User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 172

  1. #111
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by louiesgonnadie View Post
    Wait, going by the bolded - wouldn't that make you the one who's more Ji (Ti) focused (or to simply put it, focused on "introverted attitude") than I am since that statement assumes you're in your head more, analyzing data, making judgements based on it - rather than consulting the external world for elaborations? Unless I totally misinterpreted what you just said...
    Concerning my personal history: I gazed at my own navel for a few years and then re-entered the external world. Twenty years ago I may have thought about consulting the external world. Now I just do, most of the time. It depends on how much anxiety the idea produces in me.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  2. #112
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Those shorthands as I intended do cover eight types each and not just four. It wasn't specifically Je/Pi (dom/aux, respectively) to the exclusion of Pi/Je. Those are just collectives, and the best way to represent them is by the dichotomy that denotes them: J vs P.

    Anyway, "directive" is already commonly known to refer to an Interaction Style factor. J is directive, but necessarily, for N's only. For S's, it's a similar, parallel factor, called "structure-focus". T is vice versa. Directive for S's, structure-focused for N's. STP's are directive, while SFJ's are not.
    Both directive and structure focus are versions of the old temperament pole "task-focus". The opposite pole, informatives and motive-focused (F, P), are "people-focused".
    My experience indicates that the SFJ is very directive. But thanks for explaining what Je/Pi means, because nobody else knew.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  3. #113
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    My experience indicates that the SFJ is very directive.
    That's actually structure-focus you're seeing. I guess technically, they're the same thing, but one is more socially oriented, and the other is more "conative", meaning dealing with action. Again, the common factor is "Task-focus".
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #114
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    That's actually structure-focus you're seeing. I guess technically, they're the same thing, but one is more socially oriented, and the other is more "conative", meaning dealing with action. Again, the common factor is "Task-focus".
    Which is more socially oriented? The directive? I see where you're going now. Thanks for avoiding function talk, I find it counter-productive in many ways.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  5. #115
    undergoing self-analysis louiesgonnadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Which is more socially oriented? The directive? I see where you're going now. Thanks for avoiding function talk, I find it counter-productive in many ways.
    Re-reading some of your statements it seems you're more into MBTI-letter codes in terms of typing, rather than Jungian functions. Any reason why? Interesting.
    "For a minute there, I lost myself...I lost myself."

    LOUIS CK: "We don't think about how we talk"
    http://zenpencils.com/comic/95-louis...t-how-we-talk/

  6. #116
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by louiesgonnadie View Post
    Re-reading some of your statements I assume you're more into MBTI-letter codes in terms of typing, rather than the functions, rather than Jungian functions. Any reason why? Interesting.
    I have 5,341 posts on this forum. Most of them involve typology, and mostly JCF. I tried it on for size, watched others on this forum having fits over their strange function test scores that don't mesh with tradition, and struggling to determine types based on JCF went around and around for many pages with no resolution. This thread is only the latest example of the silent torment created by JCF cognitive functions.

    I had a similar struggle over 20 years ago, but it was easily resolved without having to dig deep into the theory. My first MBTI score came out as IXTP. I was exactly even on S/N. The solution was to read the type descriptions. I was obviously an INTP based on that reading. The S traits came from my childhood desire to be like my older brother who is 8 1/2 years older than me and an ISTJ (which is Si dominant). But that's not who I am.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  7. #117
    undergoing self-analysis louiesgonnadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    I have 5,341 posts on this forum. Most of them involve typology, and mostly JCF. I tried it on for size, watched others on this forum having fits over their strange function test scores that don't mesh with tradition, and struggling to determine types based on JCF went around and around for many pages with no resolution. This thread is only the latest example of the silent torment created by JCF cognitive functions.

    I had a similar struggle over 20 years ago, but it was easily resolved without having to dig deep into the theory. My first MBTI score came out as IXTP. I was exactly even on S/N. The solution was to read the type descriptions. I was obviously an INTP based on that reading. The S traits came from my childhood desire to be like my older brother who is 8 1/2 years older than me and an ISTJ (which is Si dominant). But that's not who I am.
    Yeah, I guess I see what you mean. However, sometimes the hard way is the best way, since the hard way has more depth.

    I'll elaborate further: I don't know a lot about Jung and his history, and exactly why he decided to create this whole abstract theory related to sets of processes of the brain, but it certainly is fascinating - and it certainly helps understand yourself better, and pinpoint your strengths/weaknesses, rather than just have the letters tell you what you most likely resemble. The latter is quite lazy, actually...yes, it's easier to understand, and I would see why people can get intimidated by all of this information. In other words, Jung's theory is like dissecting your brain, in a way. And then you have people like David Kiersey, Lenore Thompson (even Myers and Briggs! didn't they simplify Jung's theories after all?) come in and theorize further, create systems based on it, etc. which does offer more confusion, but I really think if you combine all of this different information, different perspectives, whatever - you can find out what is consistent and inconsistent, and build on more consistent data. That's why I like to get people's perspectives on, say, my type, for example - you have people thinking I'm NT and people thinking I'm NF, so that sets the stage for debate, which is an opportunity to discern what seems consistent, which is all based on what kind of research you've done, so it can get dicey since that will vary between people - but that's why it's a good idea to combine all of that different data being thrown out there and form a judgement based on information that can be constructed into more consistent data. So, if both sides seem plausible, someone else will step in with their perspective. And so on.
    "For a minute there, I lost myself...I lost myself."

    LOUIS CK: "We don't think about how we talk"
    http://zenpencils.com/comic/95-louis...t-how-we-talk/

  8. #118
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by louiesgonnadie View Post
    Yeah, I guess I see what you mean. However, sometimes the hard way is the best way, since the hard way has more depth.

    I'll elaborate further: I don't quite know a lot about Jung and his history, and exactly why he decided to create this whole abstract theory related to sets of processes of the brain, but it certainly is fascinating - and it certainly helps understand yourself better, and pinpoint your strengths/weaknesses, rather than just have the letters tell you what you most likely resemble. The latter is quite lazy, actually...yes, it's easier to understand, and I would see why people can get intimidated by all of this information. In other words, Jung's theory is like dissecting your brain, in a way. And then you have people like David Keirsey, Lenore Thompson (even Myers and Briggs! didn't they simplify Jung's theories after all?) come in and theorize further, create systems based on it, etc. which does offer more confusion, but I really think if you combine all of this different information, different perspectives, whatever - you can find out what is consistent and inconsistent, and build on more consistent data. That's why I like to get people's perspectives on, say, my type, for example - you have people thinking I'm a thinker and people thinking I'm a feeler, so that sets the stage for debate, which is an oppurtunity to discern what seems consistent, which is all based on what kind of research you've done, so it can get dicey since that will vary between people - but that's why it's a good idea to combine all of that different data being thrown out there and form a judgement based on information that can be constructed into more consistent data. So, if both sides seem plausible, someone else will step in with their perspective. Or something like that.

    I think abstract data can be simplified that way, however it can be an intense process.
    You could say that letters are lazy, or just easier. But on occasion I've seen a Feeler or two come to this forum, read some of this stuff, and then exclaim that their brain is tired.

    The reason for that I would pin on functions and attitudes. Fe generally does not like intense Ti experiences (reading deeply intellectual material), although there are always exceptions. And Ti does not like intense Fe experiences (loud parties and such), because it tires out quickly.

    Where am I going with this? The current system is only attractive to ivory tower types. It has left the realm of mere society and entered the upper atmosphere where only a few dare to go.

    As for Myers-Briggs, the original MBTI is a hybrid mixture of their own original ideas regarding typology with that of Jung's.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    I think you are an INFP 5w4 sx/sp.

  10. #120
    undergoing self-analysis louiesgonnadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    You could say that letters are lazy, or just easier. But on occasion I've seen a Feeler or two come to this forum, read some of this stuff, and then exclaim that their brain is tired.

    The reason for that I would pin on functions and attitudes. Fe generally does not like intense Ti experiences (reading deeply intellectual material), although there are always exceptions. And Ti does not like intense Fe experiences (loud parties and such), because it tires out quickly.

    Where am I going with this? The current system is only attractive to ivory tower types. It has left the realm of mere society and entered the upper atmosphere where only a few dare to go.

    As for Myers-Briggs, the original MBTI is a hybrid mixture of their own original ideas regarding typology with that of Jung's.
    Yeah, but if it entered a more mainstream light, I think it would actually be misunderstood more - for several reasons that I don't feel like elaborating on (I have an intuitive light on why, I don't feel like discerning it all). Then again, since it is so abstract, it may not be able to ever reach a more mainstream level.

    As far as what you said about Fe/Ti axises....I can get pretty tired when I'm reading about intellectual excerpts, but that's mainly since I don't understand it very well - I'd make an arguement that I am fairly uneducated, for reasons I won't get into.

    Anyway, getting this thread back on track: your INTP estimate of me was based on mainly the letters?
    "For a minute there, I lost myself...I lost myself."

    LOUIS CK: "We don't think about how we talk"
    http://zenpencils.com/comic/95-louis...t-how-we-talk/

Similar Threads

  1. Weigh in on my type! (Enneagram and MBTI welcome!)
    By DontKnowAnyGDColleen in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2017, 08:59 AM
  2. Musings on my type
    By Matthew_Z in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-06-2009, 04:24 PM
  3. Now that I'm confident in what my type is..
    By Fluffywolf in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-03-2009, 03:09 AM
  4. New here and just want to finally figure out my type.
    By LeetoLydia in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 09:29 PM
  5. The Verdict on My Type
    By MerkW in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 11:15 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