Visitor Messages

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 20 of 112
  1. Tocsin
    Yesterday 06:50 PM
    Tocsin commented on Religious law vs Secular law
    "adimaly" ???
  2. Moxiie
    08-28-2014 01:16 PM
    Moxiie
    Hmmm. I think it could work well with some work on understanding from both sides. Fi doms will tend to feel very strongly about some things and Fe doms will feel even more strongly about other things. Both lead with a judging function so when there are clashes they will be epic. In my opinion anyways.
  3. Namesake
    08-20-2014 04:01 AM
    Namesake
    Well, for a quick and clean intro to modern functions, you can try Dario Nardi's stuff.

    Jung is problematic in one way, because he really doesn't lay it out in as formulaic a way, so that you can just get straight to the chase of typing people. He's great for a ton of interesting points of view and references various other scholars, but you have to sift through it.

    Nardi is not equal to Jung, it has differences, but at the end of the day they're getting at the idea of a 4 function model in spirit, and there's obviously many strong links.
  4. Namesake
    08-20-2014 03:24 AM
    Namesake
    You should know that in my view, the van der Hoop sensation is the least replaceable or one of the least replaceable with Jung's sensation. van der Hoop knew Jung, but drew his own theory out. I think he placed more emphasis on "instinct."
    I think someone who relates to pleasant sense stimuli of some sort could get overly hooked into believing she/he has a strong sensation function.

    The thing is van der Hoop is talking of instinct, which seems to refer to your basic instinctual needs related to sensation, and talks a lot less about powers of observation and things like that. It seems a narrower view of sensation, less general and encompassing.

    I feel like anyone who has deep emotional investment in experiences and is somewhat passive in nature would start relating to the van der Hoop description, and that the natural counterpart to the intuitive attitude really should involve a focus on more than instinct.
  5. Namesake
    08-20-2014 01:58 AM
    Namesake
    I prefer Si-T to Si-Ti or Si-Te, personally, and by that I mean thinking is not "strong enough" in an irrational type to carry an attitude of its own, rather is a modifier to the introverted attitude and the sensation attitude both (so by modifying introversion, yes in a sense it's a kind of Ti in a way). Rather, I view it as a descriptor of the attitude of introverted sensation. So you could view it as a combination: introverted sensation-thinking.

    I think Si-Ti is more accurate than Si-Te in a relatively pure introvert, but a relatively balanced individual still could have Si-Te. But I prefer honestly not to put an attitude to the secondary function at all. It's very possible someone who is clearly introverted though, and is mainly sensation but thinking carries an immense significance to them, may legitimately use Ti just like a Ti-dominant, and that you'll need to infer that it's not their dominant indirectly, so yes in some cases Si-Ti really is correct.

    If you're changing your mind about intuition, please do be sure you really are sensation-oriented though. Sensation still must be sensation, even if subjective: you must still be predominantly dependent on stimulation, even if you have a rich inner life in terms of what that stimulation means to you. You must have an attentiveness to sense stimuli, perceive them in great depth, and have a rich vividness about how you seek them out, even if you seem to interact with them in a way that is very internally driven.
  6. Arthur Dent
    08-16-2014 07:54 PM
    Arthur Dent commented on Christian Genocide in Iraq
    I'd say he needs a high five. In the face. With a chair.
  7. Megalomania
    08-16-2014 12:09 PM
    Megalomania commented on Christian Genocide in Iraq
    More like some thorazine.
  8. Ghoster
    08-16-2014 09:02 AM
    Ghoster commented on Christian Genocide in Iraq
    No kidding.
  9. Namesake
    08-13-2014 04:25 AM
    Namesake
    For what it's worth, I think just going straight from Jung is even more flexible than either those systems. It's partly because he came first, so his stuff didn't have the same chance to rigidify, but it's also partly his style. I prefer that vastly, because I find it is more descriptive.

    I'm unsure how to approach verifying your preferences, simply because, as one of my threads explores, there's a line to draw between someone's knowledge-orientation (how they think and so forth) and their psychology, and the type is a link between these two. So on the one hand, the papers of people can be illuminating, but at the same time it's very important to know the person too. Both combined will give the picture. Perhaps you can describe such things if you would like some feedback as to how I think your functions play together.

    That said, from the little you said earlier, already it sounds like between thinking and intuition could be about right for you.

    All intuitive types are already very focused on the implicit, even if they have a lot of thinking, the key being that thinking is rationally focused, so it tends to at least have that going for it in directing things in a more explicit direction. Intuition can progress without any thinking in the picture at all, where you may simply see images or pools of associations that give a picture of something, which at times is a necessary prerequisite to even start thinking about some topics at all.
    Sometimes this occurs in symbolism, for instance. This might be something some thinkers would find very hard to tune into.

    I can tell you why I believe Jung types Schopenhauer as he does - it's basically this in between thing we're talking of. Where some theoreticians' points are entirely logical, meaning they want to form a system of ideas relating together in a precise logical way, others consider the logical argumentation much more of a synthesis of intuitive content into intelligible form. They are not predominantly perceivers, but have a highly intuitive method of thinking. Their point is not quite as logical a one, though obviously logic is the necessary foundation for creating a well-defined theory.
    I think such methods are useful in things such as aesthetical theory, because you get nearer to the real form of the knowledge by including the real nature of perception in the mix.

    Side note is I think Jung might be one of those cases of teetering the lines between perception and judgment.

    Also, I should say my "j" personally isn't Socionics notation so much as indicating a mild preference.
  10. Namesake
    08-12-2014 04:34 PM
    Namesake
    I wished to add a bit to my remarks to you yesterday; everything I said was true, but I wanted to note: I really view all this stuff in degrees, and I think that's most accurate. What I mean by that is that I think it's more accurate to say someone is in between intuition and thinking than to say they're strictly one side or the other, unless they really are, and if the preference is mild, that should be part of the typing.

    Someone who is between thinking and intuition but mildly favors thinking might indeed go to sensation somewhat more than feeling. Such a person could still be sort of imprecise compared with a very high thinking and comparably low intuition person (this stuff is often glossed over, but actually in Psychological Types, Jung gives a direct example of Socrates, in his view a rational type who represses intuition hugely). By contrast, he gives the example of Schopenhauer, who is to him a thinking type, but one who formidably used the intuitive method. This latter sort is much more likely to just follow his intuitions in answering his thinking contemplations, and thus less likely to adhere to a strictly rational method of logical deduction, and instead may mix in a lot of intuition as to where his train of thought is going - consequently it may appear more scattered.

    I think in Psychological Types, unfortunately Chapter 10 could be really misleading, as it just portrays the purer types, and only in the rest of the book do you see that Jung acknowledged a lot more of ambiguity about how people could fall in between. You can think of his Chapter 10 types as the all too pure types, who are sort of a way to get the essence of each of the 4 functions, but then you need to start mixing them up in shades to get an accurate knowledge of people (in my experience).
  11. Namesake
    08-11-2014 11:27 PM
    Namesake
    Jung thought you can be both, yes. In which case maybe you do have a function-type, but not a clear attitude-type. Note that accessing both inside and out isn't the same as having orientation to one or another. The outside-orientation is more akin to getting lost exploring exciting things outside, the inside one always begins with the self, and ends with it, meaning when you interact with the outside, it's as if all you care is that the outside excited something in you, and you want to see how that fits in with yourself.
    Everyone does this to some extent (how do you have personal preferences otherwise!), but when the attitude really makes you have a withdrawn attitude to situations, stimuli, etc you meet outside, and when outer experiences reduce to a morass of subjective impressions, and so forth, you're seeing introversion.

    Implicit insights without conscious control and think more than feel sounds, in a very little flash, like an intuitive type with thinking secondary rather than primary. Thinking is a very conscious, deliberate activity, and one side-effect of that is thinking-dominants do tend to be more precise, directed, rational, etc, even when they are quite out of touch with sensation, because their orientation to ideas is deliberated rather than implicit/unconscious/spontaneous.

    So you could be a moderately introverted intuitive-dom with secondary thinking. If you have a clear difficulty with sensation over feeling, that would be helpful to note down, but sometimes the dominant is clearer than the inferior. Other times, vice versa. Often it's vice versa, simply because it's more common to neglect one thing than to not develop at least two things.
  12. yojimbo
    08-05-2014 11:40 PM
    yojimbo
    You should read Roger Penrose - Shadows of the Mind
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Mind
    This guy is interesting.

    (from the post on mathematics being able to describe the universe! )


    (read a post about absolutism )
  13. Ghoster
    08-01-2014 08:00 PM
    Ghoster
    All of those. I've slowly been teaching myself to control things that I normally wouldn't be able to including emotion and perception. On a good day I can pretty much choose what emotion I want to feel, if any at all. I've also figured out how to mess with my sight a little bit. If I concentrate on one spot I can make it warp a little -- making it look like it's 'breathing' by having it expand and retract and get slightly smaller and slightly larger.

    I've also discovered how to temporarily convince myself of things. For example, if while working magick I focus and completely convince myself that I'm working with real tangible energy, I find that the effects are increased substantially. I feel like I really, truly am working with energy (or magick, whichever diction you prefer) and my physical body will even react accordingly. For example, if I take energy in through my mind's eye, with enough focus and time I get a very powerful euphoric tingling sensation and feeling of pressure on my mind's eye -- I can have powerful physical responses to imaginary stimuli. It's quite astounding, really.
  14. Minerva
    07-29-2014 06:08 PM
    Minerva

      Originally Posted by Dodeca View Post
    This is how I think of Ni...
    Jung being INFJ.

    I just reread your OP.

    This is not iN, I have lived with Introverted Intuitives ALL my life.

    Jung is an INTJ, not anything else.

    You don't sound like an ISFJ, you sound exactly like every single INTP I have ever met.

    As for your questions:

    I don't think you should be buying any books ABOUT Jung.

    Jung wrote 18 volumes, there is no easy or simple way of getting through that dense, interconnected material.

    Jung spent decades writing essays and putting them in sequence for a reason.

    You can only understand Jung if you read all of Jung proper.

  15. Bisclavret
    07-28-2014 07:15 PM
    Bisclavret
    Each one is female. I've brushed paths with a few SFJ males, and one I knew quite well. He typed as an INFJ on of those online tests but I see no indication of dominant iNtuition in him.

    Thanks for the link. I'll investigate later. Hopefully you will uncover what you are looking for.
  16. Bisclavret
    07-28-2014 06:55 PM
    Bisclavret
    Hi. I know several of them. One I've known all my life (i.e. mother). How may I help you?
  17. Monte314
    04-20-2014 01:26 AM
    Monte314
    I will send you an excerpt from an article I wrote many years ago about emergent complexity.
  18. crow
    04-18-2014 02:19 AM
    crow
    A crow flapped by and said hello. (:>
  19. Ghoster
    09-15-2013 07:59 PM
    Ghoster
    Some of the things in that video are incorrect. Also, as for the reason spiritual knowledge has been kept from the masses (regarding The Vatican), it is so a few "elite" have all the power and control, while the rest of us are left stupid and ignorant. This is one of the many reasons I strongly dislike Christianity/Catholicism.
  20. Doggzilla
    09-06-2013 02:45 PM
    Doggzilla
    Hmm fascinating...

About Me

  • About Dodeca
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    New Mexico
    Interests
    Internet
  • Personality
    MBTI Type
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Global 5/SLOAN
    RCOEI
    Astrology Sign
    Scorpio
    Personal DNA
    Considerate Thinker
    Brain Dominance
    Balanced

Statistics

Total Posts
Visitor Messages
General Information
  • Last Activity: Yesterday 10:12 PM
  • Join Date: 11-03-2009
  • Referrals: 1

Friends

Showing Friends 1 to 20 of 22

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.