User Tag List

First 789101119 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 214

  1. #81
    @.~*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
    you see dat dere does not make any sense, you first say Myers extrapolated her own system from some of Jung's ideas then you say her ideas PREDATED jungs published work? how is that possible?
    Everything's right there in that paragraph:

    • She had her own ideas first. (1917)
    • Later, Jung published his (1921) and she saw them after 1923 or so.
    • She realized the similarity between his and her ideas and basically made a mix of the two.


    Make sense ?

    .. and, honestly, this stuff happens all the time in the world of ideas.

    sorry, but Isable Myers is a nobody who owes her fame to Jungs works, you can't compare the two that just retarded.
    You're allowed to have an opinion, I suppose, regardless of how purposefully (mis)informed it might be.

    case in what point, you haven't proven anything.
    Sorry, but the speed of light is a nobody who owes its fame to the power of chocolate, you can't compare the two that just <well, you know!>.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanook
    however i just don't believe that briggs had any ideas at all, that are similar to cognitive functions, before jung. i bet all she had were observations of skills and behavior.
    quite probable, based on the quote you have repeated from my post above plus the part that you did not quote:

    Upon meeting her future son-in-law, she observed marked differences between his personality and that of other family members. Briggs embarked on a project of reading biographies, and she developed a typology based on patterns she found.
    Looks to me like she took an external behavioral approach (outside in), not a theoretical (inside-out) approach. She then realized that the cog functions meshed decently with her observations.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #82
    Senior Member ObliviousExistence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    loco
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    No, I never once said that. I gave you a simple and self-depreciating analogy to explain why some systems survive better than others, hoping you would derive the obvious conclusion- that they do so because they work better than the alternatives. Clearly, I expected too much of you.
    your analogy was not applicable to the current situation. you can't compare a testable system to a pseudo-science theory, in psychology a theory only needs to be widely accepted as true for it to become mainstream, hence based on subjectivity and not objectivitity.



    It's all relative, subjective and depends on the context. I wouldn't be quick to judge.
    its actually not, how can you compare a giant like Jung to a nobody like Myers?? do you even know the extent of Jungs work? I doubt it.



    You cannot put a numerical value to a non-constant, and even if you could- you're missing the point entirely. In case you need me to spell it out for you, the statement that the joke is referencing DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
    Why was it a "non-constant"??

    Please explain why that statement does not make any sense?
    Last edited by ObliviousExistence; 02-25-2010 at 08:39 AM.

  3. #83

    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 is because the four letter code adresses archetypes. its not something you can define as you wish. you can not. perceivers and judgers existed before anyone had discovered and labeled them. its only that some are unaware of their or anyone's archetypes (because the have no perceptive skills), but possibly aware of their functions, so they identify with the false function order and fake their archetype, meaning their 4letter dichotomy results. they cant fake their cognition though. nor their behavior. nor their enneagram types. so J-dominant people will always be "Judgers" in all dimensions but that of make-believe. you can not create reality by creating a theory. you just don't realize it, because you have never met reality. as jung points out, you stop at thinking.
    This is an interesting perspective and something genuinely worth discussing.

    I used to think that I was an ESTP, for example, because I didn't like how much the ENTP was about being a "lawyer-type" and the ESTP just seemed cooler with better taste and flair.

    I also vehemently wanted to believe that I was an S type despite being Ne-dominant since childhood, because of how the questions were phrased- "do you prefer theory or practice?"... To me theory sounded like sitting in a classroom and studying, in which case I'd much rather be out and about getting things done- but I most definitely theorize heavily along the way... that sort of thing. It was only much later until I truly realised what the N/S divide was all about, and even later that I learned what functions actually were. When I learned about Ne, and Ti... everything just clicked perfectly into place.

    On to what you have said- I believe what you're trying to say is that everyone is as they are and that you can only truly derive your type through intense and accurate perception? I agree with you there. I do have a slight issue about what I have bolded in your quote- because I don't believe that theories are created from scratch or out of thin air; they're often based on reality. I don't attempt to create reality when I theorize, for example- I attempt to interpret it.

    Also, is the line between thinking and reality really such an impervious fence? Personally, I think it's more of a grey area and the two do bleed into one another- reality influences thinking, and thinking influences 'reality'. The simple reason for this lies in the fact that all of 'reality' as we know it is simply what we perceive of it, and we all know that we routinely face errors of perception.

