# Comparing Ti-Ne with Te-Ni - Understanding I/E



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

With Ti-Ne, the cognitive process begins with a theory. If Ti is not conscious, then the theoretical nature of Ti judgment becomes subconscious, and so Ti judgment happens automatically and subjective theories can often seem like objective facts to the individual. When Ti is conscious and/or dominant, the individual generally spends most of their time attempting to subjectively reason from facts and knowledge that they can recall or intuitively generate, and is usually aware of themselves doing this, and so naturally understands the subjective nature of their speculations.

When encountering a new situation/information:

Ti-Ne begins by drawing a rational conclusion from a set of intuitions based off of objective facts about the things one has experienced in life. The strength of Ne will determine the strength of the insight into the objective facts Ti is attempting to judge in some way. This strength will depend entirely upon the breadth and depth of one's direct experience with and knowledge of the objective world. That will, in turn, provide Ti with the proper intuitions with which to assemble a more rational, logical conclusion that it believes in more powerfully, and will then incorporate into other lines of reasoning, procedurally building a subjective world-view in this way until it exhausts its available store of facts or incorporates new information that radically alters the whole world view in some way.

Te-Ni begins by recognizing the correct response or answer by recalling what it has learned about how to choose the correct answer or response. If it cannot come up with a satisfactory answer or response, such as in the case that there is no well-established fact about the matter, then it normally won't, as in the case of Si-Te or Te-Si. But, paired with Ni, Te gains the ability to interpret facts subjectively to mean different things in different contexts. It can do this because the insight generated by Ni is made by recognizing the subjective similarity in different sets of facts that exhibit the same subjective patterns. The strength of this insight will depend entirely upon subjective conditions that cannot be predicted. In one individual, the insight may develop much more rapidly than another due to exposure to certain kinds of information, for example.

But, the primary difference to focus on is the Te/Ti difference. This always manifests in the Ti individual trying to formulate their own answer or response to something based on facts they've been exposed to and can put together, versus the Te individual who researches the correct answer or response based on their ability to subjectively interpret and recognize new facts. Ti-Ne is like educated guesswork, essentially. Te-Ni is a process where facts are compared to subjective insights that allow for a more efficient choice. Ti is subjective in this respect because it "does it itself" so to speak. Te lets the facts speak for themselves. Te is only referencing what it already knows about the world, and if it doesn't know it, then it won't produce anything without a perceiving function like Ni or Si. With Si it could access the subjective impressions it receives from the immediate physical situation, like with ISTJs and ESTJs for example. With Ni, it accesses the subjective impressions it receives from the intuitions it has about it's life experiences - this allows it to make better predictions and generate stronger insights over time.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

I found that quite interesting. However, it raised some questions in my mind -

For Te doms using Ni, why do you suggest that the subjective conditions can't be predicted? The exposure you to information situation you mentioned could help predictions, as well as examples of that person working with similar issues.

Although I don't disagree that it would be quite subjective. But I would argue that within a certain range based on what you are aware that they have encountered or dealt with before, there is an element of predictability. That is, if you are able to determine that sort of thing.

The subjective factors in two peoples' functions not be utterly different, particularly when working in a similar direction from a similar starting point. If you catch my drift. While I doubt their Ni use would be the same, I would expect at least some occasional similarity in that situation, even if it wasn't particularly interesting or out of the ordinary.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Eh. These really wouldn't have much in common. Ti is just a subjective conceptualization based more in a philosophical outlook on the logic of things, ideas, people, etc. (think having a personal philosophy that always gets abstracted into new threads of archetypal associations) - it's impersonal, but oriented to personal concerns.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Eh. These really wouldn't have much in common. Ti is just a subjective conceptualization based more in a philosophical outlook on the logic of things, ideas, people, etc. (think having a personal philosophy that always gets abstracted into new threads of archetypal associations) - it's impersonal, but oriented to personal concerns.


Obviously it's a matter of perspective. They have as much or as little "in common" as you define "common" to mean. It's not as if "common" were an objective value anyway.

So, I'm not certain what your objection is here. I'm paraphrasing, but my essay _is accurate_ to the philosophical concepts that Jung had in mind when he discusses the functions in his book Psychological Types. Nothing I've said is misleading.

Unless you care to quote his work and show me where I've done a poor job?


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

A decent summary of a thread I like it,
I can point to a thread that shows a good example of this but I don't like pointing fingers unless that person is cool with it. I would say though, is that I used this concept about Te-Ni or Ni- Te as you mentioned in the manner that I directed my response. Even though I really did want to jump into the Ni spin off with that person. The appropriate thing to me to do was help reinforce the Te some instead with only drops of Ni here and there.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, Jung didn't try to make the functions out to be manifestations of reasoning in the philosophical sphere necessarily - frankly, just stuff you would see in everyday life. I mean, you're not even that warm on Te - this function doesn't parrot facts - it's like Ti, but rationalized toward outer conditions (e.g. trends in nature, objective patterns that aren't just subjective whims of the person's thoughts and focus of personal attention) - it can, in fact, conceptualize new facts (as in, draw connections between observations that can be idealized into some consistently repeatable result or expectation - it operates with a mental schema in mind, kind of like "the laws of nature" or "the scientific method" or "street smarts" or "intellectualism" or "what a real man is, lol" or whatever. Being theoretical can be both types of thinking - Te would actually probably be more classically theoretical in an objective sense (as long as ideas flow into others known to exist, basically), while Ti would originate from subjective concerns (e.g. seeing how various subjective viewpoints might technically meet up to reality somewhere and somehow). Ti is extremely misunderstood - Jung thought this function was virtually unrecognized in his own time.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Good summary, Abraxas.


default settings said:


> I found that quite interesting. However, it raised some questions in my mind -
> 
> For Te doms using Ni, why do you suggest that the subjective conditions can't be predicted? The exposure you to information situation you mentioned could help predictions, as well as examples of that person working with similar issues.
> 
> ...


Not sure I fully understand what the question is here, but for what it's worth, the ENTJ I know (99% sure he is one) is more comfortable with making a single prediction than I am. As the gravity of the situation goes up, I'm less likely to feel comfortable taking one stance and more likely to be torn between a couple of different key possibilities. He, on the other hand, can stay impartial.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, Jung didn't try to make the functions out to be manifestations of reasoning in the philosophical sphere necessarily - frankly, just stuff you would see in everyday life. I mean, you're not even that warm on Te - this function doesn't parrot facts - it's like Ti, but rationalized toward outer conditions (e.g. trends in nature, objective patterns that aren't just subjective whims of the person's thoughts and focus of personal attention) - it can, in fact, conceptualize new facts (as in, draw connections between observations that can be idealized into some consistently repeatable result or expectation - it operates with a mental schema in mind, kind of like "the laws of nature" or "the scientific method" or "street smarts" or "intellectualism" or "what a real man is, lol" or whatever. Being theoretical can be both types of thinking - Te would actually probably be more classically theoretical in an objective sense (as long as ideas flow into others known to exist, basically), while Ti would originate from subjective concerns (e.g. seeing how various subjective viewpoints might technically meet up to reality somewhere and somehow). Ti is extremely misunderstood - Jung thought this function was virtually unrecognized in his own time.


Jung is dead.

Were he alive today, his theories would undoubtedly be vastly different from what they were when he died. Since he isn't alive, it's our job to interpret and refine. We're the ones observing now, not him.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@LostFavor

That's a joke of a statement. I mean, basically, you have most people here just making up stuff based on stuff that isn't even explicitly acknowledged in any of the theories on type, due to no one adhering to any one view. People might as well just be pushing their own philosophies, rather than actually learning anything. It's pointless, because for one thing, no one will ever agree with it fully, because it's not rooted in anything other than someone's individual perceptions of internet lore (which is largely junk or stereotypes). Most of the posts here might as well be compared to Christian fundamentalist dogma passing for truth, or what have you. I mean, I suppose if so many people are interested in the philosophy of thinking, then they should hang around the philosophy section of this forum instead of the personality types one. Jung was a professional (just Google it), the MBTI people are at fault to an extent for encouraging the average armchair theorist to pretend to be experts on a very deep and complex subject (I'm not sure how that happened, but if you read MBTI manuals, they do kind of invest trust in the public, which, adhering strictly to their limited principles, might be okay, but I mean, really, who would want to stick to such rigid ideas they offer anyway I don't know), just because they didn't seem to acknowledge the limitations of what people will use this stuff for (although you have to remember, these ladies were making the MBTI for work-force placement - a spin-off heuristic of Jung to recognize trends in the workforce and take care of those in way that might benefit people and the workforce, NOT as a parlour game or a source of near religious/philosophical mental masterb**ion). Now, if people are willing to learn, that's one thing. If people are just here to get their perceptions reinforced without any evidence to back them up, that's something that can't be tolerated - it leads to too much misunderstanding for those who actually want to learn - it's like learning anything - you don't just make up stuff and expect it to fly in any subject, that's just silly.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@JungyesMBTIno

For someone who profess to be an Jung expert you show very little knowledge of his work, and with the name JUNG yes and MBTI no sounds like a persona to go with that.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

That's not to say I think what the OP's talking about is crap, but I would question/correct some of the stuff he mentioned. First off, the following:



> With Ti-Ne, the cognitive process begins with a theory. If Ti is not conscious, then the theoretical nature of Ti judgment becomes subconscious, and so Ti judgment happens automatically and subjective theories can often seem like objective facts to the individual.


No, the cognitive process does not begin with a theory. It begins with logical connections (at least the act of making logical connections). It may never even get to a theory - that would depend on the nature of what the person is reasoning about is to begin with (something hypothetical or something real). If Ti is unconscious in a Ti dom, then you can't call them a Ti dom, you would most accurately have to call them an inferior Ti type (Fe dom). And no, Jung said every function acknowledges the limitations of the outside world sufficiently, no matter how introverted or extraverted. It's just whether they do this in relation to subjective concerns or an objective interest in the exact outer conditions that would define introversion/extraversion.



> Ti-Ne begins by drawing a rational conclusion from a set of intuitions based off of objective facts about the things one has experienced in life. The strength of Ne will determine the strength of the insight into the objective facts Ti is attempting to judge in some way. This strength will depend entirely upon the breadth and depth of one's direct experience with and knowledge of the objective world. That will, in turn, provide Ti with the proper intuitions with which to assemble a more rational, logical conclusion that it believes in more powerfully, and will then incorporate into other lines of reasoning, procedurally building a subjective world-view in this way until it exhausts its available store of facts or incorporates new information that radically alters the whole world view in some way.


1st sentence: Not true, necessarily. It's been acknowledged in studies that dominants don't have to reference the aux. in order to "work" - it can reference anything - the aux. is merely a preference. The "things one has experienced in life" is kind of inevitable (so sure, true enough, no matter what kind of experience) - who doesn't think about things from experience? They would have access to something unknowable if they didn't.
2nd sentence: MBTI says functions exist in terms of "strength," Jung says they exist in terms of "consciousness." Just saying (the strength argument is questionable though, because what is "mental strength?" Strength of how long the process tends to sustain itself? Strength needed for intuiting before becoming mentally exhausted? I don't know - I never bought that functions have anything to do with strength - consciousness makes sense though). What it will do with Ti is, frankly, arbitrary, other than it might pair up with it.
3rd sentence: Why would the outer world give your mind "strength?" Can't the process operate independently of outer stimuli, in a non-Pavlov's dog (conditioned) way? How good someone's insight is is mainly a subjective conclusion. Says who? The individual for whom it tends to work in their favor, perhaps? Now that would be ego rationalization at work, possibly in the realm of type.
4th: Uh, why "proper" intuitions? To whom are they proper? Once again, dom/aux. don't "need" each other's feedback to work, necessarily. Why is a "radical alteration of worldview" indicative of functions at all, let alone, dom/aux? Why is this even necessary? What about "defending one's already existing worldview via the ego?" Now that would be in the realm of type (ego defense in terms of functions).

...To be continued later!


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

myjazz said:


> @_JungyesMBTIno_
> 
> For someone who profess to be an Jung expert you show very little knowledge of his work, and with the name JUNG yes and MBTI no sounds like a persona to go with that.


I can, but everyone has access to it on the first page of Google. I don't always have time to quote everything from his 100,000 + word treatise of PTs, Ch. 10 alone. And your second statement makes no sense at all. It's my opinion. I don't think MBTI is reliable or accurate (it's pretty cartoonish if you read the type descriptions - come on, who knows anyone that word-for-word bears any resemblance to those, other in one's over-active imagination (e.g. people will call people INTJs if they look creepy enough (or act like psychopaths, which is nonsense), sadly, I've seen it online, which is kind of a sad state of affairs from those)?), and I don't really like what results from that (there are even studies to back that up - once again, I'm not the only person here responsible for doing all of the Google searches - many people like @_LiquidLight_ and @_Functianalyst_ post excerpts from these frequently, so if I'm not delivering as much as you would like, ask them). I can certainly post some stuff now though, now that you mention it. Most of the time, people are abusing MBTI as well, and it's not like I have black-and-white opinions on MBTI - it has it's merit, but not really as a theory so much as as a more superficial "indicator." I don't like when people abuse MBTI either, because it doesn't get it's proper credit that way. And if you really read Jung, I don't think you would be saying that about me anyway, so, touche.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> 1st sentence: Not true, necessarily. It's been acknowledged in studies that dominants don't have to reference the aux. in order to "work" - it can reference anything - the aux. is merely a preference. The "things one has experienced in life" is kind of inevitable (so sure, true enough, no matter what kind of experience) - who doesn't think about things from experience? They would have access to something unknowable if they didn't.
> 2nd sentence: MBTI says functions exist in terms of "strength," Jung says they exist in terms of "consciousness." Just saying (the strength argument is questionable though, because what is "mental strength?" Strength of how long the process tends to sustain itself? Strength needed for intuiting before becoming mentally exhausted? I don't know - I never bought that functions have anything to do with strength - consciousness makes sense though). What it will do with Ti is, frankly, arbitrary, other than it might pair up with it.
> 3rd sentence: Why would the outer world give your mind "strength?" Can't the process operate independently of outer stimuli, in a non-Pavlov's dog (conditioned) way? How good someone's insight is is mainly a subjective conclusion. Says who? The individual for whom it tends to work in their favor, perhaps? Now that would be ego rationalization at work, possibly in the realm of type.
> 4th: Uh, why "proper" intuitions? To whom are they proper? Once again, dom/aux. don't "need" each other's feedback to work, necessarily. Why is a "radical alteration of worldview" indicative of functions at all, let alone, dom/aux? Why is this even necessary? What about "defending one's already existing worldview via the ego?" Now that would be in the realm of type (ego defense in terms of functions).
> ...


Jung wrote a book about mental strength in a way. You should read it some time as well as he wrote a book about the conscious you might like that one also. Heck you might like any of his stuff if you care to read what isn't on Wiki or PerC or Chapter X


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

lol functianalyst is your source of adding a person who knows what he is talking about......no wonder


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yea yea, I know everyone's offended because they don't like someone correcting them, or just raising questions in general. I apologize if I've offended, but hey, that's the real world. I have a right to question if I want to (and people have a right to actually bring educated perspectives to the table as well, this is a Jung site after all). I don't see what's up with this "censorship of opinions stuff with ad hominems" - it's juvenile. And I don't proclaim to be Jung (LOL, not even close) - I am always learning something new about this stuff every time I read Jung or some other theorists, critics, etc. - I just happen to have some background, which this forum is desperately lacking. So, I suppose I will post some Jung quotes that are relevant to this thread, since the skepticism is high here, which is a good thing, btw:

Hang on, coming in a new post.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Jung:
> 
> Thinking *in general* is fed from two sources, firstly from subjective and in the last resort unconscious roots, and secondly from objective data transmitted through sense perceptions.
> 
> ...


So, I bolded all of the stuff that regards some of the OP's statements. Some are my own interjections.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

There is a big difference in correcting someone as you said, once again so called expert, and actually having a clue what to correct or how to correct. As was pointed out to you before all you do is shot down the reality of such in your own mislead way.
And no this is not a Jung site I don't know where you think you are......
OMG did you just add your own words of garbage into Jungs work ...I thought you was just Te ego but now you are showing something way beyond what cognitive functions cover.
I am sure many others is waiting for a real educated perspectives from you than that you normally do, which is just going around and telling people they are just a persona..in reality it is your persona you are throwing on others


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I mean, you're not even that warm on Te - this function doesn't parrot facts.


First of all, Jung makes it perfectly clear that Te _is_ just going with facts. I'm sorry, but you're wrong there. Granted Te builds new facts out of old ones, but I never said it didn't so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. I think you are reading deeper into my post and trying to imply that I'm saying something other than what I said.

Secondly, did you read _all_ of Psychological Types? You sound like you only read the part at the back where he discusses the types themselves. Did you read all the chapters leading up to that part?

I'll just say, you're flat out wrong here as well. Jung was deeply philosophical about his work, and all of his ideas are derived from philosophical concepts which he has put into practice. Have you read his Liber Novus (The Red Book)? Have you read any of his other work? Jung was extremely educated in philosophy, and he talks extensively about different philosophers and their ideas and how he relates to them and what he thinks about those ideas in his other published books, and he even states specifically which philosophical concepts he uses to define his own terminology and concepts.

What you're trying to focus on is the practice. Sure, he _uses_ his own clinical experience to justify his model - but that's all it is, evidence for his arguments. His arguments themselves _originate_ in philosophical ideas that he talks extensively about in his other published work.

Would you like me to cite these sources for you?


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@Abraxas
Jung even tried to keep his philosophical self into his scientific approach as well, unlike Te dom Freud the former teacher/friend of his. For example you ever notice how many times Jung said stuff in a way that made sure no one misunderstood, because so many people did and still do, what he said to be a concrete fact without any possible variable's to include.....would be easier to count how many times he didn't do so.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> No, the cognitive process does not begin with a theory.





> *It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject*, although it may undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. *It formulates questions and creates theories*; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. *Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory*, but never for their own sake.







JungyesMBTIno said:


> 1st sentence: Not true, necessarily. It's been acknowledged in studies that dominants don't have to reference the aux. in order to "work" - it can reference anything - the aux. is merely a preference. The "things one has experienced in life" is kind of inevitable (so sure, true enough, no matter what kind of experience) - who doesn't think about things from experience? They would have access to something unknowable if they didn't.


