User Tag List

First 318368408416417418419420428468518 Last

Results 4,171 to 4,180 of 7100

  1. #4171
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    @bologna, is this what you've been getting at in our discussion?


    Yeah, fuck it; let's just leave it at that.

  2. #4172
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post


    Yeah, fuck it; let's just leave it at that.


    Deal.
    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

  3. #4173
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post


    Deal.
    ENFJ

  4. #4174
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    ENFJ
    Well, well, well. My true nemesis reveals himself. I had a sneaking suspicion about who was truly pulling the strings behind this whole mess.
    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

  5. #4175
    Senior Member captain curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    BIRD
    Enneagram
    631 sp
    Posts
    3,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    ENFJ
    Jarlaxle: fact checking this thread makes me want to go all INFP on my wrists

    "I'm in competition with myself and I'm losing."
    -Roger Waters

    ReadingRainbows: OMG GUYS
    ReadingRainbows: GUESS WHAT EXISTS FOR ME
    hel: fairies?
    Captain Curmudgeon: existential angst?


    Johari Nohari

    https://www.librarything.com/profile/wheelchairdoug

  6. #4176
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    16,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    I think that the issue of different theories only cropped up in the side discussion I had with Bologna. Neither Lark nor Aquarelle ever said anything to make me think they disputed the validity of JCF, only that they weren't familiar with it.

    I tried to be clear as possible in explaining both my understanding of Si, as well as how I felt it was applicable to what I'd observed of Lark's behavior. If you had been in my position, what would you have done to be more transparent?
    I was commenting less on any specific discussion (other than the part about insult/respect), and more on the general idea of how the existence of multiple interpretations can fuel disagreements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    I'm not entirely sure what this means. Perhaps I'm mistaken but aren't MBTI types just particular configurations of the functions? If one comprises the other how can they be said to be distinct schools of thought? Hearing someone say this is like being told that someone loves to read, but is kind of skeptical of the whole alphabet "thing".

    Just to be clear on how I think about this: I'm most familiar with functions as interpreted and understood by Myers-Briggs. That's what I understand to be the standard model, and it's the one I use when typing others. And generally speaking, anyone on this site using any other model usually states as much because it's atypical to do so. Otherwise we'd all run around saying, "Well based on xyz interpretation, I believe this person is an XXXX." So, I'm not exactly sure what you and some of the others in this thread are on about.
    See, here is a good example. I spoke about different theories and interpretations. You are using the term "schools of thought". What does each of us mean?? By way of illustration: I understand the typing system we refer to as MBTI to be based on Jung, but as elaborated and modified by Myers and Briggs. Yes, Gifts Differing is the fundamental reference on the basic theory. When I write of interpretations, I mean the further work of people like Kiersey, Beebe, Thomson, and others. They all use the basic 4 dichotomies, all address function attitudes in one way or another, all come up with 4-letter type codes, etc. One of their most significant differences in my reading is how they deal with functions after dom/aux, or even after what we often refer to as dom/aux/tert/inf, in short, the 4 least preferred functions. Referencing MBTI theory is more akin to quoting the Bible or the U.S. Constitution. We can all know the basic text and its history, but may still interpret and apply it in different ways.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #4177
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    See, here is a good example. I spoke about different theories and interpretations. You are using the term "schools of thought". What does each of us mean?? By way of illustration: I understand the typing system we refer to as MBTI to be based on Jung, but as elaborated and modified by Myers and Briggs. Yes, Gifts Differing is the fundamental reference on the basic theory. When I write of interpretations, I mean the further work of people like Kiersey, Beebe, Thomson, and others. They all use the basic 4 dichotomies, all address function attitudes in one way or another, all come up with 4-letter type codes, etc. One of their most significant differences in my reading is how they deal with functions after dom/aux, or even after what we often refer to as dom/aux/tert/inf, in short, the 4 least preferred functions. Referencing MBTI theory is more akin to quoting the Bible or the U.S. Constitution. We can all know the basic text and its history, but may still interpret and apply it in different ways.
    You're covering this insanely well. Thanks for that; I don't even have to elaborate so far, but I will if I have something further to say.

    The one thing that I'll chime in with--and that I've hesitated to bring up because it'd reek of 'appeal to authority,' haughtiness, nasal intellectualism, or what have you--is that one of my primary purposes here is that my career revolves around constructing and researching models of human behavior and cognition; including probing their utility, applicability, and limitations.

    I don't want to speak from authority or to have anyone trust me for the sake of doing so, but I figure that providing my background might be helpful in that it'd lend context to my assessments.

  8. #4178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I was commenting less on any specific discussion (other than the part about insult/respect), and more on the general idea of how the existence of multiple interpretations can fuel disagreements.


