Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[Jack Flak]

Hence, if I was an ISTJ, my preference for the empirical method over that of rationalism (heavy reliance on abstract chains of reasoning ) would be obvious.

I disagree. Your intelligence grants you the gift of using logic with ease, but you still prefer concrete data and/or accepted theory and/or observation and/or the literal to new theory and/or perception and/or the figurative. Prefer. It isn't cut and dry. You don't toss Intuition by the wayside.

[entropie]

2:1

[SolitaryWalker]

I disagree. Your intelligence grants you the gift of using logic with ease, but you still prefer concrete data and/or accepted theory and/or observation and/or the literal to new theory and/or perception and/or the figurative. Prefer. It isn't cut and dry. You don't toss Intuition by the wayside.

The statement that I prefer to rely on theories of others as opposed to attempting to conjure theories of my own is false.

Read Principles of Typology, especially the last chapter where I criticize Keirsey and Thomson heavily. The axioms of typology that I have established were also a result of my own thinking. I have arrived at such axioms as a result of my inquiry into Jungian typology. This led me to expound on his views (this means that I have propounded ideas that you will not find in the Psychological Types) and I have corrected a few minor errors that Jung has allowed in his system.

Such critical analysis and innovation of thought, I believe has reflected in my writings of the profiles, many of the ideas I have propounded there will not be discovered in other profiles.

Jung has already laid down the foundations of typology and many of his ideas have been discussed by other authors already. Therefore, all I can do is simply correct their errors and proceed further down the path that they have taken before me.






Or in other words, all the basic typological concepts have already been discovered. No matter how original of a thinker you are, you will not discover many, if any at all, new paths. However, you can come up with new ideas regarding the paths that have been discovered by others before, which is exactly what I have done.

[entropie]

ok that's barely a 2:2

Jack is right about one thing: either your intuition is highly focused or you do not want to share your whole truth with us

[SolitaryWalker]

ok that's barely a 2:2

Jack is right about one thing: either your intuition is highly focused or you do not want to share your whole truth with us

It must be highly focused because it is subjugated to my Thinking faculty.

I find it strange to regard myself as a Sensing type simply because I rely very little on concrete, sensorial observations (empirical method), but instead rely very heavily on what is most easily imagined rather than perceived through the senses.

As even Jack criticized (in CC's thread on Fi the other day) my approach for lack of affinity with the scientific method (I think empirical was the term he had in mind).)

[entropie]

ok, fair enough. The same problem Jack has also

[Jack Flak]

I say again, Mr. Wing, that you do not lack the capability of Intuition, and I'm sure you use it regularly. But it is my conclusion that your Sensing function is more potent, and it sneaks in sometimes to intercept your Intuition and say "Let's get back to business."

A statement like this, for example, is simply not a statement an INTP would make, because we prefer Intuition to Thinking, Perceiving to Judging, and must always allow for new discoveries.

Or in other words, all the basic typological concepts have already been discovered. No matter how original of a thinker you are, you will not discover many, if any at all, new paths. However, you can come up with new ideas regarding the paths that have been discovered by others before, which is exactly what I have done.

[SolitaryWalker]

I say again, Mr. Wing, that you do not lack the capability of Intuition, and I'm sure you use it regularly. But it is my conclusion that your Sensing function is more potent, and it sneaks in sometimes to intercept your Intuition and say "Let's get back to business.".

Thinking function is what tells us to get back to business as it has a clearly outlined agenda by virtue of logical analysis. Sensing does not. Sensing just focuses our attention on our five senses and perceptions that could be derived through the exercise of the 5 senses.

A statement like this, for example, is simply not a statement an INTP would make, because we prefer Intuition to Thinking, Perceiving to Judging, and must always allow for new discoveries.

Okay, I can prefer Thinking to Intuition and be an INTJ. (Ti-Ne).

[Jack Flak]

Thinking function is what tells us to get back to business as it has a clearly outlined agenda by virtue of logical analysis. Sensing does not. Sensing just focuses our attention on our five senses and perceptions that could be derived through the exercise of the 5 senses.

I was speaking figuratively...(hint hint)

Okay, I can prefer Thinking to Intuition and be an INTJ. (Ti-Ne).

Well, when you add the i and e to T and N, you're implying MBTI functions, which I'm not using.

[SolitaryWalker]

Well, when you add the i and e to T and N, you're implying MBTI functions, which I'm not using.

I do not see how you can successfuly seperate functions from 'directions of functions'. In order to reject the clause of 'directions of functions' you must abrogate the distinction between Introversion and Extroversion.

This you have not done.

I was speaking figuratively...(hint hint).

You have provided no reason to believe that my thinking is in affinity with the Sensing faculty.