User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 74

  1. #41
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    What I love the most is when people have no real argument and so they respond with an attack on the person's type. "You couldn't possibly be this type because those people see reason. You must be (insert an insult in the form of an SJ type.)"
    Only a SP would try to reason like that. Because they don't want to be SP they want to deny the reality of types and the natural preexisting intellectual foodchain that Jung has finally put to words. Are you sure you're an ENTP?

    Edit: I'm going to start only reading Saturned and Luna's posts in every thread and taking them without context and responding as appropriately as I can.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  2. #42
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    Only a SP would try to reason like that. Because they don't want to be SP they want to deny the reality of types and the natural preexisting intellectual foodchain that Jung has finally put to words. Are you sure you're an ENTP?
    CRAP. I don't know. I just told someone that I was eating brussel sprouts and I had an unholy urge to take a photo of aforementioned food.


  3. #43
    #KUWK Kierva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Meh, I'm just about done with typology. I've had it for a year and it's nothing more than a rationalization of judgments towards other people to me and a couple others that I discuss with.

    I don't see any application of this in my field so I'm pretty much wasting my time listening to people say why I am <insert type here>. I don't know about anyone else, but I mostly use forums like these to talk about anything other than typology and/or build a network. All the theory shit is just intellectual wankery.

    Besides it's not like someone on the forum necessarily carry themselves they way they do here IRL. Seeing reasons about <insert type here> based on posts infuriate me.

    /endrant
    C#2-C#5-F#5
    3 octaves, 2 notes and 1 semitone
    Supported range: F#2-F#4-C#5

  4. #44
    #KUWK Kierva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    P.S.

    Ne Fi sucks

    Going around the point instead of getting to it is so counteractive.
    C#2-C#5-F#5
    3 octaves, 2 notes and 1 semitone
    Supported range: F#2-F#4-C#5

  5. #45
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mal12345 View Post
    No, I'm saying that Jung had a rigid theory of human nature.
    I regard Jung's theory as much less rigid than the stuff that's been built upon it. I read Jung as categorizing people into eight "function-types" with the vaguest mentions of, for example, intuitives repressing thinking, feeling, and (mostly) sensation, and very vague hints at a function order like MBTI's. I contrast this to more rigid extensions of the theory, which outright state the order of each type's functions (e.g. Ne/Fi/Te/Si) and even go so far as to attempt to predict how exactly each type gets along (e.g. Socionics's intertype relations system). These more rigid theories, in my assessment, have been given more explanatory power than they deserve, sometimes leading to rationalization rather than attempts at true understanding.

    Now, by this, I don't mean to say that Jung is less accurate or useful. In fact, I think that his notes, since they're rooted in observations, are more useful than the theories that have not yet been rigorously tested or built upon actual observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Too funny.
    Also: if none of those apply, just state:

    You're mistyped. You're really a XXXX.

    Then, you should be able to pick one of the rationalizations that I've mentioned. It's that easy!!

  6. #46
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Marm was marm, and could let her reactions get out of hand at times, and allow her analytical capability to become a tool to lash out at others, but it is in poor taste to be catty about someone who cant speak in thier own defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I regard Jung's theory as much less rigid than the stuff that's been built upon it. I read Jung as categorizing people into eight "function-types" with the vaguest mentions of, for example, intuitives repressing thinking, feeling, and (mostly) sensation, and very vague hints at a function order like MBTI's. I contrast this to more rigid extensions of the theory, which outright state the order of each type's functions (e.g. Ne/Fi/Te/Si) and even go so far as to attempt to predict how exactly each type gets along (e.g. Socionics's intertype relations system). These more rigid theories, in my assessment, have been given more explanatory power than they deserve, sometimes leading to rationalization rather than attempts at true understanding.!!
    Just because Jung is difficult to understand, does not mean Jung was not explicit about his theory. Jung was extremely explicit about eight possible dominant functions of which an individual has one as a dominant function. He then said each person will have a secondary oppositely oriented function which supports the first but is more poorly developed. In places he even speaks to the inferior function. The only thing left in question was the orientation of the tertiary function, as he said it was the same as the aux, not the dom.

    The interesting point is that he built the thoery, then dropped it and moved on. I suspect this not because he felt it to be wrong, but felt it to be too static (aka Si) and confining with ridgity. He saw a greater ability to describe the human psyche in more complex terms rather than the reductionist type. His other works are extremely fascinating.

    As for ideas about typeology and behavior, I often see correlations/generalizations that other enfps, including marm, do observe. I know they are approaching valididty when I can get an INFJ, and ENTP and an INTJ to all see the same pattern from thier own perceptive worldviews. I could always be totally wrong, but if enough other folks see the exact same correlation, it lends credence to the observation being legitimate. The Fe-Fi-Te-Ti communication diffs have always been particularly facsinating to me, given how many people see the same thing, from different perspectives, and how the commuincation diffs can be so disruptive inadvertantly in well intentioned relationships..

    haha, then I read up on DISC. thank god.

  7. #47
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    The interesting point is that he built the thoery, then dropped it and moved on. I suspect this not because he felt it to be wrong, but felt it to be too static (aka Si) and confining with ridgity. He saw a greater ability to describe the human psyche in more complex terms rather than the reductionist type. His other works are extremely fascinating.
    Here I disagree. His judgers were static (the rationals). The Ti dominants in his system are rigid eggheads. I would probably type Si dominant in his system. They're dynamic, perceiving types.

    It's Myers who redefined everything and turned Si into static types. She surmised that all dominant functions in introverts weren't seen, cloistered, and that the first thing you'd noticed is how they interacted with the world (through the Extroverted Judging attitude), thus making them Js. But they never resembled Js in Jung's system. They're a bit torn off, indecisive, almost downright antisocial.

    edit: Bah.. I think I misread you badly. In any case, maybe my post is somehow relevant to the thread.

  8. #48
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    Just because Jung is difficult to understand, does not mean Jung was not explicit about his theory. Jung was extremely explicit about eight possible dominant functions of which an individual has one as a dominant function. He then said each person will have a secondary oppositely oriented function which supports the first but is more poorly developed. In places he even speaks to the inferior function. The only thing left in question was the orientation of the tertiary function, as he said it was the same as the aux, not the dom.
    I don't regard him as particularly hard to understand, but he didn't exactly present his thoughts in an organized way--so, since I am terrible at reading closely, there may be details buried in his walls of text that I miss.

    He claims that we have a dominant function and that others are repressed, especially the inferior, but that they balance the dominant in nature and in orientation. This is reflected in passages such as
    The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed.
    [For the extraverted intuitive,] Thinking, feeling, and sensation are relatively repressed; of these, sensation is the one principally affected, because, as the conscious function of sense, it offers the greatest obstacle to intuition.
    [The introverted sensor's] unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality.
    If you can pull out some quotes of his that may detail some aspects that I've missed, I'm all ears.

    Still, even this is less rigid than placement of shadow functions, notions such as the tertiary temptation, the 'INFJ doorslam,' the 'ENFP Te bitchslap,' intertype relationships, all of Lenore, and other aspects of theories that have built upon his foundation. Most of these additions to the theory have been used less for 'good, solid explanations of human development' and more for 'winning arguments on the Internet' and 'justifying our views of the world,' in my estimation. In other words, they're misused.

    The interesting point is that he built the thoery, then dropped it and moved on. I suspect this not because he felt it to be wrong, but felt it to be too static (aka Si) and confining with ridgity. He saw a greater ability to describe the human psyche in more complex terms rather than the reductionist type. His other works are extremely fascinating.
    I wholeheartedly agree.

    We all ought to strive to see humanity in more complex terms.

    As for ideas about typeology and behavior, I often see correlations/generalizations that other enfps, including marm, do observe. I know they are approaching valididty when I can get an INFJ, and ENTP and an INTJ to all see the same pattern from thier own perceptive worldviews. I could always be totally wrong, but if enough other folks see the exact same correlation, it lends credence to the observation being legitimate. The Fe-Fi-Te-Ti communication diffs have always been particularly facsinating to me, given how many people see the same thing, from different perspectives, and how the commuincation diffs can be so disruptive inadvertantly in well intentioned relationships..[/quote]
    I'm withholding judgment on whether or not there is an FeTi/FiTe communication gap.

    The one thing that we ought to take away from typology is that we all see the world differently. We can deal with that either by blaming the cognitive functions of everyone around us, or we can learn to communicate with them or otherwise deal with them.

    I personally get along with people across the spectrum of type--but then I've regarded myself as FeTi and FiTe at different points in time, so who knows where I fall? The only problem I have is with the pushy and disagreeable ones; and even then I know to just leave them alone.

    haha, then I read up on DISC. thank god.
    Does this mean that you value DISC or that you don't value DISC? I'm curious either way.

  9. #49
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I don't regard him as particularly hard to understand, but he didn't exactly present his thoughts in an organized way--so, since I am terrible at reading closely, there may be details buried in his walls of text that I miss.

    He claims that we have a dominant function and that others are repressed, especially the inferior, but that they balance the dominant in nature and in orientation. This is reflected in passages such as



    If you can pull out some quotes of his that may detail some aspects that I've missed, I'm all ears..
    Ha! He is totally convoluted to read. Each time I reread I see new perspectives, incredibly Ni dense text though. He saw really cool things, but they dont pop to me, until I have seen them from my own perpsective, then I just stand in awe of his genius and ability to see and build meaning out of what he saw. Let me look over your quotes and see if I can dig up some extra stuff...

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Still, even this is less rigid than placement of shadow functions, notions such as the tertiary temptation, the 'INFJ doorslam,' the 'ENFP Te bitchslap,' intertype relationships, all of Lenore, and other aspects of theories that have built upon his foundation. Most of these additions to the theory have been used less for 'good, solid explanations of human development' and more for 'winning arguments on the Internet' and 'justifying our views of the world,' in my estimation. In other words, they're misused...
    So, as an example of how Jung was right and the strict typology we apply here is wrong, you can actually study the "te bitchslap".

    In an enfp, the core ego likely has a whole lotta Ne-Fi; to protect that core, highly valued (and poorly defined, yet eagerly labeled ) ego, we lash out with whatever we have at hand-some "Te-like boundaries", some things that might be called "poorly executed Fe-like social plays", some stuff that might be described as "shoddy Ti used to add precision to observations". You can all thus stuff sort of rolled up in a blob and thrown at another person, thus a "Te-bitchslap".

    Jung would abstract all of this, look for underlying meaning, and just call it emergence of a complex.

    As an enfp, I do love to label, dissect and pick apart typeology topics catgorically (and shoddily), as jungian functions are simply easy handles to talk about generalized trends. The mistake is that as these convos/thoughts occur, they are read and misunderstood to be absolute and precise-which would be a ridiculous thing, given how generalizations are never, ever absolute or precise..people are extraordinarily complex and unique, thus while they may follow generalized patterns, patterns are not definitive.

    Additionally, if you then say "Well I am an enfp, and since enfps sometimes go bonkers and Te bitchslap, it's okay that I do so" well that IS rationalization.


    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I'm withholding judgment on whether or not there is an FeTi/FiTe communication gap..
    This is good, if you havent seen data or had personal experiences that convince you otherwise. You need to make up your own mind based on what you observe and believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    The one thing that we ought to take away from typology is that we all see the world differently. We can deal with that either by blaming the cognitive functions of everyone around us, or we can learn to communicate with them or otherwise deal with them..
    So I do have to counter this argument a bit...to use cognitive functions as a tool for analysis is not "rationalization" or "blame", but rather trying to establish a external logical framework for where communication can go wrong. Once you understand that it isnt any individual's fault, but rather innate cognitive, communicative differences, and worldview, you can develop tools.tactics/strategies to help people bridge those gaps more effectively-but first you have to understand where the differences are.

