User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 104

  1. #71
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Yes, and to me E is the same as having an psychical objective bias and I a psychical subjective bias. So less to do with stimuli and more to do with how we ontologically understand the world.
    So, E/I as objective/subjective. I remember reading this in Jung, and it does correspond better with your interpretation above.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    I don't share their experiences. I understand your disagreement but how well we can utilize a function isn't necessarily related to conscious control. This becomes evident if you take two people together with the same function preferences and ask them to do the same tasks and you will find that they will be better and worse at performing it in various areas.

    Similarly, one can be innately good at something without having to practice it or having control/awareness of what they do. You can also continually engage in activities that forces you to tap into the unconsciousness.
    The highlighted is quite commonplace, but here we are, back to observable behavior again. The person who is better at the observable skill/task might be drawing on entirely different functions to accomplish it. Assuming one could isolate a specific function and show that it is better used by one person vs. another of the same type, that person might simply have made the effort to improve awareness and conscious control of that function. Yes, one can be innately good at something, as in having a natural talent, but without conscious developoment and use, little will come of it. It also seems that our natural functional "abilities" would coincide with our functional preferences, though that may be an unfounded assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Most people do.
    Most people do what? Mistype you?
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  2. #72
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Thank you for implying I cannot think and make my own theories. I could, but what's the point doing it here? By the way, I want to clarify I'm not offended in any way, I just found it mildly humorous you'd write it like that. Also, claiming my research is "meticulous" is also ironic considering that I've hardly read any official material at all about the subjects I wrote about...

    If you want to know, it's more of an old-time joke. I wouldn't try to derive too much meaning in the little titles and sentences like that without knowing the background behind them.

    I honestly think you're more likely FeTi based on these posts from you. I also think you're SiNe. You do the math.

    As for the comment in bold, I think there's a reason why that is - the way I come across is ultimately dispassionate and impersonal. Why is that? Reliance on T-reasoning. If people think you are Fi I think you ought to ask yourself why this is and why people ultimately seem to think you come across like a feeler in text. It suggests that people do not read the tone of your posts as dispassionate and impersonal that we associate with the T function.

    Not because I'm saying that all thinking dominant types must come across as dispassionate and impersonal but T as a function doesn't consider emotional value and to convey emotional value, especially not when describing logic, logical systems and other things pertaining to T as a reasoning process. There are plenty of Fi types who also come across as what you could say, emotional, even though Fi is as a whole more subdued compared to Fe (although Fe dominant types can be pretty cold, too), and I think it's because they rely more on their F reasoning as a whole than T and this is reflected in how people write.
    The part about your own theories just refers to whether you prefer to give weight to outside sources or synthesize everything. Of course Te users will form their own theories, and Ti users will research and obtain outside information; it's a balancing thing, with one kind putting more weight on one side than the other. Just the distinction between the functions; Te prefers primarily induction and Ti is primarily deduction. If you use primarily deduction you will gather information from everywhere, even things written by idiots; if there's one grain of truth in it you can find it and use it as a piece of the puzzle. (Primarily) Inductive thinkers put importance on what is credible and what is not, take all of the facts, and see what conclusion they are pointing to. It's the science versus philosophy approach (not that Te users can't be philosophers and vice versa).

    Well, you certainly come across as having done a lot of research. At least you seem to think about what you read in great detail, which looks the same. If not perhaps you aren't really a Te user and we're both wrong. But I can't presume to know your type better than you do. I just think it's probably more likely you are an emotional thinking type. I haven't really seen much Fi in you. What sorts of feeling judgments do you make?

    I highly doubt I'm ISFJ, but interesting idea.

    I agree with feelers usually having emotion in communication. Actually, I'm a lot more feeling when I write on here than I am in speech. Some people put emotion into their speech all the time. My mom is one of those people. Like they're always emotionally charged with some sort of meaning, whereas thinkers feel neutral most of the time about what they say. I think I actually lean toward the second one. It's hard for me to sound emotional, even when I am. I have a quiet kind of monotone voice, and even when I'm angry what I say and how I say it are very different. It could just be an Aspie thing. So I'm not sure why I put feeling into what I write. I'm not 100% sure I'm not a feeler. I do get frustrated seemingly more often than other thinkers on here. But I've also been through a lot of frustrating interaction.

  3. #73
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Fine, although of course it begs the question what system you are understanding and why you choose to understand it that way.
    I am synthesizing MBTI and JFC, and using my own understanding of how it fits with the world, human functioning, and the underlying principles. I am taking basic premises and making deductions from them. Nothing I think contradicts the original theory of either system as far as I am aware. I'm simply expanding upon it. I think holistically.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Also, claiming my research is "meticulous" is also ironic considering that I've hardly read any official material at all about the subjects I wrote about...
    Then essentially we're doing the same thing? If you've hardly read anything, what gives you the authority to assert things as absolute fact which are just your opinions? It comes across as pedantic and condescending. One person's opinion is as good as another's. Is your opinion exactly the same as Jung's, no more and no less? If so I'd say there's no room for your own theories. If you do have your own, you can't use your own theories (interpretation) to assert that someone else has an incorrect interpretation of something you have read about the same amount on or less.

  4. #74
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    The part about your own theories just refers to whether you prefer to give weight to outside sources or synthesize everything. Of course Te users will form their own theories, and Ti users will research and obtain outside information; it's a balancing thing, with one kind putting more weight on one side than the other. Just the distinction between the functions; Te prefers primarily induction and Ti is primarily deduction. If you use primarily deduction you will gather information from everywhere, even things written by idiots; if there's one grain of truth in it you can find it and use it as a piece of the puzzle. (Primarily) Inductive thinkers put importance on what is credible and what is not, take all of the facts, and see what conclusion they are pointing to. It's the science versus philosophy approach (not that Te users can't be philosophers and vice versa).
    I really don't think it's as simple to say that Ti=deduction and Te=induction and then making an obvious value judgement claiming that Ti is the better and more critically independent logic between the two. Ti and Te can clearly be as scientific for different reasons.

    Well, you certainly come across as having done a lot of research. At least you seem to think about what you read in great detail, which looks the same. If not perhaps you aren't really a Te user and we're both wrong. But I can't presume to know your type better than you do. I just think it's probably more likely you are an emotional thinking type. I haven't really seen much Fi in you. What sorts of feeling judgments do you make?
    Not sure I understand this question. Pertaining to what context?

    I highly doubt I'm ISFJ, but interesting idea.
    Depends on how we understand the systems.
    I agree with feelers usually having emotion in communication. Actually, I'm a lot more feeling when I write on here than I am in speech. Some people put emotion into their speech all the time. My mom is one of those people. Like they're always emotionally charged with some sort of meaning, whereas thinkers feel neutral most of the time about what they say. I think I actually lean toward the second one. It's hard for me to sound emotional, even when I am. I have a quiet kind of monotone voice, and even when I'm angry what I say and how I say it are very different. It could just be an Aspie thing. So I'm not sure why I put feeling into what I write. I'm not 100% sure I'm not a feeler. I do get frustrated seemingly more often than other thinkers on here. But I've also been through a lot of frustrating interaction.
    Regardless of whether you type in the MBTI or Jung, feeling judgement has to do with whether your two primary ego conscious functions are based on thinking or feeling, i.e. whether your ego is oriented towards these perspectives and creates its worldview around them. A lot of people fail to realize their dominant function because they "live" in its perspective and become "home blind". Others over-identify with their shadow processes because they see the shadow processes more clearly in themselves so thus draw the conclusion their ego is oriented towards the shadow.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I am synthesizing MBTI and JFC, and using my own understanding of how it fits with the world, human functioning, and the underlying principles. I am taking basic premises and making deductions from them. Nothing I think contradicts the original theory of either system as far as I am aware. I'm simply expanding upon it. I think holistically.
    And how does your model actually operate? How would you describe it?
    Then essentially we're doing the same thing? If you've hardly read anything, what gives you the authority to assert things as absolute fact which are just your opinions? It comes across as pedantic and condescending. One person's opinion is as good as another's. Is your opinion exactly the same as Jung's, no more and no less? If so I'd say there's no room for your own theories. If you do have your own, you can't use your own theories (interpretation) to assert that someone else has an incorrect interpretation of something you have read about the same amount on or less.
    I'd make a distinction between reading second hand and official sources. I never claimed I read official sources but clearly my information comes from somewhere and that source is secondary.

