User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 39 of 39

  1. #31
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    Then it is an even more oddly phrased question, since asking for credentials breeds animosity.
    If you had acquired instructor licences from the respective trademark holders, you probably would have found the question a lot less oddly phrased.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    I eel comfortable because I know that I know the system(s) and the theory well. That's about it.
    I have gathered as much by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    As I previously wrote, this eventually all boils down to interpretation, so I don't really see the validity in the argument.
    An interpretation is more likely to be accurate the more information about the matter in question the interpreter has been exposed to, which is why people trust professionals more than laymen. So, if the matter in question, as in the case of typology, is a theory or, rather, the content of certain texts, one would expect an expert to have carefully studied these texts. Should he then turn out to have studied them less than expected, one would, I assume, put less weight on his interpretation. Of course, laymen can be right and professionals wrong, but the opposite view works better as a general approach.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    If you had acquired instructor licences from the respective trademark holders, you probably would have found the question a lot less oddly phrased.
    Not really, since regardless of whether I possessed those credentials or not, it is still a question questioning the person's legitimacy. I already mentioned that I am planning to get an MBTI certificate, but I also mentioned it is only for practical purposes so I can shove it in people's faces. The actual knowledge means nothing to me, since I know that there is nothing a certificate can teach me that I already don't know.

    I have gathered as much by now.
    Ok.

    An interpretation is more likely to be accurate the more information about the matter in question the interpreter has been exposed to, which is why people trust professionals more than laymen. So, if the matter in question, as in the case of typology, is a theory or, rather, the content of certain texts, one would expect an expert to have carefully studied these texts. Should he then turn out to have studied them less than expected, one would, I assume, put less weight on his interpretation. Of course, laymen can be right and professionals wrong, but the opposite view works better as a general approach.
    I don't see much legitimacy in this argument because I think it is projecting power and authority too much on someone simply because of a title they possess, rather than judging their actual content of thought. Titles do not in themselves, as I previously wrote, say anything about how well someone has assimilated certain information or for the matter, what information they were ultimately exposed to. That's just appeal to authority fallacy.

    If you want to test my understanding, I again encourage you to ask me questions. Only then will you truly actually know what information I possess and how I've assimilated it.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  3. #33
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    Not really, since regardless of whether I possessed those credentials or not, it is still a question questioning the person's legitimacy.
    Well, of course it is questioning your legitimacy. I fail to see what is odd about that, though. You are just a random guy on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    I don't see much legitimacy in this argument because I think it is projecting power and authority too much on someone simply because of a title they possess, rather than judging their actual content of thought. Titles do not in themselves, as I previously wrote, say anything about how well someone has assimilated certain information or for the matter, what information they were ultimately exposed to. That's just appeal to authority fallacy.
    The people most likely to be interested in a video interview with you are the people least likely to be able to judge for themselves how well you know and do what you offer. As I already said: Of course, laymen can be right and professionals wrong, but the opposite view works better as a general approach. In other words, appealing to an authority (by definition 'a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject, an expert') makes more sense than appealing to a layman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    If you want to test my understanding, I again encourage you to ask me questions. Only then will you truly actually know what information I possess and how I've assimilated it.
    I again assure you that I did not ask because I am interested in whether or not you know the lore and can wield the vocabulary, but because I wondered what path you have taken to feel comfortable offering your knowledge as expertise. I got my answer.

    You have not changed that much since you wrestled with Kalach over typology last year.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Opal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,454

    Default

    I look forward to seeing where we land.

  5. #35
    Member 00c's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    99

    Default

    The session wasn't that helpful and Kashimi proceeded to denounce all tests, all questionnaires and all "general" characteristics of the types, so basically only his form of thought is right it seems, postponement, interruptions and add to that he diagnosed me on 10 simple answers of 7 simple word questions. We chatted through text since we were unable to video chat, however, which should have called for more than what we talked to actually get an accurate typing. He typed me ESFP and I attribute it to my longest statement that he cared to receive being Se related as it's the one function he asked most questions for and the only question I was able to verbally speak after his end of the skype videochat didn't work, the questions were really vague which I felt asked for vague answers without fluff and so he says that I must not be a logical thinker as the questions were open ended, but he hardly asked any questions where you could determine through ones actions if one was logical or not. The questions were incredibly open-ended, for example "What movies do you like?", "Why?" as if expecting to receive reviews for each and every single one of my favorite movies and so he says that my answers are essentially indicative of shallow thinking.
    It honestly felt half-assed and I don't care to waste my time again trying to "get it right" because that's really all it was, a waste of time seeing as he couldn't really contrast between ENTJ or ESFP , all he probably based that on was my long Se answer due to questions which were Se related and me telling him I was certain of those functions exactly, but have a go at it and see how knowledgeable you feel he is because he made it seem he's done more intensive research and work than the people who made the tests and type categorizations, hell, maybe even Jung himself. He definitely types better than he speaks, but that hardly means anything. I might be coming off as critical, but this is what happened. Why lie? Remember, we only chatted through text, there would have been much more to type off if we spoke through video chat. Anyway, good luck getting donations!
    tumblr
    It's no fun to lose.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Well, of course it is questioning your legitimacy. I fail to see what is odd about that, though. You are just a random guy on the internet.
    I'm merely pointing out that it showcases a lack of benefit of the doubt and is overall a hostile action, warranted or not.

    The people most likely to be interested in a video interview with you are the people least likely to be able to judge for themselves how well you know and do what you offer. As I already said: Of course, laymen can be right and professionals wrong, but the opposite view works better as a general approach. In other words, appealing to an authority (by definition 'a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject, an expert') makes more sense than appealing to a layman.
    That may be accurate but may also not be accurate. Some people may also find it an interesting challenge to see how good I am. Personally, I would probably fall in that category, but you are probably right in that I constitute a smaller minority who get kicks out of challenging people's knowledge.

    I again assure you that I did not ask because I am interested in whether or not you know the lore and can wield the vocabulary, but because I wondered what path you have taken to feel comfortable offering your knowledge as expertise. I got my answer.

    You have not changed that much since you wrestled with Kalach over typology last year.
    In some ways I probably haven't, but in a lot of ways I have. Though again, I find it odd for you to ask for my credentials if you are, as you say, not interested in what lore and vocabulary I can wield, since those credentials ultimately infer, especially as you imply, what I'm wielding.

    Quote Originally Posted by 00c View Post
    The session wasn't that helpful and Kashimi proceeded to denounce all tests, all questionnaires and all "general" characteristics of the types, so basically only his form of thought is right it seems, postponement, interruptions and add to that he diagnosed me on 10 simple answers of 7 simple word questions. We chatted through text since we were unable to video chat, however, which should have called for more than what we talked to actually get an accurate typing. He typed me ESFP and I attribute it to my longest statement that he cared to receive being Se related as it's the one function he asked most questions for and the only question I was able to verbally speak after his end of the skype videochat didn't work, the questions were really vague which I felt asked for vague answers without fluff and so he says that I must not be a logical thinker as the questions were open ended, but he hardly asked any questions where you could determine through ones actions if one was logical or not. The questions were incredibly open-ended, for example "What movies do you like?", "Why?" as if expecting to receive reviews for each and every single one of my favorite movies and so he says that my answers are essentially indicative of shallow thinking.
    It honestly felt half-assed and I don't care to waste my time again trying to "get it right" because that's really all it was, a waste of time seeing as he couldn't really contrast between ENTJ or ESFP , all he probably based that on was my long Se answer due to questions which were Se related and me telling him I was certain of those functions exactly, but have a go at it and see how knowledgeable you feel he is because he made it seem he's done more intensive research and work than the people who made the tests and type categorizations, hell, maybe even Jung himself. He definitely types better than he speaks, but that hardly means anything. I might be coming off as critical, but this is what happened. Why lie? Remember, we only chatted through text, there would have been much more to type off if we spoke through video chat. Anyway, good luck getting donations!
    I'm sorry if you felt it was not meaningful to you and I felt that you were perhaps needlessly shortworded over text and maybe it had helped to have a video conversation but since Skype kept breaking up and/or ending the call, I figured there was no point to it.

    As for more "effort", I think effort could have been put forth both ways. You did however seem unresponsive to what I asked you, so with that there isn't much I can do about it if you yourself do not feel there is anything you want to talk about that you felt was relevant outside of answering questionnaires. Some of my questions weren't that much different from that of the questionnaire questions though. The most important thing when being typed, which I can advice anyone about, is to try to not be tongue-tied but when asked questions, try to really respond to those questions and if you think the questions are not meaningful, suggest what else to talk about. Subjects are not something I'm picky over, since I think the easiest and best way one can figure out someone's cognition is to see what people are most naturally drawn to do on their own.

    With that said, yes, I do denounce all tests since I think the tests are ultimately not really dealing with the cognitive functions as much as they end up being about stereotype behavior and sometimes that fits, sometimes it doesn't fit. Since I, as it says in the OP, primarily offer Jungian typing, MBTI and such tests therefore mean very little to me.

    As for ENTJ vs ESFP, I don't think I really got time to actually explain the differences between the two either, though. I could have offered you a much more in-depth difference between the two, if you had asked for it. I did begin to explain how Te is like and what rationality is, however, and if you feel that explanation isn't meaningful, then perhaps Jungian type isn't your cup of tea in the first place so I wish you luck in whatever kind of information you are looking for, then.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  7. #37
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    I'm merely pointing out that it showcases a lack of benefit of the doubt and is overall a hostile action, warranted or not.
    The question arose from scepticism and, as you put it, doubt, not from hostility. It is a general attitude of mine. No need to get the 8 rolling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    In some ways I probably haven't, but in a lot of ways I have. Though again, I find it odd for you to ask for my credentials if you are, as you say, not interested in what lore and vocabulary I can wield, since those credentials ultimately infer, especially as you imply, what I'm wielding.
    Perhaps I am odd that way, being more interested in what makes people tick than in which ready-made category to put them in.

  8. #38
    Member 00c's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamishi View Post
    I'm sorry if you felt it was not meaningful to you and I felt that you were perhaps needlessly shortworded over text and maybe it had helped to have a video conversation but since Skype kept breaking up and/or ending the call, I figured there was no point to it.

    As for more "effort", I think effort could have been put forth both ways. You did however seem unresponsive to what I asked you, so with that there isn't much I can do about it if you yourself do not feel there is anything you want to talk about that you felt was relevant outside of answering questionnaires. Some of my questions weren't that much different from that of the questionnaire questions though. The most important thing when being typed, which I can advice anyone about, is to try to not be tongue-tied but when asked questions, try to really respond to those questions and if you think the questions are not meaningful, suggest what else to talk about. Subjects are not something I'm picky over, since I think the easiest and best way one can figure out someone's cognition is to see what people are most naturally drawn to do on their own.

    With that said, yes, I do denounce all tests since I think the tests are ultimately not really dealing with the cognitive functions as much as they end up being about stereotype behavior and sometimes that fits, sometimes it doesn't fit. Since I, as it says in the OP, primarily offer Jungian typing, MBTI and such tests therefore mean very little to me.

    As for ENTJ vs ESFP, I don't think I really got time to actually explain the differences between the two either, though. I could have offered you a much more in-depth difference between the two, if you had asked for it. I did begin to explain how Te is like and what rationality is, however, and if you feel that explanation isn't meaningful, then perhaps Jungian type isn't your cup of tea in the first place so I wish you luck in whatever kind of information you are looking for, then.
    You had time and the questions were yours, yet you demean all questionnaires and tests and made it seem as if only your view of all of typology is right, as if your form of typing is more accurate than the tests which people certainly took time to make. You said there wasn't an algorithm to properly type people, yet you made it seem as if there's some sort of algorithm going on in your head that can accurately type people or as if people who weren't at all knowledgeable in the fields made the tests on the fly. Your statements mainly included "not necessarily" rather than "it can include that" which is more obtrusive in one's way of thinking of the functions than helpful. Shallow questions don't call for extensive answers and the questions in questionnaires are hardly as shallow as the ones you chose to ask so please don't compare them to keep up a front of the session being as thorough as one because it most certainly was not. Your explanation on Te was around 1 sentence, in fact, every single one of your confident statements were around one sentence and add to that your debunking of other established forms of type recognition. Jungian is a thing for me, maybe typing isn't the thing for you. It's ignorant to even say that, that something isn't for them simply because they don't see it like you do. Anyway, I wish you luck in becoming better at your typing endeavors and efforts to make easy money. I was certainly not "tongue-tied". I spoke, but your questions were leagues more shallow than any of my answers, none of your questions were thought-provoking at all. A teacher shouldn't discourage students and if you really were so great at typing maybe you'd try explaining it now, but of course you probably won't since you may feel a bit offended judging from your last statement, hell, I even offered you to read my other questionnaires which had tons of information to go from yet you simply said that you wouldn't have been able to garner anything from it. Oh, but you certainly were able to garner enough from your 10 shallow questions which only asked for 10 shallow answers.
    tumblr
    It's no fun to lose.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 00c View Post
    You had time and the questions were yours, yet you demean all questionnaires and tests and made it seem as if only your view of all of typology is right, as if your form of typing is more accurate than the tests which people certainly took time to make. You said there wasn't an algorithm to properly type people, yet you made it seem as if there's some sort of algorithm going on in your head that can accurately type people or as if people who weren't at all knowledgeable in the fields made the tests on the fly. Your statements mainly included "not necessarily" rather than "it can include that" which is more obtrusive in one's way of thinking of the functions than helpful. Shallow questions don't call for extensive answers and the questions in questionnaires are hardly as shallow as the ones you chose to ask so please don't compare them to keep up a front of the session being as thorough as one because it most certainly was not. Your explanation on Te was around 1 sentence, in fact, every single one of your confident statements were around one sentence and add to that your debunking of other established forms of type recognition. Jungian is a thing for me, maybe typing isn't the thing for you. It's ignorant to even say that, that something isn't for them simply because they don't see it like you do. Anyway, I wish you luck in becoming better at your typing endeavors and efforts to make easy money. I was certainly not "tongue-tied". I spoke, but your questions were leagues more shallow than any of my answers, none of your questions were thought-provoking at all. A teacher shouldn't discourage students and if you really were so great at typing maybe you'd try explaining it now, but of course you probably won't since you may feel a bit offended judging from your last statement, hell, I even offered you to read my other questionnaires which had tons of information to go from yet you simply said that you wouldn't have been able to garner anything from it. Oh, but you certainly were able to garner enough from your 10 shallow questions which only asked for 10 shallow answers.
    The main reason why I do not do that is because I find that I often get a very different picture once I speak to the person in question, and that the information I get from text is woefully incomplete. If you found the questions shallow, there isn't much to be done about it. Again, you can check the videos uploaded and you will see there is no one straight question I do ask since a lot of them occur on the fly. The point though, isn't that I am necessarily looking for people to speak about "deep things", as much as I want them to talk about things in a way that comes naturally for them. The nature of the question itself is actually quite irrelevant in this regard.

    I couldn't make you talk but again, if you found the questions "shallow", you could also have proposed something that you found more suiting your tastes that you felt you wanted to talk about. I can only work with the information I am provided with, after all. I mean, I could for example deduce I think this post of yours I'm responding to now is exemplary of Fi but Fi where in the cognition, not quite sure. And chances are I may have felt the same reading your questionnaires.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

Similar Threads

  1. People of your type that make you not want to be your type
    By The Great One in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 04-17-2016, 07:28 AM
  2. FINALLY I want to know my type! Please help me end my confusion.
    By EndlessNameless in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-18-2016, 09:02 AM
  3. I just want to know your opinion
    By prplchknz in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-22-2012, 09:45 PM
  4. Just want to know my type...neurotic is not a type.
    By Jillofalltrades in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-01-2011, 03:36 PM
  5. [NF] I don't think you NerFs actually want to find your "type"
    By Jeffster in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 12-19-2009, 10:35 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