Overview of Typology

[SolitaryWalker]

Before perception is sensation, and sensation will filter what we perceive (or don't)



Actually, this *is* the definition of perception, dunno what exactly you mean by ...'perception into conscious judgment' [this would reduce the definition of perception into nothingness].

Just clarifying, since:

Correct. First you see the room (sensation), secondly you get an abstract unconscious hunch of what you saw intuition.

At this point we are entirely on the unconscious level, this is the same thing as a dog has smelled the tree and recorded it unconsciously.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Than a dog will get a conscious instinct about what the tree is like, and for this reason next time it sees the tree, it will remember it.

Hence, this is where judgment comes in, where we begin to have a conscious and a more clear idea of what has gone on in our mind.

Before perception is sensation, and sensation will filter what we perceive (or don't)
:

I do not understand this remark, I had sensation defined as one kind of a perception. The other kind of perception is intuition.

Actually, this *is* the definition of perception, dunno what exactly you mean by ...'perception into conscious judgment' [this would reduce the definition of perception into nothingness].
:

The definition of perception is translation of unconscious hunches into conscious data? If I merely smell the rose, does this mean that only by virtue of having smelled it I now have a clear, conscious idea that it is the rose that I smelled?

Or how about, when somebody explains an abstract theory to me, and I merely perceive it, from your definition of perception it follows that upon immediate perception of what they said, I have a clear and a conscious idea of what is going on.

That is simply not the case. You do not have a clear and a conscious idea of a theory that was explained to you until you have reflected upon it. This requires a process of conscious scrutiny, which is judgment by definition.

Note: Jung has defined perception as a purely unconscious cognitive process as have I.

Explain how perception could be defined as translation of unconscious hunches into conscious data.

I am not questioning, at least in that specific instance, what philosophy of mind does or doesn't do. I am bringing up a criticism of typology that seems apparent to me.

Or, as another member named it (Jack-B-nimble): confirmation bias.


The rule:

All dogs bark.

An example:

Muttzist is a dog.
Muttzist barks.

An exception [psst, barely]:

Qre:us: *woof, woof*

Beyond what's the word around the pound, how do you validate Muttzist as a dog and not me?

I have no idea what most of this post is about. The only part that I understood was that there was some kind of a criticism of typology, yet it is not specified what this criticism is. In your last post, your claim seemed to be that people establish their opinions on typology without evidence, or without the due observation. I responded that this is not true, as a good inquiry into typology requires a very careful observation of one's cognitive predilections. Such observations are ostensible to all and because of this it is not possible for one to make a justifiable claim about typology that is not supported by proper observations and argument.

Let me have another guess of what you may be getting at.

All dogs bark.

Bob barks, therefore bob is a dog.

This argument is invalid because the premise specifies that all dogs bark, it does not say that only dogs bark.

The fallacy in this one is that of affirming the consequent.

This is just like a theist saying, if God made the universe, than the universe exists. The consequent here is that the universe exists.

So, if now, I make the assertion that the universe exists, it does not follow that God made the universe. The premise specifies that God making the universe is one way the universe could exist, but not the only. Therefore because it is not the only way the universe could exist, knowing that the universe exists does not lead us to know that God made it.

Your argument has the same form, the antecedent is that dogs bark and the consequent is that bob barks. It does not follow that bob is a dog.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you were talking about a typological instance like this; all Thinkers use logic. Mary uses logic, therefore Mary is a Thinker. This is a behaviorist approach to typology and is untenable.

Type is defined not as behavior, but as an unconscious cognitive tendency. Mary is a Thinker not because she uses logic but because she has a biological predisposition towards dispassionate conscious judgment. In order to see if she does have this tendency, a very careful scrutiny of her thought is necessary. We would be forced to read her novels, works of science or philosophy, or any kind of work where we have ample access to her thoughts that evince how her mind tends to work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no clue why this question is still coming up as I have given this matter a thorough treatment in the essay I posted in the OP as well as here.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...sonality-matrices/5200-problems-typology.html

 

[Qre:us]

For BlueWing aka Solitary Walker

Part I

I do not understand this remark, I had sensation defined as one kind of a perception. The other kind of perception is intuition.

You didn’t define it as such, Jung did. I am speaking of sensation and perception as broadly defined [not within the limits of Jungian terminology].

You then may ask: We’re discussing MBTI, which is based on Jung’s theory, so why would we use any other definitions for it?

Because, I am challenging the base assumptions of these definitions itself!

As such, I think it is quite: a) illogical, b) circular and c) irrelevant, when it comes to a criticism of a theory to only play within the parameters of the very terms you want to challenge in the first place.

Second point of contention:

First you see the room (sensation), secondly you get an abstract unconscious hunch of what you saw intuition.

Re: bold – says who? Beyond it being a philosophical position, how do you know this happens?

The definition of perception is translation of unconscious hunches into conscious data?

Yes. Kinda, sorta….I have issues with your word ‘translation’, it is more accurately defined as ‘interpretation’ (mostly through past experiences). An active processing of the noggin. Why, perception is kinda like a judgement, I’d say. Legend has it, "a man once mistook his wife for a hat". (Clinically speaking, visual agnosia, where sensation and perception are such that the twains shall never meet)

If I merely smell the rose, does this mean that only by virtue of having smelled it I now have a clear, conscious idea that it is the rose that I smelled?

Wrong analogy, because it fails to comprehensively account for your previously mentioned word, ‘translation’.

Explain how perception could be defined as translation of unconscious hunches into conscious data.

Read any intro psych book on Sensation & Perception.

***
From my understanding, Jung had a framework for understanding human personality. Based on this notion of archetypes.

Aside: (which he clouds sometimes in regards to what an ‘archetype’ actually is/means, his archetype of the shadow/ ‘evil’ and other fluff – we’ll leave that for another day).

There are three parts to personality - there’s ego (conscious), personal unconscious (individual experience) and finally, the collective unconscious that we all share, as door prizes for the Yay! We’re Humans! Club. I’m sure this evolved some time before Neanderthal and after H. erectus due to some contrived process of natural selection. ahem

My end point in attacking you/Jung on semantics is that, when moving from a philosophical p.o.v to applicability, one lends credence to the theory when one has operational definitions that allows itself to be falsifiable, in a systematic (dare I say, scientific) manner. I charge Jung with lack of empirical research.

I am predicting your rebuttal – but, ‘tis is the ways of the philosophy of the mind. Then, keep it at philosophy, without the transition to real-world applicability as so many businesses, etc, seems to do, in paying homage to MBTI, etc, etc.

Part II

In your last post, your claim seemed to be that people establish their opinions on typology without evidence, or without the due observation.

Etc…etc…etc….

MBTI, which bases itself on Jung’s work, is way more ‘philosophical’ in nature than it is practical. However, it is mostly regarded as the latter, not the former. Most of Jung’s theories came about: a) through mental masturbation sessions with his boy-o, Freud, until he realized how truly freaky-deaky that dude was with all the sex, b) as a psychiatrist seeing his clinical patients [not a representative sample, in any way, shape or form], c) hacking other systems of philosophical thoughts (Taoism, Plato, for example), d) swimming way too much in his own head without looking at how that translates to the real world [hence, not empirically sound, and unfalsifiable].

I have no clue why this question is still coming up as I have given this matter a thorough treatment in the essay I posted in the OP as well as here.

Problems of Typology

Chill with the emotions. According to MBTI, as an INTP, with Ti leading you, Thinking should be predisposed to you first. Logic would suggest, as a newcomer, most likely I wouldn’t have seen your above-mentioned thread, nor would probability dictate that I would match your exact key terms to be successful during a thread-search.

Conclusion:

It…is…unfalsifiable. It works when an example adheres to the theory. My issue: because it is unfalsifiable, no one can ask the flip side: so, what instances would it not work?

How are we so confident in saying that we are measuing cognitive predispositions of individual minds through the 'matter' (personality) we see before us?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Part I



You didn’t define it as such, Jung did. I am speaking of sensation and perception as broadly defined [not within the limits of Jungian terminology]. ?

I do not understand your question. My definition of Sensation, Intuition and Perception are the same as Jungs. I merely have expressed his thoughts on the matter in a different verbatim.

You then may ask: We’re discussing MBTI, which is based on Jung’s theory, so why would we use any other definitions for it??

No, we are not discussing MBTI. We are discussing Jungian typology and the few ways it could be modified in.

Because, I am challenging the base assumptions of these definitions itself!??

The question to ask here is, whether or not there is such a thing as Sensation, Intuition or Perception.

As such, I think it is quite: a) illogical, b) circular and c) irrelevant, when it comes to a criticism of a theory to only play within the parameters of the very terms you want to challenge in the first place.!??

I have no idea what you mean.

Re: bold – says who? Beyond it being a philosophical position, how do you know this happens?.!??

How do we know that there is Sensation, Imagination, or perception?

Is it not the case that we use our five senses? Is it not the case that we have the faculty of our imagination, or that in our minds we are able to conceive of images that we did not perceive with one of our five senses?

Perception, the definition of perception is unconscious interaction with the environment. It is quite obvious that certain cognitive processes of ours happen unconsciously, for instance, cognitive processes that we have going on when we are dreaming. Or memories we inevitably have when a certain object is shown to us. For instance, if you show a retired athlete the jersey he has played for before, he will inevitably have certain memories race through his head. He did not choose to have those memories, that means they happened purely unconsciously. That means there is perception or simply unconscious cognition.

Yes. Kinda, sorta….I have issues with your word ‘translation’, it is more accurately defined as ‘interpretation’ (mostly through past experiences).?.!??

Interpretation necessarily involves a conscious cognitive process. The following is a proper use of the word interpretation, I interpret what a complex mathematical problem may mean, or what a poet has said. I am obviously in those cases doing careful inquiry.

interpret definition | Dictionary.com

Check the definitions above for my argument with regard to why 'interpretation' should be used only in the way I have suggested and not in the way you have.

When I unconsciously perceive the smells around my room,(Sensation), or perceive ideas that someone has introduced me to (Intuition), and then I merely get a basic idea of what those smells are or what the abstract ideas are like, I am not doing careful thinking. I am merely transferring the information that was in my unconscious into my conscious. Thus the level of conscious cognition in this case is much lower than in the activity of interpretation. For this reason, translation or transposition is a more fitting word to depict such a phenomenon.

An active processing of the noggin. Why, perception is kinda like a judgement, I’d say. Legend has it, "a man once mistook his wife for a hat". (Clinically speaking, visual agnosia, where sensation and perception are such that the twains shall never meet)).?.!??

Structure your thoughts as clearly and carefully as possible. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Wrong analogy, because it fails to comprehensively account for your previously mentioned word, ‘translation’. )).?.!??

See the justification above.

From my understanding, Jung had a framework for understanding human personality. Based on this notion of archetypes.)).

Carl Jung was a therapist and for this reason had an interest in understanding human personality. However, the Psychological Types was about the tendencies of thought people had, or the way they cannot help but think, not fleeting personalities.

Aside: (which he clouds sometimes in regards to what an ‘archetype’ actually is/means, his archetype of the shadow/ ‘evil’ and other fluff – we’ll leave that for another day). .)).

Relevance?

There are three parts to personality - there’s ego (conscious), personal unconscious (individual experience) and finally, the collective unconscious that we all share, as door prizes for the Yay! We’re Humans! Club. I’m sure this evolved some time before Neanderthal and after H. erectus due to some contrived process of natural selection. ahem.)).

Relevance?

My end point in attacking you/Jung on semantics is that, when moving from a philosophical p.o.v to applicability, one lends credence to the theory when one has operational definitions that allows itself to be falsifiable, in a systematic (dare I say, scientific) manner. I charge Jung with lack of empirical research. ].)).

Jung did have empirical research. He was first and foremost a doctor and a psychotherapist. His discoveries were about how people tend to think due to the nature of their unconscious dispositions. When neuroscience is mature enough it will be able to show how exactly the cognitive processes Jung has depicted manifest in brain states. You may argue however, that in principle, typology belongs to the discipline of philosophy and not psychology. It is not about personality, but about cognitive tendencies. For this reason, it may be more difficult to conduct empirical investigation with regard to typology than for psychological phenomena. For this reason, it will be more difficult to ascertain of the plausibility of typology. That is true, however, it should be carefully noted that empirical investigation, although difficult, is not impossible. When neuroscience is mature enough we will be able to observe how the cognitive tendencies manifest in the brain. At this point our empirical investigation is limited to the following; careful study of the person's patterns of thought. This is to be done by carefully analyzing their writings or ideas about complex subjects (For example, their poetry, autobiography and other forms of literature, it is desirable to review their behavior under those circumstances because when people engage in the activities mentioned above, they display their habits of thought the most. That is the case because when engaging in such activities they are forced to think the most and are given liberty with regard to how they could think. For this reason the tendencies of thought they display will likely be influenced little by their surrounding and will be representative of their intrinsic dispositions.)

MBTI, which bases itself on Jung’s work, is way more ‘philosophical’ in nature than it is practical. However, it is mostly regarded as the latter, not the former. ].)).

Relevance?

This thread is not about how people use MBTI. This thread is about the nature of Jungian typology and completion of his work.

Most of Jung’s theories came about: a) through mental masturbation sessions with his boy-o, Freud, until he realized how truly freaky-deaky that dude was with all the sex, b) as a psychiatrist seeing his clinical patients [not a representative sample, in any way, shape or form], c) hacking other systems of philosophical thoughts (Taoism, Plato, for example), d) swimming way too much in his own head without looking at how that translates to the real world [hence, not empirically sound, and unfalsifiable]. ].)).

Jung was a doctor and a psychotherapist. He has had many experiences interacting with people at his work. He clearly had an opportunity to and has observed how his ideas match with reality.

Conclusion:

It…is…unfalsifiable. It works when an example adheres to the theory. My issue: because it is unfalsifiable, no one can ask the flip side: so, what instances would it not work?].)).

It is falsifiable to a degree because empirical testing is possible to conduct on the aforementioned cognitive dispositions. Unfortunately, to the present day, empirical investigators have not discovered a way to properly conduct such investigations. Part of the reason why is because MBTI writers have misled the readers with regard to what Jungian typology is.

 

[Qre:us]

I do not understand your question.

Of course you do not understand my 'question', as there was no question asked in that paragraph you quoted. Please refrain from changing my intent to fit into your mode for responding. It's kinda shady.

Here's my original quote:

Part I

You didn’t define it as such, Jung did. I am speaking of sensation and perception as broadly defined [not within the limits of Jungian terminology].

Here's what you did with it:

Originally Posted by Qre:us
Part I


You didn’t define it as such, Jung did. I am speaking of sensation and perception as broadly defined [not within the limits of Jungian terminology]. ?

Um... you adding a question mark doesn't make it a question asked.

Next:

My definition of Sensation, Intuition and Perception are the same as Jungs. I merely have expressed his thoughts on the matter in a different verbatim. No, we are not discussing MBTI. We are discussing Jungian typology and the few ways it could be modified in.

Since Jungian typology is more theoretical, and my criticism is about the transition from theory to applicability, and since MBTI (at least around this forum) is one of the most popular examples of extrapolation of Jungian theory to applicability.....I brought in MBTI. It, along with me wanting to clarify sensation, intuition, perception, becomes relevant in our debate, as, coincidentally, by a point you brought up (was waiting around to get to that, but, hey...thanks for the Ne jump with me!).
I.e., Measuring cognitive abilities. Neuroscience. More on this to follow.....

The question to ask here is, whether or not there is such a thing as Sensation, Intuition or Perception.

Nope. Try again. The question to ask here is, whether or not YOUR/Jung's defnition of sensation, intuition or perception can truly exist as a natural reality (i.e., measurable...cuz see, MY/psychologists/neuroscientists' definition of sensation and perception has been shown to NOT only exist, but, measurable).

For example:
Adolfo Porro, C., Lui, F., Facchin, P., Maieron, M., & P. Baraldi. (2004) Percept-related activity in the human somatosensory system: functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 22(10): 1539-1548.

So, keeping in mind that I am challenging you on your definitions, not because I disagree with Jung, but, because I see a huge hurdle in being able to operationally define *your*/Jung's terms, in such a way that it is measurable...such that, even BEFORE we can think of measuring something, the point needs to be addressed: as is defined, is it measurable?

My counter: nope, for your/Jung's way, but, the way it has thus been defined by the larger scientific community, yes. So, defend your position.

Qre:us
As such, I think it is quite: a) illogical, b) circular and c) irrelevant, when it comes to a criticism of a theory to only play within the parameters of the very terms you want to challenge in the first place.!??

SW: I have no idea what you mean.

Please see my above point, I think that would more than clarify what I mean by challenging the terms in the first place...and *why*.

How do we know that there is Sensation, Imagination, or perception?

Not my question. My question was, according to how *you've* labelled such terms, *how do we know that there is sensation and perception?* Again, an issue with measurement of YOUR terms. Ad nauseum....

Is it not the case that we use our five senses?

Most of us do, some cannot. Like the 3 blind mice.

Is it not the case that we have the faculty of our imagination, or that in our minds we are able to conceive of images that we did not perceive with one of our five senses?

Well, yes, we have faculty of our imagination (agreed), but, the issue of conceiving images that we did not perceive with our five senses: Nope. Not the case. It is recalling and connection/interpretation of past sensations that can provide 'new' images that we have not perceived directly with our five senses. But, it had to start with a sensation, or a reformation of a sensation. Like when the blind can 'see' but it really is due to higher neural connections in other parts of the brain logging the other senses (sound, touch, etc), which formed the image 'seen', as described by blind people.

Perception, the definition of perception is unconscious interaction with the environment.

No (again!). Perception can be conscious or unconscious. But, not in the way you mean unconscious (i.e., there is still active processing, measurable, by the brain). Computational theory, mostly in the leading field of visual perception, has aimed to answer this. So has direct experimentations. I have participated in many a fun experiments, for my friend's Ph.D. thesis in Neuroscience, to help aid in answering such questions. At its simplest, tests use this concept of masking to test the differences between conscious and unconscious processing. It's quite elegant in its simplicity. You should read up on it, to see how science actually measures cognition (or attempts to), rather than assuming that science *can* measure your terms, because ... well, see, I have yet to get your justification on that, which I keep pressing for.

As such:

Interpretation necessarily involves a conscious cognitive process.

Interpretation, as *I've* defined it in terms of sensation becoming perception, can be conscious or unconscious. See above point.

Check the definitions above for my argument with regard to why 'interpretation' should be used only in the way I have suggested and not in the way you have.

Didn't help.

Originally Posted by Qre:us
An active processing of the noggin. Why, perception is kinda like a judgement, I’d say. Legend has it, "a man once mistook his wife for a hat". (Clinically speaking, visual agnosia, where sensation and perception are such that the twains shall never meet)).?.!??

BW:Structure your thoughts as clearly and carefully as possible. I have no idea what you are talking about.

No. I like to go on my random Ne walks, to spice up my debate, purely for my amusement (and for those who may figure out the connection). It is a game for me. And, it's usually for 'aside' comments, which has no direct bearing regarding my explanation for my argument, nor does it detract from it (IMO)..so the random stream of consciousness stays. Otherwise, I might have to cut a deal with you to structure your thoughts more succintly, and without so much dry spells, to keep the readers engaged. We all have our flow. Give it up? Well, if you can be more entertaining, I will curb my aside random comments. Trade your Ti for my Ne.

Aside: the connection to the above - my point was in counter to you using the word 'translation'.
A -> B
versus
A ->[x]->B.
Former: translation. Latter: interpretation. If it was mere translation, we would not see the clinical cases we do. For example, visual agnosia, where what one senses [A], does not go through the correct interpretation [x], to give us our perception . Of the most famous of these cases:
The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conclusion: there is this 'elusive' content [x]...the mode of connection. It is not a 1-1 translation, there is more going on, as we see from individuals who are NOT the norm (aka, clinical cases). Hence, not mere translation. But, interpretation. Capiche?

Qre:us - Aside: (which he clouds sometimes in regards to what an ‘archetype’ actually is/means, his archetype of the shadow/ ‘evil’ and other fluff – we’ll leave that for another day). .)).

SW: Relevance?

Um...it was an aside. But, what I wanted you to take from that was that Jung's definitions are quite...um...fluid, and, philosophical. I hope you can at least connect why this issue would be of relevance when I'm challenging the ability of the field to conduct empirical research with quantifiable measurements.

Originally Posted by Qre:us
There are three parts to personality - there’s ego (conscious), personal unconscious (individual experience) and finally, the collective unconscious that we all share, as door prizes for the Yay! We’re Humans! Club. I’m sure this evolved some time before Neanderthal and after H. erectus due to some contrived process of natural selection. ahem.)).

SW: Relevance?

Same point as above.

Jung did have empirical research. He was first and foremost a doctor and a psychotherapist. His discoveries were about how people tend to think due to the nature of their unconscious dispositions.

Yeah, he saw his patients. Was it a representative sample? Did it account for sociological phenomenons such as culture? Please tell me exactly what you mean when you say Jung had empirical research.

When neuroscience is mature enough it will be able to show how exactly the cognitive processes Jung has depicted manifest in brain states.

Yeah, this. THIS is really interesting to me. Tell me, go out on an Ne limb, how do you think Neuroscience would do this? Nothing specific, just speculations of how neuroscience would measure what is proposed by Jung (which, as I keep asserting is more philosophical than operationally defined). Please enlighten us. Like for example, ahem...measuring archetype, let's say. Using....*drumroll*...neuroscience.

You may argue however, that in principle, typology belongs to the discipline of philosophy and not psychology. It is not about personality, but about cognitive tendencies. For this reason, it may be more difficult to conduct empirical investigation with regard to typology than for psychological phenomena. For this reason, it will be more difficult to ascertain of the plausibility of typology. That is true, however, it should be carefully noted that empirical investigation, although difficult, is not impossible.

Finally! You see my pov and agree. But, with a caveat, 'although difficult, but not impossible'....again, I ask, how? You respond:

At this point our empirical investigation is limited to the following; careful study of the person's patterns of thought...

So, we study the pattern of thoughts through behaviours, right? And, we make inference regarding some below-the-surface concepts from the collection of these patterns of behaviours (including, behaviour = pattern of thought)? All external (measured). All internal inferred (i.e., assumed to be tapped into, x,y, z concept, without any other validity than the external pattern of behaviours). So, how do we again know x concept is truly x manifested by a set of behaviors? Do you still understand my issue of why I'm questioning empirical research, and esp. falsifiability?

When neuroscience is mature enough we will be able to observe how the cognitive tendencies manifest in the brain. At this point our empirical investigation is limited to the following; careful study of the person's patterns of thought.

Take for example, Thinking versus Feeling (yes, yes, MBTI - see my counter below). Neuroscience has made great head-ways in measuring emotions through brain imaging...the results from current studies show that emotional states elicit brain activity, one of the coolest study (IMO), looking at laughter. Now, take Jung-derived typology and their definitions for Thinking versus Feeling....and apply that to neuroscience, how can we possibly measure whether it's thinking versus feeling, in everyday judgment/decision-making process, when neuroscience tells us that a key to emotional response is stimulus-dependent? Any random ideas on what you mean by 'when neuroscience matures'...would be of great help.

Qre:us - MBTI, which bases itself on Jung’s work, is way more ‘philosophical’ in nature than it is practical. However, it is mostly regarded as the latter, not the former. ].)).

SW:Relevance?

This thread is not about how people use MBTI. This thread is about the nature of Jungian typology and completion of his work.

Um...are we not at the cross-roads of proving/disproving Jung's work as having scientific merit due to: (a) lack of empirical research, (b) issues with operationally defined terms, which then limits measurements, (c) falsifiability?

Jung's philosophical take on typology ---> practical applicability (e.g., MBTI) - follow the yellow brick road to get to the relevance.

It is falsifiable to a degree because empirical testing is possible to conduct on the aforementioned cognitive dispositions.

Really? Give me a premise/condition for its falsifiability. Make Poppa Popper happy. E.g., evolution is falsifiable. Premise/condition: if we can prove that, say, H. sapiens (as they are presently), lived over 5 million years ago (found skeletons of modern humans dating to that time)....*boom shotta* evolution is falsified.

*aside, Popper coined the term falsifiability as it applies to science.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Of course you do not understand my 'question', as there was no question asked in that paragraph you quoted. Please refrain from changing my intent to fit into your mode for responding. It's kinda shady. .

It seems to me that your message is stated in very general and amorphous terms. For this reason I often have a difficult time understanding what you had in mind.

Here's what you did with it:


Um... you adding a question mark doesn't make it a question asked. .

You are referring to a typographical error. I had no purpose to change the content of your message. I must have accidentally altered your post when quoting you.

Since Jungian typology is more theoretical, and my criticism is about the transition from theory to applicability, and since MBTI (at least around this forum) is one of the most popular examples of extrapolation of Jungian theory to applicability.....I brought in MBTI. It, along with me wanting to clarify sensation, intuition, perception, becomes relevant in our debate, as, coincidentally, by a point you brought up (was waiting around to get to that, but, hey...thanks for the Ne jump with me!).
I.e., Measuring cognitive abilities. Neuroscience. More on this to follow.....:.

Intuition: A solidified unconscious tendnecy to engage in the cognitive faculty of abstract perception or imagination.

Sensation: A solidified unconscious tendency to engage our five senses.

Thinking: A solidifed unconscious tendency to engage in dispassionate contemplation.

Feeling: A solidified unconscious tendency to engage in processing emotion.


Any further concerns with regard to the way the terms are defined?

Nope. Try again. The question to ask here is, whether or not YOUR/Jung's defnition of sensation, intuition or perception can truly exist as a natural reality (i.e., measurable...cuz see, MY/psychologists/neuroscientists' definition of sensation and perception has been shown to NOT only exist, but, measurable). .....:.

Is it true that we all engage our five senses?(Sensation) Is it true that we all have an imagination? (Intuition) Is it not the case that we all engage in impulse. (Feeling) Is it true that we all tend to engage in dispassionate contemplation? (Thinking).

It is a brute fact of our psychology that those cognitive faculties exist. A type is a solidifed unconscious tendency to engage one of such faculties.

So, keeping in mind that I am challenging you on your definitions, not because I disagree with Jung, but, because I see a huge hurdle in being able to operationally define *your*/Jung's terms, in such a way that it is measurable...such that, even BEFORE we can think of measuring something, the point needs to be addressed: as is defined, is it measurable?..

Sensation is 'measurable' in the regard of how quickly one responds to physical stimuli. Feeling is 'measurable' in the regard of how easily one's passions are evoked. Thinking is 'measurable' in the regard of how easily one engages in dispassionate contemplation. Intuition is 'measurable' in the regard of how easily one conjures ideas.

Tests can be concocted to 'measure' one's ability to engage such faculties, such tests would be similar to classical IQ tests. The classical IQ test is concerned with measuring one's ability to performing cognitive tasks, similar to those described above.

My counter: nope, for your/Jung's way, but, the way it has thus been defined by the larger scientific community, yes. So, defend your position.?..

What are you talking about? What exactly has been defined by the 'larger scientific community'?

Please see my above point, I think that would more than clarify what I mean by challenging the terms in the first place...and *why*. .?..

Correct me if I misunderstood your views. You assert that it is not the case that we have five senses, that we all engage in dispassionate contemplation, that we all process emotion and that we all engage in imagination.

Not my question. My question was, according to how *you've* labelled such terms, *how do we know that there is sensation and perception?* Again, an issue with measurement of YOUR terms. Ad nauseum.....?..

I don't get it.

Most of us do, some cannot. Like the 3 blind mice......?..

Most of us cannot do what exactly?

Well, yes, we have faculty of our imagination (agreed), but, the issue of conceiving images that we did not perceive with our five senses: Nope. Not the case. It is recalling and connection/interpretation of past sensations that can provide 'new' images that we have not perceived directly with our five senses. But, it had to start with a sensation, or a reformation of a sensation. Like when the blind can 'see' but it really is due to higher neural connections in other parts of the brain logging the other senses (sound, touch, etc), which formed the image 'seen', as described by blind people.

I did not mean that imagination conjures items that have nothing at all to do with what we have observed. I have merely maintained that imagination can conjure images that are distinct from mere recollections of what we have perceived with our five senses.

With regard to your blind person case, they have engaged one of their five senses, and this is where their information has initially derived from. For instance, they have either used a sense of sound or a sense of touch for example.

I challenge you to come up with one instance of an individual who has ideas in his mind that have nothing at all to do with what he has once perceived with his five senses.

No (again!). Perception can be conscious or unconscious. But, not in the way you mean unconscious (i.e., there is still active processing, measurable, by the brain). Computational theory, mostly in the leading field of visual perception, has aimed to answer this. So has direct experimentations. I have participated in many a fun experiments, for my friend's Ph.D. thesis in Neuroscience, to help aid in answering such questions. At its simplest, tests use this concept of masking to test the differences between conscious and unconscious processing. It's quite elegant in its simplicity. You should read up on it, to see how science actually measures cognition (or attempts to), rather than assuming that science *can* measure your terms, because ... well, see, I have yet to get your justification on that, which I keep pressing for. .

Perception by definition is unconscious. For instance, you dont choose to use Sensation, or to smell, or to breathe most of the time. You also dont choose what you get to imagine, as your mind creates images without your authorization. What you are referring to is that perception can be conscious, or it can be used on a conscious level. This, however, does not show that perception is most easily evoked on a conscious level.

Remember, typology is a study of natural unconscious dispositions. If you were to argue that perception, as a typological phenomenon, is more conscious than unconscious, it would have to follow that as a matter of your nature sensation is more easily evoked when you are in a conscious mode of functioning. This amounts to the thesis that you see, smell, hear or imagine more easily when you consciously choose to do so rather than that you simply do so without a conscious attempt to.

As such:

Interpretation, as *I've* defined it in terms of sensation becoming perception, can be conscious or unconscious. See above point..

??

Aside: the connection to the above - my point was in counter to you using the word 'translation'.
A -> B
versus
A ->[x]->B.
Former: translation. Latter: interpretation. If it was mere translation, we would not see the clinical cases we do. For example, visual agnosia, where what one senses [A], does not go through the correct interpretation [x], to give us our perception . Of the most famous of these cases:
The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conclusion: there is this 'elusive' content [x]...the mode of connection. It is not a 1-1 translation, there is more going on, as we see from individuals who are NOT the norm (aka, clinical cases). Hence, not mere translation. But, interpretation. Capiche?..

Anomalies are not relevant to the study of typology. Anomalies are a matter of psychology and sociology only. Or studies that are concerned with an inquiry into personality, which typology is not one of.


Typology, is analogous to anatomy. It simply represents the basic features every mind has in order to function. Exactly like anatomy represents the basic physical features every body needs in order to survive. (Such as the heart, the brain, the stomach, and so on). No anomalous body lacks one of such features, just as truly as no mind lacks one of the cognitive faculties mentioned above.

Um...it was an aside. But, what I wanted you to take from that was that Jung's definitions are quite...um...fluid, and, philosophical. I hope you can at least connect why this issue would be of relevance when I'm challenging the ability of the field to conduct empirical research with quantifiable measurements.?..

At the point when neuroscience matures, we will be able to conduct typological empirical investigation in the following manner.

Step 1: Amass a group individuals who are adept at identifying their cognitive states.

Step 2: Discover what activities occur within the individua's brain when he claims that he is experiencing a certain cognitive state.

This will enable us to discover empirical confirmation with regard to the existence of the cognitive faculties described above.

Yeah, he saw his patients. Was it a representative sample? Did it account for sociological phenomenons such as culture? Please tell me exactly what you mean when you say Jung had empirical research..?..

Sample size is not relevant. His argument was not inductive. He did not claim the following; "So many of my patients do X, therefore all people do X'.

The argument he has made is as follows. What we have observed is the skeleton or the basic structure of the human mind. All components, or all parts of the skeleton are present in all cases. What varies is merely the order in which they are presented, or how they interact with one another. (For instance, one may be an Intuition dominant, or a Sensation dominant.) Much like all persons have a heart, a brain and a stomach, yet the brain, the heart and the stomach do not always interact with each other in the same way.

Typological matters will be falsifiable when neuroscience has matured enough to conduct the aforementioned empirical investigations.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I challenge you to come up with one instance of an individual who has ideas in his mind that have nothing at all to do with what he has once perceived with his five senses.

"Ideas in his mind" ... I submit as an example the human race with respect to the concept of a higher power; God, if you wish.

Purely perceived, not tangible by the 5 senses in any measureable way. Yet even the most ancient of societies have a belief in a higher being. Possess a spiritual hunger for meaning. We might try to create pictures of God in our mind to suit the sensation, or certain events may touch us in a meaningful way, but the initial idea of a higher power - where did it originate?

You cannot say it derives from the tangible. Unless you mean something different from what I understand as "ideas".

Interesting thread; can't say I engage fully with the dispassionate approach, but I appreciate the time invested to realize it.

 

[Qre:us]

"Ideas in his mind" ... I submit as an example the human race with respect to the concept of a higher power; God, if you wish.

I don't believe in the reality of God. And I have a feeling neither does Solitary Walker. But, allow me to make a case regardless:

Purely perceived, not tangible by the 5 senses in any measureable way. Yet even the most ancient of societies have a belief in a higher being. Possess a spiritual hunger for meaning. We might try to create pictures of God in our mind to suit the sensation, or certain events may touch us in a meaningful way, but the initial idea of a higher power - where did it originate?

You cannot say it derives from the tangible. Unless you mean something different from what I understand as "ideas".

God is, by most Judeo-Christian theology, the great big O's. Not orgasms. But, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent (and perhaps, benevolent). All powerful, all knowing, all there. "God" is limited by the abilities that we as humans have (just given the max. of those abilities), however, the conception of God is still within the parameters of human cognition. We do, we think, we are. This is borne out of us - our cognitoin of ourselves (and our senses). So, really, God is conceived from us (and that includes our 5 senses). Imagination just took our cognitive sensing of ourselves - and extrapolated beyond any constraints like the material world. And, thus, rose "God".

 

[Qre:us]

You are referring to a typographical error. I had no purpose to change the content of your message. I must have accidentally altered your post when quoting you.

No probs, bobs. You don't seem the shady kind.

Intuition: A solidified unconscious tendnecy to engage in the cognitive faculty of abstract perception or imagination.

Sensation: A solidified unconscious tendency to engage our five senses.
...

Any further concerns with regard to the way the terms are defined?

Yes, are they: in tandem? Parallel? Converges? Discord? Dichotomy (vaguely rings a bell )?
For example, human communication can be said to have three components: articulating (language), gesticulating (gestures & actions), and modulating (tone). It is most often considered complete in communication when above three work together. If so, this would indicate that intuition works simultaneously with sensation, when we utilize that which is communicated to us. We not only take information from the direct input (actual words, gestures & tones), we also, extrapolate certain assumptions/cues from that which is 'indirect'/not spoken. We intuit and sense, together, in order to wholly understand a person. Those who do not 'intuit' such things, an extreme case of this can be Autism Spectrum Disorder. High levels of fxing Asperger's still does not negate one from being an N.

Second issue, this is more a commentary on MBTI, though, but, sum total=100%. What does that mean for a person, who say, has 100% P? Does that mean no real Judgement functions at all? (you'd say, of course not, a really high preference, such that the scales are limited in their measurement). Then, what is the ordinal meaning of the difference between, say, 60% versus 80%? What is said of the measurment we take? What real commentary does it make, rather than a 'whole picture' type scenario of a person? I.e., why this parsing in measurement in the first place?

Finally, I never had issues with how the terms were defined. Just how you would actually go about measuring it, if the terms were defined as such. And, I think I've given a lot of examples of why measurements of such terms would be tricky, at best.

Is it true that we all engage our five senses?(Sensation) Is it true that we all have an imagination? (Intuition) Is it true that we all tend to engage in dispassionate contemplation? (Thinking).

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! Well......

......actually...I disagree with one point:

Is it not the case that we all engage in impulse. (Feeling)

Feeling is not an impulse. It is an emotion. That doesn't make it an impulse. I think you have a very skewed understanding of Feeling. It is not the loss of rationality - hence, impulse. A value-based judgement can be thought of/contemplated long and hard, just like a logic based contemplation. Speed of output is not relevant. Unless I misunderstood 'your' definition of the word impulse, and Jung defined it in some other way.

Sensation is 'measurable' in the regard of how quickly one responds to physical stimuli. Feeling is 'measurable' in the regard of how easily one's passions are evoked. Thinking is 'measurable' in the regard of how easily one engages in dispassionate contemplation. Intuition is 'measurable' in the regard of how easily one conjures ideas.

Sure. I'll buy that for 2 cents. But, this measurable quality does nothing to validate this 'dichotomy' that supposedly exists. I'm a quick motherfucker with my reflexes and I'm an N. Maybe, it's cuz my intuition told me that the cup would tip over, hence, such 'quick reflex'. A high measurement on Feeling would not negate a high measurement in Thinking. Etc, etc. So, this method of measurement would really do nothing to support your theory.

Tests can be concocted to 'measure' one's ability to engage such faculties, such tests would be similar to classical IQ tests. The classical IQ test is concerned with measuring one's ability to performing cognitive tasks, similar to those described above.

Not a good analogy. IQ tests measures one's ability in certain domains, but, makes NO commentary on the predictive validity of an opposing domain (well, cuz there is no opposing domain). This is best tackled in the realm of divergent validity of concepts within one scale. Correlation matricies. Predictive validity. And, on, and on....

Unlike IQ tests, these tests would work on a heavy assumption - A versus B as preference. It is much easier proving presence or absence of A. To prove that the absence of A means more presence of B, or vice versa, is a whole another (more complicated) ballgame. Thus, analogy fail.

What are you talking about? What exactly has been defined by the 'larger scientific community'?

Sensation & Perception, which is not defined in the same way Jung does.

Correct me if I misunderstood your views. You assert that it is not the case that we have five senses, that we all engage in dispassionate contemplation, that we all process emotion and that we all engage in imagination.

Possibility to do those things, yes. Can we? Not all of us. Again, clinical cases.

Originally Posted by Qre:us
Not my question. My question was, according to how *you've* labelled such terms, *how do we know that there is sensation and perception?* Again, an issue with measurement of YOUR terms. Ad nauseum.....?..

I don't get it.

Again, I say, I have given many issues (2 examples above) of when the terms and their relationship, as defined by Jung, faces problems with measurement. How is this a hard concept/point to grasp?

Originally Posted by Qre:us
Most of us do, some cannot. Like the 3 blind mice......?..

Most of us cannot do what exactly?

I dunno...pee standing up? Btw, you misread me. I said, MOST of us CAN, SOME canNOT. Most of us can have the faculty of our five senses. Some of us cannot, like the 3 blind mice. Thanks, btw, for dryly murdering my cheesy joke. I may never forgive you for this, sir! Never!

I did not mean that imagination conjures items that have nothing at all to do with what we have observed. I have merely maintained that imagination can conjure images that are distinct from mere recollections of what we have perceived with our five senses.


I challenge you to come up with one instance of an individual who has ideas in his mind that have nothing at all to do with what he has once perceived with his five senses.

There's a logical contradiction to your above thought-process, hence, position. The first bolded would imply that you are clarifying my 'misunderstanding' that I believe that you believe (following?) that imagination can be there without any input from the five senses. However, the second bolded is challenging me of the same thing that you assumed I was challenging you on. Why would you ask me to rise to a challenge that I think is a challenge (and thus, gave to you to clarify in the first place)?

Remember, typology is a study of natural unconscious dispositions.

Another example as a food for thought. Sensation is quite objective in that it picks up all relevant info with its direct (5) senses from the external environment. It is contingent on the external, then, no? Why then shouldn't most sensors be extraverted, which gains energy from the external/objective, rather than from within/which is subjective to self? Cuz, apparently, Jung thought introverts to be 'afraid' of the external world, which S's kinda depend on.

Anomalies are not relevant to the study of typology. Anomalies are a matter of psychology and sociology only. Or studies that are concerned with an inquiry into personality, which typology is not one of.

Actually anomalies are treated as irrelevant in typology. Cuz no behaviour can be used to falsify a type, while any behavior can be used to verify it. Double standard!

Typology, is analogous to anatomy. It simply represents the basic features every mind has in order to function. Exactly like anatomy represents the basic physical features every body needs in order to survive. (Such as the heart, the brain, the stomach, and so on). No anomalous body lacks one of such features, just as truly as no mind lacks one of the cognitive faculties mentioned above.

I like this analogy for its aesthetics value. Then, I raised some eyebrows (well, 2). Is there ever a proposition that when one uses the heart more, they are then relying less on the stomach? As well, there's already those things called cognitive map(ping). And, nothing comes close to touching typology or its self-defined 'terms'. Aside- funniest of them, the Homunculus (altho, its a somatosensory mapping). If you're ever interested, I can speak to how the Homunculus justifies foot fetishists. I know you're intrigued.

At the point when neuroscience matures, we will be able to conduct typological empirical investigation in the following manner.

Step 1: Amass a group individuals who are adept at identifying their cognitive states.

Step 2: Discover what activities occur within the individua's brain when he claims that he is experiencing a certain cognitive state.

This will enable us to discover empirical confirmation with regard to the existence of the cognitive faculties described above.

Lofty dreams. Quite impractical. Esp. considering one cannot readily conjure up such cognitive states of T/F or N/S, regardless of how 'adept' they are. Then only to be introduced to bias due to variability of stimuli or other external cues. And, if recurrance of experiment is exactly the same, then it would still not make commentary on the cognitive states, but, more so on how that particular controlled environment is processed by said individual. Really, really, delve into neuroscience and cognition. It's made quite a few landmarks in what it does measure (and how).