    And how is it pedandic and condescending? I was being honest that I have read few official sources, this is true. I tried to read Psychological Types but Jung's prose and I don't quite get along, but it doesn't mean the information I present is less credible de facto. Secondary sources can be just as useful as primary or official.

    And yes, my opinion has started to become pretty much the same as Jung's. I didn't agree with Jung initially, but I think as my understanding of Jung and Jungian theory has improved, I just really have to say that I agree more with him than I do with other MBTI theorists who build on him.

    This is very different to say that I don't theorize, cannot create my own theories or apply Jung's teachings independently of Jung. That's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because someone agrees with a theory it doesn't mean they cannot theorize. I for example am interested in cross-comparing how Jung's theory applies of individuation to Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration because they describe similar phenomena but approach them very differently.

    I reiterate, there is little reason for me to provide with my own personal theories in this thread.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  5. #75
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    I really don't think it's as simple to say that Ti=deduction and Te=induction and then making an obvious value judgement claiming that Ti is the better and more critically independent logic between the two. Ti and Te can clearly be as scientific for different reasons.
    No, I don't think it's that simple either; that's just a big distinction between the two. Everyone no matter what their functions can use both types of logic; but depending on which function is higher in consciousness you would find one easier to consciously use and more reliable when used consciously. It seems to me from the way you write that your writing at least exhibits more Te based thinking than Ti. That's just my impression, which you should agree with if you type as Fi dominant. Then I was going on to explain how Ti and Te operate when forming and communicating opinions, according to what makes sense to me. But I could be wrong about you.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Not sure I understand this question. Pertaining to what context?
    In general. Fi is a judging function, and so makes feeling judgments. I'm just asking how you use your judging function as I haven't observed what I would associate with Fi. I'm not 100% sure what it means to make feeling judgments; but in so far as you understand what people mean when they say that in connection to Fi, I was asking you to describe it in yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Regardless of whether you type in the MBTI or Jung, feeling judgement has to do with whether your two primary ego conscious functions are based on thinking or feeling, i.e. whether your ego is oriented towards these perspectives and creates its worldview around them. A lot of people fail to realize their dominant function because they "live" in its perspective and become "home blind". Others over-identify with their shadow processes because they see the shadow processes more clearly in themselves so thus draw the conclusion their ego is oriented towards the shadow.
    I would agree this is plausible. I don't quite understand how it relates to what I said. Do you mean that I would exhibit feeling based behavior and not be aware of it because I'm so used to it, and then identify more with my thinking functions?
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    And how does your model actually operate? How would you describe it?
    I couldn't go into everything in one paragraph. It's just my own understanding of what makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    I'd make a distinction between reading second hand and official sources. I never claimed I read official sources but clearly my information comes from somewhere and that source is secondary.
    And how is it pedandic and condescending? I was being honest that I have read few official sources, this is true. I tried to read Psychological Types but Jung's prose and I don't quite get along, but it doesn't mean the information I present is less credible de facto. Secondary sources can be just as useful as primary or official.
    Well that's about what I've done. I've read things on the internet from many different sites, observed people, watched videos, etc. Jung himself doesn't make much sense to me.

    Maybe you don't mean to be, but that's my perception of your style of writing. More often than not it seems nitpicking on details which aren't important and just shooting down my theories while at the same time not addressing the core issues, on the basis of asserting that I don't understand something; which I don't think you are qualified to judge since we have about the same sort of education on the matter. Anyway. That's me trying to use my feeling function, whatever and wherever it is. Maybe I miss the mark. I've never claimed to be able to process emotions well, and I have an emotional reaction to the attitude I perceive in your writing. So this is me communicating it, along with some clumsy help from Ti trying to back up my feeling judgments with arguments. How it relates to research and theories is that you frequently tell people they are incorrect and don't understand things, and I don't think you have the authority to say that; at most you can say you disagree and provide reasons.

