I'm confused because then you say this:

    So, is function order important to typology or not? If so, then an INTJ is an Ni dom, end of story. If not, then an INTJ can have Te as a stronger preference, but still exhibit the traits of an INTJ.
    It's primarily the dominant function that matters. The concepts involved in profiles and functions are tied together closely enough that being dominant in an extroverted function precludes being an introvert, by definition...so if somebody shows the characteristics of an INTJ, that means by definition that he's Ni dominant, yes, but it doesn't necessitate that his other functions fall into a particular order.

    The dominant is separated from the others because it has so much more influence on our perspectives. You can change around the order of the secondary/teritary/inferior and even throw in shadow functions without changing the type, but if you change the dominant function then you're talking about a different type entirely. The dominant really is just that--very dominant. It's the only function that's necessitated by a type category because it's so much more influential on our perspectives than the others.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    Then we have the whole issue of whether functions can even stand alone to begin with. Can a perceiving function truly be independent of the judging function it is filtered through? If not, then you would be defined by at least 2 functions used in tandem, say Ne and Ti, for instance. And in some instances, you would prefer to lead with Ti and in others Ne, correct? Why does this have to be a zero-sum, all or nothing equation?
    Personally, I think all actions/beliefs/thoughts are the result of numerous functions working in concert...but I think you can also observe a clear dominant attitude in everyone. The only real constant here is the dominant function. In some instances you might pay more attention to Ti's influence than Ne's, but everything gets filtered through the dominant attitude's lens to a much greater degree than most people realize.

    I don't think it's an all or nothing equation. I just think the dominant function is the most crucial part of typology and that changing it moves the person in question into a different category. The rest of the functions will come in varying orders depending on how that particular person has developed, but the function orders for each type suggested in the literature aren't meant to be proscriptive; they simply represent theoretical ideals of balance.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #154
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    I'm confused because then you say this:



    So, is function order important to typology or not? If so, then an INTJ is an Ni dom, end of story. If not, then an INTJ can have Te as a stronger preference, but still exhibit the traits of an INTJ.
    Briefly recapping theory for my own entertainment:

    I'm led to believe function order is important, at least inasmuch as the dominant is the dominant. The person will organise their life such that the demands of the dominant function are privileged. They will tend to ignore demands that reduce the freedom of the dominant function. And why? Well, because it is their preferred method for operating their brain and associated systems. And do they get to change their preference? It would seem not. It would seem that to change ones preference is to destroy ones personality. Why? How does "preference" get to be such a determinant? Only the evolutionary and cognitive biologists know?

    Circumstances may screw with people, however, and force the development of skills more obviously associated with other functions. But their function order stays the same, and they are unhappy or stressed a lot of the time.

    And while the dominant is the dominant, presumably just on a survival of the fittest idea the dominant isn't enough, and adaptive advantage says one kind of auxiliary is going to be easier and more effective for the person. So if the dominant is a perceiving function, the auxiliary will be a judging function, and vice versa. And the orientations will be different. If the orientations aren't different and the kind of function isn't different, the person has to use more than usual mental energy to sustain the system.

    And so on down the function order.

    It's not impossible for people to develop uncommon function orders but it would seem they need an unusual environment or a persistent kind of distress to cause it.

    And then again there's the question of telling the difference between actual function order and what skills life has required one to develop. An ENFP, say, in a Te environment may well develop impressive extraverted thinking skills and look like a Ne > Te > Fi person, but is that their function order or their resume?


    How strong a structural force is "preference" anyway? And why? Beats me. Apparently it's really, really strong. I guess.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  5. #155
    Senior Member ObliviousExistence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    loco
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    178

    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.
    fur real? its not my fault that you are neither perceptive or intuitive enough to have grasped my contributions to the topic. Like I said, you sound like a well trained parrot, hence I don't actually expect you to understand anything, how old are you btw? with a name like Visa is a HEro, you can't possibly be older than 12. I have delivered, in fact, for the last couple of posts I've basically been repeating myself, you just have your head stuck up your ass. Its not even something novel, there is a user by the name of technical on intpcentral who also addressed this in detail. Atleast one other person on this thread seems tcomprehends the essence of this thread. You have obviously been been spending a lot of time and energy on this thread and it was obviously not to contribute anything towards the subject. Not a single one of your posts on this thread has been about the subject, I doubt you would have the same courage to trash talk me IRL, so I wont waste time with you.

    Lets see if you have actually been following this thread, whats the difference between myers cognitive functions and jungs function-types? what is the distinction between Jungs idea of perception and judgment and why does he refer to the former as irrational?
    "He was free, free in every way, free to behave like a fool or a machine, free to accept, free to refuse, free to equivocate; to marry, to give up the game, to drag this death weight about with him for years to come. He could do what he liked, no one had the right to advise him, there would be for him no Good or Evil unless he thought them into being." JP Sartre

  6. #156
    Senior Member ObliviousExistence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    loco
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paintmuffin View Post
    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....
    I realise I am in the wrong for attempting to associate two very differnt systems, but I have a hard time undestanding why Myers would take Jungs theories and redefine the meanings of his concepts while still using the same name. To me mbti is like a bastardised raped version of jungs theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    or are you just saying that mbti j/p thing is wrong because jung did this differently and did it first?
    something along those lines.
    "He was free, free in every way, free to behave like a fool or a machine, free to accept, free to refuse, free to equivocate; to marry, to give up the game, to drag this death weight about with him for years to come. He could do what he liked, no one had the right to advise him, there would be for him no Good or Evil unless he thought them into being." JP Sartre

  7. #157
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Sim: I mostly agree with everything you say.

    It just bothers me that, for me, not enough legitimacy is given to the expression of the non-preferred functions as it regards perceiving and judging. I understand that Lenore and others say you can use all functions when needed, but that is not really good enough. There is a subtle, yet real, difference in saying, "Yeah, sure, an Ni dom uses Si sometimes; not often, because he would naturally default to his primary comfort zone using Ni, but, sure, as often as any other INTJ, give or take life circumstances, or stressors." While I am saying this: "An Ni dom might have inherited quite an inclination for S and N from both parents, and while Ni is dom, S (I think it gets converted into the dom attitude, so in this case Si vs. Se) shares some of Ni's dedication for perceiving; not just using Si occasionally, but perhaps quite often, as a part of his overall mind cognition." Or what if someone's parents were both strong N? Wouldn't the child of those two be more likely to have better usage of Ni and Ne? What would this person look like? How would he be different? Why?

    You spoke about being balanced, and using the typical order to be a balanced person. I agree with that. But I would stop at calling out specific functions that would apply to, and just go with a person needing to balance out the attitudes of those functions. It's obvious a person needs introversion to be balanced with extraversion, and perceiving to be balanced with judging, etc. Until a person knows their predeliction for their own personal amounts of N/S and T/F, there can't really be a formula put to it, imo.

    You're the knowledge whore (and i say that with utmost affection and respect ), has anyone looked into effects of genetics on personality type? After all, our personality stems from our genes, which comes from our parents, just like our physical characteristics stem from our genes and DNA> That's what I was trying to get at before when I used the phrase 'all or nothing.' If we have inherited a nearly equal amount of N and S, yet N shows dominance, S is still very much there, it's just masked. Yet because we don't really see it easily, we can assume we are much more N than we really are. Kind of like a brown eyed person can still carry a gene for green eyes. Yet with personality, I'm not sure that the recessive side would be obscured in the person. Would it manifest in prominent ways, or lie dormant in that person, only to be passed along in that person's DNA? I'm guessing it manifests somehow, but I don't know to what degree that would be so. And I'm interested in knowing what's behind the scenes, so to speak; getting more specifically down to what makes us us.
    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. #158
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Sim: I mostly agree with everything you say.

    It just bothers me that, for me, not enough legitimacy is given to the expression of the non-preferred functions as it regards perceiving and judging. I understand that Lenore and others say you can use all functions when needed, but that is not really good enough. There is a subtle, yet real, difference in saying, "Yeah, sure, an Ni dom uses Si sometimes; not often, because he would naturally default to his primary comfort zone using Ni, but, sure, as often as any other INTJ, give or take life circumstances, or stressors." While I am saying this: "An Ni dom might have inherited quite an inclination for S and N from both parents, and while Ni is dom, S (I think it gets converted into the dom attitude, so in this case Si vs. Se) shares some of Ni's dedication for perceiving; not just using Si occasionally, but perhaps quite often, as a part of his overall mind cognition." Or what if someone's parents were both strong N? Wouldn't the child of those two be more likely to have better usage of Ni and Ne? What would this person look like? How would he be different? Why?

    You spoke about being balanced, and using the typical order to be a balanced person. I agree with that. But I would stop at calling out specific functions that would apply to, and just go with a person needing to balance out the attitudes of those functions. It's obvious a person needs introversion to be balanced with extraversion, and perceiving to be balanced with judging, etc. Until a person knows their predeliction for their own personal amounts of N/S and T/F, there can't really be a formula put to it, imo.

    You're the knowledge whore (and i say that with utmost affection and respect ), has anyone looked into effects of genetics on personality type? After all, our personality stems from our genes, which comes from our parents, just like our physical characteristics stem from our genes and DNA> That's what I was trying to get at before when I used the phrase all or nothing. If we have inherited a nearly equal amount of N and S, yet N shows dominance, S is still very much there, it's just masked. Yet because we don't really see it easily, we can assume we are much more N than we really are. Kind of like a brown eyed person can still carry a gene for green eyes. Yet with personality, I'm not sure that the recessive side would be obscured in the person. Would it manifest in prominent ways, or lie dormant in that person, only to be passed along in that person's DNA? I'm guessing it manifests somehow, but I don't know to what degree that would be so. And I'm interested in knowing what's behind the scenes, so to speak; getting more specifically down to what makes us us?
    What if we are born with all 8 functions, but since our brain is organic, some of them get burnt out. This would be the equivalent of over powering a transistor and burning out a direct path. What if an over current type of theory tends to deaden parts of our functions and we have to access them in a round about way. So while they are still part of us and affect us the direct path has been seared. Possibly from pain, etc. Like a desensitization.
    Im out, its been fun

  9. #159
    @.~*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 ObliviousExistence View Post
    I realise I am in the wrong for attempting to associate two very differnt systems, but I have a hard time undestanding why Myers would take Jungs theories and redefine the meanings of his concepts while still using the same name. To me mbti is like a bastardised raped version of jungs theories.
    I think that stuff sort of happens all the time, in many different disciplines. So I try not to get caught up emotionally when things like that happen, it's just how it works.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    You're the knowledge whore (and i say that with utmost affection and respect ), has anyone looked into effects of genetics on personality type? After all, our personality stems from our genes, which comes from our parents, just like our physical characteristics stem from our genes and DNA> That's what I was trying to get at before when I used the phrase all or nothing. If we have inherited a nearly equal amount of N and S, yet N shows dominance, S is still very much there, it's just masked. Yet because we don't really see it easily, we can assume we are much more N than we really are. Kind of like a brown eyed person can still carry a gene for green eyes. Yet with personality, I'm not sure that the recessive side would be obscured in the person. Would it manifest in prominent ways, or lie dormant in that person, only to be passed along in that person's DNA? I'm guessing it manifests somehow, but I don't know to what degree that would be so. And I'm interested in knowing what's behind the scenes, so to speak; getting more specifically down to what makes us us?
    There is no real known gene for a particular traits... and the real consensus is that an organism and its behavior is an interactive process between a variety of factors (genetics, physiology, environment, upbringing, social pressures, etc.)

    There is some correlation between neural patterns and introversion/extroversion (it seems based on neural stimulation/wiring, which results from genetics and how the neural system develops early on)... but what you seem to be asking for seems far more complicated than even a "gay gene" concept... which has never been shown to exist. There have been isolation of some combinations for a handful of traits, but it's hard for it to be descriptive except in the grossest sense (i.e., "these people who show <this behavior> have a larger brain structure or gene combo than these other people who do not as often show that pattern of behavior")... but it's very very hard to tell what is derived directly from something else. There are just way too many factors involved.

    These personality theories seem to be done in the reverse. Behavior is analyzed, theories are made based on the behaviors, then people try to tie it back to biology in some way... which seems to have perils of its own.
    "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. #160
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    I think we are born with all cognitive functions (and who knows, there might be more than 8). It's just that some would be dominant and some recessive, just like everything else we inherent from our parents.
    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