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%
41 - 60 of 84 Posts

ยท
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
ยท
16,943 Posts
Why do I remember you as INTJ? Is my memory faulty?

I got the impression that you didn't even try to read what I wrote.
Impression? Ni is not my strong suit. You have no way of knowing what MY impression was. Please name what you are referring to as you wrote a lot of things. This is an xNTJ/ INTP clash. We now branch into two topics. One is this "clash" and the other is the feeling/thinking topic we are discussing. That makes it interesting, but will it lead to stress?

I can only guess at what you wrote. I'll try this:
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.
Comment: That is high level, not foundational or formal. I read it as loaded with Ni, too complex. I am after basics which speaks in simpler language.

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.
Also high level. "Implies" is an Ni concept. "representations" to whom? I'm not being precise here but haven't we already said object and subject are interchangeable ... well not interchangeable but depend on one's perspective? I am after basics if they are unambiguous in meaning. Continuous and separated are basic terms because they (I assume) tare universally understood.

That seems a bit too personal.
It IS personal. Those PhDs get status. I get nothing as I haven't published anything. I failed to get a PhD and was in the wrong field anyway.

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.
You didn't name what I highlighted. I failed to highlight flow and jump = continuous and discontinuous.

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".
Can you elaborate any? Don't worry if you don't care to. Thinking can flow but that is a motivated feeling thing and is not basic. Continuity for feeling you mean? I'm guessing it is. Hormonal. Also humans, unlike machines, have something called will, desire, motivation.

BTW on the topic of type clash. xNTJs want things done. High level expression is better for that. Low level foundations are more for xNTPs who care about the long run.
 

ยท
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
ยท
16,943 Posts
Why does every personality theory have to be in line with Jungian theory? Why can't it be different?
Maybe that reflects your approach, but I don't think it is fair to compare it to mine.
Here is personality theory (not mine): There are two types of people. Those who observe. Those who judge. Do you like this theory? It is simpler than the other ones.

Here is another theory, not about personality. Any theme can be divided/ analyzed in many ways. Here is an illustration:

A room can be divided ...
1. N and S
2. E and W
3. E, S, W, N quadrants
4. Things on the wall; things inside the walls
5. Solids, liquids and gases
6. Dark colors and light colors
7. Animate beings and inanimate objects
8. High and low
9. Colors of the rainbow
10. Cool areas and warmer areas
11. Functional things and decorative things

Some of these divisions are useful for some purposes and some are not, yet all can describe a room. Same with personality theories.
 

ยท
Registered
Joined
ยท
6,665 Posts
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
It's all relative to comparison. Ties in with one key to reframing...particularly in things which have no objective viewpoint whatsoever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: X10E8

ยท
Registered
Nemophilist
Joined
ยท
2,508 Posts
It's all relative to comparison. Ties in with one key to reframing...particularly in things which have no objective viewpoint whatsoever.
Except for agreement on relative status.

Warm = higher temp than another thing/expected/average (ref point)

Cool = lower temp than another thing/expected/average (ref point)

The type of reference point changes depending on application. In addition, while originating from sensory information, it can be abstracted to communicate experiential themes that invoke a similar sensation.

For instance, โ€œHexcoder is super cool.โ€

Now that we have a definition of no relativistic concern, it is wide open for merciless scrutiny.
 
  • 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 · #45 · (Edited)
It's all relative to comparison. Ties in with one key to reframing...particularly in things which have no objective viewpoint whatsoever.
Except for A.I appear to be approaching objective viewpoints.

The majority of A.Is are created by high Ti users. It is no surprise and we will undoubtedly have A.I. that is 10,000 times smarter than humans.



From 2001 onward, A.I is developing rapidly, thanks to Ti users.
Light Astronomical object Font Science Screenshot

World Astronomical object Font Science Screenshot


"Just make sure you don't create ultron again."
Atmosphere World Liquid Astronomical object Art

Sky Building Skyscraper World Tower

Shooter game Biome Cg artwork Video game software Action-adventure game

World Art Paint Line Wall

 
 

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
@X10E8
but I also have reasons why I think OPT is probably generally correct.
Never heard of them.

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.
Yes. I might even say that it is true in any typology that defines introverted intuition.
But so what, should this be an excuse to not seek consensus/resolution?

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.
This isn't the conclusion to which I "rushed".
The problem isn't that the animal stacks are "inaccurate" or that there are too many types.
My point is that these 512 types are meaningless when underlying theory states that e.g. Te means that you are brainless and can only memorize but not think for yourself. And the similar nonsense for any other function.

All additional concepts around such a basis won't eliminate this inherent ever-present shallowness, because they rely on it.
You will never be able to understand or explain your psychological processes when there is no theory behind it at all and just statistics.

Id say no rushed decisions should be made in regards of OPT theory until fully tested. :)
Testing isn't needed in the context of what I am saying. We already can "test" this theoretical framework with our minds (or rather the lack of it in the case of OPT).
 

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
Why do I remember you as INTJ? Is my memory faulty?
It is not.

Impression? Ni is not my strong suit. You have no way of knowing what MY impression was. Please name what you are referring to as you wrote a lot of things.
You seem to interpret words too literally.
I am referring to the fact that your suggestion highlights the things that were already inherent to my definitions.
It doesn't indicate lack of Ni, but a lack of effort/attention to process the results that you yourself requested btw.

This is an xNTJ/ INTP clash.
It is, as you are looking for something that perfectly matches this subjective image/criteria/form that you preconceived and seemingly rejecting everything else.
Even when the rejected input can be reconfigured to conform subjective specifications.

but will it lead to stress?
Not sure why it has to.

>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.
Comment: That is high level, not foundational or formal. I read it as loaded with Ni, too complex. I am after basics which speaks in simpler language.
You can't explain thinking as a mere sequence of jumps/interruptions between something.

If definition/model is any good, then you should be able to implement or observe its object.
And all other definitions that overlap in their objects must form a coherent categorical hierarchy.

Violation of that would imply orthogonal systems that can't be immediately reconciled, similar to how there are multiple definitions for psychological functions which can't be used interchangeably without recognizing the difference and abstracting underlying meanings into holistic meta-perspective that takes into account all hierarchies.

There is little Ni in it. More simple version :
Thinking is an act of transformation of a set of object representations into another set according to certain laws of transformation(reasoning).
"Transformation" is the "jump".

Also high level. "Implies" is an Ni concept.
"implies" wasn't a part of the definition and something that every human being is capable of.
Unless you insist on intentionally limiting yourself to these stupid boxes that aren't related to the cognition, to psychology or anything.

"representations" to whom?
To the perceptor which can be the agent of thinking itself, but not necessarily.

I'm not being precise here but haven't we already said object and subject are interchangeable ... well not interchangeable but depend on one's perspective?
Subjective representation of an object is an object by itself which can be interpreted into another representation.
At each step information is assimilated into the subject by "completing" it with his specifics.

Example:
If emotion is the object, then it's verbal description is it's representation that will inevitably reflect something that isn't inherent to the emotion but specific to the subject.
Same emotion will have multiple descriptions from various different people.

I am after basics if they are unambiguous in meaning. Continuous and separated are basic terms because they (I assume) tare universally understood.
These terms exist as basic properties for millions of other definitions that have nothing to do with thinking itself.
It's like you defined a complex chemical compound through one hydrogen atom present in it but shared by millions of other compounds.

It IS personal. Those PhDs get status. I get nothing as I haven't published anything. I failed to get a PhD and was in the wrong field anyway.
But how it is their fault. Or how their inability to conform to your subjective criteria invalidates their contributions?

You didn't name what I highlighted. I failed to highlight flow and jump = continuous and discontinuous.
flow and jump = continuous and discontinuous.
This is what I already implied, it is just different words for the same thing.

Can you elaborate any? Don't worry if you don't care to. Thinking can flow but that is a motivated feeling thing and is not basic. Continuity for feeling you mean? I'm guessing it is. Hormonal. Also humans, unlike machines, have something called will, desire, motivation.
Conversation is already a bit overloaded I think at this point.

BTW on the topic of type clash. xNTJs want things done. High level expression is better for that. Low level foundations are more for xNTPs who care about the long run.
Wrong. Well, it is "correct" technically if you stick by these same limiting stupid definitions that aren't rooted in psychological analysis.
 

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 · #49 · (Edited)

ยท
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
ยท
16,943 Posts
You seem to interpret words too literally.
People, including me, can swing both ways.

Thinking is an act of transformation of a set of object representations into another set according to certain laws of transformation(reasoning).
"Transformation" is the "jump".
What I was interested in was the feeling/ thinking difference. Have I nailed it? One could paraphrase what you said and say,
Feeling is an act of continuous movement of a set of object representations into another set according to certain laws of movement.

You said, "according to certain laws of reasoning (transformation)." What laws? There are no laws. For example, a child could jump from observing a mouse and a mouse trap and reason the mouse is the greater danger. A common reasoning is if A implies B, then B implies A. This is erroneious reasoning, but it is still reasoning. Correct reasoning is an advanced learning process that can take years to develop.

@Eric B . In one of your threads on cognitive functions you expressed a wish to simplify functions. I don't recall where that was but I remember you wished it.

You can't explain thinking as a mere sequence of jumps/interruptions between something.
I didn't want to explain thinking. Thinking is an advanced process involving observation, motivation (feeling) and a giant brain lower animals lack. I wanted to define the foundation of thinking as opposed to feeling. Thinking is not just a reaction to an observation, but a comparison of two observations (a jump). It is a prima tool human beings have that only a few lower animals can perform. Human beings also possess and use a vast repertoire of experience lower animals haven't the brain neurology to accumulate.

You said some other things. Have I failed to reply to any of them should you so wish?

But how it is their fault. Or how their inability to conform to your subjective criteria invalidates their contributions?
It's not their fault (PhDs). It's my fault and the fault of fate.

Conversation is already a bit overloaded I think at this point.
Good point!

Wrong. Well, it is "correct" technically if you stick by these same limiting stupid definitions that aren't rooted in psychological analysis.
I like to think of this interchange as aimed at relieving some of the stupidity, lol.
 

ยท
Registered
Nemophilist
Joined
ยท
2,508 Posts
What I was interested in was the feeling/ thinking difference.

I didn't want to explain thinking. Thinking is an advanced process involving observation, motivation (feeling) and a giant brain lower animals lack. I wanted to define the foundation of thinking as opposed to feeling.
If you're interested in a foundation, wouldn't that foundation be built on shared characteristics rather the differences? What is a foundation of difference? I'm struggling to figure out what you mean by that, or how you can make a comparison between two things without any working explanation of each of them individually.

Here is how Jung defined thinking and feeling, which Iโ€™m quoting because it is the inspiration for current cognitive function theories discussed. I bolded the parts where he explains the unique aspects of each and how they relate to each other. He introduces quite a bit of terminology that I think makes it easier to navigate distinctions between functions. Of course, this is not all he had to say on the topic, just a small summary from his Definitions in Psychological Types. Feel free to see it as something to build off, use, contest, ignore, whatever your preference.

Feeling.
I count feeling among the four basic psychological functions. I am unable to support the psychological school that considers feeling a secondary phenomenon dependent on "representations" or sensations, but in company with Hoffding, Wundt, Lehmann, Kulpe, Baldwin, and others, I regard it as an independent function sui generis.
Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection ("like" or "dislike"). The process can also appear isolated, as it were in the form of a "mood," regardless of the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations. The mood may be causally related to earlier conscious contents, though not necessarily so, since, as psychopathology amply proves, it may equally well arise from unconscious contents. But even a mood, whether it be a general or only a partial feeling, implies a valuation; not of one definite, individual conscious content, but of the whole conscious situation at the moment, and, once again, with special reference to the question of acceptance or rejection.
Feeling, therefore, is an entirely subjective process, which may be in every respect independent of external stimuli, though it allies itself with every sensation. Even an "indifferent" sensation possesses a feeling-tone, namely that of indifference, which again expresses some sort of valuation. Hence feeling is a kind of judgement, differing from intellectual judgement in that its aim is not to establish conceptual relations but to set up a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection. Valuation by feeling extends to every content of consciousness, of whatever kind it may be. When the intensity of feeling increases, it turns into an affect, i.e., a feeling-state accompanied by marked physical innervations. Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process.
Ordinary, "simple" feeling is concrete, that is, it is mixed up with other functional elements, more particularly with sensations. In this case we can call it affective or, as I have done in this book, feeling-sensation, by which I mean an almost inseparable amalgam of feeling and sensation elements. This characteristic amalgamation is found wherever feeling is still an undifferentiated function, and is most evident in the psyche of a neurotic with differentiated thinking. Although feeling is, in itself, an independent function, it can easily become dependent on another function - thinking, for instance; it is then a mere concomitant of thinking, and is not repressed only in so far as it accommodates itself to the thinking processes.
It is important to distinguish abstract feeling from ordinary concrete feeling. Just as the abstract concept (v. Thinking) abolishes the differences between things it apprehends, abstract feeling rises above the differences of the individual contents it evaluates, and produces a "mood" or feeling-state which embraces the different individual valuations and thereby abolishes them. In the same way that thinking organizes the contents of consciousness under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value. The more concrete it is, the more subjective and personal is the value conferred upon them; but the more abstract it is, the more universal and objective the value will be. Just as a completely abstract concept no longer coincides with the singularity and discreteness of things, but only with their universality and non-differentiation, so completely abstract feeling no longer coincides with a particular content as its feeling-value, but with the undifferentiated totality of all contents. Feeling, like thinking, is a rational function, since values in general are assigned according to the laws of reason, just as concepts in general are formed according to these laws.
Naturally the above definitions do not give the essence of feeling - they only describe it from outside. The intellect proves incapable of formulating the real nature of feeling in conceptual terms, since thinking belongs to a category incommensurable with feeling; in fact, no basic psychological function can ever be completely expressed by another. That being so, it is possible for an intellectual definition to reproduce the specific character of feeling at all adequately. The mere classification of feelings adds nothing to an understanding of their nature, because even the most exact classification will be able to indicate only the content of feeling which the intellect can apprehend, without grasping its specific nature. Only as many classes of feelings can be discriminated as there are classes of contents that can be intellectually apprehended, but feeling per se can never be exhaustively classified because, beyond every possible class of contents accessible to the intellect, there still exist feelings which resist intellectual classification. The very notion of classification is intellectual and therefore incompatible with the nature of feeling. We must therefore be content to indicate the limits of the concept.
The nature of valuation by feeling may be compared with intellectual apperception as an apperception of value. We can distinguish active and passive apperception by feeling. Passive feeling allows itself to be attracted or excited by a particular content, which then forces the feelings of the subject to participate. Active feeling is a transfer of value form the subject; it is an intentional valuation of the content in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with the intellect. Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love. The latter would be undirected, passive feeling, as these expressions themselves show: the one is an activity, the other a passive state. Undirected feeling feeling is feeling-intuition. Strictly speaking, therefore, only active, directed feeling should be termed rational, whereas passive feeling irrational in so far as it confers values without the participation or even against the intentions of the subject. When the subject's attitude as a whole is oriented by the feeling function, we speak of a feeling type.
Thinking.
This I regard as one of the four basic psychological functions. Thinking is the psychological function which, following its own laws, brings the contents of ideation into conceptual connection with one another. It is an apperceptive activity, and a such may be divided into active and passive thinking. Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking is a mere occurrence. In the former case, I submit the contents of ideation to a voluntary act of judgement; in the latter, conceptual connections establish themselves of their own accord, and judgments are formed that may even contradict my intention. They are not consonant with my aim and therefore, for me, lack any sense of direction, although I may afterwards recognize their directedness through an act of active apperception. Active thinking, accordingly, would correspond to my concept of directed thinking. Passive thinking was inadequately described in my previous work as "fantasy thinking." Today I would call it intuitive thinking.
To my mind, a mere stringing together of ideas, such as is described by certain psychologists as associative thinking, is not thinking at all but mere ideation. The term "thinking" should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of ideas by means of a concept, in other words, to an act of judgment, no matter whether this act is intentional or not.
The capacity for directed thinking I call intellect; the capacity for passive and undirected thinking I call intellectual intuition. Further, I call directed thinking a rational function, because it arranges the contents of ideation under concepts in accordance with a rational norm of which I am conscious. Undirected thinking is in my view an irrational function, because it arranges an judges the contents of ideation by norm of which I am not conscious and therefore cannot recognize as being in accord with reason, although it came about in a way that appears to me irrational.
Thinking that is governed by feeling I do not regard as intuitive thinking, but as thinking dependent on feeling; it does not follow its own logical principle but is subordinated to the principle of feeling. In such thinking the laws of logic are only ostensibly present; in reality they are suspended in favour of the aims of feeling.
I can see some of what you're saying about thinking and feeling in here, such as "flow" suggesting "mood" and "jump" suggesting "conceptual connection", but I don't find the terms you're using to be as compelling or essential to the distinction.

What I get from this is perhaps thinking and feeling are concurrent, consistently appearing psychological phenomena that can interfere with one another because they are both rational, judging processes acting on incompatible criteria, creating the basis of opposition. This would be supported in Jung's framework when he discusses how thinking or feeling can become dependent/subordinated to one another - which is a separate condition from "undifferentiated", as between perceiving and judging.

Also, what he terms "passive thinking" or "intuitive thinking" would be similar to what you called an "unthought," and then ascribed directly to intuition or feeling. :p

This is all very abstract, but I can pretty immediately see where this framework appears "in reality". It'd take a while to compile a good body of specifics for evaluation, though.
 

ยท
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
ยท
16,943 Posts
If you're interested in a foundation, wouldn't that foundation be built on shared characteristics rather the differences? What is a foundation of difference? I'm struggling to figure out what you mean by that, or how you can make a comparison between two things without any working explanation of each of them individually.
A good question. Let me see what I can do with it. If a "foundation" is a starting point perhaps if the entity is complex, there can be several starting points. The "starting point" of the feeling/ thinking difference is continuity/ discontinuity. The starting point of what feeling/ thinking have in common is they are dynamic. Perception (sensing/ intuition) is relatively static. I know I may appear to be stealing Jung's concepts, but I say these concepts would have arrived naturally even if Jung had never existed.

Continuing with foundational concepts, one can say something just exists versus moving that existence in a direction. If I try to translate that into cognitive functions, sensing and intuition just exist without a directional judgment. When one feels or thinks there are alternative ways to feel or think about a static entity. That makes both feeling and thinking judgemental (as they say) or dynamic. Now there is an objection to this. One could say intuition, for example, could have alternatives and wish to call it judgmental, but I say no ... or I wish to separate it out and say no. Pure intuition is a direct observation and is static. That is not to say it is a correct observation of reality as intuition can be wrong just as sensing can be.

I didn't read your Jung quotes yet as I have to go. Tomorrow?
 
  • Like
Reactions: X10E8

ยท
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
ยท
16,943 Posts
I can see some of what you're saying about thinking and feeling in here, such as "flow" suggesting "mood" and "jump" suggesting "conceptual connection", but I don't find the terms you're using to be as compelling or essential to the distinction.
A quick look at your Jung quotes and your statements brings me to want to make comments. As to Jung, I think of "a boy being sent to do a man's job." Am I the boy and Jung the man? I'd like to give Jung a shot anyway ... as if he were a poster here. Are those bold words yours or his? Isn't Jung a doctor and psychiatrist and psychologist?

I am different. I have a mathematical orientation that asks for linear thinking. By that, I mean I wish to start with clear concepts and proceed linearly with any deductions. I wish to build something on a solid foundation. Jung doesn't do that. Instead he is descriptive. He throws in a lot of concepts which I see as a a story or spin or picture. Then we hope to see what he's saying. The problem with this is it gives rise to ambiguity and a need to interpret further. It isn't analytical. The approach I've used hopes to have clear starting points from which one can build upon.

First I'll address what you said according to my perspective. No. Flow isn't only mood. All feeling is a flow in the physiological bodily sense. Something is going on within the body, noticed by the brain. If it is conscious, that I call "feeling." Anger is a flow against something. Affection is a flow toward something. Fear is a flow to avoid something. I see "mood" as a flow circling around without naming what.

A jump in the most primitive sense is only a connection from one something to another. A "conceptual connection" is far advanced because concepts can be enormously complex. If I see A, that is an observation. If I see B, that is observation. If I connect the two, that is a jump because A and B are different. If I rate A as larger than B or even B is inside A, I call that "thinking." The jump rating is the foundation of thinking.

More advanced thinking might be about bad luck together with a cat crossing in front of me together with rumors I've heard. If I conclude such an act by a cat will bring bad luck, that is thinking even if feeling is involved. Later this could go unconscious and we coldly believe this is bad luck. This we can call "intuition" because we see the "fact" as a whole. No feeling. No jump because of the unity of the observation. No thinking.

Even more advanced thinking is to see an effect and seek out a cause. This is clearly a jump. However the desire to do so is not thinking. Desire is a feeling which is a flow to get somewhere.

What I get from this is perhaps thinking and feeling are concurrent, consistently appearing psychological phenomena that can interfere with one another
Thinking and feeling could interfere with each other. Normally they do not. If things are working well, they supplement each other. This is not to say we can't have more than one feeling at the same time. Then those feelings can interfere with each other. That happens all the time.

As an example I have the desire to make direct comments on Jung. I also have the desire to not make this post too long. (It is long enough.) That is both thinking and feeling ... if you think about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: X10E8

ยท
Registered
Nemophilist
Joined
ยท
2,508 Posts
I am different. I have a mathematical orientation that asks for linear thinking. By that, I mean I wish to start with clear concepts and proceed linearly with any deductions. I wish to build something on a solid foundation. Jung doesn't do that. Instead he is descriptive. He throws in a lot of concepts which I see as a a story or spin or picture. Then we hope to see what he's saying. The problem with this is it gives rise to ambiguity and a need to interpret further. It isn't analytical. The approach I've used hopes to have clear starting points from which one can build upon.
I'm starting to understand a bit about how you're processing things, I think. It is "inverted" in a way from how I would approach an idea. However, I admit I don't have a background in philosophy or formal logic, only a shallow knowledge of it. I'm sure someone who does have that background would be able to pinpoint what methods you are using and provide a more complete and helpful input. Due to my lack of expertise in this area, I won't be able to provide that, unfortunately. So, my goal is to provide you information/insights I have about cognitive functions themselves, and ask questions/challenge your ideas in a way that might help you clarify them.

Also, it's important to note that what Jung wrote was predicated on observation, research, study, and analysis that spanned many years. It's not like he pulled a bunch of random ideas out of thin air and jumbled them together to be difficult, or that he didn't start with some core concepts when he began his research (which is indeed analytical).

He noted that he was tempted to include how he arrived at his conclusions in more detail (although some of that can be seen by his earlier works), but found that the volume was already so large that he decided against it, for clarity. That material is available, however.

A good question. Let me see what I can do with it. If a "foundation" is a starting point perhaps if the entity is complex, there can be several starting points. The "starting point" of the feeling/ thinking difference is continuity/ discontinuity. The starting point of what feeling/ thinking have in common is they are dynamic. Perception (sensing/ intuition) is relatively static. I know I may appear to be stealing Jung's concepts, but I say these concepts would have arrived naturally even if Jung had never existed.
I would not have taken foundation to mean starting point. Those have two different meanings. If you're going to simplify a complex topic, you need to choose your words very carefully as to be unambiguous as possible, or otherwise define them so that the ambiguity is dispelled, imo.

Similarly, I kinda get what you are trying to describe with "static/dynamic" but I'm not sure that captures the prime feature of the juxtaposition. I think you realize that some when you acknowledge how intuition could be viewed as dynamic, even if you reject your own interpretation.

I have a suspicion for why this confusion might occur when you're applying it to functions. Continuity could be a feature of introversion and extraversion, instead. Introversion maintains a continuity by its focus on the subject (which is more-or-less constant due to association with self) vs extraversion which focuses on the object (is free to undergo changes/transformations). In this way, each function could be "static" or "dynamic", depending on its orientation. I still don't like those words, though, lol.

You remarked on having trouble with the terms subjective and objective, but I find them almost indispensable when discussing cognitive functions in any "foundational" sense.

Continuing with foundational concepts, one can say something just exists versus moving that existence in a direction. If I try to translate that into cognitive functions, sensing and intuition just exist without a directional judgment. When one feels or thinks there are alternative ways to feel or think about a static entity. That makes both feeling and thinking judgemental (as they say) or dynamic. Now there is an objection to this. One could say intuition, for example, could have alternatives and wish to call it judgmental, but I say no ... or I wish to separate it out and say no. Pure intuition is a direct observation and is static. That is not to say it is a correct observation of reality as intuition can be wrong just as sensing can be.
Why are you trying to translate this to cognitive functions? Is it to test your premises? If so, it seems as thorough knowledge of cognitive function theories would be necessary, but you don't seem to find that necessary?

Allostasis offered a metaphor about the "danger" of assuming the hydrogen atom characterizes an entire, complex molecule. How do you address this problem with your approach? Is your scope appropriate? Is this "simplified and linear" deductive approach really the best tool for what you're trying to conceptualize about consciousness itself? Why so?

At least, these are the questions I'd be asking myself if I were trying to advance such an ambitious undertaking!

A quick look at your Jung quotes and your statements brings me to want to make comments. As to Jung, I think of "a boy being sent to do a man's job." Am I the boy and Jung the man? I'd like to give Jung a shot anyway ... as if he were a poster here. Are those bold words yours or his? Isn't Jung a doctor and psychiatrist and psychologist?
lol. They are mine, and yes.

First I'll address what you said according to my perspective. No. Flow isn't only mood. All feeling is a flow in the physiological bodily sense. Something is going on within the body, noticed by the brain. If it is conscious, that I call "feeling." Anger is a flow against something. Affection is a flow toward something. Fear is a flow to avoid something. I see "mood" as a flow circling around without naming what.

A jump in the most primitive sense is only a connection from one something to another. A "conceptual connection" is far advanced because concepts can be enormously complex. If I see A, that is an observation. If I see B, that is observation. If I connect the two, that is a jump because A and B are different. If I rate A as larger than B or even B is inside A, I call that "thinking." The jump rating is the foundation of thinking.

More advanced thinking might be about bad luck together with a cat crossing in front of me together with rumors I've heard. If I conclude such an act by a cat will bring bad luck, that is thinking even if feeling is involved. Later this could go unconscious and we coldly believe this is bad luck. This we can call "intuition" because we see the "fact" as a whole. No feeling. No jump because of the unity of the observation. No thinking.

Even more advanced thinking is to see an effect and seek out a cause. This is clearly a jump. However the desire to do so is not thinking. Desire is a feeling which is a flow to get somewhere.
This sounds like intellectual play, rather than seeking an accurate framework for a concept. How did you arrive at these constructions?

Thinking and feeling could interfere with each other. Normally they do not. If things are working well, they supplement each other. This is not to say we can't have more than one feeling at the same time. Then those feelings can interfere with each other. That happens all the time.

As an example I have the desire to make direct comments on Jung. I also have the desire to not make this post too long. (It is long enough.) That is both thinking and feeling ... if you think about it.
Interference isn't necessarily a problem. Although, if one function is habitually repressed in some way, it might become a problem. Like I said, maybe it is more accurate to see them as potentially concurrent, where one is more conscious than the other. At least, for the purposes of type.
 

ยท
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
ยท
16,943 Posts
I'm starting to understand a bit about how you're processing things, I think. It is "inverted" in a way from how I would approach an idea. However, I admit I don't have a background in philosophy or formal logic, only a shallow knowledge of it. I'm sure someone who does have that background would be able to pinpoint what methods you are using and provide a more complete and helpful input. Due to my lack of expertise in this area, I won't be able to provide that, unfortunately. So, my goal is to provide you information/insights I have about cognitive functions themselves, and ask questions/challenge your ideas in a way that might help you clarify them.
Terrific. That would be great. If I can't get across, I am either all wet or haven't accomplished anything. "Inverted is right." My approach is bottom-up; others are top-down.

Philosophy is an inquiry. Anyone can do it. I personally haven't studied philosophers the person, only ideas I pick up here and there. I don't consciously think "formal logic." I just look for understanding.

Also, it's important to note that what Jung wrote was predicated on observation, research, study, and analysis that spanned many years. It's not like he pulled a bunch of random ideas out of thin air and jumbled them together to be difficult, or that he didn't start with some core concepts when he began his research (which is indeed analytical).
I'm sure Jung did that. Maybe when I said "analytical", formal would have been better.

I would not have taken foundation to mean starting point. Those have two different meanings.
I meant foundation to mean the starting point to build upon ... formally.

Why are you trying to translate this to cognitive functions? Is it to test your premises? If so, it seems as thorough knowledge of cognitive function theories would be necessary, but you don't seem to find that necessary
I may not be answering your question, so here is where I am coming from. I did not invent cognitive functions. They were thrown at me by Myers-Briggs and Jung. My mind goes, "Wha? What is all this? My mind is blank to start with and you are dumping alien stuff on me? In pure mathematics (my bachelors degree) one never ever takes a theorem on faith. The whole idea is the fun of seeing it proven. Proof is everything. The theorem can be pasted and framed on the wall as a work of art.

The questions for me are, why these four? Is there a fifth? What divides them up that way? Is the division sharp or gradual? I have to search for meaning. No precise definition for thinking. The meanings of intuition are ridiculously assumptive. There is no future in having an intuition. What divides feeling and sensing? Anything precise? Some say Myers-Briggs is not a science. Why not? What borderline makes it fail or succeed? These questions are where I am coming from.

Allostasis offered a metaphor about the "danger" of assuming the hydrogen atom characterizes an entire, complex molecule. How do you address this problem with your approach? Is your scope appropriate? Is this "simplified and linear" deductive approach really the best tool for what you're trying to conceptualize about consciousness itself? Why so?
Where is that @Allostasis metaphor? I don't recall seeing it to comment. As for consciousness itself, my definition is in Section 4. Section 6 only defines four different kinds of consciousness broken down after a general definition.

At least, these are the questions I'd be asking myself if I were trying to advance such an ambitious undertaking!
That's why part of me doesn't want to work on it. Overly ambitious. I can see things over my head. No reward. I've seen over two dozen references/ links to consciousness. How am I supposed to study them all to hope I've addressed every condition? Perhaps I should just put it out there as is, as I do here?
This sounds like intellectual play, rather than seeking an accurate framework for a concept. How did you arrive at these constructions?
Certainly it is intellectual play with an aim toward worthiness. Something wrong with that? Would you object if I said computer technology is based on controlling zeros and ones, on and off? I used Ti, Ne and Si, a lot of it, to form those constructions. Some time ago I went to the INTJ forum. An able person there said she thought of feeling as flow. I've lifted her idea.

Interference isn't necessarily a problem. Although, if one function is habitually repressed in some way, it might become a problem. Like I said, maybe it is more accurate to see them as potentially concurrent, where one is more conscious than the other. At least, for the purposes of type.
Want a reply to that? I have one.


.
 
  • Like
Reactions: X10E8

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
What I was interested in was the feeling/ thinking difference. Have I nailed it?
I thought you were interested in
BTW can either of you define "thinking"?
But no. I don't think the difference was fully isolated.

One could paraphrase what you said and say,
Feeling is an act of continuous movement of a set of object representations into another set according to certain laws of movement.
And that would be incorrect paraphrasing because the signals are continuous. But "objects" suggest otherwise.
We don't suddenly change in our emotional state as we switch our attention onto something else.
Emotions rise and fall smoothly and the rate of change doesn't break continuity.
You said, "according to certain laws of reasoning (transformation)." What laws? There are no laws.
Because you declared so?
There is a reason why we can agree with each other, why conclusions of others don't seem completely random, why there are patterns in how do we learn and reason about things.
And this reason is these "laws of reasoning", which not only exist but are also universal for the functional members of our species.
Laws that transcend any prior experience. And, as I suggest, are rooted in the properties of our neural architecture.

Perhaps you thought of them too literally, as if it is a set of inference rules from a formal logic book. That's not what I meant.
Thinking is an advanced process involving observation, motivation (feeling) and a giant brain lower animals lack. I wanted to define the foundation of thinking as opposed to feeling. Thinking is not just a reaction to an observation, but a comparison of two observations (a jump). It is a prima tool human beings have that only a few lower animals can perform. Human beings also possess and use a vast repertoire of experience lower animals haven't the brain neurology to accumulate.
I understand what is your goal. I am saying that it is not accomplished yet.
but a comparison of two observations (a jump).
Again, why do you think it is possible to perform such comparisons in the first place? Why these jumps are not entirely random?
Why the only humans and a few other animals have it?
Jumps alone won't be enough to serve as a foundation of Thinking or to highlight its difference with the Feeling process.

You said some other things. Have I failed to reply to any of them should you so wish?
Probably not, don't remember.

It's not their fault (PhDs). It's my fault and the fault of fate.
Then that makes your anger a bit misplaced.

I like to think of this interchange as aimed at relieving some of the stupidity, lol.
In order to relieve yourself of these concepts, you must be willing to let them go.
But the phrase to which I replied suggested that your perspective didn't budge in any way. This may be not exclusively your fault though.
 

ยท
Registered
Nemophilist
Joined
ยท
2,508 Posts
I may not be answering your question, so here is where I am coming from. I did not invent cognitive functions. They were thrown at me by Myers-Briggs and Jung. My mind goes, "Wha? What is all this? My mind is blank to start with and you are dumping alien stuff on me? In pure mathematics (my bachelors degree) one never ever takes a theorem on faith. The whole idea is the fun of seeing it proven. Proof is everything. The theorem can be pasted and framed on the wall as a work of art.

The questions for me are, why these four? Is there a fifth? What divides them up that way? Is the division sharp or gradual? I have to search for meaning. No precise definition for thinking. The meanings of intuition are ridiculously assumptive. There is no future in having an intuition. What divides feeling and sensing? Anything precise? Some say Myers-Briggs is not a science. Why not? What borderline makes it fail or succeed? These questions are where I am coming from.
I don't see how making stuff up about how cognitive functions work, with little knowledge of the underpinning theory, would advance your understanding of the systems/conditions the theory attempts to elucidate. This activity is very different from attempting to prove the theory, utilize it, or disprove it.

Jung, Myers-Briggs, etc. aren't devising mathematical theorems, so what would even constitute the "proof" in that context? You appear to have a hammer and everything is a nail.

Where is that @Allostasis metaphor? I don't recall seeing it to comment. As for consciousness itself, my definition is in Section 4. Section 6 only defines four different kinds of consciousness broken down after a general definition.
Click on the link in the username to jump to the specific post:

It's like you defined a complex chemical compound through one hydrogen atom present in it but shared by millions of other compounds.
That's why part of me doesn't want to work on it. Overly ambitious. I can see things over my head. No reward. I've seen over two dozen references/ links to consciousness. How am I supposed to study them all to hope I've addressed every condition? Perhaps I should just put it out there as is, as I do here?
Maybe start with smaller/more manageable ideas and build on them?

Certainly it is intellectual play with an aim toward worthiness. Something wrong with that? Would you object if I said computer technology is based on controlling zeros and ones, on and off? I used Ti, Ne and Si, a lot of it, to form those constructions. Some time ago I went to the INTJ forum. An able person there said she thought of feeling as flow. I've lifted her idea.
Nothing wrong with it, I suppose. This is a very low-stakes venue. :)

I would object to your computer technology claim, as it's not accurate, since it excludes analog computing and quantum computing. This ignores not only the past, but also sets unnecessary limits on the future, as well.

For fun, since we like the theme of continuous (analog) and discontinuous (digital) and maths... and brains:

Decades-old analog computing ideas could buoy modern AI - Axios

In other words, it's important to set an appropriate frame of reference for what you are describing in order to describe it well... not just any frame of reference because you can. Understanding the theory better would help select a good frame of reference.

 

Another possibility is to say the basis of computing is encoding, manipulation, and transfer of information. That is rather off the cuff, though, and likely flawed. It relies on a frame of reference for its use. However, I find this to be more fundamental, as in every case I can think of, computing has been a tool, and its use has been what drives its form.

Can we say the same for human beings? :unsure:

Best not to go down that path...


Want a reply to that? I have one.


.
...What? :LOL:
 

ยท
Registered
Nemophilist
Joined
ยท
2,508 Posts
And that would be incorrect paraphrasing because the signals are continuous. But "objects" suggest otherwise.
We don't suddenly change in our emotional state as we switch our attention onto something else.
Emotions rise and fall smoothly and the rate of change doesn't break continuity.
Are we not distinguishing emotional state from "feeling"? Is it just a general idea of the term in all its forms, or specific to functions?

Wouldn't sensation also be "continuous" by the same emotion-sensation logic, since we never break continuity with our sense-perceptions?

The continuous/discontinuous dichotomy seems to carry little meaning when applied this way. I'd still say subject dependent continuity would warrant more testing, since I haven't seen it contradicted yet... the continuity aspect is again, apparent when focus is on the subject (internal states).
 

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 · #59 · (Edited)
Based on what I've read and watched videos on about, that's how I interpret it. Is that Te users aren't necessarily brainless. :)

Ti-Fe Axis Logical: Robot like-Warm on the outside, very cold and logical in the inside.

*Deep thought that is really complex (technical in nature) Complex thinking.

*Easily creating long complicated logical chains(which is a task that requires a lot of energy effort for Te users.)

*There are no objectives; the goal is to comprehend and organise logic.

*Ti is necessary for high-level software programming.

*Spots Inconsistencies in logic chains can be simply and rapidly identified.

*Ti Spontaneous thinking deep analysis of external environment.

*Knows quickly the difference between what is true and what is false.

*Does not require taking notes and can think rapidly and reframe any type of information.

*Better at linguistic talks and knows how to utilise the appropriate words.

*Calculator itself, Spontaneous thinking

Ti>Te

Te-Fi axis Rationale
: Humanistic, cold and logical on the outside, very warm and feely in the inside.:)

*Control order, Organizing the external environment with logic

*Strategic thinking, very intentional, effective thinking.

*Like a guy using a calculator or deliberate thinking.

*Knows the difference between right and wrong.

*Environmental control or management

*Te Simple thinking, or surface level thinking, is concerned with efficiency and effectiveness rather than accuracy or precision. Simple untechnical.

*Fetches all facts and information from other people or the outside world.

*Has the ability to absorb large amounts of data, but cannot think for herself. Seeks the thinking of the tribe.

*Takes notes, more concerned with the end than with the extensive logical chains.

*Te users know not just what they know, but also what they don't know.

So Te users aren't brainless, they can definitely think effectively. Whereas Ti users can think more accurately.
 

ยท
Registered
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
ยท
2,039 Posts
Based on what I've read and watched videos on about, that's how I interpret it. Is that Te users aren't necessarily brainless. :)

Ti-Fe Axis Logical: Robot like-Warm on the outside, very cold and logical in the inside.

*Deep thought that is really complex (technical in nature)

*Easily Creating long complicated logical chains(which is a task that requires a lot of energy effort for Te users.)

*There are no objectives; the goal is to comprehend and organise logic.

*Ti is necessary for high-level software programming.

*Inconsistencies in logic chains can be simply and rapidly identified.

Spontaneous thinking deep analysis of external environment.

*Knows the difference between what is true and what is false.

*Does not require taking notes and can think rapidly and reframe any type of information.

*Better at linguistic talks and knows how to utilise the appropriate words.

*Calculator itself, Spontaneous thinking

Ti>Te

Te-Fi axis Rationale
: Humanistic, cold and logical on the outside, very warm and feely in the inside.

*Control order, Organizing the external environment with logic

*Strategic thinking, very intentional, effective thinking.

*Like a guy using a calculator or deliberate thinking.

*Knows the difference between right and wrong.

*Environmental control or management

*Te Simple thinking, or surface level thinking, is concerned with efficiency and effectiveness rather than accuracy or precision. Simple untechnical.

*Fetches all facts and information from other people or the outside world.

*Has the ability to absorb large amounts of data, but cannot think for herself. Seeks the thinking of the tribe.

*Takes notes, more concerned with the end than with the extensive logical chains.

*Te users know not just what they know, but also what they don't know.

So Te users aren't brainless, they can definitely think effectively. Whereas Ti users can think more accurately. :)
Yes, I read all of that before.
According to these definitions I am just Ti+Te user, because I do everything. But how useful is that.
 
41 - 60 of 84 Posts
Top