Functional Orientation ≠ Typological Orientation

[Engler]

Though it might be obvious to you, Jaguar, I didn't immediately assume that everyone reading this thread was aware of the term.

 

[Jaguar]

In general, do you see learning the tools get by an environment as a form of ingenuity? Even if your inner self perceives a value in it?

Language? Mathematics? Science? Religion?

Many of these subjects have been created by other people to ease the individual and collective burdens in society. And could someone adapt without loosing themselves? How does one straddle the line between flexibility and 'integrity'?

Is this truly a loss of self or a expansion of the self?

The light of the dawning flower escaped the method of litmus expansion into the social endeavors of tampon seasoning.
Shall we skate into the road of the cerebellum or take some oil and place it on the universal trampoline?

tsop tnerehocni na etorw ouy ehteL

 

[Lethe]

The light of the dawning flower escaped the method of litmus expansion into the social endeavors of tampon seasoning.
Shall we skate into the road of the cerebellum or take some oil and place it on the universal trampoline?

.tsop tnerehocni na etorw ouy ehteL

Both.

However, there's currently nothing I could do to travel further in your journey. It is your choice to decide how you desire to handle this information. I only offered some questions that may be worth considering whenever this curiosity arises.

To travel onward, I need more information -- I maintain too broad of a scope to lay them all out without a direction. (I'll write a post on that later.) This is why I work well in a structure: I permit numerous internal variables. I never limit myself to one, I merely choose the best that is suited for the goal.

 

[simulatedworld]

Where would you get such a ridiculous idea?
Sim, the only people I can see doing the crazy shit you are suggesting,
are insecure ENTPs themselves, pretending to be ENTJs.

I have no choice but to chalk this up to terrible, terrible Ne. You'd have to be absolutely blind not to notice this. Fail!

If I handed you a brown paper bag filled with candy,
and the first couple pieces you pulled out were purple,
you'd probably claim ALL THE CANDY, was purple.

And if you were blind you'd insist that no one can see.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Yet more evidence of zero Ne.

Well, I see I struck a nerve of insecurity within you.
Ever been asked the question:
"If you could be anyone, who would you be?"

Unlike many who named other people, I always answered: "Me."
Not because I'm so great, or any other type of nonsense.
I always answer, "me" since I am that comfortable in my own skin.
It's that simple.
If you cannot grasp any of that, you have a problem with your own self-esteem.

If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed, am I right?

You have no proof any of the people you speak of are actually ENTJ, or any type for that matter.
The claims you make about type are based on nothing but assumptions.
You are not what I call a truth-seeker.
You're the opposite.
Slap a homogenous label on it, regardless of truth or accuracy, and you're a happy camper.

Nor do I find it necessary to prove to you that my ENTJ friends are ENTJs.

If you want to bring up that imbecilic claim again, do it in the Jay-Z thread.
Not here.

It's obviously related...not that I'd expect someone with virtually nonexistent Ne to recognize any abstract relationships between concepts that exist outside his own head.

Myopic.

I can see I'm going to have to start a thread on personas.
Jung: "TYPE CANNOT BE OBSERVED."

Yet we have some forumites who persist in typing people's PERSONAS.
You are no exception.

The persona is a mask created to hide the true self.
The persona is not type.
The persona is what you see when you meet someone.
The persona is what you see in a video.

What you see in a video is not the true self.
What you see in a video is not type.
Type cannot be observed.

No, but evidence of type can be observed enough to make a reasonably intuitive guess.

Jay-Z's public persona is closer to ESTP, but in actuality you can tell from studying his work and life history that he's ENTJ.

Do I think this will stop the incompetent bullshit? No.
Jungian psychology is ignored on a daily basis in this forum.
People observe and "type" personas.
They fail to type the true self.

I'm afraid the incompetence is yours for having such poor Ne.

Case in point:
Someone came in this forum bitching about an "obvious" ESTJ taking the MBTI, and scoring INFP.
I began laughing.
I wasn't laughing at the result.
I was laughing at the irony of the person's ignorance.

We've been over this; the tests are garbage.

I find it rather inconsistent that you insist "TYPE CANNOT BE OBSERVED!!" and yet also parrot mindlessly the ridiculous idea that any of this can be tested or quantified. It can't, and nobody cares what your test scores say about anything because that's utterly irrelevant to this field. Next.

And if someone can't understand how an INFP could have an ESTJ persona,
again, this is an example of Jungian psychology being ignored on a daily basis.

Right, but personas are easy to debunk once you talk to a person for a while and get a feel for his overall life philosophy.

It just requires recognition of abstract externalized patterns, which, again, you're terrible at. Stick to schedule-mongering and screaming at people; that's what ENTJs do best.

A friend of mine was a City Housing Commissioner.
Easily an ESTJ persona.
Never in a million years would anyone guess he scored INFP.

It's time for people to wake up to reality.
Many months ago someone commented how the people she met,
seemed opposite in nature to the "type" they were "supposed to be."

Must I keep repeating Jung?
Type cannot be observed.

Nor can gravity, champ!

That doesn't make the study of gravity and its effects useless, nor does it mean we can't infer from observing its effects that it's there.

Once again this just requires Ne. But I'm sure since you can't see the sun that the rest of us can, it doesn't exist. Brilliant.

 

[Jaguar]

^ Utter waste of time.

 

[Engler]

^ Utter waste of time.

Why bother making a statement if you're not willing to justify it?

 

[Jaguar]

Why bother making a statement if you're not willing to justify it?

FAIL is used by those who cannot write a coherent post.
When someone begins their post with that nonsense,
it's an utter waste of my time to even deal with them.

Period.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Because he has no argument other than "My eyes don't work so I'm certain that nobody else's do."

lol

P.S.,

You're posting on an internet forum, if you hadn't noticed. Isn't that kind of inherently a waste of time?

FAIL is used by those who cannot write a coherent post.
When someone begins their post with that nonsense,
it's an utter waste of my time to even deal with them.

Period.

I guess I'm not surprised that you didn't notice the other ~250 or so words in my post. Is the concept of failure that threatening to you?

 

[Julia]

As a newbie I find Egler's first post very interesting, as his words more accurate describe the thoughts that until now only have been gliding shadows in the back of my consciousness because of lack of knowledge.

I think it's essentially necessary to ask questions about every kind of knowledge that someone's trying to place inside a square. Only this way we are able to shake off the possibility that a thing is true just because enough people say it's true. "Look! The Emperor has no clothes!"

It may be objectively true that there is something correct about this MBTI-theory. But the opposite might also be true. That's why I read this thread with great interest, because the energy that a lot of you put in your expressing your opinions makes them appear with another taste in my head. (They're probably pushing some Ni- and Te-buttons that I need to use more.) So thank you all for speeding up all my different processes.


But I must add a naïve question:

How come this introversion/extraversion-thing is related to "where we get our energies from"? Aren't we all part of a whole? Would any of us be here if it wasn't for other people? How would the world look like if we were all introverts?

*hiding under my desk, curiously waiting for some opinions*

 

[Lethe]

FAIL is used by those who cannot write a coherent post.
When someone begins their post with that nonsense,
it's an utter waste of my time to even deal with them.

Period.

Do you think your posts are coherent to other people? Are your inner thoughts that easily perceived and understood by the external world?

Examples:

Why bother making a statement if you're not willing to justify it?

That's not what I was suggesting.
If I didn't hire the right people, I'm the one who would suffer.
I got a percentage of the profit made on every person I hired.
If I didn't make the right choice, I wouldn't make money.
It's that simple.

Don't get me wrong--I know that's not what you're suggesting. You don't exactly strike me as the kind of guy who's irresponsible or impractical.

But the standard picture of someone who "does whatever they want" also tends to be someone without a strong hold on reality or responsibility. I just want our audience to know that it is usually, in fact, exactly the opposite that is true--such freedom is intertwined with responsibility, and "the real world" typically comes only when one takes the reigns.

You still don't get it.
Never mind.

 

[Engler]

It is true, Julia, that humans are biologically inclined towards social interaction; that is, we are inherently social creatures. Despite this, some people experience a loss of energy while directly interacting with people, while others experience the opposite effect.

Typology theory classifies the first group as "introverts", and the second group as "extroverts" (or extraverts, as Jung preferred to call them).

Also, it seems unlikely to me that there could even exist a society comprised exclusively of introverts, as both groups appear to serve a purpose. However, I believe that, in the event that such a society existed, many people would begin to function like extroverts, in order to fulfill the necessary societal roles.

And thank you for chiming in!

 

[Poki]

Click on my profile and look in the "Biography" field.

I was just talking to a forum buddy of mine about this last night.
I do not identify with most of the ENTJs in this forum.
For lack of a better word, I "resonate" better with INTJs.
I could say more, but then I would be stirring up a hornets nest.

I actually prefer to be called XNTJ. It fits me perfectly.
It's not that I can't decide-- that's bullshit.
It's that I know damn well that I can use Ni and Te with agility.

You may, or may not have, noticed but there are a few young INTJs, leading with Te.
You can tell by their obsessive clinging to demanding "evidence" for everything.
It's as if Ni is completely foreign to them.

I have noticed and commented before that I start to appear more ESTP around people I am comfortable with.

 

[simulatedworld]

Jaguar's posts make total sense...if you're Jaguar and have access to his internal monologue.

Unfortunately the people in the set "Not Jaguar" vastly outnumber the people in the set "Jaguar", so nobody knows what the hell he's talking about.

 

[/DG/]

I apologize, as I haven't read this whole thread, but I read the first and second pages and I really don't see what the big issue is here. E/I is defined by which function is used the most, is it not?

 

[Engler]

I apologize, as I haven't read this whole thread, but I read the first and second pages and I really don't see what the big issue is here. E/I is defined by which function is used the most, is it not?

The "big issue" is whether or not the primary use of an extroverted or introverted function has any relation to the extroversion or introversion of the user.

Basically, I'm questioning the validity of the accepted definition.

 

[/DG/]

Oh okay. I was a little confused at first because you seemed to relate these to being social.

 

[Jaguar]

I guess I'm not surprised that you didn't notice the other ~250 or so words in my post.

I am not the first, nor the last, to bring up how tired they are of people using the word FAIL in this forum, when they can't make a valid argument.
It reflects poorly on you, rather than who you are posting to.
If you had put that immature bullshit at the bottom of your post, it would have served you better.

Give it a rest.
Your predictability is becoming boring.

 

[simulatedworld]

I am not the first, nor the last, to bring up how tired they are of people using the word FAIL in this forum, when they can't make a valid argument.
It reflects poorly on you, rather than who you are posting to.
If you had put that immature bullshit at the bottom of your post, it would have served you better.

Give it a rest.
Your predictability is becoming boring.

Right, but, the word "FAIL" doesn't really matter when the rest of the post provides obviously relevant content.

It's like ad hominem--it's fundamentally invalid, but adds some nice stylistic flair when you've already made other, relevant points.

Do you think you could try and focus on the other 250 words instead of the .1% of my post that consisted of the word "FAIL"?

I thought ENTJs were supposed to see the big picture.

 

[Julia]

The "big issue" is whether or not the primary use of an extroverted or introverted function has any relation to the extroversion or introversion of the user.

Basically, I'm questioning the validity of the accepted definition.

Thanks again, Engler, for nailing so precisely down the question that I myself was not able to define.

As I have read through this thread, I haven't seen anyone directly adressing to your question and relating their answers to that.

(But I might have overlooked something.)

 

[onemoretime]

I am not the first, nor the last, to bring up how tired they are of people using the word FAIL in this forum, when they can't make a valid argument.
It reflects poorly on you, rather than who you are posting to.
If you had put that immature bullshit at the bottom of your post, it would have served you better.

Give it a rest.
Your predictability is becoming boring.

You know, you don't win by claiming you're right - you win by demonstrating you're right.

Let's take some examples:

If I handed you a brown paper bag filled with candy,
and the first couple pieces you pulled out were purple,
you'd probably claim ALL THE CANDY, was purple.

You'd agree that this is a pretty good point to theorize that there's a decent possibility that all the candy is purple, wouldn't you? It would certainly need further testing to prove, but at that point, it's a legitimate hypothesis, isn't it?

That's why the scientific method is so beautiful - P theorizes and J tests.

Well, I see I struck a nerve of insecurity within you.
Ever been asked the question:
"If you could be anyone, who would you be?"

Unlike many who named other people, I always answered: "Me."
Not because I'm so great, or any other type of nonsense.
I always answer, "me" since I am that comfortable in my own skin.
It's that simple.
If you cannot grasp any of that, you have a problem with your own self-esteem.

Most ENTPs would answer the same way, if they interpreted it in the context that you did. That being said, it's also not the point of the question - the point is if you, that is, the very personality that comprises how you interact with the world, were in someone else's social position, whose would you be in?

Look for the implications, not just the plain text.

I can see I'm going to have to start a thread on personas.
Jung: "TYPE CANNOT BE OBSERVED."

Just because Jung said so, doesn't make it correct. You can't prove a negative - you have to disprove that type CAN be observed. Appealing to authority doesn't count, either.

The persona is a mask created to hide the true self.
The persona is not type.
The persona is what you see when you meet someone.
The persona is what you see in a video.

Isn't it possible that personae are dependent on type; that is, it would be very difficult for people of a certain type to affect certain personae?

Do I think this will stop the incompetent bullshit? No.
Jungian psychology is ignored on a daily basis in this forum.
People observe and "type" personas.
They fail to type the true self.

Don't you recognize that everything Jung wrote was analogical at its very essence? It's an allegorical framework of structural and chemical processes that occur within a human brain. His views are no more empirical than any we have.

The only people who will be able to make these sorts of hard claims about psychology are the ones who can directly tie things to neurology. Until then, it's all observational analogies.

Apparently you can't think for yourself so you stole Edgar's crazy-assed, sarcastic theory about ENTJs, from the ESTP/ENTJ thread.
I've never "emulated" anyone in my life, nor would I ever.

There's no purpose in being anyone other than who you are.

You're approximately iteration 10 billion of the genetic code generally known as Homo sapiens. How do you think you learned how to talk? The capacity for language is innate, but the languages themselves obviously not.

ESTP uses Ti not Te.
So you wouldn't have ranted at me for my "deductive reasoning," if you thought I was an SP.
But here we are again, and I find myself asking what is the point?
Is there one?

Se deals with tangible things; i.e. evidence. Coming to logical conclusions based on evidence is the very definition of deductive reasoning.


Just my $.02