Personality Cafe banner

61 - 78 of 78 Posts

·
Premium Member
INFJ 4w3 sp/sx
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
Discussion Starter #61
There is actually published research on the MBTI type dynamics and how they're bullshit, mostly done by Reynierse. That's as far as any formal research has gone to debunk MBTI at the theoretical base afaik, because the field is really not that popular. I don't care if it's a "fringe theory", popularity doesn't make something right lol, else we'd still be burning witches or something.
Oh really? Tell me something new. MBTI is seen as bullshit. Jungian Typology is seen as bullshit by most modern psychologists. Your fringe theory about Jungian Typology and Extroversion/Introversion is certainly not above this "bullshit" status, but you forgot to mention it.

I never said something being popular makes something right (now you're the one strawmanning). I said a theory having support by people who have expertise in a given field makes it more credible and reliable, which is true. Your theory hasn't. Contemporary theories about the extrovert-introvert continuum have.

Socialization is a pretty important aspect of introversion as well, introvert social focus can be more on building a support system around them and act the way you did at post #49 or even this one, many times. Just because someone has a focus on the object doesn't mean it will be fulfilled by socializing, which is true for many Ns. And vice versa, introverts may be withdrawn from many aspects of the world yet be quite social, by having an environment that doesn't challenge them, usually. Because we're a social species.
And speaking of socialization there's actually research that shows it's a very unreliable measure for most people since the behaviors differ very slightly for most.
I'm not a psychologist, but just by reading this I can say you know nothing about the subject you are talking about. The modern concept of Extroversion/Introversion is much more nuanced than "socializing" and involves many different aspects of a person's traits and behavior, though yeah, broadly speaking extroverts tend to be more energetic and social and introverts tend to be less social and energetic. Show me a respected introversion-extroversion measurement scale that doesn't account the factor of socialization.

You want to know facts that are actually supported by current scientific knowledge and evidence? Introverts tend to do better in academic environments and introversion is more positively associated with intelligence than extroversion. You can just Google it and find plenty of sources confirming my statements.

BTW it is so funny that you accuse me of being narrow-minded or "not challenging myself enough". So ironic. You quickly dismissed both Socionics and Enneagram as bullshit. I have been open to both theories, even though they seemed like BS to me in the beginning, and now I'm glad I gave them a chance. Stop judging people and putting others in boxes just because they don't want to buy your fringe theory. It is absurd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Yea I had myself INFP because when I was first typed I was depressed and a lot more socially withdrawn but not a F dom. Your ad homs just prove him more right, as you'd rather do that than actually doubt yourself. INFPs who are NE types by Jung are not introverts, but just less social, because the attitude is meant to guide the whole of conscious like a separate preference. There's a pretty big dispute in the field in regards to this.
@Aiwass and everyone else is talking about MBTI and you and your friend are talking about Jung.
I mean, can you guys stop mentioning Jung and causing unnecessary misunderstandings? OMG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
You want to know facts that are actually supported by current scientific knowledge and evidence? Introverts tend to do better in academic environments and introversion is more positively associated with intelligence than extroversion. You can just Google it and find plenty of sources confirming my statements.
I just sent this to him in private when he said Extroverts usually adapt themselves better to new information, and then I saw your message.

The most important executive functions
  1. Inhibition: Filtering unimportant info, focussing on what’s important instead of ‘noise.’
  2. Shifting: Flexibly adapting to situations.
  3. Updating: Remembering something and updating old information, like when you listen to a story or solve a maths problem.
Introverts might be usually more able to focus, but not always. Extroverts might be usually more able to adapt but not always. This depends on so many other factors. An MBTI introvert might score high on extroversion on big five (like my case) and then be very flexible to adapt to new situations. More so than some Extroverts, even if it might usually come more natural to them and I might face more discomfort.

Updating, which is done by perceiving function, is neither of introvert nor of an extrovert, it depends on so many other factors too, but Ni-te is better at updating than Ne-Ti is, as per my limited understanding at this time.