This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Jung was saying.

We use all the functions simultaneously, but only one of them becomes conscious and habitual and thus dominant. This doesn't imply that we _don't_ use all the other functions simultaneously. It only implies that we tend to _ignore or repress_ the others, and the ordering of the functions only shows the degree to which I am consciously aware of the function I am using. So, it makes no sense to argue that one uses a single function, on it's own, by itself, without using any other function at the same time. The fact that Te might be aux or dom changes how it manifests in behavior and thinking, but it does not change the fact that Jung believed each and every one of us experiences reality via all the functions at once, and therefore Te - regardless of what level of preference it has in consciousness - is _always_ being influenced by each of the other functions - but you repress or ignore this, especially when it is subjective and Te is dominant.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> 2nd sentence: MBTI says functions exist in terms of "strength," Jung says they exist in terms of "consciousness." Just saying (the strength argument is questionable though, because what is "mental strength?" Strength of how long the process tends to sustain itself? Strength needed for intuiting before becoming mentally exhausted? I don't know - I never bought that functions have anything to do with strength - consciousness makes sense though). What it will do with Ti is, frankly, arbitrary, other than it might pair up with it.


I used the word strength here to mean strength of consciousness - the degree to which one uses it with agency involved.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> 3rd sentence: Why would the outer world give your mind "strength?" Can't the process operate independently of outer stimuli, in a non-Pavlov's dog (conditioned) way? How good someone's insight is is mainly a subjective conclusion. Says who? The individual for whom it tends to work in their favor, perhaps? Now that would be ego rationalization at work, possibly in the realm of type.


Again, you're taking that word to mean something other than what I meant when I said it. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I could've been clearer and worded it better.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> 4th: Uh, why "proper" intuitions? To whom are they proper? Once again, dom/aux. don't "need" each other's feedback to work, necessarily. Why is a "radical alteration of worldview" indicative of functions at all, let alone, dom/aux? Why is this even necessary? What about "defending one's already existing worldview via the ego?" Now that would be in the realm of type (ego defense in terms of functions).


I'm going to stop here.

I think you are playing a game with me here, and it's obvious you have some kind of ulterior motive. I can sense that you knew what I really meant, and you're only nitpicking because you want to make it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about - and I'm not sure why, but I venture to guess it's because you're bitter and annoyed with how much people talk about this stuff and don't do it the justice you personally feel it deserves.

Look, I respect your quest, but I know what I'm talking about, and I don't see why I need to sit here and reword everything I said to fit an objective standard that just echos everything Jung said in the exact same verse and sentence. I'm familiar with the same notions and ideas that Jung himself used to develop his theories. I have a lifetime of experience interacting with other people as well. I don't need to become a master psychologist, and it does not make me an armchair philosopher, if I'm basing my insight on my life as well. I'm not just making this shit up, I'm reading about it, reflecting on it, I'm analyzing people I meet everyday, I'm thinking about it, seeing the truth of it, connecting it to everything I've learned so far in everything I know about biology, biochemistry, neurology, philosophy, physics, you name it. I'm looking at _the whole picture_ in order to put Jung in the proper perspective and shed light on what he has to say in his books.

You couldn't expect someone who has no damn clue what metaphysics or epistemology is to really grasp what Jung is talking about in my opinion. Sure, they might work up a practical understanding - but they won't deeply understand it on a level where they can talk about it like it's second nature. And those that do quickly show their lack of insight, and get shot down here on this forum, as well as elsewhere.

I hate to make this personal, but I notice you're typed as an INTJ - Ni-Te? Well, no offense intended, but I also get this same kind of feedback from pretty much everyone in the INTJ-sub where I spent most of my time for the last two years here. But not elsewhere, and I have a theory why. Perhaps, what you are seeing is not imperfections in my OP or what I have to say. Instead, I reckon you just want to win a war with something profound and subjective, some intuition you got when you read my OP that showed you something you didn't want to see, and it has nothing to do with how accurate what I'm saying is - it has to do with the way you feel about MBTI.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Jung was saying.
> 
> We use all the functions simultaneously* (problem #1: no we don't - it's law that when one's in use, it's opposite it repressed - not that this will initially say anything about the type of the person though, since humans can freely respond to their minds and the environment however they want to)*, but only one of them becomes conscious and habitual and thus dominant *(yes - and?)*. This doesn't imply that we _don't use all the other functions simultaneously _*(wrong)*_. It only implies that we tend to ignore or repress the others, and the ordering of the functions only shows the degree to which I am consciously aware of the function I am using *(ignori*__*g is not repressing - you're focusing on them by repressing them in favor of the preferences)*__. So, it makes no sense to argue that one uses a single function, on it's own, by itself, without using any other function at the same time. *(I never said that. Point out where I said that. I was just criticizing your statements on the thinking functions)* The fact that Te might be aux or dom changes how it manifests in behavior and thinking *(wrong - type has nothing to do with behavior - your thought processes aren't a behavior, etc.)*, but it does not change the fact that Jung believed each and every one of us experiences reality via all the functions at once *(well, in a fundamental way, but not in the sense of psychological orientation in ego goals and aims for ego representation, which is actually type - you're cherry-picking the non-type aspects of functions)*, and therefore Te - regardless of what level of preference it has in consciousness - is always being influenced by each of the other functions *(well, sure, pure thinking won't get you anywhere, because it will be too unrelated to the circumstances surrounding it's relevance)* - but you repress or ignore this, especially when it is subjective and Te is dominant._


 *(Uh, not ignore - you just don't need it to survive (unless you want it), because the introverted orientation, as I demonstrated in my Jung quotes, it essentially the same as extraverted thinking, but directed toward different ends).

You're clearly operating off of a lot of MBTI misconceptions, like Te being this mindless fact-collecting function (that's not a function at all, fact collecting at face value is just fact collecting at face value - probably closer to the realm of sensation than thinking in a typologically insignificant way.*


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> I used the word strength here to mean strength of consciousness - the degree to which one uses it with agency involved.


Okay, fair enough.



> I think you are playing a game with me here, and it's obvious you have some kind of ulterior motive. I can sense that you knew what I really meant, and you're only nitpicking because you want to make it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about - and I'm not sure why, but I venture to guess it's because you're bitter and annoyed with how much people talk about this stuff and don't do it the justice you personally feel it deserves.


No. No motives. You're in denial at how very off you are in your knowledge. I don't care about this stuff getting any justice at all - I just think the lousy information here is just lame - it's like talking about your dreams as if they have anything to do with scientific reality, frankly, a waste of everyone's time - like, since people hate hearing about people's dreams so much, I have no idea why they find made up information so interesting.



> Look, I respect your quest, but I know what I'm talking about, and I don't see why I need to sit here and reword everything I said to fit an objective standard that just echos everything Jung said in the exact same verse and sentence.


You're not reading Jung carefully enough - you're kind of cherry-picking ideas toward some inner vision you have of what it means to be a type (I mean, it's apparent when you compare all of the contradictions that arise between your ideas, Jungs, and a billion other info sources).



> You couldn't expect someone who has no damn clue what metaphysics or epistemology is to really grasp what Jung is talking about in my opinion.


Jung isn't either of these. That is most definitely your opinion (a lot of people here make it a lot more complex than it was meant to be - internet sites do as well). I mean, it is true that this stuff is mainly taught at the graduate school level, but it's not dealing with stuff that's irrelevant to daily life - MBTI's existence proves this as well - sure, you can superficially get someone in a type ballpark as a layman - some people, you might be able to do it in a matter of seconds just by hearing them talk. The thing about type is, it was intended as a heuristic (not actually academic psychology or anything set-in-stone as a lofty dogma) - so, the issue with MBTI, imo, is not that uneducated people can't use it to get good results (although it's a bit shaky there - it depends on the self awareness of the people using it, although it's not that difficult to use - I mean, it should reasonably line up with the way you see yourself - I don't see why not, although someone might see him/herself in terms of their inferior than dominant, you just never know, which MBTI doesn't acknowledge), but that having theoretical conversations about it is impossible, based on the way it's set up.



> I'm not just making this shit up


Well, my question to you is, how do you know that? I mean, what you're talking about is extreme metaphysics, although you claim to be basing it on observations. But no, I don't really think you're fully wrong or making stuff up, but there's a lot of misguided thinking here that clearly isn't lining up with anything.



> And those that do quickly show their lack of insight, and get shot down here on this forum, as well as elsewhere.


Well, admittedly, this is an entry level forum. But I think the real question is, why talk about it, unless it relates to you? Maybe what you were describing reflects the way you think, view your psyche, clearly a little bit of rather distorted JCF lore combined toward this maybe, but I don't know that for sure, I'm just speculating. I really don't think Myers was delusional to think this stuff could be introduced to the general public, although that comes at the cost of the theory getting taken out of context - btw, I'm not calling you a fool or uneducated - it's like a said before, you're talking out of too many different contexts at once and not sticking to one official source to verify your ideas against. I think starting with Jung is the way to go, just because most of the other theories don't really give a clear context for figuring this stuff out against, so you end up with too many potentially irrelevant ideas by not knowing what to zero in on. I had this issue for a while in understanding this stuff.



> Ni-Te? Well, no offense intended, but I also get this same kind of feedback from pretty much everyone in the INTJ-sub where I spent most of my time for the last two years here. But not elsewhere, and I have a theory why. Perhaps, what you are seeing is not imperfections in my OP or what I have to say. Instead, I reckon you just want to win a war with something profound and subjective, some intuition you got when you read my OP that showed you something you didn't want to see, and it has nothing to do with how accurate what I'm saying is - it has to do with the way you feel about MBTI.


Probably just because the way you write from so many unclear perspectives is confusing. Once again, you're just making up stuff about my motives. I really don't hate MBTI - it's just relative to Jung, it bugs me. I'm not trying to win any war, but admittedly, I think a lot of the internet discussion about this stuff needs leverage. It's so irrelevant to type, it might as well be people talking about their daydreams on their philosophical ideals they love and cherish (or worse yet, persona ideals dealing with people), rather than anything related to having personal type preferences or anything in type literature (not calling you out specifically on this - I just see it so much, it's almost ridiculous).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Actually, "educated guesswork" would probably be in the realm of intuition, not thinking (with thinking, the process isn't a guess at all, it's about approximating connections logically or technically). Having a hunch, and then, seeing if it can be brought into the sphere of reasonability.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> That's a joke of a statement.


Which one? You have to be specific.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> I mean, basically, you have most people here just making up stuff based on stuff that isn't even explicitly acknowledged in any of the theories on type, due to no one adhering to any one view.


And this has what to do with Jung?



JungyesMBTIno said:


> People might as well just be pushing their own philosophies, rather than actually learning anything. It's pointless, because for one thing, no one will ever agree with it fully, because it's not rooted in anything other than someone's individual perceptions of internet lore (which is largely junk or stereotypes). Most of the posts here might as well be compared to Christian fundamentalist dogma passing for truth, or what have you. I mean, I suppose if so many people are interested in the philosophy of thinking, then they should hang around the philosophy section of this forum instead of the personality types one.


It's called discussion and theory. If MBTI and the cognitive functions were based in falsifiable research, there would be no PersonalityCafe. Self exploration is not a black and white journey, so it makes sense that personality theory is not either.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Jung was a professional (just Google it)


I know he was a professional, but that doesn't make him a scientist. Heard of the DSM? Psychology of any kind is an ongoing process and professionals do not cling to outdated theories.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> the MBTI people are at fault to an extent for encouraging the average armchair theorist to pretend to be experts on a very deep and complex subject (I'm not sure how that happened, but if you read MBTI manuals, they do kind of invest trust in the public, which, adhering strictly to their limited principles, might be okay, but I mean, really, who would want to stick to such rigid ideas they offer anyway I don't know),


Oh, pretending to be an expert. You mean like you? There's pretending to be an expert and then there's trying to further understanding as a community. You've picked your side and it doesn't help matters.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> just because they didn't seem to acknowledge the limitations of what people will use this stuff for (although you have to remember, these ladies were making the MBTI for work-force placement - a spin-off heuristic of Jung to recognize trends in the workforce and take care of those in way that might benefit people and the workforce, NOT as a parlour game or a source of near religious/philosophical mental masterb**ion).


For someone who posts a ton on the subject, you sure have your share of scathing remarks about it.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Now, if people are willing to learn, that's one thing. If people are just here to get their perceptions reinforced without any evidence to back them up, that's something that can't be tolerated - it leads to too much misunderstanding for those who actually want to learn - it's like learning anything - you don't just make up stuff and expect it to fly in any subject, that's just silly.


Exactly. People are here to learn. Hanging onto to what Jung once said, as though his research is falsifiable evidence that holds true today, is about as backwards in that direction as you can get. Referencing him to try to understand what he meant is one thing, but that's not what you're doing - you're preaching his alleged words like they're gospel truth.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@JungyesMBTIno

Look, your feedback is appreciated, but you've made it clear that you aren't really interested in my rationalizations or my insights. What you're after is obviously a crusade against misrepresentation of something you feel a strong personal investment in. This is clear because if you really came into this thread to LEARN something, you'd be asking me questions, not nitpicking my posts and being dismissive. You want to accuse me if cherry picking the data, but that's just what you have done as well. The difference between us is that I know as much about my own theories and admit that I'm inserting my own subjective reasoning into the topic because it's my preferred function. Your thinking, if it is extroverted, reflects the fact that you suppress this subjective factor to your opinions and see them as matters of fact -only-. It's as if you don't want to take responsibility for subjectively -agreeing- with the facts, instead of reading into them to see what they imply and how they relate to other information.

I'm not here to give a report devoid of my own interpretation, and neither are you. However, it's clearly obvious that I've been exposed to certain facts that you have not, and viva versa. We are both operating off of different data sets, and you think mine is distorting Jung, but in fact, it isn't distorting Jung, it's distorting -YOU-.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> Which one? You have to be specific. *(the one you said about "Jung being dead" and the blah blah right after that).*
> 
> 
> And this has what to do with Jung? *(I'm just pointing out the obvious. If anyone takes enough time to simply take the info on websites (other than internet bull-shitting arenas (don't take this seriously), aka, fora) at face value, rather than applying it to their own perceptions, then we wouldn't have half these issues to begin with with people saying stuff that has no self consistency with anything. That was the most glaring problem with the OP's post - he seemed to think that Te is just the act of regurgitating information, which couldn't be farther from the truth, among other things - that's not even self-consistent with the MBTI stereotypes about Te being equated with logical efficiency and chess playing, and all that jazz that's sort of controversial anyway - there's so much talking past both the familiar stereotypes and the unfamiliar Jungian associations that I feel like I just lost my mind to The Twilight Zone - you can go nuts trying to critically analyze the OP's statements to fit any existing context of type theory).*
> ...


*LOL, no I don't. I just post them, and try to clarify them for people. I mean, if no one's adhering to the obvious expert on this stuff (or OTHERS like Beebe, Lenore Thompson, Myers in her own domain of application, Kiersey in the appropriate context, etc.), then simply, people have no backing other than their own delusions - you need to verify ideas with something, otherwise, it's superstition.*


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> @_JungyesMBTIno_
> 
> Look, your feedback is appreciated, but you've made it clear that you aren't really interested in my rationalizations or my insights. What you're after is obviously a crusade against misrepresentation of something you feel a strong personal investment in. This is clear because if you really came into this thread to LEARN something, you'd be asking me questions, not nitpicking my posts and being dismissive. You want to accuse me if cherry picking the data, but that's just what you have done as well. The difference between us is that I know as much about my own theories and admit that I'm inserting my own subjective reasoning into the topic because it's my preferred function. Your thinking, if it is extroverted, reflects the fact that you suppress this subjective factor to your opinions and see them as matters of fact -only-. It's as if you don't want to take responsibility for subjectively -agreeing- with the facts, instead of reading into them to see what they imply and how they relate to other information.
> 
> I'm not here to give a report devoid of my own interpretation, and neither are you. However, it's clearly obvious that I've been exposed to certain facts that you have not, and viva versa. We are both operating off of different data sets, and you think mine is distorting Jung, but in fact, it isn't distorting Jung, it's distorting -YOU-.


Um, this is a little ridiculous. Sure, I expected something, but I mean, some of the stuff you were saying doesn't add up with the facts at all. If you've seen facts, then by all means, post the links to them. I've searched the internet on this stuff and have never seen anything quite like the stuff you were saying, about Te being this "fact collection" function (and of course, if you're really an INTP, why should I even trust what you have to say about Te anyway? You probably would distort it if you repress it if you're just going off of "self-knowledge"). And you're absolutely wrong about repression of the subjective factor causing people not to see facts as having subjective connections - Jung even said these types can recognize it (in the stuff I posted that you didn't read) - that's not even the "subjective factor" - the subjective factor would concern itself with personal concerns, unrelated to type - they just get filtered through an introverted function. The ad hominens you're making about me through your misunderstandings of type are not only unfair, but basically proving to me that you really don't know what you're talking about. If you think you know what you're talking about, explain then WHY Te is mindless fact-finding to you (because it isn't accepting facts as true at face value - that's what idiots who don't think at all do). You're the one missing the analytical nuance of what anyone who was criticizing your post in this thread has to say, not me.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Um, this is a little ridiculous. Sure, I expected something, but I mean, some of the stuff you were saying doesn't add up with the facts at all. If you've seen facts, then by all means, post the links to them. I've searched the internet on this stuff and have never seen anything quite like the stuff you were saying, about Te being this "fact collection" function (and of course, if you're really an INTP, why should I even trust what you have to say about Te anyway? You probably would distort it if you repress it if you're just going off of "self-knowledge"). And you're absolutely wrong about repression of the subjective factor causing people not to see facts as having subjective connections - Jung even said these types can recognize it (in the stuff I posted that you didn't read) - that's not even the "subjective factor" - the subjective factor would concern itself with personal concerns, unrelated to type - they just get filtered through an introverted function. The ad hominens you're making about me through your misunderstandings of type are not only unfair, but basically proving to me that you really don't know what you're talking about. If you think you know what you're talking about, explain then WHY Te is mindless fact-finding to you (because it isn't accepting facts as true at face value - that's what idiots who don't think at all do). You're the one missing the analytical nuance of what anyone who was criticizing your post in this thread has to say, not me.


Forget it. I just hit my limit.

You just want to see what you're seeing and only what you see.

I don't even care if you understand anymore, it's clear you're not even interested in how I drew my conclusions. You just want to enforce a standard and justify that standard by declaring it to be law.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> Forget it. I just hit my limit.
> 
> You just want to see what you're seeing and only what you see.
> 
> I don't even care if you understand anymore, it's clear you're not even interested in how I drew my conclusions. You just want to enforce a standard and justify that standard by declaring it to be law.


No, I mean, I just seriously have no idea what some of the stuff you said means. Like what you said about Ti+Ne being like "guesswork." I mean, it's just too flawed - it's like saying these types aren't capable of being aware of the outside world, which Jung thought was 100% not true about any function (although when coming up with theories, of course there's guess work involved, but Te and Ti types can come up with theories, that's not function specific, and I referenced Jung to prove it). And you're the one just seeing only what you're seeing - you spelled out your perception in your original post. I know we're both operating on different frameworks (your looks like some wild hybrid of JCFs, MBTI, your own perceptions, and I don't even know what) and then, I typically come from a Jungian analytical psychology perspective, so I understand if we're not seeing eye-to-eye, but it's kind of like you trying to explain how something works without logical evidence. How can anyone actually have a conversation about your results? Maybe this is just the way you think, and it doesn't necessarily reflect a type? How could anyone ever know it means anything more than that?


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> You're the one missing the analytical nuance of what anyone who was criticizing your post in this thread has to say, not me.


Um sorry but you misspelled myself it is not spelled anyone


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

myjazz said:


> Um sorry but you misspelled myself it is not spelled anyone


If you get what he's saying, translate it. I mean, it really doesn't fully add up.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> No, I mean, I just seriously have no idea what some of the stuff you said means. Like what you said about Ti+Ne being like "guesswork."


This is in part as to why INTP's get better test results on IQ test not because of actual intelligence. Instead a good guess work process that deals thinking.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

:dry:


> The orientation towards the object, as already explained, makes no essential change in the thinking function; only its appearance is altered. Since it is governed by objective data, it has the appearance of being captivated by the object, as though without the external orientation it simply could not exist. Almost it seems as though it were a sequela of external facts, or as though it could reach its highest point only when chiming in with some generally valid idea. It seems constantly to be affected by objective data, drawing only those conclusions which substantially agree with these.
> Psychological Types, by C.G. Jung


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

myjazz said:


> This is in part as to why INTP's get better test results on IQ test not because of actual intelligence. Instead a good guess work process that deals thinking.


Okay, that's only speculation. Guess work would make replicating results less likely, not more (because it's more liking to go wrong just because it's not adhering to more certain principles of the tests). Secondly, the IQ test stuff is unverified. I don't even know where these studies come from and if the participants are typed correctly to begin with.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I wouldn't be surprised if I get banned after this. -_-


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Okay, that's only speculation. Guess work would make replicating results less likely, not more (because it's more liking to go wrong just because it's not adhering to more certain principles of the tests). Secondly, the IQ test stuff is unverified. I don't even know where these studies come from and if the participants are typed correctly to begin with.


You can disqualify REAL FACTS just because it goes against you and slightly supports the OP Ti thoughts and word usage.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

myjazz said:


> You can disqualify REAL FACTS just because it goes against you and slightly supports the OP Ti thoughts and word usage.


This is a fact? INTPs "guess" on test questions? So no other types "guess" their way through stuff, only INTPs guess stuff (even though guesses would largely come from intuitive hunches)?


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> This is a fact? INTPs "guess" on test questions? So no other types "guess" their way through stuff, only INTPs guess stuff (even though guesses would largely come from intuitive hunches)?


Now you are distorting the facts....


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

At face value, such a notion is nonsense (analyzed further, eh, I'm not even going there). That's circumstantial anyhow (to just those who might've been present during THAT IQ test in the survey, if this is even recorded as fact to begin with, which I doubt) - that wouldn't be testing for ANY kind of correlation.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> At face value, such a notion is nonsense (analyzed further, eh, I'm not even going there). That's circumstantial anyhow (to just those who might've been present during THAT IQ test in the survey, if this is even recorded as fact to begin with, which I doubt) - that wouldn't be testing for ANY kind of correlation.


At face value this is your way sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling nar nar nar nar.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

So, here's all I can find from INTP Profile on this:



> They spend considerable time second-guessing themselves.


What does that have anything to do with their thought-processes consisting of guesswork about reality? Nothing, as this article proves. They might be prone to second-guessing because they are always trying to get at the essence of a subjective ideal (in line with what JUNG says about these types, so this MBTI description isn't off - MBTI came from Jung anyway - it doesn't take more than a Google search to figure this out).


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> So, here's all I can find from INTP Profile on this:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have anything to do with their thought-processes consisting of guesswork about reality? Nothing, as this article proves.


What does this have anything to do with what we are talking about?

Sorry you gotta google your answers better than that.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@myjazz

Um, where are you getting this stuff about INTPs existing in a perpetual state of guesswork? That was all I could find through a quick Google search that said anything about INTPs and "guessing."


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @_myjazz_
> 
> Um, where are you getting this stuff about INTPs existing in a perpetual state of guesswork? That was all I could find through a quick Google search that said anything about INTPs and "guessing."


Why are you still distorting what was said to begin with?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

myjazz said:


> Why are you still distorting what was said to begin with?


Why don't you just post the link to what you're talking about? I just don't believe it. It sounds like nonsense rooted in some ridiculous internet discussions about how being an INTP is special (even though it isn't, in actuality).


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

I got sidetracked by looking up edumacation pictures online.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Do we have a cease fire yet?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> *(the one you said about "Jung being dead" and the blah blah right after that).*


It's true. He is dead.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> *(I'm just pointing out the obvious. If anyone takes enough time to simply take the info on websites (other than internet bull-shitting arenas (don't take this seriously), aka, fora) at face value, rather than applying it to their own perceptions, then we wouldn't have half these issues to begin with with people saying stuff that has no self consistency with anything. That was the most glaring problem with the OP's post - he seemed to think that Te is just the act of regurgitating information, which couldn't be farther from the truth, among other things - that's not even self-consistent with the MBTI stereotypes about Te being equated with logical efficiency and chess playing, and all that jazz that's sort of controversial anyway - there's so much talking past both the familiar stereotypes and the unfamiliar Jungian associations that I feel like I just lost my mind to The Twilight Zone - you can go nuts trying to critically analyze the OP's statements to fit any existing context of type theory).*


You seem mad that the OP's view of Te did not fit with yours. That said, I didn't see "Te just regurgitates information" anywhere.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> *(No - it's more than that. A theory can be backed up by evidence, otherwise, according to the scientific method, it can't reach the status of theory - this post was a hypothesis, not a theory, because it's not backed by evidence). And what makes you think there wouldn't be a PerC if cognitive functions were? Actually, if you've kept up with the latest threads in this sub-fora, there's a post about the latest empirical research of Dr. Dario Nardi on the empirical nature of this stuff - it holds up to scientific scrutiny quite well so far. You're last statement is a straw man - that doesn't justify anything relevant to the issues being discussed here).*


 Ok, explain to me how it is falsifiable then.




JungyesMBTIno said:


> *(Jung was a medical doctor before becoming a psychologist. You can't fight me on that one - his theory isn't outdated either - in fact, the latest studies really do say that it has survived the test of time and holds up today. I'll find the report if you'd like).*


Lol ok, you'll have to explain to me what being a medical doctor has to do with personality theory.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> *As I said before, people tend to abuse the shit out of MBTI as well, and I'm against that. Objective evidence doesn't lose. People way over-dramatize this shit here - it's not that earth-shattering (the functions themselves to Jung meant nothing - there was more to them than just them) - it just is what it is. And I'm not playing any picking sides). Who would even waste their time waiting for others to understand this stuff on the same terms as you, me, etc.? There are many many different ways to understand this stuff, not one that forces everyone into some collective internet "sheep" mentality.*


Then why are you trying to force some dead guy's POV on others? Actually, scratch that. Your interpretation of some dead guy's views. Which is just your views.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> *(It's called, having educated opinions (you probably misinterpret my intentions anyway). Once again, what's up with your desire for everyone to follow a "sheep mentality?")*


lolwut How do you figure that I want people to be sheep. 



JungyesMBTIno said:


> *LOL, no I don't. I just post them, and try to clarify them for people. I mean, if no one's adhering to the obvious expert on this stuff (or OTHERS like Beebe, Lenore Thompson, Myers in her own domain of application, Kiersey in the appropriate context, etc.), then simply, people have no backing other than their own delusions - you need to verify ideas with something, otherwise, it's superstition.*


Let's see...



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, Jung didn't try to make the functions out to be manifestations of reasoning in the philosophical sphere necessarily - frankly, just stuff you would see in everyday life. *I mean, you're not even that warm on Te* - this function doesn't parrot facts - it's like Ti, but rationalized toward outer conditions (e.g. trends in nature, objective patterns that aren't just subjective whims of the person's thoughts and focus of personal attention) - it can, in fact, conceptualize new facts (as in, draw connections between observations that can be idealized into some consistently repeatable result or expectation - it operates with a mental schema in mind, kind of like "the laws of nature" or "the scientific method" or "street smarts" or "intellectualism" or "what a real man is, lol" or whatever. Being theoretical can be both types of thinking - Te would actually probably be more classically theoretical in an objective sense (as long as ideas flow into others known to exist, basically), while Ti would originate from subjective concerns (e.g. seeing how various subjective viewpoints might technically meet up to reality somewhere and somehow). *Ti is extremely misunderstood - Jung thought this function was virtually unrecognized in his own time.*


Yeah obviously it's just your opinion and not an attempt to make your interpretations appear as fact by conflating them with a dead guy's theories.

No one needs an expert to go out and observe for themselves and recognize trends. It's not rocket science. But if you want to use an expert's views, you should be quoting people who are actually relevant, like Nardi, not Jung, the dead guy.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_JungyesMBTIno_,

Here's what I think happened.

You came into this thread and read my OP, and somehow you got the impression that I was attempting to do anything other than offer a subjective interpretation of Jung's work that I assembled out of my own subjective understanding of it. I think, probably because of how I worded it, or some kind of "voice" that I speak with when I write, you assumed that I was declaring my own understanding to be, _the_ "correct" understanding, and not simply how I've come to make sense of Jung, and why it makes sense to me.

If you want to talk about the practicality of my interpretation, it's tremendously accurate and reliable. I can only speak from my own experience applying my own insight subjectively, but the fantastic results are, as a matter of fact, what engaged me to post my OP.

But again, these results are subjective. Your mileage may vary. If you have developed your own understanding of Jung and that works better for you, then you should believe in it and continue to apply it, and maybe tell others about it. By sharing it, others might garner some insight from it that might assist them in constructing their own framework of understanding.

_It is, however, absurd to assume or force upon others the view that there is one - and only one - correct way to interpret Jung._

If that is your intention in this thread, then I have nothing further to talk about.

If it is not your intention, then let us start over and just discuss the matter by asking each other questions in turn, one at a time.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

myjazz said:


> lol functianalyst is your source of adding a person who knows what he is talking about......no wonder


So do you have a question, are you again thinking you can make such quips and they will go unnoticed? What is it exactly are you claiming I have little or no knowledge of when posting and using references? Let the forum know I am challenging you to refer to any of my work that you disagree with and show me where I have erred in my assertions. The clock is ticking sir.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Are we getting back to topic at hand now?

Just seen new post..unnoticed yeah thats why I said such on a forum.
If you think you are the Point of Authority of some superficial level then I don't know what to tell you. Heck if anyone here is a reference point of such for someone definitely begs the question of just how much that person actually knows, in this case it is Jungyes who who just bashes people with no real knowledge of the subject or at least not willing to discuss such. As was proved throughout this thread if she can't google the answer or someone else on this forum said something she holds onto as the truth. Where she says so many times about how these very same people irritate her, hence the persona part I spoke of earlier ...after all she also goes around throwing Persona everywhere as her excuse for not knowing , which there is nothing wrong with not knowing but why should that be in the way of other people learning and discussing? 

Besides the last time you and I was in a thread you referenced a Quote by Jung that was a 3rd party reference. If you ever read the material that was being quoted by Jung you would of knew that Jung said very plainly NOT as in opposites. Which brings up what I said earlier about Jung very rarely saying something as an it is as it is style. Well this is a good example


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

In which there is a big difference from someone theorizing and or discussing something. Than someone saying what they think and theorize as an absolute truth. I am all for theory's and such but people shouldn't treat there theories as an Gospel also


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

myjazz said:


> Are we getting back to topic at hand now?
> 
> Just seen new post..unnoticed yeah thats why I said such on a forum.
> If you think you are the Point of Authority of some superficial level then I don't know what to tell you. Heck if anyone here is a reference point of such for someone definitely begs the question of just how much that person actually knows, in this case it is Jungyes who who just bashes people with no real knowledge of the subject or at least not willing to discuss such. As was proved throughout this thread if she can't google the answer or someone else on this forum said something she holds onto as the truth. Where she says so many times about how these very same people irritate her, hence the persona part I spoke of earlier ...after all she also goes around throwing Persona everywhere as her excuse for not knowing , which there is nothing wrong with not knowing but why should that be in the way of other people learning and discussing?


Where did I ever say, imply or present myself as being a point of authority. You and others seem to want to make that judgment then attack me. Since you do not know me or what I am about, the only venue you can attack with any real intelligence is whether I have erred in my comments. You had an ample chance to keep me out of your disagreement with Jungyes, who I personally think knows the subject far more in-depth than I want or need to know. But it was you who came back with the slight towards me. So again since, and I stand corrected, you challenged me where did I err since I noticed you did not use the other name being referred to? 


myjazz said:


> Besides the last time you and I was in a thread you referenced a Quote by Jung that was a 3rd party reference. If you ever read the material that was being quoted by Jung you would of knew that Jung said very plainly NOT as in opposites. Which brings up what I said earlier about Jung very rarely saying something as an it is as it is style. Well this is a good example


Exactly what are you referring to as a 3rd party reference? Since we have had little contact with one another, are you referring to the person who claimed Quenck used 8 model functions and I alluded to Jung using the term “compensatory”? Is that where you are claiming I misrepresented Jung? Please let me know, because I have no problem presenting information if needed.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Where did I ever say, imply or present myself as being a point of authority. You and others seem to want to make that judgment then attack me. Since you do not know me or what I am about, the only venue you can attack with any real intelligence is whether I have erred in my comments. You had an ample chance to keep me out of your disagreement with Jungyes, who I personally think knows the subject far more in-depth than I want or need to know. But it was you who came back with the slight towards me. So again since, and I stand corrected, you challenged me where did I err since I noticed you did not use the other name being referred to?
> 
> Exactly what are you referring to as a 3rd party reference? Since we have had little contact with one another, are you referring to the person who claimed Quenck used 8 model functions and I alluded to Jung using the term “compensatory”? Is that where you are claiming I misrepresented Jung? Please let me know, because I have no problem presenting information if needed.


I wasn't attacking you. 
I thought I made myself clear JUNGYES way using you as one
But yes the compensatory part is atm what I am talking about. Again not attacking you I dont know where you getting this at.
I made this remark towards you in reference about why I mentioned you in first place because JUNGYES awesome source of info in this forum and google. I mentioned that to prove a point that I already gone over why.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

In case you still miss what is being said JUNGYES shouldn't appeal to authority when such is also theorizing.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

myjazz said:


> I wasn't attacking you.
> I thought I made myself clear JUNGYES way using you as one
> But yes the compensatory part is atm what I am talking about. Again not attacking you I dont know where you getting this at.
> I made this remark towards you in reference about why I mentioned you in first place because JUNGYES awesome source of info in this forum and google. I mentioned that to prove a point that I already gone over why.


Dr. Jung uses the word “opposite” in his theory, but he also uses the word “compensatory” as in:


> It may perhaps seem odd that I should speak of attitude of the 'unconscious'. As I have already sufficiently indicated, I regard the relation of the unconscious to the conscious as compensatory. The unconscious, according to this view, has as good a claim to an I attitude' as the conscious…..
> 
> It is a salient peculiarity of unconscious tendencies that, just in so far as they are deprived of their energy by a lack of conscious recognition, they assume a correspond- [p. 426] ingly destructive character, and as soon as this happen their compensatory function ceases. They cease to have a compensatory effect as soon as they reach a depth or stratum that corresponds with a level of culture absolutely incompatible with our own. From this moment the unconscious tendencies form a block, which is opposed to the conscious attitude in every respect ; such a bloc inevitably leads to open conflict…..
> 
> ...


So I am unsure what you refer to as third party.


myjazz said:


> In case you still miss what is being said JUNGYES shouldn't appeal to authority when such is also theorizing.


Look, you could have left my name out of it. You could have dismissed her reference all together, but when Jungyes said:


> …- many people like @_LiquidLight_ and @_Functianalyst_ post excerpts from these frequently, so if I'm not delivering as much as you would like, ask them).


You replied,


myjazz said:


> lol functianalyst is your source of adding a person who knows what he is talking about......no wonder


That clearly implies you are calling me out since you purposely omitted Liquid’s name. Therefore YOU have a problem with my work clearly, and it is people like you who continue to judge my work as being on some authoritative or expert level, not me. So shame on you and others like you for projecting my work. But again since you obviously have a problem with my work, I still accept your challenge.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Dr. Jung uses the word “opposite” in his theory, but he also uses the word “compensatory” as in:So I am unsure what you refer to as third party
> 
> _It may perhaps seem odd that I should speak of attitude of the 'unconscious'. As I have already sufficiently indicated, I regard the relation of the unconscious to the conscious as compensatory. The unconscious, according to this view, has as good a claim to an I attitude' as the conscious….._
> 
> ...


That is not where that quote came from. Not even close 
This is the thread you referenced to me after our responses I took a look and seen where you confused Jung's compensation vs repression theory that Freud pushed. Yes this was another part of Jung's work that tweek's Freud's Te dom stance.
I will also quote parts of this also just for clarity. ( I put your thread quote below)

"The unconscious is, first and foremost, the world of the past, which is activated by the one-sidedness of the conscious attitude. Whenever life proceeds one-sidedly in any given direction, the self-regulation of the organism produces in the unconscious an accumulation of all those factors which play too small a part in the individual’s conscious existence. For this reason I have put forward the compensation theory of the unconscious as a complement to the repression theory. The role of the unconscious is to act compensatorily to the conscious content of the moment. *By this I do not mean that it sets up an opposition, for there are times when the tendency of the unconscious coincides with that of consciousness"*

As you can see besides the quote you quoted from the 3rd party reference you will notice that Jung said himself that the Compensation Theory is not to be confused with opposition's.
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/35227-actual-opposite-functions.html


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

I like how Jung uses the word Theory himself......yes this is to you JUNGYESIDKNOTHINGABOUTJUNGBUTWILLACTLIKEIDO


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

myjazz said:


> That is not where that quote came from. Not even close
> This is the thread you referenced to me after our responses I took a look and seen where you confused Jung's compensation vs repression theory that Freud pushed. Yes this was another part of Jung's work that tweek's Freud's Te dom stance.
> I will also quote parts of this also just for clarity. ( I put your thread quote below)


Whoa Tex, are you saying that Freud actually used cognitive functions? Oh please show us where Freud used anything remotely close to extraverted thinking. What are you talking about Myjazz?


myjazz said:


> "The unconscious is, first and foremost, the world of the past, which is activated by the one-sidedness of the conscious attitude. Whenever life proceeds one-sidedly in any given direction, the self-regulation of the organism produces in the unconscious an accumulation of all those factors which play too small a part in the individual’s conscious existence. For this reason I have put forward the compensation theory of the unconscious as a complement to the repression theory. The role of the unconscious is to act compensatorily to the conscious content of the moment. *By this I do not mean that it sets up an opposition, for there are times when the tendency of the unconscious coincides with that of consciousness"*
> 
> As you can see besides the quote you quoted from the 3rd party reference you will notice that Jung said himself that the Compensation Theory is not to be confused with opposition's.


What 3rd party are you talking about…. What thread are you talking about… What are YOU talking about? 


myjazz said:


> I like how Jung uses the word Theory himself......yes this is to you JUNGYESIDKNOTHINGABOUTJUNGBUTWILLACTLIKEIDO


Well duh, it’s all theory so what are you talking about again? Only MBTI theorists made an attempt to make it something more in an ill attempt to quantify type and claiming you can type others, you can determine your career from it, you can use type to determine who you most fit with. Dr. Jung never proposed any of that can be done. In fact he never alludes to a type description beyond using the dominant function. So it is MBTI that you are scouring at, not Jung.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Whoa Tex, are you saying that Freud actually used cognitive functions? Oh please show us where Freud used anything remotely close to extraverted thinking. What are you talking about Myjazz?
> What 3rd party are you talking about…. What thread are you talking about… What are YOU talking about?
> Well duh, it’s all theory so what are you talking about again? Only MBTI theorists made an attempt to make it something more in an ill attempt to quantify type and claiming you can type others, you can determine your career from it, you can use type to determine who you most fit with. Dr. Jung never proposed any of that can be done. In fact he never alludes to a type description beyond using the dominant function. So it is MBTI that you are scouring at, not Jung.


How do people distort so much stuff.................................and expect a real response
What are you talking about?

This response of yours is very common for Te-Fi.....or Fi-Te just sayin


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

myjazz said:


> How do people distort so much stuff.................................and expect a real response
> What are you talking about?
> 
> This response of yours is very common for Te-Fi.....or Fi-Te just sayin


That is exactly what I am attempting to find out in asking? You refer to Jung vs Freud, you accuse me if using a quote from a 3rd person in saying that Jung did not say it. What are you talking about? As for pretending to know what Te-Fi does, where did that come from? Please indicate what you are referring to.

Let's not forget, the whole reason I am even entertaining this discussion is because you called me out. I am simply wanting to know why and based on what. That should be simple for you to articulate. Once again, what thread are you refering to? I have created a plethora of threads since coming to this forum.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> That is exactly what I am attempting to find out in asking? You refer to Jung vs Freud, you accuse me if using a quote from a 3rd person in saying that Jung did not say it. What are you talking about? As for pretending to know what Te-Fi does, where did that come from? Please indicate what you are referring to.
> 
> Let's not forget, the whole reason I am even entertaining this discussion is because you called me out. I am simply wanting to know why and based on what. That should be simple for you to articulate. Once again, what thread are you refering to? I have created a plethora of threads since coming to this forum.


Freud repression: conscious-unconscious
Jung compensatory: conscious-unconscious


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

I did put the link in that post, I did point out how you used a 3r party quote, I did point out everything else.
I didn't call out no one, but while you are here sure why not.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)




----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

mimesis said:


> Freud repression: conscious-unconscious
> Jung compensatory: conscious-unconscious


You... do know that when Jung referred to conscious/unconscious, he was generally referring to attitude (E/I) not function? So again I ask, where does Freud make use of any cognitive function as Myjazz so eloquently alludes to, namely again extraverted thinking?


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

When you start making sense I will also with you. Stop distorting what I said by implicating your own nonsense into it


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

myjazz said:


> I did put the link in that post, I did point out how you used a 3r party quote, I did point out everything else.
> I didn't call out no one, but while you are here sure why not.


You said "this" post as though you used an URL. So exactly what is the title of the thread?


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

mimesis said:


> Freud repression: conscious-unconscious
> Jung compensatory: conscious-unconscious


At least someone knows what's up


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> You said "this" post as though you used an URL. So exactly what is the title of the thread?


I said that post I put the link in that post not this post. Sorry if common sense alludes you
Another words in barny style the p o s t you tried to knock in the first place....duh


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> You... do know that when Jung referred to conscious/unconscious, he was generally referring to attitude (E/I) not function? So again I ask, where does Freud make use of any cognitive function as Myjazz so eloquently alludes to, namely again extraverted thinking?


I'm sorry, I don't like your tone.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

myjazz said:


> At least someone knows what's up


Oh really? Since you are clearly not going to show where Freud uses functions, particularly Te, then I will allow that person to show us. Otherwise, it sounds like what they know as being up is you both are using MBTI tools to understand Jung.


myjazz said:


> *By this I do not mean that it sets up an opposition, for there are times when the tendency of the unconscious coincides with that of consciousness"*
> 
> As you can see besides the quote you quoted from the 3rd party reference you will notice that Jung said himself that the Compensation Theory is not to be confused with opposition's.
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/35227-actual-opposite-functions.html


Still clueless to what you mean by 3rd party. If you are saying that Jung never made the quote, instead said something completely different then by all means, show me. 

As for your bolded statement, as I repeatedly said on this forum, Keirsey’s work is not MBTI and MBTI is not Jung. So continuing to apply MBTI tools to understand Jung’s work is your problem. With that said AGAIN, Jung used the word “opposite” many times in his theory, therefore he could have easily said Ni is the opposite of Se, Ti of Fe, etc. Instead he uses the word compensatory which is not “opposite”. Only people looking at type using MBTI tools will see things in either/or or a forced dilemma. I have said more than once Dr. Jung implies in addition to as in sensing and intuiting works well with thinking but not feeling…. As in in if the extraversion of sensing and intuiting in an extraverted manner works well with introverted thinking but not feeling. Not because they are true opposites as implied by MBTI theory, but because they are compensatory. Failing to understand what I say because you are using tools of one theory to understand another is your fault, not mine. Now if you want to argue where I am wrong in my assertions, by all means show me where I am in error. Ni and Si are true opposites because Dr. Jung referred to Newton’s laws when describing how function-attitudes work, specifically he referred to compensatory in using the 3rd law of motion.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

You are still caught up on 3rd party so let me explain what I meant.
You used a Quote by Jung that was quoted by someone else then you quoted that quote from the person that was not Jung by a partial cheery picked quote someone else quoted. Now if you actually read Jung you will see the whole part that also includes that he said not as in opposites as to pertaining his theory. His theory wasn't even talking about cognitive function's.
His theory was an counter argument against Freud's theory of the Unconscious being a place of repressed thoughts or repression.
This Theory of Jung's in this study by him had nothing to do with Types. This was a complete counter towards how Freud said the Conscious and Unconscious worked which is by Repression. Freud believed and taught this very so and Jung did not agree at all with how Freud viewed this. This is why Jung did so much research and writing books that opposed Freud. This Quote you quoted was from a such example had nothing to do with Cognitive functions directly. Jung was presenting a counter Theory against Freud's Repression theory, which was the struggle Jung had for so much was go against Freud's set in stone theory at the time. 
Jung did respect Freud though but went deeper into the subjects that Freud did which is what this Theory of Compensation came about. Freud viewed the Conscious/Unconscious ,Jung thought Freud was to black and white to dark in a way. Which is why Jung brought about his Theory of Conscious. Personal Conscious, Unconscious.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

mimesis said:


> I'm sorry, I don't like your tone.


And I care why?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> And I care why?


English is not my native language. Is this a question or a statement? 

I'll put it differently. How you address one another is up to you. I don't like to converse in that way.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

mimesis said:


> English is not my native language. Is this a question or a statement?


Sound's like a statement of sarcasm.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

mimesis said:


> English is not my native language. Is this a question or a statement?


It has a question mark behind it.


myjazz said:


> You are still caught up on 3rd party so let me explain what I meant.


Geez, you are the one that used the term and then instead of saying you misstated, you blame me for asking you to expound. 


myjazz said:


> You used a Quote by Jung that was quoted by someone else then you quoted that quote from the person that was not Jung by a partial cheery picked quote someone else quoted. Now if you actually read Jung you will see the whole part that also includes that he said not as in opposites as to pertaining his theory. His theory wasn't even talking about cognitive function's.


No, you as most do even in your explanations limited your research to imply that since you were unable to find the info, I could not have researched beyond the person claiming Jung said it. So again I ask, are you saying adamantly that Jung did not say it or are you saying as it appears this discussion occurred between you and Jungyes, that based on your limited ability to follow through, you concede Jung did not say it? Please tell me you can do better than this if you are going to argue that my posts are questionable.


myjazz said:


> His theory was an counter argument against Freud's theory of the Unconscious being a place of repressed thoughts or repression.
> This Theory of Jung's in this study by him had nothing to do with Types. This was a complete counter towards how Freud said the


Again you explicitly said extraverted thinking, Te which again goes to show you and your counterpart are incapable of understanding that Jung sees extraversion/introversion as the basic principle of his type theory, not functions as implied by Myers. Otherwise, you would have known that any use of conscious/unconscious by Dr. Jung could be a referral to attitude alone or attitude and function, but never function alone. Therefore unless you are quite sure that Freud used the term Te or extraverted thinking, then what are you and Mimiesis speak of? Remember, you could have simply left me out of your argument with Jungyes as you did Liquid. But so far, all you have shown is you are attempting to apply MBTI to Jung's work. He uses the word compensatory, and you are indicating because you cannot find where Jung made the claim, it's merely 3rd party? Really?


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> It has a question mark behind it.
> Geez, you are the one that used the term and then instead of saying you misstated, you blame me for asking you to expound.
> No, you as most do even in your explanations limited your research to imply that since you were unable to find the info, I could not have researched beyond the person claiming Jung said it. So again I ask, are you saying adamantly that Jung did not say it or are you saying as it appears this discussion occurred between you and Jungyes, that based on your limited ability to follow through, you concede Jung did not say it? Please tell me you can do better than this if you are going to argue that my posts are questionable.Again you explicitly said extraverted thinking, Te which again goes to show you and your counterpart are incapable of understanding that Jung sees extraversion/introversion as the basic principle of his type theory, not functions as implied by Myers. Otherwise, you would have known that any use of conscious/unconscious by Dr. Jung could be a referral to attitude alone or attitude and function, but never function alone. Therefore unless you are quite sure that Freud used the term Te or extraverted thinking, then what are you and Mimiesis speak of? Remember, you could have simply left me out of your argument with Jungyes as you did Liquid. But so far, all you have shown is you are attempting to apply MBTI to Jung's work. He uses the word compensatory, and you are indicating because you cannot find where Jung made the claim, it's merely 3rd party? Really?


I never said I misstated anything I explained a simple thing to you yet again.

Once again I made my point showed proof and you really thinking by trying to twist this on me is going to work?

I am fully aware that Jung not only said but mentioned all the time about Freud's Extraverted Nature.
Not to mentioned even Freud said he was an E and that Jung was an I...but keep reading your mislead Inquire style info.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> It has a question mark behind it.


There is something called a 'rhetorical question', which is actually more of a statement. 
But frankly, I don't understand the question.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

myjazz said:


> I never said I misstated anything I explained a simple thing to you yet again.
> 
> Once again I made my point showed proof and you really thinking by trying to twist this on me is going to work?
> 
> ...


But Myjazz, you claim it's a 3rd person comment as though Dr. Jung never said it. The only proof you have displayed is being incapable of digging deep enough to the source, then stating that since you are incapable it must be untrue. No, it means you were incapable of digging deep. The reason I moved beyond MBTI a decade ago was because I was able to go directly to the source. To the contrary of Myers Briggs' claim that Dr. Jung does not emphasize the introverted type in his theory, thus the reason she focuses on the extraversion in pointing to the auxiliary function for introverted types is simply a farce. He not only discusses it, it provides ample discussion of the theory. That meant I had to dig deeper than Myers-Briggs, Keirsey and any other theory that indicates their theory is based in part on Jung.

YOU DID NOT SAY EXTRAVERSION, YOU SAID Te. so get it right.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> But Myjazz, you claim it's a 3rd person comment as though Dr. Jung never said it. The only proof you have displayed is being incapable of digging deep enough to the source, then stating that since you are incapable it must be untrue. No, it means you were incapable of digging deep. The reason I moved beyond MBTI a decade ago was because I was able to go directly to the source. To the contrary of Myers Briggs' claim that Dr. Jung does not emphasize the introverted type in his theory, thus the reason she focuses on the extraversion in pointing to the auxiliary function for introverted types is simply a farce. He not only discusses it, it provides ample discussion of the theory. That meant I had to dig deeper than Myers-Briggs, Keirsey and any other theory that indicates their theory is based in part on Jung.
> 
> YOU DID NOT SAY EXTRAVERSION, YOU SAID Te. so get it right.





mimesis said:


> There is something called a 'rhetorical question', which is actually more of a statement.
> But frankly, I don't understand the question.


Simply put, what makes you think I care if you like my tone? Not a rhetorical question. Know what you are talking about if you feel a need to butt into a discussion. Myjazz said Te, not simple extraversion/introversion. Do you know the difference? Not a rhetorical question as well.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Once again twist all you want does not make it true.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> ...


What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that all you are doing is trying to declare that my subjective understanding is incorrect because it isn't in line with the facts _as you see them._

But this is just beyond absurd at this point. You also don't seem to be able to see how your posts make it so blatantly clear to others that you can't get past facts, by which I mean you value them so much in your thinking that you can't let yourself imagine that _facts don't actually exist_ - and instead, all we have is the _conviction of reason_, which is a kind of rationalization of our experiences. "Fact" is just an idea, which adheres to a word we use in common language. I'm not being religious, nor claiming to be "God" or something absolutely insulting like that.

I have nothing more to say to you because you are intentionally trying to be offensive.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> So when the majority of Americans believed Blacks and females were inferior, therefore should only be considered chattle and not be able to vote, that made it factual based on consensus? Really?


Yes. Really. History was awful.

Back then, if you held that kind of belief, you were considered to be thinking objectively.

In fact, some scientists thought blacks were sub-human.

We know objectively _now_ that they were objectively wrong back then, but from a subjective perspective, back then, objectivity would've appeared differently.



Functianalyst said:


> That is the one thing I agree with. Jungyes and some of us are basing debates on theory in place, you and as you so eloquently put it, the “consensus” is basing the same argument on your subjective beliefs. Well again there is no semantics involved since you like Socionics enthusiasts can always change your mind or claim that is not what you meant. It’s baseless and subjective, whereas Jung’s theory exists for everyone including you to read. This is not that your subjective beliefs cannot be considered. But you and others attempt to at some point to vehemently argue your subjective beliefs as facts, wherein lies the problem. 10 years ago the same problem arose on another forum, where it had to be pointed out that after similar discussions as this, that they need to know when they are spouting off their subjective opinion as factual. Besides, how do you debate a subjective thought without at some point making a reference?


Because someone else might look at the connection I made and it appears to be a fact to them as well.

All you can say is that it doesn't to you, but what you're _trying to say_ is not that it doesn't, but that _it can't._


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Abraxas said:


> What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that all you are doing is trying to declare that my subjective understanding is incorrect because it isn't in line with the facts _as you see them._
> 
> But this is just beyond absurd at this point. You also don't seem to be able to see how your posts make it so blatantly clear to others that you can't get past facts, by which I mean you value them so much in your thinking that you can't let yourself imagine that _facts don't actually exist_ - and instead, all we have is the _conviction of reason_, which is a kind of rationalization of our experiences. "Fact" is just an idea, which adheres to a word we use in common language. I'm not being religious, nor claiming to be "God" or something absolutely insulting like that.
> 
> I have nothing more to say to you because you are intentionally trying to be offensive.


I think what is being asked is how are we to know what your subjective opinion is? It's okay to use subjective opinion, but you damn sure better not reference to cognitive functions since a theory already exists that covers them. So again, where is a frame of reference to be made if you are the only one knowing what the hell you are talking about in being subjective? If there is a consensus as you claim, then at least Socionics had enough courage to display those principles, even if they were met with utter rejection. Is this consensus made up of subjective beliefs as well? If so, what consensus? You are about as factioned as the Republican Party if everyone has their own subjective beliefs.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> So again, where is a frame of reference to be made if you are the only one knowing what the hell you are talking about in being subjective?


I don't know until I just do a mind dump.

Basically, the way I see it is that I'm trying to rationalize my own experiences internally, inside my mind, rather than outwardly, through the world around me. I do this by beginning with certain axioms, which are _a priori_ true, like for example, "the square root of 2 is irrational."

I don't have epistemic access to the contents of anyone else's experiences, so I don't know what they base their reasoning on. All I have to go on is if their reasoning seems reasonable to me. I assume that there might be individuals who, upon reading what I have to say, find that it sounds reasonable to them. If it does, then I've contributed something useful.

This is never about being right. This is just a matter of practicality. My framework for understanding isn't "factually wrong" if other people see it as factually correct. If two people disagree about what is or is not a fact, then it comes down to a matter of opinion.

Even to say something as benign as, "the sun is in the sky" during the day, is _just as much_ subjective as it is objective. Indeed _all that makes it objective is that other people agree with it_. In the end, _facts are just ideas upon which many people agree._

Therefore, if many people agree with my subjective interpretation, then it _is_ a fact, and it changes established facts.

Trying to come up with a million rationalizations for why we should all agree on one definition of reality is something else entirely, and has apparently become the topic of the thread for the last few pages. On that topic, I remain a dualist, even despite the mind-body problem. I see it as a challenge just as much as naturalism has to deal with the hard problem of consciousness. I try to look at both subjective and objective perspectives.

Maybe the problem is that I have too deep of a philosophical underpinning to my understanding of the concepts Jung uses when he talks, so when I talk about his work, I assume my readers are well-versed enough to make the same intuitive leaps I am making.

I've probably read more about Jung, and the work he did, than anyone in this thread. That's a challenge. Which one of you read his Liber Novus? I highly recommend it.

My point being, I feel that gives me a stronger subjective understanding of what he means when he defines his ideas, and I recognize places where he _actually_ might mean something _different_ than whatever would be immediately obvious to someone who wasn't his best friend, or someone who felt confident after reading enough of his work to have a good sense of how his mind works on the inside, and what he was _really after.
_
But of course, he's dead now so we'll never know.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> I think what is being asked is how are we to know what your subjective opinion is? *It's okay to use subjective opinion, but you damn sure better not reference to cognitive functions since a theory already exists that covers them.* So again, where is a frame of reference to be made if you are the only one knowing what the hell you are talking about in being subjective? If there is a consensus as you claim, then at least Socionics had enough courage to display those principles, even if they were met with utter rejection. Is this consensus made up of subjective beliefs as well? If so, what consensus. You are about as faction as the Republican Party.


the bold is something that i just don't understand. if a person takes on a different interpretation of the principles of a theory--whether they believe it, or even if they're just toying around with the idea--what does it matter? are you saying that one should make it obvious when and where they deviate? for the sake of what, other people? 

my guess as to why you have the stance that you do, whether it's true or not, hardly matters. no matter what is said about the detriments of "theorizing/deviating", a counter-argument can be made showing the potential positive side effects. i mean, in a lot of ways, the scenario is very much like that of a classroom--it's open discussion. seeing how something is wrong, no matter how logical it seems, it's in pointing out the error of the initial assumption that can pin-point and shed light on the "why's & why not's" in a way that _can_ act as a meeting or way-point of objective understanding among all the people who frequent this site with their own subjective take. 

i guess it would just be a difference in mentality. what are you reasons for the utmost defense of a theory (which by the way, seems to cut a swath through the Ti-dominant according to Jung)? 

i don't even know if this is a battle of Te vs Ti, but one of a general disposition towards intensity of adherence. some can't operate in a way that is anything other than that of a loose interpretation, almost like the "fact" is at once real and not real for the sake of being open towards what each perspective can show one, and the "realness" or lack of such regarding a fact is only as helpful as in what it has the ability to confer to the individual. 

maybe i'm getting you wrong though. it could just be that you disagree with a person interjecting their own views upon something and then attempting to say that "these views" are directly in accordance with their manufacturer--Jung. but is that what has happened?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Abraxas

I wasn't trying to be offensive, it's just that, that's sort of the reality that your approach is taking on - it was an analogy on my part in how inaccessible to common understanding your reasoning is. I mean, yea, it gets to a point where "why don't we all just have are own views, and thus, not have any conversation because there's no grounding as to where the other's coming from - I say booring, who really doesn't know that we all have are own mental constructs anyway" - I mean, Jung's Jung, MBTI's MBTI - are we talking about THEM as the base or your own ideas?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Okay, now I'm frankly even more rigidly convinced that you are indeed, adhering to some mental dogma


Oh the irony!

I appreciate the effort (and most of the results) you put into shaking the "internet bad dreams" away from discussions of psychological type, but your dogmatic belief in The One True Jung scares me sometimes. I think people should have a rigorous understanding of what psychological type is and is not. I think that the best ways to gain that understanding are from reading the works written by those with the most expertise. It's not "all there is" though, and appealing to authority is only useful in so far as you are appealing to a higher wisdom, and not just an established one. Not to say that I agree or disagree with whatever this "Te or not Te" nonsense is in this thread (admittedly, my eyes glazed over a while ago on that point). I'm just suggesting that philosophy is an organic, living process, and you exclude sources of knowledge at your own peril.

Loosen up. It won't turn you into a drooling idiot, I promise.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Let me see if I can nail down where this topic has ended up by referencing a philosophical idea put out by Jean Paul Sarte.

He talks about three notions of self identity, and I'll briefly go through them here.

First, he talks about being in itself. When he talks about this there's a sense that what he basically means is objectivity.

Next, he discusses being _for_ itself. This, we might understand him to mean to be subjectivity.

Lastly, however, he introduces what I feel to be the most powerful and insightful category of being which he calls, "being for others."

Being for others is this idea that, in addition to the way you are, and the way you experience yourself, there's also the way that others experience you, which depends in turn upon both the way they are, and the way they experience themselves to be, and we have to understand that these are all almost undeniable aspects of our individual existence.

He then goes on to talk about his ideas of responsibility and integrity, but that's for another thread.

All I'm trying to do here is bring this up to shed some insight on what the root of the disagreement in this thread is all about. What's happening is that certain perspectives are being rejected or limited by others in a way that causes objections and produces hostility. Ultimately, the conflict in this thread is not even intellectual, it's just a conflict of personal value systems.

Hence why I said Te vs Ti.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

I think @Functianalyst is but hurt I don't worship his almighty nonsense Oh look I called upon the name of FunctionANALyst
really though I made my point about why people like Jungyes should not be bashing people and referring to people like you as some point of authority. Would it make you feel better if I mentioned Light as well is this what this is really about?

If Jung didn't make it clear enough that quote said NOT opposite's then why and how can someone else bash and put other's down for for doing the same thing you do? Point in hand Jungyes can learn to stop trolling threads.

Like I said before nothing against you at all but don't act like your theory is the Gospel also. I already told you once before you can have at all the theory ideas you want I haven't and still have not put you or your ideas and theories down. Simply showing how much of a troll Jungyes is by constantly putting peoples ideas and theory's down and never adding nothing to it.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Abraxas said:


> Yes. Really. History was awful.
> 
> Back then, if you held that kind of belief, you were considered to be thinking objectively.
> 
> ...





> fac•tu•al
> /ˈfakCHo͞oəl/
> Adjective
> 1.	Concerned with what is actually the case *rather than interpretations of or reactions to it*.
> ...


Thus because there is a consensus does not equate to it being factual. The fact that idiots such as Charles Darwin wrote a theory to appease the masses does not mean it is factual as well. It actually means a lot of people being ignorant of the facts, ergo “mob mentality”.



Abraxas said:


> Because someone else might look at the connection I made and it appears to be a fact to them as well.
> 
> All you can say is that it doesn't to you, but what you're _trying to say_ is not that it doesn't, but that _it can't._


Making that claim is no different as well in saying that the world is flat or IQ tests are valid. Many people believed it, I am sure people wrote conclusions to validate it. But in the end it was not factual. The problem with your so-called consensus is that there is a theory, there are principles behind the theory. You are not claiming, let alone providing evidence to support a claim that Jung is wrong. You are simply making a point that because there is a consensus, even though the consensus is made up of ignorant people is enough to suffice that it must be factual. Really?


Abraxas said:


> I don't know until I just do a mind dump.
> 
> Basically, the way I see it is that I'm trying to rationalize my own experiences internally, inside my mind, rather than outwardly, through the world around me. I do this by beginning with certain axioms, which are _a priori_ true, like for example, "the square root of 2 is irrational."


Exactly the point that I made with Socionics enthusiasts who subsequently tried to claim that the theory was not based on Dr. Jung. The problem with your subjectivity, and the next person’s subjectivity is that not only do you disagree with the principles that exists, you disagree with one another. Otherwise, if you truly believe a consensus exists, then you should have no problem spouting off core values of this so-called consensus. If not you have only indicated what is already known, that there are simply a significant number of ignorant people claiming a different theory with nothing to validate it. That does not indicate Dr. Jung’s theory is wrong, it indicates ignorance.


celticstained said:


> the bold is something that i just don't understand. if a person takes on a different interpretation of the principles of a theory--whether they believe it, or even if they're just toying around with the idea--what does it matter? are you saying that one should make it obvious when and where they deviate? for the sake of what, other people?


Good question, which I will answer with a question. When you refer to personality type using words such as extraverted/introverted, thinking/feeling, sensing/intuiting, judging/perceiving, or moreso when you actually use words or their codes such as extraverted thinking or Te, where did they originate? Thus using these words in another format or interpreting them in another way can only be appreciated if you actually can conclude you are aware of their root meaning. So far most people do not indicate this, otherwise there would be no disagreement. 


celticstained said:


> my guess as to why you have the stance that you do, whether it's true or not, hardly matters. no matter what is said about the detriments of "theorizing/deviating", a counter-argument can be made showing the potential positive side effects. i mean, in a lot of ways, the scenario is very much like that of a classroom--it's open discussion. seeing how something is wrong, no matter how logical it seems, it's in pointing out the error of the initial assumption that can pin-point and shed light on the "why's & why not's" in a way that _can_ act as a meeting or way-point of objective understanding among all the people who frequent this site with their own subjective take.


Deviating implies you have a basic understanding of their origination. Coming up with some counter theory and not being able to use the words in they’re proper context is something different. The latter is what is being done on this form. A deviation is what Lenore Thomson, John Beebe, Marie Louise von Franz, Dario Nardi and others do. They do not indicate Dr. Jung was wrong, they indicate another interpretation, hence Dr. Linda V. Berens’ commonly used descriptions. 


myjazz said:


> I think @Functianalyst is but hurt I don't worship his almighty nonsense Oh look I called upon the name of FunctionANALyst
> really though I made my point about why people like Jungyes should not be bashing people and referring to people like you as some point of authority. Would it make you feel better if I mentioned Light as well is this what this is really about?


And that coming from someone who just showed they are clueless of type. Remember, you started this by mentioning my name and showing just how little you know about type. Your childish comments don’t work on grown ups, this is not recess



myjazz said:


> If Jung didn't make it clear enough that quote said NOT opposite's then why and how can someone else bash and put other's down for for doing the same thing you do? Point in hand Jungyes can learn to stop trolling threads.
> 
> Like I said before nothing against you at all but don't act like your theory is the Gospel also. I already told you once before you can have at all the theory ideas you want I haven't and still have not put you or your ideas and theories down. Simply showing how much of a troll Jungyes is by constantly putting peoples ideas and theory's down and never adding nothing to it.


Again, take ownership of your stupidity in confronting others then running for the hills. I am not claiming gospel. I am claiming you are ignorant of type, so far you have proven that.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> And that coming from someone who just showed they are clueless of type. Remember, you started this by mentioning my name and showing just how little you know about type.
> Again, take ownership of your stupidity in confronting others then running for the hills. I am not claiming gospel. I am claiming you are ignorant of type, so far you have proven that.


Who what?
How can anyone know so little about types according to you there is no such thing?
Which can be a very debatable to say that Type's is some law

I admit that was a tad childish in what I said but to be fair you are also acting childish. I just chose not to hide in a charade like you are doing.

Point to anything I said to be false in this thread? about types that is that you so much claim I have


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> With Ti-Ne, the cognitive process begins with a theory. If Ti is not conscious, then the theoretical nature of Ti judgment becomes subconscious, and so Ti judgment happens automatically and subjective theories can often seem like objective facts to the individual. When Ti is conscious and/or dominant, the individual generally spends most of their time attempting to subjectively reason from facts and knowledge that they can recall or intuitively generate, and is usually aware of themselves doing this, and so naturally understands the subjective nature of their speculations.
> 
> When encountering a new situation/information:
> 
> Ti-Ne begins by drawing a rational conclusion from a set of intuitions based off of objective facts about the things one has experienced in life. The strength of Ne will determine the strength of the insight into the objective facts Ti is attempting to judge in some way. This strength will depend entirely upon the breadth and depth of one's direct experience with and knowledge of the objective world. That will, in turn, provide Ti with the proper intuitions with which to assemble a more rational, logical conclusion that it believes in more powerfully, and will then incorporate into other lines of reasoning, procedurally building a subjective world-view in this way until it exhausts its available store of facts or incorporates new information that radically alters the whole world view in some way.


The part I underlined is this in part of factor of unconscious thinking. Example like sleeping on a idea to wake up to new answers or questions?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Teybo said:


> Oh the irony!
> 
> I appreciate the effort (and most of the results) you put into shaking the "internet bad dreams" away from discussions of psychological type, but your dogmatic belief in The One True Jung scares me sometimes. I think people should have a rigorous understanding of what psychological type is and is not. I think that the best ways to gain that understanding are from reading the works written by those with the most expertise. It's not "all there is" though, and appealing to authority is only useful in so far as you are appealing to a higher wisdom, and not just an established one. Not to say that I agree or disagree with whatever this "Te or not Te" nonsense is in this thread (admittedly, my eyes glazed over a while ago on that point). I'm just suggesting that philosophy is an organic, living process, and you exclude sources of knowledge at your own peril.
> 
> ...


I wasn't referencing Jung in that statement at all, and you know it. I'm not forcing people to become Jung experts, but it gets to a point where if the person has no intellectual standpoint, they're literally talking about nothing (or maybe something that has nothing much or a little bit to do with type, plus other stuff) - I mean, this forum is about MBTI/Jung any of these systems - if this forum were about, say, a television show (I've been a member of those before, so I know what I'm talking about), then it would clearly not make sense if people were just making up their interpretations of the show's existence, rather than ideas based on obvious facts about the show itself (sans just making mistakes with forgetting facts and whatnot). I mean, I appreciate your attempts to loosen everything up here though - it really wasn't my fault that this all spiraled out of control like this (although I had a hunch that this might happen, since frankly, if people dare to bring actual references against peoples' armchair theories, you'll get attacked - people are kind of uptight here, although I totally sympathize with the frustration people might have with the unfathomable contradictions on type you find on internet sites, etc.). I just posted Jung quotes, since those are the easiest and most reliable to find to address any type question - he covers the range of what he thought people would think of his work in Ch. 10 alone - but then, people decided to take it all up against Jung's ideas, while accusing me of making up his ideas, which frankly, has already put them in last place in winning any argument here).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I mean, the OP might actually have interesting points to make about type in relation to philosophical schools of thought, but you just can't call it a description of a psychological reality the way he is - it would have to be called "type in the realm of philosophical ideas" or something to that effect.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I mean, what freaks me out about this forum in particular is the number of people who talk about this stuff with no research under their belts at all (not even celebritytypes.com, for as rough as that is) - I mean, if this weren't a type website, some of the people would look a bit loony (and if it sounds weird here, it's definitely going to sound really weird in the real world - you'll get some weird looks from people if you're trying to tell them that the reason they're so "emotional" is because of their Fe acting up, or whatever stuff that seems to fly here (that's a total lie anyway, but sort of the level I'm talking about that freaks me out)).


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> ...


You still don't understand that you are simply refusing to accept that other people can have their own standards for accepting something as "true" or "factual". What does it matter what's written in a dictionary, for example? Dictionaries are not authorities on how we define ideas, they are just references on how we define _words._ An idea is something that continues to evolve in the minds of those who contemplate it over the span of history.

It's like you guys worship Jung. I'm being accused of religion and dogma, but the irony is, I'm preaching that people can believe whatever they want. You guys are trying to fight a crusade against subjectivity and force everyone to think objectively, but part of the experience and freedom of being an individual is developing your own interpretation of things and standing by it. One can even go beyond "logic and stupidity" to argue that it can be a matter of morality and integrity, and that once again this entire debate is nothing more than a matter of values in conflict with one another.

Seriously, at this point I don't know how you are coming up with all your crap, and when I say that I don't mean your wonderful vocabulary. I mean the energy to actually sit down and pull apart a stranger's post on an internet forum like PerC and hash it out in the most ridiculously inefficient way, showing very little respect as you do it, and expecting everyone reading your post - including the person you're speaking to directly - to agree with it, based on what - the strength of your validity? Facts? Meanwhile you word yourself specifically to be offensive on purpose and sound like an asshole enjoying himself, trying to convince everyone that you know what you're talking about.

Get over your "wah everything must be objective" speel.

This kind of dogmatic enforcement of rigorous adherence works great for scientific discussion, but Jung's theory is more in the realm of a philosophy of the mind than an objective rigorous empirical theory anyway. I don't remember who it was in this thread that said he based it on his clinical research and experimental studies. So? He's still using philosophical concepts to describe what he experienced, not scientific ones, and his "theory" isn't even falsifiable - something he himself admits to and then goes on to argue is actually a strength.

Jesus christ you guys, read more than Jung. Branch out and study more. You might just come back to Jung and wonder if what he wrote actually meant something else if you truly understood the complexity of the ideas he is coming up with. You're short-changing the beauty of Jung's work by trying to limit the range of its interpretations. Part of what I feel to be the strength of Jung's work is precisely the fact that it has such a diversity of opinions about it. It doesn't matter if we are maintaining the same ideas Jung himself had about his own work - ideas can have a range of interpretations, and if he were alive today, who knows what he'd have to say to me face-to-face if I were to talk with him about my ideas.

Stop being a damn nazi about it and just go away if that's what you're after. Let people live their own lives. Especially when they politely disagree with you and ask you to back off.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Now, since this is still going on.

Understanding I/E, hasn't Jung explicitly given definitions of what Extroversion/Introversion is and how their respective orientations work?

Yes he did.

In fact, to make I/E evidently clear, and more over, easy to understand I'd suggest to check out this thread in combination to Jung's original excerp on the subject:



> The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on. the part of the object had to be continually frustrated. The extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance must always be paramount.


http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/86903-its-attitude-stupid.html

There's really no arguing here, as it is made evidently clear - it also doesn't require any explanation on specific functions, or function level as a whole. Introversion and Extroversion are polar opposites in their extremes, and thus functions will also be polar opposites in terms of world view if their orientations oppose each other.

There's really no subjectivity required for this. Where subjectivity is required is what you *further* make of the pre-defined basis provided by Jung's theory.

Shrugs.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Functionanalyst, I am not sure where I am to begin with a response of what you wrote to me... First of all, you can call it what you want, Jung, MBTI, anything. I have little concern about that as I never intended to seriously participate in this debate and I am not sure exactly why you keep responding to me as if I do. 

Not once have I made any kind of implications regarding MBTI or Jung or taken an active stance where I stand. I mostly reject MBTI if that's what you want to know, but I also see it as a legit way to continue building on Jung's work. But again, if you want to seriously hear what I have to say about that, I suggest you PM me. 

As for your second quote yes, I call it "rigid", because I see no need for such dogmatic ontological standpoint on the matter, which of course is a result of my dominant introverted function wanting to see things of how things make sense to me rather than what is objectively true for most. 

That you insist on writing to me on the matter, that you insist on trying to force me to debate you on a subject that ultimately concerns me little more than the fact I do find it rather hilarious you keep responding in the manner in which you do, kind of actually proves the point. Our perception is clearly so different that even when I told you straight in the face, "no, I'm not interested in this", you keep writing to me as if I am. Furthermore, I keep telling you, "you read it in a way it's not intended to be read", but yet you continue write to me as if you can only see your own point of view in the matter.

And I think that is the attitude that pretty much has controlled this entire thread. I also don't understand why you keep bringing up myjazz when I clearly responded to you what I thought about that. I see what is meant by socionics LSI now. Dear god.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Erbse said:


> Now, since this is still going on.
> 
> Understanding I/E, hasn't Jung explicitly given definitions of what Extroversion/Introversion is and how their respective orientations work?
> 
> ...


Thank you.

I've been trying to say this in fact.

I didn't create this thread with the intent of redefining Jung's sense of what he meant when he invented these terms. I'm only trying to add to them from my subjective understanding of them.

It's that simple.


----------



## CaptainWayward (Jun 8, 2012)

You all have it wrong -- what jung was saying was that there is a cone of transdimensional interexpansion that emanates from the center of the individual. Upon this cone reaching a tangency, between two objects, spiral interplay of the modulation functions presumes dominance over the under-arching bit channels. The velocity of this modulation in the pinnacle of importance when determining the true demeanor of the individual -- a velocity that radiates outwards, from the epicenter indicates an individual whose chief purpose is to decipher the interlacing divergence of arrays that perpetually cascade into their incidence. A velocity, which radiates inwards, indicates an individual who is imprisoned in an essence of play that is a cascading result of the incoming divergence arrays. Such an individual, putting a high emphasis on bullshit, will sort through an endless myriad of muck, replacing and recycling old bits to form new ones, then returning to old ones to confuse the fuck out of themselves. 

: |

Thus one can see why OP is a big enough *** to produce 12 pages of people masturbating over their own subjective analysis, and the balancing 12 pages of people claiming Jung's conclusions were some how the holy grail of bullshit to forever dominate all others.

Kill on, time, kill on.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> You and I are on the exact same wavelength at this point.
> @_JungyesMBTIno_,
> 
> The point of our disagreement in this thread is a semantic one. The bottom line is that you aren't acknowledging the subjective side of your own existence. You don't think you have to because you think your observations are facts, which reflects a particular mentality that I would definitely call "Te" if we're talking about Jungian functions. You _equate_ truth with facts, not acknowledging that there are individuals like myself out there who understand that objective metaphysical certitude doesn't actually exist, and that the concept of "objectivity" itself is a transcendental idea. Therefore, I am open to using certain subjective ideas as standards that "work" or "make sense" to me personally, even if they are not in line with facts, and so do others.
> ...


Ehhhh not really I view her as Te inferior to be more exact as ISFP :dry: facts, facts, facts and even more facts.



Abraxas said:


> *But, paired with Ni, Te gains the ability to interpret facts subjectively to mean different things in different contexts.* It can do this because the insight generated by Ni is made by recognizing the subjective similarity in different sets of facts that exhibit the same subjective patterns.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Facts are thinking if they are conceptual. Is someone calling me an ISFP (far from true - sensation is my weak spot)? Pointing out facts isn't necessarily sensation (what you sense isn't considered a fact until it can be related to something that conceptually relates to something else, generally speaking - factual connections are thinking-related - facts are rational in origin, sense impressions are irrational in origin - type is just about how a person's functioning originates for them - upon an externally understood basis or an internally understood one). I think people get the wrong idea around here that N dom means that you're into fantasy and like to make up stuff hypothetically, which really is not true at all (that's more like an excuse for not knowing what you're talking about or not aiming for accuracy or even just being subjective because you don't really care about finding a true answer). An intuitive hunch *is* about reality, yet just a metaphysical take on it (that's exactly why these types are inferior Se types/inferior Si types - you have to be able to repress sensation enough in order to "peer behind the scenes" of it in a very pure way, rather than justify everything in terms of how they coincide with "realizations," which is what dominant sensation types do, and their intuition becomes a slave to this).


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

jungyesmbtino said:


> i think people get the wrong idea around here that *n dom means that you're into fantasy and like to make up stuff hypothetically*, which really is not true at all





> *the introverted intuitive type*
> 
> the peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. The *mystical dreamer and seer* on the one hand, or the *fantastical crank and artist* on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is *a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition*. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and—in the case of a productive artist—the *shaping of perception*. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary *aloofness of the individual from tangible reality*; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle.





> Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the *purely æsthetic* into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its *æsthetic* form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive.




Jung then goes on the make it perfectly clear that there are different variants of Ni-doms, in which, the degree to which the Ni-dom has differentiated their extroverted judgment will determine how much they care to pull themselves away from their inner world.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Facts are thinking if they are conceptual. Is someone calling me an ISFP (far from true - sensation is my weak spot)? Pointing out facts isn't necessarily sensation (what you sense isn't considered a fact until it can be related to something that conceptually relates to something else, generally speaking - factual connections are thinking-related - facts are rational in origin, sense impressions are irrational in origin - type is just about how a person's functioning originates for them - upon an externally understood basis or an internally understood one).


You are constantly splitting up stuff into categories without creating connections in the process. Leaving Jung in cold stone is not leading anywhere. 

Huh a so-called subjective perceived violation of the jungian law and JungyesMBTIno "the Police" is visiting your thread. (a bit overaxaggerated but it only needs to work as an example). Abraxas was just providing a further perspective / his view regarding the functions nicely bundled with insight. Seriously what´s your problem?

Who is making up stuff? That seems to be only your subjective perception based on fast judgment, this focus on objectivity is just overpowered and is not leading anywhere. You are just on the other side of the fence and not in the middle. From one extreme into another, it´s the same just with another color on it. You are strking me as far too rational.



> I think people get the wrong idea around here that N dom means that you're into fantasy and like to make up stuff hypothetically, which really is not true at all (that's more like an excuse for not knowing what you're talking about or not aiming for accuracy or even just being subjective because you don't really care about finding a true answer). An intuitive hunch *is* about reality, yet just a metaphysical take on it (that's exactly why these types are inferior Se types/inferior Si types


It is true and it is false depending on the viewpoint which means that it isn´t "not true at all" because there is no such a thing. The viewpoint needs to be considered without doing this it is just a harsh judgment. But yeah "more like an excuse for not knowing what you´re talking about or not aiming for accuracy or even WORSE just being subjective" how evil per se :dry:

Wow I am aggressive out of nothing :shocked: I hope you are not offendend :tongue: I´m just too lazy too change my writing style :crazy:


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> _Therefore, I am open to using certain subjective ideas as standards that "work" or "make sense" to me personally, even if they are not in line with facts, and so do others.
> 
> Indeed, what makes a fact a fact at all is because it holds the majority consensus.
> 
> ...


_

_Put differently, I think the difference between subjective thinkers and objective thinkers is largely overblown on this site. Here is why.

The fact of the matter is Ni-Te-Fi is inherently tied to subjectivity itself. Subjectivity enters in whenever we attempt to make sense of the objective, which Ni can be one instrument in doing. While Ni does not present conclusions, it still makes sense of Se-data in a different way. 

And let's not forget Fi. Fi-Te involves a combination of subjective parameters for personal evaluation, in conjunction with reasoning about the objective. Ultimately when we attempt to assign any significance, understanding, etc of objective scrutiny or activity, there is some subjectivity inherent to that. 

Whether the preferred means is intuitive or Ti or whatever else is ultimately a matter of personality and taste. My primary mode of subjective processing is more structured, and my primary mode of objective scrutiny is more scattered.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

This thread is getting goofier by the moments. So people are somehow confident they can ascribe what they see written here to a person's TYPE, even though you cannot have any point of reference for the origins of someone's thought-processes through the internet in their thoughts (see the latest thread by @LXPilot to see what I'm saying about how ridiculous it is to really even concretely "type" anything function-for-function - don't attack @LXPilot either, he has nothing to do with this thread). People think type is akin to "mind reading" or "thought reconstruction" of another person, which is absurd, because there is no basis for this. I mean, if no one believes me that functions are describing mentalities and not concrete thought-processes, I don't what to tell you other than to go do your own research. When I say something's "true," I mean it in terms of logic adding up against something capable of being known with enough certainty (via evidence) - I'm not pushing an agenda of "my truths" or what have you, just common sense. I don't distrust @Abraxas - I just think his reasoning is a bit baseless, especially if this, like most type info, is going to get passed on as "internet gospel."


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_JungyesMBTIno_: I, like you, hate when people decide on someone's type based on what they perceive they are good at doing.
It has nothing to do with skill, it has to do with mentality, like you say. 


Personally I see a lot of good ideas to Abraxas's posts here though, as long as we are careful what we mean by everything. 


Also, I think that while functions are describing mentalities, there is also for my own conceptual understanding utility in a _separate_ outlook where we label processes using the same letters, although this most certainly is a distinct thing altogether. The reason being that mentalities can be described, whereas processes can be strictly defined and identified. Then, measuring these processes can yield insight into the mentalities, but again not if applied naively.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> Jung then goes on the make it perfectly clear that there are different variants of Ni-doms, in which, the degree to which the Ni-dom has differentiated their extroverted judgment will determine how much they care to pull themselves away from their inner world.


LOL. No. When Jung said "mystical dreamer," "fantastical crank," etc. he never meant these types aren't concerned with factual accuracy (that's a huge stretch - everyone wants factual accuracy if they care enough about something and getting results) - it's just a mentality, nothing to do with "making up stuff" - anyone can make stuff up - that's not what Jung said. He used mystical and fantastical as adjectives, not to literally say that these people are into fantasy and stuff that isn't (in their eyes), related to reality.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Something that is becoming a problem here is that Ti is the mindset seeking internal consistency, but how a Ti-user's conclusions correspond to objective reality involves some guesswork when communicating. I don't think Abraxas meant they are not concerned with factual accuracy. But of course he is the best authority on his meaning.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, Jung never even says that Se doms have a great grasp on "accuracy" - I'll say it again, accuracy is in the realm of thinking, not perception - perception is in the eyes of the beholder - it takes logic to determine the accuracy of something with enough precision.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

True. Se is still dealing with unsorted data, and accuracy as a question inherently is about a conclusion, which is the realm of T/F.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> LOL. No. When Jung said "mystical dreamer," "fantastical crank," etc. he never meant these types aren't concerned with factual accuracy (that's a huge stretch - everyone wants factual accuracy if they care enough about something and getting results) - it's just a mentality, nothing to do with "making up stuff" - anyone can make stuff up - that's not what Jung said. He used mystical and fantastical as adjectives, not to literally say that these people are into fantasy and stuff that isn't (in their eyes), related to reality.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

bearotter said:


> Something that is becoming a problem here is that Ti is the mindset seeking internal consistency, but how a Ti-user's conclusions correspond to objective reality involves some guesswork when communicating. I don't think Abraxas meant they are not concerned with factual accuracy. But of course he is the best authority on his meaning.


At this point, JungyesMBTIno needs to become familiar with the expression "straw man."

I'm not even bothering to respond to her anymore. This has been going on the entire thread. Lots of people have already posted trying to tell her but she just attempts to refute them or ignores them.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Let me talk a bit about Ti for a moment, before I get into some deeper insights.

Jung describes introverted thinking as being based not on facts, but on itself. It might synthesize objective facts from either Se or Ne into itself in the same way that all dominant functions synthesize information from their auxiliary. What he essentially means by this is that introverted thinking judgment rests on the unconscious archetype that, Jung believed, came from an abstract collective unconscious. He reasoned that this would be biological. In his introduction section, he even explains how he suspects introversion and extroversion are just reflections of two basic survival strategies of life. In the one strategy, life tries to propagate itself as much as it can. In the other, life tries to stockpile its defenses and lives longer, but thrives less.

In my opinion this is the very same basis of all dualist thinking. Yin and yang, aggression and defense, good and evil, mind/spirit and body.

Jung's model is no exception, and he sees his theory at work in human behavior under clinical observation his whole life. Jung was a deeply religious and spiritual thinker who followed alchemy and studied the occult extensively. Though I am not trying to call his integrity as a scientist into suspect, I am merely trying to place what I feel to be the appropriate amount of emphasis on Jung's fascination with mysticism, which - whether it sprang from his study of mystics and the deranged or not - come to be the source of many concepts which he draws upon when he formulates his descriptions. Introversion and extroversion are no exception, and in his descriptions, when he describes introversion and extroversion, he basically just parrots what any philosopher would tell you as they described objectivity and subjectivity to you.

_*In fact, Jung so closely repeats what I learned in my philosophy classes at college that it gave me an immediate strong anchor with what Jung was talking about. I intuitively grasped what he was saying precisely because it was so familiar to what I had already learned. Whatever small differences he takes great time and patience to explain at length I found easy to understand and assimilate.*_

Here comes the deeper insight.

It was quite obvious to me that what Jung was talking about (even if he himself didn't know it or decide to explain it in such a manner), when he talks about two forms of judgment - introverted and extroverted - was essentially two forms of epistemology, objective and subjective. Or to put it in cleaner terms, Jung is talking about _knowledge *a posteriori*_ - versus _knowledge *a priori*_.

This was even more strongly reinforced as absolutely clear to me when later he even goes on to describe his theory of introversion with what is essentially an explanation of rationalism, specifically the "innate knowledge thesis."

When Jung is talking about,


> ...The individual Self is a portion, or excerpt, or representative, of something universally present in all living creatures, and, therefore, a correspondingly graduated kind of psychological process, which is born anew in every creature. Since earliest times, the inborn manner of acting has been called instinct, and for this manner of psychic apprehension of the object I have proposed the term archetype. I may assume that what is understood by instinct is familiar to everyone. It is another matter with the archetype...



Notice the similarity with,


> ... The Innate Knowledge thesis joins the Intuition/Deduction thesis in asserting that we have _a priori_ knowledge, but it does not offer intuition and deduction as the source of that knowledge. It takes our _a priori_ knowledge to be part of our rational nature. Experience may trigger our awareness of this knowledge, but it does not provide us with it. The knowledge is already there.
> 
> Plato presents an early version of the Innate Knowledge thesis in the _Meno_ as the doctrine of knowledge by recollection. The doctrine is motivated in part by a paradox that arises when we attempt to explain the nature of inquiry. How do we gain knowledge of a theorem in geometry? We inquire into the matter. Yet, knowledge by inquiry seems impossible (_Meno_, 80d-e). We either already know the theorem at the start of our investigation or we do not. If we already have the knowledge, there is no place for inquiry. If we lack the knowledge, we don't know what we are seeking and cannot recognize it when we find it. Either way we cannot gain knowledge of the theorem by inquiry. Yet, we do know some theorems.
> 
> ...


This quite clearly rings along with what Jung is trying to say, especially when he continues,


> ... The archetype is a symbolical formula, which always begins to function whenever there are no conscious ideas present, or when such as are present are impossible upon intrinsic or extrinsic grounds. The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced tendencies, or definite ways of looking at things. They are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object—incorrectly, at bottom—since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche, and are only released by the operation of the object. These subjective tendencies and ideas are stronger than the objective influence; because their psychic value is higher, they are superimposed upon all impressions. Thus, just as it seems incomprehensible to the introvert that the object should always be decisive, it remains just as enigmatic to the extravert how a subjective standpoint can be superior to the objective situation. He reaches the unavoidable conclusion that the introvert is either a conceited egoist or a fantastic doctrinaire...


... And by the way, not to digress or anything, but _*notice how what he predicts in the extraverted view and attitude towards the introvert expressing itself is almost exactly like the interaction between myself (and others) with JungyesMBTIno?*_

Maybe Carl Jung was _right?_

But anyway, back on track.

So, what Jung is clearly talking about when he talks about introversion is some form of rationalism. If we can accept that as true, then we have a basis upon which we can work to unravel the rest of his descriptions. If we clearly understand that what Jung means by introversion is essentially a preference for _a priori_ information, and what extroversion basically _is_, is _a posteriori_ information, then when he goes on to discuss each of the functions, it becomes much more apparent how the underlying mentality of each function operates.

For example, applying all of this to Ni (which I am certain is my dominant function), this means my psyche is energized by the perception of images that reflect certain a priori universal truths that my intuition is picking up on. This doesn't necessarily mean that I am staring off into space, zoned out, not focused on my environment or taking part in it all the time - though, that is often the case, and was _absolutely_ the case in my childhood. As I got older, my auxiliary function grew more differentiated, and so I began to feel a sense of duty/obligation to the world around me, as I began to accept myself as part of it instead of just a figment of my own imagination. Jung describes that perfectly, here, 


> A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way interrelated with his vision, that it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken—it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.




What is happening is, I want to be perceiving. I want to be perceiving all the time - I do not really _want_ at my _core_ to be judging what I perceive, but judgment is needed. When I am asked, "what do you see?" - I see Ni, and what Ni shows me is the _a priori_ patterns within information that produce our experience of the actual. It is like being able to look at a flower and _see_ the golden ratio, without even knowing what the golden ratio is because you've never heard of the golden ratio. This is also why having some form of extroverted judgment helps to _decipher_ the subjective relationships that Ni perceives between information sets, because you then have ideas to "match up" with what you intuitively grasp already.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I realize I'm replying late here, but I want to address this point.


Functianalyst said:


> First of all, I agree with you 100% that it is an exchange of ideas. Where it always gets dicey is when anyone begins correlating the theories. You refer to Dario Nadi, which I hold in highest esteem with Dr. Linda V. Berens. It was the two that helped me differentiate between MBTI and Jung’s work. They are not the same, so if one is arguing Jung’s theory and another MBTI, it becomes an apple/orange discussion.
> 
> But guess what, if you are alluding to function-attitudes, then you are no longer discussing MBTI because that system does not use the function-attitude system. That is where JungYes and others see the difference and those who think they know, yet still make claims along the lines of MBTI are essentially not making valid arguments. So as I said, I agree. If you disagree that they are differing systems, then by all means point that out. If you however conceded they are differing systems with different principles, then you should be directing this comment toward those who appear not to make the distinction. As for you JungYes and others, I apologize for derailing the discussion today. I do understand your frustration in people thinking they are actually having an intelligent discussion about type, when you easily see that they are not even on the same page and discussing something other than personality type theory. At least Leah gave it a name, "Modernism".


That is where I fundamentally disagree. Personality theory is not a hard science, so I see no reason to treat the models that are used as separate entities to be examined in turn and used as bylines in all discussions surrounding how we tick. 

There is no special term to apply. It is simply this: Do you want to talk about personality theory in a vacuum and temporarily pretend like a shiton of theories don't exist so that you can make a point about some specific person's theories? Or do you actually want to develop and expand on existing theories - build on what people have already done and create something that is more precise, more accurate, more current, and more lasting?

If it is the former, then I think you would need separate topics for each set of theories. If it is the latter, then why is correlating theories "getting dicey"?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

LostFavor said:


> I realize I'm replying late here, but I want to address this point.
> 
> That is where I fundamentally disagree. Personality theory is not a hard science, so I see no reason to treat the models that are used as separate entities to be examined in turn and used as bylines in all discussions surrounding how we tick.
> 
> ...


Do you want to show us where the MBTI theory ever uses function-attitudes? With the exception of Myers-Briggs indicating that their types will dominate with one of Jung’s function-attitudes in “Gifts Differing”, they do not refer to them. You want to know what MBTI is about? Their foundation can be visited *at this site*. 

On the other hand, you want to show us where Dr. Jung ever uses four-letter codes to make his claim *here* or where he ever attempts to quantify his theory? It’s not a science and most people know that, including Dr. Jung. Yet again threads like this discuss cognitive functions in a quantifying manner, then become upset when people indicate it can’t be done. I have asked this question for years, yet no one seems to be able to indicate the correlation, so they instead come up with on this is the modern way of doing it. No it’s not, it only shows that most have not taken the time to understand MBTI, let alone Dr. Jung. 

If they had taken the time to understand either theory, they would instantly know there are basic principles used be each theory that cannot correlate into the other. The way you determine MBTI is does not compute in Psychological Types. Yet again, this argument is ongoing as though they can be. There are absolutely special terms to apply. In the end no one can argue subjectivity since it is what ever you want it to be today. But again to argue There are no specific terms used only shows ones lack of understanding of either theory. Of course there are differing terms and differing applications of how the theories work. That is where the vacuum comes in. People who are well aware of the systems see that forums such as this is simply making up stuff that is untrue. But again, I welcome anyone wanting to show different with facts, not subjective opinions.


Abraxas said:


> What is happening is, I want to be perceiving. I want to be perceiving all the time - I do not really _want_ at my _core_ to be judging what I perceive, but judgment is needed. When I am asked, "what do you see?" - I see Ni, and what Ni shows me is the _a priori_ patterns within information that produce our experience of the actual. It is like being able to look at a flower and _see_ the golden ratio, without even knowing what the golden ratio is because you've never heard of the golden ratio. This is also why having some form of extroverted judgment helps to _decipher_ the subjective relationships that Ni perceives between information sets, because you then have ideas to "match up" with what you intuitively grasp already.[/COLOR][/FONT]


Yet in the end, and I am not talking about how things are done in MBTI, is that one’s judging function can only be as objective as your perceiving function allows (if one truly uses perceiving to dominate). Someone using Fe to dominate will want their perceiving function to work in the manner you allude to above. However someone using Ni will use their Fe differently to fend off any incoming information that does not fit their subjective perceptions, which essentially is occurring on this thread. The same works for any introverted function including Ti where Dr. Jung makes it painstakingly clear that Ti and Te are very different in their respective use.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

@Functianalyst 

i don't think anyone could really give you the answer you're looking for--although, the first test i ever took was from a site that focused from the standpoint of MBTI, and their results gave a descending order of your function stack along with attitudes... but that could be exactly what you're talking about and the site itself was just a conglomeration of theories. (the site was mypersonality.info btw)

i think people are just going, "well, Jung created a system, someone added to it and gave their idea on how that system [that Jung never put too much of a focus on] would align itself in a certain way". i'm not sure where they're bastardizing his initial ideas--i mean, the parts their putting a focus on is an area that Jung never really got into (the orientation and order of aux's). 

also, in which way are people attempting to quantify the functions? aren't they giving what amounts to their "subjective" view of how they personally use those functions? 

which principles are at odds with each other between theories?



> Someone using Fe to dominate will want their perceiving function to work in the manner you allude to above. However someone using Ni will use their Fe differently to fend off any incoming information that does not fit their subjective perceptions, which essentially is occurring on this thread.


this to me is really interesting. can you give some examples of what you're talking about?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yes, @_Functianalyst_ is the voice of reason here. I mean, you're either making up stuff, or you're not. It would be like someone making up their understanding of quantum physics and actually EXPECTING people to learn from them, which is the epitome of irresponsible, let alone, whatthe are you accomplishing by doing this anyway? Jung NEVER created type to be used exactly like it's being used here - like a parlour game to confirm your own subjective ideas and ideals about type - he created it for his and other psychoanalysts use to make working with people's issues easier.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Do you want to show us where the MBTI theory ever uses function-attitudes? With the exception of Myers-Briggs indicating that their types will dominate with one of Jung’s function-attitudes in “Gifts Differing”, they do not refer to them. You want to know what MBTI is about? Their foundation can be visited *at this site*.
> 
> On the other hand, you want to show us where Dr. Jung ever uses four-letter codes to make his claim *here* or where he ever attempts to quantify his theory? It’s not a science and most people know that, including Dr. Jung. Yet again threads like this discuss cognitive functions in a quantifying manner, then become upset when people indicate it can’t be done. I have asked this question for years, yet no one seems to be able to indicate the correlation, so they instead come up with on this is the modern way of doing it. No it’s not, it only shows that most have not taken the time to understand MBTI, let alone Dr. Jung.
> 
> ...


You could have just said, "I am doing the former," i.e. talking about personality theory in a vacuum and temporarily pretending like a shiton of theories don't exist so that you can make a point about some specific person's theories.

Why are you obsessed with Jung? Do modern psychologists fret about whether their research and theories are compatible with Freud?

You are speaking a language of precision and detail that I have no patience for. I don't give a flying fuck whether the MBTI's core model is compatible with the functions on a minute level. The makers of this forum obviously don't either or they wouldn't be correlating the two with a section devoted to cognitive functions in an MBTI forum.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Yet in the end, and I am not talking about how things are done in MBTI, is that one’s judging function can only be as objective as your perceiving function allows (if one truly uses perceiving to dominate). Someone using Fe to dominate will want their perceiving function to work in the manner you allude to above. However someone using Ni will use their Fe differently to fend off any incoming information that does not fit their subjective perceptions, which essentially is occurring on this thread.


I completely agree, up until you apply this to the context of our discussion.

The reason why it breaks down at that point is because Jung's work _itself_ is subjective, and since that is what this thread is discussing, it makes our entire discussion centered on something subjective.

Jung did not, for example, describe real people when he described his types. He makes it very clear that in no way do his types actually show up in the real world, and are meant to be seen as extreme generalizations. In reality, people are far more complicated and complex, they just display certain habitual ways of processing information. _That makes the types subjective._ It makes them subjective because it means _they don't really exist._ They only have any real meaning _after they get applied_ to specific people we encounter, but doing so must necessarily be a subjective process because _the types themselves are subjective._

So, what we are debating here in this thread, for example, is not how the brain works, or what John did to Sarah on her birthday. Those are objective matters. Nor is anyone here arguing about what was written in a book, because if that were the case, all that would be needed is to show that the words in dispute do or do not appear in the literature. If this were that sort of objective discussion, then it would have gone a lot differently. But instead, this discussion revolves around a matter of subjective interpretation, as it always has, and always will, in any thread revolving around types, _because types are subjective._

The sooner everyone can just accept that and move on, then the sooner we can draw a very clear distinguishing line between what is science and what is not so that we can get back on topic, so I'll just go ahead and make it clear.

*Jungian types are not scientific
*
Since the beginning, any discussion revolving around Jungian types in general is a subjective discussion, _by definition_, because the types _do not really exist._


----------



## CaptainWayward (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> No, that's not Fi by default, but it could be (I mean, you would never ever really know, unless you can somehow tell that the person finds what they're talking about important to them based on some personal standards they hold themselves up to and expect others to more-or-less see where they're coming from based on the significance of what they're talking about).


So as an Fi, there is always an underlying intent to communicate the value of themselves as a person?



> They already align with conceptual ideas that do not manifest in concrete actions IRL necessarily (see, to Jung, the ability to use logic was not the thinking function, even though the thinking function encompasses the general nature of logical thinking - I mean, anyone can do this when a problem is thrown at them, but not everyone is as well adapted to handle this against their own ego issues, such as getting what they desire for themselves through logic, seeing the world through logic in a desirable way, etc. That's why functions are organized as ego syntonic, but some head towards the ego dystonic more than others in people based on how they somehow (unpredictable) line up with the ideas the person has about themselves and their ideas about the way they want to see the world). And type isn't even static all the time either, to make this more difficult.


Can't thinking be boiled down to the manipulation of objects, so in a sense, imagining a floating orb in space is more or less a the thinking function in motion?

What do you mean by 'ego issues' -- would contemplating a career be considered an ego issue?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

No underlying intent. Just some kind of inner standard the person is trying to idealize in some way, frankly, they only know about and can only be inferred by the outer world (you kind of have to look for their Te to come to any conclusions).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Contemplating a career might relate, but doesn't have to. I can't really deliver this in a cut-and-dry way. It's not really problem solving against what's thrown your way - it's problem solving in relation to ego ideals of self-representation. Frankly, the outside world may never know about them.


----------



## CaptainWayward (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> No underlying intent. Just some kind of inner standard the person is trying to idealize in some way, frankly, they only know about and can only be inferred by the outer world (you kind of have to look for their Te to come to any conclusions).


Alright, I see -- so is this standard, generated by the dominate function, always present, regardless of function being used? Sorry, about all the questions... earthworm mode is active >,>


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Erbse said:


> Anyway, I'm inclined to strongly agree with @_Functianalyst_ here. Claiming Jung made up imaginary types is outright silly - Yes, he has said to take the descriptions with a grain of salt, as they're extremes. Additionally that no *pure* types exist - but don't forget that all of Jung's accomplishments in that regard were based on *first hand experiments* on himself and more over patients he's had in his time. Claiming these things are inexistent and made up, thus in fact, a fairy tale is rather silly to the point of laughable - especially, even if only for a second, you take a look around you in real-life. If any of the people alive on this planet would question the validity of type, or cognitive functioning anyway, they'd either have their cognition damage/skewed beyond repair; delusional at minimum, or haven't ever left the house and in fact seen other people.
> 
> The type one *projects* onto other people is subjective, as they may not be what one thinks they were - that won't change the fact however, that they will fall under a type inevitably.


Jung made all of this up to explain his first hand experiments. The subjective part of it is in his description, because what Jung is really doing is the same thing you just described - projecting. Hence, his description of the types is subjective and open to interpretation. If you want to sit here and sound smart and argue with me that what makes Jung objective is evidence, then what matters is the _data he based his research on, obviously_ - his actual theory itself is just his take on it. Insofar as Jung is, therefore, basically just _*SPECULATING*_ about what it is that he sees in his environment and using a lot of philosophy and psychology to do it, anyone who understands the philosophical and psychological underpinning of his theory can see what Jung is trying to do, understand his thought process, and this gain a deeper insight into his work along with other subject matter.

To really drive this in, you cannot _point_ at a "type". Do you understand now? _Types are not objective._ Types are a subjective idea that Jung had _ABOUT_ something objective - his research.

Why the fuck are we arguing about this. Really guys? Seriously?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

CaptainWayward said:


> IDK, MBTI typed codes were derived from cognitive functions; sure they're dichotomies as you have stated, but they're abstracted from the original descriptions.


REALLY? Can you refer to where MBTI says that?


CaptainWayward said:


> I'm not sure where there is a magical loss of cognitive functions besides the fact that you're trying to differentiate between individuals acting in a manner that they or other people value, an emulation of sorts, and how they actually handle information. I'm sort of befuddled that you assume that I don't understand the difficulties of discerning these things -- perhaps it's my incapacity to articulate myself. The MBTI may have been developed with this in mind, that all one would be typing is merely how the individual attempts to maintain themselves, but does that mean the stack cannot be applied to an individual's actual function use?


The discussions in this thread and arguments being made by people on how theory reminds me of the State Farm commercial found here:





. 

These conversations are applicable to the advertisement in that you folks will read any cockimamie theory and pass it off as MBTI or Jung, but become upset when it is pointed out that an actual theory exists. If you want to discuss how Fi and Ti can be distinguished, I have already indicated that it can't. Not because of MBTI which does not use function-attitudes, but because the person creating and applying function-attitudes (exclusively Jung) says you can't. Therefore any argument that he is wrong should have at least some confirmation by those claiming it, not just an opinion. Only one's attitude is capable of being POSSIBLY discerned, if you can move pass what you are noticing as a role or someone's influence. That takes knowing a person beyond simple casual encounters in the public. So I am unsure what you are asking and in the end these arguments are as crazy as the lady in the commercial's "state of disbelief".


----------



## CaptainWayward (Jun 8, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> REALLY? Can you refer to where MBTI says that?:


 You're joking, right? MBTI exists as a direct result of Jung's work. **You ripped what I said completely out of context, transforming what I said, GG



> These conversations are applicable to the advertisement in that you folks will read any cockimamie theory and pass it off as MBTI or Jung, but become upset when it is pointed out that an actual theory exists. If you want to discuss how Fi and Ti can be distinguished, I have already indicated that it can't. Not because of MBTI which does not use function-attitudes, but because the person creating and applying function-attitudes (exclusively Jung) says you can't. Therefore any argument that he is wrong should have at least some confirmation by those claiming it, not just an opinion. Only one's attitude is capable of being POSSIBLY discerned, if you can move pass what you are noticing as a role or someone's influence. That takes knowing a person beyond simple casual encounters in the public. So I am unsure what you are asking and in the end these arguments are as crazy as the lady in the commercial's "state of disbelief".


Man, it's humorous how pretentious and condescending you try to be; it's as though you're trying to rend any possible dialogue that could arise. I've read your posts -- what you quoted from concerning the discernment, and he doesn't mention that it's impossible to discern cognitive function, albeit difficult.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

CaptainWayward said:


> You're joking, right? MBTI exists as a direct result of Jung's work. **You ripped what I said completely out of context, transforming what I said, GG
> 
> 
> 
> Man, it's humorous how pretentious and condescending you try to be; it's as though you're trying to rend any possible dialogue that could arise. I've read your posts -- what you quoted from concerning the discernment, and he doesn't mention that it's impossible to discern cognitive function, albeit difficult.


SHOW ME WHERE THE DAMN THEORY USES Cognitive functions already. You cant dammit because it doesn't. Hell you are too lazy to check the theory, instead think you know what you're talking about. Show us, refer to a page already.... Geez.

EDIT: Sorry for losing my cool, but you are indicative of what I pointed to in the advertisement. Clearly you have never read the book, "Gifts Differing" to actually know what Myers-Briggs theorizes, so PLEASE GO READ THE BOOK ALREADY. You sound like a buffoon in claiming MBTI uses cognitive functions. The theory is an extremely loose interpretation of Jung's work. But if you had read the theory, you would know that instead of asking the question.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> SHOW ME WHERE THE DAMN THEORY USES Cognitive functions already. You cant dammit because it doesn't. Hell you are too lazy to check the theory, instead think you know what you're talking about. Show us, refer to a page already.... Geez.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry for losing my cool, but you are indicative of what I pointed to in the advertisement. Clearly you have never read the book, "Gifts Differing" to actually know what Myers-Briggs theorizes, so PLEASE GO READ THE BOOK ALREADY. You sound like a buffoon in claiming MBTI uses cognitive functions. The theory is an extremely loose interpretation of Jung's work. But if you had read the theory, you would know that instead of asking the question.


How about the Myers Briggs Foundation Website?


>  The Eight Function-Attitudes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I also checked Personality Types online, and in Chapter 10, and 11 (definitions) the word 'cognition' or 'cognitive' is both used 3 times (one time quoting someone else). 'Cognitive function' *not once*. 

I would say his personality theory is typically 'psychodynamic' theory, rather than 'cognitive psychology', that arised in the 50ies.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> SHOW ME WHERE THE DAMN THEORY USES Cognitive functions already. You cant dammit because it doesn't. Hell you are too lazy to check the theory, instead think you know what you're talking about. Show us, refer to a page already.... Geez.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry for losing my cool, but you are indicative of what I pointed to in the advertisement. Clearly you have never read the book, "Gifts Differing" to actually know what Myers-Briggs theorizes, so PLEASE GO READ THE BOOK ALREADY. You sound like a buffoon in claiming MBTI uses cognitive functions. The theory is an extremely loose interpretation of Jung's work. But if you had read the theory, you would know that instead of asking the question.


Do you honestly think that Isabel Myers was ignorant of the 8 cognitive perspectives?

Perhaps you need to define what you mean when you say "the theory doesn't use cognitive functions" because it's clear that Isabel had a firm grasp of Jung's work and understood the 8 perspectives he put forth. Rail against the MBTI as a poor instrument if you want, but it's completely unfounded to say that the underlying conception of the instrument had nothing to do with Jung's 8 types.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

mimesis said:


> How about the Myers Briggs Foundation Website?
> 
> 
> I also checked Personality Types online, and in Chapter 10, and 11 (definitions) the word 'cognition' or 'cognitive' is both used 3 times (one time quoting someone else). 'Cognitive function' not once. I would say his personality theory is typically 'psychodynamic' theory, rather than 'cognitive psychology', that arised in the 50ies.


You... do know that MBTI has finally conceded how wrong Myers-Briggs was in their initial theory. They also stopped claiming a type and now use Berens' verbage of "best fit type". Read "Gifts Differing". What you should instantly realize is that MBTI has yet to concede how the 8 functions impact the MBTI theory.



Teybo said:


> Do you honestly think that Isabel Myers was ignorant of the 8 cognitive perspectives?
> 
> Perhaps you need to define what you mean when you say "the theory doesn't use cognitive functions" because it's clear that Isabel had a firm grasp of Jung's work and understood the 8 perspectives he put forth. Rail against the MBTI as a poor instrument if you want, but it's completely unfounded to say that the underlying conception of the instrument had nothing to do with Jung's 8 types.


Or, maybe you should show us where Isabella and Peter Myers actually referred to the 8 cognitive functions in their mother's theory?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> You... do know that MBTI has finally conceded how wrong Myers-Briggs was in their initial theory. They also stopped claiming a type and now use Berens' verbage of "best fit type". Read "Gifts Differing". What you should instantly realize is that MBTI has yet to concede how the 8 functions impact the MBTI theory.
> 
> Or, maybe you should show us where Isabella and Peter Myers actually referred to the 8 cognitive functions in their mother's theory?


This comment is so mind-blowingly offbase I'm not sure if it's possible to have rational conversation about this topic with you. Did *you *read _Gifts Differing_?! I'm inclined to assume "no" since you can't even get Isabel's name right.

Again, please define what you mean by "the theory doesn't use cognitive functions". Until you clarify what you mean, I can't respond to you in any satisfactory way.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

comparison of Jung's 8 types


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Teybo said:


> This comment is so mind-blowingly offbase I'm not sure if it's possible to have rational conversation about this topic with you. Did *you *read _Gifts Differing_?! I'm inclined to assume "no" since you can't even get Isabel's name right.
> 
> Again, please define what you mean by "the theory doesn't use cognitive functions". Until you clarify what you mean, I can't respond to you in any satisfactory way.


Where does the book refer to cognitive functions except in distinguishing types and a mild but wrong distinction when giving an extremely generalized statement of how Ni and Ne, and so on are different? Many of us have the book so reference to a page or chapter.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> Where does the book refer to cognitive functions except in distinguishing types and a mild but wrong distinction when giving an extremely generalized statement of how Ni and Ne, and so on are different? Many of us have the book so reference to a page or chapter.


Please define what you mean by "the theory doesn't use cognitive functions". Until you clarify what you mean, I can't respond to you in any satisfactory way.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Teybo said:


> Please define what you mean by "the theory doesn't use cognitive functions". Until you clarify what you mean, I can't respond to you in any satisfactory way.


You are implying that "Gifts Differing" actually refers to cognitive functions, so show us where the book does that or SHUT UP. The book or theory never refers to Ti, Fi or any cognitive function except to refer to the dominant function usage of certain types and to say one cognitive function does one thing and the other function with a different attitude does the opposite. That is indicative of MBTI using forced dichotomies, WTF. So interceding in showing what you do not know does not excuse your lack of knowledge. Show us where the book refers to cognitive functions. You do know what a cognitive function is? This thread is laced with asinine comments such as yours. Again know what you are talking about or SHUT UP.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> You are implying that "Gifts Differing" actually refers to cognitive functions, so show us where the book does that or SHUT UP. The book or theory never refers to Ti, Fi or any cognitive function except to refer to the dominant function usage of certain types. So interceding in showing what you do not know does not excuse your lack of knowledge. Show us where the book refers to cognitive functions. You do know what a cognitive function is? This thread is laced with asinine comments such as yours. Again know what you are talking about or SHUT UP.


1st of all, calm down, or this conversation is over. I'm going against my gut instinct, and I'm continuing to engage you. One more vitriolic response from you, and I'm done.

2nd of all, I'm asking you to explain what you mean by "the theory doesn't use cognitive functions" because I need to know what criterion you're judging this by before I can establish whether or not that criterion is met. I'm not about to go write some long expository post only to have you tell me "no that's not what I meant." You need to be clear in your thinking before someone else can respond in any reasonable way. Put some goal posts down. This is particularly important because, twice now, in the same breath that you're claiming that Myers-Briggs typology doesn't refer to cognitive functions, *you admit that it does*. How can I know what you consider "sufficient" incorporation of Jung's 8 types if you are unclear yourself?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Teybo said:


> 1st of all, calm down, or this conversation is over. I'm going against my gut instinct, and I'm continuing to engage you. One more vitriolic response from you, and I'm done.


Oh wait a minute, you are the one coming out of no where pretending I should care what you think, so do you really think I care? It should have never started unless you knew what you were talking about. What is up with you professed INFJs? This discussion does not affect me in anyway. It's not going to affect whether I get paid, if I progress in my career, or if I get laid. I AM NOT MANTI TE'O, so stop pretending your opinion means anything.


Teybo said:


> 2nd of all, I'm asking you to explain what you mean by "the theory doesn't use cognitive functions" because I need to know what criterion you're judging this by before I can establish whether or not that criterion is met. I'm not about to go write some long expository post only to have you tell me "no that's not what I meant." You need to be clear in your thinking before someone else can respond in any reasonable way. Put some goal posts down. This is particularly important because, twice now, in the same breath that you're claiming that Myers-Briggs typology doesn't refer to cognitive functions, *you admit that it does*. How can I know what you consider "sufficient" incorporation of Jung's 8 types if you are unclear yourself?


I don't have to explain anything to you. Who do you think you are? You butt into a discussion that you are now appearing to ask what the discussion is about and you have the audacity to ask me in hindsight what is the discussion about? Go read the thread already, but know that you have put your foot in your mouth in implying that "Gifts Differing" alludes to cognitive functions, and we're waiting for you to refer to a page. Again letting your emotions get the best of you, does not excuse your claim of knowing what you are talking about.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

This discussion isn't about me. This discussion is about your insistence that the M-B typology does not refer to the cognitive functions, as well as your inability to explain what you mean so that your argument can be fairly engaged.

On the main point, *besides your own admissions, on multiple occasions,* that Myers refers to cognitive functions, please see Gifts Differing, especially Chapters 1 and 2. If you pay particular attention to the headings "The Role of the Dominant Process" and "The Role of the Auxiliary Process" you will notice that Myers is explicitly setting up the I-E and J-P attitude differences between the dominant and auxiliary. Please also note that Myers introduces each type by their dominant function, and explicitly delineates vocabulary that refers to dominant function-attitude preference, e.g. "introverted feeler", vs. dichotomy groupings, e.g. "introvert with feeling".

This is way more than you deserve in response, but I'm bored, and sometimes the power goes out during major sporting events.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> You... do know that MBTI has finally conceded how wrong Myers-Briggs was in their initial theory. They also stopped claiming a type and now use Berens' verbage of "best fit type". Read "Gifts Differing". What you should instantly realize is that MBTI has yet to concede how the 8 functions impact the MBTI theory.
> 
> Or, maybe you should show us where Isabella and Peter Myers actually referred to the 8 cognitive functions in their mother's theory?


Oh, you mean MBTI 1.0? Really, I can't see the point you are trying to make. 

Without having read the book I know the discours amongst Jung discipels concerns the attitude of the aux, and tert. When Jung described the 8 types, he described them (although somewhat implicit or ambiguous) as dominant/inferior, and conscious/ unconscious, e.g. the 'unconscious, archaic and reductive thinking of Introverted Feeling'. He was clear though that a dominant 'Judger' would have the support of a 'Perceiving' auxilary, either S or N. 



> Myers interpreted Jung as saying that the auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions are always in the opposite attitude of the dominant. In support of Myers' (and/or Briggs') interpretation, in one sentence Jung seems to state that the "three inferior" functions of an (extreme) extravert are introverted. The "most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted" (Jung, [1921] 1971ar. 575).


So whatever position she took, or Beebe, it's still based on the 8 functions/ attitudes Si, Se, Ni, Ne, Ti, Te, Fi, Fe.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Erbse said:


> Not quite as absurd, as dismissing an abstraction of human cognitive functioning/behaviour because type doesn't supposedly cater to the needs of uniqueness some people seem to inherently crave. Which it never meant, nor implied to provide anyway.
> 
> You're the one misusing type if you say INFJ = INFJ, ISTP = ISTP, ISTJ = ISTJ - as we all know that's complete absurdity.
> 
> ...


Look, I actually feel so awkward having to explain this and argue about this with you that I cannot even begin to imagine how you understand and believe the world really works. If you really think that a system in nature as complicated as a human being isn't _*mathematically unpredictable*_ then I just don't know what to say. We apparently have no common ground for an understanding here, so I guess that's it then?

I'm trying to talk about the details. What a type is, _is_ just a conceptual relationship between the attributes of something. As I _keep having to remind people_, you cannot _point_ at a "type" of thing. You can only point at things themselves. You can talk all you want about the qualities that all come together to become what we call an "INTJ" - but nobody _actually is_ one. What a person _really_ is in experience, is far too complicated and unique to be _completely_ described - _this is just a mathematical fact._


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> I'm trying to talk about the details. What a type is, _is_ just a conceptual relationship between the attributes of something. As I _keep having to remind people_, you cannot _point_ at a "type" of thing. You can only point at things themselves. You can talk all you want about the qualities that all come together to become what we call an "INTJ" - but nobody _actually is_ one. What a person _really_ is in experience, is far too complicated and unique to be _completely_ described - _this is just a mathematical fact._


Again, you seem to apply type out of context, and more over, rather inappropriately.

That however isn't type's fault, but yours.

Still, I agree. We likely have a worldview that overlaps approximately nowhere.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

oh no...

it's happening again...

two people are approaching a subject from such opposite angles that it seems as if they disagree when really (from an outsider's point of view), they're saying the exact same thing--just in a different manner. 

... 'o why can we be friends, o' why can't we be friends...?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Qualities don't come together to be a type - that would be using this stuff like a horoscope (I mean, if you care to explain "what" qualities, I'd be willing to listen anyway).


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Look, I actually feel so awkward having to explain this and argue about this with you that I cannot even begin to imagine how you understand and believe the world really works. If you really think that a system in nature as complicated as a human being isn't _*mathematically unpredictable*_ then I just don't know what to say. We apparently have no common ground for an understanding here, so I guess that's it then?
> 
> I'm trying to talk about the details. What a type is, _is_ just a conceptual relationship between the attributes of something. As I _keep having to remind people_, you cannot _point_ at a "type" of thing. You can only point at things themselves. You can talk all you want about the qualities that all come together to become what we call an "INTJ" - but nobody _actually is_ one. What a person _really_ is in experience, is far too complicated and unique to be _completely_ described - _this is just a mathematical fact._


You are both right but one of you is viewing a certain aspect more than the other it is like the evolutionary/involutionary types in Socionics only on a greater basis. They balance each other out.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I want to get really abstract for a moment, but hopefully I'll bring it back home real quick so bare with me.
> 
> When you think about what a "type" is, really - it's just a summary of something. It's like the idea of "love" for example. It's just a summary of a whole lot of information into one package. You say, for instance, that love is a "type" of emotion. So, really, we can take this all the way as far as it goes and understand how broadly you can apply the idea of a "type". It is nothing more than an intuitive approximation of patterns in experience.
> 
> ...


But Plato's idealism?  
@Erbse I felt you were missing the point. It's not people who use it wrongly, it's the use of label itself which presupposes traits, thinking patterns, abilities and I don't know what else. On the very extreme end, we have stereotypes that claim to describe the entire notion of a person's persona, and even if we strip down the label of all this, there is an essential quality of the word itself that has instrinsic meaning akin to Plato's idealism (as I think there is where Abraxas is coming from but from an opposite perspective). Furthermore, people ascribe the word itself meaning, so not only is it essentialist, it is also essentialist in an individual way. This is of course because we are individuals.

If the above is not true, then the entire science of type wouldn't exist. Why spend so much time defining what a function is, why spend so much time describing the signs of the inferior? These are clear traits, in other words, meaning, inferred to a type. If you type yourself a certain way, you agree with that you essentially possess at least one of these traits because without that kind of definition, the term itself is meaningless, even if that meaning is unique to you. 

I also think the above think is actually very much in line with how Jung thought/was likely to think due to his obvious influence from Kant who is clearly in turn influenced by Plato and I derived all the above based on Plato's idealism. In other words, type is a construct that we use to define ourselves. Now, I don't wholly agree with Plato that the ideal world metaphysically exists separate from us as I rather much prefer Kant's description of the thing in itself, but the gist of the logic is most definitely the same.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

LeaT said:


> But Plato's idealism?
> @Erbse I felt you were missing the point. It's not people who use it wrongly, it's the use of label itself which presupposes traits, thinking patterns, abilities and I don't know what else.


That's my whole point. It's not type's fault, but people *ascribing* a label with these things and thus, use the principle of type wrongly.

If people used and understood type correctly, all these labels wouldn't exist. Alas, there's no way around it if you want to make Jung, or Psychology easily accessible for the broad masses via tools such as MBTI or other simplifications.

I'll respond to the rest later (maybe :tongue if I find the time. Note however, that I absolutely don't disagree with what you've said. It may be just that Abraxas and I just come from opposite realms and pretty much miss each other entirely.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Erbse said:


> That's my whole point. It's not type's fault, but people *ascribing* a label with these things and thus, use the principle of type wrongly.
> 
> If people used and understood type correctly, all these labels wouldn't exist. Alas, there's no way around it if you want to make Jung, or Psychology easily accessible for the broad masses via tools such as MBTI or other simplifications.
> 
> I'll respond to the rest later (maybe :tongue if I find the time. Note however, that I absolutely don't disagree with what you've said. It may be just that Abraxas and I just come from opposite realms and pretty much miss each other entirely.


Fine, maybe I didn't understand him either, but if what you say is true, then you were never in disagreement XD


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

LeaT said:


> But Plato's idealism?
> @_Erbse_ I felt you were missing the point. It's not people who use it wrongly, it's the use of label itself which presupposes traits, thinking patterns, abilities and I don't know what else. On the very extreme end, we have stereotypes that claim to describe the entire notion of a person's persona, and even if we strip down the label of all this, there is an essential quality of the word itself that has instrinsic meaning akin to Plato's idealism (as I think there is where Abraxas is coming from but from an opposite perspective). Furthermore, people ascribe the word itself meaning, so not only is it essentialist, it is also essentialist in an individual way. This is of course because we are individuals.
> 
> If the above is not true, then the entire science of type wouldn't exist. Why spend so much time defining what a function is, why spend so much time describing the signs of the inferior? These are clear traits, in other words, meaning, inferred to a type. If you type yourself a certain way, you agree with that you essentially possess at least one of these traits because without that kind of definition, the term itself is meaningless, even if that meaning is unique to you.
> ...





LeaT said:


> Fine, maybe I didn't understand him either, but if what you say is true, then you were never in disagreement XD


You pretty much nailed it.

To be fair, I had to reconsider the point Erbse was trying to make. It struck me as so... well, like "it goes without saying" that at first I read it to mean he's trying to imply that type is, or could ever be, anything other than a label. And my basic point is just to indicate that what we see happening, that is - typism, essentialism, summarizing people up into a type and thus ignoring all the details - that just _is_ how type gets used most of the time. It's fine and dandy to say that it shouldn't - well of course not - but neither should guns be used for senseless murder, and yet that is a prevailing issue with guns leading to them being outright illegal in many places.

When you think of the real destructive power of an idea, it can be so much more widely influencing and distorting than bullets and guns. Something like the very notion of "types" of _anything_ - that nature itself, at some fundamental level, is ordered, predictable, and deterministic, these concepts rob people of their freedom and individuality. The opposite side of this is of course that we can only _be_ free within boundaries, but that's a metaphysical paradox I'm not trying to unravel. I'm just trying to draw attention to what I feel to be at the heart of what created the emotions that caused what happened in this thread.

Essentially, we're all just trying to look out for each other. We're reading into this and thinking, "people are going to form the wrong idea here and apply those ideas to other people, thus distorting their own perception of others, possibly leading to misunderstandings and contempt. I better step in here and correct someone before things get that far, so that innocent people are educated correctly and ignorance can be avoided." But it can't, and I'm sorry but I am in no way altruistic enough to argue or believe that it ever could.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Can someone explain to me why--just because @Abraxas's observations don't totally line up exactly where Jung and/or Myers and Briggs left off--that suddenly totally invalidates his entire line of thinking? It's not like just because someone reworked a theory to create a new theory that the new theory is somehow invalid. If this manner of connecting and reforming ideas is wrong, then I shouldn't be able to function in the world being an extraverted intuitive type (at the very least under Jung's original theory).

The level misunderstanding of basic philosophical concepts such as subjectivity, objectivity, and good observation is absolutely astounding. If you're static in your views cause Jung sez, that's fine and more power to you. The rest of us like to play with the world.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

LeaT said:


> As a humorous spin on what you wrote, I always saw the INTP tearing down the structure the INTJ tries to build. How effective the process is is usually determined by how good the INTJ is at covering the cracks and how good the INTP is at finding them.
> 
> When it comes to Ti vs Te, I do find this to be very true as evidenced in this thread.


The key to covering the cracks is building your argument from a single, solid idea. The more variables you introduce, the more likely you are going to be caught saying something... less than intelligent. INTP's have INTJ's at a disadvantage. Being one is dominant thinking and the other intuitive. Especially dominant introverted thinking versus introverted intuition. The match up between a ENTP and ENTJ might be a little more even. ENTP would be making connections with Ne and ENTJ could Te them all day. Or until the ENTJ leaves because they had something better to do with their time.


----------

