I'm only taking it to what's reasonable. :rolli: Take wavelength of light into colors... we do that because we can perceive different wavelengths as different colors. As to age... it's simply a special case for the measurement of the passage of time in living things. Why do we go by years? It's the time it takes for a complete revolution around the sun. We use years as a time measurement for everything else... so why not for people too?
It's not the same for cognitive functions though. There is no rational for their existence... you can't really see them... they're not based on anything else. So where's the proof?
i guess the rationale for me is that i've been observing them for a long time now. i can tell between different ones. and i can translate behavior and attitude into functions.
it seems quite obvious that there are people that prefer conscious thinking over feeling and vice versa. it's also obvious that some focus on the abstract, while other focus on concrete.
i mean, if you're not willing to give me that, i may as well give up.
Back to semantics and definition games again? You know exactly what I meant. "Truly exists" reading by context from that sentence means we cannot tell whether the functions are artificially imposed or if they exist naturally. Numbers can be understood by logic... pure inductive reasoning show that they exist. Sound is trickier... but if more than one individual/animal can pick up the vibration of air molecules... pin point its direction... then something in that regards must exists. That is a mixture of inductive reasoning and empirical observation. With the existence of types and cognitive functions however... there's no way you can obtain that by inductive reasoning. There is also no empirical evidence to support their existence... Hence my question. Are they real or artificially produced?
the thing is, all concepts are human created. either they all exist or none of them do. the concept of the functions certainly exists. you're talking about the reliability.
honestly, they're just shortcuts of explanation, no more. instead of saying, he made a conscious impersonal judgment based on his internal standards, we can say, he used Ti. i don't see the problem, as long as we define them rigidly.
Error: Human beings are finite... human thinking and its associate processes has not be proven to be finite yet.
well we have a finite amount of brain cells, a finite amount of ions floating around in the cerebrospinal fluid. there are a finite amount of dendrites and axons. there are a finite amount of neurotransmitters.
finite things cannot produce infinite results. plus, i'm not trying to label every one. i'm generalizing. that's what the functions do. just like when you say, "person x feels bad right now", you're generalizing. should you not be allowed to say that? should i ask you, well, "does being sad really exist?"
i want to hear an example that cannot be thought of in terms of sensing, intuiting, thinking, and feeling.
You can divide a pie into 8ths... But you cannot say the 8 pieces are wedged shaped without knowing the initial shape of the pie. I don't care how you divide it... but to name the eight pieces specifically as Ni Ne Si Se Ti Te Fi Fe when you don't know what the whole looks like is foolishness to me.
true. but i think we generally do know what the pie looks like. how often do you see a behavior and say, "holy crap, i didn't think a human being was theoretically capable of that!"
My pleasure.
What is personality? Certain properties within an individual that affects how they behave. Sounds fair?
So you have personality traits... (Big 5 or whatever else you want to use) But that's not the only thing that manners in determining how a person will feel or act.
What affects behavior?
1. External factors (situation)
2. Internal factors (person)
Under internal factors, you have
2a. personality traits
2b. experience
I don't see how you can argue against this... experience makes a huge difference in behavior. So please tell me, how can the 8 functions alone be all there is to looking at human behavior?
experience is stored in the perceiving functions.
It's always a good idea to remember that "rules" are imposed by people as a means of understanding the world around us. To properly use theories and "laws" means understanding its constrains and limitations. MBTI and cognitive functions theories have never been formally defined nor empirically tested. Sure we can still attempt to use it as a framework for our understanding of human behavior... but we have no prove that it is naturally found in people.
again, your claim "we have no prove that it is naturally found in people" seems odd to me. we also have no proof that other people exist. i mean, you can take that argument as far as you want. to me, it seems like you're taking the argument far enough to throw out MBTI and stopping it before you throw out stuff like "happiness" or "excitement" or anything.
what does "naturally found" mean? i think it's obvious that people use deductive reasoning, either regarding good/bad (F) or true/false (T). i also think it's obvious that people take in sensory data (S) and paint pictures with it automatically (N).