User Tag List

First 345

Results 41 to 49 of 49

  1. #41
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,131

    Default

    like driving an automatic, as opposed to manually transmissioned car?

    sorry... that was @Mane 's comment!

    on that note though, I can't say that there's any function that I idle in for a majority of the time... I'm running through city traffic on automatic, and boy it's nice!

    I'd assume that'd apply to more people than those who would realize it if they really thought about it as well...
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  2. #42
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    most things contain truth if kept simple... unfortunately, the devil lurks in the details

    to wildcat though
    Thousand cheers to whatever. I thought of Wall Street in the morning. The devil lurks there .. in the details.

  3. #43
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    like driving an automatic, as opposed to manually transmissioned car?
    The Fe of an ExFJ!
    the Ti of an IxTP!
    the Se of an ExSP!
    the Si of an IxSJ!
    The Te of an ExTJ!
    the Fi of an IxFP!
    the Ne of an ExNP!
    the Ni of an IxNJ!

    is it an alien?
    is it a smartphone?
    is it the lamest super hero of all?
    no, it's...

  4. #44
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wonders View Post
    Generic, well, maybe I didn't write enough specifics about myself but if you have any thoughts about my functions, do let me know.
    Curiously, more specifics about you do not interest me.

    My thoughts are that it's not only possible, it's highly likely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    MBTI
    Ti
    Enneagram
    Id
    Socionics
    Ti
    Posts
    42

    Default

    hey sorry to all, I got "disconnected" from here for a while. I'm replying now if anyone's still around :p


    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Wow. You understood that way better than I did. I think I got a certain gist of it, but it was an entirely different line of thinking, like the mathematical patterns in the symmetry of the universe. Which might even have been unrelated. lol

    This tells me you are indeed a T. Also I am becoming more convinced that you are xSTP (yes, including the x). S's can still think abstractly, they just prefer it to be grounded in concrete reality in some way. Everyone has both an N function and an S function- but one will be in service to the other. It seems like your S preference is weak, yet your abstract thought is consistently subservient to your concrete experience.

    Just my assessment.

    I wonder why I initially thought Ne? Maybe just because it's the perceiving function I am most familiar with and P stood out at me.
    Wow, symmetry of the universe, you definitely went much further in thinking abstractly about this than me I instead tended to stick with the original topic of MBTI.

    I do think your thoughts make sense on abstract vs concrete. For me actually there's two kinds of abstract thought: first one is anything that can be expressed or structured in a logical manner - I like to use visual themes in my mind for that but I can also go the way of taking fully abstract forms. This kind does not need much concrete experience though it's definitely good to have the actual experience because it somehow makes me "feel" things/aspects of the topic a lot deeper or something. Like, it comes to me more effortlessly if also associated with experience*. The other kind of abstract thought I can have is the "intuitive" big picture thingies but that always comes/gets built from concrete details or experience, virtually never the other way around... well unless logical reasoning can jumpstart me on that. Of course a lot of my logic use does come from the details. Overall maybe this building from concrete detail and the deeper "feeling" of an experienced topic is/are what you meant by abstract being mostly subservient to concrete experience.

    *: is this not the same way for N's then...?


    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Sorry for the mess.
    It's okay I'm not going to ask about the details now because the post that used the visual metaphor was very concise and clear to me.

    (Yes if there wasn't that post, I would have asked about the missing steps as you still missed a lot of steps unless a lot of your numbers were just random fillers for fun... Let's use my preferring to have all that as further proof of my S-ness huh? :P OTOH... I can't make myself bother with them now that I got the logic behind the whole idea. So does that just make me someone who's not into total OCD about having all details? )

    See my comments below to whatever's post about what I think about this "one X" thing.



    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    I'm going to take a stab at explaining what @wildcat said with a visual metaphor... I may be wrong, in which case please call me out! (the last bit is for wildcat... I don't care about other input here! )

    say that you have a piece of paper and that represents the dimensions of personality in a way... the extremes being the edges and the center being more moderate. Now fold the paper into quarters and unfold it... this gives you a cartesian plane of sorts. If you look at the measurements as something happening in a continuance as opposed to a dichotomy, you could graph where a person would fall on the plane personality-wise. The middle of the cartesian plane is always an X... it marks the spot of perfect balance

    that's taking a shot there for you!
    Thanks this explanation is just fine. I get how the XXXX type would be represented by just one X. =P (Of course need to make the paper into a 3-dimensional cube to add another letter/function, etc, etc...) I would however say there's more than one X still. Not just the middle of everything. Say, X in S/N space but not X in F/T space... So this point that happens to be in the middle of S/N is not necessarily the middle of everything. Some X without perfect balance. That's not an XXXX type anymore, of course. Just a simpler ambivert e.g. me being XSTP ;P Or two X's XXTP, etc. :P


    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    if we go by MBTI:
    someone could - hypothetically - be the prefect balance of two type sets in an opposite order:
    NTP/SFJ
    NFP/STJ
    STP/NFJ
    SFP/NTJ
    however, depending on which functions they have, they would be one of those 4 sets.
    this in itself is extremely unlikely, as the theory goes, you'd have only one "dominant" or rather energy-less function, a function which is so you that it costs no effort, and yet can't be disengaged, any functional maneuvering you do includes that function by default. so for you to be seemingly balanced, you'd need your other 3 functions to operate under an infinite feed of energy to the point where you wouldn't notice any effort in engaging them.
    No, you don't have to be a balanced person as a result of being an XXXX type (full 4 of X's, or 8 if you wish lol).

    No, you don't need infinite feed of energy. Take the available amount of energy and divide it into as many parts as many letters/functions/dichotomies are there and allocate the parts evenly. No difference in energy distribution thus no difference in preference and no noticing of difference in engaging any of these functions.

    Doesn't follow that it *has to* be a perfect person or balanced person or balance of energy distribution or anything. If anything, the person may be just a jack of all trades and less efficient at things than if the person were to specialize in one dominant function.

    Otoh just as the perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, this exactly equal distribution of energy in an actual psyche doesn't either. But that's nitpicking IMO. In practice, we might as well say "X" instead of I/E, S/N or whatever because it's not going to make a real difference if you're 49,51% I or 50,00% I, ambivert in both cases.

    So I will admit that the idea of a necessity of one or more generic overarching preference(s) in these personality theories is a bit ambivalent to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Antimony View Post
    My sister seems to be ambityped as XXXX. She scores as ENFJ with about a +10% difference. Same my ISFP best guy friend that just took the test...well, he scored as INTP first, but the ISFP description strongly resonated with him. So he at least is IXXX.
    Interesting. =P Any news on that since then?


    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    on that note though, I can't say that there's any function that I idle in for a majority of the time... I'm running through city traffic on automatic, and boy it's nice!

    I'd assume that'd apply to more people than those who would realize it if they really thought about it as well...
    Your last line is what gets me thinking too


    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Curiously, more specifics about you do not interest me.

    My thoughts are that it's not only possible, it's highly likely.
    Highly likely what?

  6. #46
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wonders View Post
    hey sorry to all, I got "disconnected" from here for a while. I'm replying now if anyone's still around :p




    Wow, symmetry of the universe, you definitely went much further in thinking abstractly about this than me I instead tended to stick with the original topic of MBTI.

    I do think your thoughts make sense on abstract vs concrete. For me actually there's two kinds of abstract thought: first one is anything that can be expressed or structured in a logical manner - I like to use visual themes in my mind for that but I can also go the way of taking fully abstract forms. This kind does not need much concrete experience though it's definitely good to have the actual experience because it somehow makes me "feel" things/aspects of the topic a lot deeper or something. Like, it comes to me more effortlessly if also associated with experience*. The other kind of abstract thought I can have is the "intuitive" big picture thingies but that always comes/gets built from concrete details or experience, virtually never the other way around... well unless logical reasoning can jumpstart me on that. Of course a lot of my logic use does come from the details. Overall maybe this building from concrete detail and the deeper "feeling" of an experienced topic is/are what you meant by abstract being mostly subservient to concrete experience.

    *: is this not the same way for N's then...?




    It's okay I'm not going to ask about the details now because the post that used the visual metaphor was very concise and clear to me.

    (Yes if there wasn't that post, I would have asked about the missing steps as you still missed a lot of steps unless a lot of your numbers were just random fillers for fun... Let's use my preferring to have all that as further proof of my S-ness huh? :P OTOH... I can't make myself bother with them now that I got the logic behind the whole idea. So does that just make me someone who's not into total OCD about having all details? )

    See my comments below to whatever's post about what I think about this "one X" thing.





    Thanks this explanation is just fine. I get how the XXXX type would be represented by just one X. =P (Of course need to make the paper into a 3-dimensional cube to add another letter/function, etc, etc...) I would however say there's more than one X still. Not just the middle of everything. Say, X in S/N space but not X in F/T space... So this point that happens to be in the middle of S/N is not necessarily the middle of everything. Some X without perfect balance. That's not an XXXX type anymore, of course. Just a simpler ambivert e.g. me being XSTP ;P Or two X's XXTP, etc. :P




    No, you don't have to be a balanced person as a result of being an XXXX type (full 4 of X's, or 8 if you wish lol).

    No, you don't need infinite feed of energy. Take the available amount of energy and divide it into as many parts as many letters/functions/dichotomies are there and allocate the parts evenly. No difference in energy distribution thus no difference in preference and no noticing of difference in engaging any of these functions.

    Doesn't follow that it *has to* be a perfect person or balanced person or balance of energy distribution or anything. If anything, the person may be just a jack of all trades and less efficient at things than if the person were to specialize in one dominant function.

    Otoh just as the perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, this exactly equal distribution of energy in an actual psyche doesn't either. But that's nitpicking IMO. In practice, we might as well say "X" instead of I/E, S/N or whatever because it's not going to make a real difference if you're 49,51% I or 50,00% I, ambivert in both cases.

    So I will admit that the idea of a necessity of one or more generic overarching preference(s) in these personality theories is a bit ambivalent to me.




    Interesting. =P Any news on that since then?




    Your last line is what gets me thinking too




    Highly likely what?
    Of course you can be an ambivert on two letters only. Even then your ambiversion is in the central position seen from the position of those letters.

  7. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    MBTI
    Ti
    Enneagram
    Id
    Socionics
    Ti
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Of course you can be an ambivert on two letters only. Even then your ambiversion is in the central position seen from the position of those letters.
    I think that wasn't disputed

  8. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    MBTI
    Ti
    Enneagram
    Id
    Socionics
    Ti
    Posts
    42

    Default

    On another note, I'm def. going with xSTP for now ;P

  9. #49
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wonders View Post
    I think that wasn't disputed
    The central position of the object can only be determined by the position of the subject. There is no objective central position.

Similar Threads

  1. Can you be literal and still be an N?
    By prplchknz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 01-08-2012, 03:02 AM
  2. Can one be an athiest and an INFP?
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-25-2009, 10:17 PM
  3. Would you be an immortal?
    By BerberElla in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 07:57 PM
  4. Can you be an E type yet be antisocial?
    By 527468 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-14-2008, 02:46 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