On adapting yourself to new information, as I said, it's neither introverted nor extroverted. When its non-concrete info, it's more introverted (top inventors and scientists). When is more concrete info, i.e surroundings, it's more extroverted (more outgoing and excitement seeking). This doesn't affect your ability to understand, only dictates what you're more comfortable with, hence what you'll excel most at when functioning. Not when learning.


So yeah, introverts are better at adapting to intellectual info, generally but not always. Extroverts are better at adapting to surroundings, generally speaking, but not always.

I'm doing my best to prevent people from being dragged into this conspiracy theory.

No one should take my word for it, forums are for fun. For more helpful fun, go read research papers on personality psychology. MBTI, as incomplete as it is, it's preference-based. Highly inconsistent and not reliable.

Considering how already incomplete other personality theories that are more reliable than MBTI are.

I sent him this too:

Ni-Te when learning (updating) is out-in. When working (interacting) is in-out.
Ne-Ti when learning (updating) is in-out. When working (interacting) is out-in.

So when Ni-Te is outputting, Ne-Ti is receiving. And verse versa. That's why its an ideal match.
Change Ti for Fi and Te for Fe and its the same.


Research says Ne and Ni is the ideal match. He is saying Ne is only Matcheable with Ne. Bruh...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,764 Posts
@Aiwass is right about the softness in my experience and I will explain why I think it is usually correct.

I personally saw bluntness (rudeness?) as something to be carefully avoided for most of my life and I still mostly do until I started having my Te come in and started to play with being blunt when it either seemed funny (and if I thought other people thought it was funny too) or if I felt justified and like the occasion warrants it. Te is naturally a blunt function. It’s also naturally honest. Often when I feel justified to be blunt I can feel remorse for it later. My natural tendency used to be to take most hits with silence...I’m a better communicator now and that helps to alleviate most Te assumptions and rudeness that used to be daily and common emotional bruising for me.

The softening is usually part of Fi and I will explain why:

The thing that often gets skipped over when people talk about Fi and what it does is that Fi is constantly putting itself into the other person’s place. Sometimes hurting someone can make me feel worse than they do since if I am putting myself into their place then I am pretty sensitive to criticism. So therefore the softening effect. Fe blends and doesn’t exactly do this, so with Fe the manner of kindness meets the occasion, whatever is perceived to be socially correct. It’s not blunt like Te naturally is but it CAN be pushy for whatever seems socially right. Fe can also be very very critical, depending on whether or not the Fe person takes a humanistic approach to people and/or has learned to accept and be aware of their own weaknesses and therefore those of others. I think the socially accepted way of being very critical is the Fe door-slam and/or stoney silence,but sometimes it’s a reprimand, depending.

We’ve each got some self-growth to go through and in different directions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aiwass

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Yea I had myself INFP because when I was first typed I was depressed and a lot more socially withdrawn but not a F dom. Your ad homs just prove him more right, as you'd rather do that than actually doubt yourself. INFPs who are NE types by Jung are not introverts, but just less social, because the attitude is meant to guide the whole of conscious like a separate preference. There's a pretty big dispute in the field in regards to this.

Is it possible to be an INTJ according to Jung's theory and an INTP according to the MBTI?

Answer

Follow
·
5

Request





5 Answers

Timothy Emmanuel Lim

, Officially Certified INTJ
Answered December 22, 2019


Actually, yes.
(For those who know deeply about both MBTI and Jung, hear me out first.)
You see, INTJ in Jungian Analytical Psychology is actually denoted and originally called Ni-Te. INTJ is a Myer-Briggs term.
Jungian Theory tests Cognitive functions and Function stacks — Jungian tests are an attempt to measure and identify thought process.
MBTI tests the four letter dichotomies — I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P is from a system called preference pairs which does exactly that — denotes your preferences by an axis in-between two choices and shows you which you lean towards more.
From this — we can safely say that although MBTI stems from Jung, the two tests can produce two very consistent yet different results.
This means; Though, you prefer the letters I, N, T, and P — you can still consistently test as Ni-Te, because both tests actually test two very different things.
It is also said that INTJs are actually Perceivers by nature and INTPs are intrinsic Judgers.
This is because INTJs are Ni-Dominants (Introverted iNtuition) which means 50–70% of their thought-process is Ni; a Perceiving function. Likewise, INTPs are Ti-dominants (Introverted Thinking) and with Ti being a Judging function, they’re actually Judging, first and foremost.
(This is why in Socionics, INTP is actually Ni-Te and INTJ is Ti-Ne instead. Instead of measuring J/P by the first Extraverted function, Socionics measures J/P by the Dominant Function.)
There are two possibilities that lead you to be tested as INTP in MBTI yet INTJ in Jungian Theory;
  1. You’re defined as Perceiving in MBTI (by MBTI standards) by preference, but your Dominant-Auxiliary pair is Ni-Te by Jungian Analysis.
  2. You’re being tested consistently as a Perceiver because your Ni is flourishing — as that is the inherent INTJ nature.
But when does this rule draw the line?
The definite line drawn where this exception can’t take place is when it works outside the J/P preference pair.
Example of an impossible scenario; I am an ISTP is MBTI, but by Jung, I’m an INTP.
This is because the dichotomy between I/E, N/S, T/F is far more concrete and apparent — where-else J/P is not so definitive.
(Introversion/Extraversion is congenital, iNtuition/Sensing has to do with Dopamine/Acetylcholine stimulation and regional firing, T/F is more concrete in decision and choice.)
The only reason why J/P exists is because there are two different types of a similar type i.e. ENF, INT, IST, EST etc.
And this is to denote the difference in thought-process between eg. the two existing INTs; INTs all appear very similar on surface, but operate very differently internally.
Drawing back to the question;
A real-life example of an MBTI INTP, yet a Jung INTJ is actually my real personality type.
I consistently test as INTP by preference because simply put; I am more open and flexible as opposed to structured and decisive when looking at things.
MBTI denotes P as open, flexible, disorganized and chaotic as compared to J as focused, structured, organized, and orderly.
However, I consistently test as INTJ by Jungian Psychology terms because my Ni outweighs my Ti (which is drawn and as frequented as Te).
Simply put; I’m a MBTI: INTP, and a Jung: INTJ.
(Which also means that people who know Jungian theory to a large extent tend to mistake me for being a Jung INTP sometimes because of a honed Ti.)
I reiterate; It’s possible to be both.
Because J/P is finely defined differently across both theories,
you can yield two results.
It’s like saying; INTJs can’t be messy and INTPs can’t be certain.
Surely, both MBTI and Jung aren’t absolutes, are they?

Because MBTI tests the J/P dichotomy in a very Sensor-like fashion of J/P, most iNtuitives tend to strike between the J/P axis, also mistyping as each other. This is why some people tend to title themselves as the first three letters eg. INT, yet not being certain of J or P.
To conclude;
  1. Your preference can be either J/P on MBTI, yet the opposite letter on Jung because;
    1. Both tests identify two completely different things.
    2. INTJs are Perceivers by nature — which messes up the J/P dichotomy.
    3. J/P isn’t so absolute and can be arbitrary.
  2. The difference between the J/P dichotomy is less definite than the other three preference pairs I/E, N/S, T/F.
  3. Simply put; Disorganized INTJs exist. Saying against this is both a fallacy and a (figurative) crime.
There’s a reason why INTs denote themselves as INTX — the J/P dichotomy can be confusing.

This is the misunderstanding you guys are making by using Jung to explain MBTI. Each theory is of its own. Stay on MBTI when we're talking about MBTI.

The person that wrote this didn't know about this argument. But then he must be a J, hence a perverted-incapable of logic-introvert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Sorry for the book I wrote, I ran out of high-quality tv series and the last entertaining one I saw, the blacklist, I can't find the last episode I saw before abandoning it. So yeah too much time on my hands
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,345 Posts
Oh really? Tell me something new. MBTI is seen as bullshit. Jungian Typology is seen as bullshit by most modern psychologists. Your fringe theory about Jungian Typology and Extroversion/Introversion is certainly not above this "bullshit" status, but you forgot to mention it.

I never said something being popular makes something right (now you're the one strawmanning). I said a theory having support by people who have expertise in a given field makes it more credible and reliable, which is true. Your theory hasn't. Contemporary theories about the extrovert-introvert continuum have.
You made an appeal to authority as an argument, instead of talking about the premises presented. It's obvious when you characterize it as fringe as some kind of argument. Contemporary theories on the E-I just don't include those aspects to begin with, so they haven't tested them to begin with, that's the whole issue.


I'm not a psychologist, but just by reading this I can say you know nothing about the subject you are talking about. The modern concept of Extroversion/Introversion is much more nuanced than "socializing" and involves many different aspects of a person's traits and behavior, though yeah, broadly speaking extroverts tend to be more energetic and social and introverts tend to be less social and energetic. Show me a respected introversion-extroversion measurement scale that doesn't account the factor of socialization.

You want to know facts that are actually supported by current scientific knowledge and evidence? Introverts tend to do better in academic environments and introversion is more positively associated with intelligence than extroversion. You can just Google it and find plenty of sources confirming my statements.

BTW it is so funny that you accuse me of being narrow-minded or "not challenging myself enough". So ironic. You quickly dismissed both Socionics and Enneagram as bullshit. I have been open to both theories, even though they seemed like BS to me in the beginning, and now I'm glad I gave them a chance. Stop judging people and putting others in boxes just because they don't want to buy your fringe theory. It is absurd.
My post literally explained how E-I are more nuanced. Modern research is almost exclusively focused on treating E-I as socialization, big5 connects it more to positive emotionality, and Eysenck connects it to impulsivity and sociability, and in MBTI testing, sociability is all it means. And that's the point, they're different traits that Jung observed and placed under E-I but latter research does not include them. So how can the proof you ask for exist? It's a dishonest appeal to authority.

You seriously think that you introduced me to Socionics or Enneagram? Or that I dismiss them entirely? I'm done talking to you it's pointless. Even in what I thought was a good will discussion in the other thread you started hurling nonsense at me, at least I found out why since in another thread you said you dn't understand yourself well so that explains why you were so butthurt by the suggestion that NEs can be better than you in this.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,345 Posts

Is it possible to be an INTJ according to Jung's theory and an INTP according to the MBTI?

Answer

Follow
·
5

Request





5 Answers

Timothy Emmanuel Lim

, Officially Certified INTJ
Answered December 22, 2019


Actually, yes.
(For those who know deeply about both MBTI and Jung, hear me out first.)
You see, INTJ in Jungian Analytical Psychology is actually denoted and originally called Ni-Te. INTJ is a Myer-Briggs term.
Jungian Theory tests Cognitive functions and Function stacks — Jungian tests are an attempt to measure and identify thought process.
MBTI tests the four letter dichotomies — I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P is from a system called preference pairs which does exactly that — denotes your preferences by an axis in-between two choices and shows you which you lean towards more.
From this — we can safely say that although MBTI stems from Jung, the two tests can produce two very consistent yet different results.
This means; Though, you prefer the letters I, N, T, and P — you can still consistently test as Ni-Te, because both tests actually test two very different things.
It is also said that INTJs are actually Perceivers by nature and INTPs are intrinsic Judgers.
This is because INTJs are Ni-Dominants (Introverted iNtuition) which means 50–70% of their thought-process is Ni; a Perceiving function. Likewise, INTPs are Ti-dominants (Introverted Thinking) and with Ti being a Judging function, they’re actually Judging, first and foremost.
(This is why in Socionics, INTP is actually Ni-Te and INTJ is Ti-Ne instead. Instead of measuring J/P by the first Extraverted function, Socionics measures J/P by the Dominant Function.)
There are two possibilities that lead you to be tested as INTP in MBTI yet INTJ in Jungian Theory;
  1. You’re defined as Perceiving in MBTI (by MBTI standards) by preference, but your Dominant-Auxiliary pair is Ni-Te by Jungian Analysis.
  2. You’re being tested consistently as a Perceiver because your Ni is flourishing — as that is the inherent INTJ nature.
But when does this rule draw the line?
The definite line drawn where this exception can’t take place is when it works outside the J/P preference pair.
Example of an impossible scenario; I am an ISTP is MBTI, but by Jung, I’m an INTP.
This is because the dichotomy between I/E, N/S, T/F is far more concrete and apparent — where-else J/P is not so definitive.
(Introversion/Extraversion is congenital, iNtuition/Sensing has to do with Dopamine/Acetylcholine stimulation and regional firing, T/F is more concrete in decision and choice.)
The only reason why J/P exists is because there are two different types of a similar type i.e. ENF, INT, IST, EST etc.
And this is to denote the difference in thought-process between eg. the two existing INTs; INTs all appear very similar on surface, but operate very differently internally.
Drawing back to the question;
A real-life example of an MBTI INTP, yet a Jung INTJ is actually my real personality type.
I consistently test as INTP by preference because simply put; I am more open and flexible as opposed to structured and decisive when looking at things.
MBTI denotes P as open, flexible, disorganized and chaotic as compared to J as focused, structured, organized, and orderly.
However, I consistently test as INTJ by Jungian Psychology terms because my Ni outweighs my Ti (which is drawn and as frequented as Te).
Simply put; I’m a MBTI: INTP, and a Jung: INTJ.
(Which also means that people who know Jungian theory to a large extent tend to mistake me for being a Jung INTP sometimes because of a honed Ti.)
I reiterate; It’s possible to be both.
Because J/P is finely defined differently across both theories,
you can yield two results.
It’s like saying; INTJs can’t be messy and INTPs can’t be certain.
Surely, both MBTI and Jung aren’t absolutes, are they?

Because MBTI tests the J/P dichotomy in a very Sensor-like fashion of J/P, most iNtuitives tend to strike between the J/P axis, also mistyping as each other. This is why some people tend to title themselves as the first three letters eg. INT, yet not being certain of J or P.
To conclude;
  1. Your preference can be either J/P on MBTI, yet the opposite letter on Jung because;
    1. Both tests identify two completely different things.
    2. INTJs are Perceivers by nature — which messes up the J/P dichotomy.
    3. J/P isn’t so absolute and can be arbitrary.
  2. The difference between the J/P dichotomy is less definite than the other three preference pairs I/E, N/S, T/F.
  3. Simply put; Disorganized INTJs exist. Saying against this is both a fallacy and a (figurative) crime.
There’s a reason why INTs denote themselves as INTX — the J/P dichotomy can be confusing.

This is the misunderstanding you guys are making by using Jung to explain MBTI. Each theory is of its own. Stay on MBTI when we're talking about MBTI.

The person that wrote this didn't know about this argument. But then he must be a J, hence a perverted-incapable of logic-introvert.

no this isn't the misunderstanding we're making, all of that is true except one thing, that in Jung's theory, the attitude doesn't change from perception to judgment nor are there fixed stacks but personality is a lot more dynamic and E-I are traits that have their own strength of preference like any function
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
no this isn't the misunderstanding we're making, all of that is true except one thing, that in Jung's theory, the attitude doesn't change from perception to judgment nor are there fixed stacks but personality is a lot more dynamic and E-I are traits that have their own strength of preference like any function
What you say I can mostly agree with. But your friend sounds ***

We, iNtuitives are supposed to be partners Bro! Ne or Ni.
Lovers, even...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,228 Posts
I've never met a blunt INFP. The only thing about INFPs is that they can get very angry, but they'll p
I strongly disagree. NFJs can be notoriously pushy when it comes to their visions (Ni) and convictions - when taken to extremes, unfortunately, this tendency can create someone like Hitler (lol). This happens because what the Fe user sees as harmony is not always perceived by others as harmonious.

INFP's aren't obliged to anybody else, but on the other hand, they don't have much of an agenda to influence others like NFJs do, either. They are very respectful of other points of view (Ne) and different ways to express one's individuality.

Edit: Of course, this doesn't mean every NFJ is a forceful pushy Hitler-like personality, but I've definitely seen that happening. I've never seen the same force of expression and will to influence other people and groups in INFPs.
I've never found NFJs to be that pushy. INFJs tend to be very pragmatic in my book, and therefore they seem to find being "pushy" counter-productive. They prefer to influence you in a way where you won't notice- just little by little you'll notice yourself aligning to how the INFJ wants to proceed in the world but you won't notice them doing anything as to why.

ENFJs can be a bit pushy when someone's ideals don't match the group/environment you both are in. Again it won't be too direct, although it is more obvious they'll try to "set an example for you" which can be a bit blatent and can be arrogant.

I do agree about INFPs though. They're very passive, although the amount that they will judge you and how you pair with their values dramatically exponentially increases the closer you get to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
The MBTI has never been an attempt to rectify Jung's definitions in any way so if they don't line up, it is pointless to pretend that it wasn't a mistake and two entirely separate theories. Unless the point is not to be right but to win a debate on the internet and play the intellectual. So every time I quote Jung to back up my claims you lots vanish into thin air. I'm used to it. It's only an RPG to you. You can't be bothered to do the minimal work required to grasp whatever you're talking about. Better go on quora and cherry pick some opinions as if the frequency of it would give it some weight, typical sensor epistemology. Who's the one coming up with new arguments, pointing both MBTI and Jung fallacies in great details, many times here ? You just stick to what you know because it's been built by people like you to feel special no matter the result and that's all there will be to write in your epitaphs. You're used to do so little efforts to make sense that it doesn't disturb you to present me as a conventionalist and at the same time argue that I'm alone thinking the way I do. No matter how many times I'll quote and analyse what is saif by Young or Myers, I already know that you have given up on reading 1 line of it. All that works is what fuels your mood without taking any mental effort, such as this answer. Those who actually want to challenge their brains will easily find my serious posts, which wouldn't be required for they would have already read Jung carefully and reached the same conclusions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
The MBTI has never been an attempt to rectify Jung's definitions in any way so if they don't line up, it is pointless to pretend that it wasn't a mistake and two entirely separate theories. Unless the point is not to be right but to win a debate on the internet and play the intellectual. So every time I quote Jung to back up my claims you lots vanish into thin air.
MBTI doesn't have to rectify Jung, because it's based on it, and it's free to make slight changes or expanding on it. Same as Socionics. Same as 16 personalities expand on the Assertive vs Turbulent types.

I have been made to understand (not by you) that I jumped into an argument I didn't fully understand (because I didn't read the previous messages). I mentioned that could be the case in my first messages in this argument. I'm still concerned about you using Jung to back up your claim about MBTI when they are clearly different. You, and your friend, keep pointing to the fact that you've explained this thoroughly in other messages but you're tired of explaining yourself. Understandable. You can make outlandish generalizations, that's ok too. Not everything I say is right, I don't deeply understand any of these theories and I've never read beyond the shallow info available online. I've never read any research regarding this.

But if I wasn't in intellectually lazy mode, I wouldn't be here. I'd be reading on astrophysics and cosmology. So, thanks but no thanks. I understand well enough about these theories to know they don't deserve my time for more in-depth research.

If you want to enlighten me though, show me the light, my DM is always open.

Plus I didn't say you were mentally ill, I only wondered because I was [pretending to be] seeing so many inconsistencies (some of which your friend explained to me in private) which were caused because I missed a lot of your other messages and a link in your signature(?)

You're still wrong though, with your absolute statements and generalizations. Talking about MBTI. About Jung, I don't know. MBTI E and I do measure shit. They measure how much you prefer Introversion vs Extroversion. Percentage-wise. And your statement that Ni is not capable of understanding Ne. In MBTI. I don't know about Jung but Ni dom is a better match for Ne dom than Ne is, in MBTI, research says. Also, you say Introverted feelers (do you mean the MBTI INFPs and INFJs, or Jung introverted feelers, the Js?) and Ni (INTJs?) are not capable of logic. You're wrong about those statements about MBTI (again, I don't need you to use Jung to back up your statement on MBTI, use what MBTI says instead, even if wrong and incomplete).

I think you hit your limit and instead of adapting yourself to the situation and explain yourself better, you're being defensive, acting thereby as introverts are supposed to act. According to Jung. You got defensive by accusing me of pretending to see your inconsistencies because I hinted at you being mentally ill.

We all have it all in us, what shows more depends on preferences, what's more normally used, and developed, and the situation we find ourselves in. Saying you'll not bother explaining yourself to anyone that's not Ne dom... A certain Ni or even Si or Se dom can understand your logic and perspective better than a certain Ne dom. If you're not capable of understanding this, well you have a long way to go when it comes to human functioning.
 

·
Premium Member
INFJ 4w3 sp/sx
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
Discussion Starter #73
Research says Ne and Ni is the ideal match. He is saying Ne is only Matcheable with Ne. Bruh...
Who came up with the idea that Ni and Ne are ideal for each other, or that INFJ-ENFP are supposed to get along well again? Me and Panda, like two repelling magnetic forces going to opposite directions lol. I think ENFPs are all over the place with Ne and Te; completely random in the way they generate data and POVs. ENFPs are like a jazz song, they have no structure or strong pattern at all, just a bunch of improvisations with whatever comes up at the moment. This would be Ti PoLR in Socionics.

You made an appeal to authority as an argument, instead of talking about the premises presented. It's obvious when you characterize it as fringe as some kind of argument. Contemporary theories on the E-I just don't include those aspects to begin with, so they haven't tested them to begin with, that's the whole issue.

My post literally explained how E-I are more nuanced. Modern research is almost exclusively focused on treating E-I as socialization, big5 connects it more to positive emotionality, and Eysenck connects it to impulsivity and sociability, and in MBTI testing, sociability is all it means. And that's the point, they're different traits that Jung observed and placed under E-I but latter research does not include them. So how can the proof you ask for exist? It's a dishonest appeal to authority.

You seriously think that you introduced me to Socionics or Enneagram? Or that I dismiss them entirely? I'm done talking to you it's pointless. Even in what I thought was a good will discussion in the other thread you started hurling nonsense at me, at least I found out why since in another thread you said you dn't understand yourself well so that explains why you were so butthurt by the suggestion that NEs can be better than you in this.
An argument from authority can be completely reasonable and non-fallacious. In most issues, we do have to rely upon the testimonies of authoritative figures and scientific consensus, that is, the collective position of the scientists in a particular field of study (in this case, psychology). Would you seek a doctor if you were feeling ill or would you seek a religious madman who claims to perform miracle cures? Do you think choosing the doctor would be a decision based on a fallacious argument from authority?

My point was that contemporary psychology already interprets the E/I dichotomies in a more nuanced light. If you think Big 5, MBTI and Eysenck are all Psychology has on the E/I field of research, you're dead wrong.

You know what? You're so dense, I give up. Gimme your texts, I will read them. Show me posts/texts or wherever you outlined and described in details this theory of yours about Jung. I'm not buying it, but I will try to read it with an open mind just as an exercise of patience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Who came up with the idea that Ni and Ne are ideal for each other, or that INFJ-ENFP are supposed to get along well again? Me and Panda, like two repelling magnetic forces going to opposite directions lol. I think ENFPs are all over the place with Ne and Te; completely random in the way they generate data and POVs. ENFPs are like a jazz song, they have no structure or strong pattern at all, just a bunch of improvisations with whatever comes up at the moment. This would be Ti PoLR in Socionics.
Don't forget I always say there are exceptions 🤣

I do understand INFJs insight when they are Ni-ing because I see patterns of how I do it. But a messed up Fe and a scrambled undeveloped Ti drives me crazy. Also, the Ni might not be sharp and on point, depending on the information it was fed. Compare a person drilled with conspiracy theory material, with their way to use a less logical explanation to debunk a more logical one (Like the flat earthers.) Vs a well-trained scientist who might have different views than his peers but he is open to logical critique.

Again, this is soft-science. Juicy cotton candy. Nothing is set on stone.

Check this on google and how they reach this conclusion.

"Although two well-developed individuals of any type can enjoy a healthy relationship, INFJ's natural partner is the ENTP, or the ENFP. INFJ's dominant function of Introverted Intuition is best matched with a personality type that is dominated by Extraverted Intuition."

If you lots stop fighting and choose love you'll actually realize how fulfilling the conversation you'll have with each other could be. Even when you don't agree with each other.

But this has so much more to it than MBTI, let alone Ne or Ni.
(Big five is far better for this.)

Also, folks, if you become the best version of yourself, and you actually get actualized and reach self-transcendence (Maslow) level 1 development (enneagram) get out of the cave and reach the world of ideas (Plato) level V secondary integration (Dabrowski), etc., etc. You'll realize Ni, Ne, Ti, what so not, is far from being an important factor that determines human behaviour to the extent of causing these type of arguments.

Go read how to live by Michell Montaigne instead of reading Jung's work in-depth. Michells discoveries will help you guys so much more.
 

·
MOTM January 2013
Joined
·
10,621 Posts
The problem is the Infjs I’ve spoken with just will not accept their positivity bubble being burst. One in particular I know just won’t be told things that are contrary if it messes with the vibe she wants. It’s like a cult of fake positivity. It is stifling, oppressive if you like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
The problem is the Infjs I’ve spoken with just will not accept their positivity bubble being burst. One in particular I know just won’t be told things that are contrary if it messes with the vibe she wants. It’s like a cult of fake positivity. It is stifling, oppressive if you like.
I’ve been in a similar situation. But not all INFJs do this. And other types that are not INFJs do this too. I’ve known two ENFPs that do this, for example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
MBTI doesn't have to rectify Jung, because it's based on it, and it's free to make slight changes or expanding on it. Same as Socionics. Same as 16 personalities expand on the Assertive vs Turbulent types.

I have been made to understand (not by you) that I jumped into an argument I didn't fully understand (because I didn't read the previous messages). I mentioned that could be the case in my first messages in this argument. I'm still concerned about you using Jung to back up your claim about MBTI when they are clearly different. You, and your friend, keep pointing to the fact that you've explained this thoroughly in other messages but you're tired of explaining yourself. Understandable. You can make outlandish generalizations, that's ok too. Not everything I say is right, I don't deeply understand any of these theories and I've never read beyond the shallow info available online. I've never read any research regarding this.

But if I wasn't in intellectually lazy mode, I wouldn't be here. I'd be reading on astrophysics and cosmology. So, thanks but no thanks. I understand well enough about these theories to know they don't deserve my time for more in-depth research.

If you want to enlighten me though, show me the light, my DM is always open.

Plus I didn't say you were mentally ill, I only wondered because I was [pretending to be] seeing so many inconsistencies (some of which your friend explained to me in private) which were caused because I missed a lot of your other messages and a link in your signature(?)

You're still wrong though, with your absolute statements and generalizations. Talking about MBTI. About Jung, I don't know. MBTI E and I do measure shit. They measure how much you prefer Introversion vs Extroversion. Percentage-wise. And your statement that Ni is not capable of understanding Ne. In MBTI. I don't know about Jung but Ni dom is a better match for Ne dom than Ne is, in MBTI, research says. Also, you say Introverted feelers (do you mean the MBTI INFPs and INFJs, or Jung introverted feelers, the Js?) and Ni (INTJs?) are not capable of logic. You're wrong about those statements about MBTI (again, I don't need you to use Jung to back up your statement on MBTI, use what MBTI says instead, even if wrong and incomplete).

I think you hit your limit and instead of adapting yourself to the situation and explain yourself better, you're being defensive, acting thereby as introverts are supposed to act. According to Jung. You got defensive by accusing me of pretending to see your inconsistencies because I hinted at you being mentally ill.

We all have it all in us, what shows more depends on preferences, what's more normally used, and developed, and the situation we find ourselves in. Saying you'll not bother explaining yourself to anyone that's not Ne dom... A certain Ni or even Si or Se dom can understand your logic and perspective better than a certain Ne dom. If you're not capable of understanding this, well you have a long way to go when it comes to human functioning.
You are admittedly too lazy to get a basic grasp of what you need to understand whether I am right or wrong, only the latter you can't realize without grasping the basics. I Wish you could choose between aknowledging that you're not scientifically trained enough or pulling studies and beliefs from your ass but you aren't even at the stage of realizing why it shouldnt coexist, just like it cqnnot coexist that the MBTI is right when Jung is wrong. Asking for immediate enlightenment really is the blatant symptom of someone who has no experience of how much and what kind of efforts over time it all takes. Us being in a same place with a same status doesn't imply you can do everything that I do.
 
61 - 78 of 78 Posts
Top