[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Introversion, Extraversion, the MBTI and the IIEE/EEII stacks.

[Turi]

Eric, I haven't "spouted" reckfuls anti-Grant anything.
This thread isn't even an anti-Grant thread, either.

 

[Eric B]

For the benefit of any thread reader who's made it this far but wisely refrained from reading Eric's and my exchange in all its grisly detail, I can't resist pointing out that Eric has just confessed that he willfully derailed this thread because he was in the mood to bitch at me about (among other things) the fact that I allegedly derail threads.

That's your real issue, Eric. Let's face it.

I "even have" articles in the forum wiki? Does that make me uppity or something?

I don't really see why it matters, but just for the record, since you mentioned them, turning several of my posts into forum wiki articles was something that the powers that be did on their own initiative, without any suggestion (or input) from me.

If you want less condescension directed at you, you should up your standards — and I've been able to offer multiple justifications for that recommendation just based on your posts in this thread.

It's been quite a performance, Eric. And as I noted earlier, I think disrespectful is an apt characterization of way too many of your posts — disrespectful both to me, and to anyone else who takes the time to read them with the expectation that you'll be making a good faith effort to fairly characterize the facts, and to read and understand the sources you're either citing as support or purporting to debate.

I'd say I have a much better handle than you do on what I have and haven't done with my MBTI forum posts. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that some of them have "influenced others," and to the extent that that's true, I'd respectfully suggest that one of the main reasons is that I consistently and conscientiously — are you ready for the reprise? — make a good faith effort to fairly characterize the facts, and to read and understand the sources I'm either citing as support or purporting to debate.

I thought about sending you a framed picture of me to hang on your wall for inspiration, but alas, if I did that, it might assist you in unmasking my true Reyniersian identity.

And that's your problem. You presume you're on some higher ground, talking about "up your standards". You ignore the horribly disrespectful behavior this crusade of yours led you to launch at a real expert who was here. I don't see how you can in good conscience even hurl that term at someone else.

But it's incredibly hard to digest your posts, loaded with all of these snarky little barbs whose language are obviously designed to irk and provoke. "Oh noes!! Not that!!" "It's been quite a performance, Eric." And that silly last sentence. And me just misunderstanding this stuff is "disrespectful" on the level of all of this?
You sound like someone completely full of himself, like you're King Knowledge or something and it is hard to deal with people like that. (So of course it will come out in the way you "characterize the facts", and this presuming you are even handling the facts correctly, and everyone else is wrong, so their beliefs are everything up to "horseshit"). This has set the tone for these discussions (and making them very easy to potentially, unwittingly be derailed, and it was really this post that began to push this into an ad-hominen "me vs you" thing)!

So you can't blame the condescension all on me, because you started out aiming stuff like this at "the HaroldGrantians" (and especially Nardi, directly, eventually), and as I said, it got very tired very fast. By your third post on my thread you linked to (#6), you were already starting with the "horseshit"! Way back then; four years ago, already; that's how long you've been at this! And I had not disrespected or mischaracterized you in any way at that point. (And it's not just about my threads; there were several others right after this, and I remember telling you in one of them "OK, already, we see how you feel about this" or something like that. And the point of mentioning the wiki is not who put it up, or that it was wrong to put it up, but that it was already up, so this "information" you were flooding the environment with is already quite available).

You again really can not see how that is inflammatory (and unnecessary, and even distracting), to a person who believes in what you're attacking. (And it's NOT how to go about being "understood", or taken seriously! But instead of looking at this, just try to prove I do the same things, and it doesn't come anywhere near matching up). I think I had been very patient with this all this time.
You are in total denial! You need to own up to some stuff for a change. (You know so much; ever heard of the "Johari Window"?)

Again, I greatly apologize to [MENTION=33869]Turi[/MENTION], and no, it's not directly an "anti-Grant thread", but you were saying some of the same things, so I felt the need to defend the Grant Model, and didn't think it would go this way.

 

[GavinElster]

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] -- I really think you should point out what types of things that are genuinely controversial are being dismissed as if they're obviously bullshit (I'm really only pointing this out because ***I*** honestly agree there's a lot of bullshit that isn't in the reasonable-people-can-disagree department). There's a big difference between saying Grant doesn't align with the actual MBTI instrument vs saying there are no interesting descriptions provided by its language. The latter is heading in a more radical empiricist direction than the former, and the latter is where I get suspicious.

I think there are very basic things we're all bound to, like not contradicting ourselves, even if other places, reasonable people can diverge. As I see it, and have said in the past, claiming there's any reason to think a model based on 4 independent dimensions is going to predict a model contradicting that independence is bordering on totally incoherent to me -- I don't need Reynierse, or any evidence to start to think it's very suspicious.

As I've also said, as long as we dissociate the two models (that is, say there's only a cursory relation between the actual test producing the result INTP and the theory of TiNe), there's suddenly much less of a conflict.


Basically, my point is calling something bullshit is only taking some kind of high-ground if it's not blatantly, flagrantly in contradiction of very basic principles of reasoning.