Sample size is not relevant. His argument was not inductive. He did not claim the following; "So many of my patients do X, therefore all people do X'.

Sample size is not relevant only in generalization. It is quite relevant in seeing a pattern, distribution. At its simplest. But, I have a feeling, like Jung, you don't think much of stats. Well, except for that ONE experiment he did using stats...on *ahem* astrology.

If we want to infer what the distribution of typology would be, it would be bimodal. However, it is not, in that, for ex., most peeps lie within E & I. Which, Jung also anticipated, saying that otherwise, we'd all be unbalanced. But, not adhering to bimodality also infers that, a person scoring as an E, may be very similar to another scoring as I. Meaning that E/I wouldn't really tell us anything. And, so forth with other functions. Also, keeping in line with the stats talk, Jung lacked controlled studies. His were anecdotes, or 'observations of facts', whatever.

I think he described 'intuition' in this female patient of his cuz she came into the room, and said his previous patient was a male. When he asked her how she knew, she just said, she felt it. This was: intuition. Forget the fact that, he still recognized there was a butted out cigar with the stentch hanging in the room, she apparently didn't notice those to come to her conclusion. It was the spooky intuition. Or, his concept of intuition like syncronicity. Which, for anyone who is fond of stats, would understand that it is very likely to occur by chance, and that confirmation bias plays a huge role.

And, along the thought of astrology, there's this inherent aspect of Forer effect.

The argument he has made is as follows. What we have observed is the skeleton or the basic structure of the human mind. All components, or all parts of the skeleton are present in all cases. What varies is merely the order in which they are presented, or how they interact with one another. (For instance, one may be an Intuition dominant, or a Sensation dominant.) Much like all persons have a heart, a brain and a stomach, yet the brain, the heart and the stomach do not always interact with each other in the same way.

His argument is sound in its realm of philosophy. When it wants to transfer from person to person, be measurably sound....we hit a few (many) hurdles.

Typological matters will be falsifiable when neuroscience has matured enough to conduct the aforementioned empirical investigations.

No it wouldn't. As it is not set up to be falsifiable because it is very allowable for it to bend to fit its own mold.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Yes, are they: in tandem? Parallel? Converges? Discord? Dichotomy (vaguely rings a bell )?
For example, human communication can be said to have three components: articulating (language), gesticulating (gestures & actions), and modulating (tone). It is most often considered complete in communication when above three work together. If so, this would indicate that intuition works simultaneously with sensation, when we utilize that which is communicated to us. We not only take information from the direct input (actual words, gestures & tones), we also, extrapolate certain assumptions/cues from that which is 'indirect'/not spoken. We intuit and sense, together, in order to wholly understand a person. Those who do not 'intuit' such things, an extreme case of this can be Autism Spectrum Disorder. High levels of fxing Asperger's still does not negate one from being an N. .

The message of Jungian typology with regard to this issue is as follows; all people have a stronger natural predilection towards imagination than sensation or vice versa. The implication of the paragraph quoted above is that imagination and sensation are intimately intertwined. It is possible for entity A to be closely connected to entity B, yet for entity A to also be more prominent than entity B. For example, when I read philosophy I rely both on imagination and my five senses, yet in this case I rely on my imagination more than on my five senses because in order to understand the ideas that I am reading about, I need to conceive of some the ideas on the page. This is much more important than merely seeing the written words. Yet when I am playing basketball, I am also using my five senses as well as my imagination. In that case however, it is more important for me to be physically agile and ot handle the ball in a certain manner than to be able to imagine the many activities I could engage in with the ball in my hand.

Second issue, this is more a commentary on MBTI, though, but, sum total=100%. What does that mean for a person, who say, has 100% P? Does that mean no real Judgement functions at all? (you'd say, of course not, a really high preference, such that the scales are limited in their measurement). Then, what is the ordinal meaning of the difference between, say, 60% versus 80%? What is said of the measurment we take? What real commentary does it make, rather than a 'whole picture' type scenario of a person? I.e., why this parsing in measurement in the first place?.

Do you mean to ask about the person who scores 100% on 'P' on the MBTI test? That means almost nothing. All this shows is that they checked of 'yes' for questions like "are you playful', 'are you a procrastinator'? This merely shows that they have a laid back personality, its not clearly indicative of their solidified unconscious dispositions.

This is one reason the mbti test is an unreliable indicator of one's type or unconscious dispositions.

To answer your question, every person has all functions. A person who has a dominant Thinking temperament is in closest natural affinity with Thinking and he is most distant from Feeling. This does not mean that he does not use feeling at all, but it merely shows that Feeling is the function that is naturally the most difficult for him to use.

Finally, I never had issues with how the terms were defined. Just how you would actually go about measuring it, if the terms were defined as such. And, I think I've given a lot of examples of why measurements of such terms would be tricky, at best. ?.

Yes it would be. For this reason determing one's type requires a careful analysis of the thought of the person in questioning.

Feeling is not an impulse. It is an emotion. That doesn't make it an impulse. I think you have a very skewed understanding of Feeling. It is not the loss of rationality - hence, impulse. A value-based judgement can be thought of/contemplated long and hard, just like a logic based contemplation. Speed of output is not relevant. Unless I misunderstood 'your' definition of the word impulse, and Jung defined it in some other way. ?.

The words emotion and feeling are often subjects to equivocation. In literature you will find many different definitions of such terms. Feeling in essence should be defined as follows. For instance, the psychological state I experienced when I've been burned (pain), or the psychological state I experience when I laugh. (pleasure). That is what pure feeling is, it is the same as an impulse.

Feeling in itself is devoid of rationality or logical thought. However, I could reflect on my feelings and say I experience pain or that I experience pleasure. At that point I would be marrying feeling to rationality. It should be clearly noted however that in this case I am not merely engaging in the cognitive process of feeling or emoting, but I am both rationalizing (thinking) and emoting. The person who relies on feeling significantly more than on Thinking will behave in a manner much more akin to what has been described in paragraph above than in this one.

Sure. I'll buy that for 2 cents. But, this measurable quality does nothing to validate this 'dichotomy' that supposedly exists. I'm a quick motherfucker with my reflexes and I'm an N. Maybe, it's cuz my intuition told me that the cup would tip over, hence, such 'quick reflex'. A high measurement on Feeling would not negate a high measurement in Thinking. Etc, etc. So, this method of measurement would really do nothing to support your theory.:?.

What is entailed by you being intuitive is the following; your natural disposition towards Sensation is weakened. It means that it is simply more difficult for you to deeply engage one of your five senses. It is not impossible however, with practice you can learn to engage your senses well. Perhaps even better than somebody who has sensation as their natural disposition.

Not a good analogy. IQ tests measures one's ability in certain domains, but, makes NO commentary on the predictive validity of an opposing domain (well, cuz there is no opposing domain). This is best tackled in the realm of divergent validity of concepts within one scale. Correlation matricies. Predictive validity. And, on, and on..

What we need is a test which assesses one's cognitive dispositions. Such tests would be difficult to discover until we have arrived at a point where we can detect all cognitive activities within the brain.

Unlike IQ tests, these tests would work on a heavy assumption - A versus B as preference. It is much easier proving presence or absence of A. To prove that the absence of A means more presence of B, or vice versa, is a whole another (more complicated) ballgame. Thus, analogy fail...

I am not clear with regard to what you mean.

Sensation & Perception, which is not defined in the same way Jung does. ..

Point out the difference in the way the terms are defined.

Possibility to do those things, yes. Can we? Not all of us. Again, clinical cases. ..

Clinical cases are irrelevant to typology. All persons, no matter how ill or anomalous engage in imagination, sensation, dispassionate judgment and emoting.

Again, I say, I have given many issues (2 examples above) of when the terms and their relationship, as defined by Jung, faces problems with measurement. How is this a hard concept/point to grasp?..

It is difficult to properly gauge one's unconscious tendencies, though not impossible. For instance, if we observe that one's imagination most naturally fires up in situations where one had a choice to engage in imagination or sensation. One of such instances could be observed in cases where an individual is presented with a complex story that could be brainstormed. He may choose to merely recapitulate what has been said or to brainstorm it further. If he brainstorms (when not expected to brainstorm, or when he had the liberty to behave in any way of his choice) 99/100 times instead of merely recapitulating, it could be inferred that such a person is of an intuitive temperament. Until we are able to map all cognitive dispositions in the brain, our methodology with regard to detecting a person's type will be inferential at best.

I dunno...pee standing up? Btw, you misread me. I said, MOST of us CAN, SOME canNOT. Most of us can have the faculty of our five senses. Some of us cannot, like the 3 blind mice. Thanks, btw, for dryly murdering my cheesy joke. I may never forgive you for this, sir! Never! ?..

Cite one instance of a person who is incapable of engaging with at least one of our five senses.

There's a logical contradiction to your above thought-process, hence, position. The first bolded would imply that you are clarifying my 'misunderstanding' that I believe that you believe (following?) that imagination can be there without any input from the five senses. However, the second bolded is challenging me of the same thing that you assumed I was challenging you on. Why would you ask me to rise to a challenge that I think is a challenge (and thus, gave to you to clarify in the first place)? ?..

I do not see the contradiction. Clarify.

Another example as a food for thought. Sensation is quite objective in that it picks up all relevant info with its direct (5) senses from the external environment. It is contingent on the external, then, no? Why then shouldn't most sensors be extraverted, which gains energy from the external/objective, rather than from within/which is subjective to self? Cuz, apparently, Jung thought introverts to be 'afraid' of the external world, which S's kinda depend on.

No function is completely autonomous. Sensation depends on the faculty of introversion and intuition. When you sense a smell for instance, you inevitably make an impression of that smell in your mind. (That engages the element of introversion and intuition.) It engages the element of introversion because this activity relates to the inner being and it also engages one's cognition to some degree which entails the work of intuition. Sensation, even extroverted sensation is not devoid of the element of introversion.

The salient difference between Extroverted Sensation and Introverted Sensation is follows. Extroverted Sensation tends to interact with the external environment more than introverted sensation. Introverted Sensation tends to reflect upon the entities perceived by the five senses more than to interact with the external environment.

Once more, Extroverted Sensation in itself is a cognitive process, if it did not contain an element of introversion, it simply would not exist because all cognitions take place within the mind and not in the external world.

Actually anomalies are treated as irrelevant in typology. Cuz no behaviour can be used to falsify a type, while any behavior can be used to verify it. Double standard!.

I don't see the double standard. In order for anomalies to be relevant to typology it must be shown that some anomalous individuals do not engage in sensation, imagination, dispassionate judgment or emoting.

I like this analogy for its aesthetics value. Then, I raised some eyebrows (well, 2). Is there ever a proposition that when one uses the heart more, they are then relying less on the stomach? As well, there's already those things called cognitive map(ping). And, nothing comes close to touching typology or its self-defined 'terms'. Aside- funniest of them, the Homunculus (altho, its a somatosensory mapping). If you're ever interested, I can speak to how the Homunculus justifies foot fetishists. I know you're intrigued. !.

???

Lofty dreams. Quite impractical. Esp. considering one cannot readily conjure up such cognitive states of T/F or N/S, regardless of how 'adept' they are. Then only to be introduced to bias due to variability of stimuli or other external cues. And, if recurrance of experiment is exactly the same, then it would still not make commentary on the cognitive states, but, more so on how that particular controlled environment is processed by said individual. Really, really, delve into neuroscience and cognition. It's made quite a few landmarks in what it does measure (and how).

Why would one not be able to recognize cognitive states such as emoting or dispassionate judgment?

Sample size is not relevant only in generalization. It is quite relevant in seeing a pattern, distribution. At its simplest. But, I have a feeling, like Jung, you don't think much of stats. Well, except for that ONE experiment he did using stats...on *ahem* astrology.

If we understand the physical structure of all rats, it is not necessary for us to examine a million of them to see what they are comprised of. This is why sample size is not relevant.

If we want to infer what the distribution of typology would be, it would be bimodal. However, it is not, in that, for ex., most peeps lie within E & I. Which, Jung also anticipated, saying that otherwise, we'd all be unbalanced. But, not adhering to bimodality also infers that, a person scoring as an E, may be very similar to another scoring as I. Meaning that E/I wouldn't really tell us anything. And, so forth with other functions. Also, keeping in line with the stats talk, Jung lacked controlled studies. His were anecdotes, or 'observations of facts', whatever.

What Jung was saying is that there no individual engages only in one function or an attitude and not at all in its opposite. For instance, it is not the case that an Extrovert engages only in Extroversion and not at all in Introversion. What makes him an Extrovert is the fact that his cognitive constitution is such that he is in warmer natural affinity with Extroversion than Introversion. Which means that in most cases, his extroverted faculties would be more easily engaged than his introverted ones. Do you see any reason why this fact of his psychology should be impossible to document?

I think he described 'intuition' in this female patient of his cuz she came into the room, and said his previous patient was a male. When he asked her how she knew, she just said, she felt it. This was: intuition. Forget the fact that, he still recognized there was a butted out cigar with the stentch hanging in the room, she apparently didn't notice those to come to her conclusion. It was the spooky intuition. Or, his concept of intuition like syncronicity. Which, for anyone who is fond of stats, would understand that it is very likely to occur by chance, and that confirmation bias plays a huge role.

Note: there is a significant difference between what intuition means in the vernacular sense and how Jung uses it. Personally, I think he was negligent to use the word Intuition to describe the cognitive process he had in mind. What he had in mind was the process of abstract perception, one akin to imagination. This is a highly cerebral activity, yet intuition in literature is often used to denote a visceral, instinctive, emotive cognitive activity. Jung's terminology in this regard certainly has the potential to confuse his readers.

And, along the thought of astrology, there's this inherent aspect of Forer effect.

I am not sure where you're going with this, but I am certainly curious to discover. Clarify please.



His argument is sound in its realm of philosophy. When it wants to transfer from person to person, be measurably sound....we hit a few (many) hurdles.

No it wouldn't. As it is not set up to be falsifiable because it is very allowable for it to bend to fit its own mold.

What we need is as follows; a number of individuals who are skilled at identifying their own cognitive processes. (For instance a million of such individuals). If most of them identify cognitive process X with intuition, we can be sure that X represents intuition.

One's personal bias, under such circumstances should not prevent us from understanding how typological cognitive faculties could be detected within neural activity.

 

[Qre:us]

The message of Jungian typology with regard to this issue is as follows; all people have a stronger natural predilection towards imagination than sensation or vice versa. The implication of the paragraph quoted above is that imagination and sensation are intimately intertwined. It is possible for entity A to be closely connected to entity B, yet for entity A to also be more prominent than entity B. For example, when I read philosophy I rely both on imagination and my five senses, yet in this case I rely on my imagination more than on my five senses because in order to understand the ideas that I am reading about, I need to conceive of some the ideas on the page. This is much more important than merely seeing the written words. Yet when I am playing basketball, I am also using my five senses as well as my imagination. In that case however, it is more important for me to be physically agile and ot handle the ball in a certain manner than to be able to imagine the many activities I could engage in with the ball in my hand.

So....that means it is situationally dictated more than it is an inherent predisposition for N over S?

Btw, remember how you were talking about 'when neuroscience matures, we can see the difference in N and S'.....

If such above examples as yours is valid, what methodology would be implemented to test N versus S, and how would situations (as stimuli) be defined in order to elicit one's true predisposition?

Do you mean to ask about the person who scores 100% on 'P' on the MBTI test? That means almost nothing. All this shows is that they checked of 'yes' for questions like "are you playful', 'are you a procrastinator'? This merely shows that they have a laid back personality, its not clearly indicative of their solidified unconscious dispositions.

This is one reason the mbti test is an unreliable indicator of one's type or unconscious dispositions.

To answer your question, every person has all functions. A person who has a dominant Thinking temperament is in closest natural affinity with Thinking and he is most distant from Feeling. This does not mean that he does not use feeling at all, but it merely shows that Feeling is the function that is naturally the most difficult for him to use.

No, I was inquiring more about the implicit limitations of quantification. At it's simplest, how do you define 'more than' (less than). You say a function that is opposite of the dominant function would be more difficult to use for that person. How are we again, measuring this? all these words that suggest an ordinal quantification (more, less, most, etc) - how are these evaluated?

Yes it would be. For this reason determing one's type requires a careful analysis of the thought of the person in questioning.

This brings into question inquiries about the concept of thought itself. Is it mutable? Is it stable? Can it be generalized from a momentary capture? Is there a vehicle/medium through which thought is processed, and if so, does that not change what one analyses? (remember my example of 'not mere translation, but, interpretation, there is this elusive middle-woman, x')

Again, mind to matter.....use matter to comment on the mind. Will there be something lost in translation? er....interpretation.

The words emotion and feeling are often subjects to equivocation. In literature you will find many different definitions of such terms. Feeling in essence should be defined as follows. For instance, the psychological state I experienced when I've been burned (pain), or the psychological state I experience when I laugh. (pleasure). That is what pure feeling is, it is the same as an impulse.

??? The bolded - I didn't pick up a clear definiton after your words 'as follows'....????
Psychological state experienced.....? (experienced as? experienced for [time-wise/length?]).

Please define what you mean by feeling=impulse more clearly.

What is entailed by you being intuitive is the following; your natural disposition towards Sensation is weakened. It means that it is simply more difficult for you to deeply engage one of your five senses. It is not impossible however, with practice you can learn to engage your senses well. Perhaps even better than somebody who has sensation as their natural disposition.

So, even with careful analysis, how can one's natural functional order be determined if you can 'fool' it with practice?

What we need is a test which assesses one's cognitive dispositions. Such tests would be difficult to discover until we have arrived at a point where we can detect all cognitive activities within the brain.

This assumes that there is an ALL to cognitive activities. Mind is not so easily linear, not in its functioning, nor in its make-up. Do you have any proof of this 'all' you assume with regards to cognitive activities? Esp. as cognitive abilities are mental skills, and the mind is most wonderously maleable that it can adapt to novel skills. And, any proof that we're given a finite potential w/ regards to the mind (hence, finite limit to cognitive abilities)?

Originally Posted by Qre:us
Unlike IQ tests, these tests would work on a heavy assumption - A versus B as preference. It is much easier proving presence or absence of A. To prove that the absence of A means more presence of B, or vice versa, is a whole another (more complicated) ballgame. Thus, analogy fail...

I am not clear with regard to what you mean.

That measuring intuition in the mind, say, would automatically mean that there's less disposition towards S. It would be easier to prove that measuring intuition simply tests the hypothesis: Is there Intuition?

not

Is there Intuition? (if yes, less S, etc)

Originally Posted by Qre:us
Sensation & Perception, which is not defined in the same way Jung does. ..

Point out the difference in the way the terms are defined.

No, I already did at the beginning of our exchange....if you are that interested, you may independently research it out for yourself.

Clinical cases are irrelevant to typology. All persons, no matter how ill or anomalous engage in imagination, sensation, dispassionate judgment and emoting.

The above is a response of yours to this post exchange between you and me:

SW: Correct me if I misunderstood your views. You assert that it is not the case that we have five senses, that we all engage in dispassionate contemplation, that we all process emotion and that we all engage in imagination.

Qre:us: Possibility to do those things, yes. Can we? Not all of us. Again, clinical cases.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I have a feeling that you deliberately misconstrue my point in order to be able to shape your response as the pre-determined track circling around in your head.

Read our exchange again carefully. Where am I asserting any reference to clinical cases and typology? You thought that I asserted that we DO NOT engage our five senses, etc. I replied that that is NOT what I meant. I meant that we have the possibility to DO SO, but, not all of us can, like clinical cases, who have something WRONG with them that inhibits them from engaging, maybe one sense out of the five, like say, sight (cuz they are blind).

Where again am I referring to clinical cases and typology?

Hence, your reply:

Cite one instance of a person who is incapable of engaging with at least one of our five senses.

...is again, illogical, because that is not my premise in the first place, regardless of how many times you misconstrue it and force it to become something I 'supposedly' said.

Please stop doing this. It cuts away from the meat of our discussion.

It is difficult to properly gauge one's unconscious tendencies, though not impossible. For instance, if we observe that one's imagination most naturally fires up in situations where one had a choice to engage in imagination or sensation. One of such instances could be observed in cases where an individual is presented with a complex story that could be brainstormed. He may choose to merely recapitulate what has been said or to brainstorm it further. If he brainstorms (when not expected to brainstorm, or when he had the liberty to behave in any way of his choice) 99/100 times instead of merely recapitulating, it could be inferred that such a person is of an intuitive temperament. Until we are able to map all cognitive dispositions in the brain, our methodology with regard to detecting a person's type will be inferential at best.

Inferential may be giving it more credit. Assumptive perhaps? Even in that example, there are so many holes.
- why NOT expected to brainstorm?
- what is expectation of a reaction to a certain situation?
- how are these expectations defined?
- would it not depend on the story?
- what is complex?
- would it not depend on the individual's background/expertise?
......

(sorry, those things I just brainstormed off the top of my head, maybe I'll recap more succintly later)

I do not see the contradiction. Clarify.

The same thing you did above with the misconstruing of my position. I already clarified to the best of my ability when I stated that there was a contradiction. I don't like repeating myself (too often).

No function is completely autonomous. Sensation depends on the faculty of introversion and intuition. When you sense a smell for instance, you inevitably make an impression of that smell in your mind. (That engages the element of introversion and intuition.) It engages the element of introversion because this activity relates to the inner being and it also engages one's cognition to some degree which entails the work of intuition. Sensation, even extroverted sensation is not devoid of the element of introversion.

The salient difference between Extroverted Sensation and Introverted Sensation is follows. Extroverted Sensation tends to interact with the external environment more than introverted sensation. Introverted Sensation tends to reflect upon the entities perceived by the five senses more than to interact with the external environment.

Once more, Extroverted Sensation in itself is a cognitive process, if it did not contain an element of introversion, it simply would not exist because all cognitions take place within the mind and not in the external world.

See...you say things like this (which I actually agree w/) and then you say things like it can be measured by neuroscience whether X versus Y is being engaged, when, there's obviously an intermix of functions that parsing them out is difficult at best, let alone, being able to be conclusive with regards to brain functions via some sort of 'imaging'.

I don't see the double standard. In order for anomalies to be relevant to typology it must be shown that some anomalous individuals do not engage in sensation, imagination, dispassionate judgment or emoting.

No, that would be an incorrect interpretation of what I'm saying. Never am I saying it's either or (regardless of how many times you reshape my pov to appear as such).

ex.
An INTP who is deeply in touch with his/her feelings, will be stated as, 'well, he/she practiced', or, 'maybe they're not an intp', never whether it may be an issue of if we have truly failed to identify what an intp is.

???

!!!!!

Why would one not be able to recognize cognitive states such as emoting or dispassionate judgment?

Because it could come as a package of trail-mix. Hard to always find the nut.

If we understand the physical structure of all rats, it is not necessary for us to examine a million of them to see what they are comprised of. This is why sample size is not relevant.

How do we go about understanding the physical structure of ALL rats? Is it not necessary to look at more than ONE rat to see that the heart is not just a random anomaly of a structure just occuring in Pinky the rat, but, in Brain the rat as well?

You use the word all....without explaining how ALL was derived, without giving a nod to sample size. Explain how you can do this.

For example, you say:

What we need is as follows; a number of individuals who are skilled at identifying their own cognitive processes. (For instance a million of such individuals). If most of them identify cognitive process X with intuition, we can be sure that X represents intuition.

Why do we need a number, and not just one?

Do you see any reason why this fact of his psychology should be impossible to document?

Yes, because, taking that of N and S, the intermix of these functions for different situations can be such that it would be impossible to see each in its component, and comment accordingly on each individual function.

Note: there is a significant difference between what intuition means in the vernacular sense and how Jung uses it. Personally, I think he was negligent to use the word Intuition to describe the cognitive process he had in mind. What he had in mind was the process of abstract perception, one akin to imagination. This is a highly cerebral activity, yet intuition in literature is often used to denote a visceral, instinctive, emotive cognitive activity. Jung's terminology in this regard certainly has the potential to confuse his readers.

I agree. To an extent. I'm a bit hesitant to say Intuition = imagination. It's probably more a commentary on the modality of the imagination. I think Sensing allows for more sequential and 'grounded' imagination than Intuition. Think of SPs - Artisans. My ISFP friend's art and photography is absolutely stunning, and showcases brilliantly what imagination can do with the here-&-now. But, this is just my thought on the fly, so take that with a grain of salt.

I am not sure where you're going with this, but I am certainly curious to discover. Clarify please.

At its simplest, there were parts of all 16 personality types that I went, "THIS RINGS SO TRUE". Was it because it was a commentary on a function that I use often? Or, because, as humans, if we live long enough, we can accumulate enough, go through changes of self enough, to be able to make something applicable to us? Thus, to say enough but not too much (personality profiles), allows for that open window of being able to relate.