    But it's not just you, a lot of people on here do this too. And it's annoying. For what it's worth it's usually Ti doms. I think very few things are certain enough to assert as absolute fact, and so I refrain from it.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    And yes, my opinion has started to become pretty much the same as Jung's. I didn't agree with Jung initially, but I think as my understanding of Jung and Jungian theory has improved, I just really have to say that I agree more with him than I do with other MBTI theorists who build on him.

    This is very different to say that I don't theorize, cannot create my own theories or apply Jung's teachings independently of Jung. That's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because someone agrees with a theory it doesn't mean they cannot theorize. I for example am interested in cross-comparing how Jung's theory applies of individuation to Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration because they describe similar phenomena but approach them very differently.
    I also think JCF makes more sense than simply the MBTI spectrums.

    I'm obviously not implying that you don't use deduction or form theories. I'm describing trends based on the functions. The way one distinguishes one from another is by differences in what they do in general. And in general, Te users rely more on empirical evidence when forming beliefs, while Ti users evaluate all information to sort of form their own evidence if that makes sense. I don't really know how to explain it at the moment. It's an impression I had which I've realized is hard to translate into words; but I've read other people describing the same phenomenon better than I just did.

  6. #76
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    No, I don't think it's that simple either; that's just a big distinction between the two. Everyone no matter what their functions can use both types of logic; but depending on which function is higher in consciousness you would find one easier to consciously use and more reliable when used consciously. It seems to me from the way you write that your writing at least exhibits more Te based thinking than Ti. That's just my impression, which you should agree with if you type as Fi dominant. Then I was going on to explain how Ti and Te operate when forming and communicating opinions, according to what makes sense to me. But I could be wrong about you.
    Then what's stopping you?

    In general. Fi is a judging function, and so makes feeling judgments. I'm just asking how you use your judging function as I haven't observed what I would associate with Fi. I'm not 100% sure what it means to make feeling judgments; but in so far as you understand what people mean when they say that in connection to Fi, I was asking you to describe it in yourself.
    Yes, I know feeling is about making feeling judgements but I have absolutely zero context to work with so it just becomes, describe myself in relation to what? And I think you are quite good at making feeling judgements, much better than you probably think you are. Your posts are full of feeling and by that I don't necessarily mean emotion, but feeling judgements.
    I would agree this is plausible. I don't quite understand how it relates to what I said. Do you mean that I would exhibit feeling based behavior and not be aware of it because I'm so used to it, and then identify more with my thinking functions?
    Generally speaking, I think it has to do with that how emotionally expressive you are has necessarily little to do with one's capability to judge according to feeling or make feeling evaluations. A lot of Fe dominant types can for example be quite cold, emotionally speaking, and easily be mistaken for a thinker or an Fi type.

    And as an example, yes.
    I couldn't go into everything in one paragraph. It's just my own understanding of what makes sense.
    And I didn't expect you to summarize it in one paragraph but some kind of explanation would be appreciated since I'm interested in how your understanding differs from mine.

    Maybe you don't mean to be, but that's my perception of your style of writing. More often than not it seems nitpicking on details which aren't important and just shooting down my theories while at the same time not addressing the core issues, on the basis of asserting that I don't understand something; which I don't think you are qualified to judge since we have about the same sort of education on the matter.
    Having read the same sources does not mean we understand the sources the same way or even as well as each other. I am not even sure how I am shooting down your theories since you haven't even provided one, not tangibly anyway. What are these core issues that you speak of? Could you define them?
    Anyway. That's me trying to use my feeling function, whatever and wherever it is. Maybe I miss the mark. I've never claimed to be able to process emotions well, and I have an emotional reaction to the attitude I perceive in your writing. So this is me communicating it, along with some clumsy help from Ti trying to back up my feeling judgments with arguments. How it relates to research and theories is that you frequently tell people they are incorrect and don't understand things, and I don't think you have the authority to say that; at most you can say you disagree and provide reasons.
    Why would your Ti be expressed clumsily through Fe if your ego would be oriented towards Ti? And I do think facts or presentation of facts can be incorrect. Plus, if I am wrong I am very open to have someone challenge me similarly.

    But it's not just you, a lot of people on here do this too. And it's annoying. For what it's worth it's usually Ti doms. I think very few things are certain enough to assert as absolute fact, and so I refrain from it.
    And why would other Ti dominants bother you if you yourself would value Ti in your ego?

    I also think JCF makes more sense than simply the MBTI spectrums.
    Why?
    I'm obviously not implying that you don't use deduction or form theories. I'm describing trends based on the functions. The way one distinguishes one from another is by differences in what they do in general. And in general, Te users rely more on empirical evidence when forming beliefs, while Ti users evaluate all information to sort of form their own evidence if that makes sense. I don't really know how to explain it at the moment. It's an impression I had which I've realized is hard to translate into words; but I've read other people describing the same phenomenon better than I just did.
    And could you then perhaps cite such sources to help explain your point?

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  7. #77
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    I reiterate, there is little reason for me to provide with my own personal theories in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Then what's stopping you?
    Perhaps the same thing that is stopping you from sharing your theories. I can go and read Jung whenever I want. I cannot learn from the perspectives of others so readily (the people I know IRL have no interest in related discussion).

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    And I didn't expect you to summarize it in one paragraph but some kind of explanation would be appreciated since I'm interested in how your understanding differs from mine.

    And could you then perhaps cite such sources to help explain your point?
    You could start by explaining your own understanding and providing supporting references.

    I understand what Greenfairy means about the Ti approach to such discussions. There are a couple of Ti dom/aux hereabouts who like to snipe at the theories presented by other members without providing any real supporting evidence, and without presenting any theories of their own. That is their right, of course, but it makes for a rather lopsided and trying discussion. It is much easier to tear down than to construct.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #78
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Then what's stopping you?
    From what?
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Yes, I know feeling is about making feeling judgements but I have absolutely zero context to work with so it just becomes, describe myself in relation to what? And I think you are quite good at making feeling judgements, much better than you probably think you are. Your posts are full of feeling and by that I don't necessarily mean emotion, but feeling judgements.
    I don't see what I understand as Fi in you, but Fi is not a function I understand well, so I couldn't pinpoint what I'm looking for; since you type as Fi dominant, I'm curious as how you believe you manifest this. You can make up your own context, just an example or two would be good. What led you to type as INFP (with high Te hence the x I assume) rather than INTP or INTJ?
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Generally speaking, I think it has to do with that how emotionally expressive you are has necessarily little to do with one's capability to judge according to feeling or make feeling evaluations. A lot of Fe dominant types can for example be quite cold, emotionally speaking, and easily be mistaken for a thinker or an Fi type.
    I have to disagree here; I think the emotion expresses is simply very subtle. Maybe this is what you mean. But I think it will always be present to some extent, as opposed to a thinking type, which would express the same emotional quality in a different way.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    And I didn't expect you to summarize it in one paragraph but some kind of explanation would be appreciated since I'm interested in how your understanding differs from mine.
    It would be entirely contextual. I think it was related to a post in which you questioned something I said, and I don't remember what it was, so I have no context; and quite frankly I don't feel like putting in the effort to find it. From the thread title though I'm sure it had to do with me making a claim of relationships between cognitive functions and mental states which could be classified as disorders, with which you disagreed. I meant something along the lines of this post for example:
    http://personalitycafe.com/articles/...disorders.html
    I don't know what you think about it. I don't 100% subscribe to the theory, but it's possible. If it were true I can see how it would make sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Having read the same sources does not mean we understand the sources the same way or even as well as each other. I am not even sure how I am shooting down your theories since you haven't even provided one, not tangibly anyway. What are these core issues that you speak of? Could you define them?
    It would be within the context of several posts. My experience is that I post something and then it gets nitpicked to death, people arguing against an extreme position I never took (like that having a characteristic means you have Aspergers, Te users can't form their own theories, such and such a person always does this, all NT's have social problems, etc), just basically dismissing it based on a straw man fallacy. There is a lot of saying I'm wrong without correspondingly saying what the other person actually believes is right. That's just my perception.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Why would your Ti be expressed clumsily through Fe if your ego would be oriented towards Ti?
    Because when I'm using a feeling function with Ti to back it up, I'm switching the hierarchy, which doesn't work that well. According to my understanding of theory. This is commonly agreed upon, as Coriolis pointed out. you might have a different opinion. I think functions which are lower in consciousness aren't so much dysfunctional when used, but rather primitive and immature when used consciously; lack of practice and differentiation means the person is less skilled with its conscious use.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    And I do think facts or presentation of facts can be incorrect. Plus, if I am wrong I am very open to have someone challenge me similarly.
    Sometimes this is true. But determining whether this is true and on what grounds is tricky business, if the "facts" are not scientific in nature, only theoretical.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    And why would other Ti dominants bother you if you yourself would value Ti in your ego?
    It's not the Ti which bothers me; I enjoy discussion and debate. I don't like when it's applied in places it doesn't belong, missing the big picture and completely neglecting the quality of human interaction. Which now that I think about it is a very F(e) thing to say. I think NTP's can be concerned about this though. Surely they find each other annoying at times, and most would consider it unhealthy and not preferable to ignore feeling related issues when they are relevant. Basically, I think debate should be respectful of the other's dignity and intelligence.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Why?
    Why do you? I think it has greater explanatory power, is more complete, and is easier to use because relies less on vague generalities. The more distinction the better.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    And could you then perhaps cite such sources to help explain your point?
    No, that would take too much time. I'd have to dig through a bunch of posts. Here's one which says just a little bit which is similar:

    Also posts people have made which I thought made sense. Probably one by @Mane.

  9. #79
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,586

    Default

    The speaker in this video makes contradictory statements. He claims at the outset that INTJ has much more information available than he can process, while the INTP takes in only the information he needs. Toward the end, he claims that INTP takes in information indiscriminately, while INTJ is more focused and selective in the information collected. There are other problems with this analysis as well, but this stood out most.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  10. #80
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The speaker in this video makes contradictory statements. He claims at the outset that INTJ has much more information available than he can process, while the INTP takes in only the information he needs. Toward the end, he claims that INTP takes in information indiscriminately, while INTJ is more focused and selective in the information collected. There are other problems with this analysis as well, but this stood out most.
    I don't actually think this is contradictory. Taking in information indiscriminately doesn't necessarily mean taking in more. Although I think you're right in that he doesn't make clear what kind of information he is referring to. I think in the case of INTJ, Ni takes in information which is more unconscious and abstract- it is not all propositional. Intuition is all the information from all the senses put together in a meaningful fashion. This is intuition; Ni makes sense of (focuses) it, where Ne relates it to ideas; it takes an idea and then applies it to everything it can think of, or it takes a stimulus and relates it to another and another until all stimuli point to some idea. This sounds like Ni but it isn't because it hasn't really attached meaning to it, just grouped it together. Maybe I'm not explaining it too well; but they are opposite processes. Ni focuses and Ne expands. So INTP would take in information indiscriminately because Ti already focuses information, so it needs all kinds of seemingly unrelated things which can be grouped together, to work with Ti; Ti provides relevance to ideas and organizes information, and Ne provides the information and related ideas. Te takes in information rather indiscriminately and organizes it, while Ni focuses it and provides meaning. So INTJ appears more focused. They haven't processed all their intuitive information yet, but they still take in a lot. INTP appears more unfocused unless they are actively engaging Ti toward a conclusion. Ti needs time to process conscious propositional information; it converts intuitive information into propositions, then evaluates and integrates it. This takes some time, during which it can't take in more. But it still doesn't discriminate with the information it takes in; it evaluates information after it receives it, after it integrates everything else, according to how well it coheres with the framework it already has.

    I hadn't noticed any problems. But I'd be happy to try to analyze any others you think are there. They might be.

Similar Threads

  1. Asperger's Syndrome and MBTI type.
    By TaylorS in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 230
    Last Post: 06-16-2015, 07:50 PM
  2. [MBTItm] hello guys ! :) I have a question for all of u ISTPs and people who know ISTPs :)
    By nataliecarmen in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-29-2011, 01:06 AM
  3. women who love makeup (and men, too!)
    By velocity in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 03-02-2010, 07:22 PM

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