User Tag List

First 319369409417418419420421429469519 Last

Results 4,181 to 4,190 of 7026

  1. #4181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    Oh goody, another NTP summing up my thoughts for me in a single sentance. Well done, sir.
    It's what I do.

  2. #4182
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Good stuff, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    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
    I've gotta say that my knowledge of MBTI itself is less extensive than that of a lot of other members here--they're encyclopedias on the subject by comparison--but that I do trust that I know a thing or two about (mostly cognitive) models in general; how models are applied, compared, tested, and validated; etc. etc.

    I doubt my superior knowledge of MBTI, so you don't have to
    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.
    [...]
    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.
    "Baby getting thrown out with bathwater" comes to mind.

    I have to say that there are very few absolutes. There's a degree to which MBTI is internally coherent, well-understood, valid, and/or applicable; there's a degree to which it's not. Acknowledging that there's a degree to which it's inaccurate doesn't invalidate the whole shebang; nor does claiming that it has a lil' bit of utility mean that we treat it as gospel.

    On agreement: There's a set of near-universal 'tenets' that are understood about MBTI; many points that are widely accepted but under contention by some; and some that nobody has a damn clue about. Coherent hypotheses and debate are definitely conceivable; in fact, it allows us to clear up misconceptions and figure out which of the wide set of interpretations makes the most sense.

    I definitely don't think that every interpretation is equally valid or invalid; some are more on target--and make more sense--than others. The more detailed ones tend to suffer under their own weight, for example.

  3. #4183
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    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.

    Or am I wrong?
    I would not make such a leap. I would say instead that:

    a) We can agree on much but not everything about MBTI.
    b) The extent of our agreement places limitations on how far we can apply the theory.
    c) If we want to extend application past the boundary of agreement (assumes we know where that is), we must explain the interpretation we are using, and treat the extension as a test or hypothesis.
    d) essentially a corollary to (c): others may postulate alternative ways to apply the theory, based upon other interpretations or extensions of the "established" theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    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.
    Quite the opposite: drawing on different interpretations is beneficial in helping me see the theory in different ways, and go beyond the limitations of whatever interpretation I may be most familiar with. In short, it helps me learn. My point was just that it helps to avoid misunderstandings if we clarify our assumptions and definitions/sources at the outset. This is because a common frame of reference benefits us only to the extent that it really is common and we stay within it. When we go beyond that without realizing or clarifying, confusion can ensue.
    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...

  4. #4184
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    I don't suppose anyone would care to make clear the distinction between collections of ideas that have existed for other people and collections of ideas that you're attached to and willing to develop?

    (And also state how it applies to all this anguished theory denial.)
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  5. #4185
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    I've decided to change my type to XNtp. And if anyone has a problem with it, they can kiss my sparkly fairy butt.

    However, I apologize in advance for being the cause of mental pain due to cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately (for you), avoiding it in myself is more important.

  6. #4186
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    @highlander
    I see you as an 8w9 for some reason. I'm curious as to why you believe you are a 6
    @skylights
    you strike me as 2w3 fixed rather than 3w4 fixed and possibly So/Sx. Sx/So's tend to be more dramatic and less subtle; So/Sx has a warmer, more subdued energy. I can't say for certain though, as ENFP 6>9>2 is already a pretty docile type with a more mellow, yin energy.
    @chana
    6w5 Sp/Sx or Sx/Sp you see too detached, cunning, cold and blunt and not insecure enough about your self worth (an ironic choice of words given the type I'm proposing) to be an image type.
    @Jaqcues Le Paul
    - not an ENTJ. you lack the thorough, conscientious, excessively quantifiable nature of a Te dom. ENFP works much better in my opinion (with the possibility of INTJ or ENTP)
    - Sp/Sx as opposed to Sx/Sp. you're more detached and self absorbed rather than impulsive, excessive, addictive and thrill seeking the way an Sx dom is.
    - since you're undecided on your wing, it's clearly 7w6 in my opinion. you're more cerebral and calculated and seem to have a stronger connection to the head center; 7w8 by contrast is less aware of consequences, more in the moment and more action oriented (even prone to workaholism)
    - not sure if you're interested in tritype, but you seem like a 7w6>3w4>9w8
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  7. #4187
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,929

    Default

    Elfboy, I seriously considered what you and Speed Gavroche said about INTP 5w6 even though it didn't go into my typing box - and perhaps I considered it too much; or too little.

    Also @greenfairy, the reason people blow up when you consider INTP is because you seem to be much more of an idiosyncratic dreamer (INFP trait) than a detached thinker (INTP trait).

  8. #4188
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    Also @greenfairy, the reason people blow up when you consider INTP is because you seem to be much more of an idiosyncratic dreamer (INFP trait) than a detached thinker (INTP trait).
    Yes, I realize this. But appearances are deceiving. People just don't understand how I think and the perspective I'm coming from. Which is what I've been trying to communicate; but it's like trying to describe to a fish what the top of a tree looks like.

  9. #4189
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Yes, I realize this. But appearances are deceiving. People just don't understand how I think and the perspective I'm coming from. Which is what I've been trying to communicate; but it's like trying to describe to a fish what the top of a tree looks like.

    Plenty of riverbanks have been flooded extensively.

  10. #4190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Yes, I realize this. But appearances are deceiving. People just don't understand how I think and the perspective I'm coming from. Which is what I've been trying to communicate; but it's like trying to describe to a fish what the top of a tree looks like.
    Why wouldn't you just point them to a description of Ti is that's what you identify with?

    Jung did the work so that you don't have to!

Similar Threads

  1. TypeCentral Members Psychoanalyze Your Avatar for Free
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6786
    Last Post: Today, 09:23 AM
  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