# Obsessive Jung Disorder (OJD)



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> Although I agree with you that taking it to an extreme of the blind leading the blind is not productive, the pendulum easily swings (and often does swing) in the other direction, leading to, "This is how it is and no other way is valid." I'm always in favor of balance, which is why I've emphasized that I have nothing against referencing Jung on principle: It's the dogmatic, ever-present approach that bothers me.


I've not been here much recently so perhaps I've missed the dogmatic responses that you're referring to. In my experience, I've found that people here are more open to discussing different ideas if relevant or contradictory points in the original theory are referenced along with the new idea. Everyone is then aware that it's intended to be a discussion about a new idea, rather than just a misunderstanding of the original one.


----------



## Michael82 (Dec 13, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> Not sure what you mean?


I imagine that when people are obsessed with someone they want to be him. Then I figured you can interpret it as "being young" as well.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I've not been here much recently so perhaps I've missed the dogmatic responses that you're referring to. In my experience, I've found that people here are more open to discussing different ideas if relevant or contradictory points in the original theory are referenced along with the new idea. Everyone is then aware that it's intended to be a discussion about a new idea, rather than just a misunderstanding of the original one.


Despite my zeal, I'm sure the reality is not as dark as it might come across, but it does happen. The thing is, we don't always need to reference relevant or contradictory points in the original theory to bring in a new idea (when I say "new," I'm thinking "fresh perspective" - it doesn't have to be radical). The importance of "correctness" (as in, not "misunderstanding the original idea") is part of what bothers me - we all know that these theories are barely scientific at best and we have a lot of new information now. 

We don't need to reference the source material to look at the concept in a different way. I understand that sometimes the intention is to cut down on misinformation, but like I said in another post, it's really easy to swing in the opposite direction and act dogmatic. There's also something really presumptuous and arrogant about thinking that you're automatically interpreting the source material correctly when trying to correct other people with it.

It's where the similarity to use of Bible quotes enters in; like the Bible, a lot of it is up for interpretation, yet some people quote passages as inarguable fact. As though the mere presence of the "holy" text suggests superior knowledge and understanding.

(Side note: To any Christians who quote passages of the Bible, it's an analogy. Please don't take offense. :tongue



Michael82 said:


> I imagine that when people are obsessed with someone they want to be him. Then I figured you can interpret it as "being young" as well.


Oh ok, I got you.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> Despite my zeal, I'm sure the reality is not as dark as it might come across, but it does happen. The thing is, we don't always need to reference relevant or contradictory points in the original theory to bring in a new idea (when I say "new," I'm thinking "fresh perspective" - it doesn't have to be radical). The importance of "correctness" (as in, not "misunderstanding the original idea") is part of what bothers me - we all know that these theories are barely scientific at best and we have a lot of new information now.
> 
> We don't need to reference the source material to look at the concept in a different way. I understand that sometimes the intention is to cut down on misinformation, but like I said in another post, it's really easy to swing in the opposite direction and act dogmatic. There's also something really presumptuous and arrogant about thinking that you're automatically interpreting the source material correctly when trying to correct other people with it.
> 
> It's where the similarity to use of Bible quotes enters in; like the Bible, a lot of it is up for interpretation, yet some people quote passages as inarguable fact. As though the mere presence of the "holy" text suggests superior knowledge and understanding.


True, we don't need to reference the source material to look at the concept in a different way or bring in a new idea. We do need to reference it in order to be taken seriously on the forum. When 95% of 'new ideas' posted are the result of people's understanding being arse-about-tit, it's easy to see why others can't be bothered to seriously consider the 'new ideas', unless the poster shows that they are knowledgeable about what they're discussing. 

I am presumptuous and arrogant, until somebody clearly shows me where I'm wrong. My understanding of the theory makes the most sense to me, I won't throw that out for an interpretation that makes less sense.
:tongue:


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> True, we don't need to reference the source material to look at the concept in a different way or bring in a new idea. We do need to reference it in order to be taken seriously on the forum. When 95% of 'new ideas' posted are the result of people's understanding being arse-about-tit, it's easy to see why others can't be bothered to seriously consider the 'new ideas', unless the poster shows that they are knowledgeable about what they're discussing.
> 
> I am presumptuous and arrogant, until somebody clearly shows me where I'm wrong. My understanding of the theory makes the most sense to me, I won't throw that out for an interpretation that makes less sense.
> :tongue:


I'm pretty much the same way concerning my understanding of the theory. Can't say I'm immune to it.

But I mean, I think I see it a bit differently in terms of credibility and maybe this is where some people just aren't understanding where I'm coming from. In the realm of theory, I place most of my sense of credibility on reasoned ideas that I can test against reality. By comparison, I place virtually no credibility on theory presented as fact without explanation. (The important part here is that while I would readily listen to the words of an expert, even without the expert giving extensive explanation, the extent to which I place value on the expert's words is only in terms of how closely I will listen: I will probably give the expert's words more of a chance at proving to have value and take longer to see if I can find merit.)

Beyond that, theoretical expertise doesn't really impress me on its own. Once verifiable reasoning comes into the picture, I can get impressed very quickly. 

This is why you'll never see me ramble on about the hard sciences without knowing exactly what I'm talking about: The sheer force of verified data that supports them is not a stone wall that I have any desire to break my wrist upon; it's usually holding together quite well without my getting involved.

But theory is open season as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

hanzer said:


> *Different Sources*
> 
> 
> _Where Jung Went Wrong_
> ...


Haha intp humor :'-)


----------



## rambleonrose (Mar 5, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> I'm pretty much the same way concerning my understanding of the theory. Can't say I'm immune to it.
> 
> But I mean, I think I see it a bit differently in terms of credibility and maybe this is where some people just aren't understanding where I'm coming from. In the realm of theory, I place most of my sense of credibility on reasoned ideas that I can test against reality. By comparison, I place virtually no credibility on theory presented as fact without explanation. (The important part here is that while I would readily listen to the words of an expert, even without the expert giving extensive explanation, the extent to which I place value on the expert's words is only in terms of how closely I will listen: I will probably give the expert's words more of a chance at proving to have value and take longer to see if I can find merit.)
> 
> ...



I agree with you in the way that it would be cool to see a little more acceptance/not making a big fuss when someone expresses their own take on theories that may or may not have hard evidence other then their own thoughts and ideas to back it up. I do think it is important to be clear in the post when veering astray from accepted theories into more individualized ones to include that you are doing just that so as not to feed information that hasn't been accepted as a solid basis for reference on PerCs to people who don't have enough knowledge on the subject to not take it as law.

I found your posts here to be a bit charged and you clearly needed to vent a bit, but I like where you're coming from and I'm honestly relieved that for the first time since I've been going on PerCs, someone finally mentioned the elephant in the room, that these theories aren't accepted by everyone in the first place and not even considered to be very credible or relevant to some.

Edit: You actually didn't really say it in a matter of words rereading your posts.....:blushed:. Well okay, there's the elephant guys.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

hanzer said:


> *Different Sources*
> 
> 
> _Where Jung Went Wrong_
> ...


----------



## HBIC (Feb 28, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> We're smarter than that; as a community (I'm including anyone who is interested in these theories) we have more collective knowledge - more raw data about the functions and the people around us at our fingertips - than Jung could have had access to in his lifetime. We have the internet, ffs. I know I know, that doesn't automatically make us more "correct," but I'll be damned if it doesn't make us better equipped.
> 
> And this is where I just disconnect completely; I can't imagine what it would be like to constantly lean on a dead person's work when I have tons of new and interesting data staring me in the face. I wish I understood - usually I understand things like this. But this time? I just don't know what else to call it.


Agreed, you make fair points here.



hanzer said:


> *Different Sources*
> 
> 
> _Where Jung Went Wrong_
> ...


I should put them on hold at Amazon.



LostFavor said:


> Dude, I left college over a year ago now.* This isn't academia.* It's a goddamned internet forum.*


Credibility is desired and expected for most people regardless of the fact that "this is the internet". We are discussing topics that indeed aren't science but that sometimes involve it and can be discussed in a_ scientific way_. A lot of people who come here are interested in discussing personality theory _in academic style_.




LostFavor said:


> *I don't know how else I can say it that isn't downright condescending.* I mean, what's to not understand about, "But that doesn't mean that every discussion of the functions needs a quote from Jung to support it." If the shoe fits, etc. Most people aren't obsessed with Jung. But there are a few on here who refer to him like he is god and his word is law. Those few people can cause a lot of problems because *many people coming onto these forums know jack shit about the theories and so they eat up this dogma that the disciples of Jung are spouting off in every thread about functions.*


You don't have to worry about sounding condenscenting, I doubt anyone here would feel talked down by you after your previous comment about the nature of the forum.

This kind of people shouldn't be here anyway, this is a place for learning, yes, but not to endocrinate anyone about MBTI. You should know your shit before starting to make a hundred threads asking for people to explain the basics to you like I've seen many newbies do. It's downright irritating and embarassing to see people making fool out of themselves and wasting other users times posting in threads about subjects they know nothing about. 




LostFavor said:


> There's nothing insightful about repeating the words of old research over and over. We aren't _learning_ anything from it. When someone takes Jung theories and tries to find new insight in them, that's one thing. But quoting them for the sake of quoting them and then touting it like it's gospel truth yields nothing but more rote repeating and no actual understanding of any of it. The most asinine of it is when someone paraphrases what he said and then acts as though they're taking the words from Jung's own mouth.
> 
> What do I do, specifically? I provide reasons for things, personal experiences, ask for the experiences of others, and so on. Talking about the functions on an internet forum isn't an exchanging of peer-reviewed sources in an academic journal. It's a fluid, ongoing discussion that just happens to get stifled when people insist on it being an ego fight over who can provide the winning quote from Jung. If the point was to spout dogma, we wouldn't have a discussion board.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, I think many people feel the same way but don't really talk about it at lenght. 



Abraxas said:


> Sorry but, it looks like the only one bringing any ego into this discussion is you.
> 
> All anybody said was, "find better sources to cite then," and you flipped a shit.
> 
> I think maybe you need a break.


I gather he doesn't give much credit to citating other people in general.



Octavian said:


> If you're going to contradict Jung's theory or produce your own, you're completely free to do that. Of course you'll have to explain how and why, yours should be accepted over his. *That would have made for a much more productive thread than this one*, which is just effectively moaning.


That is true.



Neverontime said:


> *There's nothing wrong with moving past Jung's ideas after they've been fully comprehended in the first place. Most people who complain about Jung quotes want to improve on his theory without even understanding it. This causes problems on the forum because the descriptions can veer so far off the original ideas, that the entire forum ends up discussing a load of bollocks with absolutely nothing to back up what they're saying.* When people realize that things aren't adding up, they can't get the answers as to why because the forum becomes a jumbled mess of uninformed opinions and fantastic ideas. This can lead to disregarding the basis of theory and invalidating the entire thing (this happened on here before). People can't learn anything that way, it's like the blind leading the blind.
> 
> If someone wants to make changes and adjustments to improve on Jung's work, that's fine, but *if they can't explain why the adjustments actually improve it, then how do they expect to be taken seriously?*
> If they can explain why their way is better, then Jung quotes won't affect what they're saying anyway.


And here is the actual problem I see happening over and over in this forum: people saying Jung didn't know shit but coming up with thin as air arguments that can be destroyed in one post by any user who actual understands the theory_ even when the user doesn't agree with Jung._



LostFavor said:


> Ok, instead of actually addressing what I say, dismiss me on the ground of "flipping my shit." You continually try to make this about me, when I just told you that it isn't. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you just spit in my face. If you decide to step back from your biases long enough to talk about what I said without making it personal, I'll probably be around.


This _is_ flipping your shit. For balanced people, at least.




LostFavor said:


> Despite my zeal, I'm sure the reality is not as dark as it might come across, but it does happen. The thing is, *we don't always need to reference relevant or contradictory points in the original theory to bring in a new idea (when I say "new," I'm thinking "fresh perspective" - it doesn't have to be radical). The importance of "correctness" (as in, not "misunderstanding the original idea") is part of what bothers me - we all know that these theories are barely scientific at best and we have a lot of new information now. *


We need to bring refferences if we want to be taken seriously, which may not be your case. MBTI not being science doesn't make it a free-for-all subject. There is righ and wrong in every theory and subject, at least until proven the contrary and somene changes the theory for good.




LostFavor said:


> We don't need to reference the source material to look at the concept in a different way. I understand that sometimes the intention is to cut down on misinformation, but like I said in another post, it's really easy to swing in the opposite direction and act dogmatic. *There's also something really presumptuous and arrogant about thinking that you're automatically interpreting the source material correctly when trying to correct other people with it.
> 
> It's where the similarity to use of Bible quotes enters in; like the Bible, a lot of it is up for interpretation, yet some people quote passages as inarguable fact. As though the mere presence of the "holy" text suggests superior knowledge and understanding.*


Jung's works (or any other theorist for that matter) can't be compared to the Bible at all. The Bible is about faith, miracles and stories while personality theory is about intellectual ideas, psychological concepts and a quest for truth. In order to buy what the Bible says all one has to do is _believe_. The reason why there are so many Christians (and other members of religions which rely on a book) it's because these people don't go looking for truth on their own, they want it handed to them and accept what they are told happened without proof.

The mere fact that we are here, discussing these complex subjects at lenght and trying to find a way to prove these concepts as true or untrue is an evidence to how different Jung and the Bible are. Otherwise everyone would have a copy of Psychological Types by their nightstand and call us heretics.



Neverontime said:


> True, we don't need to reference the source material to look at the concept in a different way or bring in a new idea. We do need to reference it in order to be taken seriously on the forum. *When 95% of 'new ideas' posted are the result of people's understanding being arse-about-tit, it's easy to see why others can't be bothered to seriously consider the 'new ideas', unless the poster shows that they are knowledgeable about what they're discussing.
> 
> I am presumptuous and arrogant, until somebody clearly shows me where I'm wrong. My understanding of the theory makes the most sense to me, I won't throw that out for an interpretation that makes less sense.*
> :tongue:


I think that's how it is for most people on the forum. If it makes sense we stop and listen, but it rarely does.



LostFavor said:


> I'm pretty much the same way concerning my understanding of the theory. Can't say I'm immune to it.
> 
> But I mean, I think I see it a bit differently in terms of credibility and maybe this is where some people just aren't understanding where I'm coming from. In the realm of theory, I place most of my sense of credibility on reasoned ideas that I can test against reality. By comparison, I place virtually no credibility on theory presented as fact without explanation. (The important part here is that while I would readily listen to the words of an expert, even without the expert giving extensive explanation, the extent to which I place value on the expert's words is only in terms of how closely I will listen: I will probably give the expert's words more of a chance at proving to have value and take longer to see if I can find merit.)
> 
> ...


I emphatize with your sentiments regarding expertise because I'm the same. But I need people to back up what they are saying.



keelysmith said:


> I agree with you in the way that it would be cool to see a little more acceptance/not making a big fuss when someone expresses their own take on theories that may or may not have hard evidence other then their own thoughts and ideas to back it up. I do think it is important to be clear in the post when veering astray from accepted theories into more individualized ones to include that you are doing just that so as not to feed information that hasn't been accepted as a solid basis for reference on PerCs to people who don't have enough knowledge on the subject to not take it as law.
> 
> I found your posts here to be a bit charged and you clearly needed to vent a bit, but I like where you're coming from and I'm honestly relieved that *for the first time since I've been going on PerCs, someone finally mentioned the elephant in the room, that these theories aren't accepted by everyone in the first place and not even considered to be very credible or relevant to some.
> 
> Edit: You actually didn't really say it in a matter of words rereading your posts.....:blushed:. Well okay, there's the elephant guys.*


I don't know what threads you use to visit, but I've seen it be questioned and discussed severa times in my time here, being myself one who brings it up s few of them. But indeed I haven't come across a thread made just to discuss it and a charged one at that.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

keelysmith said:


> I agree with you in the way that it would be cool to see a little more acceptance/not making a big fuss when someone expresses their own take on theories that may or may not have hard evidence other then their own thoughts and ideas to back it up. I do think it is important to be clear in the post when veering astray from accepted theories into more individualized ones to include that you are doing just that so as not to feed information that hasn't been accepted as a solid basis for reference on PerCs to people who don't have enough knowledge on the subject to not take it as law.
> 
> I found your posts here to be a bit charged and you clearly needed to vent a bit, but I like where you're coming from and I'm honestly relieved that for the first time since I've been going on PerCs, someone finally mentioned the elephant in the room, that these theories aren't accepted by everyone in the first place and not even considered to be very credible or relevant to some.
> 
> Edit: You actually didn't really say it in a matter of words rereading your posts.....:blushed:. Well okay, there's the elephant guys.


Well that's just the thing though. As long as we're being open about our ignorance and lack of conclusive evidence, people have no reason to take our word for it (actually, people shouldn't be taking anyone's word for it, but that's a different discussion). I'll admit I'm guilty of speaking in no uncertain terms at times and I hope that in those instances, people who believe I'm spreading false information will challenge me on it (though I'd be happier if they just "talked" - not everything needs to have a tone of challenge to it).

Good point about the elephant in the room - that is an important thing to note. :happy:

Yes, some of my posts were charged (I'm human, for better or worse). It would be silly for me to deny the existence of my emotions. In fact, if there's one thing I've learned about internet forums, it's that tiptoeing around controversial topics is more likely to get you ignored than provoke any sort of discussion - especially if it's a topic that some people don't want to confront. What I take issue with concerning my emotions is when people largely ignore what I say and give me the "pat on the head" you-just-need-to-cool-down-and-it'll-go-away treatment. 

Generally speaking, if people want to be bothered when my words are charged, I am 100% fine with that - I might be bothered too in their position. But little is more insulting to me than dismissing what I have to say because of something that has nothing to do with the words themselves. I mean, it'd be one thing if I could actually get in peoples' faces, but this is words on the internet - it's not exactly hard to distance yourself from perceived intensity.

Anyway, I know you were commenting on it offhand, not condemning me - I just figured I'd add some explanation.



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> This _is_ flipping your shit. For balanced people, at least.


You can claim I flipped my shit, but that wasn't the moment - that was just defending my credibility. Dismissing what someone says based on their emotional state alone is pretty much ad hominem fallacy. 

I don't feel I have the time right now to do the rest of your post justice, but I'll get to them probably sometime today or tomorrow.


----------



## HBIC (Feb 28, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> You can claim I flipped my shit, but that wasn't the moment - that was just defending my credibility. *Dismissing what someone says based on their emotional state alone is pretty much ad hominem fallacy.*
> 
> I don't feel I have the time right now to do the rest of your post justice, but I'll get to them probably sometime today or tomorrow.


Who's being stiff now? You saying my personal take on your comment is a fallacy is like Jung lovers saying that disagreeing with him it's an heresy.

If people are free to discard Jung's ideas all they want in the name of "freedom", aren't we also free to take a person seriously or not depending on how they come across?

It goes both ways.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> Who's being stiff now? You saying my personal take on your comment is a fallacy is like Jung lovers saying that disagreeing with him it's an heresy.
> 
> If people are free to discard Jung's ideas all they want in the name of "freedom", aren't we also free to take a person seriously or not depending on how they come across?
> 
> It goes both ways.


No no, I was saying that the post my comment that you quoted was in reference to (yes, I know that's confusing to follow) bordered on ad hominem.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I'll gladly admit to going trough a period of OJD when I first read him.
It is healthy and expected for someone to look massively up to anyone who massively expands your paradigm.
By raining on their parade because you feel somehow above him, you are basically devaluing their
new expanded view of the world.
That is on your hands, and I'm not helping you clean them. :tongue:

I wonder where you have gotten the idea that there is somehow better writtings on the cognitive functions
than provided by Jung. 
Like what? Dario Nardi? Socionics?

I still find Nardi to be behind Jung in many ways, and Socionics, well it is a step in the right direction
in some ways. However I feel they have left some of the more deeper insights well alone.

I'll give you that everyone will have their own take on this when applying it to their own life.
And if you are going to go with what Jung said... :tongue::wink:
He pointed out that everything can be expressed in as many ways as there are types.
People tend to forget that.
They also forget that Jungs writings are a manifestation of his own type.
And hence will conflict with other type approaches to the same subject.
It is always fun to see people manifest type battles when they discus cognitive functions.
Oblivious of playing out the same drama they profess to understand.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> Credibility is desired and expected for most people regardless of the fact that "this is the internet". We are discussing topics that indeed aren't science but that sometimes involve it and can be discussed in a_ scientific way_. A lot of people who come here are interested in discussing personality theory _in academic style_.


Wanting credibility is fine. Being dogmatic is not (this is something I explained previously in the thread, I believe, but I won't expect you to have read every post).



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> You don't have to worry about sounding condenscenting, I doubt anyone here would feel talked down by you after your previous comment about the nature of the forum.


Is that sarcasm? :tongue:



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> This kind of people shouldn't be here anyway, this is a place for learning, yes, but not to endocrinate anyone about MBTI. You should know your shit before starting to make a hundred threads asking for people to explain the basics to you like I've seen many newbies do. It's downright irritating and embarassing to see people making fool out of themselves and wasting other users times posting in threads about subjects they know nothing about.


Although I agree with you that it can be frustrating, I actually have no problems with newbies asking a lot of questions. I think those threads spark some of the most interesting discussions.



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> We need to bring refferences if we want to be taken seriously, which may not be your case. MBTI not being science doesn't make it a free-for-all subject. There is righ and wrong in every theory and subject, at least until proven the contrary and somene changes the theory for good.


I didn't say it's a free-for-all though. I'm just asking for people to be more open-minded. When I say in my other post that theory is "open season" to me, I simply mean that I have no qualms about speculating and formulating ideas without relying on sources. Granted, you could argue that I do use sources to some degree because I like to test ideas against reality (which would be most like using primary sources). 



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> Jung's works (or any other theorist for that matter) can't be compared to the Bible at all. The Bible is about faith, miracles and stories while personality theory is about intellectual ideas, psychological concepts and a quest for truth. In order to buy what the Bible says all one has to do is _believe_. The reason why there are so many Christians (and other members of religions which rely on a book) it's because these people don't go looking for truth on their own, they want it handed to them and accept what they are told happened without proof.
> 
> The mere fact that we are here, discussing these complex subjects at lenght and trying to find a way to prove these concepts as true or untrue is an evidence to how different Jung and the Bible are. Otherwise everyone would have a copy of Psychological Types by their nightstand and call us heretics.


*shrug* Some people treat his material like it is biblical truth. That's all I meant, really. The way some people talk, the last part of what you said isn't that far from the truth.



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> I emphatize with your sentiments regarding expertise because I'm the same. But I need people to back up what they are saying.


As do I. I just don't need people to back up what they're saying with academic sources for it to make sense to me.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

hornet said:


> I'll gladly admit to going trough a period of OJD when I first read him.
> It is healthy and expected for someone to look massively up to anyone who massively expands your paradigm.
> By raining on their parade because you feel somehow above him, you are basically devaluing their
> new expanded view of the world.
> ...


Fair take on things. You have a good point that our perspective has a big impact on how we approach the theory.

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade - far from it. I don't feel above or below Jung either - he did some great work while he was alive and hopefully by the time I've passed away, I will have done some great work too in my chosen field. 

I don't believe that other writings on the cognitive functions are necessarily better or worse; I am just in favor of being open to new and variegated perspectives, so that the discussion will hopefully expand and grow, as opposed to running itself into the ground through repetition. It is the same mentality I try to apply to learning in general; the more information and perspectives I can gather, the more clarity I have in looking at the overall picture and its various applications. Sometimes I don't do this well at all and only learn enough to get by - just usually not in the realm of theory.

I have a unique kind of respect for Nardi's work because he took it to a new level, but I don't think that means he's more correct than anyone else by default and I'm sure he missed some important things.

Side note: I do feel like the vibe of dogma that I was seeing before has lessened. I appreciate anyone who has made an effort to tone it down.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

LostFavor said:


> Fair take on things. You have a good point that our perspective has a big impact on how we approach the theory.


Thank you. 



> I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade - far from it. I don't feel above or below Jung either - he did some great work while he was alive and hopefully by the time I've passed away, I will have done some great work too in my chosen field.


Fair enough.
Just wanted to let you know that is how it could easily come across.



> I don't believe that other writings on the cognitive functions are necessarily better or worse; I am just in favor of being open to new and variegated perspectives, so that the discussion will hopefully expand and grow, as opposed to running itself into the ground through repetition. It is the same mentality I try to apply to learning in general; the more information and perspectives I can gather, the more clarity I have in looking at the overall picture and its various applications. Sometimes I don't do this well at all and only learn enough to get by - just usually not in the realm of theory.


Yeah I can see how you would want to lessen the limits of perception as a Pi dom.
Still I don't see what is left to explore to be honest.
Personally I have ample evidence that people follow* the fucked up "quadra wars"* 
that I've come to call it lately, when I look around at people around me.
Once you know what to look for the reality validates the theory nicely.
This is of course from a Se/Ni perspective, with overweight on Se.

For me personally it really stops being about is the theory valid or can it be expanded after that.
*The patterns revealed to me trough the theory is persistent and real.*
What is really going on is now irrellevant, and I pay much more attention
onto how I can profit with this new knowledge.
Cause if all this is, is a bunch of types clashing over subjective vs objective stances.
Well hell then I'm grabbing as huge a chuck of the Fi/Se cake that I can get.
Damn all the morals and other petty squabble, they are just unreal shadow manifestations. 




> I have a unique kind of respect for Nardi's work because he took it to a new level, but I don't think that means he's more correct than anyone else by default and I'm sure he missed some important things.


Yeah all respect to Nardi for his work, he has some good points in his book and it was educational.
However I still think Jung's writings describes it better, minus the EEG data.



> Side note: I do feel like the vibe of dogma that I was seeing before has lessened. I appreciate anyone who has made an effort to tone it down.


Well dogma it might have been, or it is just the same reaction that anyone who makes bold statements get.
Everyone and their cat has something to say about it, the bolder the more crass people get.
Especially the enneagram 1 people, they love to tear you a new one in the name of what is right. :wink:


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> That doesn't mean I need to read his writing in great detail to understand how the functions work.


See, if you did that, though you'd recognize the gigantic farce of "function talk" that's taking place here, within the MBTI and/or Socionics. If you degrade Jung to 'cognitive functions' you're inevitably only hurting yourself. Last but not least because typology and functions have been nothing but a short off-track wrap up Jung made on the fly. It ties well into his overall framework of thought but in a nutshell most people will not be able to apply its knowledge effectively and degrade everything to mental masturbation within a sandbox which does not in fact portray reality.

:mellow:


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Erbse said:


> *but in a nutshell most people will not be able to apply its knowledge effectively and degrade everything to mental masturbation within a sandbox which does not in fact portray reality.*


LOL
Ain't that a fact?
I love how you manage to word these things sometimes! <3


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Erbse said:


> See, if you did that, though you'd recognize the gigantic farce of "function talk" that's taking place here, within the MBTI and/or Socionics. If you degrade Jung to 'cognitive functions' you're inevitably only hurting yourself. Last but not least because typology and functions have been nothing but a short off-track wrap up Jung made on the fly. It ties well into his overall framework of thought but in a nutshell most people will not be able to apply its knowledge effectively and degrade everything to mental masturbation within a sandbox which does not in fact portray reality.
> 
> :mellow:


The one, tiny little problem I have with this thinking is that it doesn't belong to Jung. All Jung did was put into his own words what he had observed in people, and what people have been observing since society has existed--Plato may have been the first to truly describe it and apply it to society, but he wasn't the first to observe, even. Jung could not have invented cognitive functions, because that would mean that nobody had them before he came along. No. All he did was come up with a system to describe what has been observed, and give names to them. His names and descriptions are all subject to examination, interpretation and reinterpretation. His "system" of which the CFs are just a side ramp may or may not have value, as he obviously diverted into several other paths himself, and such things as archetypes, are really just his own imagination, like Freud and his ID, ego, etc. which really only reflected his own personality, projected on others. Sure, Jung may have good things to say, and yes, he is the father of what has come after him, but others must and will take their own path. Granted, people like Keirsey have earned their right to opine, while others, like me, have not at all. We are just dabblers--in fact, all of us on this site are dabblers, because if we weren't, we would be doing something other than blathering on this forum. ;-)


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ferroequinologist said:


> The one, tiny little problem I have with this thinking is that it doesn't belong to Jung. All Jung did was put into his own words what he had observed in people, and what people have been observing since society has existed--Plato may have been the first to truly describe it and apply it to society, but he wasn't the first to observe, even. Jung could not have invented cognitive functions, because that would mean that nobody had them before he came along. No. All he did was come up with a system to describe what has been observed, and give names to them. His names and descriptions are all subject to examination, interpretation and reinterpretation. His "system" of which the CFs are just a side ramp may or may not have value, as he obviously diverted into several other paths himself, and such things as archetypes, are really just his own imagination, like Freud and his ID, ego, etc. which really only reflected his own personality, projected on others. Sure, Jung may have good things to say, and yes, he is the father of what has come after him, but others must and will take their own path. Granted, people like Keirsey have earned their right to opine, while others, like me, have not at all. We are just dabblers--in fact, all of us on this site are dabblers, because if we weren't, we would be doing something other than blathering on this forum. ;-)


I'm curious.
By this standard, what level of energy commitment is needed to have the privilege to opine?
Are you saying that none of us do anything else than blather on this forum with this knowledge?

Or is it that you compare Jung's observations with say Newtons work on physics.
And that the right to opine is kinda like the knowhow to take it in a new direction.

Then we would have five classes: 

Quantum Jungists (trying to go deeper and beyond the theory)
Jungian engineers (going into the real world and getting tangible results from applying the theory)
Armchair Jungists (knowing the theory, but never actually applying it to anything substantial)
Amateur Jungist (having a vauge idea about the theory, like playing with MBTI stereotypes)
Ignorant (obvious)

Obviously each one of the first four classes will come with varying degrees of skills.

I got to tell you, I view myself as a Jungian engineer.
I actively use it everyday to achieve results that otherwise would be beyond me.

You know what?
I like my new classes! =D
I'm going to use them from now on. :wink:


----------



## Xena2 (May 28, 2014)

I agree. Innovate, progress, build-on the foundation of early psychologists instead of repeating their words like robots. ;P


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> [...]


I'm not quite sure how any of that is of relevance. I'm not saying that Jung has been the founder and/or godfather of typology or personality psychology for that matter. Philosophers and Psychologists alike had long made observations about the psyche or more precisely human behavioral pattern. Although I undoubtedly consider him to be a genius as far as individual psychology is concerned.

What I've been implying is that learning and reading up on cognitive functions within a sandbox typology framework such as MBTI/Socionics discards a lot of Jung more important things such as the Anima/Animus complex(es), the (collective) unconscious (and manifestation of said), synchronicity, the ever lasting war between conscious and unconscious and finally the transcendent function of the self paired with duality everywhere we look (while the self would be unity) - Introversion and Extroversion (as a general flow direction of the libido) play huge roles in all these things - that is before you even pin any function to it. 

As a result cognitive function theory is nothing but a drop of water on a hot stone which can be used as fairly easy entry point as well as compass when entering Jung's world/framework. Solely focusing on that tiny part and trying to apply it outside of his framework is likely not to yield remotely as much fruit and fall short in more aspects that I could imagine. Whatever it may be out of its context I certainly don't see it as a solid foundation to build anything worthwhile upon. MBTI would be 'psychology light' at best and often-times not address or truly help people for all it does is sink within superficialities. Well, more precisely people's understanding probably doesn't move beyond that of the very surface. By that I don't mean to discredit type or the idea of typology as it undoubtedly exists - however, there's so much more to and beneath it that's easily forgotten around these parts or plainly remains unknown due to sheer ignorance, for a lack of a better word.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Erbse said:


> What I've been implying is that learning and reading up on cognitive functions within a sandbox typology framework such as MBTI/Socionics discards a lot of Jung more important things such as the Anima/Animus complex(es), the (collective) unconscious (and manifestation of said), synchronicity, the ever lasting war between conscious and unconscious and finally the transcendent function of the self paired with duality everywhere we look (while the self would be unity) - Introversion and Extroversion (as a general flow direction of the libido) play huge roles in all these things - that is before you even pin any function to it.
> 
> As a result cognitive function theory is nothing but a drop of water on a hot stone which can be used as fairly easy entry point as well as compass when entering Jung's world/framework. Solely focusing on that tiny part and trying to apply it outside of his framework is likely not to yield remotely as much fruit and fall short in more aspects that I could imagine. Whatever it may be out of its context I certainly don't see it as a solid foundation to build anything worthwhile upon. MBTI would be 'psychology light' at best and often-times not address or truly help people for all it does is sink within superficialities. Well, more precisely people's understanding probably doesn't move beyond that of the very surface. By that I don't mean to discredit type or the idea of typology as it undoubtedly exists - however, there's so much more to and beneath it that's easily forgotten around these parts or plainly remains unknown due to sheer ignorance, for a lack of a better word.


The thing is this very framework of which you seem to be very keen is the very parts on which I place little value, as it is more speculation than anything--as I read it. That is the same sort of stuff where Freud went off the rails, with his complexes, etc. which may have described himself or his perspective, but which does not reflect any greater reality. I guess that Jung had a better mental image of some things that are common to humanity, but his greater theories were just that, and I'm not really interested after a brief perusal of what he had to say, and a bit more of what some enthusiasts I have read.  My personal perspective is that he chanced on a way of describing something that all of us see, but fail to grasp at a level that fits everything into a coherent whole. It was this facet of what he worked on that interests me, and more so where Briggs and Myers, and also Keirsey went with it, and to a lesser extent the whole Socionics movement, which really took Jung to heart in more ways than the western practitioners, who have done an excellent job of both popularizing the theories (and putting them at a level that they can be grasped popularly), but who also found a way to monetize it all.  

I really don't want to dispute all that stuff Jung had to say about the other stuff, especially if it helps somebody figure out things in his own life, but for myself, I tasted, and didn't really like (like artichoke hearts). I guess I'd say one other thing on this subject. This site doesn't seem to be very well-geared to dealing with these other elements of Jungian psychology, and that may be part of the problem. Maybe if there was a subforum devoted specifically to this aspect, it would work better. Anybody know the admins enough to suggest it?  

Also, now I've thought about it, do you visit or belong to celebritytypes.com? Those guys are really into Jung, and not at all afraid of his entire theory (which is one place I've read a tiny bit of his bigger picture)

And now I've said too much...


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> [...]


Nope, I don't belong to any communities or fan clubs :mellow:

Everyone is free to dismiss Jung or his framework(s) as they see fit. In order to do that however one first must go and actually read and understand it. It's most certainly not for everyone - in fact it may be only for a very minority. I'd be highly skeptic of anyone who accepts cognitive function theory but dismisses every other part of Jung outright. I suppose however that even those exist. Funnily enough, by acknowledging MBTI/Socionics and others they at the same time, indirectly acknowledge Jung again. 

That is the knack, though - simply learning about cognitive function and never going further but building upon a part of a framework outside of its context is hardly a worthwhile endeavor most of the time. Unless the sole endeavor is to push one's own agenda


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Erbse said:


> Nope, I don't belong to any communities or fan clubs :mellow:
> 
> Everyone is free to dismiss Jung or his framework(s) as they see fit. In order to do that however one first must go and actually read and understand it. It's most certainly not for everyone - in fact it may be only for a very minority. I'd be highly skeptic of anyone who accepts cognitive function theory but dismisses every other part of Jung outright. I suppose however that even those exist. Funnily enough, by acknowledging MBTI/Socionics and others they at the same time, indirectly acknowledge Jung again.
> 
> That is the knack, though - simply learning about cognitive function and never going further but building upon a part of a framework outside of its context is hardly a worthwhile endeavor most of the time. Unless the sole endeavor is to push one's own agenda


Isn't that what we are all doing anyway? Otherwise there wouldn't be any arguments and disagreements here. ;-) But of course, the idea of "pushing one's own agenda" implies a bit of disingenuousness, which I am not ready to accept without some evidence in particular cases. Most people simply want to understand things in their own way.

And one of those was David Keirsey, who kind of bypasses Jung in his search for a way to describe temperaments and build his own theory. He hints at why he essentially bypassed Jung by at one point describing his theory as "purely hypothetical", and then, later on the same page (p30 PUMII) "_I must say I have never found a use for this scheme of psychological functions, and this is because function typology sets out to define different people's mental make-up-what's in their heads-something which is not observable, and which is thus unavoidably subjective, a matter of speculation, and occasionally of projection._" And this is why he chose "_[t]o take some of the guesswork out of temperament theory_": and to "_base my type definitions on what people do well, their skilled actions-what I call their "intelligent roles"-which are observable, and which thus can be defined more objectively._"

I suppose it goes without saying that he doesn't pay any attention to the cognitive functions. I like Keirsey's approach in many ways, but I think that, because he focuses on intelligence types--how people communicate and use tools, he is limited to merely explaining things only at that level, and it doesn't get into deeper, and yes, more hypothetical processes behind these things. I do not see the two systems as incompatible, as many presume. Nor do I think that Keirsey was merely pursuing some private agenda. He was genuine in his goals--he is an INTP, after all--and wanted to create as objective a system as possible. I think he largely succeeded, as I tend to begin with his temperaments when trying to understand somebody, but I typically go further. I don't see any need to dig deeper into Jung's purely hypothetical theories either. If I have some private agenda I seem to be pushing, so be it. ;-)


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

ferroequinologist said:


> [...]


When I spoke about personal agendas I wasn't referring to systems like MBTI/Keirsey/Socionics but rather the individuals that fiddles around with said systems without having bothered with what's behind it or how/where it originated from - which why I wouldn't dismiss Jung if I was interested in cognitive function. Whether or not I agree with him would be an entirely different matter.

What we get would thus be results we see here daily: "When I do X it's Pe/Ji/Ne/Ti/Fe and then I use Pi/Je/Te to Z". Alternatively you get "I do X cuz I'm an ISTJ/ISTP/ENFP/..." - or people reducing MBTI / Keirsey types to their text descriptions which are quite lacking or generally don't help developing a person's inner strength. It's as though vital information were missing - a bit like fixing symptoms types are typically exhibiting rather than providing understanding as to _why_ they exist and how the cause could be handled.

I understand as to why many would consider Jung to be too impractical or too far detached from reality or more precisely too far away from the scientific approach as it provides not a whole lot of observable/verfiable evidence. Yet the existence of the things he built a framework around cannot be denied either as we, or at last many experience what he has often times laid out. Whether or not he's been correct in the scientifically sense will still have to be (dis)proven down the road.

Note however that Jung's approach towards the psyche was a highly introverted one that shared no common ground with out society's extroverted approached. Particularly science will have a hard time with Jung. Actually it already does, given that choosing to be Jungian may very well put a damper on one's academic career if not outright kill it compared to all alternatives.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Fascinating conversation guys.



hornet said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Yeah I can see how you would want to lessen the limits of perception as a Pi dom.
> Still I don't see what is left to explore to be honest.
> ...


You're welcome.

Makes sense considering your focus. I think because I'm interested in improving on things - finding a better way, a more complete model, a more accurate perspective, etc. - I never see any theory as inherently complete. I might operate on the notion that a model is satisfyingly accurate, especially if I don't have the time or resources to pursue it further, but I always have that sliver of "could be even better" in the back of my mind. 



Erbse said:


> See, if you did that, though you'd recognize the gigantic farce of "function talk" that's taking place here, within the MBTI and/or Socionics. If you degrade Jung to 'cognitive functions' you're inevitably only hurting yourself. Last but not least because typology and functions have been nothing but a short off-track wrap up Jung made on the fly. It ties well into his overall framework of thought but in a nutshell most people will not be able to apply its knowledge effectively and degrade everything to mental masturbation within a sandbox which does not in fact portray reality.
> 
> :mellow:


I think you and @ferroequinologist covered one aspect of this pretty well already.

What I will say is this: The aspects of Jung's work that you seem to be referring to are not something I see mentioned amidst discussions. If it was a case of people dipping into the broader aspects of his theory and expanding discussion, then I wouldn't be bringing it up as an issue. It's always been the notion of quoting his references to functions and using them in a dogmatic/close-minded way that bothers me.

That said, I find it difficult to believe that I would need to know all of Jung's theories to apply my amalgamated perspective on the functions effectively, considering that I have already applied it effectively in my own life countless times.

Maybe you're just saying "people in general"? But then how do propose getting those people on track? People in all walks of life, all theories and models and so on, seem hellbent on degrading things to a point of obscuring usefulness (e.g. the extremists of the world). Surely just telling everyone to read Jung is not going to solve the problems that you're referring to. After all, I have done just fine without extensively reading his work.

But if you think people are missing something vital, then by all means, bring it up in a thread all its own. Call attention to the "vital information" that you believe is being ignored. If that means delving into something complex, do it anyway - that's what this forum is good for.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> What I will say is this: The aspects of Jung's work that you seem to be referring to are not something I see mentioned amidst discussions. If it was a case of people dipping into the broader aspects of his theory and expanding discussion, then I wouldn't be bringing it up as an issue. It's always been the notion of quoting his references to functions and using them in a dogmatic/close-minded way that bothers me.
> 
> That said, I find it difficult to believe that I would need to know all of Jung's theories to apply my amalgamated perspective on the functions effectively, considering that I have already applied it effectively in my own life countless times.
> 
> ...


There are threads posted here which contain that vital information. The problem is that they quickly get buried, newer members rarely read/understand them and then the uninformative threads get posted all over again. 

You don't have to read all Jung's work, that's what's good about the forum. When your posts are inaccurate, people will post the relevant quotes for you, to explain why they're inaccurate. The way the forum operates is actually a pretty good system, if people are willing to take advantage of it and actually learn something. It's not so good for talking crap without being called out on it or if someone just wants their ego stroking.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> There are threads posted here which contain that vital information. The problem is that they quickly get buried, newer members rarely read/understand them and then the uninformative threads get posted all over again.
> 
> You don't have to read all Jung's work, that's what's good about the forum. When your posts are inaccurate, people will post the relevant quotes for you, to explain why they're inaccurate. The way the forum operates is actually a pretty good system, if people are willing to take advantage of it and actually learn something. It's not so good for talking crap without being called out on it or if someone just wants their ego stroking.


Sounds like a cop-out to be honest. If you want to see something happen, you've got to put in the effort - I would know because I'm great at talking about things without actually doing them.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> Sounds like a cop-out to be honest. If you want to see something happen, you've got to put in the effort - I would know because I'm great at talking about things without actually doing them.


Wait, you want me to put in some effort? :shocked:
I don't think that's really necessary.Chill dude, I mean, it's just a theory.


----------



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

...what?


----------



## HBIC (Feb 28, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> No no, I was saying that the post my comment that you quoted was in reference to (yes, I know that's confusing to follow) bordered on ad hominem.


Ok.



LostFavor said:


> Wanting credibility is fine. Being dogmatic is not (this is something I explained previously in the thread, I believe, but I won't expect you to have read every post).


I have read all of them, but you're vision of what is dogmatic is not the same as not only me, but other people in this thread, some of which I quoted.



LostFavor said:


> Is that sarcasm? :tongue:


Yes :wink:.



LostFavor said:


> Although I agree with you that it can be frustrating, I actually have no problems with newbies asking a lot of questions. I think those threads spark some of the most interesting discussions.


I don't expect them to be fully versed, but if you don't know jackshit about the subject then what are you eve doing here? Go read some books or research online first.



LostFavor said:


> I didn't say it's a free-for-all though. I'm just asking for people to be more open-minded. When I say in my other post that theory is "open season" to me, I simply mean that I have no qualms about speculating and formulating ideas without relying on sources. Granted, you could argue that I do use sources to some degree because* I like to test ideas against reality (which would be most like using primary sources).*


BUt here's the thing: you can only check these theories in relation to the reality you experience yourself. Which can't be first hand experienced by others, hence why some will be sceptical of your findings.



LostFavor said:


> *shrug* Some people treat his material like it is biblical truth. That's all I meant, really. The way some people talk, the last part of what you said isn't that far from the truth.
> 
> 
> As do I. I just don't need people to back up what they're saying with academic sources for it to make sense to me.


Fair enough.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> Yes :wink:.


Ah but what if your answer here is sarcasm too? Paradox? I think figuring that one out will make my head hurt more than the barb.



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> I have read all of them, but you're vision of what is dogmatic is not the same as not only me, but other people in this thread, some of which I quoted.


Somehow, I doubt that, but ok. I think it's more likely that you haven't noticed the kind of posts that prompted me to make this thread. I don't have, like, superpowers or something, but for whatever reason, I am kind of attuned to noticing stuff that is dogmatic, or at least borders on it. Perhaps because I don't want to mix up opinion with fact in my mind.

I won't expect you to take my word for it on that, but I'm starting to think it's not something that most people are attuned to based on some of the reactions here. Maybe I've got some false-consensus confusion at work there.

Of course, judging by some of the _other_ reactions to this thread, I doubt I'm the only one who has seen it.



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> I don't expect them to be fully versed, but if you don't know jackshit about the subject then what are you eve doing here? Go read some books or research online first.


I don't know. I don't get that attitude at all, tbh. First time I came to a forum similar to this, it was after having taken a test and reading a bunch of type descriptions. Had the people been less-than-welcoming, I probably would have been a lot less inclined to learn.

Everybody starts somewhere. And for some, the interactivity here _is_ online research.



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> BUt here's the thing: you can only check these theories in relation to the reality you experience yourself. Which can't be first hand experienced by others, hence why some will be sceptical of your findings.


I understand that and I would hope that people will be skeptical of my findings. I wouldn't want them to take what I say at face value without applying any sort of critical thinking to it. Same with all the stuff that other people write.

But that's why I try to provide reasoning for things - give it something it can fall back on.


----------



## HBIC (Feb 28, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> Ah but what if your answer here is sarcasm too? Paradox? I think figuring that one out will make my head hurt more than the barb.


Why do people always have this kind or reaction to me? I'm pretty straightfoward in my own eyes but others always seem to think I'm messing with them. 



LostFavor;6977609
[B said:


> Somehow, I doubt that, but ok.[/B] I think it's more likely that you haven't noticed the kind of posts that prompted me to make this thread. I don't have, like, superpowers or something, but for whatever reason, I am kind of attuned to noticing stuff that is dogmatic, or at least borders on it. *Perhaps because I don't want to mix up opinion with fact in my mind.
> 
> I won't expect you to take my word for it on that, but I'm starting to think it's not something that most people are attuned to based on some of the reactions here. Maybe I've got some false-consensus confusion at work there.*


Because I don't agree with you and don't think you're explanation matches up? 

It's not that people aren't tuned up to it, it's that people don't interpret the issue of presenting "evidence" the way you do. As I've mentioned before, some people are dogmatic but I find them to be the minority. Most are just concerned with keeping it factual, just like you do.

I don't think most here are implying you're not onto something, I just think that it takes more for them (and me) to see others as dogmatic than it does to you. 



LostFavor said:


> Of course, judging by some of the _other_ reactions to this thread, I doubt I'm the only one who has seen it.
> 
> 
> I don't know. *I don't get that attitude at all, tbh.* First time I came to a forum similar to this, it was after having taken a test and reading a bunch of type descriptions. Had the people been less-than-welcoming, I probably would have been a lot less inclined to learn.
> ...



Just like I don't get the whole "people see Jung as gospel" at all. It's a mix of not hanging out on the same threads and not having the same perception of things (and pet peeves).



LostFavor said:


> I understand that and I would hope that people will be skeptical of my findings. I wouldn't want them to take what I say at face value without applying any sort of critical thinking to it. Same with all the stuff that other people write.
> 
> But that's why I try to provide reasoning for things - give it something it can fall back on.


It's just that people here tend to like having factual evidence, really. But you have the right mindset about it.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> Why do people always have this kind or reaction to me? I'm pretty straightfoward in my own eyes but others always seem to think I'm messing with them.


Do they? I was just poking fun at the situation.



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> Because I don't agree with you and don't think you're explanation matches up?


Because in a thread where I'm talking about not taking information for granted without examination, I wouldn't expect anyone to take what I say for granted. 



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> It's not that people aren't tuned up to it, it's that people don't interpret the issue of presenting "evidence" the way you do. As I've mentioned before, some people are dogmatic but I find them to be the minority. Most are just concerned with keeping it factual, just like you do.
> 
> I don't think most here are implying you're not onto something, I just think that it takes more for them (and me) to see others as dogmatic than it does to you.


Maybe, but we're both operating on supposition. Not a whole lot we can do with that. I'm obviously not going to go looking for actual examples of stuff that struck me as dogmatic, as that would drag individual names into the picture.



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> Just like I don't get the whole "people see Jung as gospel" at all. It's a mix of not hanging out on the same threads and not having the same perception of things (and pet peeves).


*shrug*



Look Alive_ Sunshine said:


> It's just that people here tend to like having factual evidence, really.


I'd like to know what constitutes "factual evidence," considering how theoretical all of these type/function/etc. discussions are.


----------

