User Tag List

Results 1 to 8 of 8

  1. #1
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default A Question For The Domiant Type At This Forum?

    HISTORY:

    When I begin studying type years ago, I started with PUM II. After reading about temperament, I was not satisfied, so purchased books by Otto Kroeger, and Paul and Barbara Teiger who based their theories on dichotomies. I learned that there were type functions, so became interested in Jung's defintions, as well as Myers-Briggs and her followers. Once I had a good understanding of cognitive functions, Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi were able to put it all together for me in their revision of temperaments, cognitive functions and introducing interaction styles.

    THOUGHTS:

    Since learning about type functions, and furthering my studies of the system9s), I find referencing to dichotomies in making comparative analyses, quite rudimentary.

    QUESTIONS FOR THE FORUM:

    1) When making comparisons, is there any specific reason that you generalize (ie, S/N, T/F, etc.) by utilizing dichotomies instead of cognitive functions?

    2) Are you aware that you make generalizations, when most of you are learned in cognitive functions?

    3) If you do it on the forum, are you just as capable of generalizing IRL by stereotyping races, ethnic groups, gender biases, etc?

    I don't ask these questions in an attempt to be facetious. I am unsure whether some of you are aware of generalizations being made.

    THOUGHTS:

    I have my theories, after posting at the forums for some time, and can say that it is done equally at the entp.org forum:

    * Either the usage of Ne inables you to learn cognitive functions, in lieu of constantly reading into the language; or

    * You read only enough to get the basics before going off on tangents and creating theories.

    Just curious!

  2. #2
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by "?" View Post
    QUESTIONS FOR THE FORUM:

    1) When making comparisons, is there any specific reason that you generalize (ie, S/N, T/F, etc.) by utilizing dichotomies instead of cognitive functions?

    2) Are you aware that you make generalizations, when most of you are learned in cognitive functions?

    3) If you do it on the forum, are you just as capable of generalizing IRL by stereotyping races, ethnic groups, gender biases, etc?
    I look at Typewatching more as an understanding of the system, not really the people the system tries to describe. I really don't find categorizing people any different than categorizing a movie as an action-comedy or categorizing an automobile as a car, SUV, and so forth.

    I honestly don't think of other people as anything more than just things. I mean, they basically are just machines created by nature. So therefore, since there's nothing wrong with putting things and ideas into general categories, I don't see why I shouldn't generalize people. Thus, it's nothing I'm really ashamed of.

    And let's face it, stereotyping and generalizing does save a lot of time!

  3. #3
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    There is a lot of argument/lack of knowledge over how the mind actually works, so I view the mental functions description as probably wrong in a lot of ways. The MBTI system than just boils down to using the dichotomies to classify things.

  4. #4
    Member s0532's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Other people make wack generalizations. Mine are entirely reasonable.

  5. #5
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Those who frequent the forums should have at least basic principles down, to argue or expound on the current theory, or at least a proposed theory. So, when I read discussions where someone is misstating things like:

    1) Type is based on cognition; not emotions so arguing a point that feeling types feel and thinking types think makes a writer just look stupid.

    2) Two letter codes can be broken down in a plethora of ways to make comparisions, ie, IT, NP, IP, IN, etc. to explain that you are making a comparison of at least two types against another. Knowing the basic principles of type functions allows you to make that leap. Only knowing the dichotomies does not.

    3) Keirsey has his list of temperaments, as does Myers Briggs, so when basic comparisons are done between a complete dichotomy, renders the entire subject as very basic. When one says sensor, what is meant? Are you seeking just a very basic responses, to your very basic question; or do you truly generalize that all S's are the same?

    The list can go on, but I think the gist of my thoughts are being conveyed.

  6. #6
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Well, like I said (and I'll take a less cold-hearted approach this time), I'm interested in the system itself. I don't think of the different personality types in terms of the people who belong to it, but what the personality type means as a system.

    I don't say that a person with an ISTJ preference is boring and unimaginative (I've actually met ISTJs who are highly intelligent, but just prefer to be an ISTJ). Likewise, I don't necessarily think of a person with an ENFP preference as flaky and impractical.

    But I'll say that an ISTJ type in itself is a type I wouldn't be happy with, because I place more importance in conceptual learning. Likewise, I wouldn't be happy being an ENFP, simply because their combined preferences are not something I value.

    ISTJ preference is more than able to understand things conceptually, but if given a choice, the preference would rather gather data from the five senses.

    Likewise, the ENFP preference is aware of sensory data and sometimes must rely on it, but with much rather understand conceptually.

    As an INTJ, I must say that my mind can be a storehouse of useless trivia. I also have a very good memory of events. I very much perceive with my senses and have empirical knowledge, but as an N, I would much prefer to understand conceptually through either reading or discussion (reading, though, is preferable, since I can do it alone).

    The S and N dichotomy really isn't about how you gather information, but how you prefer to gather information. Because ultimately, we all gather information through both ways, probably equally.

    Still, observing other people and guessing their types can be a lot of fun -- even though my guess is probably wrong.

  7. #7
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    I don't say that a person with an ISTJ preference is boring and unimaginative (I've actually met ISTJs who are highly intelligent, but just prefer to be an ISTJ). Likewise, I don't necessarily think of a person with an ENFP preference as flaky and impractical.
    Uber, this is one of the examples that I am alluding to, you make an implication that you have met highly intelligent ISTJs, which infers that the average one is not. Intuitives do corner the market on intellect. Just look at some of the post from this board and INTPC. Besides, ISTJs are one of the four having the highest grade point averages. Yet as stereotypical as it may sound, I do find them unimaginitive and needing to stay with the boundaries too much.
    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    But I'll say that an ISTJ type in itself is a type I wouldn't be happy with, because I place more importance in conceptual learning. Likewise, I wouldn't be happy being an ENFP, simply because their combined preferences are not something I value.
    You should not be happy being anything other than your best fit type. That is why they call them preferences. As I stated elsewhere on the board, it's definitely an intuitive thing that beckons whether you want, or would like, to be another type. I don't know anyone who would make that assessment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    ISTJ preference is more than able to understand things conceptually, but if given a choice, the preference would rather gather data from the five senses.
    I know an ISTJ, who can discuss matters conceptually, however has an arduous time in thinking outside of the box. I would say that the combo of SJ makes her too linear in thinking, the same way that NP would probably make one too theoretical and non-practical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    As an INTJ, I must say that my mind can be a storehouse of useless trivia. I also have a very good memory of events. I very much perceive with my senses and have empirical knowledge, but as an N, I would much prefer to understand conceptually through either reading or discussion (reading, though, is preferable, since I can do it alone).
    And there lies the difference. As someone preferring ISTP, I would rather have discussions and some practical experience (hands on) than to reading about it. However, I too can be theoretical and understand concepts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    The S and N dichotomy really isn't about how you gather information, but how you prefer to gather information. Because ultimately, we all gather information through both ways, probably equally.
    Agreed, so it only makes people appear dense in their basic understanding of type, when they think and articulate otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    Still, observing other people and guessing their types can be a lot of fun -- even though my guess is probably wrong.
    Again, definitely an intuitive thing. I doubt that the average person preferring sensing would go around typing others unless it was of necessity, and the person could have an impact on their lives somehow (ie, relationship purposes), which I may chime in is how "living in the present" works for SPs.

    I would most likely either not notice the person(s), and if I did would focus on the immediate interaction with them, in lieu of wondering what their type is. Even if my mind wondered, it would probably be less on their type (although it could happen), but more on something they said, otherwise I am miles away. Granted, I would probably be observant of their appearance, and any other thing that I was noticing from my five senses.

  8. #8
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Well, the SJ type tends to gather conceptual knowledge to prepare for the unforeseen future, so it's not really for the sake of learning in of itself, but as J's, they're future-oriented, but unlike N's, they generally don't seem to be have a genuine interest in it, but they are just seeking to feel secure in case unforeseen problems come their way. But their main focus is on practical concerns.

    I would probably say that SJ's are likely to be the most well-rounded in school because of their focus on productivity. Even if they're introverted, they might seem chatty and talkative because that's what society expects of them. An SJ may not come across as a scholar (someone deeply concerned with abstract concepts), but as someone who has a broad range of knowledge.
    Last edited by The Ü™; 06-03-2007 at 05:18 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Question for the lawyuhs
    By Ivy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-03-2009, 04:31 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 09:07 PM
  3. [INFP] A Question for the INFPs
    By sonata in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-08-2008, 01:06 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