    Even if the perception were perfect (which we know it cannot be), our subsequent analysis of it might be flawed. Ultimately, reality itself isn't as concrete as we would like it to be- or rather, the CONCRETE reality that you are talking about cannot truly be accessed by humanity (although you could argue that we are getting closer to it, and I would be inclined to agree).

    Which brings me to my next point- if you really, really idealized an archetype, and you focused all your energy on developing the functions that you desire, is it not possible for your type to morph? I can totally imagine myself turning into an INTP in my old age.

    I've just thrown out some random ideas here (all Ne, not very much Ti) so feel free to poke holes in them for the sake of discussion!
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  4. #84

    Default

    ObliviousExistence:

    You are obviously not interested in anything I have to say- but I cannot fault you, as you are obviously far superior to in all realms of the human condition. I concede defeat to your overwhelming wit, intellect and grace, and bow my head in your awe-inspiring presence. Please, do not allow your greatness to be tarred by the petty banter of ignorant and insignificant minds like mine. May you have lots of vigorous sexual intercourse with multiple attractive individuals of your preference, and may the glory of your name and deeds echo across the universe.

    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  5. #85
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    typing biographies is almost impossible. also it will never lead you to an understanding of how the mind works, and before you have that understandig you do not have any insight (patterns) that you could apply to biographies, so all your observations about them are confirmations of your own prejudices. by prejudices i mean the external view on behavior that lacks understanding of the character of internal cause and effect. of course this external view consists of patterns too, but they are hardly related to the kind of "characteristic" cognition that typology is about and they are related to 2 million other factors. autobiographies are a different story, of course. any writing can help to gain some true theory of mind about the author of the writing. however the observation of neurotic fights or rants is the very best source of insight. and that is what carl jung observed day in day out.

  6. #86
    Senior Member ObliviousExistence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    loco
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    ObliviousExistence:

    You are obviously not interested in anything I have to say- but I cannot fault you, as you are obviously far superior to in all realms of the human condition. I concede defeat to your overwhelming wit, intellect and grace, and bow my head in your awe-inspiring presence. Please, do not allow your greatness to be tarred by the petty banter of ignorant and insignificant minds like mine. May you have lots of vigorous sexual intercourse with multiple attractive individuals of your preference, and may the glory of your name and deeds echo across the universe.

    Shalom, go in peace son. May you also be fortunate and have many bouts of vigorous sexual intercourse and deflower and conquer many beautiful women.

  7. #87
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanook
    typing biographies is almost impossible... autobiographies are a different story, of course. any writing can help to gain some true theory of mind about the author of the writing.
    I agree -- out of the two, autobiographies are far more preferred... and with biographies you're getting a lot of prefiltered information/perspective (i.e., the mind of the biographer is muddying the waters).

    however the observation of neurotic fights or rants is the very best source of insight. and that is what carl jung observed day in day out.
    Yup, and it's better in general to observe behavior first-hand, in context. Rant/Breakdown points do reveal the stresspoints in the personality, which can be helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    ObliviousExistence:

    You are obviously not interested in anything I have to say- but I cannot fault you, as you are obviously far superior to in all realms of the human condition. I concede defeat to your overwhelming wit, intellect and grace, and bow my head in your awe-inspiring presence. Please, do not allow your greatness to be tarred by the petty banter of ignorant and insignificant minds like mine. May you have lots of vigorous sexual intercourse with multiple attractive individuals of your preference, and may the glory of your name and deeds echo across the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ObliviousExistence View Post
    Shalom, go in peace son. May you also be fortunate and have many bouts of vigorous sexual intercourse and deflower and conquer many beautiful women.

    Okay, this is a Jungian thread, not a Freudian one.
    "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

  8. #88

    Default

    ^personally I think the more sources the merrier! In a funny way, it's sort of like having a relationship with someone- you think you like a person, but you don't know for sure until you see them at their worst, for example
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  9. #89
    Senior Member ObliviousExistence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    loco
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    178

    Default

    I quit this thread. You fellas can go ahead and trash it.

  10. #90

    Default

    I hereby rename this thread Duke Nukem Forever; Chinese Democracy 2
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.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