## User Tag List

1. Thanks for the thanks..! And thanks.

You made this movie... I feel like I've only watched it. But I suppose people thought the same of Eraserhead or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Eagerly waiting for your next production.

2. But... but... I'm priceless

Btw (in a Monte Python-esque "And now for something totally different), your concept and indeed table rests upon one assumption which I think I've located. It's based in definitions so I know we're probably going to argue but it was also pointed out in my previous posts.

The whole series of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 is based upon the assumption that what preference means is the areas in which you have the most capability. It's a forgiveable assumption esp for an NT where competence and confidence are partnered so closely. Why would an NT who is soo bad at SF use it more than absolutely necessary? Well what happens if preference means "regularly engaged in"? In other words if you are an INTP do all those outbursts of illogical behaviour tinged with feeling and out of context mean that you use SF quite a lot? If so then based upon that interpretation your function order should start 1,2,7,8 or even 1,2,8,7 !

Now as the table probably doesn't work too well based on only four preferences doesn't this mean you need to sort out the foundation before constructing the house?

Oh and I know you're looking at the maths between types and so forth but you've yet to state any found correlations or patterns beyond the numbers themselves. Now you chose the numbers so any patterns existing between them are irrelevant unless they mirror patterns in the functions themselves.

I'm looking for the 'equals' or 'is equivalent to' in all of this and so far all I see is the formula stretching on.

To link to your analogy, looking at the light bouncing off the mountain only tells you what you see, what light reflects and not what the mountain is. Ergo you are studying what the numbers tell you about the numbers and not about what the numbers represent. For that you have to approach the mountain and get in touch with what it actually is.

3. I guess wildcat should be the one to respond, but --

Originally Posted by Xander
The whole series of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 is based upon the assumption that what preference means is the areas in which you have the most capability. It's a forgiveable assumption esp for an NT where competence and confidence are partnered so closely. Why would an NT who is soo bad at SF use it more than absolutely necessary? Well what happens if preference means "regularly engaged in"? In other words if you are an INTP do all those outbursts of illogical behaviour tinged with feeling and out of context mean that you use SF quite a lot?
Well, I think yes, it does. However the use would be ineffectual and harmful to say the least, because the INTP isn't well equipped to act as an ESFJ. It's important to note that even though the idea and the table consist of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 they still talk about the eight functions and the associated personality theory. They would be meaningless without the interpretation -- i.e molding them into a familiar mold within the mind's eye. 4, 7, 6, 1 signify the INTP. They add up to 18, one half of all functions added up. 9 is key because it's any one dichotomy. ESFJ is therefore 36-18 = 18 = 8+3+2+5. However the key point as illustrated above by elfinchilde is the subtraction. Take an INTP, subtract the INTP (natural preferences indeed) from the INTP's full "potential", 36, and you get ESFJ, the shadow and inherently undeveloped side of the INTP's personality.

Now as the table probably doesn't work too well based on only four preferences doesn't this mean you need to sort out the foundation before constructing the house?
If I'm getting this correctly, that's the whole point. The four preferences were never a foundation because they utilized just four functions, whereas every person has all eight within them (the deal with 9x4 = 36) and this is something MBTI also agrees with. Wildcat's table is conceived to work with all eight functions. In fact it's probably something MBTI-interested people should take a look at because it's really quite "liberating" and makes sense! (And for once, explains the cognitive processes test's results.)

Oh and I know you're looking at the maths between types and so forth but you've yet to state any found correlations or patterns beyond the numbers themselves. Now you chose the numbers so any patterns existing between them are irrelevant unless they mirror patterns in the functions themselves.
The patterns fundamentally are not that different from those that the MBTI already contains. It's simply enlarged.

For example, 4-function system:
INTP > Ti Ne Si Fe < ESFJ
And the complete 8-functional representation per wildcat's system:
INTP > Ti Ne Ni Te Fi Se Si Fe < ESFJ

Or something simpler, the I-E contrast:

Four functions:
INFP > Fi Ne Si Te < ESTJ
ENFP > Ne Fi Te Si < ISTJ

Eight functions:
INFP > Fi Ne Ni Fe Ti Se Si Te < ESTJ
ENFP > Ne Fi Fe Ni Se Ti Te Si < ISTJ

To link to your analogy, looking at the light bouncing off the mountain only tells you what you see, what light reflects and not what the mountain is. Ergo you are studying what the numbers tell you about the numbers and not about what the numbers represent. For that you have to approach the mountain and get in touch with what it actually is.
The interpretation is what the numbers represent...

