User Tag List

First 312362402410411412413414422462512 Last

Results 4,111 to 4,120 of 7141

  1. #4111
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    @bologna, I appreciate your clarification, and see where you're coming from now.

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    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.
    I feel this to be an accurate assessment. Where I differ with you somewhat is here:

    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
    As far as I'm concerned, while personality is without question fluid, typology and the definitions that constitute it are not. There is a fixed range as to what charecteristics an individual may exhibit and still be said to fit a certain type or to have preference for a certain function. This is without question a flaw in the system as you're trying to use something discreet to capture something that actually exists along more of a continuum. Are people always going to fit neatly into one category or another? No. But that's why the types are based on a preponderance of charecteristics. The types are distinct enough and the categories are well enough defined that that works out.

    Now, going back to my example of me playing dress-up as an ENFJ. Regardless of how much I might want to be an ENFJ, or how much I might feel I have in common with ENFJs, that particular descriptor is not the one with the greatest explanatory power in terms of my behavior. If you redefine "ENFJ" in order to suit me, there's going to come a point where you're going to wander out of the ENFJ set into a more suitable one, but you're still no longer talking about the type ENFJ. So my point is that while, yeah, there's some variance across type, there's not so much that you can have some meaningful "redefinition" without ultimately corrupting the original idea.

    I'm intrigued, though, by what you've said about creating type definition from the perspective of each respective type. Because in spite of what I said to Lark about not jiving too much with most ENTJ descriptions, I do very strongly relate to other actual ENTJs that I've encountered both on the site and irl. But the fact of the matter is that we are so strongly similar that I feel that it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to come in and say, "Ok, these group of people share these core similarities in terms of how they see the world. We can extrapolate that these core similarities are most likely to be true for some percentage of the population as well. They are probably all the same type."


    On this forum, we always approach from the other direction--we mash people into categories rather than forming categories around people. Long and short, that creates a culture wherein

    and


    This is a very bad thing, because we're actively forcing away this sort of input. So we're getting further away from actually understanding typology.
    Based on what you've just said, we understand typology just fine, but are getting away from a clear understanding of the actual psychology that drives it. I don't really care about that, because I feel it's not the core issue here. The problem is that the typological categories, rather than being neutral constructs, have been utterly bogged down with bullshit connotations. So the result is that rather than an individual accepting themselves for what they are, they have to contort themselves into a box that has nothing to do with them.

    Again, to go back to the first post of mine that you quoted, my point had nothing to do with whether or not a Feeler is capable of logic or objectivity about their feelings. It was more to do with the fact that the system is what it is. Calling Fi Ti because it makes you feel better doesn't make it so. Fi and Ti are very different things, and someone who knows the difference is gonna look at that IFP whose labeled themselves ITP and say, "Hey, ITP, that argument you're puttin out there right now sounds a lot more like your internal value system, and a lot less like a analytical assessment of the variables at work here. You sure you aren't IFP?" Am I saying that they're incapable of the latter if they typically prefer the former? Not at all. (We do technically have use of all 8 functions, afterall.) But T's are going to be a helluva lot less willing than F's are to bend the system to accomadate someone, and F's get called out more as a result. Contributing to this is the cultural stuff which makes the T label appear to be more valuable, and F's (who are more sensitive to those kinds of signals anyways) just end up getting caught out more often.

    And I feel like that's where our views converge. To me, the system itself is valuable. People ladening it with bullshit subjective judgements about x-type being "better" than y-type is what fucks things up for everyone, because then people start reporting inaccurately and the whole thing becomes useless. So, yeah, ignorance and prejudice within the culture of this site are definitely to blame for making typology less useful than it ought to be.

    What annoys me about this whole exchange is the insistance that saying that Feelers assess things in a way different from Thinkers (aka one that's not strictly based on logic), or that they tend to take things personally more often is being construed as a put down. I honestly could give a fuck if there's some small segment of the Feeling population for whom that's not true, because it's true both to theory and to my own experience that most are. So in terms of practice, I'm not going to approach most Feelers as if they're that magical small percentage who have balanced their F out with their T. I'm going to do my best to meet them where they are until they've shown that they're coming from somewhere different. It lacks pragmatism to do otherwise.
    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

  2. #4112
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Agree with all of the posts re. variance within a given type.

    Also have to throw out my usual piece re. mbti does not and should not describe every aspect of a persons' psychology, behavior, abilities, perceptions/conclusions drawn, etc. Also, that all of the cog. functions and theories thrown about are simply that - theories. Descriptors/categories that can provide easier means of describing more abstract phenomena and patterns of thought. .... which, others have said as well.

    But agree with Wind-up Rex too that the whole 'point' of mbti / these categories is to, well, have actual meaningful categories. So if the variance within a given category is so extreme that for all intents and purposes the two people don't at all approach things the same way at all, or cognitively assess things in the same way, then it's ludicrous to consider them the same 'type'. So yeah, in that case, if there's someone out there who thinks he's an intp when in reality the way he approaches things and such much more closely mirrors the esfp Pattern instead, well, of course people are going to say he is mistyped, because if he was viewed as intp, then it basically makes the entire theory absolutely pointless.

    /this is coming from someone who takes mbti with a huge grain of salt. But again, if the categories/'types' have no basic structure or agreed-upon facets or 'trends', then it's utterly pointless.

    (which it can be in some ways, at least the way some people want to apply it, but I digress. lol.)
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  3. #4113
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    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?

    The criticism is duly noted.


    If I knew that, dear Nico, the equations would be solved


    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    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:

    An accurate summarization. People are indeed afraid of those labels, with apt reason. I cannot recall how many times in my short life on the forums the casual observation that sensordom equals stupid has been passed before my eyes.


    When I see threads like highlander's "MBTI Type and Social Media", all I can do is sit back and laugh.


    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    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.

    If I ever do, I shall. I actually think I hammered out the most personally relevant thoughts, I'll likely lose interest soon here-after


    I do have one more concept floating around up there...

  4. #4114
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    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".
    Lol. That's very true, good point. I think Enneagram (as a more "spiritual developed" type theory, if one looks at it... even the human advocates of it seem to be more hardcore spiritualists of SOME sort) actually integrates change and good/bad into it, via the Directions of (Dis)Integration.

    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.
    In a way, maybe Enneagram has it easier because it doesn't seem to really claim to have the kind of coverage that MBTI does in terms of applying to all people. With MBTI, these binary pairs are supposed to categorize everyone neatly, which it doesn't really do. Meanwhile Enneagram is just nine archetypes that might or might not cover the full range, there are no "functions" per se, there are just archetypes.

    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.
    When I get into these discussions and someone starts quoting authorities (like Jung), it always leaves me a bit cold. I mean, I understand that his work contributed to MBTI and some other theories, but really, they are all just fabricated ways to segment populations into "like" groups, it's just one perspective, and as such, it will have its flaws -- it highlights certain things and ignores others. People seem to really want to identify with a particular type and will even change their behavior to fit the model more clearly, which is kind of bizarre.

    the process, is what is important.
    I agree with that. I think also that's the problem with not being honest with oneself and/or looking at oneself from a neutral perspective regarding MBTI type per se. MBTI isn't really any sort of higher ideal, so it's not really a problem to not match up; but if you lie to yourself about your inclinations and skillsets, you derail your opportunity to be part of the process of self-revelation and growth. To me, that's the only real issue here, since I am viewing it as a tool to be used to effect change (although we can debate the theory itself and how to keep it pure and coherent, and sometimes that is fun too).
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #4115
    Senior Member The Great One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    3,461

    Default

    I think that @RaptorWizard is really an INTP.

  6. #4116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Just to annoy and incite everybody I decided to retype as ISTJ 3w4 sp/sx like Kobe Bryant, the Ultimate Black Mamba Dragon!

  7. #4117
    Senior Member The Great One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    3,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    Just to annoy and incite everybody I decided to retype as ISTJ 3w4 sp/sx like Kobe Bryant, the Ultimate Black Mamba Dragon!
    What type do you really think that you are?

  8. #4118
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,439

    Default

    @bologna: Interesting. That means that I actively display my type for the same reason that other people shy away from it, i.e. to disprove everyone's stereotypes.

    I mean, I'm sure this is a personality thing -- not a personality type thing -- so it would make sense that not everyone would be comfortable being all "Judge me if you want, but all the evidence that's needed to disprove your theory is right here! " And maybe some of it is because I have a relatively high tolerance for people who are all "EJCC you're too nice to be a Te-dom, you sure you aren't ExFx?" But either way, I don't relate a ton to the people who shy away from that.

    I do think people should stop being so damn judgy, though! The more time I spend on this forum, the more annoyed I am by people who treat JCF/MBTI like scripture, or something, where friggin' Keirsey has to be 100% right 24/7.
    ~ g e t f e s t i v e ! ~


    EJCC: "The Big Questions in my life right now: 1) What am I willing to live with? 2) What do I have to live with? 3) What can I change for the better?"
    Coriolis: "Is that the ESTJ Serenity Prayer?"



    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    want to ask me something? go for it!

  9. #4119
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    As far as I'm concerned, while personality is without question fluid, typology and the definitions that constitute it are not. There is a fixed range as to what charecteristics an individual may exhibit and still be said to fit a certain type or to have preference for a certain function. This is without question a flaw in the system as you're trying to use something discreet to capture something that actually exists along more of a continuum. Are people always going to fit neatly into one category or another? No. But that's why the types are based on a preponderance of charecteristics. The types are distinct enough and the categories are well enough defined that that works out.

    Now, going back to my example of me playing dress-up as an ENFJ. Regardless of how much I might want to be an ENFJ, or how much I might feel I have in common with ENFJs, that particular descriptor is not the one with the greatest explanatory power in terms of my behavior. If you redefine "ENFJ" in order to suit me, there's going to come a point where you're going to wander out of the ENFJ set into a more suitable one, but you're still no longer talking about the type ENFJ. So my point is that while, yeah, there's some variance across type, there's not so much that you can have some meaningful "redefinition" without ultimately corrupting the original idea.

    I'm intrigued, though, by what you've said about creating type definition from the perspective of each respective type. Because in spite of what I said to Lark about not jiving too much with most ENTJ descriptions, I do very strongly relate to other actual ENTJs that I've encountered both on the site and irl. But the fact of the matter is that we are so strongly similar that I feel that it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to come in and say, "Ok, these group of people share these core similarities in terms of how they see the world. We can extrapolate that these core similarities are most likely to be true for some percentage of the population as well. They are probably all the same type."

    Based on what you've just said, we understand typology just fine, but are getting away from a clear understanding of the actual psychology that drives it. I don't really care about that, because I feel it's not the core issue here. The problem is that the typological categories, rather than being neutral constructs, have been utterly bogged down with bullshit connotations. So the result is that rather than an individual accepting themselves for what they are, they have to contort themselves into a box that has nothing to do with them.

    Again, to go back to the first post of mine that you quoted, my point had nothing to do with whether or not a Feeler is capable of logic or objectivity about their feelings. It was more to do with the fact that the system is what it is. Calling Fi Ti because it makes you feel better doesn't make it so. Fi and Ti are very different things, and someone who knows the difference is gonna look at that IFP whose labeled themselves ITP and say, "Hey, ITP, that argument you're puttin out there right now sounds a lot more like your internal value system, and a lot less like a analytical assessment of the variables at work here. You sure you aren't IFP?" Am I saying that they're incapable of the latter if they typically prefer the former? Not at all. (We do technically have use of all 8 functions, afterall.) But T's are going to be a helluva lot less willing than F's are to bend the system to accomadate someone, and F's get called out more as a result. Contributing to this is the cultural stuff which makes the T label appear to be more valuable, and F's (who are more sensitive to those kinds of signals anyways) just end up getting caught out more often.
    I don't think that the categories, the system, and the functions are well-defined. Off the top of my head -- there's not even agreement on whether we use all eight cognitive functions; how much in lock-step order the shadow functions play out; the accuracy of Berens' Interaction Styles; and so on. We don't understand typology well--or, at least, we have vastly different understandings of typology. If had a common understanding, we wouldn't still be theorizing about the system to the degree that we do.

    And that's a separate problem from that of misapplying the system to the detriment of individuals (bullshit connotations, etc.).
    What annoys me about this whole exchange is the insistance that saying that Feelers assess things in a way different from Thinkers (aka one that's not strictly based on logic), or that they tend to take things personally more often is being construed as a put down.
    I can't find in this exchange where anyone has actually said that this is a put-down. Can you point that one out to me?

    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post
    @bologna: Interesting. That means that I actively display my type for the same reason that other people shy away from it, i.e. to disprove everyone's stereotypes.

    I mean, I'm sure this is a personality thing -- not a personality type thing -- so it would make sense that not everyone would be comfortable being all "Judge me if you want, but all the evidence that's needed to disprove your theory is right here! " And maybe some of it is because I have a relatively high tolerance for people who are all "EJCC you're too nice to be a Te-dom, you sure you aren't ExFx?" But either way, I don't relate a ton to the people who shy away from that.

    I do think people should stop being so damn judgy, though! The more time I spend on this forum, the more annoyed I am by people who treat JCF/MBTI like scripture, or something, where friggin' Keirsey has to be 100% right 24/7.
    It's .. I don't know, a counterphobic six behavior? You're a textbook counterphobic six, EJCC.

    Nah, we need to have our notions shaken up every once in a while.

    For example, here's an SJ telling us that we should question a system that's been put into place. Doesn't that just make your head fuckin' hurt? I know my brains just exploded, right onto the back wall. The sheer force of the dissonance gushing out from the monitor just

    .. and so on.

  10. #4120
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    It's .. I don't know, a counterphobic six behavior? You're a textbook counterphobic six, EJCC.
    And you are obviously too rational to be a Feeler, and too energetic in your posting style to be an introvert. So, ENTJ.

    Nah, we need to have our notions shaken up every once in a while.

    For example, here's an SJ telling us that we should question a system that's been put into place. Doesn't that just make your head fuckin' hurt? I know my brains just exploded. Gee whiz.
    Aw, quit it, yer makin' me blush!
    ~ g e t f e s t i v e ! ~


    EJCC: "The Big Questions in my life right now: 1) What am I willing to live with? 2) What do I have to live with? 3) What can I change for the better?"
    Coriolis: "Is that the ESTJ Serenity Prayer?"



    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    want to ask me something? go for it!

Similar Threads

  1. TypeCentral Members Psychoanalyze Your Avatar for Free
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7005
    Last Post: Yesterday, 08:13 PM
  2. TypeCentral Members- Casting Call as Disney Characters
    By CuriousFeeling in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 263
    Last Post: 10-17-2017, 06:52 PM
  3. Replies: 126
    Last Post: 03-22-2016, 08:15 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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO