• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
Joined
Likes
0

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • Like you, I think the 8 functions are on a spectrum. the functions are just absolute beacons in this spectrum, to make sense out of it.
    The MBTI model can approximate the spectrum pretty well as long as the beacons are well chosen (correct opposites), and I think they are chosen well
    I dont think that one function feeds off the other function, or that functions have to be grouped 2 by 2. I think it just the sum of all functions that directs us.
    Freud thought there was only pleasure and unpleasure. He thought that the pshycic system only pursues the pleasure and pain does not really exist (thats why he called it unpleasure).
    But in Jung's works you can frequently read that Jung thought that Freud was an extreme extravert.
    That combination makes sense now with my theory
    Actually, I think I can see it now. When it comes down to it, while I do derive pleasure from my Ni, and while I also avoid pain with Fe, I agree about the motivational aspect.

    pain & pleasure are words that cause confusion, because:
    pain=unpleasurable
    pleasure=unpainful

    you were right to concentrate on my words "avoid and pursue", they are clearer

    I guess the confusion is about what common MBTI talk says: that the strongest functions are pleasurable to use and the weakest functions are a pain in the ass to use.

    while i say:
    the strongest function is just the strongest in pain or pleasure (easiest to motivate you)
    the weakest function is just the weakest in pain or pleasure (hardest to motivate you)
    ah INFJ...the protector...the most rare of all types, you are unique. if you" truly" are NiFe and my theory would "truly" be right, then these should be your main motivations:

    1 - Ni: avoid the pain of losing potential
    2 - Fe: pursue the pleasure of winning conflict (doesnt mean you seek conflict, but if there is conflict, you are unable to let it pend and have a need to settle it, by winining it. losing or stalemate/tie should feel almost equally unpleasurable to you in such a situation, because your pleasure only works on win)
    >To me it seems the other way around - Ni is pleasurable, both Fe and Ti aren't quite so much.


    i guess you see the function definitions differently than me? ;)
    pain/pleasure is not about rational/irrational, that does not correlate.

    pain/pleasure = introversion/extraversion side of each function, i am really sure about it.

    jung said extraversion/introversion is "energy going out" / "energy going in".
    think about it: if you avoid pain, you go in. if you pursue pleasure you go out.
    to me that is a very sensible, sound and simple conclusion?? does that need further explanation/proof? (maybe S types need more proof?)
    Ni avoids the pain of losing potential (it protects the mental-seed of potential possibilities, because pain avoidance does not bring it out)

    Ne pursues the pleasure of winning potential (it grows the mental-plant of possibilites (fresh outgrow from a seed), because pleasure pursuit brings it out)
    >I dunno, my moments of greatest pleasure are generally when I've come to an awesome new insight about things - that feeling when everything comes together. It's quite ecstatic.
    Thats Ne, extraverted, thus this is a pleasure (you pursue)

    >However, is that my motivation? Perhaps not.
    well it is,but it is not your only motivation, it works along with the motivation of the other functions. another strong motivation is to avoid to pick the wrong task (Ti) for INTP.

    the stronger the pain/pleasure influence of a function the higher it comes in the order, the weaker the pain/pleasure influence of a function the lower it comes in the order.
    the end result is the mix... (that is what makes it so hard to type people)
    I say Ti helps you to avoid the wrong task. Imagine the pain of spending your effort on an unnessary task, that is terrible for a Ti person (thats why we tend to procrastinate/dabble/switch, it might be wrong to work so hard on it, we have to avoid that pain, so we do something else less-likely-to-be-painful instead). I say: Ti = avoiding the pain of wrong task selection

    the advantage of Ti = you dont get trapped into finishing something completely arbitrary (because you avoid that pain)
    the disadvantage of Ti = you dont feel the pleasure of completing a task (Te does that).
    yes you dont get any pleasure out of Ti, it just strives for relief of pain. or you might call "unpain" a kind of semi-pleasure.

    my own subjective experience:
    I as a Ti&Ne person get most of my pleasure from Ne. When I see lots of Ne-possibilities I can even go into a trip of pleasure on all those theoretical possibilities. Never has Ti given me such pleasure, only pain ;) (the pain of unraveling all that stuff i see with Ne)
    That's the same as saying an introvert only extraverts through use of their extraverted functions

    so yes, true
    All functions can't all pursue pleasure at the same time (they can't all be extraverted), so thats why one is pursuing pleasure and one is avoiding pain. And according to MBTI this always alternates (e.g. introversion/extraversion alternates = pain/pleasure alternates).
    XeYi type will have pleasure pursuit as 1st function and pain avoidance as 2nd function
    XiYa type will have pain avoidance as 1st function and pleasure pursuit as 2nd function
    So its a per-function thing
    It's supposed to be new-agey lol. I understand that when concepts become objectified and lucid, opportunity for inner reflection is lost in explicit definition, for example, the exact and hard sciences.

