yo

[lungs]

hi i havent been into mbti for awhile but i know a couple people who post here and thought i'd check it out. i'm a regular on t16t, the socionics forum (even though i havent been into that for awhile either). in mbti i'm probably infp or some kind of ixfx, at any rate.

meh i dont expect to post here much but we'll see. i made an account ages ago but i havent really lurked so i don't know what to expect.

i'm listening to crystal castles, i dig them. i spend a lot of internet time on tumblr and irc. i'm slightly intoxicated. i'm probably older than most of you. as far as intp type of shit philosophy is interesting and i like existentialism. not so into video games.

hi hi hi hi hi

 

[nexion]

hi i havent been into mbti for awhile but i know a couple people who post here and thought i'd check it out. i'm a regular on t16t, the socionics forum (even though i havent been into that for awhile either). in mbti i'm probably infp or some kind of ixfx, at any rate.

meh i dont expect to post here much but we'll see. i made an account ages ago but i havent really lurked so i don't know what to expect.

i'm listening to crystal castles, i dig them. i spend a lot of internet time on tumblr and irc. i'm slightly intoxicated. i'm probably older than most of you. as far as intp type of shit philosophy is interesting and i like existentialism. not so into video games.

hi hi hi hi hi

Hi.

 

[lungs]

hey nil <3 <3 <3

 

[EyeSeeCold]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6xU96KLBL4

alternatively

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_NJFkhdf5M

 

[lungs]

hi esc! love the pixies.

 

[MichiganJFrog]

hi

 

[lungs]

hello! i find your avatar slightly intimidating. which isn't necessarily bad, just saying.

 

[MichiganJFrog]

i find your avatar slightly intimidating.

He does look a little severe, now that you mention it.

 

[Hadoblado]

I saw the Crystal Castles earlier this year. They're not really my thing, but they were entertaining nonetheless. I can't actually remember a single thing about them, only that they were enjoyable *slightly intoxicated*






... I threw up on some random's tent

 

[Reluctantly]

How long do you think it will be before you cure yourself of the typology disease? I'm almost there; convinced myself not to think about it anymore, except as a philosophical tool.

I find you scary, by the way. I've read your posts on 16 types and you seem vindictive. Yes, that's just my individual perception, but these typology forums aren't exactly full of what most would consider 'healthy' people, myself included, although it depends on the time period in question, as with everything and everyone. hmmm

also penis in your mouth.

 

[nexion]

How long do you think it will be before you cure yourself of the typology disease? I'm almost there; convinced myself not to think about it anymore, except as a philosophical tool.

I find you scary, by the way. I've read your posts on 16 types and you seem vindictive. Yes, that's just my individual perception, but these typology forums aren't exactly full of what most would consider 'healthy' people, myself included, although it depends on the time period in question, as with everything and everyone. hmmm

also penis in your mouth.

Cool story bro.

 

[Reluctantly]

Cool story bro.

Thanks. Sometimes I wonder what you are up to. What are you up to?

 

[lungs]

I saw the Crystal Castles earlier this year. They're not really my thing, but they were entertaining nonetheless. I can't actually remember a single thing about them, only that they were enjoyable *slightly intoxicated*

that is awesome! *jealous*

i havent even watched them live on youtube or anything but i hear alice is crazy on stage.

How long do you think it will be before you cure yourself of the typology disease? I'm almost there; convinced myself not to think about it anymore, except as a philosophical tool.

I find you scary, by the way. I've read your posts on 16 types and you seem vindictive. Yes, that's just my individual perception, but these typology forums aren't exactly full of what most would consider 'healthy' people, myself included, although it depends on the time period in question, as with everything and everyone. hmmm

also penis in your mouth.

i don't know that i'll ever be fully cured, i don't think it works that way. a big step for me was realizing that i was reifying a lot of it - just the map, not the territory, etc, and after that really SUNK IN i moved forward a lot. which is why i tend to pound that point a lot over at 16 types. at this point my cognitive dissonance is almost completely gone and i talk about types because i have friends online who are into it while knowing at the same time its bullshit... though i have my moments of dogmatism, especially when i'm battling somebody over a type thing, no doubt.

i'm curious if you post over there, and i wasn't going to ask, but i suppose saying i'm curious is more or less the same thing as asking. i can be very vindictive and i can be very caring and sweet. i think the two are tied together. i'm vindictive because i care, trololo. i don't really care for the distinction between "healthy" and "unhealthy" people. i think everyone is kinda fucked up and the end result of using the "unhealthy" label is usually just stigmatizing unusual behavior.

i'm glad you enjoy my avatar, haha.

 

[nexion]

Thanks. Sometimes I wonder what you are up to. What are you up to?

You know, chilling, playing games, attending college, plotting the destruction of all humankind... same old, same old.

On another note, do I know you?

 

[Reluctantly]

i don't know that i'll ever be fully cured, i don't think it works that way. a big step for me was realizing that i was reifying a lot of it - just the map, not the territory, etc, and after that really SUNK IN i moved forward a lot. which is why i tend to pound that point a lot over at 16 types. at this point my cognitive dissonance is almost completely gone and i talk about types because i have friends online who are into it while knowing at the same time its bullshit... though i have my moments of dogmatism, especially when i'm battling somebody over a type thing, no doubt.

heh, I think that's why I don't want to think about it anymore. It promises so much, and when it 'works', it works really well and that leads to trying to apply it in more ways, which eventually leads to dogmatism and disappointment when people question the process and show how much it can be based on belief. The types might exist in various ways, but I see so much reason to doubt relationships can be inferred from them when there are so many other complicated nuances to how people think, communicate, and relate to one another, not to mention the myriad of existential complications that go with the philosophical implications of each type.

that was very technical-sounding, but you've probably experienced something similar.

i'm curious if you post over there, and i wasn't going to ask, but i suppose saying i'm curious is more or less the same thing as asking.

I had a phase where I've had many accounts. Most people think they know what accounts those are, however I used a proxy on some of them to give off a different 'aura' of personality and not link them together. Basically, the end result is that I found different groups of people liking and hating each one in different ways. THIS was somewhat enlightening. I do have one account now that I try to be a bit more honest on. I try not to participate in any discussions or theory too much, lest I find myself thinking about 'socionics'. But I don't want to mention the name. ;P It would ruin too much in terms of the 'character' that account seems to have, which was sort of the point.

I hope this doesn't seem creepy.

i can be very vindictive and i can be very caring and sweet. i think the two are tied together. i'm vindictive because i care, trololo. i don't really care for the distinction between "healthy" and "unhealthy" people. i think everyone is kinda fucked up and the end result of using the "unhealthy" people is usually just stigmatizing unusual behavior.

I like that you think that way. It's the ones that think about people in terms of set standards for all that tend to scare me. They have no appreciation for how people differ, which seems to imply a lack of ... not empathy ...but awareness for other people?

 

[Reluctantly]

On another note, do I know you?

I guess not that you are aware of. I know you from 16 types. But I don't exactly have one account either. I really hope this doesn't induce a change in not allowing multiple accounts now over there; it's actually pretty useful for getting people to let down their preconceptions about others in order to facilitate better communication. I wish i could do that here, since I'm sure a lot of people don't even read my posts anymore because they didn't like some that I've made previously.

blah blah, ugh. good night. welcome lungs.

 

[lungs]

this place doesn't have blogs? or i just can't find them?

i don't go out of my way to type people but socionics is implanted in my brain and i've noticed how i type certain people here and i wanted to make a blog entry about it. i don't know why. pretty sure you guys don't even like socionics so i don't want to make a new thread. and i'll probably be horrified about this later. but its interesting to have socionical thoughts about people i havent gotten the chance to really have feelings about so it isn't all tainted by intertype relations crap that makes me sad.

anyway i'm just going to do this here.

nanook - ILI
agent intelligence - ILI
proxyamenra - LIE>LSE, Te as fuck
cooleydudey - ILE
auburn - EII?

 

[lungs]

words - LII

;kjdasfk;jdsfkdaslk;asj

 

[Auburn]

We do have a "Poetry & Blogging" board.. though. If that helps.

EII = Ethical Intuitive Introvert = FiNe, correct?
Quite curious.

 

[nexion]

EII = Ethical Intuitive Introvert = FiNe, correct?
Quite curious.

This is correct. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Socionics definitions of information elements (cognitive functions) here.

 

[lungs]

We do have a "Poetry & Blogging" board.. though. If that helps.

EII = Ethical Intuitive Introvert = FiNe, correct?
Quite curious.

yeah, i hope it doesn't rub you the wrong way. i'm not providing justification because types are just concepts that exist in the minds of people using them and its silly to debate about peoples' types like they actually exist, which is partly why i'm half-housing here after being at 16 types. but i relapse sometimes.

 

[Auburn]

oy.

This is all so very complicated.

There's a lot more nuances and categories. Even extending into the unconscious 5-8 functions...

Imo, it is highly pretentious to speculate (and to so, so specifically) about the structure of the unconscious mind. One can postulate just about anything about the structure of the unconscious and there's no way anyone could debunk you because its a dark room with no lights on. Unless they have some support for why functions 5-8 are arranged as they state, I don't believe it.

It seems like they just identified a structure in the top four functions and then just expanded it, assuming, based on mere symmetry, that it also extends into the other four.

So according to this, the (Model A) ego block...

vv = and vice versa
1. T/F/S/N with some i/e orientation.
2. If 1 is T/F then 2 is S/N (vv). If 1 is i, 2 is e (vv)
3. If 1 is T then 3 is F (vv). If 1 is S then 3 is S (vv). i/e the same as 1.
4. If 2 is T then 4 is F (vv). If 2 is S then 4 is S (vv). i/e the same as 2.
​

Essentially, the first two functions are the same as JCF, but the latter two are not their opposites but their compliments? (i.e. Ti & Fi) Meaning a type like EII is Fi-Ne-Ti-Se? Which isn't the same as JCF Fi-Ne-Si-Te.

If so, very much disagree with this Model A, as I can psychically and visibly identify functions in joined pairings as so: (FeTi) (FiTe) (NiSe) (NeSi). But as of now that's just my own subjective opinion.

Is Model A the only model that Socionics recognizes? Also, what does it mean when people say things like EII-Ne and EII-Fi?

 

[lungs]

It seems like they just identified a structure in the top four functions and then just expanded it, assuming, based on mere symmetry, that it also extends into the other four.

yeah, pretty much. the reliance on math/symmetry for understanding people has been a turn-off for me too.

i understand some of it best by remembering information aspects. for example: Fi deals with Internal Statics of Fields and Ti deals with External Statics of Fields, therefore they both occupy Static Fields and can't be used at the same time. That's why having it as a function in the first block necessitates having it in the second block. i could do that all the way through for each function but i'm not really sure how effectively i could explain and its all kind of intuitive with a little research anyway.

Essentially, the first two functions are the same as JCF, but the latter two are not their opposites but their compliments? (i.e. Ti & Fi) Meaning a type like EII is Fi-Ne-Ti-Se? Which isn't the same as JCF Fi-Ne-Si-Te.

If so, very much disagree with this Model A, as I can psychically and visibly identify functions in joined pairings as so: (FeTi) (FiTe) (NiSe) (NeSi).

i'm a little confused here because its been ages since i've dealt with MBTI, but Fi and Ti are in conflict. The function pairs you mentioned there at the end are complementary. Se provides static sensory dots for Ni to connect, Si provides smooth context for Ne to branch off of, etc.

basically:

ego block: what you value and filter information through/use
superego block: what you don't value and don't filter information through/use
superid block: what you value and don't filter information through/use
id block: what you don't value and filter information through/use

Is Model A the only model that Socionics recognizes? Also, what does it mean when people say things like EII-Ne and EII-Fi?

the most popular alternative model is one that says that only valued functions are perceptible at all. there are others (model B, etc) that i haven't really looked into and seem to be more fringe.

EII-Ne and EII-Fi are subtypes, with EII-Ne emphasizing Ne more than the Fi subtype and vice versa. there are different theories as to how these emphases affect the rest of the functions, for example an Fi sub may have a higher threshold for its Te complement, etc. but subtype theory isn't even agreed upon universally, let alone those extrapolations, and there are other subtype theories as well, although that particular one is the most popular.

 

[Words]

yeah, i hope it doesn't rub you the wrong way. i'm not providing justification because types are just concepts that exist in the minds of people using them and its silly to debate about peoples' types like they actually exist.

Then you are simply experiencing hallucinations and you just wanted to express these hallucinations, regardless of the fact that they are?

 

[lungs]

Then you are simply experiencing hallucinations and you just wanted to express these hallucinations, regardless of the fact that they are?

kind of.

obviously there are some real phenomenon that these concepts represent. like, it would be strange if i typed lindsey lohan intp or whatever. but thats why its so horrible, lol. i've seen it compared to gambling and i thought that was an excellent analogy. i win often enough to stay at the table, as far as predictions about behavior and relationships are concerned. but i also find it reprehensible and i don't think i win often enough to justify staying because the game is ultimately rigged. and in something like socionics that works on predicting relationship compatibility with high accuracy, immoral.

 

[lungs]

for example i typed you LII in part because i have a negative reaction to your posts. now if i continue to have a negative reaction why will it be? can i trust it?

barf

 

[Mello]

Welcome to the forum.

I like your unicorn.

 

[lungs]

thank you! i like your abstract black smudge thingie, too. i'm not just saying that because you said you like my unicorn, either. i think i've found your avatar the most memorable so far.

 

[Auburn]

Thanks. I think I get it more now.

In JCF Ti and Fi are also opposed and don't exist consciously in the same person, yeah. Same with Te & Fe, Se & Ne, Ni & Si.

So EII would still be Fi-Ne-Si-Te, then.. humm

 

[The Gopher]

thank you! i like your abstract black smudge thingie, too. i'm not just saying that because you said you like my unicorn, either. i think i've found your avatar the most memorable so far.

It's batman, I actually could do with a new avatar... but hey.

 

[lungs]

It's batman, I actually could do with a new avatar... but hey.

oh! now that the part that looks like a torso has a batman head, i can see it.

what is your avatar from?

 

[Mello]

thank you! i like your abstract black smudge thingie, too. i'm not just saying that because you said you like my unicorn, either. i think i've found your avatar the most memorable so far.

*Ahem*

He's Batman. The Dark Knight. He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

And thanks.

Edit: Gopher's avatar is L from Death Note.

 

[Words]

kind of.

obviously there are some real phenomenon that these concepts represent. like, it would be strange if i typed lindsey lohan intp or whatever. but thats why its so horrible, lol. i've seen it compared to gambling and i thought that was an excellent analogy. i win often enough to stay at the table, as far as predictions about behavior and relationships are concerned. but i also find it reprehensible and i don't think i win often enough to justify staying because the game is ultimately rigged. and in something like socionics that works on predicting relationship compatibility with high accuracy, immoral.

Reprehensible? Immoral?

for example i typed you LII in part because i have a negative reaction to your posts. now if i continue to have a negative reaction why will it be? can i trust it?

barf

Negative reaction? Why?

 

[lungs]

Reprehensible? Immoral?

yes. primarily because of what i said in the post following it. i don't want some silly mental construct influencing my reactions to people. i know everybody has preconceived notions based on one thing or another but the way socionics goes about it is so explicit and silly.

i was going to say maybe you'd understand better if you spent a lot of time at the 16 types forum but probably not because there are plenty of people there who are fine with it. all the politics and silly bullshit that goes along with separating people into four distinct groups called "quadras." there have been times i've wondered if its been some kind of sociological experiment and we're all just lab rats.

Negative reaction? Why?

do you really want to know? its nothing terribly serious considering i don't even really know you. you responded poorly to something that nil said and he's a friend of mine and it rubbed me the wrong way. and then you were advising moocow on his paintings in a way that i thought was really presumptuous and saying, "please replace your taste and vision with mine."

 

[Words]

I'm wondering more about the relationship between your negative reaction and LII, but these are cool too.

do you really want to know? its nothing terribly serious considering i don't even really know you. you responded poorly to something that nil said and he's a friend of mine and it rubbed me the wrong way.

Define "poorly". Is it dependent on your state of emotion or is it something to argue about?

and then you were advising moocow on his paintings in a way that i thought was really presumptuous and saying, "please replace your taste and vision with mine."

Well, i find your judgment also a bit presumptuous. I found Moocow's art relating to Se-Ni(common to uncommon) and i was wondering about his reaction to the Ne-Si style(uncommon to common), considering he is assumingly "Ne-Si." I only care about vision when it's related to truth.

 

[Moocow]

Easy now. I took no offense. Words simply made a creative proposition, which I am delighted to consider.

Others made some defensive comments in the thread as well on my behalf. To put it plainly, I don't suspect anyone of prejudices so their critical honesty will be taken as a gesture of respect until there's some evidence to suggest otherwise.

Which is where I become curious, because @Words, you appear to be implying that you disagree with my self assessment of type. The last sentence concerning truth is also rather cryptic. I'm not sure what to make of it. I wouldn't mind a plain discussion of how functions manifest in artistic design, if that is the structure behind your thoughts on the case.

@lungs: I truly appreciate your good intent but in the case of this particular post I believe a past impression may be predisposing your interpretation of his intent. There doesn't appear to be any challenge to my style in his wording:

It looks as if there's a solemn story behind this one. To me, it seems like your style is to piece together the common to form something uncommon(sort of like surrealism?). What about the uncommon forming the common? My words are probably difficult to get, but I can't really find a better way to explain.

 

[Words]

Which is where I become curious, because @Words, you appear to be implying that you disagree with my self assessment of type. The last sentence concerning truth is also rather cryptic. I'm not sure what to make of it. I wouldn't mind a plain discussion of how functions manifest in artistic design, if that is the structure behind your thoughts on the case.

I was just testing my stupid ideas. It's probably nonsense, so I don't really see the need to discussing it. Of course, I'm still not sure if it is. Your type, your judgment of your type, and your art is one factor. I don't know which is the independent variable though.

The last sentence is packed by ideas relating to "vision", "perspective", and "idealism." Not my kind of things, though I suspect Pi-types are fond of these things. Ni-doms go for the more radical perspectives whereas Si-types are more into tradition.

@lungs: I truly appreciate your good intent but in the case of this particular post I believe a past impression may be predisposing your interpretation of his intent. There doesn't appear to be any challenge to my style in his wording:

ah, yeah, I did comment before about the birds, lol. That was not my own vision though, I just thought it was the average expectation, so i guess it's like my vision of the common vision(which, i guess, is still my vision). Art is too subjective for me, so what I do is just generalize subjective judgments. (unless i actually like the visual w/o question)

 

[lungs]

lol a lot of this is just because i don't remember the details of what was said as well as i remember my reaction to it. afasdf

Define "poorly". Is it dependent on your state of emotion or is it something to argue about?

alright, i went back and looked. at the time i thought you were picking at him for no reason but looking at it again i think you guys were just having some kind of friendly debate type of exchange.

sorry for misunderstanding you.

 

[lungs]

if i mention socionics on this forum again may lightning strike me dead amen

 

[nexion]

Words is LII because he exudes Ti in the socionics sense.

 

[nexion]

Imo, it is highly pretentious to speculate (and to so, so specifically) about the structure of the unconscious mind. One can postulate just about anything about the structure of the unconscious and there's no way anyone could debunk you because its a dark room with no lights on. Unless they have some support for why functions 5-8 are arranged as they state, I don't believe it.

Don't worry about socionics too much and don't interpret it over-literally. Take it for what it actually is: a system which attempts to describe sixteen archetypes, just like MBTI. There is also the whole intertypes relations, which depending on who you ask is or isn't worth looking into. MBTI, Socionics, JCF, it's really all bullshit pseudoscience or in some cases even real science. But it is just a system which matches with some persons' observations.

One could apply many of the statements you made to MBTI as well, how is socionics really so different aside from being more organized and thorough?

So according to this, the (Model A) ego block...

vv = and vice versa
1. T/F/S/N with some i/e orientation.
2. If 1 is T/F then 2 is S/N (vv). If 1 is i, 2 is e (vv)
3. If 1 is T then 3 is F (vv). If 1 is S then 3 is S (vv). i/e the same as 1.
4. If 2 is T then 4 is F (vv). If 2 is S then 4 is S (vv). i/e the same as 2.

Essentially, the first two functions are the same as JCF, but the latter two are not their opposites but their compliments? (i.e. Ti & Fi) Meaning a type like EII is Fi-Ne-Ti-Se? Which isn't the same as JCF Fi-Ne-Si-Te.

Types are generally identified by Ego functions. These are the strongest functions. Also, one can know the type by only having one block.

EII = FiNeTiSeTeSiFeNi, simplified to FiNe or FiNeTeSi. The website I linked to (socionics.us) also has useful information about the functions, blocks, and Model A.

Is Model A the only model that Socionics recognizes? Also, what does it mean when people say things like EII-Ne and EII-Fi?

Model A is the most popular and original. Others exist if you care to spend exhausting amounts of time reading the ramblings of a handful of madmen.

 

[hafalla]

hey, hey, hey

 

[Auburn]

if i mention socionics on this forum again may lightning strike me dead amen

Oh shit lungs, you've set off another long typology derail again. what have you done!.... now the LII on this forum aren't gonna drop it, and keep senselessly debating things for another.. mmm.. three pages or so. just what you came here to flee from, go figure.

- proxy implication -
​

You have a curious writing style. It is identical to a (now gone) member named Bird. It is a cryptic writing style that is simultaneously overly-transparent yet not transparent enough. It pauses right before the punch line and dwindles into secrecy.

There's a bit of passivity in them that is not due to meekness or shyness, but more from the idea that you "choose your battles", where you decide what issues are important enough to invest arguing over.

Your words linger on the edge of casual and poetic - not emotionally expressive yet charged with personal feeling. They also have a sensual element to them. You avoid getting too emotional in your language, yet also avoid getting too technical. You only get techy when something can't be described properly in simplistic language, then quickly come back out to a familiar distance from it as soon as possible.

 

[lungs]

Oh shit lungs, you've set off another long typology derail again. whoopie.. now the LII on this forum aren't gonna drop it, and keep senselessly debating things for another.. mmm.. three pages or so. just what you came here to flee from, go figure.

- proxy implication -
​

You have a curious writing style. It is identical to a (now gone) member named Bird. It is a cryptic writing style that is simultaneously overly-transparent yet not transparent enough. It pauses right before the punch line and dwindles into secrecy.

There's a bit of passivity in them that is not due to meekness or shyness, but more from the idea that you "choose your battles", where you decide what issues are important enough to invest arguing over.

Your words linger on the edge of casual and poetic - not emotionally expressive yet charged with personal feeling. They also have a sensual element to them. You avoid getting too emotional in your language, yet also avoid getting too technical. You only get techy when something can't be described properly in simplistic language, then quickly come back out to a familiar distance from it as soon as possible.

oh, this is nice, you make me sound like a writer, lol <3

i know and like bird. we have been compared to each other before by several other people. in a thread where people were typing her, though, a few members who know us both on a more personal level stepped forward and said "WTF" based on their closer interactions with us. i can see the comparison in our writing styles, though. i would describe it as struggling between guardedness and exposure. i think we are both probably Fi dominant and so-last. i think she's more poetic in her expression than i am but i'm flattered.

 

[Auburn]

Yes... ^^
It's most definitely an intriguing writing style though it sometimes drives me crazy! lol Like cliffhangers at the end of a book or episode. Makes me wanna strangle an innocent kitten. /jk

Ramble Warning:

Spoiler

Yeah Bird's definitely also Fi dominant and also.. probably FiSe as yourself.
These similarities aren't surface deep though, they stem to the very way in which you both think; which is what produces the words.

Its things like this that click far too perfectly and often for me to discard cognitive theory as not really existing - and just being an imaginary concept we humans have formed. The key is to not take the system wholesale (either mbti or socionics, etc) but to see for yourself which elements proposed by the model as existing, really do exist and how.

Cease to look at it as a "system" and look at it as... a type of encyclopedia. Something that describes beings that it claims exist, giving specifics about what they'd look like. Then you look for yourself at the world of people and see whether or not such beings do exist.

So in the same way that an encyclopedia can tell you:

Zebra: A zebra is a four-legged mammal, similar to a horse or donkey, with black and white stripes covering their whole body. It has thin hair covering its body, with longer hair running down the back of its long neck. Like a horse, its feet are hooves and its teeth are flat, built for chewing grass.
​

And then when you come across that animal, with all those traits, you'll remember what the encyclopedia told you and it'll *click* that this is what the encyclopedia was talking about, likewise with typology. And once this initial *click* is made, all the nuances that a summarized text description could not give about the animal, are seen. And a full and rich understanding of that species is attained.

So if you just remove typology from the plateau of "theory" and "system" and look at it as a proposed reality, which you can verify or falsify, then there's merit in discussing it. It either has a place in reality or it doesn't -- and discussion of it should revolve around the tangible (not merely in an abstract hypothetical realm).

Sorry... I guess this is sortof a mini-rant. :'p
I get tired of people saying mbti is just a theory, blabla. That seems like a personal laziness to me; a reluctance to actually seek to prove or disprove it, and just bringing the attention back to it being a "theory" as justification to dismiss it.

To those I'd say: "Yeah, well, so is gravity. But you're obviously not flying off into space right now are you."

It being a theory has nothing to do with its validity. If one wants to agrue against it, or anything else, they ought to present information that contradicts the propositions that the theory creates. In the same way physics formulas can be debunked by running tests that come out with different answers than what the theory predicted. & to be fair, those who support the theory ought to present information which verifies the predictions made by it are consistent.

Jung presented this phenomenon in Psychological Types as an empirical (albeit subtle and hard to grasp) truth. But as such, serious efforts *can* be made to either validate or debunk jungian theory once and for all. Using things like neuroscience.

I hope to do this within the next few years.

 

[lungs]

in looking at the two of us you disregard reports of people who have talked to us both one-on-one and use our writing styles as proof that we think the same way. this is fine for your own personal assessment and everything but I'm pretty sure it isn't objective.

I am curious if you would state in specific terms what would constitute sufficient proof for you that typology isn't real.

I believe its about as equally provable as astrology or the I Ching. its as real as you make it.

 

[Auburn]

I am curious if you would state in specific terms what would constitute sufficient proof for you that typology isn't real.

If neuro-scans were run on people who I consider the same type, and no (or very little) brain activity was shared.

Since Jung describes them as "cognitive functions" then they ought to be measurable via neuroscience, if they do exist. But if no neurological parallels can be drawn between those humans who fit under the same descriptions Jung gave, then it means the theory is false.

Furthermore, even if those humans I consider the same type do share brain activity, if the neuro scans don't also demonstrate a cosnsitent interrelationship* between the functions within all the other 16 types, then that means the hierarchy theory is false.


* = that is to say, a type like FiSe/NiTe ought to neurologically display those four brain processes light up. And a type like TiSe/NiFe should display the areas of Se/Ni light up the same way they did in the FiSe, but *not* the areas of Fi/Te. Rather it should show areas of Ti/Fe light up, and those areas should also light up for TiNe/SiFe in the same way, but at the exlusion of Se/Ni. And so on.

In other words, the eight cognitive processes ought to both be observable as independent rhythms of brain activity, and also seen working pieced together in different sequences - exactly according to the 16 type hierarchies.