    I often note, that simply by exploring the differences, asking questions, pointing out gaps, it can trigger value based defense mechanisms which blow up into things like "Why are you attacking or blaming my cognitive function?" I have seen this from users of every cognitive function. None of us like to have our worldview questioned-it pokes at our ego.

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I personally get along with people across the spectrum of type--but then I've regarded myself as FeTi and FiTe at different points in time, so who knows where I fall? The only problem I have is with the pushy and disagreeable ones; and even then I know to just leave them alone..
    I'd challenge you to spend some time rethinking the "pushy, disagreeable people". In the past, when I find I am driven totally bonkers or offended by another, it is almost always my own inability to accept thier worldview and perspective as valid over mine. As a (thread relevant) example, for a very long time I just understood a certain type of person was to be avoided as they would be mean to me and seek to provoke me, belittle me, or attack me. I didnt know why, but I just innately learned to avoid them. Once I understod mbti, they became labeled ESTPs. For years I just avoided estps.

    Once I came the forum and learned about jungian functions I understood estps were just wired differently. I observed the (really awesome) estps on the forum, then I actively tried to learn ways to communicate and interact with estps around me, viewing thier actions through thier worldview, not mine. I made some really awesome, amazing, brilliantly clever friends, who I would never have tried to interact with, had I not learned that they think, communicate, act differently-thus I needed to see past my own innate limitations and innate judgements and accept them on thier terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Does this mean that you value DISC or that you don't value DISC? I'm curious either way.
    At this point, I have administered about 40 MBTI step I and step IIs. I will not do anymore, as I feel the test is flawed and the results verge on unethical. The biggest error is the inability to deal with emergence of tert and inferior functions due to maturation or alternate development during life-thus you end up with an overly stereotyped set of 16 types which fail to capture the potential and diversity inherent in each type. If people then read thier "correct" type description, it conflicts with thier own self understanding and leads to more harm than good. Jungian typelogy may be partially correct, but MBTI is fatally flawed as a system.

    DISC/Insights/"the color test" is much more commonly administered and more simple to understand. From what I have observed, it fits most FJs, TJs, and FPs to the satisfaction of those who take it, and is helpful. (It fits EXTPs and INFJs poorly however, making me think the model is incomplete).

    DISC is very useful in that it allows for, and expects that people will change thier personality in a dynamic fashion over time. It also stresses very heavily that your communication style will depend upon your DISC pattern, and it teaches alternate communication strategies depending upon who you are trying to communicate with (thus my interest).


    Additionally I think the underlying disc thoery may be a very interesting way to look at manipulative behavior or both the Fe and the Fi variety. Check out the original writings (if you have lots of time)-"emotions of normal people". The original disc thoery was very much about interaction styles between people-which could be studied from the perpsective of jungian cognitive functions in action...the chapter on induction is particularly interesting.

    (sorry if this post is babbly, I was listening to a sales call at the same time, thus totally not focused..slacking at work)

  10. #50
    Symbolic Herald Vasilisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    Marm was marm, and could let her reactions get out of hand at times, and allow her analytical capability to become a tool to lash out at others, but it is in poor taste to be catty about someone who cant speak in thier own defense.
    7 hours

    Et voilà!
    Last edited by Vasilisa; 03-26-2012 at 05:28 PM. Reason: les temps
    the formless thing which gives things form!
    Found Forum Haiku Project


    Positive Spin | your feedback welcomed | Darker Criticism

Similar Threads

  1. Mental Manifesto - Thinking *it* makes *it* so
    By Thursday in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-25-2009, 03:35 PM
  2. Why human activities will not cause the end on the world as we know it ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-11-2009, 11:52 AM
  3. [ENTP] "Well, when you put it THAT way..." - Impressionable ENTPs?
    By SpaghettiMonster in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-09-2009, 06:25 AM
  4. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 01-01-2009, 02:35 AM
  5. Why is it so hard to not feed the trolls?
    By Zergling in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 05:23 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