# The reality of the MBTI



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

Thinking about it I believe MBTI doesn't make sense and that's it's pseudoscience. Discuss what you think doesn't make sense about the descriptions of the functions and all that or discuss how you think it makes sense ie the argument for what it is and the arguments for that it isn't. I've been interested in MBTI and all that for 7 years since i first saw animal kung fu personality descriptions

For instance decision making is apparently a dichotomy a category for a persons overall type. and 'information gathering' another. i believe decision making and information gathering are the same thing by the nature of how both work... when are you actually aware of making a decision? you're not really you're just aware of what you've learnt about the problem/task or how it affects you personally (ie through your senses ie feelings) after thinking/observing it enough you simply get/make a decision. 

My second point... 'energy' this is used so much and is one of crux's about the mbti system yet i've never seen it defined let a lone scientifically defined. let alone recognised it in 7 years in myself. honestly it may be a big denial thing for introverts just basically feeling a bit anxios and nervous and then when they leave the social situation returning to their good state. extroverts may refer to the sensation of loneliness and they don't gain energy they just get rid of the painfull emotion of loneliness. 

you might say right now i'm doing extraverted thinking by wanting to discuss it and argue it. i say no that's just how science/thinking works... there can't be two theories existing about the same thing - if you think scientifically you know what i mean by that. if a new theory comes a long the old one is replaced by it. there isn't oh well it's my opinion that this theory is the right one - it's done by proof. and that's all i'm doing now... 

see page 73 of 'you know you're a sensor when' where i give points against someone's using the system of mbti in real life. that was just the first thread i've looked at this site and each post i saw 3 posts was just full of that sort of 'wait... that really doesn't work/that contradicts someone elses definition of the function i've read'.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Whatever sense there once was to the system has long passed. It's now a cultural phenomena sprawling out new memes and stereotypes daily! 

People are people. We can choose to associate with this or that category all we damned well please, but the truth is that we all have different neurobiology, neurochemistry, experiences, and therefore vastly different neural networks and firing patterns for specific life situations. 

I used to think this system was a bit liberating, but now feel it's more like any other damned psychological label out there:

"Once you label me you negate me", --Soren Kierkegaard


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

Surely it depends on how you use it? All labels are dangerous because they breed stereotypes. However MBTI has helped a lot of people. When I was a teenager I thought there was something wrong with me because I was so different to all my female friends. Then at 16ish I discovered MBTI and I realised that there were other people out there like me, and I wasn't weird (or at least, no more weird than anyone else). It helped me to understand myself and why I felt so out of place. Later, I went through a stage of stereotyping, when I realised I'm not identical to all INTJs, but I was more mature by then and it wasn't such a big problem. Now I see MBTI as a helpful tool to get started with, but not something that should be used (as it inevitably is by most people) to stereotype and divide. Anyone of any type can get along with anyone of any other type. MBTI has led me to better understand the miscommunications that many people have in real life - now I can step back and think 'he is thinking of xyz in _this _sense, but she is thinking of it in _that_ sense', and I have used this to help people see another person's point of view many times. However MBTI shouldn't be seen as a person's whole identity. It is just one way of categorising things, not a blueprint of a person's whole self and personality.

*tl;dr* even if MBTI is a pseudoscience, it can be useful if not taken too seriously.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

> Whatever sense there once was to the system has long passed. It's now a cultural phenomena sprawling out new memes and stereotypes daily!
> 
> People are people. We can choose to associate with this or that category all we damned well please, but the truth is that we all have different neurobiology, neurochemistry, experiences, and therefore vastly different neural networks and firing patterns for specific life situations.
> 
> ...


 I think you're just utilizing a tool incorrectly. It's not dictating what you should or should not do as a type, it's grouping you. Like when I say, "You've got black hair," I will associate you with the physical appearance of someone else with black hair. Labels are the essence of language, that's all any language is. Kierkegaard would be illiterate without labels. The word, "label," is a label, as is the word, "person," or, "system." People need to get over this indignation about labels, when everything someone does as a thinking being is involved in labeling objects, beings, or ideas. 

Myers Briggs groups people based on similar degrees of preference for certain "cognitive functions," which are umbrella terms describing certain differing usages of the brain. There is certainly a failing when people start saying, "NTs are smart, SJs are traditionalists, NFs are hopeless idealists, and SPs are crazy mofos." Those are stereotypes which don't always apply, hence the label, "stereotypes." As a system though, MBTI and JCF are quite useful, and I see no reason to distinguish it as a scientific theory or pseudoscience. It's not necessary.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

Cosmicsense said:


> Whatever sense there once was to the system has long passed. It's now a cultural phenomena sprawling out new memes and stereotypes daily!
> 
> People are people. We can choose to associate with this or that category all we damned well please, but the truth is that we all have different neurobiology, neurochemistry, experiences, and therefore vastly different neural networks and firing patterns for specific life situations.
> 
> ...


about the neural firing patterns paragraph - i agree and i think this is what really is the system for typing and one where you'll actually see it in reality. about the choosing... i don't know i took it seriously like it was a science and went with what i got on the test and gleefully like oh ow this is me reading the description for it. i've always thought the nf's were the coolest/powerful, the sp's the 'stupidest', the nt's the weirdos, the sj's the 'what?' - just based on the descriptions - basicaly i wanted to be an NF but thought i wasn't. like INFJ - done... coolest combination of words out their introverted (mysterious thoughftull), intuitive (you know that sounds good), feeling (superior sensitivity and understanding of life, heightened vision and knowing what others don't know), judgng (J just sounds better than P i guess - i really don't care whether i get energy towards a deadline or fear deadlines?... or if my room is messy or not doesn't define me much). disclaimer i know how it works and it doesn't work like that this was just when i first got enthralled with mbti.


----------



## instantkarma (Nov 20, 2012)

If you don't need, don't use it. It's just a tool amongst many. Still I have to say, it has proven tremendously useful to me.


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

MBTI is an index of the once preferred functions. The internet has really bastardized the MBTI and made it into more of a stereotypical sorter, especially with the internet tests being ever so prevalent in this day and age. If you are to utilize the MBTI for what it is meant to be, developing you're cognitive functions, and determining you're strengths, than it really is good psychology. Just stay away from the horoscopes and more with the science.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

Pillow said:


> It helped me to understand myself and why I felt so out of place. Later, I went through a stage of stereotyping, when I realised I'm not identical to all INTJs, but I was more mature by then and it wasn't such a big problem. Now I see MBTI as a helpful tool to get started with, but not something that should be used (as it inevitably is by most people) to stereotype and divide. Anyone of any type can get along with anyone of any other type. MBTI has led me to better understand the miscommunications that many people have in real life - now I can step back and think 'he is thinking of xyz in _this _sense, but she is thinking of it in _that_ sense', and I have used this to help people see another person's point of view many times. However MBTI shouldn't be seen as a person's whole identity. It is just one way of categorising things, not a blueprint of a person's whole self and personality.
> 
> *tl;dr* even if MBTI is a pseudoscience, it can be useful if not taken too seriously.


that's my point i don't think it even works as a way of categorising but i also believe people's uniqueness isn't as unique as is commonly believed... it's a scary thought but i believe a lot is explained by their mental state and pretty much stuff the average person has no control of because it's just unknowable... idk your thinking style but don't you find it strange that dyslexic people the genius ones don't have inner speech they only think in images? and those people that talk a lot really fast and stumble over words - coz they think in images. classic autistic people who look crazy... no it's just because they're hypo/hypesensitive so phyiscal sensory perception. 

yeah you reminded i had that stage of only intj's are like me hehe. basically i've been so socially unaware that it made sense to me and it wasn't my fault unless you have the sensory perception required to pick up on micro expressions no socialising discovery can happen and unless you have the attention to sensation you'll probably have anxiety/nerves around people as your amygdala seems to fire this off yet not when in a psychic mode.. mentall create sensation and this will change you into the sensory mode... the only reason why you lose this is because you have the capacity to problem solve very well... ie use symbolic logic to work a solution out and then you realise it's so intuitive you can't even see it in reality you can't translate it to what it must be... on the advice to the tyeps page the one for intj is so good about just draw a picture, stop to be int he present moment. it will actually change your brain - it's a new thing called mindfullness.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> Myers Briggs groups people based on similar degrees of preference for certain "cognitive functions," which are umbrella terms describing certain differing usages of the brain. There is certainly a failing when people start saying, "NTs are smart, SJs are traditionalists, NFs are hopeless idealists, and SPs are crazy mofos." Those are stereotypes which don't always apply, hence the label, "stereotypes." As a system though, MBTI and JCF are quite useful, and I see no reason to distinguish it as a scientific theory or pseudoscience. It's not necessary.


i was gona say that about labels too - i just use it as terminology that's all language is. but um perhaps her point was about labelling meaning teachers like putting kids who have a good imaingation get distracted into add and hten drugs for add stuff like that. 

it isn't necesary for the sake of however the individual is wanting/deciding to use the mbti but for the sake of understanding the mbti it is neccesary. i had mbti like thought for ages... now i actually am reallly wanting to put thought to people and types to understand how i could htink/be to solve my social anxiety which is literally just a nervous feeling when with people in person even my own family so that's why i know mbti is hopeless/causing more confusion for why real things happen between people and real explanations. 

here was a point i was gona put in my first post but thought it would make it seem too long: This isn't a point against the system itself but just revealing how it can be successfull/popular without being understood ie a different system to what it is. a lot of people start out thinking each letter means what you, judging/perceiving etc but actually it's to do with cogntive functions. I believe it's just horoscopes but with a scientific feel to it (psuedoscience). Also lots of people get INTJ because the test for the types is bad. I've experienced the this is my type there's only 2/10/15/4% of me that explains *whatever in your life*. it's alluring how it's clearly good info as it applies to everything and there's a beauty to how simple it is to follow how it works.also i'd love to be in a community (for a bit) of 16 where everyone each acts their role as their type and i'd probably secretly believe my type is the best type. it's a created utopia this thing that's why the same principle of four types you see everywhere... four elements eg star sign types, four kiersey temperaments, four animal kung fu types, four types in legend of ang air bender, magic the gathering 5 types (close enough hehe - the 5th type is a mixture of all 4 let's say like white light).


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

I'm personally a fan of using Big Five: SLOAN notation classifications with MBTI type theory. A lot of times someone will have difficulty relating to a type that's usually optimistic if they're depressed or something, but when they read the SLOAN notation descriptions, which account for emotionally stability as well as 4 other factors which correlate nicely to MBTI, they relate a lot more. MBTI descriptions on the interwebz are flawed, and a problem I have with MBTI is that it doesn't take emotional stability into account, though it's a transitory factor, so that makes sense- and that it doesn't discuss the negatives of a type.

If you're interested, the correlation to Big Five from MBTI is 
MBTI: I - N - F - P ; E - S - T -J 
BIG5: R - I - A - U ; S - N - E - O with the added factor of emotional stability (C = more stable, L = more unstable) , organized as such: (S/R) (C/L) (U/O) (E/A) (I/N)


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> I think you're just utilizing a tool incorrectly. It's not dictating what you should or should not do as a type, it's grouping you. Like when I say, "You've got black hair," I will associate you with the physical appearance of someone else with black hair. Labels are the essence of language, that's all any language is. Kierkegaard would be illiterate without labels. The word, "label," is a label, as is the word, "person," or, "system." People need to get over this indignation about labels, when everything someone does as a thinking being is involved in labeling objects, beings, or ideas.


You have missed the point to such a marked degree, it seems too difficult to try and bridge the gap. My apologies. I'll just say that language is NOT about labels, it's about effectively transmitting information through the use of symbols and "labels". Just complete fail. 



> Myers Briggs groups people based on similar degrees of preference for certain "cognitive functions," which are umbrella terms describing certain differing usages of the brain. There is certainly a failing when people start saying, "NTs are smart, SJs are traditionalists, NFs are hopeless idealists, and SPs are crazy mofos." Those are stereotypes which don't always apply, hence the label, "stereotypes." As a system though, MBTI and JCF are quite useful, and I see no reason to distinguish it as a scientific theory or pseudoscience. It's not necessary.


Hmmmm, that's interesting. You see no point in trying to see if it's pseudoscience?? How about the reverse: how much might it have screwed things up rather than be of much use? It seems to be a layering of confusions, of which nobody has a real clue what it's really pointing to. For each theory, you have two others popping up as the years roll on. Each differs from the next. It's a system without a system. Just a bunch of hooey.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Cosmicsense said:


> You have missed the point to such a marked degree, it seems too difficult to try and bridge the gap. My apologies. I'll just say that language is NOT about labels, it's about effectively transmitting information through the use of symbols and "labels". Just complete fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, that's interesting. You see no point in trying to see if it's pseudoscience?? How about the reverse: how much might it have screwed things up rather than be of much use? It seems to be a layering of confusions, of which nobody has a real clue what it's really pointing to. For each theory, you have two others popping up as the years roll on. Each differs from the next. It's a system without a system. Just a bunch of hooey.


As for the first bit, I apologize for conveying my point wrong. What I was trying to say is that labels are a necessary part of language, and each adjective, noun, action verb, adverb, and pronoun is a label for a person, object, action, or idea. Then that you shouldn't be opposed to labels because they're labels, because labels are a necessary thing for communicating thoughts.

A bunch of rather useful hooey. Unless someone is starting to take it as law or something, I don't see why a (Pseudo)/Science distinction needs to be made. It's a helpful tool, and an interesting theory to apply to understanding people. A lot of the modern usage of and literature surrounding the Jungian theory and the MBTI is pseudo-science, but still of use. The heliocentric solar system was a bunch of pseudoscientific hooey some centuries ago, but look how that turned out.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

> This isn't a point against the system itself but just revealing how it can be successfull/popular without being understood ie a different system to what it is. a lot of people start out thinking each letter means what you, judging/perceiving etc but actually it's to do with cogntive functions. I believe it's just horoscopes but with a scientific feel to it (psuedoscience).


 Yeah, exactly. Like when I told my father, "I'm an ENTP," after he read some article off google he responded, "So you're an conceptual focused extrovert that thinks and keeps a messy room." That's pseudo-science. When I see someone's profile tag saying INFP, I don't think they're an abstract disorganized feely introvert, I think something along the lines of, "Fi-Ne-Si-Te, varying possibilities of functional development, preference is for Fi- implying a likely higher internal moral conflict and individualistic focus than myself, Auxiliary Ne- implying all that Ne does except as an Auxiliary and probably most used in conjunction with and supporting Fi, and inferior functions indicating a dislike for rules, regulations, perhaps traditionalist thought, and external structure- depending on stage of development and functional maturity. All variable, but likely." Then I would go back through what I just wrote down I was thinking and want to correct all the grammar, but then decide to leave it to preserve the train of thought. Still bastardized, but a lot less so than the modern literature and stereotypes associated with it. I'd say JCF isn't pseudo-science, MBTI to some lesser extent is pseudo-science, but how people apply it is, and especially so with the popular usage of MBTI (which is bullshit).


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

@Jabberbroccoli

All good. I think my Fi is conflicting with your Ti. I think the system has some merits, but disagree with how it's commonly used, and believe there are many assumptions made for which, at the very least, exceptions exist.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

SharkT00th said:


> MBTI is an index of the once preferred functions. The internet has really bastardized the MBTI and made it into more of a stereotypical sorter, especially with the internet tests being ever so prevalent in this day and age. If you are to utilize the MBTI for what it is meant to be, developing you're cognitive functions, and determining you're strengths, than it really is good psychology. Just stay away from the horoscopes and more with the science.


thats the thing i don't think it's even good for the functions... i dont think extraverted sensing as a concept exists. and if the functions are based on energy - i can't find any scientific/mbti information on that. here's my own idea of functions which you can also be aware of and then change your thinking.

you can either think in terms of symbols or in terms of actual things. literally your consciounses (subconsiousness) will only ever be thing in sensory format of course however you can think by having an inner speech ie using words. so basically you can either mentally sense signifiers (aka think) or mentally sense signified - (very terminological speech there i know). Then perhaps the other category is WHAT you think about rather than HOW you think as i just described. the what category similar to 

put it this way your stream of cosciousness can only ever be attention to real stuff or mental thought. mental sensation (thought) can only be like real sensation in sound, touch, visual etc mental thought is 'created' or from memor. real attention to sensation can only ever be how you sense it. however whether thought about or seen we have codes (words, numbers, symbols, diagrams etc). a pipe can be rattling away in your room and it's been broken for weeks and it's volume is quite loud and constant ie you know it's there non stop yet even when you're in that room you're not always hearing it as you're focused on say reading an article or a comment like this or watching a video or even just thinking. so people differ according to their stream of consciousness. a classic very hypersensitive autist i imagine would never be able to stop hearing the pipe rattling it would always be their stream of consciousness. so i think ones pervasive stream of consciousness is what influences them and makes them act how they do which is essentially who they are.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

instantkarma said:


> If you don't need, don't use it. It's just a tool amongst many. Still I have to say, it has proven tremendously useful to me.


thanks for commenting.. can you give an or two examples of how you've used it ie it's proven usefull? 

for me i just ended up having a gut instinct as to which type they fell into and once i'd decided what their type is i didn't understand/perceive anything more of them and it was based just on superficial thoughts of them now how they were thinking so to speak or how i sensed them (i have very little attention to sensation as i'm such a systemiser as you can tell). so the system for me was all encompassing and all limiting - it was purely on the aesthetic of 'nf' or 'nt' like a feeling but a very drab one. and being honest my use of 'sensing' was probably just 'stupid and loud and normal ' and 'intuitive' meaning clever and original personality. and not alll my fault really when you look at it the descriptions for sensing and intuition so many different people have vice versa defintions for them and the descriptions are so vague to begin with in anyway....


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Cosmicsense said:


> @_Jabberbroccoli_
> 
> All good. I think my Fi is conflicting with your Ti. I think the system has some merits, but disagree with how it's commonly used, and believe there are many assumptions made for which, at the very least, exceptions exist.


 It's funny, the extent to which two people can be in agreement for such a long time without even noticing.

Though it may be useful to mention that your type-line above your avatar says ENTP, not a Fi user? Did you retype and not change it, or just misclick it originally? Might want to change that


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I am one of those people who is slowly growing tired of the MBTI and Jungian theory, although I blame this far more on the community than I am on the theory itself. The way people twist and turn things is just so tiring. I just have a strong desire to reform the entire system and the people with it but it's obvious people are more keen to cling to what is than coming up with something new and better.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Rainman said:


> Thinking about it I believe MBTI doesn't make sense and that's it's pseudoscience. Discuss what you think doesn't make sense about the descriptions of the functions and all that or discuss how you think it makes sense ie the argument for what it is and the arguments for that it isn't. I've been interested in MBTI and all that for 7 years since i first saw animal kung fu personality descriptions
> 
> For instance decision making is apparently a dichotomy a category for a persons overall type. and 'information gathering' another. i believe decision making and information gathering are the same thing by the nature of how both work... when are you actually aware of making a decision? you're not really you're just aware of what you've learnt about the problem/task or how it affects you personally (ie through your senses ie feelings) after thinking/observing it enough you simply get/make a decision.
> 
> ...


Hey, what's up.

Yes, a lot of the stuff on here is a bad example of MBTI or any personality typology (or how it should be used). Welcome to the Forum btw. I'm having trouble believing that you studied MBTI for 7 and that you find it complete and utter bullshit. How deeply did you go? I assume you know about cognitive functions. Do you read a lot of Jung?


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> It's funny, the extent to which two people can be in agreement for such a long time without even noticing.
> 
> Though it may be useful to mention that your type-line above your avatar says ENTP, not a Fi user? Did you retype and not change it, or just misclick it originally? Might want to change that


No need to change it. I've developed Fi & Ni to a high degree. Still _seem_​ to be an ENTP


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

Cosmicsense said:


> You have missed the point to such a marked degree, it seems too difficult to try and bridge the gap. My apologies. I'll just say that language is NOT about labels, it's about effectively transmitting information through the use of symbols and "labels". Just complete fail.
> 
> that was the point he made. try not to classify all the time the stuff you read (which when it comes down to it is your own comprehension and understanding) as fails.
> 
> Hmmmm, that's interesting. You see no point in trying to see if it's pseudoscience?? How about the reverse: how much might it have screwed things up rather than be of much use? It seems to be a layering of confusions, of which nobody has a real clue what it's really pointing to. For each theory, you have two others popping up as the years roll on. Each differs from the next. It's a system without a system. Just a bunch of hooey.


i definately agree with psuedoscience being worse than nothing. you don't learn stuff new on top of what you already learn or get a replacing theory you just at some point realise how everything you've let yourself use as a belief is nonsense to the point you can't even remember well what it was like believing it and going by that system. definately agree with that.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

You're just lost, Rainman, LOL! Not worth my time, sorry!


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

MBTI OF KANYE WEST 

'I would guess that he is an ENTP. He's a real asshole, so I doubt that he is an NF. To anyone that says he is an ENFJ: Name me one other Fe user that would disrupt a social function such as the Grammy's in such a large way by snatching the award from Taylor Swift. Just name me one...please' -this guys made 5000 posts on here.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Cosmicsense said:


> No need to change it. I've developed Fi & Ni to a high degree. Still _seem_​ to be an ENTP


But wouldn't your Ti still be predominant to your Fi?


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

Cosmicsense said:


> You're just lost, Rainman, LOL! Not worth my time, sorry!


that was called for because? you misunderstood something (he said which i understood perfectly) and attacked the person who you misunderstood so then i gave you the 'try not to call people fails' line and you call me lost not worth your time LOL you can continue speaking to jabberbrocolli of course but please do not address me again.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

*@Jabberbroccoli

*Irrelevant. If I have Fi more developed than you... everything else being a constant, I will act more on Fi than you. I will reason with both Fi & Ti, whereas you*may* not fully grasp the Fi reasoning at work. 

As is, it seems reasonable that someone *could* develop their functions to degrees which seem inconsistent with the preference theory and assumptions which come from this theory..such as the strength of each is always superior to it's next in order. 

I seem to have experienced enough cognitive dissonance brought on by prolonged trauma, so that my "shadow" functions may be more developed than some of my "primary" functions. It seems I may have shut off certain loops, or particular functions, and got by from embracing my darkness, accepted and worked through/with the extra stress, etc...

Make sense??


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

'I am one of those people who is slowly growing tired of the MBTI and Jungian theory, although I blame this far more on the community than I am on the theory itself. The way people twist and turn things is just so tiring. I just have a strong desire to reform the entire system and the people with it but it's obvious people are more keen to cling to what is than coming up with something new and better' this seems a lot mbti thought and speak in it. if you read field guide to earthlings you understand that people understand things based on formulations of words but on meanings of words - systems that don't apply to reality. but if everyone keeps saying it and people know what you mean when you say it, it kind of feels like it must refer to reality.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Rainman said:


> that was called for because? you misunderstood something (he said which i understood perfectly) and attacked the person who you misunderstood so then i gave you the 'try not to call people fails' line and you call me lost not worth your time LOL you can continue speaking to jabberbrocolli of course but please do not address me again.


Ayo, YOLO my homie-g, keep it swaqqing all night my bitches. SWERVE.




Cosmicsense said:


> *@Jabberbroccoli
> 
> *Irrelevant. If I have Fi more developed than you... everything else being a constant, I will act more on Fi than you. I will reason with both Fi & Ti, whereas you*may* not fully grasp the Fi reasoning at work.
> 
> ...


 That's just awkward though. You shadow into your quaternary inferior and tertiary function as dominant and auxiliary and flip both sets. It would have taken an annoying amount of work to develop Fi on the side. But the preferences still would not change without suppression of one of the first four functions, which is unhealthy and shit.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

I reject your assertion. It was seemingly "unhealthy" in the moment, mostly when viewed from the dull-minded, yet definitely _healthy_ in the long-term of my development potential.

Of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Disintegration


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

ThatGuyInBlueRoom2 said:


> Hey, what's up.
> 
> Yes, a lot of the stuff on here is a bad example of MBTI or any personality typology (or how it should be used). Welcome to the Forum btw. I'm having trouble believing that you studied MBTI for 7 and that you find it complete and utter bullshit. How deeply did you go? I assume you know about cognitive functions. Do you read a lot of Jung?


hehe i was going to title it 'MBTI BS'...

sorry, i saw animal kungfu this site Shaolin Kung Fu Academy, the 5 Animal Kung Fu System - it's changed slightly since 7 years ago (that's how much i went by it that i can remember the exact sentences of the paragraphs pretty much). btw it's based on myers briggs principles i think. about 5 years ago i probably first saw mbti. about 2 years ago i began paying attention to it again and looked up the cognitive functions dave super powers videos and all that. then i began typing people at uni everywhere. i also typed video fighting game characters (i play a lot of street fighter etc) like the gracefull fighters were nf ie crane. also there's not a lot of stuff written about it on the internet. also i've heard so many experts describe definitions different to other experts definitions including the one on the main myers briggs site.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

There are substantive arguments to be made about the empirical validity of MBTI and its assumptions. If you want the detailed study you can check out this article https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https://www.capt.org/JPT/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf and https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...m/2012/06/unresolved-issues-with-the-mbti.pdf. But to my eye the biggest problem with the whole type community (especially on this site) is just simple lack of understanding and knowledge of the different systems. Most people are woefully uninformed about MBTI as it is actually constructed and their entire knowledge of the system comes from what they read online and perhaps a quick glace at chapter 10 of _Psychological Types_. And so you get a lot of mistaken theories that build off of other mistaken theories and the whole thing just flies way out of control with people making up their own explanations of stuff rather than simply understanding the basics. The ideas of dom-tert loops or people not understanding shadow functions (despite Eric B's excellent thread on it) and so forth run rampant around these parts. 

Part of the problem I've always contended was that people learn type theory backwards, starting with MBTI or Kiersey first and then working backwards to Jung which means a lot of unlearning, re-learning and general confusion in the process from trying to reconciling it all. If people started with Jung and understood I/E and the ego and the psyche and all that and how it all fit together to his eye, you'd have less of these issues with all the different interpretations of MBTI theory (because people would better understand where Myers was coming from and where she deviated). Without that people just sort of fill in the blanks from their own experiences often saying things that are theoretically nonsensical. And then when this process inevitably leads to frustration and confusion their animus is turned toward the theories themselves ("Jung didn't know everything!" or "MBTI is all BS" and so forth). Too often people claim that without truly understanding the bigger picture of what both were trying to do in their respective ways. Context is sorely missing and so half the people argue from a Jungian perspective, and other the half trying to rationalize MBTI and JCF, and then there's all sorts of whackiness in the middle (and lets not open the door up to Socionics). So its quite understandable why people have the negative associations about this stuff that they do, because really they treat it as a means to an end (to help them better understand themselves) rather than as an academic study in its own right, and so there is a tendency on these type forums (especially this one because it is so entry level) to cherry pick information that corroborates a pre-existing way of thinking about ones self or worldview and sort of make up the rest.

When people talk about types you get a lot of people who sort of fundamentally misunderstand the concept and the purpose of type. And then try and use it to explain away things in their lives for which the idea of type, especially as MBTI proposes is not equipped for. I think Daryl Sharp explains it best



> _From earliest times, attempts have been made to categorize individual attitudes and behavior patterns in order to explain the differences between people. Jung’s model of typology is one of them. It is the basis for modern “tests” such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), used by corporations and institutions in order to classify a person’s interests, attitudes and behavior patterns, and hence the type of work or education they might be best suited for._
> 
> *Jung did not develop his model of psychological types for this purpose. Rather than label people as this or that type, he sought simply to explain the differences between the ways we function and interact with our surroundings in order to promote a better understanding of human psychology in general, and one’s own way of seeing the world in particular.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

i have a lot of reading to do... though the actual definitions and all the info on the actual myers brigs type is nonsense and all the info that i've seen which is non academic books and stuff. however jung based his stuff on anecdotes and observations and back then the field of neuroscience hadn't even begun i don't think so i'm not gona jump on to do some heavy reading on it due to those two things. 

'*Whether Jung’s model is “true” or not—objectively true—is a moot point. Indeed, is anything ever “objectively” true? The real truth is that Jung’s model of psychological types has all the advantages and disadvantages of any scientific model' - *this is wrong. some things are objectively true until proven otherwise in fact all things are when looked at scientifically. 


_Although lacking statistical verification, it is equally hard to disprove. But it accords with experiential reality - just no... daryll sharp write many statements and writes few explanations. 
_
_Moreover, since it is based on a fourfold— mandala like—way of looking at things that is archetypal, it is psychologically satisfying - that is true and mandala is a circle (circular logic) but yes it is very psychologically satisfying that's great words for it but that is part of the trap of it and the badness of it. _

'_Being aware of the way I tend to function makes it possible for me to assess my attitudes and behavior in a given situation and adjust them accordingly. It enables me both to compensate for my personal disposition and to be tolerant of someone who does not function as I do—someone who has, perhaps, a strength or facility I myself lack. - this whole bit just sounds neurotypical to do with like social ranking/ judging etc. 
_
_Did my actions truly reflect my judgments (thinking and feeling) and perceptions (sensation and intuition)? And if not, why not? What complexes were activated in me? To what end? How and why did I mess things up? What does this say about my psychology? What can I do about it? What do I want to do about it? These are among the questions we must take to heart if we want to be psychologically conscious. - negativity... messing things up... psychological complexes... social isn't based around just those things. i guess he said these are among the things.._

i just think biologically we have a potential to type just with our eyes and senses from birth. just with all the thinking school for some people especially the systemising ones because there's so much thought noise and if you don't think in sensory information but symbols then your brain doesn't try to take in sensory information anymore - so it won't empathise when looking at a face. 'face profiler alan stevens' - that to me is the best way you type people by using your senses. if you're not able to pay attention to your senses because you're so incredibly logical and systemise a lot then you won't be aware that you can sense people emotions. you are your stream of consciousness. like in the sensory mode listen to a song and you hear more than when you're distracted with thoughts which is the same as doing something else whilst listening to music. each time you think in a word you're not sensing. when two people watch a music video or something they'll be watching it differently as their eyes will track around the video in different places and if your eye isn't looking at a point you don't actually see it. like right now i'm in a mode where listening to rappers like snoop dog it feels like i'm rapping it as i hear him rap it - mirror neurons.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

MBTI is a pile of crap for the masses, or last but not least, because of the masses.

Unfortunately my pocket isn't large enough to grab Jung's complete work and delve into it as much as I'd like.

Whoever disregards Jung's original work as bogus however, proves nothing but his own lack of experience / understanding their own psyche and the behavioral patterns of people around him - as in *my experience* Jung can be applied quite accurately. It however takes more than some pills and/or paper tests.

Granted, *my experience* isn't objective truth, then again, your idea isn't either. Luckily, I do not care and hopefully you don't either. The way I see it, neuroscience is the extroverted approach towards the human psyche and keeping it running (electroshocks, pills, what part of the brain does what, hormone malfunctions etc.) while Jung offers the counterpart, the introverted approach - it's only natural the latter wouldn't find much recognition, though.

Jung has to be applied on the correct abstract layer. The more concrete you get (in terms of details) the messier and inaccurate it'll get. Prime example would be Kiersey, perhaps.


----------



## instantkarma (Nov 20, 2012)

Rainman said:


> thanks for commenting.. can you give an or two examples of how you've used it ie it's proven usefull?


Type theory was very useful for me to acknowledge myself as a feeler rather than a thinker. Both my parents are strong NT. All my feeling related issue just weren't even recognized by them as important. I made a wrong choice for my career because of them not seeing me for what I was. I ended up working as a lawyer rather than working in a field like psychology or area that are related to my real field of interest. 

Knowing that they did not know any better has helped me to be kind to them rather than complaining about the way the raised me. By the way it was not a bad way. In fact I learnt a lot to reason and not to be emotional about issues that need thinking rather than a chaos left to feelings.

By recognizing my true strength as a strong Ni Fe I have come to real happiness. I accept myself and other people more easily for how they are. Just because I recognize their types does not automatically make me treat them like just a type. I am not stupid. Of course I know that people are more than their type. Whoever would treat people in such simple way hast just another problem that he should work on. But this has nothing to do with type theory at all. By the way people type each other all the time and they don’t even know about Jungian type theory. Isn’t it better that people can find a name for a problem than just be left to a feeling that there is something odd about the other person that they don’t like and understand? Once you have a name for it, you can talk about it and raise it to a level were both parties can try to see, where they are coming from.
In this sense I understand type as a communication model that helps me to fight through all the fog of misunderstanding by watching my own style of communication and matching it to the person, I am talking to.

This for me is the true value of type theory. It is not meant to explain the human psyche. As I said before: type theory to me is a tool that is lot better than many pseudo theories on how to communicate with people.

By the way I have found that type theory has saved me a lot of energy. I am not wasting affords in trying to shape people into people they are not. So I am not doing the same things that my parents did to me to my children. 
It also saved me from focusing too much energy on people that will just never get my point of view. If someone can’t see my point I tend to back off politely rather than telling them they are ignorant.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Rainman said:


> hehe i was going to title it 'MBTI BS'...
> 
> sorry, i saw animal kungfu this site Shaolin Kung Fu Academy, the 5 Animal Kung Fu System - it's changed slightly since 7 years ago (that's how much i went by it that i can remember the exact sentences of the paragraphs pretty much). btw it's based on myers briggs principles i think. about 5 years ago i probably first saw mbti. about 2 years ago i began paying attention to it again and looked up the cognitive functions dave super powers videos and all that. then i began typing people at uni everywhere. i also typed video fighting game characters (i play a lot of street fighter etc) like the gracefull fighters were nf ie crane. also there's not a lot of stuff written about it on the internet. also i've heard so many experts describe definitions different to other experts definitions including the one on the main myers briggs site.



If it helps you any, I just view the MBTI as the letters denoting the positions of functions, the roles they play. Mix it with a bit of Beebe I get:


INFJ= 
Ni>Fe>Ti>Se
Ne>Fi>Ti>Si


(And this is where Beebe comes in)

Where (archetypes)
Ni = Hero
Fe = Parent
Ti = Child
Se = Anima/Animus
Ne = Nemesis (Anti hero)
Fi = Senex/Witch (Bad parents)
Te = Trickster (Bad child)
Si = Demon (Dark Anima/animus) 

Now they each preform a different role. This allows for a greater variation within the MBTI description. It doesn't stop an INFJ from preferring to use Ni-Ti over Fe, it just clarifies the usage of the function. Even though said INFJ prefers Ti to Fe, he still uses Ti in a child-like way, as opposed to the parent-like way of Fe. (A lot of people have problems with the ordering of MBTI as well). This being said... I think the MBTI description just try to give an outline of each function used in it's appropriate role (the more subconscious functions T & S contributing to the weaknesses of the INFJ).

I think it just gives a surface view. I also think this doesn't make it bullshit. If we were to make an analogy out of it (which is what I'm about to do) it would be something like this.

Personality is a cup of liquid. 
We don't know what kind of liquid. 
The surface is MBTI.
We can tell wether the liquid is less opaque or more opaque. 
We can measure the liquid's viscosity.
(Dichotomies - How some people try to type)

If someone vigorously stirs the liquid, its properties might change. Then we can no longer accurately determine the opaqueness or viscosity of the liquid - our measurement tools now don't give us a fully reliable result, but only because they are imprecise. Not because they themselves are fundamentally flawed.

MBTI only looks at the surface, and therefore, is only correct on the surface. No one adjective has been strictly related to one type nor one dichotomy.

P.S. There is MBTI research out there, have you looked into it? I have a big MBTI manual here. Lots of juicy stuff.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

Erbse said:


> Granted, *my experience* isn't objective truth, then again, your idea isn't either. Luckily, I do not care and hopefully you don't either. The way I see it, neuroscience is the extroverted approach towards the human psyche and keeping it running (electroshocks, pills, what part of the brain does what, hormone malfunctions etc.) while Jung offers the counterpart, the introverted approach - it's only natural the latter wouldn't find much recognition, though.
> .


there's thinking and then there's experiencing. all thought is just scientific in itself. all experience is thoughtless ie it's sensory/feeling producing. so in that sense i don't think thought is extroverted or introverted... experience has nothing to do with objective truth or meaning... it is sensation as you live it.. however idea's/science has to be objective truth - once you imagine how something works you then have to prove it. i definately do care about how it works because this is what takes away the emotion of nervousness when people look at me and also makes you excited (bliss).

anyone know a link to jung in depth stuff for free?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Rainman said:


> anyone know a link to jung in depth stuff for free?


What do you mean by "jung in depth stuff" exactly? Original stuff or refined stuff for understanding?


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

instantkarma said:


> Type theory was very useful for me to acknowledge myself as a feeler rather than a thinker. Both my parents are strong NT. All my feeling related issue just weren't even recognized by them as important. I made a wrong choice for my career because of them not seeing me for what I was. I ended up working as a lawyer rather than working in a field like psychology or area that are related to my real field of interest.
> 
> Knowing that they did not know any better has helped me to be kind to them rather than complaining about the way the raised me. By the way it was not a bad way. In fact I learnt a lot to reason and not to be emotional about issues that need thinking rather than a chaos left to feelings.
> 
> ...


ok... seems a lot of benefits come from the idea of typing/type theory rather than the specific system of mbti... like not wasting trying to raise kids to something when you can see how they actually are. if people don't get your point it doesn't make them ignorant... correct me if i'm wrong but does the concept of ignorance mean that people have beliefs (not thoughs mere beliefs) and that if other people aren't aware of the things they're aware of then they're ignorant? i really don't understand this word that people use the whole time (and they don't use it by it's dictionary meaning) because after all just if they don't get your specific point doesn't mean they're lacking in knowledge. 

what you've described that's all well and good but it goes on the basis that mbti itself specifically it's system helped you with it.. so could you describe me to how you understand the mbti system and then how you actually put it into effect... eg do you work people out by how they simply appear (ie use your senses) or by some system of thought like what one should do in the situation but what they actually did etc ie systematic thought would be there being a situation that you understand that you then judge them by what they did in that situation?


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> What do you mean by "jung in depth stuff" exactly? Original stuff or refined stuff for understanding?


just anything that isn't a paragraph on some website about it. like a pdf document that jung wrote explaining his theory.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> What do you mean by "jung in depth stuff" exactly? Original stuff or refined stuff for understanding?


Chapter 10 of Psychological Types is original and pretty straight forward for Jung. 

The problem that scientific psychologists have with MBTI is that it has fairly low reliability and validity, and that it describes a typology that doesn't exist in the data but is constructed using arbitrary cutoff points. It's also a fact that cognitive functions are constructs that are not measured themselves but inferred from the MBTI, which is a purely dichotomous test. So that's definitely pseudoscience.

My guess is that the MBTI will be reshaped into a dimensional model sooner or later.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> What do you mean by "jung in depth stuff" exactly? Original stuff or refined stuff for understanding?


Chapter 10 of Psychological Types is original and pretty straight forward for Jung: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

The problem that scientific psychologists have with MBTI is that it has fairly low reliability and validity, and that it describes a typology that doesn't exist in the data but is constructed using arbitrary cutoff points. It's also a fact that cognitive functions are constructs that are not measured themselves but inferred from the MBTI, which is a purely dichotomous test. So that's definitely pseudoscience.

My guess is that the MBTI will be reshaped into a dimensional model sooner or later.

Update: This should have been addressed to @Rainman.


----------



## instantkarma (Nov 20, 2012)

.


Rainman said:


> ok... seems a lot of benefits come from the idea of typing/type theory rather than the specific system of mbti... like not wasting trying to raise kids to something when you can see how they actually are. if people don't get your point it doesn't make them ignorant... correct me if i'm wrong but does the concept of ignorance mean that people have beliefs (not thoughs mere beliefs) and that if other people aren't aware of the things they're aware of then they're ignorant? i really don't understand this word that people use the whole time (and they don't use it by it's dictionary meaning) because after all just if they don't get your specific point doesn't mean they're lacking in knowledge.
> 
> what you've described that's all well and good but it goes on the basis that mbti itself specifically it's system helped you with it.. so could you describe me to how you understand the mbti system and then how you actually put it into effect...


Ok. Maybe I am posting under the wrong title. I don't actually refer to the test itself just the system the test is based on.
To me the system makes sense. The test is just a starting point and replacable.

By ignorance I mean the impression that I used to get of people who in spite of being placed in the same situation as I was, still came up with a completely different meaning to it or worse would have been oblivious to it . Most people who are unaware of the different ways we all process and judge information, may be insulted if they don't see you acknowledging their point of view or acting the way they would have acted in your position.

Once I recognize that someone has a different focus I am not trying to preach to him that his perspective is wrong. That is all I meant. 




Rainman said:


> eg do you work people out by how they simply appear (ie use your senses) or by some system of thought like what one should do in the situation but what they actually did etc ie systematic thought would be there being a situation that you understand that you then judge them by what they did in that situation?


 I mean I use my sense and my thoughts when judging people. I am not judging people by their type but by their actions. I am not sure if I get your last question right…
Could you please explain it differently?


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Rainman said:


> there's thinking and then there's experiencing.


If my thinking gets proven by personal experience, it becomes a fact to me.

If I've only ever encountered a singular entity proving my idea, but none opposing it, it automatically is a universal truth.

If I then meet a second individual not matching that idea, it becomes 50:50. The larger the sample size, the more accurately you can establish an estimation that maintains accuracy and validity.

This is an excerpt of Jung's original work, additionally a very basic one, everyone should have read and understood prior to diving into MBTI - at least prior to ascribing any importance to MBTI, or more than it deserves anyway.

Since MBTI is most people's first step however, the aforementioned un/re-learning mentioned by @LiquidLight is in order. 

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

ThatGuyInBlueRoom2 said:


> Where (archetypes)
> Ni = Hero
> Fe = Parent
> Ti = Child
> ...


yeah it does only give a surface view i agree. i went with that surface view for ages. but the under the surface view is what i've just realised you can work out. 

but i don't think mbti is good for looking at the surface because the surface and the inner is connected that's how you understand the surface behaviour by looking at the inner. and rather than just looking at the liquid with the visible eye and just saying oh it's that type because it has that colour and is that thick instead we're acually looking at the inner structure. basically all i know my understanding and you can test it yourself now by thinking about it. your mind can only operate in this way therefore personality has to be based around that.... also if personality means how someone appears to you then there's so much stuff that makes them appear how they do that's just a basic reaction caused by emotions the way they had to act based on their intelligence level. but anyway... i like the idea of 'liquid' as it reminds of 'Stream' of consciousness a term i was using. your mind can only sense all things in life are senses even when you hear or read a word it is essentially in visual/sound form... of course.. this means you can only mentally sense also. you have senses of the real world and mental senses (hearing a voice as you read something silently). when you're attending to mental senses at that specific point in time you're not attending to real senses. if all things are senses then what are words/symbols etc well they're just codes for real actual things or a group of things etc. so basically you can mentally attend to words and thought or you can attend to sensations and actual things. this subconsiously affects your sensory perception level... the more you think in words the less detail you see as now you have a tone of words for things and you know the words building and tree two different things so when you see a tree you don't take in it's details it's beauty (if it is beautifull a tree idk bad example) you just classify it then classify a building subconsciously. the type of sensory attention is in 6 formats (touch, taste, balance, sound, colour (visual), smell) and essentially that kind of makes it like 7 ways of thinking - maybe 8 if you differentiate words and diagrams (general symbols). idk if you're aware coz i wasn't for ages but you can mentally imagine a smell just like you can hear your voice mentally. the thing with words/symbols you don't care about the sense of them just meaning of course so it takes you out of the sensory mode. so i think that's the spectrum of life... experiential thought vs analysis... creativity vs systemising... right brain vs left brain. 

also based on the terminology of the dichotomy information gathering and decision making. well decision making i don't believe anyone makes decisions... you might get stuck choosing something from a vending machine or a menu to eat if you're not in a heightened sensory and can mentally taste what you're about to eat and get yourself excited by it or be a big disgusted by what you imagined and then you might start going into some obscure logic about what to get like well i've had coke a lot... i should try this new one to see if like it rather than just getting what i already had before etc... the key point being that one yo usensing the drinks mentally the other you're thinking... also just buying a drink because the can is visually appealing would also be a decision based on sensory information as it requires no thought... you're just seeing the drink design and it's appealing there's an actually feeling of it and then you buy it as you want to take it with you and see it. so there's essentially only codes and actual things that's all you'll ever experience. there are communication codes raw logic words like 'but' 'if' 'then' i suppose they're the most left brained type words you can get and are essentially the equivalent of arrows on a flowchart. also memory = your brain giving you a remembered thought/what someone said (not the tone of how they said it; the words that's what's important) or it'll just pop up a dream or a real memory and the image is in first person as you experienced it at the time (a dyslexic guy said his memories are in third person...) 

but see what i just talked about was the actual liquid of what leads to surface behavior that you see in others. people who talk a lot and fast i think it' scoz they think in images naturally so when it comes to words they can't really get their point across... i think they'd be 'feelers' in my books as anyone who thinks so much in actuall form isn't trying to make a system of anything they're just attending to the school of life and probably quite creative. when systemising you already know the problem and you're solving. with creating you're aware that's there's nothing and so you're creating. so it's related to neuroscience but you can also be aware of it and change your own thinking which changes your own perception and baseline contentment level. the more sensory the more bliss.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

instantkarma said:


> .
> 
> Ok. Maybe I am posting under the wrong title. I don't actually refer to the test itself just the system the test is based on.
> To me the system makes sense. The test is just a starting point and replacable.
> ...


i don't think i mentioned the test of mbti at all.. but you did answer my question whether you used the system itself/thought it made sense. about ignorance if people have completley utterly different ideas views to you i still wouldn't call it ignorance just idk... i suppose if they were brain dead obvlivious to it then that makes me have a concept of ignorance... also for anyone that's following my posts this paragraph on ignorance is a great showing of thought vs actual... it's an intuitive sentence but until you actually can imagine a 'situation' and then applythe rest of the meaning of the sentences to that situation you're imagining do you really comprehend what you've just read... i intuit that hte situation is one where you've been attacked by another or something and the people you've just shown the thing to are just like don't think it's that bad of a deal. 

for the last question i asked what i mean is that people on here who give examples of situations where one person acted in an intuitve manenr the other a sensor manner. or do you simply empathise with people and feel their emotions just by looking at them and vicariously experiencing them. ie you have a high empathising quotient.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

Erbse said:


> If my thinking gets proven by personal experience, it becomes a fact to me.
> 
> If I've only ever encountered a singular entity proving my idea, but none opposing it, it automatically is a universal truth.
> 
> ...


but when you understand that what you've experienced proves your thinking your hypothesis. thinking whether it's proved it or hasn't proved it requires thinking. i'm just getting there's such a thing as meaninglessness in the moment and all it is it's sensory information without any classification. looking at a face and getting their emotion. until you try classifying the emotion into a word it's thoughtless sensation. 

as for the second point you weren't saying that you only understand something if other people 'confirm' it also? surely not...


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

i'll read field guide to earhtlings and summarise it. can someone whose read the classics in the history of psychology - jung. summarise it?

it's possible jung wasn't aware of his own thinking for his whole thing because he keeps on referring to the object when in complete sensory perception you don't really perceive any objects there is only sensation. so if he thought everyone sees the world in terms of classifying objects that goes against the idea of how it actually does work like it's seen in field guide to earthlings. i dont think he ever defines 'the object'.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

well delving in at bits it already seems better than most writings. and corresponds to field guide to earthlings.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

@_Rainman_

It seems to me that you are taking up issue with the actual cognitive functions that Jung observed. Is this the case? If so, just read Psychological Types. If you don't believe that people use intuition/sensing or feeling/thinking, you have a disagreement with Jung, not MBTI.


----------



## Laserotti (Nov 26, 2012)

I think you're awesome Rainman! I'm not positive about the predictatory (how about that word?) nature of MBTI or whether we should use it to label or pigeonhole folks (I try not to!) but from what I do know about it, your posts seem to fit the cheat sheet version of the INTJ type...It's Not Thoroughly Justified! When you get it all figured out, please let me know. I want to see what you have to say. 

For me, I just try to use it as another set of measuring sticks to help me understand where people are coming from so I know how to communicate. Whether it is "true" from an epistemological perspective is going to be up for grabs in my view because it primarily deals with the subjective nature of psychology. Until we get better tools to scientifically measure the phenomenon of personality...go with what works for you is my opinion. If you think it is hooey, then it is for you.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Rainman said:


> but when you understand that what you've experienced proves your thinking your hypothesis. thinking whether it's proved it or hasn't proved it requires thinking. i'm just getting there's such a thing as meaninglessness in the moment and all it is it's sensory information without any classification. looking at a face and getting their emotion. until you try classifying the emotion into a word it's thoughtless sensation.
> 
> as for the second point you weren't saying that you only understand something if other people 'confirm' it also? surely not...


The article is just, following a short preface, a series of in depth descriptions of what the cognitive functions are, and a description of each- as well as discussion on attitudes, preferences, etc.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Rainman said:


> i'll read field guide to earhtlings and summarise it. can someone whose read the classics in the history of psychology - jung. summarise it?
> 
> it's possible jung wasn't aware of his own thinking for his whole thing because he keeps on referring to the object when in complete sensory perception you don't really perceive any objects there is only sensation. so if he thought everyone sees the world in terms of classifying objects that goes against the idea of how it actually does work like it's seen in field guide to earthlings. i dont think he ever defines 'the object'.


Object is a psychological term for anything that is not the individual (the subject). If you read lots of psychological literature you will see this is a commonly used term, but it sometimes differs from how the terms are used in everyday speech. That's sort of a problem when people read Jung because he will use words that everyone thinks means something (like concrete and abstract) and be using them in different ways. Some of this is just translation from German (like using the word Feeling for the function, instead of values).


----------



## TheLizzyB40 (Nov 6, 2012)

Rainman said:


> Thinking about it I believe MBTI doesn't make sense and that's it's pseudoscience. Discuss what you think doesn't make sense about the descriptions of the functions and all that or discuss how you think it makes sense ie the argument for what it is and the arguments for that it isn't. I've been interested in MBTI and all that for 7 years since i first saw animal kung fu personality descriptions
> 
> For instance decision making is apparently a dichotomy a category for a persons overall type. and 'information gathering' another. i believe decision making and information gathering are the same thing by the nature of how both work... when are you actually aware of making a decision? you're not really you're just aware of what you've learnt about the problem/task or how it affects you personally (ie through your senses ie feelings) after thinking/observing it enough you simply get/make a decision.
> 
> ...


I've been fascinated by type theory as a means to help me understand myself better for over three years now and I have to say I'm starting to agree with you...or I am just a freak of nature. I'm amazing at math. Got A's in Algebra without half trying in high school. Worked for 15 years as an office manager aka accounting nerd. But I also have very strong people skills. On multiple intelligence assessments, my two strongest are Intrapersonal and Logical-Mathematical. Opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm equally ISTJ and INFP. Granted, I am over 40 so I should be more balanced than I was at 20 but it still makes no sense to me.

I have read so many different definitions of the functions. It is almost impossible to determine what action is attributed to which function IMO.

Most of us drive so we use Se. But we also can tell when we're hungry and do have a memory so we use Si. Calling one a shadow function makes no sense to me. We'd be up the creek without a paddle without both. Same with the rest of the functions.

I do know that brain scans have shown that introverts brains are hardwired differently than extroverts. But I/E are not even part of the functional stack.

Has there been any studies done to "prove" type theory?

Hmm. Interesting.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

TheLizzyB40 said:


> I've been fascinated by type theory as a means to help me understand myself better for over three years now and I have to say I'm starting to agree with you...or I am just a freak of nature. I'm amazing at math. Got A's in Algebra without half trying in high school. Worked for 15 years as an office manager aka accounting nerd. But I also have very strong people skills. On multiple intelligence assessments, my two strongest are Intrapersonal and Logical-Mathematical. Opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm equally ISTJ and INFP. Granted, I am over 40 so I should be more balanced than I was at 20 but it still makes no sense to me.
> 
> I have read so many different definitions of the functions. It is almost impossible to determine what action is attributed to which function IMO.
> 
> ...


This would be a misinterpretation of the functions. People do not use functions in this way. It's not "when I drive I use Se" and when watch a home movie I'm using Si and all this sort of stuff. The functions aren't tools. Perspectives would probably be a better way of looking at it. The idea that when you think, for example, a person would think in an extraverted (or objective) way and that a person who does that habitually and as his go-to way of processing could be known as a Extraverted Thinking type. Same goes for Sensation or any other function. We all have five senses and we all have sense acuity. It's just that a type with Si approaches their sensory input and sense experiences in a subjective or self-relating (introverted) way. Rather than simply paying attention to the object as is (extraversion), the object becomes simply a stimuli for something the person can internally attach to it (like an emotion or a memory or whatever). But at heart with both sensation functions we are still talking about taste, smell, sight, sound and touch. It's just do you prefer to relate these sense perceptions back to you (introversion), or see them for what they are in their own right (extraversion).

So, for example, when we speak of the inferior sensation function of intuitives (ENPs/INJs) we are not saying these people cannot see well or have bad senses or anything like that. Just that they will tend to focus on their hunches and intuitions (being dominant intuitives) and by doing so downplay their five senses as the most salient form of perception. These are the people who never trust what they see, but rather go off of instinct or what their gut tells them even if there is no physical evidence to back up their notions. In contrast a dominant sensation type (ISJ/ESP) typically favors what is presented right in front of them. Literal reality and evidence. A sensation type might say "I'll believe it when I see it." Or "show me the proof." 

But understand everyone has five senses, everyone can think, everyone can make evaluations based on how they feel about things, and everyone has intuitions. They're not tools, but more a question of which of these approaches or perspectives (T-F-S-N) do you tend to favor (and which do you tend to disfavor).


----------



## TheLizzyB40 (Nov 6, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> This would be a misinterpretation of the functions. People do not use functions in this way. It's not "when I drive I use Se" and when watch a home movie I'm using Si and all this sort of stuff. The functions aren't tools.


I do understand that. But why then have I read that Si dominant are extremely aware of their bodily functions and state?


> Perspectives would probably be a better way of looking at it. The idea that when you think, for example, a person would think in an extraverted (or objective) way and that a person who does that habitually and as his go-to way of processing could be known as a Extraverted Thinking type. Same goes for Sensation or any other function. We all have five senses and we all have sense acuity. It's just that a type with Si approaches their sensory input and sense experiences in a subjective or self-relating (introverted) way. Rather than simply paying attention to the object as is (extraversion), the object becomes simply a stimuli for something the person can internally attach to it (like an emotion or a memory or whatever). But at heart with both sensation functions we are still talking about taste, smell, sight, sound and touch. It's just do you prefer to relate these sense perceptions back to you (introversion), or see them for what they are in their own right (extraversion).


Huh? Can you translate that into plain everyday language for me? I'm not stupid. It's just that I really don't get it unless it's tied to something real.



> So, for example, when we speak of the inferior sensation function of intuitives (ENPs/INJs) we are not saying these people cannot see well or have bad senses or anything like that. Just that they will tend to focus on their hunches and intuitions (being dominant intuitives) and by doing so downplay their five senses as the most salient form of perception. These are the people who never trust what they see, but rather go off of instinct or what their gut tells them even if there is no physical evidence to back up their notions. In contrast a dominant sensation type (ISJ/ESP) typically favors what is presented right in front of them. Literal reality and evidence. A sensation type might say "I'll believe it when I see it." Or "show me the proof."


 That makes sense to me. Thank you!


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

When Jung talked about Introverted Sensation it was to him mostly about subjective experience. Basically where you pay more attention to how the sense input comes across to you (introversion) than the raw qualities of the experience itself. In short with Si you focus more on how you see things rather than the things that are actually there. Yes the ice is cold, but with Si the ice is cold and (insert whatever personal thing you want -- "it reminds me of when I grew up," or "it makes me unhappy" or whatever). The thing is you can't really describe it that way because there are no real worlds for that process where you grab something from your mind and attach it to a sensory experience.

The example I like to use is Vincent Van Gogh the painter who is sort of a clear example of what Jung was talking about when he described Si-type (I should point out that the MBTI definition of Si is markedly different than Jung's to avoid confusion). But Van Gogh's paintings are abstract and really only he could ever know what he saw that made him paint that way. Where with Se, we see Niagra Falls and just paint the falls (probably as accurately as we can because to interject something from within would be to spoil the raw beauty of it to a Se-type) with Si its all about how it comes across to you. So Van Gogh wouldn't paint the falls as they actually existed but rather based on the impression of them that he had. It still involves a sense perception (in this case sight) but the actual object (the waterfall as it is) is downplayed completely in favor of the impression it leaves on the person. It is a sense perception, but like all introverted functions it defaults to a self-referencing position first and foremost, not an object (something outside of the person) perspective. 

Now it's not necessarily the case that every abstract painting is by a Si-type or anything like that, but that's sort of a good example as to the difference. I always use van Gogh or Monet as examples of Si and someone like Ansel Adams, so obsessed with capturing the image as it is and not spoiling it with any impressionism as a Se-type. Commercial photography is often very Se, where the emphasis is purely on showing the object (say food or a beauty product or something) whereas fashion photography can be very impressionistic (more Si-ish) where we don't really know what the photographer was trying to get across or what he saw that made the image so compelling to him and we can never know (because it is introverted). Usually with Se, because it is objective, we can either recreate or understand what is going on. I can explain how Ansel Adams created his landscapes because there is an objectivity to those images. You could teach that technique. I cannot explain, nor could anyone else, why Van Gogh did what he did. 

That's sort of how Si vs Se was originally conceived, where with Se the person is drawn to the object itself (so the more stimulating the object the more someone is drawn to it) and with Si the person is drawn to the impression of whatever it is they are experiencing. I understand though that in MBTI Si is largely redefined as something else and I think that causes some confusion because other stuff like traditionalism, and sticking to what you know and all that gets mixed up in there (for various reasons I won't go into -- those aren't totally wrong they just may not be 100% because of Si). It makes sense that someone who was focused on the impressions experiences give off as relates to sensual experiences, would probably be more focused on how that relates to the body, however I am not convinced this is true of every type with a Si-function. ENxPs are sort of notoriously unaware of their body and its needs despite also having Si (sensation though is their most repressed function), so that might be more of a Si-dominant thing than just a Si thing overall.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

TheLizzyB40 said:


> I do understand that. But why then have I read that Si dominant are extremely aware of their bodily functions and state?


This sounds like a misunderstanding of Si-doms. We are no more aware of our bodily functions and state than any other type, but we do tend to trust the impressions formed through our senses rather than our intuition, which could appear to be an awareness of the physical, to an outside observer.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

ThatGuyInBlueRoom2 said:


> @_Rainman_
> 
> It seems to me that you are taking up issue with the actual cognitive functions that Jung observed. Is this the case? If so, just read Psychological Types. If you don't believe that people use intuition/sensing or feeling/thinking, you have a disagreement with Jung, not MBTI.


yeah already the descriptions of the types seem better from that linked page. but i mean just the concept of intuition/sensing vs thinking/feeling... why are there two ways of thinking... there isn't there's only thought. realistically are you aware of two categorys of thinking let a lone the dichotomy to each of those types of thinking? i'm not i'm only aware of thinking in words ie thought or thinking of the actual. i suppose thinking in dialogue would be a different category. how do you think? what do/see on your average day recently (presumign you think about it at some points in the day)?


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

@*Laserotti*




 - i watched this and it pretty much confirmed all the stuff i'd been thinking about. experiential thought vs language thought. yeah i'll let you know when i get the theory hehe. what do you think is like a good goal to have in life? because i know after i work out this theory and stuff that'll be my next thinking about/interest. 

because right now i think i know how to get the ultimate drug and the most excited/best state sensory/feeling state - music sounds better mirror neurons on everything everythings personified. and so that could be the end goal to constantly be like that idk or perhaps happiness is just the first step... just because i know my own states and honestly when in this sensory mode it's truly blissfull but is there a right goal to want to keep raising your state even when there's not really a need. and that's the interesting thing... your baseline when you feel normal it means you're not in pain and we'll say it's a discrete category not a continuous scale there is simply an emotion(s) that is bad and an emotion(s) that is good and when you feel 'normal' ie you don't feel anything you're just fine (at least for me that's how it is) well then that's technically a good emotion and therefore you don't want to get rid of any pain. basically what if your baselines state could be even more good, yet a good state by defintion means you are content and don't need to do anything to rid it and that includes you don't have an urge to become more happy because the definition of happy is that you're happy with how you are even if it's just a small amount. it's probably similar to concept of 'tone scale' in scientology.

UPDATE: I think there isn't a goal in life in the end it's just a stream of sensations and being in the sensory state is so blissfull why not just go wherever it leads. i'm in a strange predicament because i know that in the sensory state, an average takeaway will essentially taste better than the best gourmet meal when in a completely distracted from the meal ie a thoughtfull mode. so in that sense it's not necesary to become rich or at least it would be a waste of time becoming rich getting all that good stuff when you won't even enjoy it and you won't even realise you're not enjoying it until some point maybe.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Rainman said:


> yeah already the descriptions of the types seem better from that linked page. but i mean just the concept of intuition/sensing vs thinking/feeling... why are there two ways of thinking... there isn't there's only thought. realistically are you aware of two categorys of thinking let a lone the dichotomy to each of those types of thinking? i'm not i'm only aware of thinking in words ie thought or thinking of the actual. i suppose thinking in dialogue would be a different category. how do you think? what do/see on your average day recently (presumign you think about it at some points in the day)?


Here is why Jung decided on these as the functions


> By psychological function I understand a certain form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances. From the energic standpoint a function is a phenomenal form of libido (q.v.) which theoretically remains constant, in much the same way as physical force can be considered as the form or momentary manifestation of physical energy. I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational—viz. _thinking_ and _feeling_, _sensation_ and _intuition_. I can give no a priori reason for selecting just these four as basic functions; I can only point to the fact that this conception has shaped itself out of many years' experience.
> *I differentiate these functions from one another, because they are neither mutually relatable nor mutually reducible.* The principle of thinking, for instance, is absolutely different from the principle of feeling, and so forth. I make a capital distinction between this concept of function and phantasy-activity, or reverie, because, to my mind, phantasying is a peculiar form of activity which can manifest itself in all the four functions.
> 
> 
> In my view, both will and attention are entirely secondary psychic phenomena.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Rainman said:


> yeah already the descriptions of the types seem better from that linked page. but i mean just the concept of intuition/sensing vs thinking/feeling... why are there two ways of thinking... there isn't there's only thought. realistically are you aware of two categorys of thinking let a lone the dichotomy to each of those types of thinking? i'm not i'm only aware of thinking in words ie thought or thinking of the actual. i suppose thinking in dialogue would be a different category. how do you think? what do/see on your average day recently (presumign you think about it at some points in the day)?


It's in the attitude (I/E)

Ti and Te for instance have less in common than Ti and Fi or Te and Fe respectively.

This principle becomes easily apparent if you would watch an ISTP/INTP argue with an ESTJ/ENTJ - you'll see people, by nature, invalidating the other's ideas and disregarding them, as they come from a realm that plays no role in each others lives.

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


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

@*TheLizzyB40*
'Most of us drive so we use Se. But we also can tell when we're hungry and do have a memory so we use Si. Calling one a shadow function makes no sense to me. We'd be up the creek without a paddle without both. Same with the rest of the functions' - when you're driving you just pay attention to visual senses and feel when you're hungry you pay attention to sensation of hunger and as for memory i can remember ie my brain will pop out to me something someone actually said or i'd read that's hardly a sensation so i have actuall memories of a statement ie thought rather than an experience so memory is memory not sensing and then hunger and driving would be the same type of sense i'd just put both under in that moment in your stream of consciousness you're attending to a sense. further, when people drive it's subconscious ie way easier than when you learnt how to do it so if it's subconsious literally not in your stream of consciousnesses it happens by motor you're unaware of it then it's no longer even a 'function' in the sense that some people have it better than others otherwise there'd be like an equal number of crashes to the number of strong intuitors lol - there aren't that many crashes. by the post about the child, anima, demon etc corresponding that kind of makes me understand shadow functions more but really? it seems to be saying everyone has an evil ie oppositional to the object side to them and that's when they use their shadow function. i still don't like the word object because there's only objects when we classify them with words and meaning... classic autistic people some of them cannot recognise objects they see the world in 2d - they are blind to an idea of what anything is in terms of a classification lol - that's the sort of stuff that i'm trying to understand essentially the liquid. (actually that's how it is seen but using parrallex we identify objects). 

i also heard an expert on a panel discussion on happiness say 'if you're an introvert you can't be as happy' lol - the discussion theme was 'we don't know what happiness is'. i agree i think introverted people are systemisers and not sensory aka reading faces empathising, enjoying the here and now get drunk all the social experiences which when it comes down to it you're not achieving/doing anything it's just an experience - talking in person isn't doing anything it's just an experience. autistics are hardwired different neurotypicals i think introverts could be on the spectrum and extroverts the other end of the spectrum though i haven't learnt about neurotypicals enough to know if there is that scale. 

here's some science of mbti but i think it's just his opinion how he's classified the areas of the brain lighting up as the functions... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Object is a psychological term for anything that is not the individual (the subject). If you read lots of psychological literature you will see this is a commonly used term, but it sometimes differs from how the terms are used in everyday speech. That's sort of a problem when people read Jung because he will use words that everyone thinks means something (like concrete and abstract) and be using them in different ways. Some of this is just translation from German (like using the word Feeling for the function, instead of values).


so object basically means everything. because even your mind isn't you because if you're thinking about how your mind works then it's separate from you doing the thinking. one would have to define what the individual ie subject is exactlly.

this definition is needed as it's related to people's errors about Si Se etc. thinking about your body your hunger etc is just as much as an object as a tree out there. if you're aware of your body or aware of anything i'd say it becomes an object. principles of scientology - thetan.

'Just that they will tend to focus on their hunches and intuitions (being dominant intuitives) and by doing so downplay their five senses as the most salient form of perception' - here's where mbti conflicts with the science i've learnt... i learnt two types of brain intutiive and conscious they used the word intuive for subconcious - the subconscious brain is essentially in sensory format it remembers images and sensations not words/thoughts. if someone's rare enough to get one of those eureka moments which is true intuition (which is what i think you're referring too) then anyone who gets those is pretty much going to go by them and should apparently. but yeah my main point is those hunches come from senses stored in subconscious i think. it's just all linked... there aren't two dichotomies just like you're never of having two minds... intuition to me is thought. sensation to me is feeling. that's why your feelings are caused by the slight tone of voice someone says something to you. when i was imagining images i'd get a feeling alongside those images... it's why when you see a face/movement you're mirror neurons can fire and produce their feeling. intuition it's why when you're thinking you're thinking it isn't reading off a column in your mind, it's just thinking about a and b and suddenly you realise that must mean this is how c works. that sounds quite 'intuitive'.

basically i've concluded sensing vs intuiting just refers to how much someone relies on subconscious thought than conscious thought. which i'd hardly call a personality trait because they're not opposites they're on teh same scale conscious thought is actually controlled by subconscious in a way one isn't aware of. also to call it intuitive vs sensing then would be wrong because mathematicians are obviously very intuitive because you can't see maths it's a language in itself but when doing maths it's very conscious. to be fair perhaps it's only conscious when learning what other people have come up with but working out a new theory apparently it just comes to them after they've thought about it for ages.

'Yes the ice is cold, but with Si the ice is cold and (insert whatever personal thing you want -- "it reminds me of when I grew up," or "it makes me unhappy" or whatever). The thing is you can't really describe it that way because there are no real worlds for that process where you grab something from your mind and attach it to a sensory experience' - but that would mean that he's had the same experience as Se firstly. you have to go through Se experience to then have Si on top of that. also it suggests that the Se is literally a vegetable/a non stop sensory that just only takes in raw sensory information and it never produces them a feeling. i think it's to do with sometimes when i'm in the sensory mode everything becomes personified like a toothbrush or something it has a head and body etc. also texture colours will have feelings to them but i'm aware that i'm feeling it based on the fact my eyes are tracking the sensation and i put forward that you have sense the external enough to get enough thoughtless sensory information for it to produce an internalish feeling in you therefore Se=Si ie they're simultaneous. a distinction would be whether you focus on the past or the present ie go to memories or seek new experiences - i don't think that's a category for personality - no memory = insane, never doing anything but remembering some experiences that you've been remembering for 10 year is insane. 

don't some artists literally paint the picture in their mind... if that's the case we're seeing exactly what he saw. whether our sensory awareness is as great as his to get whatever feelings he got from it idk. it's easier to get feeling from sensation when it's mental sensation ie your own creativity rather than just another thing you're seeing. try to see 'excited' without recalling an excited person from memory. i'm pretty sure artists use less conscious than most others so they'd be intuitors by that dichotomy. 

from a meaning perspective everythings an object an emotion is an object because of you're aware of it. the fact you're aware of it means you're the subject and the emotion isn't you. also an emotion isn't really an object until you name it categorise as what emotion it was... from a sensory perspective there are no objects that's is how the most autistic people see things literally.
i went by hating sensors for a while because i literally thought they did just look at a waterfall say and get nothing from it and yet just do those things because it's the social thing and they're mindless but now i think sensation is feeling and anyone who's a real sensor gets feelings from those things.. when you're so thoughtless as you're seeing something you're literally taking in way more information. (if they had technology trackign your eyes your eyes would be darting about around the key places of the object a lot more than someone else who's distracted (on a subconscious level). ansel adams could get just as much inner feeling from the images as van goph got and htat would incidentally be the reason why he doesn't need to change the image. it's the crazy feelings of the senses that artists go by. sure it's easy to find these examples in art that seem to help mbti's case but what about the art of music all of that is simultaneously abstract and also using real sounds - at the end of the day all art is colour it's only when we classify it as impressionistic or real that it changes but it's still just as an autistic would see it patterns of colour. if you have a messy bedroom like me just look at all the different cans lying about with their designs on it (in the modern that wouldn't seem abstract as i'm used to those things but imagine a caveman or whatever seeing it they'd think it's the most abstract sight ever). 

'I can explain how Ansel Adams created his landscapes because there is an objectivity to those images. You could teach that technique. I cannot explain, nor could anyone else, why Van Gogh did what he did.' - just by the fact you've used the word explain means that you can explain whatever's at task. i'm properly misunderstanding but explain ansel adams landscapes do you mean how he created it in terms of how the mountains formed or in terms of why he made it or what or his camera technique etc? as for van goph the explanation would be what we're talking about now how one's brain works subconcious mind sensation etc. but on top of that whatever feelings come from those sensation they're thoughtless they're not in the format of meaning and explanation but you could explain how generally feelings come about. like everything can eventually be explained. if you've concieved of not being to explain it then already you're in the act of thinking about how it works as that's how you concluded it could not be explained. jake barnett's is like explaining white holes anything can be explained. 

it's hard enough excepting any dichotomy honestly because when you live your life you're not aware of two modes really that would be like having two selves... the only thing i've realised recently is how much people pay attention to their senses and that senses aren't how i understood it by the awful mbti (not jung) that is sensing basically stupid i thought they were Thinking about the sensory stuff (what nonsense... some people still think this). they're not thinking about the sensory stuff they're sensing the sensory stuff. but even then who just senses and nothing more to it - well there is more to it you get feelings from paying attention to your senses and they're crazy.. honestly who pays attention to their senses all the time enough for it to be their personality trait whilst get nothing from it. sensation = feeling. van goph and the photographer are the same... albeit i reckon van gophs sensory awareness level was higher than ansal adams that's why it's more unique and created. i think sensation = feeling = creativeness. 

again for your last paragraph the body, emotions i think are any other object. when you see an car it's visual when you see your hand it's visual and as for weight and balance using mirror neurons you can even get that sensation from other people objects than just yourself. after all you can mentally sense balance and touch and all that just by imagining it. the body is just another object that occupies your sense and that you can think about ie biology. i just saw an mbti video the guy talks about being aware of body and si. 

jungs reasoning for conceiving the four functions is nothing but sayin they are apriori based on his experience. whereas i've given my reasons for why the functions i conceive are a priori - summarising that is they relate to reality and reality is a sensation however words and symbols etc are codes and make the spectrum of abstract to real. yet words are less likely to induce feelings than sensational things which causes confusion as feelings are considered abstract to an extent but really they come from the being most aware of sensation this life experience. the absolutely different formats of cosciousness are thought and sensation ie words/symbols/language or literally paying attention to sensation. one's objective the other's literally subjective. 
@Erbse
i barely understand 'validation' as a concept because i think so independently so scientifically ( i just imagine it as an idiot denying someone despite their argument) when it comes to beliefs i guess that's something it's to do with. and reading the field guide to earthlings i think anyone who does that falls into the same category of neurotypical. they're not thinking or arguing it's all about beliefs for them and persauding the majoirty to think a certain way as they only believe what is believed. i'm still learning about it actually i should probably stop speaking about. field guide to earthlings is great on that area of people doing that. invalidating someones idea is on the lower end of the same scale that includes general hate and aggression. i didn't get how talking about i/e applied to my specific comment you quoted, being frank. 'two ways of thinking' i was referring to the .. vs ..


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Functions are really only mentalities - N/S/F/T are all hueristic labels for how a person tends to direct their thoughts. So, for instance, you can say that someone has a dominantly intuitive mentality if they tend to direct their thoughts toward underlying possibilities, phenomena, etc. to gain perspectives (not that easy to recognize IRL like MBTI deludes you to believe) - it's the head honcho way a person will orient themselves to a situation - it's under this mentality (although it can certainly be for the sake of their other functions more than just for the sake of intuition alone - in fact, that's exactly why it would be the dominant to begin with - it's the main & first way you try to gain leverage over what comes your way that you may (unconsciously) be pressured to defend yourself against. You aren't always you dominant function - most of the time, you might just exhibit function-attitudes that may just serve to prevent you from going to the function at all. So whatever attitude is most developed in you is what tells you your dominant (after all, intuition is just one function, but if it's introverted, this should tell you that it is subjective - directed toward your personal thoughts and emotions, not the objective factors of the outside world - other functions will take care of these for you or unconsciously, you might have awareness of intuitive opposition to your dominant in the form of extraverted (objective) intuition - this might be the person who sort of stereotypes objective intuitions just to work around them toward their own goals (not always - usually, they're on terms with intuitions, but when they're not, these episodes might come up) - sort of like the person who shrugs something off like "yea yea, I get where this will go - irrelevant...blah, blah, blah" and then proceeds to oppose this with their own ideas of importance. You can be directing a lot of functions, but the dominant, to Jung, was the only one that truly gets abstracted away from present or concrete conditions (the aux/tert, otherwise known merely as auxes, are capable of being abstracted away from the self as well, but not as globally as the dominant - at least not with the frequency and influence of the dominant, even if they do come close to it - they usually carry more emotions than the dominant and take on a more personal character - the extent to which the aux/tert differ is very controversial - from all of the theories out there, it depends on the individual, I would say, and depends on the overall fluidity of the aux/tert functions to begin with - keeping THESE, and not stereotypical MBTI ideas in mind, Jung thought the aux. might be functioning a little closer to the abstraction level of the dominant, in terms of how removed from the self it comes off, but I'd argue this is only the case when the aux. pairs up specifically with the dominant anyhow - I'd guess any function under the influence of the dominant might be abstracted more, just because through the dominant, you have an awareness of abstraction to begin with that can be applied to the other two (or more) that happen to be in your conscious sphere of personal identity). The inferior is the one Jung considered "primitive" merely because it could not be well abstracted away from the emotions and identity of the individual - this occurs through it's projection onto the outside world as what you see others doing, but don't see yourself doing (or you get really personal and touchy about it - you can't detachedly remove yourself from it, so it ends up, with the auxes when they get rationalized toward it, being what Jung would call, closer to the self - motivated more by self concerns and interests than a normal sense of defensive orientation to the world. I would argue that people acting with reference to the aux/tert/inferior are probably doing it with under the motivation of complexes coming from what they would want to avoid being seen as (so, fighting this in a fairly healthy way, since it's all still in the ego syntonic realm), while the dominant is influenced by wishes of what you would want to see yourself as (the inferior would be the open-ended gateway between both of these ideas, while frankly, I think the auxes would be the helpful defenders of the potentially ego dystonic).

Yea, this sounds like a lot of obscure rambling to newcomers, but I'm the person getting the other, non-MBTI related perspectives out there to those who have thrown their hands up with MBTI. After all, you are not your type. MBTI makes way too much out of functions and order of preference (which is, frankly, irrelevant to anything other than what you and only you can really know about yourself - I'm not convinced the MBTI way either than a type resembles behaviors or anything that you can call a persona (it might sometimes, but I'm convinced this is the exception, not the rule - very few people I know fall into the types easily at all - the ones that do just do by accident of their persona - that's my issue with MBTI using behavior as a marker of type, I mean, how do you really know what's most obvious is necessarily most TYPICAL of Jung's theory - what if it's an exception just aligning to your own superficially observered projections onto people? This is a very controversial issue for strict MBTI adherents, but it goes back to the historical incompatibility of the Behaviorist field of psychology (MBTI) and Jung's Analytical Psychology, the former not really being psychology at all - after all, you can have two people of totally different types who have the same personas - I'm pretty sure I've seen it IRL before with an ISTJ who pretty much has a hardcore ISFP persona - If I wasn't educated enough to make educated guesses about the person's type, I never would've guessed an MBTI ISTJ was closer to the person's true type than ISFP). I've known ESTJs with ISTJ personas, ESFJs with ESTJ personas, tons of ESTPs with ESFJ-ish personas, etc. Honestly, if you read Jung, I'm not even sure an NTP persona is even real based on my experiences IRL (unless maybe you are constantly working in a lab with computers all day and have to learn to think like the machines or outwit the machines). Some of the MBTI stereotypes are, frankly, loads of nonsense imo (which is obviously not unexpected when you stereotype people by outward appearance).


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> @_Rain_man
> Jungs reasoning for conceiving the four functions is nothing but sayin they are apriori based on his experience. whereas i've given my reasons for why the functions i conceive are a priori - summarising that is they relate to reality and reality is a sensation however words and symbols etc are codes and make the spectrum of abstract to real. yet words are less likely to induce feelings than sensational things which causes confusion as feelings are considered abstract to an extent but really they come from the being most aware of sensation this life experience. the absolutely different formats of cosciousness are thought and sensation ie words/symbols/language or literally paying attention to sensation. one's objective the other's literally subjective.


Jung's establishment of the four functions of ego relate to archetypal ideas. But I think I can sum up some of your concerns about the whole typology with James Hillman's (a prominent Jungian) critique (and defense) of all typologies in his lecture _Egalitarian Typologies vs. The Perception of the Unique_. Here are some excerpts (its a long read but you should better understand all of this at its core afterward)



> The second thorn has to do with Jung’s _Psychological Types. _As you know, this work - begun over sixty years ago - is that part of his opus most well-known to the public, and it is being revived today by many Jungians in hopes of putting their school on a more clinical, or scientific, or academic basis. I for one feel profoundly discomfited by Jung’s typology - and even more by a science of personality based on a scientific method of types. Once the label has been found, the inferiority or superiority identified, then what? How does one imagine further? Moreover, is it not the old drill-sergeant Ego who is called on to develop the raw and lazy inferiorities by marching the mandala round through all four functions.
> 
> My irritation seems supported by other Jungian analysts. In an international survey published in 1972 on the use of typology among Jungians in active practice, result number one states: “only half the number of analysts replying found the typology helpful in analytical practice”. [1] But surely we cannot so lightly dismiss Jung’s major work of his middle period. What relevance has Jung’s typology? Why types at all?





> Owing to this uncertain boundary, types are used most frequently in life-sciences and humanities. Types can flow into one another: there is no sharp border between typical historical periods (Medieval and Renaissance), between typical literary styles (heroic and tragic), or between typical groupings of mental disorders, social functions or even animal species. F1uidity, relativity, elasticity is a most distinctive aspect of the type concept.
> 
> Therefore, there cannot be any pure types because they are not meant to be pure, by definition. [6]A pure type has already become a class where a different sort of logic obtains. My name begins with H, and I was called to military service in 1944. That puts me into two classes with hard edges. There is nothing typical about persons whose names begin with H or who were called up in 1944. We can, however, be classified with H and 44. Classes require an ‘either/or’, types a ‘more/less’, kind of thinking. I am either an H or I am not; I cannot be more of an H than an L or a T, or a lesser H or a little H, etc. But with types I am rather more an extravert than an introvert, a point which Jung made at the very beginning of his _Psychological Types _(§§4-6). Extraversion does not _per se _exclude introversion.
> 
> ...





> Because psychological types are not directly observable, it has been a major exercise of personality research to make them more visible. [12] Experiments demonstrate or test singled-out factors of personality: cognitive abilities such as reading speed, syllogistic reasoning, word-fluency; or motor abilities such as aiming, reaction time, manual dexterity. This is what most experimental psychologists of personality, are busy with. Then these low-level multiple factors can be computed and integrated into second-and third-level groupings called intelligence, reasoning, creativity, and then, finally, high-level types of personality may be empirically verified as clusters of these trait factors. Then a type has some demonstrability. “True to type” means predictable reactions. Then a term like _introvert _becomes operational and a piece of positiveknowledge. [13]
> 
> The chief urge behind the attempts to devise tests for Jung’s eight types (Grey-Wheelwright, Myers-Briggs) has been to establish them as observable ‘facts’ acceptable to ‘science’. In the great corpus of Jung’s work his types offer the best place for the succubus of the science fantasy to latch, or leech, on.
> 
> ...





On why a fourfold model



> [SUB]First of all, his types are formed into a polar construction such as we discussed. The polar construction makes the types not mere random eclectic categories, but a _typology. It is this system which gives them their high-level explanatory power. They are axiomatically connected with one another in a tightly-knit, tension-filled “cross” (§983). This cross is also all-inclusive. Jung claims completeness for his typology (§843; CW 11, §246), much as does Aristotle for his four causes, Schopenhauer for his four principles of reason, Popper for his four root metaphors, Pavlov for his four types of nervous systems, Russell for his four types of philosophical statements. [24] The claim to comple_teness seems characteristic of four-fold systems. That is, it belongs to the rhetoric of the archetypal perspective of fourness to present itself as a systematic whole, a mandala with an internal logic by means of which the system defends itself as all-encompassing. [25]
> [/SUB]
> [SUB]Because Jung’s types are laid out axiomatically as a polar construction, the types rest on their ‘Ology’, on principles even more fundamental than the types themselves: the principles of opposition, [26] even mutual exclusion, operating between the pairs of “subject and object”, “inner and outer”, “conscious and unconscious”, “rational and irrational”, “superior and inferior”, “mind and heart”, “actual and possible”. Anyone using the types in their systematic form is immediately implicated in the premises - and problems - on which the system depends. Jung’s typology, presented modestly as a description of empirical functions and attitudes, nonetheless implicates an entire _Weltbild _of oppositions and energies held together by its mandala form. If not overtly an ontology or metaphysics, at least we cannot escape its_Weltanschauung. _It is set forth as the basic structure of our consciousness.
> [/SUB]
> ...





> *Jung did not intend his typology to be used for typing persons.*
> 
> Precisely the way in which his types are used and experimented with in the Grey-Wheelwright and Briggs-Myers tests - the clinical scientism - is what Jung expressly did not intend.
> 
> ...





> What then was the “fundamental tendency” of the book if it was not to type persons? Jung sets it out most clearly:“Its purpose is rather to provide a critical psychology... First and foremost, it is a critical tool for the research worker” (§986). “The typological system I have proposed is an attempt... to provide an explanatory basis and theoretical framework for the boundless diversity.., in the formation of psychological concepts” (§987).​
> 
> Note that: *not diversity of human beings, but diversity of psychological concepts. *As a critical psychology, a psychology that offers a critical tool for examining ideas, it belongs to epistemology, and it was a necessary consequent of Jung’s placing psyche first. As Aniela Jaffe has said here at Eranos 1971 - referring to that period between 1913 and 1919 when Jung had been convinced through his own experience of the primacy of psychic reality - “the soul cannot be the object of judgement and knowledge, but judgement and knowledge are the object of the soul”. The types were to provide the fundamental psychological antinomies which enter into every judgement in psychology. The typology was intended as a means of seeing through statements about the soul. [31] It was an attempt at a differentiated understanding of the variety of human psychologies (§851_-_53).
> The consequence of using a multiple tool is psychological relativism. This Jung knew; and it is even a corollary purpose of this _Types _to see through and relativize any psychological position. He says in the Epilogue to that work:“...in the case of psychological theories the necessity of a plurality of explanations is given from the start”... “an intellectual understanding of the psychic process must end in paradox and relativity” (§855-56; cf. 846-49).​
> ...


There is much, much more to that read this was as best as I could do to cut it down, but I hope after reading it you have a better understanding of what Jung was after, and why people have such issues around typology in general. Hillman argues that type (all various forms of typology) is an image or imaginal and should be treated as such, however necessary its purpose is for us to effectively organize and understand our worlds.

When you look at it from Hillman's perspective all of a sudden much of the conversation that takes place on these websites looks _very silly_ (especially the "my Ti knows this" and my "Te does that" kind of stuff).


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

@LiquidLight



> Hillman argues that type (all various forms of typology) is an image or imaginal and should be treated as such, however necessary its purpose is for us to effectively organize and understand our worlds.


by "imaginal", does he mean to use it as a non-existent reference point. as if, "this is what it would look like if it were possible for a person to become this, but realize that this is not so; use it to crystallize a concept while still keeping it in a fashion that allows it to pertain to reality"?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Erbse;3155113In [B said:


> my experience[/B] Jung can be applied quite accurately.


But that's the problem, isn't it? That your experience is not my experience and without knowing my experience how can you begin to question whether it is my lack of theory or whether the theory itself that is lacking? 

And I think the real beauty is when Jung and neuroscience merges.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Functions are really only mentalities - N/S/F/T are all hueristic labels for how a person tends to direct their thoughts. So, for instance, you can say that someone has a dominantly intuitive mentality if they tend to direct their thoughts toward underlying possibilities, phenomena, etc. to gain perspectives (not that easy to recognize IRL like MBTI deludes you to believe) - it's the head honcho way a person will orient themselves to a situation - it's under this mentality (.


haven't read the stuff below yet (not of your comment but the other comments i mean) but essentially what you've said is why i dont think it's good for typing it's a bad system if all does refer to the type of things one things about. those things can't even categorised apart from superficially. i'm reading about a science article but it's not a new discovery just a basic discovery in the past so therefore i'm sensing. i'm also thinking about the implications it will have on society rather than interested in how it works that much so i'm a feeler... also if it's just what you tend to think about then that means you can change your personality according to whatever one appeals of those types. essentially you're still thinking however format you're thinking about whatever it is. it's fascinating that dyslexic people don't have inner speech their thought is all images... that's going to make a difference in someone's personality type and it supports the sense of permanency about personalities because literally one can't think about a way of thinking that they've never thought in. at least not until they read some forum post like this. it always come as a shock to learn that people literal have a different format of thinking. and i believe this is what leads to their surface personality by small scientific factors that seem too hard to believe. for instance i think someone who thinks systematically so much ie very clever they also lose attention to sensation they problem solve so much that they don't comprehend they focus on one task so much that they lose the big picture of life for them literally. so when it comes to social situations because they're such verbal thinkers they can't read body language (ie non verbal communication) adn then that leads to how they act whether they like it or not. also i was unaware of how i felt around most people for a long time ie unaware of anxiety thinking it was just normal or something. i dont have anxiety anymore just a kind nervousness. which i didn't have today instead like i was i heard of the sounds in music, the girls around uni there was a tangible sensation of attraction just as my eyes looked over them for a split second (not that i dont THINK ie recognise a hot girl from a normal one who or whatever but this time there was a tangible sensation of basically as the sensation of touch and balance just from looking at them as if looking at their movement/body fired off my mirror neurons where it was like i was in their body). i think happiness is literally in the present which is literally paying attention to your immediate senses (or imaginary senses) basically just the present is sensation and it's thoughtless.

but back on track the type of stuff one thinks about surely doesn't explain the great variety of differences you see in people. ie personality. when you think about personality is just what you see to a large extent you remember some people as upbeat and happy and all that that's an emotion essentially. and that's something basicaly out of ones control to a lareg definatley not you think about or what you think is cool etc. i'm looking at the neuroscience of it all which is pretty grim and cold way to view life so i guess it's just knowing i can get rid of my uncomfort and i know what 'happiness' is ie great natural emotion. if we all werthe same type neurologically then we wouldn't be so different and then you'd have to differentiate yourself by thought. i'm basically looking at the labels and seeing them as a way of understanding types of people but without considering them disorders . i think jung's perception of introvert extrovert correlates to the scientific autism vs neurotypical spectrum.

i should do less writing more learning now though.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Actually, I think this article psychologically and philosophically captures the essence of what Jung was getting at with introversion and extraversion (subjectivity/objectivity, respectively):

http://cadcommunity.pbworks.com/f/freeing%20ourselves.pdf



> *Let's imagine that the ethnographer had been concerned about accounting for his subjectivity, that he had engaged in a "formal, systematical monitoring of self" and had thereby "tamed" his subjectivity (Peshkin, 1988, p. 20), or had been "rigourously subjective" (Jackson, 1990, p. 154). Let's imagine he had provided the reader with a "subjectivity audit" (Peshkin, 1988, p. 18), and that he had "come clean" as I have heard some refer to this trend to account for one's subjectivity. Or let's assume he had "admitted" his "subjective experience" in order to facilitate "a more self-conscious attempt to control for observer bias" (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984, p. 9). *


----------



## datMBTIguy (Oct 31, 2012)

My fascination with MBTI is specifically to learn about people who do things differently from me and how to communicate with them more effectively. Of course people are more than just their personality type but there is certainly some sense to it. You could even call it pseudoscience but it still has its place. I use it as a tool to develop my empathy skills and to understand how other people think and why. Whether it's by virtue of being an ISTJ or whether it's just being Riki N. the guy, I've never naturally been good at seeing subjective and abstract things. For example I don't relate much to seemingly illogical, emotionally charged decision-making because I don't use it myself; but other people do make these types of decisions and that doesn't mean they're illogical as much as it means I'm ignorant to their way of approaching the world. MBTI helps me recognize how different kinds of people behave and how I can best respond to facilitate smooth, effective and productive communication with those who are different from me.

Call it whatever you want, it has its place.


----------



## TheLizzyB40 (Nov 6, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> When Jung talked about Introverted Sensation it was to him mostly about subjective experience. Basically where you pay more attention to how the sense input comes across to you (introversion) than the raw qualities of the experience itself. In short with Si you focus more on how you see things rather than the things that are actually there. Yes the ice is cold, but with Si the ice is cold and (insert whatever personal thing you want -- "it reminds me of when I grew up," or "it makes me unhappy" or whatever). The thing is you can't really describe it that way because there are no real worlds for that process where you grab something from your mind and attach it to a sensory experience.
> 
> The example I like to use is Vincent Van Gogh the painter who is sort of a clear example of what Jung was talking about when he described Si-type (I should point out that the MBTI definition of Si is markedly different than Jung's to avoid confusion). But Van Gogh's paintings are abstract and really only he could ever know what he saw that made him paint that way. Where with Se, we see Niagra Falls and just paint the falls (probably as accurately as we can because to interject something from within would be to spoil the raw beauty of it to a Se-type) with Si its all about how it comes across to you. So Van Gogh wouldn't paint the falls as they actually existed but rather based on the impression of them that he had. It still involves a sense perception (in this case sight) but the actual object (the waterfall as it is) is downplayed completely in favor of the impression it leaves on the person. It is a sense perception, but like all introverted functions it defaults to a self-referencing position first and foremost, not an object (something outside of the person) perspective.
> 
> ...


Hmm. My understanding is that what you are describing as Si is Ni. So if abstract is more Si that what the heck is Ni?!?


----------



## TheLizzyB40 (Nov 6, 2012)

niss said:


> This sounds like a misunderstanding of Si-doms. We are no more aware of our bodily functions and state than any other type, but we do tend to trust the impressions formed through our senses rather than our intuition, which could appear to be an awareness of the physical, to an outside observer.


So is this article all wrong then?
Personality Junkie | ISTJ


----------



## TheLizzyB40 (Nov 6, 2012)

@LiquidLight and @niss Here is another article. He has asked that his work not be copied and pasted so I just linking. Please note the last paragraph of his article. Thanks! Introverted Sensing / Sensation (Si) | Personality Junkie


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

TheLizzyB40 said:


> So is this article all wrong then?
> Personality Junkie | ISTJ


All wrong? No. Substantially incorrect? Yes.



TheLizzyB40 said:


> @LiquidLight and @niss Here is another article. He has asked that his work not be copied and pasted so I just linking. Please note the last paragraph of his article. Thanks! Introverted Sensing / Sensation (Si) | Personality Junkie


What's the question about the last paragraph?


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Jung's establishment of the four functions of ego relate to archetypal ideas. But I think I can sum up some of your concerns about the whole typology with James Hillman's (a prominent Jungian) critique (and defense) of all typologies in his lecture _Egalitarian Typologies vs. The Perception of the Unique_. Here are some excerpts (its a long read but you should better understand all of this at its core afterward)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hillman argues that type (all various forms of typology) is an image or imaginal and should be treated as such, however necessary its purpose is for us to effectively organize and understand our worlds. - that just translates as hillman thins typing refers to the soul of a person and should be considered this way to the extent it helps us understand our worlds (and organise if you're of the organising type). 

hehe i wont be delving too much into this site then - just on this thread it broke into a argument of their functions vs the other persons.

like the liquid analogy before the neuroscience that looks at the structure of the liquid not just the surface appearance has way more elastic fluid typing to the point you can know at each moment what type you're in. and the specific variance in the brain's neurons and stuff can be seen like how much dopamine addhd people. 'soul' is just the word supernatural but in a psychological context - supernatural is just the word for something that isn't explained (see the funny video god of paradox). my typing is so fluid that it isn't even typing it just shows the basic possible ways the conscious brain and the subconscious brain works (in basic form and then sees how it can lead to the eventual surface behaviours/things you do that is known as personality. i guess similar to the cognitive psychology if you know more about that. 

he talks about the general nature of typing. discrete vs analogous. 

_ Actual concrete qualities of personality lose their blood to attitudes and functions. This happens every day when we look at ourselves typologically. - agreed. and the paragraph before that about reaction times etc i agree too the scientific things eventually all form together in a liquid that leads to how someone appears on the surface and how they act/look. like the mbti is just a type of thoughts if anything what my response to other guy is about. 

__keeping my checkbook accurately, understanding the principles of information theory, or__Mengenlehre, or symbolic logic, or how the television can be repaired; I may still stumble over the correct grammar of ‘that’ and ‘which’ in clauses, daylight-saving-time or Celsius-Fahrenheit conversions. These may each be miserable inferiorities in my thinking, even though I can perform many other analytical, logical, and systematic activities with precision, speed, and ease - see right brain vs left brain rsa. you need both sides of the brain for general problem solving. for systemising that's heavily left but for working out how to fix a tv on your own imagining what's inside the materials used etc may help. like the task of thinking as he's described it would be best done with both sides of the brain ie thought and sensation. think about that's all you'll ever have thought or sensation (emotions/6 senses) in your stream of consciousness therefore why not call the dichotomy guess he has except my system there isn't two dichotomoies only one otherwise there'd be four things you're aware of doing which doesn't exist. so perhaps sensing vs intuiting literally means whether you consciously think or subscociously think but given that the subconsios only works in sensation that is still just the category of sensation vs thought. 


when you pay attention to an object say that's here in the now that's not sensing that's thinking... why because you've classified it as an object if you were paying attention to your senses you'd be seeing a whole picture of objects ie your whole visual on your rectangular screen of sight.

fourfold model first paragraph - just says it's fourfold because lots of other typing theories are fourfold...

related: computers are living because they have sensation - the sensation of the electrical signal when it's on and when it's off... sensation is merely information. they have sensation. it's binary but it's still sensation.

'__Far too many readers have succumbed to the error of thinking that Chapter X (‘General Description of the Types’)' - it feels like a power like you're invincible with the knoweldge - general description of the types it's like a bestiary. seeing as mbti is based on jung - she's fucking ignored his what he said about how you're meant to understand it completely...

'__in the case of psychological theories the necessity of a plurality of explanations is given from the start”... “an intellectual understanding of the psychic process must end in paradox and relativity”' - ... 
__
there's only one thing worse than typing people and that's typing people intuitively, badly and unrealistically. 

read all of it.. it's about the soul and stuff like that and not wanting to overly type and it's fluid.. it still doesn't mean his categories are right or anything... someone needs to argue his actual dichotomies and the system of mbti against that's what i've been doing. like describe the functions - i've described how i think the mind can function. and honestly it's a lot more eye opening than say theguyintheblueroom saying it's just the type of thought someone has... i knew people had different thoughts to me i never knew they had a completely different way of thinking i never knew they'd think less than me and vicariously feel other people's emotions. 

the videos i've posted here have evidence from tests for my theory. basically experiential thought takes away your nerves. and a persons nervousness you could say is there confidence and that's a word that;s used so often to describe people (i guess describe their personality to an extent). 

but yeah again my theory as i know it now stated again: you either think with words (symbolically) or with sensation ie comprehension (and then you have memory). there's meaning and then there's living like actual sensation. and perhaps there's a dichotomy of how strong your subconscious is vs conscious but apparently all visual thought may be subconsscious ish idk. what you just read isn't just theoretical you can start being aware of it right now. notice when your mind popped out a memory (usually associated with what you were just thinking about) aka something someone said to you, a crucial thought, being somewhere. or are you not thinking consciously at all and are constantly doing stuff and tasks ie reacting all day till sleep where you just drop off immediately. are you braindead and just can stare at literally nothing coz you're so tired. when you read do you hear a voice or do you just skim over the words you're seeing and then pictures come of what you're reading about or when speaking do you comprehend what you're hearing and see what he's talking about or do you just listen to it as if that's all there is to it to logically understand it?. do you imagine seeing, experiencing loads of different types of actual things? do you strategies about everything? _


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

*@datMBTIguy*

i think it works as much as if you were to apply horoscopes to people but think they were real. horoscope star signs describe different types of people and you could then apply it what you've learnt about different types but it wouldn't be realistic and if it worked for you then something else was probably going on you were using your own mind better than the theory in a sense. as for communication differences knowing how people really think how their mind's actually work is best for that. some people think entirely in images for me that's crazy... but it's possible and apparently is how it works. those people are the ones that talk a lot and stumble out their words because they're trying to describe a picture with words and new pictures keep coming as they think.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Yea I should've included Thomas Moore's excellent primer on Hillman before posting that because Hillman sees everything that relates to the psyche as imaginal. There's a long dissertation on this in _The Cambridge Companion to Jung_ which I'm sure you can find online, I'll try to find some excerpts, but I shouldn't have thrown Hillman into it without first establishing where he is coming from. When I get a little more time I can better explain some of the fundamentals because he uses words like soul and spirit in very obtuse ways (careful to not confuse the two). He also stands on the outside of a lot of the more stricter Jungians, but is also more famous I suppose rivaled perhaps by only Von Franz, but his basic contention is that imagination itself is a form of reality. I'll get into it later.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

the subconscious brain doesn't know the difference between imagined and real. it stores both experiences. and if you think about it remembering a dream an image of yourself in that dream is pretty similar in it's picture quality etc to a real life memory. as for soul vs spirit i'm not liking the psuedoscience sounding of that. 

also not to be a dick but if you've read this stuff you should be able to mix it into your own general understanding to answer me in your own words. or if it's an isolated knoweldge then like summarise the key points that relates to my argument. i wasn't entirely sure how it related to what i've mainly been posting here. and to be honest i haven't fully read chapter x yet which seems to be better than all the mbti type descriptions i've seen so far.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i'll be honest, i haven't read everyone of your posts (lack of punctuation makes it a pain--no offense ). but from reading part of your post:



> like the liquid analogy before the neuroscience that looks at the structure of the liquid not just the surface appearance has way more elastic fluid typing to the point you can know at each moment what type you're in. and the specific variance in the brain's neurons and stuff can be seen like how much dopamine addhd people. 'soul' is just the word supernatural but in a psychological context - supernatural is just the word for something that isn't explained (see the funny video god of paradox). my typing is so fluid that it isn't even typing it just shows the basic possible ways the conscious brain and the subconscious brain works (in basic form and then sees how it can lead to the eventual surface behaviours/things you do that is known as personality. i guess similar to the cognitive psychology if you know more about that.


 --i don't see why you'd have a problem with Jung. he seems right up your alley. from what i know, he didn't attempt to give a road map so one could follow any individual from the bottom of a rabbit hole up to the surface and see the detailed connection all the way through. if that's what you're looking for, this won't give it to you since that "cheat sheet" doesn't exist, but it will give you a rather thread-bare foundation (in comparison) that can act as a stable frame work on which to theorize and, potentially (if you have the mind to), test. 

in "psychological archetypes and the collective unconscious" (or something like that), the first chapter is nothing but an essay of sorts on how the mechanisms of the mind give rise to religion. how man's (and women's :wink inclination to project this primitive amalgamation of stored symbols and schema's onto the world in order to make sense of something that is outside our bounds of explanation gets relegated to a timeless story/battle/what-have-you that is called forth from us (unknowingly). it speaks about how the mind will function in order maintain some semblance of homeostasis; how this projection is at once (in a since) a tool for building and expanding upon an archetypical theme, a threat to the prevailing dogma or overriding and most pervasive archetype, and also, again, how the mind will allow for the shape that the archetype takes to fluctuate in order to encompass this new view/perspective to maintain "relative health" (which, i think Jung thought that it was this cycle that basically built archetypical themes through humanity, and even though they all differed to an extent in their details, they all share the same basic mold or "base"). 

it is interesting though. i mean, i think it would pretty hard to absolutely prove something that is intangible in regards to science, something that can't be measured... but when just talking to people, you can hear them accidentally speak about these themes, or relay some of the key points in the first chapter in different words, almost without meaning to (as if they didn't even know they thought that before they spoke about it). 

you can definitely see the uneven relationship that people have between what jung called their "dom/inferior". it's not like he sat alone in his room all day and tried to be clever or imaginative creating something from his mind and the actively and desperately trying to make it "fit" into reality--he did the reverse; he actively observed, and what he observed (and what any person can observe if they're willing to focus), he gave names to. now yes, there are assumptions, but these assumptions seem to be held together by the stable construct of his attempt to relate everything back to reality. that is, the why may be off (the in-between spot of "reality checks--is it possible that something else could be fitted into that spot and have everything still work? maybe), or other people may be playing to closely and recreate this as their own sort of dogma, but if you use it as a malleable framework to guide, and don't get too hung up "well, actually people say that x is impossible according to Jung", it can be really helpful and you can actively see it occurring. 

the real importance of this all is that imbalance that exists within all people, that imbalance that we give different names and faces, that we project onto existing situations that are completely unrelated to our specific and most intimate of problems; we make up whole schools of thought (called religion or myth) that expound on the reasons as to why we're not whole, and how/what we should do in order to become whole. the importance is the realization of that schism you were born into--something that does exist and was given a name by a person only in order to shine a light on the source of the issue, or, the place one can begin looking (that is, within, not without) in order to at least keep it chained so it doesn't unknowingly control you. 

you can witness this all in real life and regardless of what you choose to call it, it's there. 

(no offense to those who are religious , i myself believe in "something").


----------



## TheLizzyB40 (Nov 6, 2012)

niss said:


> All wrong? No. Substantially incorrect? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> What's the question about the last paragraph?


Could you help me understand where he's incorrect?

In the last paragraph where he says that Si preserves information in its original form.

I'm really not trying to be a pain in the butt here. I am trying to understand the functions so that I can figure out where I fit. It is almost impossible to type yourself when you cannot even get an accurate definition of the functions. It is very frustrating.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Rainman said:


> May I ask why you've replied with a personal attack having failed 3 times now including this post to give any argument defending your MBTI? The fact you didn't realise that i was speaking in regular language not mbti speak and assumed i hadn't read the stuff you've read about mbti how it works despite me clearly this entire thread making an argument against it? how does one make an argument against something they don't know/read about at all? so you've attacked still i'll give you one more chance to actually argue against my point about why the mbti doesn't entirely work as a system seeing as you've made 3,700 posts and are probably firmly convicted in all of it.
> 
> ok how about the definitions of introversion and extroversion... they both revolve and the idea of 'energy' so why don't you tell me what you think definition of energy is here? (that would be an argument not a personal attack btw).


If you perceived that I attacked you, well that's not really my intention. I think you're the one who failed many times defending your anti-MBTI bias. Maybe MBTI doesn't make sense for you, but not to many. Don't complicate MBTI by giving your new convoulted theory that are so vague and incoherent. You can either dismiss MBTI, or understand its concept and purpose. Yeah, sure MBTI has many flaws, but it is meant for people to understand the "basics" of a person's personality, and to understand why some people operate in a different way. It is meant to help people operate in their best self to avoid the pitfalls and blindspots that could bring someone in its worst self. For someone that has been studying it for 7 years, I wonder why he cannot see the understanding of the concepts and the purpose behind MBTI. Well btw, don't look at my post counts, it has nothing to do with our argument. What are your sources for you knowledge of MBTI btw? Books, internet, well give me some. MBTI works as a system at least for me, and for many of us, but you should not treat it as a pseudoscience. It's just a theory, and theory can be proved or disprove. But this is a mind's theory. And a human's mind is unfathomable and cannot be just categorized into facts and scientific and/or non-scientific. Your jumping to conclusion about me being not an INTJ is enough why your insight cannot be trusted because you didn't do proper investigation, observation, analysis. And you just based your conclusion based from the stereotypes of INTJs. Well, INTJs behave differently and I need not defend myself.

Okay about the energy. The simple scientific meaning is the capacity to do work. In MBTI energy means, deriving stimulation from something. An introvert easily tire out in social gatherings while an extrovert gains energy and stimulation from it. An extrovert doesn't like to be alone, while an introvert is not bothered. If you really an introvert, you get what I mean when I say easily tires out in social gathering, and not bothered to be alone (sometimes energized by spending alone time). In Latin rootword introvert "intro" means inward "verto" means I turn or to turn. "Extro" means outward, "verto" means I turn, to turn. So an extrovert simply turns outward, turns outward of himself/herself, not prone to self-introspection, and the introvert is the opposite. 

If you see MBTI as bullshit, then its purpose and usefullness is useless to you and you can't use it for your self-growth. However, to me, it's very useful especially when choosing your career path. An introvert would not bring out the best in him if he's continually facing many people, and an extrovert working in a solitude in an office would be bored to death and may think of resigning. See what I mean here?


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Rainman said:


> thanks for giving an argument however that post i made was the least relevent to my argument i've been giving along this thread of how i think the system of typing is. (it's not completely different to mbti). i got intj twice by the test but i've seen videos of intj who are completely different to me a different type - like davesuperpowers says everyone gets it because of how the test is designed. persides i said i wanted to be an NF but thought i wasn't (hence i was being objective and i'd communicated this in my post you responded too) intj's may be asocial but in reality whatever type would be closests to intjness they're far from antisocial by the strict meaning of the word. one can actually change their mind which then leads to a change in their behaviour (ie personality).


Ah yes antisocial has different meaning by the strict definition. INTJs just labeled as antisocial (when they mean asocial, and don't like to interact with people)

I've already given my POV. Stop trolling me now thanks. You have your own point of view as how you view the system, however it fails to convince me. I don't want to waste my time now, thanks.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

INTJellectual said:


> But this is a mind's theory. And a human's mind is unfathomable and cannot be just categorized into facts and scientific and/or non-scientific. Your jumping to conclusion about me being not an INTJ is enough why your insight cannot be trusted because you didn't do proper investigation, observation, analysis. And you just based your conclusion based from the stereotypes of INTJs. Well, INTJs behave differently and I need not defend myself.
> 
> Okay about the energy. The simple scientific meaning is the capacity to do work. In MBTI energy means, deriving stimulation from something. An introvert easily tire out in social gatherings while an extrovert gains energy and stimulation from it. An extrovert doesn't like to be alone, while an introvert is not bothered. If you really an introvert, you get what I mean when I say easily tires out in social gathering, and not bothered to be alone (sometimes energized by spending alone time). In Latin rootword introvert "intro" means inward "verto" means I turn or to turn. "Extro" means outward, "verto" means I turn, to turn. So an extrovert simply turns outward, turns outward of himself/herself, not prone to self-introspection, and the introvert is the opposite.
> 
> If you see MBTI as bullshit, then its purpose and usefullness is useless to you and you can't use it for your self-growth. However, to me, it's very useful especially when choosing your career path. An introvert would not bring out the best in him if he's continually facing many people, and an extrovert working in a solitude in an office would be bored to death and may think of resigning. See what I mean here?


i haven't trolled you - actually you've trolled me quite clearly. arguing about mbti isn't trolling... i have no idea how immature you are to start trying to attack me because i have a different view to yours just back it up if your so sure of this scientific theory. yes theories are only true until they're proven wrong ie peer reviewed and if everyone were like it would be pretty hard to have a go about doing that. please don't enter the field of science it doesn't work around personally insulting the people who critique your theory as it is. 


when i said you're not an intj i was being dramatic i meant intj doesn't exist four dichotomy personalities don't exist. but again you assumed i was thinking in mbti and not understanding it. i won't say it again i understand mbti... when i said you're not an intj you assumed i was saying 'you're not intj, you're a different type'. why would i even be stating that anyway when i'm arguing that mbti itself doesn't make sense? i think you're thinking a bit too far into mbti. anyway your statement the human mind is unfathomable is pretty much a good sign of why you write what you write to me. anyway to your first paragraph all those good things can come from horoscopes and they do that's why people read their horoscopes and ask the sign of other people - does that make it science (which is what hte argument here is meant to be)... nope. 

now you've given me an argument finally.... ok. energy. you've given back the scientific physics meaning of energy aka the capacity to do work... and then the mbti meaning. extrovert gets teh sensation of loneliness. introvert gets the sensation of nervous/anxiety general drain when around others. that would be my analysis into it rather than just 'bothered' and 'doesn't like to be alone'. 

about the self introspection point - no people who are introverts in that they don't like socialising when on their own they have masssive interests and obsessions and don't often self introspect - self introspection that is quite hard to define anyway. 

self growth? coming from you? gdi what do you know about that you bigot. i don't know how old you are or how long you've been obsessed with mbti and on here but mbti thinking is not particularly healthy especially when it doesn't make sense! it is possible to believe things that don't even make sense - i did for ages.

if it's just your point of view then say it's your point of view rather than objective theory. i hope i've got through your skull some idea of how lost you are in mbti thought of fi's and te's and all that. just remember you avoided arguing the case you have the blatant personal attacking when their beliefs are challenged of a neurotypical (that is your type) you believe whatever feels right aka makes you less miserable and helpless, disregarding the process of thought as much as you can give the illusion to yourself that you're actually thinking. you'd be surprised at how well the human mind can mask it's own stupidity. but that's just one of the things i'll be learning from a neuroscientific perspective which btw means the brain isn't unfathomable in fact i've even given links here to some neuroscience and there's plenty for to learn but i don't think you'll be looking up that stuff. 

ok so next little insult to me to make yourself feel 'better' and we're done? good and please i don't want to hear from you again.


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

Rainman said:


> i thought you meant by putting people boxes and make assumptions that meant you wouldn't be typing people - i should have asked what are you referring exactly to by 'putting people in boxes and assumptions'?. there something wrong with my response to you?
> 
> anyway taking your response at face value, i'll translate. i asked when you think do you think in words or imagery and what do you notice yourself generally thinking about?
> 
> i also started rambling saying words are like potential energy in physics. basically means that word are the simplified symbols of real things there's only a word for something that exists in real life (for most words) and translating thought (words etc) to what would actually be happening is when you truly understand what's been said. think i was also saying how this 'experiential thought' changes your baseline mental state - search on youtube 'neuroscience mindfullness' and it goes into a lot more detail/better explained.


I suppose what I meant was that you shouldn't think less of someone for their type or assume they will act in a certain way because of it. If you should use it for anything it would be more meaningful interactions with less confusion and/or hurt feelings. But of course I'm still going to guess peoples' types. That's the best part. Not to stereotype them though, because I love people of every type. I just think it's interesting to see the different ways people act and speak and think and guess their type. Just for fun, really. 

The rest of your response I think I understood, I just wasn't sure it was relevant...But that's okay. 

I think almost entirely in words unless I am consciously trying to think in images...Do you think that's related? Do you think in words or images?


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

roastingmallows said:


> The rest of your response I think I understood, I just wasn't sure it was relevant...But that's okay.
> 
> I think almost entirely in words unless I am consciously trying to think in images...Do you think that's related? Do you think in words or images?


and now it's become relevant in answering your question here. i think in words too. apparently that's normal. though some people dyselxic people don't have any inner speech. i think there's definately a difference between sensation and symbols. words sure you're hearing the words and thinking in words but what are those actual words. if what they referred to didn't exist in reality then the word wouldn't exist... so atm i'm painfully trying to think/convert words into actual stuff because i know it puts me in this happy in the present moment. sure i could do a mindfullness training for 8 weeks but that sounds pretty inefficient and potentially altogether wrong if that amount of time is suposeldly required to achieve the goal. logic which comes with words and diagrams is far away from the present moment and actuality which is just as real as words are thoughtfull and a big part of our brain processes it (the right side) and that's why i think sensing is equal to feeling. there's no such thing as a sensor who's basically a vegetble who pays attention to their senses the whole time without any more to it than that - it produces feelings. eg body langauge produces feeling by mirror neurons. yeah it's related because my system as you saw is based on the scale of symbolic thought to actual attention (sensory information). 

question for my survey: do you when you see a face in real life or anywhere get a feeling as you see it or just watching someone in general their movement and face or the sound of their voice do you feel whatever it is they're feeling as you observe?


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

Rainman said:


> and now it's become relevant in answering your question here. i think in words too. apparently that's normal. though some people dyselxic people don't have any inner speech. i think there's definately a difference between sensation and symbols. words sure you're hearing the words and thinking in words but what are those actual words. if what they referred to didn't exist in reality then the word wouldn't exist... so atm i'm painfully trying to think/convert words into actual stuff because i know it puts me in this happy in the present moment. sure i could do a mindfullness training for 8 weeks but that sounds pretty inefficient and potentially altogether wrong if that amount of time is suposeldly required to achieve the goal. logic which comes with words and diagrams is far away from the present moment and actuality which is just as real as words are thoughtfull and a big part of our brain processes it (the right side) and that's why i think sensing is equal to feeling. there's no such thing as a sensor who's basically a vegetble who pays attention to their senses the whole time without any more to it than that - it produces feelings. eg body langauge produces feeling by mirror neurons. yeah it's related because my system as you saw is based on the scale of symbolic thought to actual attention (sensory information).
> 
> question for my survey: do you when you see a face in real life or anywhere get a feeling as you see it or just watching someone in general their movement and face or the sound of their voice do you feel whatever it is they're feeling as you observe?


I think maybe you are taking the names of the functions/processes too literally. Of course sensors aren't just vegetables taking in information and doing nothing about it...From what I understand, sensing and intuition are "irrational" or "perceiving" functions. You have no control over them and they determine the way you are more comfortable taking in information. Everyone uses both, but intuitives trust their hunches and tend to pay less attention to specifics and details while sensors are more pragmatic and struggle to see emerging patterns and grasp abstract concepts that to them seem to have no practical application. Sensors have intuition too but have learned not to rely on them, instead focusing on the "here and now" and discarding anything that isn't/can't be proven. 

Next, Thinking and Feeling are the "rational" or "judging" functions which determine what you do with the information you've perceived and the way you process that information. Thinkers are more likely to analyze impersonally and feelers are more likely to analyze personally.

You see, if you take the vocabulary of MBTI and use it as it was meant to be used instead of taking it so literally or trying to redefine the terms, you would see that it makes perfect sense, and how could it not? It is so simple and only tells you what you already know about yourself.

About the thinking thing. I can't imagine not thinking in words! That must be weird. I can think in images if I try, but it is hard and eerily silent. I constantly have an internal monologue going on in my head (as I would assume most everyone does) and I can only think in words I know. 

Answer: Yes, I think I do at least. Sometimes though, my perception of what they are feeling seems to mirror my own. If I am upset, I will sometimes assume everyone is upset, and perhaps it's true and my energy is negatively affecting them. 

And yourself?


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

@*roastingmallows*

'_Of course sensors aren't just vegetables taking in information and doing nothing about it_' - if they're just taking in information and doing somethign about it that's still what i mean by vegetable. i'm saying sensors don't just sense information ie get sensation they feel it and all sensing isn't looking at something and naming it it's literally just as the sense is to your eyes the visual picture at that point in time, the sound entering your ears - it's meaningless because you're in the present it is simply a sense and there are no words in the realm of senses it's a different format altogether. the word scatch you can think about what it means or you can just imagine it what a scratch is to comprehend it ie the sensation of bein scratched or scratching someone etc. if you think that there's a difference between sensor and feeler then that means you think a sensor is basically someone who just pays attention to their senses even though they're just meaningless and nothing more than that. in reality someone who actually pays attention to pure sensation without objectifying finds themself in a very happy place like an artist and all things have a feel to them - they don't simply look or taste etc. aka this person looks at trees and sees the difference in the pattern of the bark rather than just seeing a tree and seeing it as a 'tree'. 

'_From what I understand, sensing and intuition are "irrational" or "perceiving" functions_' - this is interesting because in my system it's true you can't just decide to go up the scale of symbolic to personal sensation where you are on it. but however if you start changing the way you think and thinking experientially (experiential vs analytical thinking) then this will change your mind as your brain is neuroplastic and builds in the areas you use it most. this is what i'm trying to do atm. 

as for the rest of that paragraph (again not being rude but it will add understanding between me and you by informing you that i have read in the past those exact sentences you've given me here). but i've only recently been thinking in a different way (neuroscientifically) and what hunches and what you see refers to in this case is the subconsious mind giving an instinct or an ureka moment and for the people that don't get these well of course they're left with their conscious mind and conscious mind which i think covers both sensation and thinking. i maybe wrong because apparently the subconsious mind only stores information in picture ie sensation form therefore perhaps those that think in comprehension are closer to their subconscious mind. . by your definitions sensing would mean conscious mind (aware of how it got it's conclusion ie it's thought process and thus able to relate it to the obvious environment if needed) and intuition mean when you get a hunch or an eureka moment that is scientifically your subconsious mind popping an answer and you weren't consious of how it got to there only the end result came to your consciousness. 

'_Next, Thinking and Feeling are the "rational" or "judging" functions which determine what you do with the information you've perceived and the way you process that information. Thinkers are more likely to analyze impersonally and feelers are more likely to analyze personally'_ - i've read this exact passage before many times. i believe the information determines your decision not some mystical decision function as if one has two minds. it's impossible to analyze information that is sensation, it's impossible to feel logic that's why the learning process determines the decision making aka is the decision making. and when is one actually aware of their decision making ie that they could have made a different decision - not a lot most of the time we just do things. sure a feeler ie sensor is aware of alternative experiences he could decide on and a thinker ie intuitor is aware that his theory could be wrong but all that is based on the type of information they have gathered/learnt therefore. i don't even no many real examples of decisions because it never feels like you're making a decision only if you're aware of the type of info you're gatehring will you be aware that there could have been a different to way make a decision. also lots of decisions are favoured to one type of thought than the other - when it comes to people the best information gathering is sensation ie feeling (body language etc) therefore one will navigate ie decide around that. when it comes to decisions in a game of chess that's all intuitive. 


btw though what do you mean by inner monologue (i've heard people say this a lot) because my thinking it's never like i'm talking to someone else and it's not even like i'm talking if you know what i mean it's like i'm just using words to understand something. it's not like a conversation it's pure thought. though i think when i've remembered myself thinking in the shower or something it is quite similar to how i write on here ie a few 'therefore' and stuff i'm thinking scientifically/logically a lot of the time because after all i'm finding myself discovering the latest like mindfullness and all that. i find it awkward not speaking in words but i'm trying to because i want to be in the happy place of the sensor/feeler it really is quite fun and it's scary to think but your senses become so much sharper because your subconscious mind actually wants to take in new sensation or something having thought in that format. 

when i'm in the sensory mode (meaningless) i get a palpable feeling simultaneously as my eyes go over someone's face (facial movements) there is a palpable sensation in myself of what i assume is what are they're feeling due to my mirror neurons being activated by my visual processing part of my brain having take in/payed more attention to the sensation aka the micro facial movements. it's not like an inner thing it's truly like actuall mirror neurons and any face like on a laptop or a cartoon manga literally was firing my mirror neuron one time. but i'm rarely in this mode because i'm thinking a lot learning all this psychological stuff and i'm trying to but rarely do i stop and actually think what have i just comprehended because after all words are just codes for real things. also i read 50 out of 20,000 people could accurately reliably tell a liar from facial expressions and therefore if that means they're the highly mirror neuroned people then that would suggest most people don't have the face reading ability and i've seen it talked about like it's a super thing so i don't know how normal it is. i'd think normal people would have it if there so social. this may sound a bit rude but why would you assume people feel the same thing as you when somethings made you upset but you know consciously they haven't gone under the same thing? could you describe what you mean by upset exactly what's the emotion like in other words? yeah if you have an emotion that's troubled if they're that sensory person they'll at least feel it enough to know it. but yeah i have no idea why if you're upset you'd assume everyone else is? i could imagine you'd assume everyone else Will be upset because they're close to you and don't like you being upset. 

you have one mind yet mbti things you have 3 minds essentially it thinks you have a favourite world, a perceiving state, and a judging state. it's not a very simple theory - my theory is simple which you've now read but i'll repeat is whether you think symbolically attach objective categories definitions onto things or whether you just understand and remember things as they were to your senses and the feelings that it produced - i know i'm just a scientific nobody but most of the breakthroughs happen from people who weren't hindered by conventional wisdom and just curious and learning like i'm doing - bear in mind all of this i've been experiencing myself - mindfullness - it's like meditation but results are probably so much better - you become excited and you see everything as personfied/you don't see 'anything' you're only aware of the sensation. definatley not a simple as my system which is simply the scale of symbolic thought ie objectifying to as things are to your senses.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

coz if you think about it if when you're looking at any point in time your gaze can only be on one individual point. sure this may flicker to other points however far apart however rapidly but if you to freeze time you're looking at one point and actually it's a 2d picture that is your picture is a rectangle (ending where your peripheral vision ends) and in that picture it is simply a pattern of colours and edges because we think so much we identify all the objects but in sensation form there is just colour.


----------



## Dashing (Sep 19, 2011)

What if it's just a means to an end?


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

Dashing said:


> What if it's just a means to an end?


i think it is just a means to an end and not anything scientific or even particularly sensical as a system contained within it's own logic. to be blunt star signs and horoscopes are great for many people but it's definately not scientific. i think mbti is like starg signs and horoscopes but closer to science than the former and using terminology and more systematic. it is a means to an end and close to the truth but not scientific. that's the realm of neuroscience and reality.


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

Dashing said:


> What if it's just a means to an end?


i think it is just a means to an end and not anything scientific or even particularly sensical as a system contained within it's own logic. to be blunt star signs and horoscopes are great for many people but it's definately not scientific. i think mbti is like starg signs and horoscopes but closer to science than the former and using terminology and more systematic. it is a means to an end and close to the truth but not scientific. that's the realm of neuroscience ie the science of reality.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I often wonder if MBTI was made to eliminate confusion about what to look for, by constructing itself out of everything you're not supposed to conclude about the validity of type, LOL. That would actually be pretty brilliant, but at the same time, totally taunting.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Type is psychological (extremely psychological in nature - it was Jung's attempt to heuristically define psychological phenomena that traced themselves into existence through archetypal tendencies he noticed in people - I think he thought the functions were the obvious part that meant nothing outside of an archetypal outcome from psychological disorientation via I/E - it's easy to notice the functions IRL, but not easy to ascribe them to personality, which is what Jung tried to do) - neuroscience isn't. As long as you realize this, there should be no associating type with horoscopic personalities.


----------



## blackballoon (Nov 16, 2011)

To me MBTI is an overly simplified version of Jung's Cognitive functions. I think its fine as a stepping stone to deeper personality theories or when you just want to casually stereotype someone. 

Most people will stop at MBTI and Enneagram and dont go much further, and i can tell they arent as serious about the hidden motivations of people as those who do take the time to go futher. It certainly works as a strainer, if anything. 



Rainman said:


> Thinking about it I believe MBTI doesn't make sense and that's it's pseudoscience. Discuss what you think doesn't make sense about the descriptions of the functions and all that or discuss how you think it makes sense ie the argument for what it is and the arguments for that it isn't. I've been interested in MBTI and all that for 7 years since i first saw animal kung fu personality descriptions
> 
> For instance decision making is apparently a dichotomy a category for a persons overall type. and 'information gathering' another. i believe decision making and information gathering are the same thing by the nature of how both work... when are you actually aware of making a decision? you're not really you're just aware of what you've learnt about the problem/task or how it affects you personally (ie through your senses ie feelings) after thinking/observing it enough you simply get/make a decision.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Type is psychological (extremely psychological in nature - it was Jung's attempt to heuristically define psychological phenomena that traced themselves into existence through archetypal tendencies he noticed in people - I think he thought the functions were the obvious part that meant nothing outside of an archetypal outcome from psychological disorientation via I/E - it's easy to notice the functions IRL, but not easy to ascribe them to personality, which is what Jung tried to do) - neuroscience isn't. As long as you realize this, there should be no associating type with horoscopic personalities.


i disagree i think neuroscience is a better way to understand people and thus type. you stated that neuroscience isn't psychological but i take it you meant to say type isn't neuroscientific.. it will show how deterministic things are whereas psychology theory's equate of a lot of choice and the idea of the ego. all add people to me seem to be similar on the surface in their behaviour and mannerism (add is the realm of neuroscience). to be honest i'm not sure if psychology is even a valid field any longer as neuroscience progresses - as an independent thinker i will be using the more modern science to learn. 

you then stated what jung did. 

'_I think he thought the functions were the obvious part that meant nothing outside of an archetypal outcome from psychological disorientation via I/E_' - i don't understand this. i looked up psychological disorientation as i have a passion for learning so i now understand that. what is '_an archetypal outcome from psychological disorientation_'? '_functions were the obvious the obvious that meant nothing outside of_' don't get that bit either. 


't's easy to notice the functions IRL, but not easy to ascribe them to personality, which is what Jung tried to do - i disagree i think a lot of the life examples people give say on this forum are wrong. so many people say Si is paying attention to your hunger and your body and stuff like that. countless understanding like that. i don't think it's easy to be aware of exactly when you're making a decision or at the very least i don't think one makes important ie actual decisions very often. also take a thinking decision that is entirely based on the thought before hadn the learning about whatever it is in fact the learning (information gathering) concludes the logical decision itself. when you go on instinct say in a social situation what to say or if to leave a dangerous situation then that's an instinct that you made because of the body language you payed attention to. if you left a situation because you thought it was dangerous ie you'd read about people when they're drunk it makes them more likely to be aggressive or something then that would be a decision based on thought ie the learning or the experience determines ones decision thus there aren't realistic differences of there being two dichotomies like that. 

i define personality (type) as simply the observable differences of people because i believe that there aren't any types fundamentally there is only one human brain that is very plastic and changes according to the environment. the only time one may have to say there exist types are if there are genetic differences... which there are because that takes away the neuroplasticity in the sense that a brain can't change by the environment to something genetically different to itself. so talking about decision making and add people is just a few of the things i can actually really observe and experience myself about the different ways the brain works. 

i think mbti is closer to the truth than star signs and horoscopes as it talks about the functions. but well you've read my system i only there's one scale and that's basically pure sensory personal experience vs symbolic logic and objectifying reality. i see mbti as like a midway point between neuroscience as some other psychology and horoscopes. both mbti and horoscopes let people try to understand others better and it helps them, both have four archetypes both have some degree of vagueness... there arent' any scientific tests for mbti functions really especially not when they were first conceived anyway. also the vagueness and appeal to one's ego is apparent by the sheer number of people who go about the mbti not fully understanding it but yet it helps them anyway. also horoscopic personalities literally are a form of personality type so clearly there's at least some degree of association. 

we have the technology to understand how the brain actually works what reality is so why not adopt that. it's quite deterministic and grim in that sense but at the same time it'll mean being able to solve problems better maybe there'll be a natural understanding of how to get rid of depression rather than drugs or in the other case they'll make drugs with less side effects. neuroscience by definition is the best way to understand how the brain itself works and thus how people's perception and reality is and therefore their personality. i've given you examples of this. you may observe people as how loud and bubbly they or how nervous or how enunthused pevasively - all those things are emotions and emotions are what neuroscience understands/is going to understand. all the psychological labels thus far are based on diagnostic criteria and not hard science as to what a mentally ill brain actually looks like/works like. 

could you explain the post you made before please i didn't quite understand it (your first sentence).


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

blackballoon said:


> To me MBTI is an overly simplified version of Jung's Cognitive functions. I think its fine as a stepping stone to deeper personality theories or when you just want to casually stereotype someone.
> 
> Most people will stop at MBTI and Enneagram and dont go much further, and i can tell they aren't as serious about the hidden motivations of people as those who do take the time to go futher. It certainly works as a strainer, if anything.


i think it's just a stepping stone also. i know it was for me - the next stepping stone is reality ie neuroscience which is the study of reality as the human perceives it and playing around with symbolic understanding to actual reality (thought) ie mindfullness it's similar too. i'm pretty sure jung's functions are essentially the system of mbti - as in his 16 personality types in chapter 10 are the 16 personality types in mbti.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yeah, but deterministic things mean nothing about anything, other than they might be the progenitors of phenomena which we strive to understand, due to the significance these phenomena have upon any aspect of existence. Types aren't differences in brain structure, they're literally psychological phenomena - that's it. I don't see why different types of mental adaptivity can't exist in nature (all type is is mental adaptivity differences in how one directs their various forms of mental activity toward the world and the self - the mechanisms behind these in everyone would be the same though). I mean, neuroscience barely explains personality characteristics and tendencies as phenomena - it just seeks to prove/disprove. Jung was focused on the psyche and the nature of consciousness, not the hardwiring and whatnot (just Google Jung to see what I mean - I'm not wasting time debating the obvious).


----------



## Rainman (May 24, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yeah, but deterministic things mean nothing about anything, other than they might be the progenitors of phenomena which we strive to understand, due to the significance these phenomena have upon any aspect of existence. Types aren't differences in brain structure, they're literally psychological phenomena - that's it. I don't see why different types of mental adaptivity can't exist in nature (all type is is mental adaptivity differences in how one directs their various forms of mental activity toward the world and the self - the mechanisms behind these in everyone would be the same though). I mean, neuroscience barely explains personality characteristics and tendencies as phenomena - it just seeks to prove/disprove. Jung was focused on the psyche and the nature of consciousness, not the hardwiring and whatnot (just Google Jung to see what I mean - I'm not wasting time debating the obvious).


'i'm not wasting time debating the obvious' are you fucking serious? was that called for in anyway - i'd just given my thoughts my argument? ... listen you feeble minded twerp you're right mbti is just a psychological phenemona the phenomena of idiots believing in words and sentences about types which has nada in reality - never questioning it for themselves just like the horoscope starsigns it merely helps them in their primitive lives when you actually observe someone. 'determinism doesn't mean anything about nothing' you really are stupid... you are showing that you are catalysicmially fundamentally unable to think properly you'll believe anything anyone says... you're the reason why people have blindly the believed in religion so easily for the human history you are that primitve being speaking to me right now. you probably didn't even have the mental capacity to read my post as you have answered any of the question i gave you. you can't deny science i'm living in the future you're stuck in the present soon to be past. and actually your present is nothin mbti is a subculture of neurotypicals who need to identify themselves like horoscopes to definet hemselves based on their type and come up with utterly stupid things that they never think about truly about to do with 'sensing' and all that. you know what theres a limit isn't there. some things are just beyond the avergae persons willingness to think and neuroscience is one of those areas. 

maybe when you end up with whatever depression or chronic stress (that emotion prevents people from thinking properly btw or even wanting to think... oh and there's a correlation with reality that i've witnessed here) and people think you've changed they judge you as differently a different person to before and you're taking chemicals and drugs to sort your life due to your own failure of self your personality then maybe you'll think neuroscience has something to do with anything. by the way you wrote with mindless phrasing and statements that aren't your own thoughts just unoriginal phrases i've heard before meaningless buzzowrds general ignorant writing i gave you the benefit of the doubt but you've revealed your level of bigotry. yeah try reading my response to you in full/properly and rspond to the points adequately next time you're communicating with a real thinker. 

your previous comment has been reporting as trolling which you failed to explain has been reported as trolling. you'll say your last comment to me then please do not ever write anything to me again otherwise i'll report you for harrassment.


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

Rainman said:


> @*roastingmallows*
> 
> '_Of course sensors aren't just vegetables taking in information and doing nothing about it_' - if they're just taking in information and doing somethign about it that's still what i mean by vegetable. i'm saying sensors don't just sense information ie get sensation they feel it and all sensing isn't looking at something and naming it it's literally just as the sense is to your eyes the visual picture at that point in time, the sound entering your ears - it's meaningless because you're in the present it is simply a sense and there are no words in the realm of senses it's a different format altogether. the word scatch you can think about what it means or you can just imagine it what a scratch is to comprehend it ie the sensation of bein scratched or scratching someone etc. if you think that there's a difference between sensor and feeler then that means you think a sensor is basically someone who just pays attention to their senses even though they're just meaningless and nothing more than that. in reality someone who actually pays attention to pure sensation without objectifying finds themself in a very happy place like an artist and all things have a feel to them - they don't simply look or taste etc. aka this person looks at trees and sees the difference in the pattern of the bark rather than just seeing a tree and seeing it as a 'tree'.
> 
> ...


It is an interesting theory you have, but in my opinion, totally separate from MBTI. While your theory may have some truth to it, that does not make the MBTI pseudo science. The definitions of thinking, feeling, sensing and intuiting were intended to mean something different than what you're talking about. That is all I have to say on the matter.


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yeah, but deterministic things mean nothing about anything, other than they might be the progenitors of phenomena which we strive to understand, due to the significance these phenomena have upon any aspect of existence. Types aren't differences in brain structure, they're literally psychological phenomena - that's it. I don't see why different types of mental adaptivity can't exist in nature (all type is is mental adaptivity differences in how one directs their various forms of mental activity toward the world and the self - the mechanisms behind these in everyone would be the same though). I mean, neuroscience barely explains personality characteristics and tendencies as phenomena - it just seeks to prove/disprove. Jung was focused on the psyche and the nature of consciousness, not the hardwiring and whatnot (just Google Jung to see what I mean - I'm not wasting time debating the obvious).


Is this what constitutes trolling now? I'd say that was all pretty accurate and warranted. aheh


----------