    See, here is a good example. I spoke about different theories and interpretations. You are using the term "schools of thought". What does each of us mean?? By way of illustration: I understand the typing system we refer to as MBTI to be based on Jung, but as elaborated and modified by Myers and Briggs. Yes, Gifts Differing is the fundamental reference on the basic theory. When I write of interpretations, I mean the further work of people like Kiersey, Beebe, Thomson, and others. They all use the basic 4 dichotomies, all address function attitudes in one way or another, all come up with 4-letter type codes, etc. One of their most significant differences in my reading is how they deal with functions after dom/aux, or even after what we often refer to as dom/aux/tert/inf, in short, the 4 least preferred functions. Referencing MBTI theory is more akin to quoting the Bible or the U.S. Constitution. We can all know the basic text and its history, but may still interpret and apply it in different ways.
    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    You're covering this insanely well. Thanks for that; I don't even have to elaborate so far, but I will if I have something further to say.

    The one thing that I'll chime in with--and that I've hesitated to bring up because it'd reek of 'appeal to authority,' haughtiness, nasal intellectualism, or what have you--is that one of my primary purposes here is that my career revolves around constructing and researching models of human behavior and cognition; including probing their utility, applicability, and limitations.

    I don't want to speak from authority or to have anyone trust me for the sake of doing so, but I figure that providing my background might be helpful in that it'd lend context to my assessments.
    this is all interesting and you guys know more than me, but it still seems like there is a twist of logic being applied here. I don't doubt yout superior knowledge of MBTI but I do doubt the way this particular argument in this thread was applied.

    It seems to go that:

    a.) We cannot agree on many things about MBTI, therefore the theory cannot be applied.
    b.)If we all agree "for the sake of argument" that the theory is to be applied, then it still internally has space for wide interpretations.
    c.)Therefore any interpretation is equally valid/invalid (in effect).
    d.) So back to point A.

    There is a subtle leap from b.) to c.), but it's a big one, and I am suspicious of it.

    I would think that just because JCF has been applied in many different ways, does not mean there are no common understandings of it, nor that some are not much more widely accepted in the typology community than others.

    In short: I would think that the "function order" theor of Dom-Aux-Tert-Inferior,possibly with 4 shadow functions (I think that is inevitable but I accept it is more widely debated), possibly without - is the widely understood model. Yes much of the common understanding may differ from Jung, and between ourselves we may interpret the same model to mean many different things, but there is still enough of a continuity and common "thread" there in order to make the idea of a coherent hypothesis and debate conceivable.

    Or am I wrong?

  9. #4179
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I was commenting less on any specific discussion (other than the part about insult/respect), and more on the general idea of how the existence of multiple interpretations can fuel disagreements.
    Alright, I'll stipulate to that.

    See, here is a good example. I spoke about different theories and interpretations. You are using the term "schools of thought". What does each of us mean?? By way of illustration: I understand the typing system we refer to as MBTI to be based on Jung, but as elaborated and modified by Myers and Briggs. Yes, Gifts Differing is the fundamental reference on the basic theory. When I write of interpretations, I mean the further work of people like Kiersey, Beebe, Thomson, and others. They all use the basic 4 dichotomies, all address function attitudes in one way or another, all come up with 4-letter type codes, etc. One of their most significant differences in my reading is how they deal with functions after dom/aux, or even after what we often refer to as dom/aux/tert/inf, in short, the 4 least preferred functions. Referencing MBTI theory is more akin to quoting the Bible or the U.S. Constitution. We can all know the basic text and its history, but may still interpret and apply it in different ways.
    I think what you're neglecting here is that in the case of the texts you just mentioned culture has a constraining effect on the range of acceptable or even possible interpretations. The benefit of that is that it allows us to have a common frame of reference when dealing with complex ideas, and perhaps the drawback is that we assume we have more in common than we actually do. As I mentioned in the post that you quoted, I think in the case of this forum there have grown to be norms for the interpretation of the theory. These norms are functional ones or we wouldn't have threads such as the one we're in now, and people would clarify their assumptions re: theory and interpretation more frequently.

    So while, yeah, it may be a messy way to go about things, it seems to be working, so I don't have any issues with it. In general, at least I don't think that people drawing on different interpretations or theories detracts from our ability as a forum to have meaningful discussions about psychology. Feel free to correct me, though, if I'm missing your point here.

    I think that this whole discussion annoys me is that the disagreement that spurred it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. I'm fine with the basic point that you're making, Coriolis.(I'm pretty much conversing with you at this point in the hopes of learning something new more than anything else.) It just pisses me off that the ignorance of certain parties is now being dressed up as a valid "alternate viewpoint" as opposed to some of us wading in here not really knowing what the fuck we were talking about.
    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

  10. #4180
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    I would think that just because JCF has been applied in many different ways, does not mean there are no common understandings of it, nor that some are not much more widely accepted in the typology community than others.
    Oh goody, another NTP summing up my thoughts for me in a single sentance. Well done, sir.
    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

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • :hi:
  • :bye:
  • :)
  • :hug:
  • :happy2:
  • :smile:
  • :wubbie:
  • :D
  • :wink:
  • ;)
  • :newwink:
  • :(
  • :cry:
  • :mad:
  • :dry:
  • :doh:
  • :huh:
  • :shock:
  • :shrug:
  • :blush:

Similar Threads

  1. TypeCentral Members Psychoanalyze Your Avatar for Free
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6892
    Last Post: 07-20-2017, 01:20 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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO