Consciousness is overrated

[Agent Intellect]

Consciousness means conscious of something, including ones own actions. Objects are contingent on pure causation because they are not aware of their actions in order to alter them. Free will emerges from consciousness when we become conscious of the things we do and think, able to reflect back onto ourselves as being contingent on ourselves - our intentions and desires, things that don't physically exist, are the causes of our actions, not simply reactions to external, physical objects.

 

[LAM]

Why?

Why do cognitive functions have to be more than 8?

We have five senses, two eyes, two hands, why should our cognitive functions be any different?

It sounds to me like you are just refusing to consider this out of pure ego. Having 8 cognitive functions only does not mean we all act exactly the same down to the very last detail. Furthermore, we are not talking about the entire mind, just the personality, which is for the most part the conscious mind.

I think you are the misguided one if you think clinging on to the ideal of the mind being too magical to understand is going to get us anywhere.

After my time finding out more about personality modes, I have concluded that, yes, you can roughly be put into a category of 8 types of personalities.

What you can't do is to predict what external--and internal-- effects have upon it. MBTI and cognitive functions can only roughly outline how my personality works but not how it will respond and change according to people, situations, thoughts and feelings. INTPs are well known for very "uncharacteristic behaviour" whilst under the control of feelings.

And people seem to assume these changes are usually big, but they work even on small or sub-conscious levels which are not noticed. In any case, just like every other science, psychology, philosophy, etc, MBTI is a formulation of a system based on perspective, not "Truth" which is applies to all. Even if it does, how much it applies varies largely.

Someone once suggested that we may have several MBTI types and change the ratios cognitive functions to different extents over time. I do not agree with him, because I would explain it as psychological/personality progression or the influence of sub-personas.

Note: this is a reply to the post, perhaps not the thread as much.

 

[Adymus]

MBTI and cognitive functions can only roughly outline how my personality works but not how it will respond and change according to people, situations, thoughts and feelings.

Correct, MBTI couldn't predict that. But it can be predicted with an other model.

 

[boradicus]

There is a massive difference between developing your offside functions (adapting yourself to more rounded functionality if you will), and shifting them entirely in such a way that they become your preference functions. Nobody is claiming that your Tertiary and Inferior functions must remain limb and incompetent forever, They can develop and a person could become quite skilled in using them. But they are just functions that will always drain you, and never have very high priority in your overall functionality.

Also, I'm not trying to start any accusations again, But there is something that needs to be clarified. What you described sounds more like Se, not Si. Si has absolutely nothing to do with being more present, it's actually quite the opposite. Si is an internal function, we must actually withdraw from the present here and now in order to use it. Developing Si would not make an INTP more present, that is what Ne and Fe is for.
Se on the other hand takes in outside sensory data that is happening in the present. Unlike Si, Se is not based in time, it is adaptive and thus focuses only on the present details in the outer world.

Yes - please be advised that I am still researching all of this and that that description of grounding through Si came from a solitary source; however, in the realm of behavioral functionality, I really see no difference in a function's ability to balance out different skills and aspects of a personality. The Si side I have noted quite frequently in other ways according to its actual definition and not that of descriptive suggestions. Events and details are remembered according to contextual reference and lend to continual reinterpretations by Ti - if I am describing this correctly - which may or may not be the case being that I am not a professional psychologist or a student of psychology per se.

As far as the discipline of martial arts is concerned, I am much like a dog. Now, dogs - I learned this from a professional dog trainer - have a tendency to function in either one of two ways with regard to both structure and extro\intro-version - and they can switch between the two modes - which I find interesting in light of some comment made earlier about the specificity of an animal's function with regard to its environment. Dogs are either naturally good with a tight structure in a 'pack' with other dogs ('extroverted' behavior) or they are good as completely unstructured 'loners.' When I first began martial arts, I was drawn to it by the mere challenge of it and the self-confidence it made me feel as a result. Before I began martial arts, I could never force myself to practice whatever instrument I was studying in music college (as a composition major you are advised to take courses in various instruments). I had been taught by my guitar teacher early on to just pick up the guitar and play it whenever I saw it, and as a result I had a habit of unstructured practice and was much more inclined to play whenever I felt like playing as opposed to adhering to some structured schedule. My musical side was tied to my emotional life as well, being rather sacred to me as an outlet for how I felt - which was not something easily otherwise expressed - and as a result, I tended to resist the idea of imposing structure on the outlet of my self-expression through music. Bur after beginning martial arts, I found that I could suddenly switch to a highly structured routine (as opposed to my previously completely unstructured routine) and was able to practice and enjoy practicing! The difficulty was not the functioning in a structured environment or an unstructured environment for me, but the time and effort required for the transition between these modes.

This may seem like a bit of oversimplification, however, I think we have a lot to learn from different models as opposed to rigorously holding to a fixed set of suppositions wherein we over rationalize our and others' behavior to a single prototype for behavior. For one, it is a very 'sensing' sort of approach that is completely non-intuitive to me, being that it is a bit too rigid and agglomerative.

There is a lot to be gained from MBTI typing, and at the same time I can learn a lot from dogs =). And if we are inherently more adaptable than dogs - which I hold to be true based on our abilities to conform not only our environment to ourselves, but to find NEW ways to conform ourselves to our environment (you don't see dogs, for instance, learning combat techniques from watching other animals but this is precisely what the animal forms in kung fu are) then perchance there may be some ability in myself not so different from a dog's that will allow me to dramatically shift my behavior pattern from that of introversion to extroversion and from that of unstructured to highly structured as well. I am not precluded, of course, by my interest in a dog's similarity to my person (all looks aside lol *wink*) from accepting or entertaining additional theories - even those presented by an MBTI rationale. But I do tend to look at all these things as theories, and theories are open to continual re-interpretation - but not to get into that again - however, I will say that up to this point, I more readily find myself able to concur with Jung's original distinctions for differentiation, and find, in the wake of my own experience and comprehension from what I have read on these matters thus far, more consistency in that model than in the one provided by Meyers. It is a neat idea to differentiate functions according to introverted and extroverted tendency, but even in the descriptions of how the functions work, there seems to be a lot of latitude between the alternation between the introverted and extroverted use of the dominant and auxiliary functions - so much so that it begs the question of the 'apparent' functionality described by the MBTI model in terms of whether or not some deeper more complex function is actually occurring for which the model itself is an oversimplification, or whether some supposition in the model is not erroneous to some degree...

Thanks for sharing by the way - I do find these discussions enlightening as there is frequently always something new to learn .

 

[boradicus]

Someone once suggested that we may have several MBTI types and change the ratios cognitive functions to different extents over time. I do not agree with him, because I would explain it as psychological/personality progression or the influence of sub-personas.

Minsky proposes something quite similar in terms of emotions as mere switches between cognitive resources and functionality. This is perhaps different than the supposition of the person quoted above in that it does not of necessity imply a complete retyping according to the model (e.g. esfp--intp - ok that is humorous *smirk*), but instead calls to mind the idea of a more complex differentiation of functionality than that currently in vogue..

I highly recommend The Emotion Machine (2006 - by M.Minsky) for more insight into this particular line of research - it is ground breaking in itself.

 

[NeverAmI]

I highly recommend The Emotion Machine (2006 - by M.Minsky) for more insight into this particular line of research - it is ground breaking in itself.

Just bought it, thanks!

 

[boradicus]

Just bought it, thanks!

 

[boradicus]

Haha!

Also, I'm not trying to start any accusations again, But there is something that needs to be clarified. What you described sounds more like Se, not Si. Si has absolutely nothing to do with being more present, it's actually quite the opposite. Si is an internal function, we must actually withdraw from the present here and now in order to use it. Developing Si would not make an INTP more present, that is what Ne and Fe is for.
Se on the other hand takes in outside sensory data that is happening in the present. Unlike Si, Se is not based in time, it is adaptive and thus focuses only on the present details in the outer world.

It is quite interesting in retrospect, having located the passage in "Was that Really Me?" by Quenk on page 125 to which I was referring, that the book is quite erroneous in that what it describes as an auxiliary Sensing function for INTPs (Si) is actually descriptive of Se behavior. On a cursory read, it is quite easy to miss unless you are looking for mistypings, but apparently, on a second look, the book has other mistypings and is therefore potentially quite erroneous. I should mention in addition to this, that I have had some experience with this type of presentation in the past - it is in essence the game of politics played out in psychology, where, psychology (rather than political rhetoric) becomes the forum for such manipulations and chicaneries.

Psychologists, without tire, defend the 'necessity' for deception of their clients (of course they never call it that unless you pin them down and make them admit to it) based in an indirect approach to addressing the issues of the client; if the client perceives readily what is transpiring and asks the psychologist why they are obviously approaching a subject in a tangential manner, it is not infrequent on the part of the psychologist to attempt to evade the line of questioning and approach tangentially again from some sudden or new angle, continually attempting to keep the client focused on the client and not on an assessment of the psychologist's line of questioning.

In clinical practice, it is perhaps reasonable to an extent to make such approaches, however, upon recognition by the client, if not addressed candidly it can put the whole client-psychologist relationship in potential jeopardy by undermining the trust of the client for the counselor.

While the destruction of trust seems more controllable to the psychologist than is actually sometimes the case, and because its justification seems to be benignly oriented toward assisting the client, such practice has become to some extent commonplace, perhaps even occurring to some extent in source materials readily made available to the lay person, in which a judicious sprinkling of inconsistency and obfuscation intentionally exist to the end of insulating prospective clients from the cognitive therapy process while still providing some informative amount of description 'helpful' to the client in discovering who they are, etc. Books in this sense are then readily maleable to this end; and this is not unlike the composition of political texts, speeches, etc. It is essentially the same process, in which information is provided on two or sometimes more levels.

Probably, as a result, this book is not a valid book for truly understanding the MBTI because of the inherent blur between the types throughout the text. I was a bit suspicious of it when it was given to me recently by an intpforum.com member (unnamed) in e-book format because of the title alone - which sounds quite pop-psych...

Thanks to you for pointing this error out to me, as this particular text will probably (perhaps with the exception of the initial exposition of the Jung-Meyers system) be of little functional use....

I would then have to attribute my martial arts experience to some other interpretation - but what ever that may be, it is probably indicative of the use of some inferior function in conjunction with the co-opted use of a more dominant function so that I am able to better adjust to the discomfort of the routine itself (which is probably not my normal mode of functioning because of my natural inclination to drift away unless practice is continually habituated - or is this a simple behaviorist perspective?) Are some types more likely to form disciplined routines than others? This is not my strong suit, but, as per stated, once I am in the habit of routine, I gather energy from it until I begin to drift - at which point my energy acquisition reverts to some more abstract and unstructured form.

 

[Adymus]

Haha!

It is quite interesting in retrospect, having located the passage in "Was that Really Me?" by Quenk on page 125 to which I was referring, that the book is quite erroneous in that what it describes as an auxiliary Sensing function for INTPs (Si) is actually descriptive of Se behavior.

The one thing that sticks out to me as being way off is "Another INTP covers both auxiliary Sensing and inferior Feeling in her relaxation activities."

Obliviously there is a typo somewhere here, she either meant to say "Another ISTP covers..." or "... Both Tertiary Sensing and inferior Feeling..."

It also looks like she is equating Sensing in general with "hands on" activities, which is not necessarily the case. I could be reading and still be engaging my Si.
Although the Si used by INTPs in many of their "hands on" hobbies is not necessarily to "be in the now". Si is a function that is many used for comparing the present to a past model. So for instance I use my Si when I produce electronic music. I have a mental image in my Si of what it is supposed to sound like, and I keep tweeking the sound until it matches that. So when INTPs use Si for physical activities it is more to make the present match what they have in their Si, which would work for knitting, or golf, or painting, etc.

Probably, as a result, this book is not a valid book for truly understanding the MBTI because of the inherent blur between the types throughout the text. I was a bit suspicious of it when it was given to me recently by an intpforum.com member (unnamed) in e-book format because of the title alone - which sounds quite pop-psych...

I didn't intend this to end up in bashing Naomi Quenk, I actually found that book very useful, this is the only book that talks about grip experience in detail. Not to mention, most of it is dead accurate.

I would then have to attribute my martial arts experience to some other interpretation - but what ever that may be, it is probably indicative of the use of some inferior function in conjunction with the co-opted use of a more dominant function so that I am able to better adjust to the discomfort of the routine itself (which is probably not my normal mode of functioning because of my natural inclination to drift away unless practice is continually habituated - or is this a simple behaviorist perspective?)

You mean like Se inferior and Ni dominant? Sorry, I just had to say it.

Are some types more likely to form disciplined routines than others? This is not my strong suit, but, as per stated, once I am in the habit of routine, I gather energy from it until I begin to drift - at which point my energy acquisition reverts to some more abstract and unstructured form.

Yes there are definitely types that are more likely to form disciplined routines than others (I would put the ISTJ at the top of this list), but there is a difference between the kind of structure and what kind of routines they are doing.
This would be a good time to point out that there is a difference between Fe structure and Te structure. Both of them are directive functions and used for manipulating a structural dynamic of sorts, but the difference is that: While Te focuses on systemic structural dynamics (eg. regimented schedule routines)
Fe focuses on social structural dynamics. The example you gave, the wolf pack, that is actually a perfect example of Fe structure (Which is why I hypothesize the animals have similar cognitive processes as we do). The Fe structure is based on people (eg: So-&-so comes over at this time, and then we will go out and meet so-&-so at the restaurant, and then we all go see a movie together.) A crucial difference is that Fe structure is based on the pack, so it can change depending on the will of the pack. This is why it is very inaccurate to say that J's always stick to the plan. Because a J who is using Fe will change their plans on the spot if they see the group is leaning in another direction.

 

[boradicus]

Si is a function that is many used for comparing the present to a past model.

Yes - that is exactly what I do - I relate the past sensory experience to the present and analyze it to see if it fits new working theories or not. Then if nothing fits I discard the working theory or view it from a slightly different angle if my hunch is that strong, until I see an underlying pattern that fits the new working theory. I tend to build on theories in this way as a way of understanding compactly the world around me. If a theory doesn't work I discard it.

You mean like Se inferior and Ni dominant? Sorry, I just had to say it.

Ni Dominant - according to my understanding of Jungian typology, has to do with sorting feelings about things internally. That is not at all what I do. Se inferior - to the best of my knowledge of the typology, incorporates the senses externally in an experiential way - almost like a sort of hedonistic connection with the world around. This I don't do. I am one of the most spartan people I know. If it does not have to do with computers and music,or with books, I generally don't have it - and I only have what equipment I find necessary, preferring to live in the most simple way possible. I treat food in the same way. I treat relationships in the same way. Every once in a while I will buy something that I enjoy - but it is typically quite rare and I subsist on staples for their nutritional value and ease of use.

I used to have a friend a long time ago who wrote a poem about me entitled "stripped," because to her I exemplified the Spartan way of life and lived lean and efficiently, and probably quite unlike herself I was very lean in my relationships too - placing much more emphasis on whatever project I was consumed with than with the people in my life. Excessive socializing has mostly seemed to me to be a wast of time and a drain on resources that could otherwise be used more beneficially.

I didn't intend this to end up in bashing Naomi Quenk, I actually found that book very useful, this is the only book that talks about grip experience in detail. Not to mention, most of it is dead accurate.

It is too flawed for my taste. I have no interest in wasting any further time with it.

This would be a good time to point out that there is a difference between Fe structure and Te structure. Both of them are directive functions and used for manipulating a structural dynamic of sorts, but the difference is that: While Te focuses on systemic structural dynamics (eg. regimented schedule routines)
Fe focuses on social structural dynamics. The example you gave, the wolf pack, that is actually a perfect example of Fe structure (Which is why I hypothesize the animals have similar cognitive processes as we do). The Fe structure is based on people (eg: So-&-so comes over at this time, and then we will go out and meet so-&-so at the restaurant, and then we all go see a movie together.) A crucial difference is that Fe structure is based on the pack, so it can change depending on the will of the pack. This is why it is very inaccurate to say that J's always stick to the plan. Because a J who is using Fe will change their plans on the spot if they see the group is leaning in another direction.

I find this interesting - one thing that was helpful in the book was the blurring between the use of Dominant Extroverted Functions with their Introverted Functions (and a similar case can be made for a correlating relation between the Auxiliary Extroverted and the Auxiliary Introverted functions). In the search for what part of me was able to adapt the best to the disciplined structure of class, it would seem that the thinking function is most engaged, as that is the aspect of me that is most logical and efficient. Oddly, with respect to martial arts class, I am hardly sociable during class at all - which is not always the case with students there although it could be expected to be so because it is a disciplined setting. Instead, I tend to really focus inward on conforming myself to what ever is required and to practicing and analyzing my movements until I comprehend them better. There is also the meditative aspect of Tai Ji, which is common to all the students at some level, where we focus on just being an observer as we move in time with one another.

Now Fe, is definitely NOT my cup of tea . I am just horrible with social dynamics and structures. What's more - I could care less unless the job isn't getting done. I however, am sensitive to people's moods and therefore try to stay away from situations that imply emotional involvement of any kind because I am just uncomfortable with it. I prefer projects and working hard to dealing with peoples' stresses that I don't comprehend. I get concerned if it is a friend that is broadcasting something weird but I typically just have no idea about what to do and so am very straightforward if I talk to someone that I intuit may be upset. Usually, I don't approach them, but they approach me - with the exception of my ultraintroverted ISTP friend who I prefer to resolve things with, becoming naturally more extroverted in preference to waiting for ever to talk about something that two introverts will never get around to doing. But often times, I become just as aloof and could care less, having some new project at hand into which I am investing my time and energies - I figure the stupidity will pass and that if it doesn't that it isn't deserving of consideration.

Regarding becoming more extroverted in social settings, I just tend to talk a lot. I talk a lot about whatever interests me and attempt to ask other people what they think about things when I remember to do so (having learned this from Dale Carnegie lol), but typically I just dominate a conversation until it is run dry and I leave. Sometimes I will elect to listen a lot - but that is actually my introverted side - and I usually only listen a lot one on one. Otherwise it is time for me to tell you all about my new ideas and theories!

 

[Adymus]

Yes - that is exactly what I do - I relate the past sensory experience to the present and analyze it to see if it fits new working theories or not. Then if nothing fits I discard the working theory or view it from a slightly different angle if my hunch is that strong, until I see an underlying pattern that fits the new working theory. I tend to build on theories in this way as a way of understanding compactly the world around me. If a theory doesn't work I discard it.

Wait, what? Okay that is not really how we use Si... in fact, what you just described sounds exactly like Ni perspective shifting... Here is a piece of my description of Ni's perspective shifting ability from the cognitive functions guild I just wrote:


Perspective Shifting: Using Ni a person can shift their perspectives, view and understand things from different angles and in different ways, each giving insights, synthesizing information and trying to get to the best outcome for the problem at hand and accomplish a vision of the future. Perspectives are often evoked by focusing on physical symbols, archetypes, totems, and other abstractions like visual models. This ability allows the Ni user to see the underlying meaning and universal truths of natural law behind symbols and abstractions, and then apply them in other places that appear unrelated or contradictory.

Ni Dominant - according to my understanding of Jungian typology, has to do with sorting feelings about things internally. That is not at all what I do. Se inferior - to the best of my knowledge of the typology, incorporates the senses externally in an experiential way - almost like a sort of hedonistic connection with the world around. This I don't do. I am one of the most spartan people I know. If it does not have to do with computers and music,or with books, I generally don't have it - and I only have what equipment I find necessary, preferring to live in the most simple way possible. I treat food in the same way. I treat relationships in the same way. Every once in a while I will buy something that I enjoy - but it is typically quite rare and I subsist on staples for their nutritional value and ease of use.

Ni has nothing to do with your feelings, sounds like you are confusing it with Fi. Also having a function as your inferior does not mean your are going to bask in it hedonistically. On the contrary it means it is going to drain you and pull you out of your dominant function. However, since it is still one of your conscious function, you can still use it, by going into "Se mode" so to speak, despite it being so draining. And yeah, what you are discribing does sound like the kind of behavior you get when you have Se inferior, because Se is such a drain and distraction that you make sure to minimize it in your surroundings. The Sherlock Holmes series had a pretty good demonstration of this. Sherlock Holmes (INTJ) considered his brain as having only a certain amount of available ram, so he would only get books on the specific things he needed for a case. Not to mention, the fact that he was so pained by the Se of the world that he would end up in opium dens when not on a case.

It is too flawed for my taste. I have no interest in wasting any further time with it.

hmmm, could I ask what specifically you thought was flawed?

Regarding becoming more extroverted in social settings, I just tend to talk a lot. I talk a lot about whatever interests me and attempt to ask other people what they think about things when I remember to do so (having learned this from Dale Carnegie lol), but typically I just dominate a conversation until it is run dry and I leave. Sometimes I will elect to listen a lot - but that is actually my introverted side - and I usually only listen a lot one on one. Otherwise it is time for me to tell you all about my new ideas and theories!

Reeeeaaaaally...

Surely by now you already know what I want to say about this...

 

[boradicus]

Gee, that was a fast reply

Wait, what? Okay that is not really how we use Si... in fact, what you just described sounds exactly like Ni perspective shifting... Here is a piece of my description of Ni's perspective shifting ability from the cognitive functions guild I just wrote:


Perspective Shifting: Using Ni a person can shift their perspectives, view and understand things from different angles and in different ways, each giving insights, synthesizing information and trying to get to the best outcome for the problem at hand and accomplish a vision of the future. Perspectives are often evoked by focusing on physical symbols, archetypes, totems, and other abstractions like visual models. This ability allows the Ni user to see the underlying meaning and universal truths of natural law behind symbols and abstractions, and then apply them in other places that appear unrelated or contradictory.

Ok this has nothing to do with anything. You can play droughts with the interpretations of the functions all day and get no where because it is possible to rhetorically manipulate and tie descriptions and functions to each to whatever end is desired. That is why self-inventory is the most accurate way for typing someone - because of the understanding of one's own decision processes. Now intuition is intuition is intuition; what makes it different with the infj and other intuitive feeling types who have Ni as dom. or aux. is the way in which it is tied to the decision process. The decision process for intuitive feeling types is feeling based, and relational. This is the foreground in which the intuition works its wonder - whereas with a dom or aux thinking decision process type, the landscape is conceptual as opposed to relational.

Ni, consequently, has therefore to do with an intuitive sorting of relational structures based on feeling as a decision process. If you deny this, you deny the basic essence of the INFJ type, an intuitive relationally oriented introvert; hence, the idealist.

Ni has nothing to do with your feelings, sounds like you are confusing it with Fi.

No - see above... And.... Se is a present awareness of one's environment - which is not how I operate. This does not mean that I am devoid of any attention at all to detail, just as it does not mean that any of the 16 types is devoid of feeling or the expression of feeling.

Also having a function as your inferior does not mean your are going to bask in it hedonistically. On the contrary it means it is going to drain you and pull you out of your dominant function. However, since it is still one of your conscious function, you can still use it, by going into "Se mode" so to speak, despite it being so draining. And yeah, what you are discribing does sound like the kind of behavior you get when you have Se inferior, because Se is such a drain and distraction that you make sure to minimize it in your surroundings.

It is very difficult, and we could go round and round about what function is engaged, how, and why - with respect to energy acquisition through martial arts. Once again, albeit it is fun to speculate and a good exercise to perform, the essence of the personality type functions is cognitive and could be rationalized to practically any output, as it is quite possible for several types to have the same or similar lifestyles (or various elements of lifestyles) as well as similar adaptive energetic styles...

All I can tell you is that I know that I function according to Si, I know that I function heavily in Ti, and I know that I use very frequently Ne, and more importantly... that I do not make decisions based on how I feel but on what logic dictates. And that logic is completely malleable according to the set of circumstances - it is not directed by some internal idealist belief system.

The Sherlock Holmes series had a pretty good demonstration of this. Sherlock Holmes (INTJ) considered his brain as having only a certain amount of available ram, so he would only get books on the specific things he needed for a case. Not to mention, the fact that he was so pained by the Se of the world that he would end up in opium dens when not on a case.

As to whether Sherlock Holmes is INTJ is an interesting question. His process definitely included the use of the analysis of details - and thinking was definitely auxiliary at the least. For this reason, a possible interpretation of his type could include Te/Ti and Si potentially, because of the adeptness with which he would reorganize the data he acquired as he went through the process of logical deduction. He could be seen, therefore, as an INTP, with his intermittent apathy due to the fact that his mind was periodically not engaged in an all absorbing problem - which is in fact a trait of the INTP personality type.

 

[Adymus]

Hmmm, you are still misunderstanding Ni and Fe, but whatever.

Consider yourself the only INTP in the world who would ever say "I know I am an INTP" before actually knowing what an INTP was. That alone should demonstrate that you are definitely not using Si.

And no, sorry, but anybody who understands the 16 types and the cognitive processes that they use would not mistake Sherlock Holmes for an INTP. They made it so blatantly obvious. His use of Ni, his Se inferior, the things that we does and how is responds to the environment is nothing like INTPs.

PS: Also, self-inventory is definitely not the most accurate method. It requires you to have a solid understanding of not just how your own mind works but how it fits into the typology model they are using. It is pretty unlikely people will have both of these right from the get go.

 

[boradicus]

Hmmm, you are still misunderstanding Ni and Fe, but whatever.

Consider yourself the only INTP in the world who would ever say "I know I am an INTP" before actually knowing what an INTP was. That alone should demonstrate that you are definitely not using Si.

Not at all... I am going off the test results of which there are several... vs. the subjective opinion of a non-professional. Additionally, I relate to the cognitive functions in my own life after having taken the instrument and after having read more about my type in contradistinction to others...

And no, sorry, but anybody who understands the 16 types and the cognitive processes that they use would not mistake Sherlock Holmes for an INTP. They made it so blatantly obvious. His use of Ni, his Se inferior, the things that we does and how is responds to the environment is nothing like INTPs.

Why not explain yourself in detail as opposed to making ad hominems? I thought the purpose of intpforum.com was to learn and discuss...

PS: Also, self-inventory is definitely not the most accurate method. It requires you to have a solid understanding of not just how your own mind works but how it fits into the typology model they are using. It is pretty unlikely people will have both of these right from the get go.

No - I think you misunderstood what I said - via the implications - not the content... ...that is probably my fault - being that I am intuitive I sometimes expect others to make the implied connections that I tend to make. The MBTI has three points of failure: 1) The theory itself, 2) The instrument of the test written by the psychologist, and 3) the person taking the test. Therefore if the theory is sound, then it is possible to accurately differentiate between the different functions and consequently to describe accurately in normal everyday language the traits in question in a way that it is accessible to self-inventory. Psychologists, according to the ability defined by their practice, are then able to formulate questions in such a way that make self-inventory possible - especially so when the subject has little or no knowledge of typology itself; if this were not possible, then the fault is in the theory itself, or in the psychologists who wrote and implemented the tests thus far. The next point of failure is the subject himself/herself. In the case of the subject, having knowledge of how the MBTI and the theory behind it works is potentially detrimental, whereas, to not have such knowledge retains a greater level of observational insulation from the instrument itself and would yield more accurate results.

Any method that proposed for the inventory of Jungian cognitive functions must causally relate itself to the inner workings of the conscious mind. This is obvious because of the decision process (T/F) at the model's core; the intuitive and sensing polarities for perceiving data are not separate from this core as they relate to the model. At our current level of technology, cognition inasmuch as it relates to decision making, is best described via language. We are not measuring knee jerk responses, visceral reactions, etc. - we are measuring cognitive preference. Therefore any measure of cognitive preference must be conducted via some form of linguistic interaction, be that through the medium of a written poll or a live conversation.

Assuming that psychologists know what they are doing, a written poll will have the advantage of being much more objective in its 1) approach, 2) consistency and 3) method than the subjectivity inherent in real-time conversation. Therefore, assuming that psychologists know what they are doing (once again - because if they do not then it is all quite pointless indeed), a self-inventory will be the most objective form of instrument given, and hence the most reliable in terms of its accuracy.

There is always the rogue psychologist out to prove the exception - but one can feel fairly secure in knowing most of these will be dismissed from the field prior to being licensed. Objectivity is a characteristic of the method of scientific inquiry - it is the Great Mean whereby all minds may consensually concur. Without it true communication is not possible.

 

[BigApplePi]

we are not talking about the entire mind, just the personality, which is for the most part the conscious mind.

I agree with your overall theme but I'd hold back on the "conscious" part. We are conscious of something of who we are, but it takes a lot of learning to distinguish that from others. In fact bringing out the other 15 temperaments has the purpose of making us conscious of what we are not.

 

[BigApplePi]

Am hardly half-way through this thread, but have to comment. Excuse me if this has been covered. Ever hear the saying, "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree?"

Take myself. I score on tests 100 percent introverted. I also agree with that assessment independent of any test. But how much of that is innate?

May not introversion feed on itself at an early age? If I start out more comfortable looking inward and am dismayed by the arbitrariness of family, won't that cause me to rely more and more on inward things I will take comfort in? So it's like a homeostatic state. It becomes stable and entrenched. Initial disposition which could have been malleable in the begiinning is now firm.

 

[Adymus]

No - I think you misunderstood what I said - via the implications - not the content... ...that is probably my fault - being that I am intuitive I sometimes expect others to make the implied connections that I tend to make.

Ah, implied language, another thing that pretty much only occurs with Ni to Fe, because an actual INTP would make sure they would not be misinterpreted from the start (it's a dominant Ti thing.)

The next point of failure is the subject himself/herself. In the case of the subject, having knowledge of how the MBTI and the theory behind it works is potentially detrimental, whereas, to not have such knowledge retains a greater level of observational insulation from the instrument itself and would yield more accurate results.

No, that's definitely not true. People cannot innately differentiate being being skilled at using certain cognitive processes, and having certain cognitive processes as a preference. Especially because the test is not designed to read what is your preference per se, but your conscious understanding of what function you think you do well. You see, if you are a feeling type who has developed a strong thinking function, it is very likely that you are going to answer the questions in favor of thinking, and it makes sense that you would, you worked hard to develop that part of yourself. However, do to the simplification of MBTI, putting points into thinking subtracts points from feeling, so you can still end up testing as a thinking type even if you have the feeling preference, just because you have well developed thinking functionality. You are proof of this, you tested at one point as an ISTP, you are completely aware that you are not an ISTP. You were going through a time in your life when you are started relating to your sensing function because it was being developed and worked on, but it still wasn't your preference. Clearly the test read you wrong, and you are still trying to tell me that it is the most accurate method.

Any method that proposed for the inventory of Jungian cognitive functions must causally relate itself to the inner workings of the conscious mind. This is obvious because of the decision process (T/F) at the model's core; the intuitive and sensing polarities for perceiving data are not separate from this core as they relate to the model. At our current level of technology, cognition inasmuch as it relates to decision making, is best described via language. We are not measuring knee jerk responses, visceral reactions, etc. - we are measuring cognitive preference. Therefore any measure of cognitive preference must be conducted via some form of linguistic interaction, be that through the medium of a written poll or a live conversation.

Oh I beg to differ, the cognitive functions are very much a visceral reaction. They are constantly turned on, and they are what we interface the world with, they are not hidden in the mind. If someone smiles at you, it registers in your Fe or Fi, if you speak it is done out of Fe or Te, just about every thing you do is with one of your cognitive function in the same way that ever movement you make is with a muscle.

Assuming that psychologists know what they are doing, a written poll will have the advantage of being much more objective in its 1) approach, 2) consistency and 3) method than the subjectivity inherent in real-time conversation. Therefore, assuming that psychologists know what they are doing (once again - because if they do not then it is all quite pointless indeed), a self-inventory will be the most objective form of instrument given, and hence the most reliable in terms of its accuracy.

It is ridiculous that you could even say that a written poll of a person's cognitive functions is objective data with a straight face. You are forgetting that their is relativity between everyone's concept of just how much of a certain cognitive function they are using vs what they are not using. This is why you end up with people having %100 introversion. Obviously 100% introversion is not possible, but people input that data because they are defining themselves as really really really introverted. Likewise you get people who exaggerate other aspects of themselves as well. Also the MBTI simplifies cognitive functions in such a way that contradicts the cognitive functions themselves. For example, MBTI defines extroversion as being talkative, but articulation comes from how strong a person's Te or Fe is, therefor an INFJ or INTJ for instance is likely to be very articulate, but still not an extrovert. Similarly they combine things like Fe and Te together to form J, even though they use a very different kind of structure.

Objectivity is a characteristic of the method of scientific inquiry - it is the Great Mean whereby all minds may consensually concur. Without it true communication is not possible.

Indeed, and the MBTI instrument lacks this. Understanding cognitive processes is not as simple as asking a person if they like to do things. What you are getting with that is an opinion, not empirical evidence.

 

[BigApplePi]

Just to your comment on links. I see links as supplemental for those who wish substantiation by detail. I see the message as carrying the main line of thought. I would read the links so long as they don't carry me too far off the topic that I lose the topic. If there are too many links I will skip them and feel guilty but swallow my guilt. One can reply to a live message of a live person but not to a link of someone who is not there though I have jokingly tried that.

I assume people are talking about the Belyaev silver fox experiment?

I think people have a slight misconception about the biology and evolution of the brain. I don't feel like posting all the links I've posted in several other threads again and having them go unread, but I'll just say that in evolution, there is not really any such thing as equilibrium. Everything is in flux.

From reading this thread, I see people talk about whether humans are like animals in our personalities or whether our personalities are genetically 'determined' or whether we are a transitional species or not, and it makes me wonder how people think evolution actually works.

The way our brains are structured is dependent on genetic and epigenetic influences. Genetics will make different parts of the brain, which have been shown to be directly correlated with different cognitive processes, grow to different sizes, have differing concentrations of various glial cells, astrocytes, and synaptic junctions. Epigenetic (ie environmental and social constructivist) influences determine long term potentiation and other synaptic plasticity developments - it does this through DNA methylation and acetylation, protein ubiquitination and ADP ribosylation, genomic imprinting, histone tail modifications, and numerous other effects.

The point being, these are modifications to the way genetics are expressed, even if it comes from an external stimuli (like social constructivist and other interpersonal and intrapersonal ways of neural plasticity, or even our diets, environments, and sleep habits).

And in evolutionary terms, the idea of humans being 'smarter' is a bit misleading. When discussing evolution, an organism fits it's niche. There is no direction to evolution - as I said, it is always in flux. There is a regularly calculated amount of genetic mutation, most of which is neutral (there is a certain level of redundancy in the genetic code, with several possible codons being used for a single amino acid, allowing for some 'mistakes' without fucking the whole thing up), some being negative, and others simply being different.

The latter one is the main point. No mutation is ever positive in itself, but only depending on the environment. Being a math or piano prodigy won't mean shit if you're born somewhere like Darfur or North Korea, and it certainly won't mean shit if you're lost out in the jungle where the so-called "lesser" animals like a chimpanzee will survive circles around us. Are humans transitional animals? Of course - there is no such thing as a plateau in evolution, even if there is a stagnant environment. But, if we undergo a sudden change in the environment, humans have enough genetic diversity that even if three fourths of our species goes extinct, those suitable to the new environment will survive and a new variety of genetics will arise.

Personality types are a variation in human genetics; that is what natural selection "acts" upon.

Comparing the personalities of humans and animals seems a bit bizarre to me. Sure, animals have different personalities among their own species and perhaps even genus, but the brain structure of say, a human and a dog, is so vastly different, having taken such different evolutionary paths, with such different selection pressures etc that it wouldn't even be a good "evolutionary idea" (for lack of a better term) for us to process information in the same ways.

The genetic determinism debate is a bit hackneyed. Anyone who thinks that something being biological meaning that it's a form of determinism only exposes themselves as being ignorant about how genetics and biology actually works, especially in an organism that is capable of introspection and self reflection (which, by the way, is a result of our biology).

Being human doesn't make us "break free" of our biology, and being biology ourselves doesn't doom us to a life of mindlessly eating, sleeping, and fucking, nor does it excuse us from acting like savages. If anything, evolutionary psychology and neuropsychology reveals to us why we process information in the ways we do and explains the urges we experience, which allows us to understand these parts of ourselves, being able to reflect on them, fix those aspects we want to fix and embrace the other parts (in others and ourselves). It's no different than just straight up MBTI theory, which doesn't constrain us to act a certain way, but allows us to apprehend what makes us tick - evolutionary psychology and neuropsychology simply lets us understand this from a physical, biological standpoint.

Sorry about the long post, but normally I would have supplemented it with links to make my points evident, but that generally isn't very effective.

 

[BigApplePi]

Evolution is not directional. It shifts based on environments (the climate, terrain, other organisms including predators, prey, and disease) in what are called selection pressures. This, of course, is happening on a population level, too. Single organisms do not evolve, only populations of organisms - your genes will always be the same, but your childrens won't.

Slightly off topic of this thread. Sorry.

I would want to quarrel about evolution not being directional. Although each change which results in survival over time may be random, the longer longer term must have been directional. Else how does one explain one-celled entities evolving to higher organisms? Surely that is a longer term survival function. By the same token I can see evolution in the longer longer term winding down complexities but I'm not familiar with that.

For example I would speculative homo sapiens is an improvement over earlier man yet mankind could evolve into some unproductive form where degradation due to some environmental hazards bring down man to a more primitive state. (This is speculation hard to explain.)

We could call it, "devolution" or has that been thought of before?

 

[BigApplePi]

Then when I took martial arts I began to develop a very strong Si side to myself - so much so that had I wished to do so I probably could have become far more sensing oriented than not. In fact, by the time I took the Meyers Briggs in college, I had a comfortable level of mastery with theory so that I was more drawn to empirical data for the purpose of substantiating ideas. This could have certainly remained a preference (as at the time I identified it to be and showed as ISTP as opposed to my more natural INTP preference) except upon taking a class in political theory, the theorist in me awoke and rose to the challenge and my former strength came readily to the fore. .

The issue you present to me, boradicus, is growth of personality versus change in personality. It makes sense that when you took up martial arts, sensory things would take the forefront of your consciousness.

As I look up the functions for INTP and ISTP, INTP has Si or an introverted sensory while ISTP is extroverted or Se. So I would want to ask you, did you concentrate on martial arts, looking inward or looking outward, and once martial arts became a part of you, did you drop the outward lookingness? Also, and I'm not the best one to articulate this, did you think of martial arts as contributing to your overall self-improvement (i.e. the N side) as opposed to becoming a marital arts social person?

---------------------------------------------

Whoops. I just read what Adymus said Re: Consciousness is overrated
So there may be something to reconsider here. Adymus seems to imply the opposite of what I said. So either I'm wrong in my outlook or I'm trying to fit you to INTP and ..... okay. I'll leave this message and come back later when more educated.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Slightly off topic of this thread. Sorry.

I would want to quarrel about evolution not being directional. Although each change which results in survival over time may be random, the longer longer term must have been directional. Else how does one explain one-celled entities evolving to higher organisms? Surely that is a longer term survival function. By the same token I can see evolution in the longer longer term winding down complexities but I'm not familiar with that.

For example I would speculative homo sapiens is an improvement over earlier man yet mankind could evolve into some unproductive form where degradation due to some environmental hazards bring down man to a more primitive state. (This is speculation hard to explain.)

We could call it, "devolution" or has that been thought of before?

I'm tempted to make a super-thread in the same vein as Adymus explaining evolution, so I can just start linking to that. Unfortunately, I don't have the time nor energy right now to do that or make a sagacious response to your queries - perhaps this weekend I'll see if I can hash out a cohesive explanation of the basic tenets of evolution. Suffice to say, the three "axioms" of evolution are:

1. There is variation among different organisms within a species.
2. Traits can be passed on via reproduction.
3. Organisms have more offspring then their environment/ecosystem can handle.

From these three precepts, just about the entirety of natural selection can be deduced - Charles Darwin did it, can you?

 

[Mello]

Adymus and boradicus should get married.

 

[Lithorn]

Adymus and boradicus should get married.

Put it on the marriage thread.

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm tempted to make a super-thread in the same vein as Adymus explaining evolution, so I can just start linking to that. Unfortunately, I don't have the time nor energy right now to do that or make a sagacious response to your queries - perhaps this weekend I'll see if I can hash out a cohesive explanation of the basic tenets of evolution. Suffice to say, the three "axioms" of evolution are:

1. There is variation among different organisms within a species.
2. Traits can be passed on via reproduction.
3. Organisms have more offspring then their environment/ecosystem can handle.

From these three precepts, just about the entirety of natural selection can be deduced - Charles Darwin did it, can you?

What I'm proposing is that in a "rich" environment, anything can happen. Evolution can "progress" in the sense of creating more complex species. In a degraded environment, as one where #3 happens, richness can fall fallow and the more complex qualities of a species will no longer be desirable and will fall away. That's all.

For example, fish arriving on land can develop into air breathing animals which open the door to more intelligent species not as likely as in the sea.

As a degraded example, fish finding themselves in an isolated cave environment may lose their vision having no longer the need to see.

I would call this "direction."

 

[BigApplePi]

Adymus. I wanted to go back to your original post, not just to see what the topic was, but because I felt uncomfortable about something. I still am not sure of the topic and here's why:

Hard wiring is one thing, as if our hard wires couldn't be softened. Consciousness or awareness of ourselves is another. But there is an enormous part of us missing from those extremes. It's called the unconscious or subconscious. It's that part of ourselves of which we are not aware but can with limited ability bring to the surface. When a large part of us is unconscious (think of an iceberg where 90 percent is hidden), we are going to have difficulty self-judging. No wonder we have difficulties identifying or defining something as elusive as "temperament." Would not Freud and Jung agree?

While what we are unconscious of can be addressed by our conscious minds through experience, education or even psychoanalysis, not to forget our unconscious is immediately connected to our physical selves or "hard-wiring." How to get at that is not so easy.

Not that consciousness is not a magnificent thing; it is, and it should be appreciated. However, many of us are still looking at our consciousness from a very over-glorified perspective.
I have noticed there is a lot of resistance to the possibility of the personality being a product of biological wiring.

 

[boradicus]

Whoops. I just read what Adymus said Re: Consciousness is overrated
So there may be something to reconsider here. Adymus seems to imply the opposite of what I said. So either I'm wrong in my outlook or I'm trying to fit you to INTP and ..... okay. I'll leave this message and come back later when more educated.

...or Adymus is wrong - when one worships another's opinions, one neglects one's own insights...

 

[boradicus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by boradicus
No - I think you misunderstood what I said - via the implications - not the content... ...that is probably my fault - being that I am intuitive I sometimes expect others to make the implied connections that I tend to make.

Ah, implied language, another thing that pretty much only occurs with Ni to Fe, because an actual INTP would make sure they would not be misinterpreted from the start (it's a dominant Ti thing.)

This is the sort of spin of which I am speaking. It departs from consistency with theory (because you have not provided a theoretical rationalization) and relies on the manipulation of the description of tendencies - which not unlike the craft of the Astrologer - can be applied to any personality type if used with sufficient guile. This is not necessarily to impugn you with any intention other than the exposition of your present biases, which according to your spouse (if I understand her correctly) you hold quite dear to yourself.

Assertions, no matter how bold cannot be of any use in a discussion without evidence. Valid forms of evidence are theoretical models that can be causally analyzed.

No, that's definitely not true. People cannot innately differentiate being being skilled at using certain cognitive processes, and having certain cognitive processes as a preference. Especially because the test is not designed to read what is your preference per se, but your conscious understanding of what function you think you do well.

There are two things going on here: 1) the question of the validity of the MBTI instrument and the 2) theoretical validity of the MBTI instrument (including any future instruments designed to measure personality in terms of Jungian personality theory). I agree with you that the MBTI is not a perfect instrument. That is not the issue that I discussed above. What I discussed above was the validity of the MBTI in contradistinction to other methods that do not incorporate 1) a consistent and objective inventory of traits, and 2) a linkage between such traits and the cognitive process (which is conscious, being that it is based on a decision model, AND which must incorporate the communication of the cognitive state by the subject to the tester in some linguistic fashion). As was stated above, we are not assessing visceral reactions because the model does not assess visceral reactions - it assesses cognitive style preferences.

Your post-anylyses regarding traits of the types are simple tautological arguments that aim to prove the existence of the traits based on the qualities described by the traits. This is circular argumentation and as such, it is invalid.

You are forgetting that their is relativity between everyone's concept of just how much of a certain cognitive function they are using vs what they are not using. This is why you end up with people having %100 introversion. Obviously 100% introversion is not possible, but people input that data because they are defining themselves as really really really introverted. Likewise you get people who exaggerate other aspects of themselves as well.

I agree. However, this is not an argument against the greater objectivity of the MBTI or inventories similarly constructed versus the greater subjectivity inherent in real-time analysis (although this methodology has its benefits regarding understanding the nuances of personality, it is not inherently objective and therefore vulnerable to biases that can lead to the interpretation of such personality nuances in a variety of ways) and other such methodologies.

While visceral reactions may be discerned to a degree through observation, unless they are assessed in terms of a decision process communicated by the subject, no causal link can be maintained to exist at all. Some correlation must exist. If it does not, then the particular process of analytical observation is either indicative of something different than cognitive preference (based in the decision making model), or it is perhaps even more specious than previously imagined.

Even if you tie particular facial patterns (or whatever observational method is used), to a survey of persons of a 'known' type, the origin of that 'known' type must have been previously assessed in terms of an MBTI, or a similar (and quite possibly less accurate) instrument that identified via communication of the subject what decision model is used the most frequently (or exclusively, allowing for such extremities).

 

[Adymus]

This is the sort of spin of which I am speaking. It departs from consistency with theory (because you have not provided a theoretical rationalization) and relies on the manipulation of the description of tendencies - which not unlike the craft of the Astrologer - can be applied to any personality type if used with sufficient guile. This is not necessarily to impugn you with any intention other than the exposition of your present biases, which according to your spouse (if I understand her correctly) you hold quite dear to yourself.

Well considering the fact that this is no longer a persuasive argument, you have already made up your mind and no amount of theoretical rationalization is going to influence that, I pretty much just don't care about trying to use reason with you anymore. So now I am just poking fun at all the reasons why you are not INTP.
There is really not much interpretation involved, you are doing things that I can confidently say that INTPs simply do not do. That's the difference between astrology and MBTI, astrology states characteristics that literally anyone could be interpreted to fall into. The characteristics within MBTI however are based on cognitive functions, and if you don't have these cognitive functions (in a certain order) you simply will not have certain characteristics.
Perspective shifting was a great example, you described perfectly Ni perspective shifting, I didn't have to interpret anything! This is also something no INTP does. Then there was that paragraph you wrote on how you like to dominate conversations, and not listen to anyone else. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that no INTPs share this characteristic. This kind of behavior is classic directive worldview pushing behavior.

While visceral reactions may be discerned to a degree through observation, unless they are assessed in terms of a decision process communicated by the subject, no causal link can be maintained to exist at all. Some correlation must exist. If it does not, then the particular process of analytical observation is either indicative of something different than cognitive preference (based in the decision making model), or it is perhaps even more specious than previously imagined.

Why would they have to be assessed in terms of a decision process? You don't need a person's consent to analyze their type, the cognitive functions are always on, thus these visceral reactions are constantly showing.

Even if you tie particular facial patterns (or whatever observational method is used), to a survey of persons of a 'known' type, the origin of that 'known' type must have been previously assessed in terms of an MBTI, or a similar (and quite possibly less accurate) instrument that identified via communication of the subject what decision model is used the most frequently (or exclusively, allowing for such extremities).

Again, why? There is a certain amount of functionality that occurs with certain functions being in certain orders that simply does not occur in other types, if you can analyze this (Which you can, I don't care if you are incapable of seeing this), you can obtain their type, and assuming you are a competent practitioner, you can obtain their type with even more accuracy than any MBTI test.

 

[BigApplePi]

...or Adymus is wrong - when one worships another's opinions, one neglects one's own insights...

Hi boradicus. I'm a great fan of getting at the foundations of things. Both you and Adymus speak in a style (dare I call it words of great generalities) that either I just follow along in acceptance or I will have to tear you guys apart. (I.e. analyze). This is not a field I'm used to so it may take some time before I get any handle on what you two guys are saying in order to find out why both of you differ. Maybe I will get lucky and you two will come to an agreement, before you agree to disagree, but so far it ain't happening.

Maybe someone else has an opinion -- but so far this stuff is so abstract.

 

[BigApplePi]

Adymus. In the interest of understanding a small piece of this, I refer you to:
Re: introverted sensing

 

[Moocow]

Adymus is the INTPolice, sendin' you to INFJail.

 

[Moocow]

Again, why? There is a certain amount of functionality that occurs with certain functions being in certain orders that simply does not occur in other types, if you can analyze this (Which you can, I don't care if you are incapable of seeing this), you can obtain their type, and assuming you are a competent practitioner, you can obtain their type with even more accuracy than any MBTI test.

I've corrected people on their type several times in the past, giving a more accurate estimate that they agreed with, contrary to their test results. So I can vouch for that statement.

 

[boradicus]

Well considering the fact that this is no longer a persuasive argument, you have already made up your mind and no amount of theoretical rationalization is going to influence that, I pretty much just don't care about trying to use reason with you anymore. So now I am just poking fun at all the reasons why you are not INTP.
There is really not much interpretation involved, you are doing things that I can confidently say that INTPs simply do not do. That's the difference between astrology and MBTI, astrology states characteristics that literally anyone could be interpreted to fall into. The characteristics within MBTI however are based on cognitive functions, and if you don't have these cognitive functions (in a certain order) you simply will not have certain characteristics.
Perspective shifting was a great example, you described perfectly Ni perspective shifting, I didn't have to interpret anything! This is also something no INTP does. Then there was that paragraph you wrote on how you like to dominate conversations, and not listen to anyone else. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that no INTPs share this characteristic. This kind of behavior is classic directive worldview pushing behavior.

Adymus, when I ask you for 'proof' of your assertions you just remake your assertions all the more clamorously. I have invited you to the conversation, yet you demure... that's ok...

Why would they have to be assessed in terms of a decision process? You don't need a person's consent to analyze their type, the cognitive functions are always on, thus these visceral reactions are constantly showing.

Because that is what the Jungian model is.

Again, why? There is a certain amount of functionality that occurs with certain functions being in certain orders that simply does not occur in other types, if you can analyze this (Which you can, I don't care if you are incapable of seeing this), you can obtain their type, and assuming you are a competent practitioner, you can obtain their type with even more accuracy than any MBTI test.

The 'functionality' of the Jungian model centers on the decision process. The decision process must be observed. The decision process cannot be observed without knowing what a person's rationale for making a decision is. A person's rationale is often higher level than the 'knee-jerk' response. Higher-level rationales require the complexities of communication. Communication in real time is necessarily more complex and biased than a written, thought-out inventory by psychologists of equal competence to those communicating in real time. Written communication is more equally weighted due to the consistent number of questions used and the equal distribution of the questions to each category being assessed. A written assessment removes the bias of the subject being 'led' by the body language, vocal intonation, and other subliminal cues presented by live examiners. The language in written assessments may be reviewed and combed for biases and errors prior to examination. Written tests are more objective.

 

[boradicus]

I've corrected people on their type several times in the past, giving a more accurate estimate that they agreed with, contrary to their test results. So I can vouch for that statement.

This is called an Appeal to Authority argument. It is a fallacy, and bears (pun not necessarily intended) no more weight than any of the of the other arguments made on these grounds.

 

[Moocow]

This is called an Appeal to Authority argument. It is a fallacy, and bears (pun not necessarily intended) no more weight than any of the of the other arguments made on these grounds.

Yeah, I know. It was more of just an opinion than anything really.

 

[Wish]

Worry not boradicus, Lyra and Da Blob have room for another on their boat!

 

[Adymus]

Because that is what the Jungian model is.

No it isn't.

There was nothing in the original Jungian model that was about how you can and cannot approach typing a person. In fact, Jung built his model on the patients he analyzed in his work. He did not construct an MBTI test to have them take, he analyzed his patients and noticed patterns in their cognitive functionality. My approach (and the approach of Pod'lair) is even more similar to Jung's approach than MBTI.

The 'functionality' of the Jungian model centers on the decision process. The decision process must be observed. The decision process cannot be observed without knowing what a person's rationale for making a decision is. A person's rationale is often higher level than the 'knee-jerk' response. Higher-level rationales require the complexities of communication. Communication in real time is necessarily more complex and biased than a written, thought-out inventory by psychologists of equal competence to those communicating in real time. Written communication is more equally weighted due to the consistent number of questions used and the equal distribution of the questions to each category being assessed. A written assessment removes the bias of the subject being 'led' by the body language, vocal intonation, and other subliminal cues presented by live examiners. The language in written assessments may be reviewed and combed for biases and errors prior to examination. Written tests are more objective.

That is the current MBTI assumption, you can keep it. We are eventually going to shatter this anyway.

 

[Lithorn]

Boradicus, think about what the MBTI test is. I has questions like "are you late for appointments?" and "do you get bored reading theoretical books?"
The creators of the test found that observable behaviors indicated type (which I believe is what Adymus it saying), and organized these behaviors into a written test simply to make their ideas of typology available for mass usage.
It's rather like the vision tests you can take in catalogues to determine what prescription of glasses you should get. It's always more accurate to see an actual eye doctor.

 

[Lithorn]

^Although I would like to add that I still don't know whether Adymus should be considered a legitimate practitioner.

 

[BigApplePi]

^Although I would like to add that I still don't know whether Adymus should be considered a legitimate practitioner.

Lithorn, IMO, doesn't matter. The reason is anyone can study the conditions and question what another says. It's a matter of looking at definitions/ categories and then look at oneself and deciding if there's a match. INTPs are noted for their propensities to think. INxx's also.

Adymus is more experienced and can answer questions. The thing is to ask the proper question and get an understandable answer.

 

[Lithorn]

Lithorn, IMO, doesn't matter. The reason is anyone can study the conditions and question what another says. It's a matter of looking at definitions/ categories and then look at oneself and deciding if there's a match. INTPs are noted for their propensities to think. INxx's also.

Adymus is more experienced and can answer questions. The thing is to ask the proper question and get an understandable answer.

True. Like I said, I'm unsure about him, which is not to say I don't find him at all credible. I have to think about it more.
Although, I do agree with him in this instance. It seems to me that Boradicus is arguing for the validity of the test over observation-based typing more because he wants to prove Adymus wrong than because he actually believes it.

 

[BigApplePi]

True. Like I said, I'm unsure about him, which is not to say I don't find him at all credible. I have to think about it more.
Although, I do agree with him in this instance. It seems to me that Boradicus is arguing for the validity of the test over observation-based typing more because he wants to prove Adymus wrong than because he actually believes it.

Here's is my experience:
Adymus is hard for me to understand because he makes statements which seem like observations rather than deductions.
boradicus is fond of the test, yes, but he want to investigate change. His test shows he is on the J-P edge. So to me it's no surprise if he exhibits both traits. If boradicus want's to investigate change all the power to him. I think Adymus even applauded that. It's a disagreement over interpretation. I can't bridge the disagreement gap because I don't know how to or haven't tried to interpret their respective language styles.

 

[Lithorn]

It's the disagreement over the validity of the test that I was referring to. To say that a self-administered, standardized test is more objective that a professional analysis just sounds so silly to me that I am confounded by the idea that Boradicus believes that.

This, combined with the fact that he prefaced the INTP/ENTP thread with "I not very familiar with typology yet" has made me realize that he does not really have his own, cohesive interpretation. Yes, he is interested in change which contradicts Adymus, but that interest started with a vague, nebulous understanding of typology, and one which I have not seen develop further.

What development had occurred seems to be molded around the central idea that Adymus is wrong, rather than a solid, stable base distinct from Adymus's theories.
Since he doesn't really have an interpretation of his own, it's not so much a matter of a disagreement in interpretation, but a matter of discrediting Adymus and by extention, proving that he is an INTP. This is illustrated in the fact that he didn't start to vehemently disagree with Adymus (despite their inherently contradictory ideas) until after he was accused of being an INFJ.

What you said about Adymus is true. He does seem unwilling to elaborate on his deductive process, and this disturbs me. This is why I'm still on the fence about him. I, like you, am not well versed enough in typology to critically analyze his ideas, but I don't think Boradicus is either, which means I must disagree with him, even though I don't necessarily agree with Adymus.

 

[BigApplePi]

Lithorn I think you have presented the issues and since I'm fond of looking at differences, I will give my impressions in blue in your post.

It's the disagreement over the validity of the test that I was referring to. To say that a self-administered, standardized test is more objective that a professional analysis just sounds so silly to me that I am confounded by the idea that Boradicus believes that.
I can see a professional analysis as more subjective but better finely tuned. The self-administered test has at least a statistical flaw. If there are say five I-E questions and one is uncertain about all of them, then chance gives the results. If there were 100 questions on I-E that would be better. But five? Pure chance could give 1I-4E over 4I-1E making the test inaccurate if one is an ambivert.


This, combined with the fact that he prefaced the INTP/ENTP thread with "I not very familiar with typology yet" has made me realize that he does not really have his own, cohesive interpretation. Yes, he is interested in change which contradicts Adymus, but that interest started with a vague, nebulous understanding of typology, and one which I have not seen develop further.
To me expertise on boradicus's part doesn't matter. What I find of interest is his examination of change. If he is on the edge, he can change. Adymus I believe frowns on anyone being on the edge but I'm not sure.


What development had occurred seems to be molded around the central idea that Adymus is wrong, rather than a solid, stable base distinct from Adymus's theories.
I'm not fond of the word, "wrong." I believe in misinterpretation and differing motives causing differences.


Since he doesn't really have an interpretation of his own, it's not so much a matter of a disagreement in interpretation, but a matter of discrediting Adymus and by extention, proving that he is an INTP. This is illustrated in the fact that he didn't start to vehemently disagree with Adymus (despite their inherently contradictory ideas) until after he was accused of being an INFJ.
I think what you said is true, but it is also a personality story. This may be me, but I'm after the truth about typology, the science. Maybe the truth is we can't type people. Or maybe we can but there are several ways to do so. I find that interesting.

What you said about Adymus is true. He does seem unwilling to elaborate on his deductive process, and this disturbs me.
I see Adymus as having a certain descriptive style. He excels in observing but not in theoretical foundations. I could be wrong but I don't see him as a linear thinker. He looks more at the whole picture. If he reads this, I may have to take all that back.

Something like, "a function which makes one feel drained" seems a problematic basis for a theory. How drained is drained? What if one can be as ease with one's weaknesses? It's possible Adymus CAN'T elaborate. I have yet to talk analytically with him. I may not be up to it.


This is why I'm still on the fence about him. I, like you, am not well versed enough in typology to critically analyze his ideas, but I don't think Boradicus is either, which means I must disagree with him, even though I don't necessarily agree with Adymus.

 

[Lithorn]

"To me expertise on boradicus's part doesn't matter. What I find of interest is his examination of change. If he is on the edge, he can change. Adymus I believe frowns on anyone being on the edge but I'm not sure."

I too found his examination of change interesting, and his lack of expertise wasn't really relevant in his "trying to be more extroverted" endeavors. But in his continued disagreements with Adymus, it's really an issue.

"I'm not fond of the word, "wrong." I believe in misinterpretation and differing motives causing differences."

I am also not fond of it. I meant that that is what Boradicus thinks.

"I think what you said is true, but it is also a personality story. This may be me, but I'm after the truth about typology, the science. Maybe the truth is we can't type people. Or maybe we can but there are several ways to do so. I find that interesting."

It is interesting, but, for the reason's I've given, I don't believe Boradicus has provided any real insight into the truth of typology. His opinions are driven by his annoyance with Adymus and not well though out ideas.

"I see Adymus as having a certain descriptive style. He excels in observing but not in theoretical foundations. I could be wrong but I don't see him as a linear thinker. He looks more at the whole picture."

That's just the thing. I can't tell whether it's a stylistic issue or something else.

 

[Adymus]

Pi, in response to your issue with my descriptive style:

There are many, if not most things that I can go much deeper into the theory to explain why they occur. For instance gaining energy and losing energy by the use of cognitive processes do serve a purpose, and are essential to defining a personality. The understanding of this is much more than observational. I can elaborate on something like this if you like. Like I said, I usually avoid going too deep into theory unless asked about it, because those who are new to this can A.) Relate to a descriptive style much easier, which leads them to having a better grasp of their own functionality, and B.) Not be completely bewildered by a barrage of advanced theory. You have to have an understanding of the baselines before you can truly understand the more advanced deeper theory behind this. If I explain it all at once it will just confuse you even more. My energy for explaining things is limited, so I'd like to get it right the first time without having to go back and clear up every misunderstanding people have.

But if you are looking for the anatomical reaction that is occurring in one's brain when certain cognitive processes are being used, that I can't give you. There is definitely a science and truth to the personality types, but explanations of exactly what is occurring on a biological level is not something anyone is qualified to confidently speculate at our current level of understanding.

 

[BigApplePi]

Have you seen Adymus's thread here yet? I begin to address some issues: Re: Cognitive Functions 100:...

boradicus? I hope he keeps us up-to-date.

 

[BigApplePi]

Adymus. Nope. What I am after is -- let's call it communication. Don't let me interfere with the pace at which you wish to present "things" at all. That is why I gave you: Re: introverted sensing.

I am not boradicus. I don't care (qualified) if I'm labeled ESFJ or whatever. I want to see hands on how you view my temperament a la that link above to test our communication/understanding. That would help a lot. I'd like to know if you can make a temperament type statement or if you are doubtful or if you have no idea. If you do so, I will reply so there need not be any finality.

Pi, in response to your issue with my descriptive style:

There are many, if not most things that I can go much deeper into the theory to explain why they occur.
I don't wish any explanation out of range with the pace you wish to present anything.

For instance gaining energy and losing energy by the use of cognitive processes do serve a purpose, and are essential to defining a personality.
Agreed.

The understanding of this is much more than observational. I can elaborate on something like this if you like. Like I said, I usually avoid going too deep into theory unless asked about it, because those who are new to this can A.) Relate to a descriptive style much easier, which leads them to having a better grasp of their own functionality, and B.) Not be completely bewildered by a barrage of advanced theory. You have to have an understanding of the baselines
Right. Not ready. Or at least I'm not.


before you can truly understand the more advanced deeper theory behind this. If I explain it all at once it will just confuse you even more. My energy for explaining things is limited, so I'd like to get it right the first time without having to go back and clear up every misunderstanding people have.

But if you are looking for the anatomical reaction that is occurring in one's brain when certain cognitive processes are being used, that I can't give you. There is definitely a science and truth to the personality types, but explanations of exactly what is occurring on a biological level is not something anyone is qualified to confidently speculate at our current level of understanding.
No. Not Interested in biology or brain scans. I'm just interested in your response to that link I presented above at the top.

 

[boradicus]

True. Like I said, I'm unsure about him, which is not to say I don't find him at all credible. I have to think about it more.
Although, I do agree with him in this instance. It seems to me that Boradicus is arguing for the validity of the test over observation-based typing more because he wants to prove Adymus wrong than because he actually believes it.

No, actually, the Jungian model is based the differentiation between thinking and feeling as decision process and this is central to the theory. It is ages old and extends all the way back to Socrates, who discussed these qualities in terms of the musical (heady thinker types) and the gymnastic (the physical feeling types). The same model was discussed by Aristotle in is distinction between barbarians and civilized men; barbarians were ruled by the passions of the body, and civilized men by their minds. Psychology comes from philosophy, and the root of the model is the same but in a psychological context instead of a political context (i.e. we anticipate that with the exception of a few that most will govern themselves according to the laws of society because of the fear of a penalty and that this fear even constitutes a common mean for all men - and women - feeling or thinking).

This is a cognitive test, and it is a measure of conscious behavior.

The essential problem is that people don't understand things for themselves and rely on other peoples' writings to comprehend things instead of looking at them from how they are constructed.

 

[BigApplePi]

This is a cognitive test, and it is a measure of conscious behavior.

The essential problem is that people don't understand things for themselves and rely on other peoples' writings to comprehend things instead of looking at them from how they are constructed.

What ever model we choose, it's nice to have one. Then we have a ground to stand on. I see the necessity for the model to distinguish introversion from extroversion, and thinking from feeling. Let's get at that model as a start. We can get the others too.