If you want to debate with me, you must understand a couple of things about me. One, I do not like to be condescended to because I do not desire to waste my time trying to be convinced of something, especially when that something is in direct conflict with the direction I'm leaning. And, Two, I do not find value in an extemely arguementative approach, which many of you NTPs seem to favor. I don't find it useful; this negative "you're wrong, I'm right" (so try to prove me wrong) thing. I forget that is your m.o. until I get into a discussion like this (and want to immediately extricate myself).
You think "Just another cocky, inaccurate ENTP statement" is less condescending than "Maybe people with good Ni will recognize that this test is meaningless"? Really?
I hear that you, and others, think the picture test is inherently full of problems. Got it. I pretty much disagree but let that go a while ago, I think. When I get a new idea, I don't jump from A to Z so quickly. That's just not how I think. I explore A a long time, then move on to B, etc. Along the way I identify problems and try to find solutions. If something just doesn't jive, I just finally give up. (kind of like our discussions) I'm still at A on the picture test idea.
Okay, but instead of explaining the basis for your disagreement you just changed the subject repeatedly. I'd be glad to hear the basis for it if you want to explain.
:rolli: Okay. Yet I think I get credit for trying to use my functions, as inferior as they seem to you, to the best of my abilities. Can you say the same?
Actually most people try to point out my Fe use when they want to insult me or make me uncomfortable. I get stuck in Ne+Fe loops sometimes. As for Si, not so much, but it does the whole "I'm afraid everything will always be stuck the way it is now" thing sometimes.
Preachy. I feel like you are lecturing me here. I have said this many times on Type C: I use words loosely when I'm trying to convey a thought, or follow a concept through. I'm more committed to the idea, than the exact definition (which is a Ti characteristic). I respect that is hard for Ti-ers, who need to attach a universal, and specific meaning to a word. Using functions or having cognitive patterns is splitting hairs, imo. Big deal. It's all so vague anyway. I KNOW what they are and how they are used, basically. Why do you always feel the need to repeat that to me? It's as if you have deemed that I don't know as much as you, or that I am in the dark. I do not need you, nor anyone else, to tell me I don't understand functions or to give me advice. This just comes off as priggish condescension! Furthermore, I don't understand this mentality at all. I don't think in that vane about you at all, or others; I'm simply expending MY energy trying to delve and understand. Is this some sort of idiosyncrasy of yours? Why?
You think I'm nitpicking a trivial distinction just to be pedantic. I'm not. You just vastly underestimate the importance of this distinction. Why do you think numerous people (not just Ti-ers) are telling you that?
It's not just Ti users that are correcting your terminology. You may find the distinction insignificant, but imho, that's because you don't yet understand what a big difference there is between your "I use Ne to see patterns and then Fe to be nice to people" model and the model of functions as attitudinal orientations. This leads you to constant mistakes in assessments of functional "use" because you think every time someone performs x action, he must be "using" y function, which is a HUGE difference from what function theory actually says.
Judging functions enable actions. Whatever. Another example of nitpicking my words. I think that I did a pretty good job of explaining Si and Ni. At least as good or better than you. I haven't seen any real substantive debate about why my definitions are not valid. I feel like I tried to describe Si similarly as you did above, and did not imply there was a "single action" pinpointed as using Si, solely. I'm just attempting to scratch the surface with these function definitions because I honestly have not seen it done adequately, although I know others have tried. Even Jung is too vague for my tastes. I never wanted nor intended for my examples to be taken for anything but a simple illustration for function comparison purposes.
A lot of distinctions come off as "nitpicking" when you simply don't understand the subject in question in enough depth to recognize their true significance.
You don't believe the functions have been adequately described because you don't fully understand the already existing interpretations. I'm not saying you're clueless or stupid or anything like that; you just have more to learn. (We all do and always will.) I don't mean that in a condescending way; there's just no way to say it that you won't interpret as condescending.
Nitpicking a word again. Test, exploration, function picture orgy; pick one.
Refer to above about important distinctions appearing as trivial nitpicking when you don't understand the significance of the distinctions.
Do you read my posts? There is a type of study called a
qualitative study. All a qualitative study does is look for qualities that exist in a certain behavior or way of being. It's descriptive and information gathering; ultimately trying to identify the existence of patterns from which more conclusive quantitative studies can be levered.
That's cool. Perhaps if the thread had been titled "Qualitative Study of Self-Described Ni Users Vs. Self-Described Si Users and Their Immediate Reactions to One Picture", rather than "Ni vs. Si Test", that would have been more clear.
This is not a nitpicking or trivial distinction.
Theoretically, if people were sure of their MBTI type, and they looked at certain pictures and most of the Ni users described certain things in the pictures, and Si users described certain things in the pictures, there might become clear some certain pattern, not unlike that which must have appeared to Jung in his dealings with patients. I see no reason why it wouldn't give insight into a person's thought processes to do that. More so than taking a written test, which is more prone to bias.
Sure, that would be fine. Unfortunately, this forum is populated largely by people who don't know anything about their type other than what some internet quiz told them.
Obviously. I'm still on A.
Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to help you move past A. I think you're a smart woman and you do bring interesting perspectives to things sometimes. You just won't budge because you think I'm making trivial distinctions just to be pedantic, when in reality the distinctions I'm drawing are far more important than you give them credit for.
Considering I had made several posts favoring the op, and that I am a dom Ni user, it can be logistically construed that you were putting me down.
Actually that had nothing to do with you personally at all. I mentioned people with Ni only because the thread title claimed to be testing for Ni, not because I wanted to target you or anyone else specifically.
There were many other Ni dominant posters in the thread. What made you think I was targeting you personally? I believe my original post could really only be construed as criticism of the OP, not you or anyone else in thread.
You were rude first.
Maybe this is due to crappy Fe, but I don't understand this. It would seem to me that my first comment, directed at nothing but criticism of the testable validity, is not nearly as personally offensive or grossly generalized as your initial response:
Just another cocky (and inaccurate) entp remark. :yawn:
Your comment not only questions my personal competency, it also implies that incompetence is a frequently occurring quality in ENTPs.
My initial assertion that "good Ni would show you the test is meaningless" hardly seems rude by comparison.
Your sarcastic comment about what a typical Si user would say was off the mark and this is not even worth commenting on further.
I didn't comment on what a typical Si user
would say--I commented on what the test
expected a typical Si user to say, as a means of implying that the test was poorly designed.
Seriously, you got the exact opposite meaning than I intended out of those comments about the Si-er--
I was mocking the test's design and expectations, not claiming that every Si-er would respond that way.
Besides, do you really think most people really posted the
very first things they thought of? Maybe some people wanted to offer unique, interesting interpretations that hadn't yet been posted?
The thread turned more into, "Who can come up with the most interesting interpretations of this photo?" than "What was the very first thing that occurred to you about it"? This is another flaw in the testing process.
Exactly what I was getting at in my post responding to Jennifer earlier, regarding qualitative versus quantitative studies. yada, yada, yada I already said it all before. someone didn't read the thread, perhaps?
Honestly no, I didn't read that particular post. I rarely read entire threads before responding--blame it on being a dumb extrovert.
In any event, though, a
test is by definition a quantitative study. Qualitative studies simply gather amorphous information that can't be assigned objective value or measured...and therefore can't be tested.
This is off topic slightly, but I don't see that how they describe themselves is of any importance, once MBTI type has been established. In fact, it would prevent bias if they didn't understand functions when responding, right? it would be up to the 'testers' to accumulate and interpret the data or answers.
How do we establish MBTI type? Do you know how many people test the wrong type on MBTI because:
A) Some questions are biased toward "N" types,
B) The test itself oversimplifies a lot of more nuanced functional ideas, and
C) The test depends on self-report. Many people answer how they'd like to be, or how they believe they are but are not really. This is very, very common.
I'm not sure why you think that's important. That doesn't make any sense to me. They don't need to know anything about their functions nor type to respond to an open-ended question of what they see in a picture. Unless you are talking of self-testing or something. I'm speaking to administering tests and interpreting responses by a select few testers, or whomever is qualified.
Well, I guess you will get some unquantifiable information about some particular individuals of uncertain psychological type. That's more information than you had before, I guess--problem is, unless we are
very certain that respondents are typed correctly, it just doesn't really tell us anything about Ni vs. Si.
The only data we'd get would be: "This guy interpreted it this way", "This one interpreted it that way", etc. We'd have a very hard time correlating it reliably to true psychological type.
Might not be, but it might be. It's always good to gather information. Jung did all he did by observing and talking to his patients. Briggs noticed her son-in-law was different than the rest of the family and went on to develop her typology theory. That's how we initially learn about things. Ancient astronomers learned a lot about our Earth and sun and moon just by watching the stars every night.
Look, I'm really only taking issue with the fact that it was presented as some sort of test of something. Random information gathering is fine by me; it'd just be a big mistake to consider this one picture any sort of test of any type correlations.
*sigh* i'm just speechless here.
You know what I was saying about thinking someone is nitpicking because you don't understand the true significance of the distinction he's making?
That totally happened to me when I was corresponding with SolitaryWalker.
Maybe if I keep studying, I can be as smart as you and jag.
Oh, I think you're plenty smart now. I don't think either of us thinks you're stupid. I think we both just suspect that you have some reading to do on this particular topic.
'Course, Jaguar suspects the same of me, so, maybe I should order a new book while I'm at it.
Gawd. Look at how long this mother is. ridiculous. ^this is srsly how you get off, isn't it?^ I don't know who's more pathetic. You for wanting this. Or me for delivering it.
Oh come on. Look, I get that it's awfully hard to differentiate between when I'm just trolling people and when I really value their conversation--I really do.
But seriously, in your case, I think if you refined your understanding of a few ideas you could come up with a lot of really outstanding content.
I dunno if I have the credibility at this point to convince you that I don't think you're stupid, but I don't.