    I just learned of the Four Causes myself, through Socionics discussions on a forum, and I agree with a more functionally fundamental association of the Four Causes(well, at least for the Final Cause, the rest are up in the air).

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Gulenko_Cognitive_Styles(wiki)
    Causal-Deterministic = Efficient Cause
    Dialectical-Algorithmic = Final Cause
    Holographic-Panoramic = Formal Cause?
    Vortical-Synergetic = Material Cause?

    I'm still not really familiar with the Four Causes by themselves though.
    other example of the paradox... to show you that it is in fact totally different

    2 entities in conflict:
    A avoids to lose
    B pursues to win

    you might say not-losing is winning and not-winning is losing, but there is also stalemate/tie (e.g. another dimension) which complicates matters

    A does not care more for winning than stalemate/tie, these are equally unpainful outcomes (both are equal to not-losing), since losing is its only pain.
    B only cares about winning and if winning is not possible then it doesnt care whether it lost or had stalemate, these would be equally unpleasurable (both are not-winning).

    A=Fi
    B=Fe
    - unpleasure (lack of pleasure) is "kind of" like pain
    - unpain (lack of pain) is "kind of" like pleasure

    it sounds the same but its motivation is IN REVERSE. they operate as antagonists. because the motivation is in reverse they decide differently.

    It is like saying Fe and Fi are the same, they are, kind of, but still they act in reverse motivation.
    an extraverted function that pursues pleasure is a bit like a hunter.

    an introverted function that avoids pain is a bit like prey.

    (in old myths they sometimes describe types as "the great hunter" and these are always "extraverted function dominant" types)
    thanks!

    my newest addition was that all introverted functions avoid pain and all extraverted functions pursue pleasure.

    if you pursue pleasure, you tend to get out of the house / the shell (e.g. towards the outer-objective).
    if you avoid pain, you tend to stay in the house / the shell (e.g. towards the inner-subjective)

    how does that sound to you?
    We don't even know if the cup exists at all, except that it is an element of our consciousness.

    Evidence for physicalism. :D

    Soul actually doesn't operate across people; rather it is like a single pointsource which all existence stems from, and interacts with the other worlds. Spirit only exists through the interrelations between different minds, and is used to shape them. Body = phenomenon, Spirit = noumenon, Mind = judgments, Soul = true subject.

    It seems your Soul is closer to my Spirit, while taking all of my Soul ; and your Spirit is part of my Mind

    Phenomenon works. Noumenon is too limited, I think. And "true subject" I would agree with so much as "true" is referring to this realm. Not absolutely true, but true because it's the realm we have consciousness in.
    The interesting thing about this is that the only aspect that can be self-evident is the Physical/Body. For example, a cup is physical, but does not necessitate a mind, spirit or soul. Though, we may project a spirit onto it, and even a mind & soul. Every other aspect is unprovable, not to mention imperceptible, without a physical. Evidence for physicalism.
    Why do you think Spirit should be switched with Soul?


    I am in agreement with aligning the Soul with consciousness, existence, "the primary aspect of our being". Hence, the Mind is complementary to the Soul in being not just the source of arbitrary dynamic activity, but intentionality. It processes and evaluates, compares and maintains self-conscious awareness.


    Does "the material universe" need to be extended? If it is physical, in some way, shape, or form, I consider it part of "the material universe".


    I am also in agreement with your idea of Spirit. It relates across minds, hence the shared spirituality. This is why I think Spirit is the All. Everything can link to the All, and the All is the link of everything. Spiritual people claim of ESP...
    Um. Well I'm stuck between physicalism and dualism, for one.

    Secondly, I have a reductionist predisposition.

    Beyond that, the terms mean what they imply:

    The Spirit is our link to the All(omniscience, omnipresence, universality etc).
    The Body is our link to the material universe.
    The Soul is our link to life, energy and emotivity.
    The Mind is our link to intellectual consciousness.

    I'm not trying to objectify anything though, just something to brood over.
    At any rate, I don't want to antagonize you with this, in your spare time, read some Jung. And maybe we can come back to it.
    I say understanding Rational and Irrational can check MBTI because there are unique and distinguished properties to being an Irrational or Rational type.


    In MBTI, I'd be TiNe; in Socionics, I'm NiTe. Cause they both refer to INTP/INTp which is a universal phenomenon in real life. But I think MBTI's TiNe justification for INTP is false.
    I explained to you in the PM that MBTI's Judging and Perceiving have nothing to do with Jung's Rational/Irrational(judging/perceiving).

    MBTI INFP being led by FiNe does not make it a Rational type. It is still Irrational because the Four Letter Code of INFP refers to the "lazy, emotionally free, dreamy & mystical, slightly suggestive" Introverted Intuitive-Feeling type.

    The functions do not reflect this in MBTI - no. This is what I am trying to explain to you, that MBTI has a flawed system, pertaining to the functions.

    It is circular reasoning to refute my claims with MBTI's functions if I say they are flawed. So what do we do then?

    "Okay MBTI's functions are probably flawed, how can I check this for validity?"

    1.) Compare Psychological Types to MBTI descriptions

    2.) Understand Irrationality and Rationality, as per Jung, and compare them to MBTI's functions and types.
    INFp is Irrational. INFP is Irrational. INFp = INFP.
    INFp is Irrational. INFJ is Rational. INFp != INFJ.


    But this is insignificant to the overall situation. Myers and Briggs understood Jung's functions in a way that they weren't meant to be understood. From this, there has been years of misinterpretations. Augusta(Socionics's developer) took Jung's theory as is.

    "MBTI started counting from number 3".
    "Socionics started counting from number 0."


    3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10...MBTI
    0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7...Socionics
    0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7...Jung

    Does this analogy help?
    :D

    This is it right here:
    Socionics looks at information aspects and how people relate directly to these and thus gives us a convenient starting point for looking at interactions, whereas MBTI looks at CFs, and apart from some rough correspondances between functions which just happen to have the same name, we need not consider them to be looking at the exact same phenomenon at all.


    Socionics theory involves cognitive functions and they make up an integral part of the theory(you wouldn't have a typological system without the functions, of course).

    I can actually feel the circle now. I say MBTI and Socionics are the same thing and therefore cannot coexist, as one is wrong. But you say they look at different things, therefore they can coexist.
    Yeah, we might be perceiving different aspects.


    I don't think Socionics and MBTI can coexist as valid theories, because the assertions of one contradict the integrity of the other. Truthfully, they are two systems, but if you consider types and functions to be a general thing outside of these two(and other) theories, then one of them is inaccurate and flawed as a practical system. That's the problem as I see it. I want to speak of INTp/ILI as INTP, a universal phenomenon in reality, but that can't happen with two conflicting models.
    Also also, I don't know why I always end up in the same situations, I find explaining the issues of MBTI to be tedious.
    Regrouping.

    I don't want to argue in circles. So I am trying to communicate effectively. Also, I'm not at my own house right now.
    Yes, I can see why it's not making any sense to you. I sent you a pm to explain, as it looked like the only way to explain myself coherently.

    In fact, I do assume MBTI to be "wrong" but the reason why I said "approach it as if.." is because the typological argument is a perspective issue. It doesn't matter how logically and ordered one approaches the issue, the difference between the two sides is the perspective you carry.

    I don't think MBTI's Four Letter Code products are dissimilar to Socionics', but their makeups are different. It's basically "black boxing" to see the similarities, they work the same on the outside, but are composed of different systems on the inside.
    |My point was that if we treat XNFj as the image of XNFJ, then we end up with a contradiction, which we wouldn't have if we treated (INFp, ENFj) as the image of (INFJ, ENFJ).)|

    Yeah, because you're trying to correlate types between systems by functions. But because the functions are not the same, it doesn't matter the functional contradictions you mention.

    INFJ and INFj are the same product. MBTI Ni, Fe and Socionics Ni, Fe are not the same factors. So ENFJ → INFj is both different in product and factor. While ENFj → INFj is different in product, but has the same factors.

    That's the most concise way I can put it.

    Types are products, functions are factors. MBTI and Socionics disagree with factors, but agree with products.


    About "cause and effect", that's not it. I know this sounds arrogant, but approach it as if Socionics is MBTI/JCF done correctly, plus inter-type relations and more.
    3.) MBTTian systems cannot coexist with Socionics so long as they speak of the same types and Jungian theory(which they do). Socionics is interpersonal and objectified, right, but that's an addition not a difference. The subjectivity you speak of in JCF is the same functional approach Socionics takes. It's just backed by objectified concepts.
    2.) In ENFj → INFj compared to ENFJ → INFJ; you are confused about type correspondence because you are trying to correlate functions between the systems. ENFj → INFj involves a much more "drastic" change of functions(but actually, only the I/E direction of energy changes). ENFJ → INFJ, you have a position switch of two functions. But there's an unseen issue. If the I/E of xNFJ relies on a position switch, what determines NFJ? In Socionics, xNFj is determined by FxNy. MBTI and its successors are flawed in this way for working with the premise of J = Je and P = Pe.

    When you correspond the MBTTian types to Socionics types, or treat them as universal, you have to ignore the function layout of the former's system. Acknowledging them in the process will lead to incorrect theorizing because they are incompatible.
    1.)MBTI, JCF, and Pod'Lair are theoretically and practically the same thing compared to Socionics. So when you say you use JCF over MBTI, it's more a matter of preference for perspective rather than actually being something different in substance.
    Not necessarily.

    MBTI is, basically, a cognitive theory turned behaviorist/personality-based. Remember it's originally a career-assessment test.

    The off-shoot, JCF theory, is an attempt to do what Socionics is doing: penetrate the personality/behavior and identify psychological processes in condensed forms called "functions".

    Where Socionics goes one step up(and also what Pod'Lair seems to have adopted) is interpersonal relations. This objectifies the cognitive processes, as Socionics claims determined patterns emerge in relationships between one certain type and another certain type.

    Socionics is an attempt to identify and contextualize information processing and compatibility.
    Alright. When I talk of typology, recognize I come from the point of view of Socionics being accurate and MBTI being invalid.


    Theoretical correspondence is XXXX=XXXx. So if you are really XXXX then you should end up XXXx. I emphasize "should" because in terms of people who have been tested previously in MBTI, they may actually end up being any Socionics type, but it's usually the same or a J/P flip(not as a rule, but because of having an inaccurate MBTI type). This is why one should start over.
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8527

    2) Socionics types are not related to MBTI through a J/P switch for introverts. That works only if you are defining types according to ego functional ordering and assuming that Socionics functions = MBTI functions. That is however not helpful to find your true type, either in Socionics or MBTI.

    ==========
    In a more concise way O.o
    :Emotifin2-1:



    The only thing that should translate is the type lettering(XXXX -> XXXx)(but it does not always translate). Pretty much everything else, in theory and practice, is meant something different than MBTI.


    I think it's possible (probable) you are not both INFJ and INFj.
    Artsu: Yeah, that part is hard. It was really hard for me to also accept I had personal emotional/relational needs and needed to make some changes in my life; my heavily Fe family was hard on me, and I couldn't justify my decisions adequately to them, but I had to make changes anyway regardless. I'm still dealing with fall-out from that. They don't tend to honor internal/personal needs very well at all, it's all about what one is supposed to do or what the situation's normal rules are.

    Being Ti, I'm used to trying to explain why something is a "natural" need and choice, and I can justify actions with Ti; but because Fi is so personal and internalized, there was just no way I could make my needs seem valid to them. I mean, honestly, it took me a long time to convince myself that these existing needs were valid in their own right and I needed to make changes in my life.
    So situation 1 describes Fe-dom's using their primitive Fi function. and Fi-dom's using their primitive Fe function.

    Is this where the mixup comes from?:

    When i say Fe's i actually don't mean Fe-doms, but the Fe function (although such a Fe-only person does not exist, i just talk about the function in its extreme form).

    And when you say Fe's you mean Fe-doms/Fe-dominant-people. (which is right, because you talk about people and not just functions)
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom