Personality Cafe banner

๐—œ๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ฐ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๏ฟฝ ๐—ฑ๐—ผ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚ ๐—ฎ๐—ด๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ ๐˜„๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ฒ๏ฟฝ

  • ๐—ก๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ!-๐—ฉ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—œ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ฐ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ(Strongly disagree)โŒ

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ๐—ฉ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—œ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ฐ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ(Strongly disagree) ๐Ÿ‘Ž

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ๐——๐—ฒ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐˜€-๐—ก๐—ฒ๐˜‚๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—น agree nor disagree๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿค”

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ๐—ฆ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜„๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐—”๐—ฐ๐—ฐ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ(Somewhat agree)๐Ÿค๐Ÿค™

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • ๐—ฉ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—”๐—ฐ๐—ฐ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ(Strongly agree)โœ…๐Ÿ’–

    Votes: 2 66.7%
21 - 40 of 84 Posts

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
Te doms can't think for themselves, so they frequently have to read books or collect and obsorb external information. Te users, like Fe users who obsorbs Fi, Te users obsorb the thinking of Ti users.
Te users will mirror the Ti user, giving the impression that the Te user is smarter, yet it is the Ti user and not the Te users who is intelligent.

Unlike Te users Ti users don't need to take notes to logically understand something, they can understand it in their own unique way. Most technologies have been developed and designed by Ti users.

Te users can understand and obsorb all that information but they can't think for themselves until they have absorbed a lot from the Ti users around them, However, Te users are extremely sensitive to being labelled dumb, so they put on a show of intelligence to avoid being labelled as such.
Apologies for the language, but this horseshit has nothing to do with psychological types. It may be how "Objective Personality" defines things, "corrupting" terminology even more, but that is of no use to anyone.
 

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
true enough, but I am sneaky. I can find subjectivity in objective rendering and objectivity in subjective expression. This leads me to not want to use the terms "objective" and "subjective."
That is an accurate impression. Nothing is purely objective or subjective. Te-dom is not devoid of subjectivity and vice versa.
But this doesn't render these terms meaningless, as they still reflect noticeable patterns within the psyche.
They just don't represent something that you can carve out and observe in isolation from everything else.

As is the case with terms like "warm", "left","quick", and etc.
All of them implicitly require a certain reference frame for their meaning to be fully constructed.

This could be a bad example. The square has objective properties that everyone accepts (Te). However Ti can go after the square and propose usages. Those usages may be objectively acceptable in some way, but the acceptance of which among a dozen choices will be subjective.
Correct.
The selection process in the case of Ti can invoke object properties into consideration, but at its root, it is directed by subjective criteria. It is its starting point.
 

ยท
Registered
INTJ8w9โญโญโญโญโญ๐ŸŒ€๐Ÿ’œ๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ’™๐Ÿ’š๐Ÿค๐Ÿ’›๐Ÿงก๐Ÿงกโค๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ตั•ฯƒฯ…โ„“๐”๐‘๐ƒ๐ˆ๐€๐๐’โ™กโšโ›“๐Ÿชแ’แ‘Œแ”•T แ—ชO YOแ‘Œแ–‡ แ—ทEแ”•T!
Joined
ยท
1,377 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 · (Edited)
Apologies for the language, but this horseshit has nothing to do with psychological types. It may be how "Objective Personality" defines things, "corrupting" terminology even more, but that is of no use to anyone.
Why do you think Jungian personality theory is the sole genuine kind of personality measurement? Why can't objective personality theory be used as an measure?

Why do you only trust Jungian theory? :)
 

ยท
Registered
INTJ8w9โญโญโญโญโญ๐ŸŒ€๐Ÿ’œ๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ’™๐Ÿ’š๐Ÿค๐Ÿ’›๐Ÿงก๐Ÿงกโค๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ตั•ฯƒฯ…โ„“๐”๐‘๐ƒ๐ˆ๐€๐๐’โ™กโšโ›“๐Ÿชแ’แ‘Œแ”•T แ—ชO YOแ‘Œแ–‡ แ—ทEแ”•T!
Joined
ยท
1,377 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 · (Edited)
Question: Assuming you are an INTJ, you are a Te user. What brought you to post such a favorable Ti message? (This is my Fe speaking which I'm aware of.) I compliment you for stepping out of a Te frame ... or did you since you copied (LOL) a link!

Here is an addition to Myers-Briggs theory. There is another dimension besides the S/N, F/T, P/J one. That is one of developed action. A user may not have developed their favorite function. They may not have developed their "shadow" function. This is not just overlooked. It's not part of the Myers-Briggs theory unless I've missed it.

Apply to Ti versus Te. Te works with the outside world not developing theory. They get outside world things done though not necessarily in the best way. Ti works levels down, spending their energy on that which means they may never finish, thus failing to develop a working object at all.
Yeah, I'm looking for reliable information on this concept, and what I've discovered is that Ti-Fe users are more intellectual;smarter than Te users, on the other hand Te-Fi users are more goal oriented, more rational than Ti users. As a result, both functions complement one another. :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fru2

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
Why do you think Jungian personality theory the sole genuine kind of personality measurement? Why can't objective personality theory be an accurate measure?
Why do you only trust Jungian theory?
My trust in the Jungian theory is merely a consequence of the pursuit of understanding psychological processes.
I don't have any personal attachment to it. More accurate/useful theory will be internalized right in the moment of its discovery.

Why everything else gets rejected?
Because these other theories are inferior and don't add anything useful.
Most of them are trying to base themselves on Jung's works. Yet, in the course of their development, they end up misinterpreting his ideas producing something intrinsically different but not as insightful.

There are many reasons why OPT specifically isn't doing its job. I already talked about them, even in one of your threads.
It is a scam and is inherently inferior in its design/methods even to MBTI.

They make up stuff on the fly producing 512 bullshit types that create the illusion within the minds of misinformed people that it is fruits of real science, playing on the word "objective" and saying so in their "manifesto", while it is just fraudulence that has nothing to do with science, fuelled only by the usual cognitive biases.

Not only do they use scam bullshit tactics to lure more people in. Just the perspective that they are offering by itself technically is extremely primitive, shallow, and useless.
 

ยท
Registered
INTJ8w9โญโญโญโญโญ๐ŸŒ€๐Ÿ’œ๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ’™๐Ÿ’š๐Ÿค๐Ÿ’›๐Ÿงก๐Ÿงกโค๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ตั•ฯƒฯ…โ„“๐”๐‘๐ƒ๐ˆ๐€๐๐’โ™กโšโ›“๐Ÿชแ’แ‘Œแ”•T แ—ชO YOแ‘Œแ–‡ แ—ทEแ”•T!
Joined
ยท
1,377 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
My trust in the Jungian theory is merely a consequence of the pursuit of understanding psychological processes.
I don't have any personal attachment to it. More accurate/useful theory will be internalized right in the moment of its discovery.

Why everything else gets rejected?
Because these other theories are inferior and don't add anything useful.
Most of them are trying to base themselves on Jung's works. Yet, in the course of their development, they end up misinterpreting his ideas producing something intrinsically different but not as insightful.

There are many reasons why OPT specifically isn't doing its job. I already talked about them, even in one of your threads.
It is a scam and is inherently inferior in its design/methods even to MBTI.

They make up stuff on the fly producing 512 bullshit types that create the illusion within the minds of misinformed people that it is fruits of real science, playing on the word "objective" and saying so in their "manifesto", while it is just fraudulence that has nothing to do with science, fuelled only by the usual cognitive biases.

Not only do they use scam bullshit tactics to lure more people in. Just the perspective that they are offering by itself technically is extremely primitive, shallow, and useless.
Thanks for the effort, You said OPT is inferior to Jungian theory, why do you think objective personality theory is inferior to the Jungian theory? How do you know the 512 types is inaccurate? How do you know they made it up on the fly and rapidly? :)

Why does every personality theory have to be in line with Jungian theory? Why can't it be different? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allostasis

ยท
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
ยท
16,943 Posts
Thinking is thinkingโ€ฆ more curious a question is what is an โ€œunthoughtโ€?
Could it be it is intuition or feeling?
 
  • Like
Reactions: X10E8

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
why do you think objective personality theory is inferior to the Jungian theory
We can take what you just shared recently as an example :

Yeah, Ti doms, who have an internal logic analysing function and can think deeply, have been the most forerunners of technology and inventions.

Te doms can't think for themselves, so they frequently have to read books or collect and obsorb external information. Te users, like Fe users who obsorbs Fi, Te users obsorb the thinking of Ti users.

Fe users, unlike Fi users, do not have an internal feeling reaction analyser, which makes them less neurotic and causes them to mirror Fi users.

Te users will mirror the Ti user, giving the impression that the Te user is smarter, yet it is the Ti user and not the Te users who is intelligent.

Unlike Te users Ti users don't need to take notes to logically understand something, they can understand it in their own unique way. Most technologies have been developed and designed by Ti users.

Te users can understand and obsorb all that information but they can't think for themselves until they have absorbed a lot from the Ti users around them, However, Te users are extremely sensitive to being labelled dumb, so they put on a show of intelligence to avoid being labelled as such.

The Fears of the Extraverted Thinker Te:
โ€œYouโ€™re weak.โ€
โ€œYouโ€™re incompetent.โ€
โ€Youโ€™re stupid.โ€
โ€œYou talk nonsense.โ€
โ€œYou donโ€™t know what youโ€™re talking about.โ€

Wish:
โ€œYouโ€™re strong and bold.โ€
โ€œYou can do this and youโ€™ll get it done.โ€
โ€œYouโ€™re smart.โ€
โ€œYou make sense.โ€
โ€œYou speak firmly and with confidence. You must know very well what youโ€™re talking about.โ€

The fears of the Introverted Thinker (Ti):
โ€œYouโ€™re believing lies.โ€
โ€œYouโ€™re lying.โ€
โ€œYouโ€™re incoherent.โ€
โ€œYouโ€™re inconsistent and defective.โ€
โ€œPieces are missing. You are hiding something from me.โ€

Wish:
โ€œYouโ€™re discerning.โ€
โ€œYouโ€™re truthful.โ€
โ€œYouโ€™re brilliant.โ€
โ€œYouโ€™re original and innovative.โ€
โ€œYouโ€™re highly proficient at describing and explaining concepts.โ€

Going from this, anyone who can think for themselves is a Ti user basically, while the rest is just brainless knowledge encyclopedias, as extraverted thinking somehow isn't thinking but just "rote memorization". How is that supposed to make sense?

It is a false, ridiculous dichotomy that doesn't reflect any real distinctions between people's personalities.
All functional humans think/process their information by their own brains. Even when you are just learning, you can't assimilate information without understanding it, unless it is just pure useless memorization.
Nor does inclination to being informed about your topics means that you are incapable of forming your own conclusions. Or being very shallow at doing that.
It is nonsense.

Watch this video that you posted. They call themselves stupid and annoyed by complex things.
I think they are just projecting their own shortcomings onto all other "Te" users lmao (not even understanding what that is supposed to mean)
In no way "real" Te makes you shallow in your thinking or annoyed by complexity. Or concerned about some "tribe needs"(what century they are from?)

I love investing a lot of time into studying or thinking about something. I could invest several weeks into optimizing algorithms even when that had no observable practical consequences.
Or breaking apart topics to the current limits of science even when that wasn't required in the context of the objectives that I set for myself.
I enjoy being intellectually stimulated. I am never annoyed or intimidated by the complexities.
And most of the time I can't care less about what others think.

I suppose that should make me Ti according to OPS
Yet, there are noticeable differences in the psychological character of my thought processes compared to introverted thinkers.
And no, they never manifest as a difference in creativity, depth, or anything as superficial.

But OPS is incapable of describing or even noticing them. It was made by stupid people who look at things very shallowly (which they admitted themselves)
But Jung can do that. And just from my own practical experiences, I can see what he observed himself, similar patterns that underlie the psychologies of humans.

How do you know the 512 types is inaccurate? How do you know they made it up on the fly and rapidly? :)
From how pathetic their framework is, as should be already evident. These "512 types" is the consequence of the fact that their fundamentals are worthless.
So they have to invoke these "jumpers", "loopers", "blasters", "double feminine consumers", animal stacks, and all the other atrocities that supposedly reflect something about the world.

It is a very similar cursed pattern that can be seen in software development, where mediocre programmers add a lot of over-specific ad-hoc code constructs to cover all the functional requirements, while not thinking through the structure/architecture at all.
You end up with a lot of poorly designed code with no architecture behind it. As there is no actual theory behind OPS.

But at the end of the day, it is the theory that really matters to the individuals in this context. Not the "functional requirements", not the fully specified type.
You can't glean anything about yourself from their types because there is no theory underneath it.
And there is no way to fix that unless they will start actually doing psychoanalysis instead of just statistics (assuming they are even doing), you can't escape that.

It is also very similar to the most popular attempts at creating AI, statistical approximation of the high-level cognitive functions without the actual cognition/understanding.
In this case, no amount of typed people or additional terms will result in the understanding of the psyche. It is futile.
 

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
Here is how it might follow. I might not want to do a Ti on "warm." The result will be no result.

If a Te person presents a hot stove as warm and a rocket exhaust as warm, I won't be enlightened. I will want to know why both are warm even if I believe both are warm. Without doing Ti, I observe those examples as ugly because warm is left hanging. No relationship is presented. There is no relationship. After thinking about it a while I can to a Ti proposal as to why both are warm. Then the Te person can check the proposal out.
Being object-driven doesn't imply that you are going to use real concrete objects to conduct your reasoning, btw.
It doesn't compete with abstract, idealistic reasoning. Both can derive generalized principles behind what it means for something to be "warm". Neither is about "checking things out".

BTW can either of you define "thinking"? I once saw a seminar of Ph.D.s where they couldn't do it. That set me to try to nail them to the wall. Sometimes Ph.D.s just can't cut the mustard.
I have the same reaction to this question as in


What you are specifically trying to understand and on what level?
There are many ways to represent thinking.

Thinking is the process of the syntactic composition of cognitive representations, where the "syntax"(laws of reasoning) and specifications for these "representations" are defined by the architecture of cognition/brain.
 

ยท
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
ยท
16,943 Posts
I've discovered is that Ti-Fe users are more intellectual;smarter than Te users, on the other hand Te-Fi users are more goal oriented, more rational than Ti users.
I would put it this way. Ti-Fe users are more analytical in an unfocused way unless provoked. Te-Fi users are more focused. Smartness (intelligence is a different variable). I know Te users who are far more intelligent in the application sense than I am. I am able to notice their limitations though where they are interested in application and prefer to look away from limitations. I will respect a Te user who is able to look at limitations, but hate them if they are not. Such "hatred" should it occur is not intelligent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: X10E8

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
It is funny how there is a statement "Te doms can't think for themselves" and then there is Aristotle, an ENTJ, who basically invented formal logic. Among millions of other things.
 

ยท
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
ยท
16,943 Posts
Being object-driven doesn't imply that you are going to use real concrete objects to conduct your reasoning, btw.
It doesn't compete with abstract, idealistic reasoning. Both can derive generalized principles behind what it means for something to be "warm". Neither is about "checking things out".
This may not be a direct reply to what you said. I would put it this way. What you call "abstract, idealistic reasoning", I would call working with generalizations. "Checking things out".is working with specifics with the attempt to either make generalizations clear or to look for exceptions to those generalizations. I value specifics (Si) because they are a challenge to break generalizations.

There are many ways to represent thinking.
Yes. Feynman is certainly doing thinking/ reasoning here.

What you are specifically trying to understand and on what level?
Glad you asked. The level I'm after is the most basic one I can think of, right at the bottom foundation. What it should do is show why thinking is different from its partner, feeling. Both thinking and feeling are the two "judgmental" cognitive functions ... as opposed to the perception functions of sensation and intuition if I may use those terms.

I have been writing an essay on the definition and foundation of consciousness. In Section 6 I define feeling and thinking in their foundational aspect (the other two functions also). I have not been working on this essay for two reasons. One, it requires concentration and two, I have no one to talk to about it. I can throw the table of contents at you if you are interested.
 

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
This may not be a direct reply to what you said. I would put it this way. What you call "abstract, idealistic reasoning", I would call working with generalizations. "Checking things out".is working with specifics with the attempt to either make generalizations clear or to look for exceptions to those generalizations.
Well, generalizations can be synonymous with abstractions, yes. You create a category by substituting the specific quality of an object with a set of all its possible values so that all variations with respect to it can be contained. A generalization of such generalization will continue this process, replacing another quality with the set that contains all of them until you arrive at an ultimate generalization that contains everything but focuses on nothing.
I value specifics (Si) because they are a challenge to break generalizations.
Si isn't specifics, although I understand where that comes from.
The level I'm after is the most basic one I can think of, right at the bottom foundation.
Foundation of what? Reality? How do you know when you reached this foundation?
What it should do is show why thinking is different from its partner, feeling.
A definition that I gave already contains elements distinct from those used by the feeling process.
It isn't syntactic in nature, it doesn't manipulate mental representations according to the laws of reasoning.
It is a feedback loop that responds to input and you can only deal with its output that represents "emotional resonance"/correspondence with the given object.

There is no manipulation, no control over the output, only a continuous search for a "perfect" input that will give the most intensity.
The level of consciousness over this function gives insight into how the equation is defined and how it processes objects, but not the control over this process.

I have been writing an essay on the definition and foundation of consciousness. In Section 6 I define feeling and thinking in their foundational aspect (the other two functions also). I have not been working on this essay for two reasons. One, it requires concentration and two, I have no one to talk to about it. I can throw the table of contents at you if you are interested.
It didn't work well the last time. I like making my own definitions too.
 

ยท
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
ยท
16,943 Posts
@X10E8 @Allostasis Here are some comments on your interesting exchanges.
Well, generalizations can be synonymous with abstractions, yes. You create a category by substituting the specific quality of an object with a set of all its possible values so that all variations with respect to it can be contained. A generalization of such generalization will continue this process, replacing another quality with the set that contains all of them until you arrive at an ultimate generalization that contains everything but focuses on nothing.
Not sure what you said here. Focuses on nothing? Suppose I visit dog kennel and say "these are all dogs." I have made a generalization about each animal. They all belong to a class for which an abstraction of a quality can be made.

Si isn't specifics, although I understand where that comes from.
I suppose I could do better about the "specifics" thing. The "S" part is about the senses. Sensation is a specific direct experience unlike intuition which is derived.

Foundation of what? Reality? How do you know when you reached this foundation?
Roughly, the point at which one need not do further analysis. If chemistry is the topic, molecules need further analysis. The foundation of complex molecules are atoms. I don't bother with the foundation of atoms. Atom is good enough if chemistry is the topic.

If house is the topic, the foundation is those concrete blocks upon which the basement lies. The concrete layout is good enough to be called the foundation.

A definition that I gave already contains elements distinct from those used by the feeling process.
If I recall, you gave qualities in the thinking process. I want something that can relate thinking and feeling that clinches the difference. If I do Ti, I won't know if I can get at the foundational difference until I get there anymore than I will know if I can grasp chemistry without a lot of experimental research or know if my house can be built without it sinking sideways into the ground.

In my essay (without looking it up), I recall fooling around with thinking and feeling and being uncomfortable with traditional descriptions. How could they possibly be compared on an equal level? Then I thought of something and threw out those descriptions.

The body has a dynamic beside static perception. It operates dynamically with brain oversight. It has "flow." I will call our experience of this flow, "feeling." Feelings like fondness or rage are continuous. They flow. Thinking is different. It jumps. The brain goes after something and then something else. It compares. This is discontinuous, unlike flow. This discontinuous function is the foundation of thinking. If one looks at logic functions, you will find A and B, or A and not A. One jumps from one perception to another. This is the foundation of thinking.

There you have it. Feeling is a flow; thinking is a jump. This describes the foundation and the difference. The difference is continuity versus discontinuity. If I didn't have a math backgound, I doubt if I would have thought of it. Those Ph.D.s who can't define thinking can go (*#(@$% themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: X10E8

ยท
Registered
INTJ8w9โญโญโญโญโญ๐ŸŒ€๐Ÿ’œ๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ’™๐Ÿ’š๐Ÿค๐Ÿ’›๐Ÿงก๐Ÿงกโค๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ตั•ฯƒฯ…โ„“๐”๐‘๐ƒ๐ˆ๐€๐๐’โ™กโšโ›“๐Ÿชแ’แ‘Œแ”•T แ—ชO YOแ‘Œแ–‡ แ—ทEแ”•T!
Joined
ยท
1,377 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 · (Edited)
I think these terms define the cognitive functions quite well.

Colorfulness Font Line Technology Screenshot

๏ฟผ
Font Material property Parallel Screenshot Paper

Font Material property Screenshot Parallel Document
 

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
@X10E8 @Allostasis Here are some comments on your interesting exchanges.

Not sure what you said here. Focuses on nothing? Suppose I visit dog kennel and say "these are all dogs." I have made a generalization about each animal. They all belong to a class for which an abstraction of a quality can be made.
I meant that focus on nothing happens only for the ultimate generalization of everything.

If I recall, you gave qualities in the thinking process. I want something that can relate thinking and feeling that clinches the difference. If I do Ti, I won't know if I can get at the foundational difference
I got the impression that you didn't even try to read what I wrote.
This syntactic composition of (separate) representations already implies discontinuity in its process, because these representations are necessary discrete elements.
The feedback loop, like an analog process, continuously maps the input to the output, which is emotional resonance in this case.

Those Ph.D.s who can't define thinking can go (*#(@$% themselves.
That seems a bit too personal. Perhaps you tried to approach this issue with a completely different goals in mind, because the distinction that was highlighted can't serve as a foundation alone.
It is possible to imagine "flowing" kind of thinking, even if that isn't how it is usually executed/observed. Continuity doesn't seem to be an essential, defining property I think.

What is more important is the reason why and how these jumps occur. It wouldn't make sense to call random bouncing between various representations as a "thinking".
 

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts

ยท
Registered
INTJ8w9โญโญโญโญโญ๐ŸŒ€๐Ÿ’œ๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ’™๐Ÿ’š๐Ÿค๐Ÿ’›๐Ÿงก๐Ÿงกโค๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ตั•ฯƒฯ…โ„“๐”๐‘๐ƒ๐ˆ๐€๐๐’โ™กโšโ›“๐Ÿชแ’แ‘Œแ”•T แ—ชO YOแ‘Œแ–‡ แ—ทEแ”•T!
Joined
ยท
1,377 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 · (Edited)
Still unnecessarily narrow representation, I would say, even if marginally better than what was presented by previous sources.
It's an attempt to approximate the matter while not even trying to pierce its heart. Such an approach can't be qualified as a definition.
I see there's a squabble between us two NTJs, lol, and it's because we have opposing perspectives on the same things.

This probably explains why......

The Ni-Te attitude;
"I am right, therefore..."


The way one Ni user interprets something may differ from the way another Ni dom interprets it.

Ni can be stubborn, like Ti, can be passionate about its own viewpoints and insights, and is prone to dismiss anybody else's viewpoints other than her own, particularly if she/he is an unhealthy Ni user. :)

An example of this would be when you rushed to the conclusion that the animal stack was inaccurate or that the 512 personality kinds were incorrect. There are well over 16 different personality types in the world. As a result, it would be a mistake to presume that the world is divided into only sixteen personality types; there are many different sorts of people, and not everyone falls into the MBTI's sixteen personality categories.

When a Ni user, particularly an unhealthy Ni user, thinks anything to be true, it's quite probable that they'll ignore anyone else's perspectives and understandings of concepts, even if they're also true. ๏ฟผ:)
___

So far our conversations have been like this;

#You believe OPT is false.

#I believe OPT is generally correct.

#I agree with the cognitive function definitions.

#You don't agree with the cognitive function definitions.

You stated that you disagree with cognitive function definitions, so what would you consider a cognitive function definition?
 

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
I see there's a squabble between us two NTJs, lol, and it's because we have opposing perspectives on the same things. :)
This probably explains why......

The Ni-Te attitude;
"I am right, therefore..."


So far our conversations have been like this;

#You believe OPT is false.

#I believe OPT is generally correct.

#I agree with the cognitive function definitions.

:)
#You don't agree with the cognitive function definitions.
You stated that you disagree with cognitive function definitions, so what would you consider a cognitive function definition?
Maybe that reflects your approach, but I don't think it is fair to compare it to mine.
I don't just "believe" that OPT is false. I explained my position through arguments and can elaborate if needed.
I don't just "disagree" with cognitive function definitions. Reasons behind disagreements and alternative more efficient solutions were provided as well.

When a Ni user, particularly an unhealthy Ni user, thinks anything to be true, it's quite probable that they'll ignore anyone else's perspectives and understandings of concepts, even if they're also true.
There is a difference between reasoned rejection and just ignoring. Contrary perspectives and concepts were considered.
I am impartial to my position. It is accepted simply because there are no arguments against it.
Or you are describing your local conflict?
 

ยท
Registered
INTJ8w9โญโญโญโญโญ๐ŸŒ€๐Ÿ’œ๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ–ค๐Ÿ’™๐Ÿ’š๐Ÿค๐Ÿ’›๐Ÿงก๐Ÿงกโค๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ตั•ฯƒฯ…โ„“๐”๐‘๐ƒ๐ˆ๐€๐๐’โ™กโšโ›“๐Ÿชแ’แ‘Œแ”•T แ—ชO YOแ‘Œแ–‡ แ—ทEแ”•T!
Joined
ยท
1,377 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 · (Edited)
Maybe that reflects your approach, but I don't think it is fair to compare it to mine.
I don't just "believe" that OPT is false. I explained my position through arguments and can elaborate if needed.
I don't just "disagree" with cognitive function definitions. Reasons behind disagreements and alternative more efficient solutions were provided as well.


There is a difference between reasoned rejection and just ignoring. Contrary perspectives and concepts were considered.
I am impartial to my position. It is accepted simply because there are no arguments against it.
Or you are describing your local conflict?
Sure you have reasons why you think OPT is false, but I also have reasons why I think OPT is probably generally correct.

And again,:) the way one Ni user interprets and sees something may differ from the way another Ni dom sees and interprets their impressions of a certain experience.

Ni can be stubborn, like Ti, can be passionate about its own viewpoints and insights, and is prone to dismiss anybody else's viewpoints other than her own, particularly if she/he is an unhealthy Ni user. :)

An example of this would be when you rushed to the conclusion that the animal stack was inaccurate or that the 512 personality kinds were incorrect. There are well over 16 different personality types in the world. As a result, it would be a mistake to presume that the world is divided into only sixteen personality types; there are many different sorts of people, and not everyone falls into the MBTI's sixteen personality categories. Id say no rushed decisions should be made in regards of OPT theory until fully tested. :)
 
21 - 40 of 84 Posts
Top