[ENFP] xNFP and selfishness?

[fusetah]

I think we have FAQs for this sort of beginner question.

Seriously made me think of priests that can't answer a question, and instantly refers to a chapter in the bible...

Pretty scary

 

[Jaguar]

I'm still waiting on that explanation of how your forum behavior is so much more virtuous than mine.

I already told you about your lack of integrity.
If you don't like my answer, I don't really care.

 

[fusetah]

There's cake for everyone after services, sweetie.

Oh, then it is okay

 

[Edgar]

Wow... this is a religion

oh hey Victor! How is the new screenname working out for you?

 

[simulatedworld]

Seriously made me think of priests that can't answer a question, and instantly refers to a chapter in the bible...

Pretty scary

sigh

No, human psychology and interaction can't be completely explained by two letters.

Jungian functions are generalized descriptions of temperamental dispositions.

None of this is scientific and none of it can be proven empirically.

It's all just an arbitrary labeling system.

Happy?

oh hey Victor! How is the new screenname working out for you?

lol

 

[fusetah]

Hmm, I guess that was called for.

I mean you don't go to the church and question the existance of God.

 

[phthalocyanine]

people apply their own personal interpretations to the bible with just as much haphazard freedom as they seem to with MBTI.

 

[Jaguar]

What-you're not going to parrot Lenore Thomson for the noob?
C'mon. Repeat after me:

Lenore says. Lenore says. Lenore says. Lenore says.
Lenore says. Lenore says. Lenore says. Lenore says.
Lenore says. Lenore says. Lenore says. Lenore says.
Lenore says. Lenore says. Lenore says. Lenore says.

 

[simulatedworld]

Hmm, I guess that was called for.

I mean you don't go to the church and question the existance of God.

We don't claim that the functions represent real biological processes. They're just made up, arbitrarily assigned categorizations of behavior.

There's no testable claim being made here. I can't prove that I'm an ENTP, and there's no proof of any types because they're just made up categories.

Do you ask for scientific proof that some movies are comedies and others are dramas? No, because they're just made up labels for ease of categorization. That's all this stuff is, not science, not testable, not anything but made up labels.

What-you're not going to parrot Lenore Thomson for the noob?

No, Lenore gives a type test in her book, and I find all type testing ridiculous. Remember? (This is also why I don't really care about Singer-Loomis--all they've offered is another testing method for a concept I don't think can be tested at all.)

 

[Jaguar]

That's all this stuff is, not science, not testable, not anything but made up labels.

MBTI= made up labels= bullshit.

 

[simulatedworld]

MBTI= made up labels= bullshit.

From an empirical standpoint, sure. It's just as much bullshit as labeling some movies comedy and others drama. There's no empirical test to prove that a movie is a comedy, but there are generally understood criteria that allow us to make inductive arguments for it.

Come on man, you've tried this one a million times.

I already told you about your lack of integrity.
If you don't like my answer, I don't really care.

So let me get this straight--we're both abrasive online, but you have integrity (and I don't) because you're equally abrasive in real life and I'm not?

That's it?

 

[fusetah]

From an empirical standpoint, sure. It's just as much bullshit as labeling some movies comedy and others drama. There's no empirical test to prove that a movie is a comedy, but there are generally understood criteria that allow us to make inductive arguments for it.

Come on man, you've tried this one a million times.

What do you use MBTI for as a person?

You seem to know your share, and this for a reason I guess.

I am just curious

 

[simulatedworld]

What do you use MBTI for as a person?

Just a made up way of categorizing people's behaviors and motivations.

For instance we could make up a similar system where all people who prefer crunchy peanut butter are called "CRN" types, and all who prefer smooth peanut butter are called "CRM" types.

That'd be equivalent to what MBTI does. There's no test that will scientifically determine where you fit; only you can really know what your preference is.

It's just like with movie genres. We arbitrarily decide that movies with x, y, and z characteristics are called "comedy." Is there any scientific test to determine which movies are comedies? No, not really, but it's helpful to some people to divide movies into categories as one of way of looking at them.

 

[Jaguar]

Come on man, you've tried this one a million times.

Go play that lame game elsewhere.

 

[Thalassa]

So let me get this straight--we're both abrasive online, but you have integrity (and I don't) because you're equally abrasive in real life and I'm not?

That's it?

At the risk of being smacked, I'd like to put in here that this sounds like the Fi need for authenticity.

 

[fusetah]

Just a made up way of categorizing people's behaviors and motivations.

For instance we could make up a similar system where all people who prefer crunchy peanut butter are called "CRN" types, and all who prefer smooth peanut butter are called "CRM" types.

That'd be equivalent to what MBTI does. There's no test that will scientifically determine where you fit; only you can really know what your preference is.

This sounds pretty crazy. What do the people you know think about your way of categorizing their behaviours and motivations?

Do they know?

If they don't, how does it feel?

EDIT; Not to mention the comparing of categorizing movie genres to categorizing people..

 

[simulatedworld]

This sounds pretty crazy. What do the people you know think about your way of categorizing their behaviours and motivations?

Do they know?

If they don't, how does it feel?

Some of them think it's interesting and enjoy participating. Others don't really see much use in it.

Of course, even if I happen to think you're best described by, say, the ISFP type, that's only my opinion and there's no way of proving it. Someone else might think you're better described as an ENFJ, and neither of us is factually right or wrong.

It works in the same way that I might think this album is hard rock, but you might think it's metal. They're just made up labels and people can and do disagree on who should be categorized where.

 

[fusetah]

Some of them think it's interesting and enjoy participating. Others don't really see much use in it.

Of course, even if I happen to think you're best described by, say, the ISFP type, that's only my opinion and there's no way of proving it. Someone else might think you're better described as an ENFJ, and neither of us is factually right or wrong.

It works in the same way that I might think this album is hard rock, but you might think it's metal. They're just made up labels and people can and do disagree on who should be categorized where.

It still sounds funny that you are comparing the categorizing of people to categorizing of music- and movie genres

 

[Jaguar]

This sounds pretty crazy.

EDIT; Not to mention the comparing of categorizing movie genres to categorizing people..

I better go to the video store to see what movie category I'm in.

 

[simulatedworld]

It still sounds funny that you are comparing the categorizing of people to categorizing of music- and movie genres

Why? Both forms of categorization are just made up and defined arbitrarily. Neither can be definitively tested, and the only real value in either is philosophical. It's just one way of looking at things that some people find useful in helping to understand others a little better, not some magical end-all be-all answer to human interaction.