User Tag List

First 101819202122 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 214

  1. #191
    Senior Member Heart&Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    218

    Default

    It's been a while since I've read anything about it, but researcher Helen Fisher has linked four temperaments to four hormones.

    Her four temperaments seems translatable to Keirsey's four groups, but apparently she doesn't mention neither him, Jung or MBTI.


    From Wikipedia:

    Fisher distinguishes between four personality types each of which she associates with a body chemical. The corresponding Platonic term - as Fisher identified the types herself - and the resulting corresponding Keirsey temperament (according to the speculation of some readers, not Fisher herself) can be seen in parentheses. However, Fisher's system allows for 12 combinations, not 16 types like Keirsey, meaning that there cannot be a perfect correspondence between them:

    * explorer (artistic, Artisan temperament, orange) - dopamine
    * negotiator (intuitive, Idealist temperament, blue) - estrogen
    * director (reasoning, Rational temperament, green) - testosterone
    * builder (sensible, Guardian temperament, gold) - serotonin.

  2. #192
    Senior Member Heart&Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Relationship-wise Helen Fisher has found that Builders (SJ) mate well with other Builders and Explorers (SP) with other Explorers, while Negotiators (NF) and Directors (NT) apparently are the best mates for each other. Have we heard that somewhere before?

  3. #193
    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 Jaguar View Post
    I don't agree with that statement.
    It certainly isn't something an intuitive person would say.
    Personally, I figured it wasn't something an intuitive person would take literally. I kinda figured an intuitive person would, you know, intuit that it's a theoretical exaggeration for the purpose of illustrating a point, and that it's clearly not meant to be taken literally.

    But what do I know?


    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I think they aren't looking at it the right way. I think they are building fledgling theories on faulty foundations. I think they are missing pertinent data.
    How should we go about collecting the missing data?

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Definition of attitude:

    An attitude is a hypothetical construct that represents an individual's degree of like or dislike for an item. Attitudes are generally positive or negative views of a person, place, thing, or event-- this is often referred to as the attitude object. People can also be conflicted or ambivalent toward an object, meaning that they simultaneously possess both positive and negative attitudes toward the item in question.
    Attitudes are judgments. They develop on the ABC model (affect, behavior, and cognition). The affective response is an emotional response that expresses an individual's degree of preference for an entity. The behavioral intention is a verbal indication or typical behavioral tendency of an individual. The cognitive response is a cognitive evaluation of the entity that constitutes an individual's beliefs about the object. Most attitudes are the result of either direct experience or observational learning from the environment.

    I think it's subconsciously, not consciously done. I think the brain CAN handle it, and I don't believe it's an uncomfortable judgmental process like you do.
    Quote Originally Posted by dictionary.com definition of "attitude"
    –noun
    1.
    manner, disposition, feeling, position, etc., with regard to a person or thing; tendency or orientation, esp. of the mind: a negative attitude; group attitudes.
    The word "attitude" is used in the bolded sense here. An attitude need not necessarily imply a judgment, except in the sense that people with any given attitude tend to believe it superior to opposing attitudes.

    So I guess in this way, an orientation of the mind toward Ne would in a way constitute an unconscious judgment that Ne is the most effective method of perception, but that's not really using the word "judgment" in the same context that typology authors use it.

    Anyway, the point is you don't really use functions in the sense that word would seem to imply--you are simply driven by functions toward unconscious preferences for certain types of attitudes over others. "Using Se" means seeing the world from an Se perspective--which entails a number of perceptual tendencies significantly more involved than "I looked up and saw something."

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I don't understand what you are saying here.
    Your qualms with functional theory presume that every time you perform any action you are "using" a particular function--that every action is "performed by" a certain function. "I remembered something? I used Si! I organized my living room? I used Te! I told someone how I feel? I used Fi!"

    Unfortunately this is a really oversimplified way of looking at functions. It simply picks actions that people with those functions commonly perform and then assumes that every time we do those things, we are "using" those functions.

    But that is not consistent with what any of the prevailing theories actually say a cognitive function is:

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia on "Jungian Cognitive Functions"
    Jung also posited that the functions formed a hierarchy within a person's personality...These models do not claim that people are only capable of applying the function in question in that attitude, but rather that operating in the opposite attitude requires the expenditure of "energy" (or rather, emotional resources, enthusiasm, and so on) whilst operating in the person's natural attitude replenishes that same energy.
    There's where we get the stressful circumstances idea--because using a non-preferred functional attitude isn't just performing some other meaningless task; it's actually changing the way you interpret the situation and your relationship to it. Obviously, everyone finds patterns, changes perspectives, remembers things, and notices things around him; everyone has values, builds some mental frameworks, gets things organized, and blends in with his culture.

    So you realize this and you think, "Gosh, the current function models are awfully flawed! I can do all of those things easily and without stressing out! Those silly typology authors must think everyone is awfully incompetent!"

    Don't you think the authors of these theories realize that everyone is easily capable of performing the above listed actions? Don't you think you might be missing something about what "using a function" actually means, since you've "discovered" such obvious glaring holes in the theory that you think have somehow eluded everyone who's written on the topic?

    Here's an Ni-ish suggestion to keep you occupied: Consider that it's not the theory that has a problem, but the way you're looking at it. (Of course, changing your perspective on this isn't "using Ni"--Ni is just an attitude that would you encourage you to be aware of numerous conceptual interpretations.)

    Cognitive function theory is not interested in what people do; it's interested in why they do it. Functions represent cognitive tendencies that lead people to adopt certain types of values by interpreting and organizing information from different perspectives. "Using" a function means interpreting the world and your relationship to it from the perspective of the associated attitude.

    I want to know where you came up with the idea that "using a function" means "performing x action." It's just not that simple. Of course you find patterns, change perspectives, remember things, notices things around you, have personal values, build some mental frameworks, get things organized, and blend in with your culture--duh. None of those things represent "using" any functions...your functional makeup is determined by why you did them, what perspectives led you to perceive and judge the way you do.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #194
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Personally, I figured it wasn't something an intuitive person would take literally. I kinda figured an intuitive person would, you know, intuit that it's a theoretical exaggeration for the purpose of illustrating a point, and that it's clearly not meant to be taken literally.
    If you continue to twist other people's words, Sim, while exhibiting no regard for the truth,
    you will receive the same amount of respect as Pee Wee Herman jerking off in a movie theater.

    Like I said elsewhere, if all we had for a source of information was Lenore's book, I would never choose ENTJ as my type.
    Get it through your head, you can't just read one book-one person's perspective- and think you know all.

    I'm tired of you ripping off Lenore Thomson's thoughts, and passing them off as your own.
    Worse still, is thinking that Lenore Thomson has the last word when it comes to anything involving typology.

    Man up.
    Learn to think for yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    But what do I know?
    Not much.

  5. #195
    Senior Member paintmuffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    eNTP
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heart&Brain View Post
    * director (reasoning, Rational temperament, green) - testosterone
    if testosterone facilitates logical reasoning, everything I thought I knew about biology is wrong.
    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.

  6. #196
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    No biggie, aga...you guys were just focused on that interaction for awhile.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    ... Then nurture has something to do with it as well. I am not aware if any personality guru has stated that, or studied that at all. Are you? I don't know about tying back to biology. I believe it stems from biology, but the only way we can get close to testing that now (unless there is some genetic tests I don't know about) is to study behavior as it relates to cognitive functions.
    I can't really speak from a "personality" perspective as much as just science.

    A lot of my early reading in life, environment was credited with a great deal, so that seemed to be the synopsis to me and I believed much behavior was learned.

    Starting in the mid-80's, though, I began to realize there had been a big shift in the science community toward embrace the impact of biology and realizing that human beings were not blank slates. The research had also shifted more in that direction, and we were beginning to sequence species' DNA, etc; the tech/science improves gave us the ability to really start exploring how much all levels of biology might be involved.

    Naturally, my thinking then shifted more into exploring a biological basis for many things, and that was the sort of writing that began to dominate in the industry. I have always felt that both nature and nurture worked in tandem but had a large swing into the "nature" territory. Not to an extreme but probably seeing it in some ways as larger.

    In the last few years, however, I've had that belief challenged by books I've read. (It shows the importance when it comes to science in reading reading reading...!) Right now I'm trying to get through "Sexing the Body" by Anne Fausto Sterling, and realizing it still is not clear-cut and nurture has more impact on bio than I was giving it, and some of the claims I had believed might not be necessarily true. So I need to remain open and keep reading... because if there's one thing I hate, it's having wrong information or building wrong conclusions because my information was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by paintmuffin View Post
    if testosterone facilitates logical reasoning, everything I thought I knew about biology is wrong.
    I am thinking (and hoping) she meant something more than that, since such a broad and shallow connection seems ridiculous to common-sense readers. It's worth seeing and understand the basis by which she categorized her types before drawing conclusions like this.
    "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

  7. #197
    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


    How should we go about collecting the missing data?
    Well, the first step is to realize we can only conjecture so far. And we've gone far beyond what we should have done already. Unless the gurus looked at large numbers of n that I don't know about (which could be possible) and drew conclusions for their function conceptual models from that, they shouldn't really have wasted so much time on all that. Once you hypothesize something, you need to start collecting data, lots of data, to support your hypothesis. Then see how your hypothesis falls out. You know all this.

    My only idea right now is to develop more comprehensive, innovative functions tests. To do for functions what MBTI is doing with archetypes with their Step I and Step II and Step III. Combining functions tests with demographic data could eventually lead to some pattern recognition. And with pattern recognition would come archetypes. Like, for example, an INTJ that prefers Ni/Te/Fe vs over an INTJ that prefers Ni/Te/Fi. We could guess how these two might look differently, but we can't know without really looking to people irl.






    Anyway, the point is you don't really use functions in the sense that word would seem to imply--you are simply driven by functions toward unconscious preferences for certain types of attitudes over others. "Using Se" means seeing the world from an Se perspective--which entails a number of perceptual tendencies significantly more involved than "I looked up and saw something."
    Totally agree.


    Your qualms with functional theory presume that every time you perform any action you are "using" a particular function--that every action is "performed by" a certain function. "I remembered something? I used Si! I organized my living room? I used Te! I told someone how I feel? I used Fi!"

    Unfortunately this is a really oversimplified way of looking at functions. It simply picks actions that people with those functions commonly perform and then assumes that every time we do those things, we are "using" those functions.
    I think of cognitive functions at this point in time for myself as an umbrella of preferences and experiences; the Mind. Some types of situations and thinking fall under one part of the umbrella and others fall under another part of the umbrella.

    But that is not consistent with what any of the prevailing theories actually say a cognitive function is:


    Originally Posted by wikipedia on "Jungian Cognitive Functions"
    Jung also posited that the functions formed a hierarchy within a person's personality...These models do not claim that people are only capable of applying the function in question in that attitude, but rather that operating in the opposite attitude requires the expenditure of "energy" (or rather, emotional resources, enthusiasm, and so on) whilst operating in the person's natural attitude replenishes that same energy.


    There's where we get the stressful circumstances idea--because using a non-preferred functional attitude isn't just performing some other meaningless task; it's actually changing the way you interpret the situation and your relationship to it. Obviously, everyone finds patterns, changes perspectives, remembers things, and notices things around him; everyone has values, builds some mental frameworks, gets things organized, and blends in with his culture.
    But what I'm saying that's evidently different than what others are saying is this: We can carry with us, all to a unique degree, cognitive functions that work in combination with each other, but that might be masked or behind the scenes from our majority functions. So, that if a person carries some Ni and Si inherently, from a genetic basis, that person will exist in the "replenish energy" realm, until he exceeds his innate ability with that function, and thereby enters more of an "expend energy" realm. My understanding is that Jung and others only ascribed a function heirarchy for a few set functions.

    But consider the flip side of this. A person might have a more limited preferred cognitive function than even Jung realized, because they might carry a masked (NINJA) function with them, so we could have been assuming an INTJ would have a lot more Ni than he really might have had "energy replenishing" access to because it might share the roll with a masked (non-preferred) Si or even Ne. Capiche?

    So you realize this and you think, "Gosh, the current function models are awfully flawed! I can do all of those things easily and without stressing out! Those silly typology authors must think everyone is awfully incompetent!"

    Don't you think the authors of these theories realize that everyone is easily capable of performing the above listed actions? Don't you think you might be missing something about what "using a function" actually means, since you've "discovered" such obvious glaring holes in the theory that you think have somehow eluded everyone who's written on the topic?
    I know. It's incredibly ballsy, isn't it? Ni makes me ballsy, I'm Ni's bitch. What's your point here?

    Here's an Ni-ish suggestion to keep you occupied: Consider that it's not the theory that has a problem, but the way you're looking at it. (Of course, changing your perspective on this isn't "using Ni"--Ni is just an attitude that would you encourage you to be aware of numerous conceptual interpretations.)

    Cognitive function theory is not interested in what people do; it's interested in why they do it. Functions represent cognitive tendencies that lead people to adopt certain types of values by interpreting and organizing information from different perspectives. "Using" a function means interpreting the world and your relationship to it from the perspective of the associated attitude.

    I want to know where you came up with the idea that "using a function" means "performing x action." It's just not that simple. Of course you find patterns, change perspectives, remember things, notices things around you, have personal values, build some mental frameworks, get things organized, and blend in with your culture--duh. None of those things represent "using" any functions...your functional makeup is determined by why you did them, what perspectives led you to perceive and judge the way you do.
    I'm not really following you here. As I understand it, we perceive and we judge. Our Mind uses cognitive functions in a preferential way to do this. My beef all along with function theory has been that we might have good usage of functions that are non-preferred, or masked, yet not necessarily undifferentiated or unused, although those undoubtedly exist in the inexperienced person.
    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. #198
    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
    Well, the first step is to realize we can only conjecture so far. And we've gone far beyond what we should have done already. Unless the gurus looked at large numbers of n that I don't know about (which could be possible) and drew conclusions for their function conceptual models from that, they shouldn't really have wasted so much time on all that. Once you hypothesize something, you need to start collecting data, lots of data, to support your hypothesis. Then see how your hypothesis falls out. You know all this.
    Typology itself is pure conjecture. It can't be tested because Jung's ideas of cognitive functions are just arbitrary, subjective interpretations of biological processes we don't yet have the science to understand fully.

    If you want to test the nature of cognition, you need to go study psychology and make some significant advances in brain scanning and neurological imaging techniques. The inherently subjective, nebulous nature of functional theory makes it impossible to pin down empirically or test accurately, ever. You're not going to get accurate tests about psychological type until science advances far enough to render Jung's theories totally obsolete anyway.

    So trying to test an untestable idea based purely on philosophical conjecture is a waste of time. The only way to collect data on this topic is to study the values of others in relation to your own, talk to others about it and try to make sense of it for yourself. This can't be translated into externally objective terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    My only idea right now is to develop more comprehensive, innovative functions tests. To do for functions what MBTI is doing with archetypes with their Step I and Step II and Step III. Combining functions tests with demographic data could eventually lead to some pattern recognition. And with pattern recognition would come archetypes. Like, for example, an INTJ that prefers Ni/Te/Fe vs over an INTJ that prefers Ni/Te/Fi. We could guess how these two might look differently, but we can't know without really looking to people irl.
    How do you plan to deal with the fact that no question you write can ever be shown to accurately represent any real functional attitudes? You might design a question thinking, "Ok, if he answers this way then that's a point for Fi, but if he answers that way it's a point for Ti instead!"

    The problem? You have no idea if Ti people will actually choose the answer you arbitrarily decided represents Ti. This (along with the myriad problems with self-report evaluation) is why you'll never be able to build a working test for Jungian functions. The concepts themselves are too abstract and subjective to be accurately measurable.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Totally agree.
    Really? So...you don't think "I saw a pattern" indicates Ne use, either? Perhaps you could explain why you believe you "use Ne" frequently and effortlessly, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I think of cognitive functions at this point in time for myself as an umbrella of preferences and experiences; the Mind. Some types of situations and thinking fall under one part of the umbrella and others fall under another part of the umbrella.
    That's not a bad analogy. But over a period of years, getting into the habit of listening to one part of the umbrella builds up psychological resistance to listening to certain other parts of the umbrella that conflict with it. This is why Jung described the shadow functions as "suppressed" parts of our consciousness...their influence shows up sometimes, but we can't just run along merrily swapping between wholly contradictory attitudes on ourselves, the universe and all the relationships therein whenever we feel like it and utilize both conflicting attitudes with equal efficacy. Simply by listening to some functions more often than others, the mind builds up significant barriers against the non-preferred forms of cognition. You don't just flip a switch and totally invert your entire worldview at will. The human mind simply doesn't work that way.

    Your claim that you use all functions frequently and easily is like claiming that you switch between theism and atheism all the time. Functions represent deeply ingrained patterns in the way we conceptualize humanity, life, meaning, purpose, the nature of the universe and cognition itself--you don't just swap to an attitude that contradicts your preferred one and back hundreds of times per day. To claim that you do is to pretend that you are wholly immune to the effects of perceptual bias, which is awfully arrogant (and, incidentally, a typical Ni-dominant mistake.)

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    But what I'm saying that's evidently different than what others are saying is this: We can carry with us, all to a unique degree, cognitive functions that work in combination with each other, but that might be masked or behind the scenes from our majority functions. So, that if a person carries some Ni and Si inherently, from a genetic basis, that person will exist in the "replenish energy" realm, until he exceeds his innate ability with that function, and thereby enters more of an "expend energy" realm. My understanding is that Jung and others only ascribed a function heirarchy for a few set functions.
    Jung defined the functions such that each individual will prefer one orientation for each one, and have difficulty operating from the other orientations because they require him to break from his normally preferred perspective.

    Seeing the world from all eight functional attitudes with perfect ease all the time would require extraordinary perceptual flexibility and near total immunity to any perceptual bias at all. It's simply unrealistic. (Of course, overconfidence in one's ability to see every perspective and remove oneself from perceptual bias is in itself typical of Ni doms!)

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    But consider the flip side of this. A person might have a more limited preferred cognitive function than even Jung realized, because they might carry a masked (NINJA) function with them, so we could have been assuming an INTJ would have a lot more Ni than he really might have had "energy replenishing" access to because it might share the roll with a masked (non-preferred) Si or even Ne. Capiche?
    While I can't rule this out entirely, it doesn't really make much sense because this "masked ninja function" would contradict one or more of the INTJ's preferred attitudes and therefore require a difficult perceptual shift to access. It would not just pop up whenever convenient and constantly offer pertinent and well-reasoned advice.

    Ni and Si are not mutually exclusive, but they do clash with each other's approaches enough that breaking out of the preference for whichever one you prefer and trusting the other one is difficult to do and requires expending a lot more energy.

    You see, Ni and Si don't just represent different types of mental tasks; they represent fundamentally different approaches to cognition that can't operate simultaneously. You have to tune one out to listen to the other because they lead you in opposite directions regarding how to interpret meaning.

    Ni: "I won't commit to one particular way of interpreting things because that limits my perspective--I want to avoid this kind of bias at all costs."
    Si: "Of course I'm biased toward a particular way of interpreting meaning--based on what I've experienced and discovered before. Anything less would leave me at the mercy of an inherently chaotic and unpredictable universe!"

    You think the eight functions just run along acting in completely different realms and you don't see any reason any function should preclude any other function from operating simultaneously--this is the biggest problem with your approach. There is so much more conflict between opposing function attitudes than you seem to realize.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I know. It's incredibly ballsy, isn't it? Ni makes me ballsy, I'm Ni's bitch. What's your point here?
    Ever notice how every type is overconfident in his own dominant function? Ever notice, also, how Ni doms often think they see every possible perspective on everything because Ni as an attitude leads you to value seeing all possible perspectives (and to be threatened by the idea that there are any you can't see readily)?

    I think you don't like the idea of there being perspectives out there that you can't directly experience and operate from easily and routinely, because Ni hates the feeling that there's some angle it's unable to see from. I think your attempt to debunk the idea that you have real attitudinal biases stems from dominant Ni's insistence on seeing everything from an outside perspective:

    Quote Originally Posted by LTEW
    Ni: Until I can separate myself from its built-in interpretations and see it from the outside, in terms of a framework that is independent of everything about it, I refuse to relate to it. You can't make me look--at least, not your way.
    The problem is that your lofty goal of completely separating yourself from built-in interpretations is impossible. As a human, you will always have perceptual biases that you can't escape and that's an inescapable fact, uncomfortable though it may be for Ni.

    Look at you, demonstrating this right now--your insistence on deconstructing the system's map and removing your own experiential bias from the picture directly contradicts Si's attitude. Your very insistence on avoiding definitive interpretations of meaning here violates the spirit of Si's worldview.

    It's hard for you to use Si because you have to turn off Ni temporarily to do that!

    Ni: We should try to see every possible angle and avoid committing to one definite interpretation. Having a clearly defined map of meanings limits our perceptive abilities, and is therefore to be avoided.

    as opposed to...

    Si: We should use our stored impressions of past memories and facts to associate all new information with something we already know directly. Having a clearly defined map of meanings is necessary in order to avoid getting lost in the utter chaos of reality.

    But noooo, your dominant Ni is so certain that it's immune to unconscious bias, that it can see every angle, that it sees through the smoke and mirrors to the real meaning, that no perspective is out of reach, that it leads you to arrogant overestimation of your own ability to operate from every possible perspective any human brain can offer. Eventually you just have to accept that some people really do have perspectives that you can't see, understand or utilize easily, no matter how annoying that is to Ni.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I'm not really following you here. As I understand it, we perceive and we judge. Our Mind uses cognitive functions in a preferential way to do this. My beef all along with function theory has been that we might have good usage of functions that are non-preferred, or masked, yet not necessarily undifferentiated or unused, although those undoubtedly exist in the inexperienced person.
    And function theory doesn't really say you can never orient from the perspective of non-preferred attitudes. It just says the non-preferred attitudes are more difficult, less common and much harder to orient from because they require breaking away from the attitudes you've built deeply ingrained preferences for over years and years of life experience.

    The more you get in the habit of orienting by Ni, the harder it is for you to stop doing that and temporarily orient by Si. It can be done, but it's not easy or commonplace, no matter how much you want to believe that your perspective is effortlessly all-encompassing.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #199
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    My only idea right now is to develop more comprehensive, innovative functions tests.
    It was done many years ago.

    Two Jungian analysts named June Singer and Mary Loomis created the Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality. It's current form is the SL-TDI.
    What they did was exactly what I wanted to do - test Jung's assumption that the dichotomies actually existed.

    For example, let's say someone assumes that in order to have highly developed Ni, one must have underdeveloped Se.
    How can they create that illusion? Easy. Forced-choice testing.
    If you are looking for what is true, you don't force someone to make it true.

    How do we find out what is true ? Dismantle the dichotomy and test each function independently.
    By doing it that way, it allows someone to see if in fact the assumption was ever true to begin with.
    What Singer and Loomis found was, the assumption of dichotomies did not hold true.

    If you want to read about Singer and Loomis and the SL-TDI, go here:
    Index

    Also, download this pdf file. Singer-Loomis: The Next Generation of Type.
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...8dC6ah1RITnFxA

    For even more info, Google: Singer Loomis Inventory of Personality.

  10. #200
    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 Jaguar View Post
    It was done many years ago.

    Two Jungian analysts named June Singer and Mary Loomis created the Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality. It's current form is the SL-TDI.
    What they did was exactly what I wanted to do - test Jung's assumption that the dichotomies actually existed.

    For example, let's say someone assumes that in order to have highly developed Ni, one must have underdeveloped Se.
    How can they create that illusion? Easy. Forced-choice testing.
    If you are looking for what is true, you don't force someone to make it true.

    How do we find out what is true ? Dismantle the dichotomy and test each function independently.
    By doing it that way, it allows someone to see if in fact the assumption was ever true to begin with.
    What Singer and Loomis found was, the assumption of dichotomies did not hold true.

    If you want to read about Singer and Loomis and the SL-TDI, go here:
    Index

    Also, download this pdf file. Singer-Loomis: The Next Generation of Type.
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...8dC6ah1RITnFxA

    For even more info, Google: Singer Loomis Inventory of Personality.
    So you have been here/done that with functions, so now you just sit back in your tree and amusedly and watch us scittle around. Thanks for those links. I will read them in their entirety when I have time later.

    I haven't delved deeply but what i saw was they have 'millions' of personality options with which you can identify yourself. So I'm wondering if they've just said, "okay, let's take the 8 cognitive functions (that we know of thus far from Jung and others [there could be more of course] and factor that there can be "8 to the 8th" number of personality profiles in the world, therefore leading to 'millions' of personality types.......? Then they would test with functions tests to get a line up of a person's function usage. Is this where there are at or am I inferring something incorrectly?

    If so, that is helpful in the way that then you would know specifically what your function strenths and weaknesses are. However, being so individualistic isn't helpful when you want to understand others so much. You need archetypes; and information whittled down in order to do that; to ascertain patterns and use those patterns to develop algorithms, and conceptual models. That's why MBTI is so loved by so many; because you can identify with the archetypes, which helps us understand each other better, not just know ourselves.

    That's my feeling anyway. However, I'd LOVE To see their tests. Have you seen their cog functions tests?
    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