# Why Cognitive Functions are Bullshit



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

pernoctator said:


> "things we think / do that describe basic human tendencies within us all" are just fancy terms you substitute for more common language ("use"). :dry:


_Exactly _what I was so clumsily trying to articulate


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Anything can be BS when you twist it into something it is. Hence, most commercials around election day. But what about the actual cognitive functions? What's wrong with them?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Plasternoid said:


> They are not something we "use", they are things we think/ do quite interchangeably.


Yes the use word is wrong, you just manifest them naturally.



> To have 4 "functions" that detail certain types of behavior/ thought processes in order of how often you utilize them is a self sabotaging lifestyle choice that must be consciously adhered to, not naturally occurring, therefore not an accurate or healthy method of assessing your personality. Pretty robotic if you ask me.


The four processes does not detail any specific behavior, though a lot of people like to think so.
Your functions are not your "personality" that is too broad an interpretation.



> There are no "dominant" or "inferior" personality quirks within the average person.


Rejection of the polarity of focus.
Well that is your loss.
It is a real useful concept once you realize how many proplems we people have because of it.



> Maybe someone's an asshole in general so that means they must have some kind of inferior feeling function or something. But then on a visit to grandma's cottage they'll exude sweetness over a nostalgic cup of hot chocolate, while they're happy go lucky supposedly Fe dominant friend is hard at work in their college classroom giving a speech on a science project they've done, utilizing Te,Ti, Si..you name it..all at once masterfully because what behaviors those functions stand for are appropriate for the situation they find themselves in. Few people are going to be cold and logical with their grandmothers or bubbly and energetic with their professors. Use "Ni" if you're taking over the world, "Fi" if you witness injustice, "Te" if you're leading a company, etc. Just don't trap yourself in the box of what whoever made up this petty system tells you you should be. Its all situational, ya feel me?


You fail to grasp the essence of T and F here.
It isn't about being an asshole or not.
I know an ENTJ type 2, the sweetest guy ever, yet he is a thinker to the bone.

Thinking is about assigning meaning.
Feeling is about assigning value.

Hence thinkers main problem is not being assholes, but getting caught up in projects without any real worth.
Especially introverted thinkers have this issue.
They lose themself in meaning and don't realize that the project is hopeless
or it is in the case of extroverted thinkers, often only addressing structural issues,
while issues of the "heart" is being neglected.

Now the functions themself are mental constructs to make it easier to think about these polarities.
Assigning meaning.
And notice even though I'm a Fi dom.
An introverted person who happens to have a majority of my focus on values,
I can easily deal with the meanings assigned to the constructs.
Hence I use my "thinking" function.

The reason why this works is because when you assign value meaning is pushed to the side.
As a person who have spent the majority of my life assigning value,
I can attest to having neglected the meaning part.

Jung noticed that there was a T and F divide and a S and N divide,
and that people who embraced on rejected the other.
These are real persistent patterns of life.
N is tracking patterns, where did it come from where does it go.
S is noticing what actually is there.

The extrovert or introvert level determine on what level you deal with the "function"
or better yet the *direction of focus.*

Warning:
If you ridicule this without trying to debate it properly you will be ignorelisted.
I have no patience for trolls today. :tongue:


----------



## Plasternoid (May 22, 2014)

hornet said:


> Yes the use word is wrong, you just manifest them naturally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not interested in debate or ridicule. I'm just weary of all you people teaming up on me like a gang of bullies. No one so far has agreed with me


----------



## Magnus von Grapple (May 8, 2014)

Plasternoid said:


> I'm not interested in debate or ridicule. I'm just weary of all you people teaming up on me like a gang of bullies. No one so far has agreed with me


Starting a discussion so aggressively doesn't help support your argument much. Despite that, is not the whole point of discussion to evaluate all views, both those that agree and disagree with you? If the majority of us disagree with you, that's just how it is. We are not "bullies" for it.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Plasternoid said:


> I'm not interested in debate or ridicule. I'm just weary of all you people teaming up on me like a gang of bullies. No one so far has agreed with me


Yeah that is a bummer, happens to me too sometimes.
Either you have to carry your flag alone or start to explore *why they don't agree with you*.
Gang of bullies we may be in a sense, but realice that it isn't you that is under attack.
It is the idea you put forth.
I have no problem with you as a person.
However it seems to me that you identify a tad much with the stance you took.
Attachment to an unpopular idea is not an easy road to travel.

This subforum is also where the "hardcore" people go to cut their teeth.
Only place more hardcore is perhaps the Socionics forum.
If you had posted this idea in the MBTI subforum you would probably have had a tad easier time.
But not much.

I don't really see why we should pity you much when you show zero inclination to learn
or even consider others points of view.
I tried to engage you on your level, but seeing the hostile mood earlier in the thread,
I also warned you that I wasn't interested in ridicule.

And that is the thing isn't it, there is a certain elitist aura in this subforum.
As I admitted, we are intellectual bullies that mercilessly slay any idea we don't care for.
Bullies come in all shapes and sizes and many levels. 
Jung explained in detail why we feel the need to become bullies towards others.
This isn't just some random stuff, it is a remarkable work of a lifetime of a very insightful person.
To call it bullshit in this subforum is like putting your hand on a hot stove.
*YOU WILL GET BURNED!*
It is not very fun, but reality is trying to teach you a lesson, so pay attention.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

Plasternoid said:


> I'm not interested in debate or ridicule. I'm just weary of all you people teaming up on me like a gang of bullies. No one so far has agreed with me


Dude, no one's ganging up on you. No one's agreeing with you either, but they aren't obligated to, especially seeing how what you said was little more than a display of ignorance. Multiple people - I am now going to join them - have told you that your opening post was...inaccurate. Cognitive functions are not that simplistic nor situational. Read any thorough description of the functions, easily accessible all over this forum, and you'll see the depth and complexity of how these mental processes interact. You'll see all the errors of your current "argument". 

@_hornet_ said it for me, that you aren't even trying to learn from your mistakes and find out why everyone is saying you're wrong. All you do is throw sarcastic responses at those who criticize you. 

Stop that.

It's annoying for us to read, and it isn't doing you any good. Swallow your pride already, and go do some research, or at least ask people here to elaborate on their disagreement and give them some intelligent, civilized responses. No one is going to pity your blatantly uninformed misinterpretation of function theory.

If you're trolling, stop that too.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ScientiaOmnemEst said:


> Dude, no one's ganging up on you. No one's agreeing with you either, but they aren't obligated to, especially seeing how what you said was little more than a display of ignorance. Multiple people - I am now going to join them - have told you that your opening post was...inaccurate. Cognitive functions are not that simplistic nor situational. Read any thorough description of the functions, easily accessible all over this forum, and you'll see the depth and complexity of how these mental processes interact. You'll see all the errors of your current "argument".
> 
> @_hornet_ said it for me, that you aren't even trying to learn from your mistakes and find out why everyone is saying you're wrong. All you do is throw sarcastic responses at those who criticize you.
> 
> ...


Nah it isn't trolling.
It is just a person who feels the opposing intuitive thinking perspective to be a threat.
It always amuses me to see the type conflicts manifest in the background,
while people are debating the reality or unreality of it.
I've made the "sacrificum sensus" (feeling) to a degree and it wasn't easy.
It felt like I was dying on one level.
This person is waaay removed from being able to even consider that.
Not that a lot of the thinkers here are any closer to be able to make the "sacrificium intellectus" (thinking). :tongue:


----------



## Plasternoid (May 22, 2014)

ScientiaOmnemEst said:


> Dude, no one's ganging up on you. No one's agreeing with you either, but they aren't obligated to, especially seeing how what you said was little more than a display of ignorance. Multiple people - I am now going to join them - have told you that your opening post was...inaccurate. Cognitive functions are not that simplistic nor situational. Read any thorough description of the functions, easily accessible all over this forum, and you'll see the depth and complexity of how these mental processes interact. You'll see all the errors of your current "argument".
> 
> @_hornet_ said it for me, that you aren't even trying to learn from your mistakes and find out why everyone is saying you're wrong. All you do is throw sarcastic responses at those who criticize you.
> 
> ...


Better to be unintelligent/ uncivilized than brainwashed by what you and your supporters are defending. I typed out a long ass paragraph explaining my thoughts on the matter, thoughts that make more sense than any others that could possibly stand to oppose them. I dismantled your arguments before they were made. No point in even entertaining other views. Damnit...the whole point of making this thread was to get me a bunch of likes and near unanimous support, not to be called a "dude"/ falsely labeled sarcastic by some chick! Ahhh why are you people so hellbent on defending this silly shit? Because you're all too programmed into it that's why. Except hornet. He's cool.


----------



## ButterflyWingsNDayDreams (May 4, 2014)

I know the system's not perfect, but it's really meant for people to sort of see what their natural tendencies are, not WHO they are. You don't have to fit the bill perfectly. No one does! The whole thing was not made to determine who you are. That's made up of a whole bunch of other things. This is more like... What do you TEND to be good at


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Plasternoid said:


> Better to be unintelligent/ uncivilized than brainwashed by what you and your supporters are defending. I typed out a long ass paragraph explaining my thoughts on the matter, thoughts that make more sense than any others that could possibly stand to oppose them. I dismantled your arguments before they were made. No point in even entertaining other views. Damnit...the whole point of making this thread was to get me a bunch of likes and near unanimous support, not to be called a "dude"/ falsely labeled sarcastic by some chick! Ahhh why are you people so hellbent on defending this silly shit? Because you're all too programmed into it that's why. Except hornet. He's cool.


I wonder why... :laughing:
I know how you feel cause I've often been in the situation similar to you,
debating people with too wide a stance from my own to be able to accept any part of it.
Yet it felt so real to me.
And here all these people where rejecting everything.
Jung called the different stances irreconcilable and for good reason.

Introverts and extroverts battle over if subjective or objective factors should prevail.
What is vs what it could become or where it came from.
Meaning vs value.

These opposing forces Jung put into a very *imaginary construct called functions*.
This idea he got from this other psychologist, he details it in his books.
He then structures it into 8 functions that symbolize a direction of attention.
The movement of psychic energy towards either a subjective or objective level.

These constucts however imaginary are very useful,
they allow us to make abstract evaluations about human attention
that previously was impossible.
The correctness or not of the functions are irrelevant.
But consider this, studies with MRI have proven that we cannot both reason detached and consider our values
at the same time. The regions in the brain responsible turn each other off.
I think it is beyond doubt that you cannot have what is in attention and at the same time wonder where
it came from and where it could be going.

Oh well I don't remember why I'm even writing anymore.
So I will just quit and go to bed. :bored:


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

I'd just like to make something clear here. MBTI isn't trying to tell you who to be. That isn't the point of the system. And nowhere does it state that it is. It's in your fucking head.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

Plasternoid said:


> No point in even entertaining other views. Damnit...the whole point of making this thread was to get me a bunch of likes and near unanimous support, not to be called a "dude"/ falsely labeled sarcastic by some chick!


This literally made me laugh out loud, I'm seriously questioning if you're for real. But you know what? I'll take you on anyway. Let's take a look at your opening post:



Plasternoid said:


> "Cognitive Functions" are just fancy MBTI terms MBTI enthusiasts substitute for more common language that doesn't call for such substitutions that describes basic human tendencies within us all. They are not something we "use", they are things we think/ do quite interchangeably.


Functions are more than “basic human tendencies”. They are mental processes, complex multifaceted ones, which I would like to see you prove everyone can employ in the same capacity. That’s what the ranking is for, to determine where one’s strengths appear to lie. Also, one of the first responses to this thread mentions that cognitive functions precede MBTI, so there’s that little fact. 

I will give you some lenience on the notion that we do not “use” functions. That is very true, we (typically) don’t, not consciously, and attributing behaviors to functions is risky, as it runs high chances of misinterpretation and of simply being employed as an excuse. It’s a label placed on an abstraction.



Plasternoid said:


> To have 4 "functions" that detail certain types of behavior/ thought processes in order of how often you utilize them is a self sabotaging lifestyle choice that must be consciously adhered to, not naturally occurring, therefore not an accurate or healthy method of assessing your personality. Pretty robotic if you ask me.


Not quite. The functions themselves are naturally occurring. Function theory and MBTI analyze them, make them apparent to the user, and ideally use them as a tool of self improvement, a manner of pointing out weak spots where a person may need to improve because certain behavior does not come naturally.

I disagree that becoming conscious of one’s function order is self-sabotaging. It is so *only* if you consider your functions and their development static. If one tries to improve their function usage, it has the potential to be quite beneficial psychologically and intellectually. Now, this may appear to contradict my previous agreement that we don’t really “use” functions; I also said that they are labels for abstractions. I like the term hornet used: "attention". Identifying where one's attention is weak in allows one to work consciously on improving that area of one’s psyche. 

As I write this, I can see where I run the risk of agreeing with or even proving you point of cognitive functions as “fancy terms for basic human tendencies”. I still assert that there is a distinction that lies in the interplay of functions within the mind, in the need for balance that is the entire reason why cognitive functions occur in pairs. 



Plasternoid said:


> There are no "dominant" or "inferior" personality quirks within the average person. Maybe someone's an asshole in general so that means they must have some kind of inferior feeling function or something.


Define “asshole”. Yes, a person with low F may seem assholish due to not taking into consideration the ethics of a situation or the emotions of others. However, Feelers can be assholes too, in their own special ways. It’s all personal preference and what rubs one the wrong way. 

Also, anecdotal evidence has already suggested that this (“this person’s a jerk, they must have low F”) is not necessarily the case. A person with a healthy understanding of MBTI knows enough to not make the mistake you seem to assume is the norm: using typology as an excuse. Your inferior F is no excuse for making someone cry (or whatever). It’s a part of your personality you would benefit from working on. No guarantee they'll actually take the advice but the understanding can still be there.

Lastly, to reiterate, functions are more than “quirks”. They’re entire ways of taking in and analyzing one’s existence. 



Plasternoid said:


> But then on a visit to grandma's cottage they'll exude sweetness over a nostalgic cup of hot chocolate, while they're happy go lucky supposedly Fe dominant friend is hard at work in their college classroom giving a speech on a science project they've done, utilizing Te,Ti, Si..you name it..all at once masterfully because what behaviors those functions stand for are appropriate for the situation they find themselves in.


This is almost funny it’s so stereotyped. True, one can retroactively analyze a situation an explain behaviors through functions. But it still won’t be this cut and dried; you are still assuming conscious usage. What you seem to be missing is this: it isn’t that we can’t use our lower functions, it’s that it’s less difficult and feels less natural. Everyone adapts their behavior to a situation, I believe there are even some analyses of how each cognitive function determines why and how to adapt – they are not the same. 

Regarding the second situation, I can see how an Fe-dom could play to their strengths while giving a speech on a science project. True, the subject matter would be more T, the work going into it would have required use of their inferior Ti. However, Fe is quite people-centric, so a talk, perhaps an interactive one, would be ideal for them to directly deliver information. I wouldn’t be surprised if our hypothetical Fe-dom focused his/her discussion on how this new research/technology/whatever could be beneficial to people in general. Contrast a Ti-dom who would probably be more at home explaining the technical parts of the project: the scientific concepts at work, the actual workings of the experiment/device/whatever, the inner logic of the theory the prompted the experiment (if they're explaining at all - more likely they'd be the one who tried to get out of doing the actual presentation, preferring to focus on studying/understanding the subject rather than presenting it. I speak from experience).* 

Your use of the word “masterfully” took me by surprise. Where do you get off saying this? Because I doubt it. The subject matter may be very T, but the delivery can still reek of F, the same way one can treat F subjects to a very T analysis. People play to their strengths. Our science-loving EXFJ may know nothing of typology, s/he will still use their natural attunement to the thoughts and feelings of others to deliver their information as effectively as their abilities allow.

Now, could an Fe-dom focus on the technical aspects of the project? Yes, but it likely wouldn’t come as naturally as analyzing the human aspect in depth. I recall hearing some F types say that straight-up logic and technicalities "leave them cold". Like I said, people play to their strengths. 



Plasternoid said:


> Few people are going to be cold and logical with their grandmothers or bubbly and energetic with their professors.


See, this is basically a typological strawman argument, with some stereotypes thrown in. What you said is absolutely true. It’s also why we have four functions (eight in Beebe’s theory, but I confess, my knowledge of that is poor): one of each. Each individual simply better at directing their attention in certain ways.



Plasternoid said:


> Use "Ni" if you're taking over the world, "Fi" if you witness injustice, "Te" if you're leading a
> company, etc.


….Stereotypes. All of them. Narrow, narrow stereotypes. 




Plasternoid said:


> Just don't trap yourself in the box of what whoever made up this petty system tells you you should be. Its all situational, ya feel me?


Perhaps the one intelligent thing you’ve said here. Yes, there are people who treat MBTI and cognitive functions like tarot cards that determine you and your future, and that’s usually based on a poor understanding of MBTI itself. 

What you need to do is refrain from assuming that every MBTI enthusiast actually has that boxed-in mindset. It isn't so.




_*I would like to apologize for any stereotyping that may have slipped into this paragraph. No offense was intended._


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Plasternoid said:


> How dare you call my thread worthless! I think it's pretty brilliant especially compared to most others I've started.


Because creating provocative threads from the position of not knowing what cognitve functions are about has no worth.


----------



## Plasternoid (May 22, 2014)

ScientiaOmnemEst said:


> This literally made me laugh out loud, I'm seriously questioning if you're for real. But you know what? I'll take you on anyway. Let's take a look at your opening post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Idk if you've ever seen the film _The Departed_ but your analysis I'm currently replying to makes me think of the scene where Costello and his men were meeting with the Chinese about microprocessors. It's like you're Costello giving his two cents about bringing weapons to business transactions and I'm the short little oriental gangster moving my hand like mouth and saying "flap flap flap". Oh god I am dying of laughter right now... what an absurd parallel...I mean you'd probably have to have seen the movie to laugh with me but still.


----------



## Plasternoid (May 22, 2014)

KraChZiMan said:


> Because creating provocative threads from the position of not knowing what cognitve functions are about has no worth.


But I do indeed know what they're about. As you've already enlightened me on, they're superpowers or RPG stats or however you worded it. Too lazy to go back and read your post but I got the point.


----------



## TheIsrafil (May 19, 2014)

Plasternoid said:


> Idk if you've ever seen the film _The Departed_ but your analysis I'm currently replying to makes me think of the scene where Costello and his men were meeting with the Chinese about microprocessors. It's like you're Costello giving his two cents about bringing weapons to business transactions and I'm the short little oriental gangster moving my hand like mouth and saying "flap flap flap". Oh god I am dying of laughter right now... what an absurd parallel...I mean you'd probably have to have seen the movie to laugh with me but still.


It would probably suit you better to actually address his argument, because with this post it's evident you've pretty much given up.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

Plasternoid said:


> But I do indeed know what they're about. As you've already enlightened me on, they're superpowers or RPG stats or however you worded it. Too lazy to go back and read your post but I got the point.


Yes, I'm replying to you. I never knew how much fun it could be to talk to people who staunchly refuse to reconsider their view. Or who are just messing with everyone. An interesting mental exercise regardless. 

No hard feeling about my analysis. I'll admit I got on a bit of a roll with writing. Still, you didn't have to be quite so rude; you could have at least responded with something pertaining to the post.

Here is KraChiZi's post you declare yourself too lazy to reread (implying you read it to begin with). He distinctly says functions are *NOT* like superpowers or RPG stats (bolding is mine for emphasis):



KraChZiMan said:


> Your opinion is exactly what happens when people oversimplify and label cognitive functions as "Si-memory, Se-aggression, Ne-many ideas, Ni-planning and visions, Fi-deep emotional hipster bullshit, Fe-manipulating and playing mind games, Ti-values own rules, Te-values the rules of others".
> 
> You can't simplify cognitive functions like that, and when you do, it's only a matter of time before someone calculates "cognitive functions = RPG skills" in their head and makes another worthless thread about how cognitive functions are oppressing, shallow and anguishing.
> 
> Please take your time to learn more about the cognitive functions, and you'll see how terribly wrong you are. Cognitive functions are complex, they interact with each other, manifest in communication and are expressed in very sophisticated manners. Cognitive functions are *much more closer to being "preferences in social communication, decision making, setting and achieving goals"* *and "behavioral patterns"* than they are to being superpowers, capabilities, abilities, limitations etc.


I think I might be done here after this. Sarcastic responses, a blatant admission to an objective so ridiculous even a complete internet newbie could see the problem with it, and now deliberately misquoting your debate opponents. Yeah, not much more we can do with that if we try to actually convince you of anything.


----------



## Plasternoid (May 22, 2014)

TheIsrafil said:


> It would probably suit you better to actually address his argument, because with this post it's evident you've pretty much given up.


Given up? What is this, a fight? I dob't get it how do you give up on an internet discussion no one's getting paid for. Giving up is a serious concept reserved for serious matters.


----------



## TheIsrafil (May 19, 2014)

Plasternoid said:


> Given up? What is this, a fight? I dob't get it how do you give up on an internet discussion no one's getting paid for. Giving up is a serious concept reserved for serious matters.


You'll learn very quickly that it's not so easy to cop-out of arguments like this.

Right from the start, the vast majority of the posters here have dissected your arguments and displayed how what you're interpreting Cognitive Functions to be is a complete 180 from what they actually are, and not only do you fail to back up your claims with any reasoning whatsoever, but you dig a much deeper hole for yourself and demonstrate your ignorance by throwing snooty, sarcastic responses and even joking about what you said, as if you think the majority of us here are stupid enough to actually believe that you were just trolling with your original post. 

Trust me when I say this, that it is much better to admit your mistakes and actually reshape your opinions and scrutinize your claims further, as this will lead to you being much better off regardless of where you chat with people. Most of us have been on the internet for years, or even on Personality Cafe for years (myself not included), and although I am not expecting you to change on a dime, I will throw this out there so you may remember it for later; we're not stupid. We're not gullible. And from what I've seen, the Admins actually capable of BANNING you for personally attacking people who disagree with your propositions. Keep on this path, and you will certainly regret setting such an immature background in stone for yourself later on.

Just a friendly gesture.


----------



## Plasternoid (May 22, 2014)

TheIsrafil said:


> You'll learn very quickly that it's not so easy to cop-out of arguments like this.
> 
> Right from the start, the vast majority of the posters here have dissected your arguments and displayed how what you're interpreting Cognitive Functions to be is a complete 180 from what they actually are, and not only do you fail to back up your claims with any reasoning whatsoever, but you dig a much deeper hole for yourself and demonstrate your ignorance by throwing snooty, sarcastic responses and even joking about what you said, as if you think the majority of us here are stupid enough to actually believe that you were just trolling with your original post.
> 
> ...


If by friendly you mean passive aggressive as fuck then yeah pretty friendly...also I never tried to make it seem as though I was trolling with my original post. I've done nothing but stand firmly by it, and any "personal attacks" I've made are illusions in the minds of oversensitive users who don't want to admit I'm right. Can't argue with anything else you addressed.


----------



## TheIsrafil (May 19, 2014)

Plasternoid said:


> If by friendly you mean passive aggressive as fuck then yeah pretty friendly...also I never tried to make it seem as though I was trolling with my original post. I've done nothing but stand firmly by it, and any "personal attacks" I've made are illusions in the minds of oversensitive users who don't want to admit I'm right. Can't argue with anything else you addressed.



If you want people to think you're right, then how about giving us all some clear and concise evidence to your claims that Functions are nothing but behaviors used in special circumstances? 

And not to me, but to everybody. Actually give everybody a debate, or don't talk at all; whatever you say just so happens to get "interpreted wrong" with _everybody_ you argue with, and that alone doesn't set off a red flag to you?

If you want to criticize me for being "passive aggressive," then explain your immaturity when dealing with people who are clearly more well-thought out than you? How is that not "refusing to admit someone else is right"? The very notion that you would stop debating and start affirming yourself that you're the only one who is right shows how closed-minded you currently seem.


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

Plasternoid said:


> ...and any "personal attacks" I've made are illusions in the minds of oversensitive users who don't want to admit I'm right.


I agree with some of what you've said in this thread, but the manner in which you've said parts of it is seriously retarded. How old are you anyway? Or are you just joking?


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

Plasternoid said:


> Given up? What is this, a fight? I dob't get it how do you give up on an internet discussion no one's getting paid for. Giving up is a serious concept reserved for serious matters.


The fact that you associate the propensity to give up with activities you are getting paid for makes me fear for your financial stability.


----------



## Plasternoid (May 22, 2014)

Seagreen said:


> I agree with some of what you've said in this thread, but the manner in which you've said parts of it is seriously retarded. How old are you anyway? Or are you just joking?


Please provide me with specific examples of my immature speaking manner within my posts and adhere to political correctness by avoiding words like "retarded". And I'm 20. Does this give me a free pass to say things not to your liking or is the line drawn a little earlier?


----------



## Plasternoid (May 22, 2014)

pernoctator said:


> The fact that you associate the propensity to give up with activities you are getting paid for makes me fear for your financial stability.


Your fears are very realistic. Broke af right now.


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

Plasternoid said:


> Please provide me with specific examples of my immature speaking manner within my posts and adhere to political correctness by avoiding words like "retarded". And I'm 20. Does this give me a free pass to say things not to your liking or is the line drawn a little earlier?


Since I'm running out the door for the evening, I'll just say that I already copied one of your "immature speaking manner" posts above. I might post later, if I get back soon enough.


----------



## Plasternoid (May 22, 2014)

Seagreen said:


> Since I'm running out the door for the evening, I'll just say that I already copied one of your "immature speaking manner" posts above. I might post later, if I get back soon enough.


Great. Have fun. Be safe.


----------



## Reim Antoinette (Jun 5, 2014)

Plasternoid said:


> Great. Have fun. Be safe.


I'm not entirely sure, but maybe it's this shit you do causing everyone find you immature? Seriously, considering how rude you've been, they've been quite polite.


----------



## Plasternoid (May 22, 2014)

Reim Antoinette said:


> I'm not entirely sure, but maybe it's this shit you do causing everyone find you immature? Seriously, considering how rude you've been, they've been quite polite.


Rude?! See, that's the problem with communicating strictly by way of a keyboard. Intentions/ demeanor are misconstrued. If only they could observe my tone/ inflection if I were to actually verbally communicate what I've posted, they'd instantly grasp how lighthearted and inoffensive I'm being.


----------



## Reim Antoinette (Jun 5, 2014)

Plasternoid said:


> Rude?! See, that's the problem with communicating strictly by way of a keyboard. Intentions/ demeanor are misconstrued. If only they could observe my tone/ inflection if I were to actually verbally communicate what I've posted, they'd instantly grasp how lighthearted and inoffensive I'm being.


And that's where you're making the mistake. For one thing, you don't ever comment on _why_ something is wrong. If you could explain (in more detail than in you're original post, if people can find flaws based on pure logic and rational then it's not very good) why they're incorrect, I highly doubt anyone would have problems with you're tone. A good rule of thumb on the internet is if it's a bad idea to say it in real life, it's bad on the internet.

As I personally see it, your argument is based in the idea that you don't find the MBTI and the Jungian functions helpful. That, as it is, I have no problem with. There are ideas I dislike and find uninteresting (as that's why I'm into the MBTI, it fascinates me). You are, to a certain extent, correct. From you're subjective point of view, MBTI and cognitive functions are useless. You're also right that people use certain functions at different times. For example, I'm not using Ne very much when I talk to my Aunt. Why? Because she wouldn't have a clue what the hell I was talking about. She likes simple discussions about things like celeberties and fashion. Sure, I'm capable of talking about that sort of thing. Everyone on this planet is. The key is that I would much rather be talking about quantum mechanics or some similarly abstract thing. My Aunt couldn't though, she simply couldn't follow the conversation or what I meant. All the cognitive functions are is a way to put in words to things that aren't really 'things' at all, but concepts.


----------

