Don't take this as too decisive or definite, seeing as I only really know one INTP, but I was browsing the forums on personalitycafe and others, but this concise statement really hit a profundity with me:
Reality for an INTP is what is. Reality for an ENTP is what he makes of it.
We're both looking for the truth. For the INTP it's about the truth. For the ENTP it's about looking to gain knowledge.
Another quote attempting to separate E/I NTPs from personalitycafe forums:
That's understandable and maybe this isn't the best tack. I suppose the most revealing question is whether you feel more attracted to truth (INTP) or intellectual stimulation (ENTP). That may sound trite but an INTP will spend years attempting to discern personal truth (Ti-dom), whereas ENTP might be more fun-loving and bouncy (eccentric?) to stick to one topic (Ne-dom). Since Ne isn't a judging function it might be less selective in the input it takes in for scrutiny with Ti - that's certainly the case for me. Another question could be not whether you're a social introvert but whether you glean energy from being around people. As for as I can tell I'm an ENTP and my Ne and Fe (all right, Ti can join the party) appear to combine in order to figure out people and wallow in their company - an INTP might spend more time on fine-tuning their personal truth.
from a post by @Jennywocky (the same one here? idk) on personalitycafe
INTPs create a rational model (Ti) using Ne to imagine all the possibilities and flesh out the model. The goal is to get the model clarified.
ENTPs explore possibilities (Ne) and they use their Ti as logical stepping stones to move from possibility to possibility.
If you think about this awhile, you'll likely see what a big difference this makes in behavior and how entrenched one becomes, etc. I know also from my ENTP friends, they're more pragmatic in that they want to be exploring things and doing things, and they don't understand why the INTP hangs back and refuses to engage; meanwhile, the INTP doesn't understand why the ENTP always has to be moving and engaging things, since the natural desire is to pull back and formulate experience.
There's actually a massive misconception about what ENTPs/NeTi's are. They're actually super similar to TiNe in that they will appear "introverted" due to the nature of Ne's proxy-reality. Ne is a proactive exploration process but it is not like Se in that it's pro-activity doesn't result in tactile and applicable results in reality. They can be very disjointed in reality and not flow gracefully in it - as the TiNe.
People usually type real NeTi's as introverts, or if they're NeTi they type themselves as an introvert (and in a sense, rightfully so, because by the "conventional" definition they are --- but they use Ne as a lead process. They exhibit all the "introverted" behavior yet with dom Ne; MBTI just doesn't account for this).
And so if they're typing all real NeTi's as introverts, then what takes the place of the extroverts? What do they call "ENTPs"? A type that is quite clearly extroverted (Te lead) which is also logical (T lead) intuitive and sometimes messy/lazy. The laziness of Te is actually a nonchalant dismissiveness of irrelevance. They aren't the 'ocd' people they're made out to be.
...this would explain why I've been able to only talk to myself...like 40/50 of these posts are just me...I hope you guys are actually enjoying the material oh and I know that you can find 'all of the information, and the books' online, but my intended point was w/o the books for that answer essentially.
I have just started reading a little bit about jung and MBTI from the library. Mostly because I think I have found as much as I am going to find online. I have just started doing this however and mostly just reading reference material trying to build of list of books I should read do you have any suggests?
I have just started reading a little bit about jung and MBTI from the library. Mostly because I think I have found as much as I am going to find online. I have just started doing this however and mostly just reading reference material trying to build of list of books I should read do you have any suggests?
you can definitely find all of these online (Psychological Types link provided^), but I just like the feel of a books, probably why I don't own an e-reader
Because relevance: and I'm sure most of you would agree too:
Man and His Symbols pp 378:
To Jung, his concepts were mere tools or heuristic hypotheses that might help us to explore the vast new area of reality opened up by the discovery of the unconscious - a discovery that has not merely widened our whole view of the world but has in fact doubled it. We must always ask now whether a mental phenomenon is conscious or unconscious and, also, whether a "real" outer phenomenon is perceived by conscious or unconscious means.
The powerful forces of the unconscious most certainly appear not only in clinical material but also in the mythological, religious, artistic, and all the other cultural activities by which man expresses himself. Obviously, if all men have common inherited patterns of emotional and mental behavior (which Jung called the archetypes), it is only to be expected that we shall find their products (symbolic fantasies, thoughts, and actions) in practically every field of human activity.
Oh crap, I just realized I'm not an INTP I'm an ENTP. Apparently ENTPs commonly mistype as I's...ahh..the profile fits both for me, but the ENTP even better. Hope my fellow INTPs won't treat me as an outcast too much
I totally thought it entirely made sense when I found myself as an INTP, took me a bit but now it fits perfectly: entp.
Drooling over these books: Damn I want to learn German, but i'll settle for the translated english
Just torrented a **** load of works. Yay, more reading!!
As a side note, probably going to be gone for a few days/week going hiking/camping out in the canyons/forests hopefully it won't be cloudy and can see the stars from my mile elevation! cya guys!
Hey TimeAsylums. Great thread. You asked on my visitor messages which books I've read. I've read most of the books on type theory and I've read a lot of Jung including that Red Book you just posted about. Beyond personality theory, I'm really fascinated by Jung's ideas of individuation and the shadow.
I created a new reference section at ENTP.org where I'm going to give people an overview of the many type theory books and what their content looks like. I'm adding them as time allows and I will be adding summaries of Jung's ideas when I get that kind of time.
200/700 pages into Psychological Types... I can see now why many people would find him hard to read...not because the ideas are 'too dense,' but because he is clearly heavy iNtuition dom.
Anyway...please ignore the title of this site because it's stupid and might deter some ( a lot ) of you away, but it has extremely relevant information!! Really good!
I love Jung, one of my earliest academic (?) interests. I'm a post-graduate and no one else here seems to like him - I don't think he's popular in general. I actually think it's that Jung is largely about feeling (he would define feeling in this sense as 'affect' rather than the psychological types sense) and intuition.
I'm doing my summer thesis on his idea of synchronicity. It's largely in application to something irrelevant to the thread, but if I find any good quotes I'll leave them here.
I posted this elsewhere, but from psychological types I think:
"Symbolic and semiotic meanings are entirely different things... The symbol is alive only so long as it is pregnant with meaning. But once its meaning has been born out of it, once that expression is found that formulates the thing sought, expected, or divined even better than the hitherto accepted symbol, then the symbol is dead, i.e., it possesses only a historical significance... An expression that stands for a known thing remains a mere sign and is never a symbol. It is, therefore, quite impossible, to create a living symbol, i.e., one that is pregnant with meaning, from known associations. For what is produced never contains more than what was put into it... Whether a thing is a symbol or not depends chiefly upon the attitude of the observing consciousness; for instance, on whether it regards a given fact not merely as such but also as an expression, for something unknown."
I love Jung, one of my earliest academic (?) interests. I'm a post-graduate and no one else here seems to like him - I don't think he's popular in general. I actually think it's that Jung is largely about feeling (he would define feeling in this sense as 'affect' rather than the psychological types sense) and intuition.
I'm doing my summer thesis on his idea of synchronicity. It's largely in application to something irrelevant to the thread, but if I find any good quotes I'll leave them here.
I posted this elsewhere, but from psychological types I think:
"Symbolic and semiotic meanings are entirely different things... The symbol is alive only so long as it is pregnant with meaning. But once its meaning has been born out of it, once that expression is found that formulates the thing sought, expected, or divined even better than the hitherto accepted symbol, then the symbol is dead, i.e., it possesses only a historical significance... An expression that stands for a known thing remains a mere sign and is never a symbol. It is, therefore, quite impossible, to create a living symbol, i.e., one that is pregnant with meaning, from known associations. For what is produced never contains more than what was put into it... Whether a thing is a symbol or not depends chiefly upon the attitude of the observing consciousness; for instance, on whether it regards a given fact not merely as such but also as an expression, for something unknown."
I'm 19, and will be starting college in majoring in Psych...kill me, already read all the course books for undergrand psych, I want to move on to postgrad/doc :'(
It is, therefore, quite impossible, to create a living symbol, i.e., one that is pregnant with meaning, from known associations. For what is produced never contains more than what was put into it...
I love his idea basis for this, he puts it forth in every one of his works, Psych Types, A Man and His Symbols...it's beautiful, it addresses science, culture, history...brilliant.
Come come, HabitatDoctor, apparently ENTPs are most likely for impulsive suicide (will eventually post link if I can find), but that damned inf Si, so why can't we be impulsive about other things ?
I'm 19, and will be starting college in majoring in Psych...kill me, already read all the course books for undergrand psych, I want to move on to postgrad/doc :'(
I love his idea basis for this, he puts it forth in every one of his works, Psych Types, A Man and His Symbols...it's beautiful, it addresses science, culture, history...brilliant.
My sister studies psychology, if you like Jung you might best be placed in psychoanalysis, as the field is largely statistical in its approach these days I think (though I'm guessing you know that anyway.) Jung was a counselor fundamentally, and his ideas were all born from that context, though it is a dying art and a deep shame for it.
My sister studies psychology, if you like Jung you might best be placed in psychoanalysis, as the field is largely statistical in its approach these days I think (though I'm guessing you know that anyway.) Jung was a counselor fundamentally, and his ideas were all born from that context, though it is a dying art and a deep shame for it.
I blame it on reductionism honestly. I mean don't get me wrong, there is definitely the hard science to everything, including the psyche, but most people want it to be extremely externally quantifiable :/ anywho, it's not like modern/pop psych is in any means to help itself (or anyone for that matter). but yeah >_<
OH, sorry I skipped over one of your statements, I also love his theory on synchronicity, because if it's not that, then it's all a huge coincidence :/ vs, or rather in addition to his collective unconscious, perhaps my dom and inf perceiving functions are really the ones that love him, with a seemingly eternal open-endedness to explore.
Sure, I'm writing about the violence of reductionism to an extent; the synchronistic encounter is one that destabilises Cartesian categorisation. We are used to the notion that we - subjects - define ourselves in isolation and have the privilege of defining everything around us. Objects are things silenced to receive meaning rather than impart it. Synchronicity is different, as it builds the impression, the affect - even if one is still a materialist - that exteriority has imparted a meaning, its symbolic.
My ideal stance would be one that does not deny reductionism, which is clearly useful, but rather supplements rationalism with teleology.
What constitutes a symbolic perception, that which does not harm or cause violence in its looking, is something I think about a lot.
When I re-read the essay I'll leave some quotes - I'm derailing the thread in my over-excitement.
Sure, I'm writing about the violence of reductionism to an extent; the synchronistic encounter is one that destabilises Cartesian categorisation. We are used to the notion that we - subjects - define ourselves in isolation and have the privilege of defining everything around us. Objects are things silenced to receive meaning rather than impart it. Synchronicity is different, as it builds the impression, the affect - even if one is still a materialist - that exteriority has imparted a meaning, its symbolic.
Agreed. I've even seen some people around here that have a very similar view, it's usually phrased as "because we are humans - our point of view," not nearly as advanced, but when simplified to that statement, it agrees.
Agreed as well, I'm sure this would be Jung's stance, also if you've gotten to peak at any of the information on his talkings with Wolfgang Pauli, it's so sad after his (Pauli's) death how everyone (his family) thought he disgraced them. ridiculous.
If someone brings up something that I'm interested in (referring to Jung here) (this goes for INTPs a lot, er or anyone as well, but I digress) I will not stop talking or extrapolating ergo the derailment is not your fault , if at all existent tee-hee. But thank you very much for your input, it's not everyday I find people to discuss it with.
Sure, I'm writing about the violence of reductionism to an extent; the synchronistic encounter is one that destabilises Cartesian categorisation. We are used to the notion that we - subjects - define ourselves in isolation and have the privilege of defining everything around us. Objects are things silenced to receive meaning rather than impart it. Synchronicity is different, as it builds the impression, the affect - even if one is still a materialist - that exteriority has imparted a meaning, its symbolic.
My ideal stance would be one that does not deny reductionism, which is clearly useful, but rather supplements rationalism with teleology.
What constitutes a symbolic perception, that which does not harm or cause violence in its looking, is something I think about a lot.
When I re-read the essay I'll leave some quotes - I'm derailing the thread in my over-excitement.
Reductionism, the idea of examining things by seeing what they are made of, is completely compatible with synchronicity, the idea of contemplating what things can be made by combinations of those components.
What you're referring to, is a lack of synchronicity of Western values, e.g. that one can fulfil one's desires by making everything and everyone bow to one's will, and that nature holds to rules, e.g. laws of science, that dictate to us and do not allow themselves to be dictated to by us. The 2 are ultimately incompatible, unless one is willing that the former cannot always be satisfied, so long as the latter always holds true.
200/700 pages into Psychological Types... I can see now why many people would find him hard to read...not because the ideas are 'too dense,' but because he is clearly heavy iNtuition dom.
I sincerely doubt that. Intuition is something that we can all grasp easily. It only fails us, because although the big picture appears to fit, it is often the case that there are so many details within reality, that cannot be reconciled with the intuition, that it is more likely that it is like the belief that space is Euclidean, and only appears to be true, but is in fact, not.
Were Jung to be an intuitive, then most who have the most cursory understanding of Jungian typology, would agree with him completely, and those who disagree with him, would be amongst those who have studied his work in depth, and the reason that they think him wrong, would be because they observed that so many details of reality are inconsistent with his views, that he could not be right.
In short, were he to be an Ni-dom, you would be the most likely to disagree with him, and the people who never read Jung, would be the most likely to agree with him.
Ti-doms tend to develop very complex ideas from extremely long chains of reasoning. Very often, their ideas are entirely correct, as they like to check their ideas against every detail of reality that they know. In the process, in order to reconcile all the potential contradictions with our reality, one often has to develop a whole new vision of reality that is unlike anything any person has ever come across, and goes against every intuitive concept one has (i.e. the oft-proclaimed statement "reality is counter-intuitive". But to follow that, one would then have to go against everything one already thinks, and grasp a whole new concept, which is incredibly challenging. In addition, one isn't going to accept an idea that seems to be totally against one's perceptions of reality, unless one can prove it, and to do this, Ti-doms tend to explain how every detail fits. However, that's a lot to take in. It takes a lot of mental effort and patience, and most humans are pretty short on that level of an attention span. So usually, at first glance, humans reject the ideas of Ti-doms as being nutty. It's only as they come to delve into the Ti-dom's work more and more, that they see how all the details fit.
That's why one can see how Jung resembled a Ti-dom, because most seemed to reject his writings at first glance, including his peers, and it is only those who studied his works in depth, that see great value in it, such as yourself.
It only fails us, because although the big picture appears to fit, it is often the case that there are so many details within reality, that cannot be reconciled with the intuition, that it is more likely that it is like the belief that space is Euclidean, and only appears to be true, but is in fact, not.
This is indeed to be argued over, saying that the Ns yes grasp the big picture, but it is necessary for the details to be known (Ts), arguably the only fact that intuition can prove itself real is by the outcome, or the analysis of the Ts, but if proven to be correct, then it is. That may have been overly wordy and general but what I'm saying is: I agree with you...to a point.
Were Jung to be an intuitive, then most who have the most cursory understanding of Jungian typology, would agree with him completely, and those who disagree with him, would be amongst those who have studied his work in depth, and the reason that they think him wrong, would be because they observed that so many details of reality are inconsistent with his views, that he could not be right.
^Please note, I do not agree with the profile assessment overall made by the two authors of the article, but I agree with most of the commentors, -if you have the patience or time to read them.
Because I am going to assume that you won't read through every comment (why would you?) I'll post the ones I agree with here (In a spoiler to save space):
Neither ISTP nor INTP fits with late Jung because both of those are grounded in concrete reality. Jung was absolutely out of touch with the concrete, as apparent in his work on alchemy such as Mysterium Coniunctionis which has basically no practical applications, but is a neverending treasure trove of “food for the soul” by way of mystical and intuitive insights.
Heck, Jung’s entire theory of the archetypal is itself a theoretical/intuitive framework which conjectures an order of validity beyond that of actual fact (i.e. psychic truths, autonomous complexes and so on).
INTP would work except that they are usually more dispassionate and grounded. Jung does not seem to be either of those things. Certainly he tried to present himself as objective and dispassionate at times, but just read something like this excerpt from The Red Book and you will find he was a deep explorer of mystical/intuitive inner space:
In the documentary The Matter of Heart, on 1:04:40 a Jung’s colleague (a woman) say:
“He was more intuition and thinking, and Emma Jung was sensation, mainly sensation. Ab-so-lutely down to the earth, and more to that, to the center of the earth.”
believe he is INFJ also. His work screams of Ni. Archetypes, dream interpretation, insight into human behavior, etc. Something that ISTPs and INTPs aren’t about. INTPs and ISTPs are about logic, first and foremost and his work was too metaphysical for that of a Ti dominant who strives for logical consistency. Both those types don’t have deep insight into human behavior either. Not to say they can’t, but it’s not likely for them to dedicate their work towards such pursuits at all.
In short, were he to be an Ni-dom, you would be the most likely to disagree with him, and the people who never read Jung, would be the most likely to agree with him.
I highly disagree. There are those who have not read jung that both disagree and agree, and those who have read most/all of jung that disagree/highly agree
It seems you have overly generalized Intuitives - I say overly, because of course there are some generalizations can be made with all of the functions - but with intuition you have simplified it to be rather...ludicrous.
I'm not going to lie, it seems like you have this personal attachment that makes you want him to be a Ti-dom, I'm not saying your reasoning is flawed -it's not really, but you're going to have to provide me with more.
Also, best quote for last, even I may mistakenly do this (and presumably assume what you are doing now):
Generally, and for now though, we will say that it is important to separate preference from ability. Jungian typology is a study of personality, not necessarily of the specific and concrete efforts and contributions that a person made.
The two authors/admins made the post, but they also made this:
Of course, both we, the admins, and the bestselling author of Please Understand Me, David Keirsey, also hold what may perhaps be called shifting views about Jung’s type in so far as none of us identify Jung as INTP or ISTP, but rather believe his type to be INFJ.
How we arrived at this typing is something which we hope to explain in a forthcoming article.
-if you would like to argue over his type, I suppose let's use SPOILERs so we don't take up too much space
-please see the second spoiler within the spoiler to see the quotes I used from the site
-with all I read from you versus the comments and even the author's site profile, I hold he has N-dom, at this time, I am unable to to conjecture over his overall type and even other functions, but this is what I come away with.
Come come, HabitatDoctor, apparently ENTPs are most likely for impulsive suicide (will eventually post link if I can find), but that damned inf Si, so why can't we be impulsive about other things ?
I'd call it a tie with ENFPs, though I'd wager they take the lead on the grand scale, honestly. You clearly haven't yet developed that certain special cynicism only gained by watching good ideas die lonely, terrible deaths.
Oh no, I did at one point in my life. I however don't see the point of being in that state of mind all the time. Even if this massive grand idea was to die, I'd leave it at my feet - if there is nothing you can do, then there is simply nothing you can do.
Particularly the xNTPs, ENTP and INTP have to deal with this, I imagine.
that is...if you try to pick up the broken pieces (of glass) you may very well get hurt yourself, and become jaded as well, therefore leave it there...at your feet, and look at your broken reflection...and move on
by the way...I've looked into your signature (spoiler) many times, it very well correlates with erratic ENTP-ness ( or even normal ENTPness ), but I hope it doesn't affect you too much overall. What I mean to say is that it seems its very Ne vs Si, I know you understand. The absolute worst part being the agitated depression (D), god high energy but low intellect and mood :/ I know those feelings Doctor.
Oh no, I did at one point in my life. I however don't see the point of being in that state of mind all the time. Even if this massive grand idea was to die, I'd leave it at my feet - if there is nothing you can do, then there is simply nothing you can do.
Sounds like you haven't actually been there yet. It's a time/wisdom thing I suppose. What you're describing is how normally the Markov chain would go "if not A then B, if not B then C" which is sort of a natural logical process, but I'm describing A-R all being blocked off simultaneously. In chunks that large it's simply disorienting. It requires quite a bit of recovery time.
Particularly the xNTPs, ENTP and INTP have to deal with this, I imagine.
that is...if you try to pick up the broken pieces (of glass) you may very well get hurt yourself, and become jaded as well, therefore leave it there...at your feet, and look at your broken reflection...and move on
Ah, but you simply pick up the same pieces and make something else out of them because whatever the new form is it will follow the same rules as the original in spite of being completely different, due to good ol' synchronicity of all things. *insert obligatory shout-out to Fibonacci here* The facts, information, and memories that produced the original are still intact.
by the way...I've looked into your signature (spoiler) many times, it very well correlates with erratic ENTP-ness ( or even normal ENTPness ), but I hope it doesn't affect you too much overall. What I mean to say is that it seems its very Ne vs Si, I know you understand. The absolute worst part being the agitated depression (D), god high energy but low intellect and mood :/ I know those feelings Doctor.
The bipolar spectrum can legitimately get out of control, and it seems that due to some obscure force the magnitude of a given high is followed by an equal and opposite low. Last year at this time I was practically communing with God (chemically unaided, mind you) for the first time ever and well... I want to go back, but I fear the consequences: the grand failure of the grand idea... so I opt for endeavors of the little, meaningless variety and shield myself from the Peter Principle as best I can.
It's actually not even about an idea failing, but not being able to be put into action.
I'm curious to see any similarities/differences (I know MBTI doesn't concretely say so, but just going along with generalities)
Don't you like being the (EP) purest perceiver there is? It's...so damn fun.
I have yet to (personally) encounter (and test) any ENTPs of my own.
two INTPs, two intjs, one isfp, too many istps...I'm a goddamn extravert that reaches out to the introverts >_< yet no infjs </3 :'(
just george likes to reference Group Theory, wherein very few individuals fuck things up for everyone during stakeholder decision-making. Action requires that ideas are communicated effectively to the point where those you're attempting to influence actually understand them, recognize their value, prioritize that value correctly, and have access to the requisite resources to make it happen. The larger or more complex the idea (and fuck knows we're good at those ), the more difficult it is to achieve and the less rewarding it actually becomes as various pieces of the puzzle, yourself included, refuse to cooperate (all the while the establishment pushes back).
Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that once you assume a truly holistic perspective, it's locked in place forever.
Perception/perspective is nice. It's a fun ride that'll have you jumping up and down and dancing badly in your office behind closed doors, plastering your walls, windows, and every other available flat surface with ideas and diagrams, and bubbling with the grandiosity of truth; but it isn't shared. It brings its own downfall by separating the perceiver from his peers.
the more difficult it is to achieve and the less rewarding it actually becomes as various pieces of the puzzle, yourself included, refuse to cooperate (all the while the establishment pushes back).
nonetheless, as many of the NTPs, (or perhaps we are alone, but I perceive it not so) I pursue the garnering of knowledge for itself alone in its ends, if it happens to be beneficial, so be it. But yes, some of it must be applicable to the larger whole, or rather, economical/being able to live reasons (I suppose i couldve just said, it need be pragmatical).
So yes, I know what you are saying, but I am on the same page as you @THD. The only thing you mention so far is that is the cynicism that separates us, but I disagree.
Yes, any perceiver who is in the slightly self aware status will realize this - that's why we use our tert Fe to play along >_< lol jk, however because it is a natural state, we do our best @THD.
Essentially (and a little simplistic) , this ^ is what makes ENTP the most introverted extravert (although seeing @Architect's list last night, he made ENTJ least extravert, which is interesting too, well, we placed second), but nonetheless Ne isn't necessarily a people oriented function, and esp how perception alienates/separates you, certainly you haven't turned your back on our most dominant lovely function @THD? How do you deal with it then? :P
The best thing to do (or rather, that I do) is to get out of your head >_< a lot
Ne is by default a repelling force, as its goal is to seek out information while paradoxically the more you understand something the more difficult it is to use that understanding. Knowledge gained is inversely proportional to capacity of understanding, much like dripping water onto a flat surface at a constant rate results in a puddle with edges that expand less and less of a distance with each drop to the point where equilibrium is achieved through evaporation in spite of the constant influx. Ne is a dead end with too many connections. Your very soul gets pulled in so many opposing directions that you quickly find yourself drawn and quartered. And a nihilist. It's the driving force behind ego death.
So yes, I know what you are saying, but I am on the same page as you @THD. The only thing you mention so far is that is the cynicism that separates us, but I disagree.
Essentially (and a little simplistic) , this ^ is what makes ENTP the most introverted extravert (although seeing @Architect's list last night, he made ENTJ least extravert, which is interesting too, well, we placed second), but nonetheless Ne isn't necessarily a people oriented function, and esp how perception alienates/separates you, certainly you haven't turned your back on our most dominant lovely function @THD? How do you deal with it then? :P
The best thing to do (or rather, that I do) is to get out of your head >_< a lot
Well, I didn't turn my back on it. I found comfort in the fact that I get to experience what others can't, gave myself up to chaos... and it died. I overdosed on Ne, and find myself resorting to various forms of mental and physical "opium" to keep it from resurrecting. I haven't brainstormed in >9 months.
How should I put this... Ne is completely useless beyond a certain developmental point, because once you understand the holistic nature of existence, that all that can possibly happen will happen; all the answers are the same. There's no point.
Well, I didn't turn my back on it. I found comfort in the fact that I get to experience what others can't, gave myself up to chaos... and it died. I overdosed on Ne, and find myself resorting to various forms of mental and physical "opium" to keep it from resurrecting. I haven't brainstormed in >9 months.
How should I put this... Ne is completely useless beyond a certain developmental point, because once you understand the holistic nature of existence, that all that can possibly happen will happen; all the answers are the same. There's no point.
When I get cognitively crippled...I die very slowly, Jung has been my saving grace for quite some time, also why I can see the ENTP going into academia, we need open ends lol. I know how you feels (intentional). We need it to be endless...don't get caught in a corner...I'm only < half way through Psychological Types, but it's endlessly extrapolate-able <3. Don't you have something you love that you haven't yet understood/analyzed? FIND IT BEFORE YOU DIE.
personality junkie, or rather Dr AJ Drenth, job ideas have http://personalityjunkie.com/entp-careers-jobs-majors/some good things, but it's extremely general..."jobs dealing with people and ideas." Well, I can't stand a lot of ignorance, and I sure as hell don't want to be an entrepreneur, no matter how much money I could make. lolz. So, so far with Psych being my dominant interest in my life, I'll follow it, whether I could be a professor, a researcher, a psychoanalyzer, or a psychologist is yet to be determined, but whatever. You and I both know we can manipulate people extremely well, but do we have a goal or desire to lol.\
From the link above:
As I alluded to earlier, many ENTPs find the hard sciences (i.e., physics, chemistry) too demanding in the way of precision, patience, and attention to detail, not to mention their relative disconnect from the world of people. Hence, ENTPs are more apt to find interest in the social sciences (history, economics, psychology, sociology, geography, anthropology, political science, etc
I'm sorry about that :/ I was stuck in E land for a whole fucking 4+ months, I tried to self medicate with marijuana, but I ended up out of it...
I have yet to fully analyze or assess every mood and come up with fool-proof ways out of it, I get in a rut quite often, you just need to find something you can't resist, something you love...a passion, something.
In English, people talk about how many observable results in science are "counter intuitive" all the time, when we mean to say that the way that we grasp those concepts naturally, turns out to be wrong. E.G. the double-slit experiment, that a photon can be a wave and a particle, and much, much more.
once again, I have no desire or inclination to argue over this, because honestly we could go for pages and pages, the closest profile (including the comments contradicting/analyzing the profile) I have found is this one: http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2...intp-and-istp/
Glad to see that someone wrote this up. The topic came up a year or so ago on another forum. I spent much time debating the topic, checking out the sources cited there, and analysing them, and all in a debate with a pretty smart ISTP. Oddly enough, the article that you cited, left with the same position that I was left with from the topic.
But that was April last year. I've moved on from then.
Neither ISTP nor INTP fits with late Jung because both of those are grounded in concrete reality. Jung was absolutely out of touch with the concrete, as apparent in his work on alchemy such as Mysterium Coniunctionis which has basically no practical applications, but is a neverending treasure trove of “food for the soul” by way of mystical and intuitive insights.
Heck, Jung’s entire theory of the archetypal is itself a theoretical/intuitive framework which conjectures an order of validity beyond that of actual fact (i.e. psychic truths, autonomous complexes and so on).
INTP would work except that they are usually more dispassionate and grounded. Jung does not seem to be either of those things. Certainly he tried to present himself as objective and dispassionate at times, but just read something like this excerpt from The Red Book and you will find he was a deep explorer of mystical/intuitive inner space:
“CONCRETISM. By this I mean a peculiarity of thinking and feeling which is the antithesis of abstraction. … Concretistic thinking operates exclusively with concrete concepts and percepts, and is constandy related to sensation. … Similarly, concretistic feeling is never segregated from its sensuous context. … Both of them depend on sensation and are only slightly differentiated from it. … In civilized man, concretistic thinking consists in the inability to conceive of anything except immediately obvious facts transmitted by the senses. … Concretism represents a fusion of thinking and feeling with sensation, so that the object of one is at the same time the object of the other. … This fusion prevents any differentiation of thinking and feeling and keeps them both within the sphere of sensation; they remain its servants and can never be developed into pure functions. The result is a predominance of the sensation factor in psychological orientation.” (Jung: Psychological Types §696 – 698 – boldface added.)
So, basically, someone who is concretistic is a Sensation-dominant type.
I highly disagree. There are those who have not read jung that both disagree and agree, and those who have read most/all of jung that disagree/highly agree
It seems you have overly generalized Intuitives -
Which is my entire point. What you claimed about Jung, simply produces a contradiction. A contradiction is an indication that something else that we are assuming, is false.
I say overly, because of course there are some generalizations can be made with all of the functions - but with intuition you have simplified it to be rather...ludicrous.
I merely contend, that sensors are just as smart as intuitives, but in a different way than intuitives are smart. If I have cast aspersions on intuitives, it is only that they are just as capable of making as many irrational mistakes as are claimed that sensors make. Then it follows that of the many incompetencies, bad ideas, and errors that we find in humans in general, that intuitives can make them just as easily as any other human.
Is it really that terrible, to think that intuitive humans are humans, and not Kryptonian supermen?
An expression that was much used by people like yourself about me, ever since I was a child, was "You think too much" or "You overthink everything" or "You'e logical to an extreme." or "You're taking logic too far."
<-but you're coming out with the wrong 'conclusion.'
Like:
because I said you were reducing intuition to less than it was, you 'assumed' that I thought N>S or that sensing was any less...I never insinuated/inferred/ or blatantly said so.
Ex:
Me: You're reducing intuition to be ludicrous
You: or am i? Links to "Bias against sensors," tells TimeAsylums that sensors are just as smart as intuitives (which Time has said in multiple threads...like see "Typology Coursework" thread where I linked to it...)
me: ...wtf?
That is: you're reading into my words (in a very wrong way), just take it at face value (no offense but the F's usually do this more than the T's)
Oh my god.
Coming off as such an F right now. (Just from every post you've made on this thread I'd say you're an F type: likely INFJ...jsyk.
I'm done @Scorpio. lol. If @Bronto were here right now he would be dying laughing.
Well, I'm 43. I've developed my Ti, Ne, and Si, and am now into developing my Fe. I gathered from sources such as Personality Junkie, that as you get older, you develop each function, starting with the dominant, and eventually getting to the inferior.
Oh my god.
Coming off as such an F right now. (Just from every post you've made on this thread I'd say you're an F type: likely INFJ...jsyk.
I'm done @Scorpio. lol. If @Bronto were here right now he would be dying laughing.
Well, I'm 43. I've developed my Ti, Ne, and Si, and am now into developing my Fe. I gathered from sources such as Personality Junkie, that as you get older, you develop each function, starting with the dominant, and eventually getting to the inferior.
Oh my god.
Coming off as such an F right now. (Just from every post you've made on this thread I'd say you're an F type: likely INFJ...jsyk.
I'm done @Scorpio. lol. If @Bronto were here right now he would be dying laughing.
MY GOD YOU REEK OF F YOU ARE AN INFJ GIVE IT UP!
His Fe>Ti throttles at full speed as opposed to an INTPs Ti dom and inf Fe
So I was going through the ancient threads, ancient profiles, current moderators and their past stuff (basically I was stalking the hell out of everyone 'old') God this place used to be extremely interesting. All the forums I go to, there's always the "time" difference, where a forum is either already 'past its prime,' I guess you could say, or all the major people have either moved on or something. So many questions that could be answered and so many answers that could be questioned. You were all so very interesting...
Ne is by default a repelling force, as its goal is to seek out information while paradoxically the more you understand something the more difficult it is to use that understanding. Knowledge gained is inversely proportional to capacity of understanding, much like dripping water onto a flat surface at a constant rate results in a puddle with edges that expand less and less of a distance with each drop to the point where equilibrium is achieved through evaporation in spite of the constant influx. Ne is a dead end with too many connections. Your very soul gets pulled in so many opposing directions that you quickly find yourself drawn and quartered. And a nihilist. It's the driving force behind ego death.
I am once again reading more of Jung's works. I had taken a break after devouring way too fucking much information from previous books. If anyone has any requests on my opinion on any of them, I'd be happy to do so, or discuss.
Seeing as most the typology (in the books) has been covered, I'll be looking into his mysticism and philosophies, he's a really interesting guy, FYI
Most our problems, Jung believed, don’t come from our disagreement about the solutions to problems. They come from the fact that we don’t actually see a problem in the same way and so can’t even agree about what the problem is.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
oh and I know that you can find 'all of the information, and the books' online, but my intended point was w/o the books for that answer essentially.
anyway, when I get deep into Psychological Types ill post some excerpts!
?
)
It's the driving force behind ego death.
