• 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

  • the 1&2 I just mentioned seem to be situation dependant indeed:

    1 = WHEN FI/FE ARE CORNERED IN A DEAD-END IN A SPECIAL KIND OF THREATENING SITUATION:
    it's Fe's that are probably going to react passive-aggressively, whereas an Fi will take more of an active, personal stand.

    2 = WHEN FE/FI ARE NOT CORNERED AND FE/FI CAN DO THEIR NORMAL JOB:
    Fe's are more direct conflict resolvers, Fi's will be more passive and try to keep the mood light.

    so when cornered, the fi/fe-doms do the inverse of what they normally do. (they use the "opposite underdeveloped function" in a primitive way when the developed function is cornered)
    PS. I generally agree with what SkyWalker has said right under my posts.

    1. Fe will often submerge personal feelings in order to honor the social atmosphere/needs, so you might see a tussle between expressed positive feelings and underlying angst/tension.

    2. Fe tends to resolve things by putting it all on the table and discussing it from this somewhat detached POV. Fi seems to have other needs. That's what I've seen being said in some of the Fe vs Fi round tables I've seen elsewhere.
    I'm not positive, but at this point in my life that could describe my experience -- having Fe work for me and being immersed and swimming in social waters and feeling competent, finally, is like that rush that I would get riding a bike very fast down a very big hill... kind of glorious.

    What happened to me over the last few years (since I really started engaging people only a few years ago) is that I ended up OVER-engaging (very much like an addict) and spreading myself way too thin... and finally crashed because I'm really still just a po' li'l introvert trying to fly like the extroverted feelers. I wore myself out and then had to reestablishing good boundaries for myself.

    So maybe you do have a point there. :)
    You say I have things backwards, but you have backwards things in your own words:

    1 you said this:
    it's Fe's that are probably going to react passive-aggressively, whereas an Fi will take more of an active, personal stand.

    2 then you said this (which is the inverse of 1):
    Fe's are more direct conflict resolvers, Fi's will be more passive and try to keep the mood light.
    trolling....? thanks....? i replied and corrected anyway in the death metal thread. would like your opinion
    Going back to your element analogy. Typology is like defining the characteristics of an element before you have ever even discovered it. Like if we defined the parameters of what Carbon is before we ever even discovered it in nature. "Carbon is a chalky black substance" Okay, so now we go out and call every chalk black substance "Carbon", but we never really find out of Carbon can only be Chalky and black, or if it can have any other characteristics, or if there are any other elements that might also appear Chalky and black. If science can't work like that, why should psychology? This, is exactly why scientific institutions can't take typology seriously.
    No, Elements are a conceptual grouping that were based off of a real natural phenomenon. Personality types are only a conceptual grouping, there are no constant, physical, and standardized phenomenon that you can use as a basis for comparison, only a description of what it is supposed to behave like. You don't need to make Cobalt take an assessment to know that you are looking at Cobalt. Similarly, you don't need to assess a cheetah to know you are looking at a Cheetah. Typology is not typology simply because you are grouping people together, it is the way that you are doing it that makes it typology, defining rules and parameters of how types are supposed to be like and then fitting people into it. Only things that do this, eg MBTI, JCE, Socionics, Ennagram, Astrology, etc, could be considered typology. As for other people, luckily our target audience are not typologists, so that should not be an issue.
    I tried to explain the defining principle that separates typing a person and reading a person in my last reply, I'll try and be more clear this time. Typing a person means Starting with a predefined theoretical framework of how people are grouped, structured by behavioral tendencies, and then fitting people into those groups. Even if you say you are defining types by Cognitive functions alone, you are still typing people if you are still fitting people into a predefined type. The other way around would be starting with observation, and then understanding what is being observed, I don't know what you would call that, but for the intents and purposes of Pod'Lair, we call it reading people.
    (Cont.)
    So in other words, Typology starts with the theory and tries to fit people into it (Theory first, Natural phenomenon Second), Reading people starts with observing people and making an effort to understand them (Natural Phenomenon First, Theory second.)
    I wouldn't say that it becomes typing when you attach an archetype, that is incidental, and ends up happening because when using that methodology, you have no other choice; there is no avoiding it. I would say that typology begins with the theory, and then fits people into that. For instance according to the theory a thinker must act this way, or an Fi dom acts that way; and then you go out and start fitting people into those groups based on that criteria. However, there is no way of proving that criteria wrong, or checking it for consistency, or even expanding and improving it, so it because a limitation. Reading people does not essentially have anything to do with how you act, so if you have any misconceptions about any configurations and how they act, they can be proven wrong and expanded upon, becuase you can physically see that they may not necessarily work that way, when you are not defining them by the criteria of how they act. Does that make sense?
    (Cont.)
    Similarly, when you read a person, you learn a lot about how they are wired, and tools they are working with, but it still leaves room to learn more about this person, you are not making a character out of them, you are not ascribing them to an Archetype. Typology ascribes people to archetypes, such as the INTP Architect, or the INTJ Mastermind, they characterize people. In Pod’Lair we see Mojo in the same way that we see Gender, being Male or Female does not make you an archetype, similarly being a Zai’nyy does not make you a set archetype, and there is an infinite amount of different archetypes that could come out of a Single Mojo or Person. While we are making an effort to understand how people are weird, we have distinctive biological differences that distinguish us from one another; we are not putting people into behavioral archetypes, instead we are making an effort to understand people as one would approach understanding how an Animal works.
    And if you think it is weird that I am using Animal breeds as an example because they are a different species, then I have another one for you (although in my opinion, one of psychology's biggest mistakes is that they often forget humans are just primates in clothes.) What are two obvious flavors that humans come in? Males and Females. Now most of the Cultural Memes, and stereotyped behavior differences between Males and Females are complete BS, but still, the two Sexes are not interchangeable, they do still have distinct chemical and anatomical differences that distinguish one another. When you notice that a person is female, it tells you a lot about what they have to work with, but it doesn't tell you about their interests, or about their character, or if they are friendly.
    Let me put it this way: When you make a distinction between different breeds of dogs or cats, are you typing them? Certainly these breeds have different notable physiological and psychological characteristics, but would it be accurate to refer to multiple breeds of animals as typology? I would say no, because the implied methodology and criteria that comes with Typology is not there; A German shepherd doesn't need to have their behavior analyzed and measured before you can be certain that they are a German Shepard. When you say "typology" you are not simply implying grouping individuals together, you are also implying the criteria of qualitative measurements of behavior. So sure, some people might still refer to Pod'Lair as Typology, but they would be mistaken, and I will continue to point that out.
    The term "Type" or specifically "Personality Type" when used in psychology refers to the the categorizing of people using qualitative behavioral differences, as if these behavioral differences were quantitative indicators or their innate natures. This criteria is implied in the name. Reading people does categorize people in certain ways, but to refer to it as typing implies that the same criteria and even methodology as the Psychological Typologists is being used.
    On my dream forum, every post is
    put into a spoiler tag for optimal
    neatness and less scrolling.
    No actually it isn't. Making a description that you agree with is not useful at all. Which is why the Horoscope is not being applied anywhere, because getting a person to agree to a description doesn't actually teach them anything about themselves, or help them develop themselves.

    So to answer your question: No, it is complete garbage.
    Descriptions sounding right is not good enough, even if they did sound right. It is no more useful than a horoscope.
    It doesn't matter, it is bullshit (a completely made up theory) based on bullshit (uses MBTI percentages which mean nothing)
    Welcome to the forum, Artsu. I found your post on school strategy incredibly insightful. I hadn't thought about getting through my schooling that way, and may very well go that route for next semester to finish off my high school. Thank you for the great idea.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom