J/P difference, long-range/short-range thinking?

[Jaguar]

If Jaguar were to bring more substantive information to the table, then he would at least have the appearance of being more credible than he does right now.

Paying a vanity press money to self-publish doesn't give anyone credibility.

 

[BlackCat]

Oh wow you two are still arguing? Hasn't it been like a week?

 

[Jaguar]

Oh wow you two are still arguing? Hasn't it been like a week?

We've been arguing for more than 6 months.

 

[simulatedworld]

I think that both Jaguar and simulatedworld find common ground in the revelry of arguing for the sake of argumentation itself. If Jaguar were to bring more substantive information to the table, then he would at least have the appearance of being more credible than he does right now. Thus far, I think that sim's current theory is correct except for his belief that the generic functional orientation orders must be universal and applicable to all people. Of course, I have no concrete evidence to prove otherwise, as we are discussing abstract figures. They will remain as such until someone efficiently designates function with brain hemisphere, but even then we are inhibited by the barrier of consciousness itself. I have always held the belief that the brain operates on a synergistic and 3 dimensional level; unlike our computer counterparts that work on 2 dimensions. And as such complex organs, they communicate to themselves interdependently. So the functions are layered and interwoven in the conscious individual. So I question whether Ti is completely expunged when Fi is inaction; because such a notion would also dictate that the brain completely ceases to communicate in one area in order to completely accommodate another area. This is possible, but until I hear it falsified by a neurologist/typologist, I'm going to remain agnostic about it.

If I believed generic function orders applied to everyone I wouldn't be able to support the idea of dom-tert loops. Those require people to use two functions primarily which are not the standard dominant and auxiliary; therefore, my theory includes cases where people do not follow the generic function orders.

I am disappointed that your comprehension of my ideas has been weak enough to miss this point. In case I haven't explained to you, the standard function orders, imho, represent only theoretical ideals that form the most balanced and successful personality forms (ENTJ being by far the best and most successful at everything, of course.)

There are people who don't use them in that order; they just suffer from personality imbalances by having too much extroversion (too dependent on external validation), too much introversion (too dependent on internal validation), too much perception (inability to take action or make decisions) or too much judgment (stubbornness and inability to change with new information.)

 

[incubustribute]

There are people who don't use them in that order; they just suffer from personality imbalances by having too much extroversion (too dependent on external validation), too much introversion (too dependent on internal validation), too much perception (inability to take action or make decisions) or too much judgment (stubbornness and inability to change with new information.)

+1

 

[simulatedworld]

Paying a vanity press money to self-publish doesn't give anyone credibility.

Objection, relevance.

 

[Ginkgo]

I am disappointed that your comprehension of my ideas has been weak enough to miss this point.

Note to self - Reading threads from last page to first page does not increase reading comprehension.

EDIT: A Liberal ISTJ is like a baby being born with a beard.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ That's kind of an exaggeration. It's true that ISTJs tend a bit more toward conservatism than liberalism, but your perception of this as near-ubiquitous might have to do with the area of the country you live in. If it's a very conservative area, then most of the SJs you know are going to lean conservative because that's what they know. In downtown Atlanta, I've met a lot of liberal SJs (and yes, even STJs) because a lot more of them have been raised in a liberal environment.

My ESTJ older sister, for instance, is possibly the most liberal person I've ever met. Consider that this might be a function of where you live to a much higher degree than you thought.

 

[Ginkgo]

Dude, it was purely in jest.

 

[Ginkgo]

I am disappointed that your comprehension of my ideas has been weak enough to miss this point. In case I haven't explained to you, the standard function orders, imho, represent only theoretical ideals that form the most balanced and successful personality forms (ENTJ being by far the best and most successful at everything, of course.)

Success only hinges on the demands of the environment. Because environments shift, and people acclimate themselves to better suite them, there is no universally ideal archetype or function order. That's like saying that humans are more evolved that brine shrimp. They're not. Swap them with each other's environment and they both die.

 

[simulatedworld]

Success only hinges on the demands of the environment. Because environments shift, and people acclimate themselves to better suite them, there is no universally ideal archetype or function order. That's like saying that humans are more evolved that brine shrimp. They're not. Swap them with each other's environment and they both die.

In human society, being able to balance interval vs. external validation and information-gathering vs. decision-making is clearly most advantageous.

There may exist occasional circumstances where this is not the case, but for all intents and purposes it's virtually always true.

 

[LeafAndSky]

In human society, being able to balance interval vs. external validation and information-gathering vs. decision-making is clearly most advantageous.

There may exist occasional circumstances where this is not the case, but for all intents and purposes it's virtually always true.

A species needs its individuals to exhibit varied traits, in order to stay viable and to adapt. Thus, one could view every manifestation of humanhood as advantageous in a general sense.

I am disappointed that your comprehension of my ideas has been weak enough to miss this point.

One could even view a tendency to assume that a communication partner exhibited weak comprehension, when any problem could just as likely have been caused by a writer not communicating effectively, as advantageous in a general sense. Although, for the life of me, I can't think why that would be advantageous in a specific sense.

 

[simulatedworld]

A species needs its individuals to exhibit varied traits, in order to stay viable and to adapt. Thus, one could view every manifestation of humanhood as advantageous in a general sense.

You're awfully Ni-oriented for an ISFP, aren't you? Are you the Fi+Ni kind?

Anyway, though that's not what I meant, it's a pretty clever sidestep. I think we both know I'm talking about greater overall ability to deal with others and live life happily when I say balancing the functions is "advantageous"--I mean directly advantageous to every individual human, not just advantageous to the species' overall survival at the cost of personal disadvantage, as you've implied.

One could even view a tendency to assume that a communication partner exhibited weak comprehension, when any problem could just as likely have been caused by a writer not communicating effectively, as advantageous in a general sense. Although, for the life of me, I can't think why that would be advantageous in a specific sense.

As fun as toying with different meanings of the word "advantageous" when taken out of context is, I have to ask--do you have a point?

 

[LeafAndSky]

You're awfully Ni-oriented for an ISFP, aren't you? Are you the Fi+Ni kind?

Thank you for the wubbie. But I don't know what Ni or Fi mean. Lots of things interest me, but not those. It's been enough for me to see the differences in people so nicely supported and accepted through a system. I like that. Tolerance.

I tested INTJ in a college psychology class and ENFP in a career development class decades later. Descriptions of ISFPs sound like me. I'll just go with that.

Anyway, though that's not what I meant, it's a pretty clever sidestep. I think we both know I'm talking about greater overall ability to deal with others and live life happily when I say balancing the functions is "advantageous"--I mean directly advantageous to every individual human, not just advantageous to the species' overall survival at the cost of personal disadvantage, as you've implied.

"pretty clever sidestep" = play. And = an appreciation for how big-picture thinking (for instance, species-thinking coming before individual-thinking) actually changes quality of life.

As fun as toying with different meanings of the word "advantageous" when taken out of context is, I have to ask--do you have a point?

Mostly just play. Although, a case could be made for my being irritated with what appear to me to be put-downs, or at least some level of default dismissiveness, in your posts to others, causing me to post. However, that's my problem, not yours. And my irritation probably just means that I do the same thing in some way. I'll just have to figure out how, and fix it. So, thank you.

Carry on! If I occasionally post in this thread, it's just because, well, I started the darn thing and I'm still subscribed.