4. Originally Posted by elfinchilde
how much would you charge for a xander?

you're the best wildcat an elf could ever have.
I have only one specimen of those left. Unfortunately at the moment the sample is occupied with hydrogen and oxygen.

I am expecting another sample from South Wales any minute now.
Langrenus.. an odd name. Too odd.

Meanwhile I shall look around.
The charge is five dollars for a pound of flesh.
Wait.. in the book it says the elves go free of charge.

I guess wildcat should be the one to respond, but --
Oh no, I asked Wildcat cause it was his theory. All responses, rebuttals and input is very welcome. Judging by the completeness of your response this should be interesting
Well, I think yes, it does. However the use would be ineffectual and harmful to say the least, because the INTP isn't well equipped to act as an ESFJ. It's important to note that even though the idea and the table consist of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 they still talk about the eight functions and the associated personality theory. They would be meaningless without the interpretation -- i.e molding them into a familiar mold within the mind's eye. 4, 7, 6, 1 signify the INTP. They add up to 18, one half of all functions added up. 9 is key because it's any one dichotomy. ESFJ is therefore 36-18 = 18 = 8+3+2+5. However the key point as illustrated above by elfinchilde is the subtraction. Take an INTP, subtract the INTP (natural preferences indeed) from the INTP's full "potential", 36, and you get ESFJ, the shadow and inherently undeveloped side of the INTP's personality.
We are not talking about development though are we. It's not about what you use well but what you prefer to use. You could be an INTP who'd be brilliant as an ESTJ but prefers to be an INTP. If I developed my ESFJ side more than my INTP side I would still be an INTP.

That's what I am trying to draw attention to. Upon preference alone can you really say that ESFJ is soo far from INTP? I see ENTP in ISFJs quite strongly and yet it's supposed to be their opposite. If it is your shadow then could it not be said that that is the shadow you prefer or are you more of the thinking that it's cause and effect?
If I'm getting this correctly, that's the whole point. The four preferences were never a foundation because they utilized just four functions, whereas every person has all eight within them (the deal with 9x4 = 36) and this is something MBTI also agrees with. Wildcat's table is conceived to work with all eight functions. In fact it's probably something MBTI-interested people should take a look at because it's really quite "liberating" and makes sense! (And for once, explains the cognitive processes test's results.)
The numbers are irrelevant to the psychology. People are not calculations. If the theories underneath the numbers is sound then the numbers are also sound and possibly any calculations done from them. If not then it's as useless as saying that lightspeed is 2. 2 what?
The patterns fundamentally are not that different from those that the MBTI already contains. It's simply enlarged.
Why are the other four functions left out? We do not know. We are developing as we go. Nothing is certain.
For example, 4-function system:
INTP > Ti Ne Si Fe < ESFJ
And the complete 8-functional representation per wildcat's system:
INTP > Ti Ne Ni Te Fi Se Si Fe < ESFJ

Or something simpler, the I-E contrast:

Four functions:
INFP > Fi Ne Si Te < ESTJ
ENFP > Ne Fi Te Si < ISTJ

Eight functions:
INFP > Fi Ne Ni Fe Ti Se Si Te < ESTJ
ENFP > Ne Fi Fe Ni Se Ti Te Si < ISTJ
That's assuming a lot. What about if the missed out functions are not represented because they can be in any order? That ruins the whole table and everything. Numbers and sequences are fine but it's nonsequitous to just assume they are because the other ones are.
The interpretation is what the numbers represent...
Through every layer of extrapolation and analogy you lose more touch with what is unless you are extremely careful. Even then some loss is inevitable. Consider it like voltage drop, if you are familiar with that.

6. Originally Posted by wildcat
I have only one specimen of those left. Unfortunately at the moment the sample is occupied with hydrogen and oxygen.

I am expecting another sample from South Wales any minute now.
Langrenus.. an odd name. Too odd.

Meanwhile I shall look around.
The charge is five dollars for a pound of flesh.
Wait.. in the book it says the elves go free of charge.
\$5 per pound? English pound?

\$5/ lb? Oh dear I think I may be expensive

7. Originally Posted by Xander
We are not talking about development though are we. It's not about what you use well but what you prefer to use. You could be an INTP who'd be brilliant as an ESTJ but prefers to be an INTP. If I developed my ESFJ side more than my INTP side I would still be an INTP.
Yes, this is true -- actually, I don't know where the difference in opinion is...

That's what I am trying to draw attention to. Upon preference alone can you really say that ESFJ is soo far from INTP? I see ENTP in ISFJs quite strongly and yet it's supposed to be their opposite. If it is your shadow then could it not be said that that is the shadow you prefer or are you more of the thinking that it's cause and effect?
Ah, there it is!
Theoretically we can say (assume) that the ESFJ is indeed far from the INTP. MBTI is founded on such assumptions. However, I agree that the external applications of such theories fall short and/or do not quite live up to the premises. (Such as in the ENTPs in ISFJs example, you cited, it would be foolish to assume that the ISFJ was acting like that only due to stress or pressure -- however, the "opposite types" theory can be perceived as pushing for such generalizations) I have some friends about whose types I can not guess. But is external application really the point?

The numbers are irrelevant to the psychology. People are not calculations. If the theories underneath the numbers is sound then the numbers are also sound and possibly any calculations done from them. If not then it's as useless as saying that lightspeed is 2. 2 what?
But it's not that such an idea is expressed! People are indeed not calculations.
And the calculations are not representatives of anything fixed. 1 is Te. But what is Te? What does Te imply, and what kind of effects is it assumed to have in the calculations?
4, 7, 6, 1 is the INTP but the INTP is not a person. What is "INTP"? A label? A basket of stereotype? A helpful designation? It is what you perceive of it. This is the same as MBTI, enneagram, or any personality theory.

Why are the other four functions left out? We do not know. We are developing as we go. Nothing is certain.
That's assuming a lot. What about if the missed out functions are not represented because they can be in any order? That ruins the whole table and everything. Numbers and sequences are fine but it's nonsequitous to just assume they are because the other ones are.
Based on this school of thought, you could argue that about the first four functions, too. The theories operate under the assumption/delusion of certainty. In reality, nothing is certain.

Through every layer of extrapolation and analogy you lose more touch with what is unless you are extremely careful. Even then some loss is inevitable. Consider it like voltage drop, if you are familiar with that.
I agree. One should be careful not to lose sight of the main objective.

Thanks for the reply, Xander! :)

Yes, this is true -- actually, I don't know where the difference in opinion is...
It's in the definitions I am an INTP
Ah, there it is!
Theoretically we can say (assume) that the ESFJ is indeed far from the INTP. MBTI is founded on such assumptions. However, I agree that the external applications of such theories fall short and/or do not quite live up to the premises. (Such as in the ENTPs in ISFJs example, you cited, it would be foolish to assume that the ISFJ was acting like that only due to stress or pressure -- however, the "opposite types" theory can be perceived as pushing for such generalizations) I have some friends about whose types I can not guess. But is external application really the point?
Founded upon what theories? Is it the same thing to say that there are introverts and extroverts as it is to say that they rest at opposite ends of a scale? I'm fairly sure you're not supposed to use a scale otherwise people start with those silly percentages and stuff.

I think we can save a lot of arguing if I stop there. There are some things deeper than this which need clarification before the meander into iniquity is resumed.

1. What is the point of calculation based on supplanting functions with numbers unless it is to tell you something about the functions?

2. Is it congruent to think that because the numbers behave in a certain fashion that the types will?

3. If it is simple substitution to find patterns then forget practically everything I've said (certainty was never a friend of mine ). I come from my father's school of thought that speed dials are a waste of time as now you have an additional number to remember

4. Assuming this is not mere pattern recognition and that the numbers are congruent to real world psychology, what does this new table and theory show?

5. Even if the function order is correct and the table is all fine and dandy, is it not still nonsequitous to conclude that this shows evidence of the shadow?

9. Originally Posted by Xander
But... but... I'm priceless
Originally Posted by wildcat
I have only one specimen of those left. Unfortunately at the moment the sample is occupied with hydrogen and oxygen.

I am expecting another sample from South Wales any minute now.
Langrenus.. an odd name. Too odd.

Meanwhile I shall look around.
The charge is five dollars for a pound of flesh.
Wait.. in the book it says the elves go free of charge.
Xander, that's why i get you free of charge.

yes wildcat, your current specimen is indeed very occupied with oxygen at the moment. do take care of him before he argues himself blue.

langrenus! what a delectably different name!

10. Originally Posted by elfinchilde
Xander, that's why i get you free of charge.
No you GO free of charge. You truely are priceless.

Now me I'm expensive. Plus carriage will be a bitch!
Originally Posted by elfinchilde
yes wildcat, your current specimen is indeed very occupied with oxygen at the moment. do take care of him before he argues himself blue.
Naw. Speaking to you elfie is anaerobic exercise. You always leave me breathless.

(Need cheasier grin smiley... :steam: lack of appropriate smiley situation)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO