User Tag List

First 311361401409410411412413421461511 Last

Results 4,101 to 4,110 of 7026

  1. #4101
    inside the lines EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    17,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Well, I have even more material if that doesn't work for y'all.


    :
    Quote Originally Posted by Nørrsken impersonating EJCC
    It's strange. I keep banning morons, but they keep signing up? What is this?
    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    lawful good (D&D) / ravenclaw + wampus (HP) / boros legion (M:TG)
    conscientious > sensitive > serious (oldham)
    want to ask me something? go for it!

  2. #4102
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Well, I have even more material if that doesn't work for y'all.
    It's good with me!
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  3. #4103
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I'm going to have a hard time phrasing my thoughts here, but I'll give it a shot.

    It boils down to the sentiment of: if we didn't pre-judge every member of the type as though they were what we conceive of as the average member of the type, we wouldn't be dissuading folks from labeling themselves as such-and-such a type.

    To that end, your statements here about the average are arguably true. But statistical syllogisms are nasty, nasty beasts and can lead us to faulty conclusions about individual members of a set. Sometimes, those conclusions are subconscious and so they only indirectly affect our interactions, but they still ought to be called out and checked.


    This gives me the opportunity to rephrase the above in a different way.

    If one labels themselves as an ENFJ and they act in non-ENFJ ways, and if we treat type as an objective construct (laffo), there are a few possible explanations. Either they're not ENFJ, or our definition of "ENFJ" and "non-ENFJ" are off-kilter and need to be adjusted.

    We're not as open to that second possibility as we ought to be, and I believe that it's much higher than we think. Our working definitions are probably too narrow.

    After all, sentiments such as

    indicate that those who write descriptions--and also, presumably, most of us--know jack shit about what it actually means to be a certain type, or at least how broad the types actually are.
    Re-read this a couple of times, and I'm still uncertain what your overarching point is here.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth


    #phreephobik

  4. #4104
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    Re-read this a couple of times, and I'm still uncertain what your overarching point is here.
    Don't over look the 1%. That is my understanding.

  5. #4105
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Soon I will have written the GUT of typology, and you will all be forced to submit to my typings

  6. #4106
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Well, it depends on the type of enneagram as to whether or not they get ticked (Fours might be more prone to being offended, and the "identity" minded types). But typically enneagram doesn't really dictate so specifically what your main modes of processing happen to be in the way that MBTI does.
    This is exactly it, well said. Also enneagram is more likely to point out flaws and issues in a way that MBTI is not always constructed to do. Although it depends upon who is writing about MBTI and what source a person has used, but many MBTI books are essentially "happy happy joy joy we're all a bunch of special people.....with minor flaws".

    Add to this those awful and misleading descriptions and you have a nice recipe for grandiose self-delusion and appraisal. If more people merely took MBTI at the face value of the functions and what those cognitive processes can lead to, without all this rather gaudy dressing up that is done to them, then perhaps they would be less likely to invest their self-worth into their type identification.

    Typology is unfortunately the victim of it's own construction. There are many arguments on the nature of 7 billion people not really fitting into 16 neat boxes. But this is often because people always seem to remove subtlety and variation from the equation.

    Ive always thought it best to strip away the shit and get to the core of the material. If people can do that they see how type is not rigid and is more variable than they think, not necessarily in a changing of functions, more so that the way in which an individual develops is always individual to their situation and this goes on regardless of type. There are repeated patterns in development to be sure, which is why the theory came about in the first place, that heuristic observation of the human species, experienced with a lifetime of engagement and career, aka with Jung.

    However I dont think type theory was originally intended to strangle humanity in a straitjacket, merely guide it with an outlying framework. But I suspect people forget that over time; after all it's easier to group than to dissect.

    But you know what humanity is like, we are a species of patterns, we define ourselves by them, our lives are dictated by them and even the most extreme and minute variable often repeats itself on the pattern of existance. Unfortunately this causes us to often see a certain pattern where there is none, which is the problem with functions sometimes. But that's why it is tricky, outcomes can be the same, but what came before the outcome...the process, is what is important.

    Then again it could easily all be a load of dingo's kidney's, but it's one of those prove or prove not's that hasn't really been explored thoroughly yet.
    'Consciousness is not simply a sensory-perceptual affair, a matter of mental imagery, as the contents of our mind would have us believe. It is deeply enmeshed with the brain mechanisms that automatically promote action readiness' - Jaak Panksepp

  7. #4107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Soon I will have written the GUT of typology, and you will all be forced to submit to my typings
    I am sure it will rival Zang's Metagram in its impact on the hobby of typing.

    How are you going to derive the functions?

  8. #4108
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    Re-read this a couple of times, and I'm still uncertain what your overarching point is here.
    Let me try again.

    Long and short: Yeah, that whole "Feelers and Sensors ought to be able to come out of the closet" thing? We're the reason why they don't, and we don't even realize it.


    The details:

  9. #4109
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post

    The average of a set says jack shit about an individual in that set if there's a lot of variance within that set. And there's a much larger variance than we act like there is.

    Thus, we have to be open to redefining what it means to be such-and-such a type, from the perspective of those from that type. Because that's how we understand the individual (because, after all, we're all special butterflies, and the rules don't apply to us).

    And when we aggregate our understandings of the individual, we actually understand typological categories.


    On this forum, we always approach from the other direction--we mash people into categories rather than forming categories around people.
    QFT
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  10. #4110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Soon I will have written the GUT of typology, and you will all be forced to submit to my typings
    Be sure to send me a mention in your thread when this theory is fully developed. It should be interesting and yes, like another poster said, perhaps it could be compared against Zang's Metagram.

Similar Threads

  1. TypeCentral Members Psychoanalyze Your Avatar for Free
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6775
    Last Post: Yesterday, 09:44 PM
  2. Replies: 126
    Last Post: 03-22-2016, 08:15 AM
  3. TypeCentral Members- Casting Call as Disney Characters
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 260
    Last Post: 03-06-2016, 03:10 AM
  4. TypeCentral Members- Cast them as musicians
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 09-21-2015, 04:35 PM
  5. It's a mystery. (moved from Mistyped MBTIC Members)
    By entropie in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-31-2008, 06:24 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