 

[Eric B]

When Nardi's Keys 2 Cognition test came out, I used to wonder why something like this wasn't the official MBTI to begin with (and why they don't make it that, eventually), for I didn't understand why they used dichotomies to measure typed originally defined by functions either.

So the problem is, the intertwining of different frameworks involved. The MBTI instrument itself is based on dichotomies, but the theory behind it was derived from Jung, who taught functions and attitudes, regardless of the exact order, —or whether this was a special case, where most people are really ambiverts (which is then two whole other disputes that have gotten intertwined).
This was not Grant who did this; Grant's specific theory really only involves the attitude of the tertiary (same as dominant, where others said it was opposite). The MBTI-based establishment accepts functions, in at least the XY?Y order. So that's who is responsible for this model that is supposedly not true to Jung, or enough "data".

The definition of two of those "independent" variables was held by the framers of the MBTI to "point" to the other two. So the could be looked at independently, or dynamically.
It's like a keyboard, where you have all these "independent" keys (you can press each "independently"). Yet the SHIFT affects all the other keys, by causing them to type CAPS, instead of lowercase.

 

[GavinElster]

The definition of two of those "independent" variables was held by the framers of the MBTI to "point" to the other two. So the could be looked at independently, or dynamically.
It's like a keyboard, where you have all these "independent" keys (you can press each "independently"). Yet the SHIFT affects all the other keys, by causing them to type CAPS, instead of lowercase.

It might have originally been theorized to do that, but the method used to make the MBTI seems the same sort of statistical method used to make Big 5 inventories, as far as I get it. That is, here's the idea: there are tons of descriptors in the test items, and you find which ones intercorrelate. Then you group the intercorrelating ones together in such a way that the grouped cluster doesn't correlate with the other grouped clusters -- each grouped cluster now corresponds to a scale such as T/F.

Hence, there seem to only be independent keys -- nothing like a Shift. Not in the instrument itself. But, there could be OTHER theories that are RELATED to the test (but with very significant divergences) which have Shift-like features.

 

[reckful]

I had gotten the impression you and Turi had some sort of falling out over on PerC, and so I didn't think you would come to his thread here.

Turi was infracted for a PerC post addressed to me shortly before he was banned, but just for the record, and as I already explained to him, I never reported any of his posts or otherwise complained about him to the powers that be at PerC. For better or worse, I virtually never report posts (other than advertiser spam), and don't recall ever seeing any posts by Turi that I would have considered reportable in any case.

I'm not second-guessing his banning, because he made lots of posts I've never read, and I don't know enough about that decision to have an informed opinion. I'm just noting that he and I haven't had a "falling out" of any kind.

 

[Jaguar]

real life example of the tandems

Engage Processes in Tandem for Powerful Results

Each of the cognitive processes can be used with its opposite in a tandem relationship.
At first a process and its “opposite” may feel in tension with each other, but with practice you will discover ways to use them together effectively.

As you develop a process, you can draw on the examples below to enhance your use and create powerful results.

Extraverted Sensing
We can get powerful results using extraverted Sensing in tandem with introverted Intuiting. We can be very tuned in to the surrounding environment, with anticipation of what’s coming next. We may constantly read our industry’s current news to be sure to catch the next wave of innovations. Or we can engage people in fun activities, drawing them out and helping them transform themselves. We might pull a shy person onto the dance floor, convinced that there is an inner dancer waiting to be released; that person experiences his or her potential firsthand. Or we might shape the current context to what we envision it can be, like a sculptor who can “see” the final statue within a chunk of marble and sculpts everything else away to get to it.

Introverted Sensing
We can get impressive results using introverted Sensing in tandem with extraverted Intuiting. We might have a keen awareness of what has come before and link that knowledge to what might be. This might involve drawing upon a wealth of past experience and sifting through what is known to discover patterns; for example, researching the history of a place in great detail to solve a lingering mystery. We might use allegories from traditional fantasy to pass on important standards and values to the next generation, or read mystery novels as a way to relax from the daily grind of work. A little imagination, fantasy, or humor can lighten our daily routine or help make a long-term relationship more enjoyable. Seeing positive possibilities also reassures us when a situation is unstable.

Extraverted Intuiting
We can get impressive results using extraverted Intuiting in tandem with introverted Sensing. We might interpret the meaning of a situation by relating it to images from the past. We see a pattern in the present moment, and in addition to imagining alternative scenarios we draw upon our memories of the past. This recollection enables us to explore many more situations at once. Similarly, an academic researcher might do extensive research and book study of those who have come before while exploring a theoretical problem. We might embrace the convenience of supportive institutions so that we can live more freely in a world of ideas. We might even dream up a novel way to do something and then establish it as a new tradition or reliable standard for society.

Introverted Intuiting
We can get impressive results using introverted Intuiting in tandem with extraverted Sensing. We might try out various tangible experiences and activities to catalyze realizations for growth. The more varied and undigested experiences one has, the more material there is for the unconscious to draw upon. We might look inward to envision how we can transform something, then gather data and take actions to realize that goal—to make real what is envisioned. For example, we might visualize how people will one day journey into space, and then take the actions necessary to design and build a spaceship to accomplish that goal. This might take many years of action, including activities to sustain the vision. Another tandem relationship involves engaging in a physical activity so that body, mind, and environment merge to become one, perhaps experiencing a great sense of calm or energy.

Extraverted Thinking
We can get impressive results using extraverted Thinking in tandem with introverted Feeling. We might sequence and prioritize based on objective measures while following beliefs about what’s important. If there isn’t enough time in the day to do everything we want, we may select those things that matter most to us. Or perhaps, while trying to make a decision, we discover that the available evidence isn’t enough to convince us one way or another. Until we get more evidence, we go with what we believe to be true. Being in touch with what we believe in motivates us to use willpower and to follow a procedure or task through to completion. We might structure an organization or system to be as fair as possible, honoring individual identities.

Introverted Thinking
We can get impressive results using introverted Thinking in tandem with extraverted Feeling. We might draw on a nugget of reasoning or theoretical framework to make adjustments for the welfare of others or the good of the group. Applying principles of human behavior and applying leverage at key points can help us to manage divergent values, feelings, and opinions. We might nurture relationships with a network of respected peers while clarifying a framework, or disclose personal data to gain clarity and precision for a topic. Or we might feel passionate about the value of people everywhere learning to use a particular framework as a problem-solving tool to improve human relationships. We communicate this framework to others as a helpful gift.

Extraverted Feeling
We can get impressive results using extraverted Feeling in tandem with introverted Thinking. We can connect with others by following guidelines about appropriate behavior. We may follow principles of fair play or the Golden Rule—a general framework for all our transactions with others. We might locate leverage points in a situation to help everyone get what they need in the most affirming and fair way possible, or leverage our range of social contacts to get help or to interact with someone we wouldn’t normally have access to. Or we might mediate a dispute between two parties: we observe from multiple angles to fully see every side and give a fair hearing as we fit their claims with a framework to arrive at a decision.

Introverted Feeling
We can get impressive results using introverted Feeling in tandem with extraverted Thinking. We can stay true to our beliefs by structuring our lives and standing firm with what’s important. We might decide against purchasing a particular product that harms the environment, and then arrange our lives or the organization we lead to make do without it. We might refer to evidence and empirical reasoning to support what we believe is true. Maybe we hold fast to the idea that all people bring useful gifts to society, then construct a sorter or a metric and gather data to demonstrate this value. Or we might use time-management and spatial organization skills to better follow through on important commitments and worthwhile projects.

Source: Nardi

 

[Turi]

Turi was infracted for a PerC post addressed to me shortly before he was banned, but just for the record, and as I already explained to him, I never reported any of his posts or otherwise complained about him to the powers that be at PerC. For better or worse, I virtually never report posts (other than advertiser spam), and don't recall ever seeing any posts by Turi that I would have considered reportable in any case.

I'm not second-guessing his banning, because he made lots of posts I've never read, and I don't know enough about that decision to have an informed opinion. I'm just noting that he and I haven't had a "falling out" of any kind.

Yeah, I don't know how connected this website is to PerC but basically - I got infracted for mentioning you X amount of times in one post (despite noting that it only tags you one single time to the admin that infracted me - this is the truth, correct? You did not receive 13 notifications from that one post, right?).

I also had earlier infractions for other things - the permanent ban itself was completely without warning and was essentially at Jennyworkys discrection - apparently, some people reported some of my posts, Jennywocky decided to permanently ban me, other admins/mods agreed and that was pretty much that - no warnings, no temporary bans building up to a permanent ban.

I attempted to contest the severity (permanent ban without warning or any kind of notification) and was met with circular reasoning - so circular in fact that Jennywocky quite literally copy-pasted a previous post to contend some points I made. Like a complete and utter dismissal of any kind of fairness.

If this place is run by the same people, then they can feel free to permanently ban me without warning here - but I'm more than happy to speak out, PerC isn't run very well at all, I recognised this after observing the moderators over time there (they get way too involved and take things personally - which isn't their "job", it only creates bias) - I knew the administration would be the same - and, of course, they were.

I'm not fussed, but this doesn't change the facts - and the fact is, no matter how I portray it, or how they portray it - that I was permanently banned without warning - which is absolutely absurd, imo.

 

[reckful]

You did not receive 13 notifications from that one post, right?).

Unless I'm misremembering, I've never gotten more than one notification for multiple mentions in a single post.

 

[Eric B]

Not really connected, but many of the same people are in both places, such as Jenny (who's been off and on as a mod in either place). I've seen infractions given for "disputing the decisions of the admins", and I hope they don't somehow count this as that; "talking about admins' decisions on another forum".

I myself thought the thing with you looked strange, and I had gone over to the infractions thread looking to see if an active troll (who used to brag about waiting for infractions to expire so he could carry on; and other tricks) had ever gotten his due, but he never did. So who knows.

 

[brightflashes]

Thanks for sharing. I got a lot out of reading this. Just wanted to give you props for organizing this so well and laying it out so that it's easily understood.