Personality Cafe banner

61 - 80 of 90 Posts

·
Host
ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE Honorary INTJ VLFE
Joined
·
19,243 Posts
That's a fair point, he can be pretty vague.
Given what he had to work with in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, I'd say he did remarkable work.

If you are interested in looking at it from another perspective, I'd say that
Joseph Campbell's work overlapped a lot with that of Carl Jung's. Apparently they did meet and admired each others' work.

"Carl Jung was very important to Joseph Campbell's work. Of the psychological theorists that Campbell drew from, Jung was by far the most important. Jung's theory of the inner life of the human being was visual. Jung's view was that we process experiences by the flow of energies. This goes deeper than feeling or affect and deeper than thinking or the intellect. Experiences such as dreams are base in reality and are on going in the unconscious at all times. At night we have some access to the process but it goes on constantly. To understand our deepest qualities, motivations, and reactions we need to proceed past words, and ideas and reflect upon the imagination, the flow of images. Myth is a visually rich mirror to the mysteries of the interior experience."

You mentioned the connection between Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. Frequently one sees references to Carl Jung in the works of Campbell. Would you speak about the connection and interaction between Jung and Campbell?

"Though Jung's contributions had a major impact upon Campbell, he was careful to insist that he was not a Jungian. He read very extensively in Freud and other psychologists as well. Campbell was a considerable psychological thinker in his own right. Part of the appeal of the way Campbell presents mythic materials is that he constantly points out personal applications. That is something not commonly found in older books on mythology, whether the work is popular or scholarly.

Joseph Campbell knew Carl Jung. One of Campbell's mentors was a man named Heinrich Zimmer who was close to Jung. Campbell gathered and published some of Zimmer's ideas posthumously. He engaged in a long correspondence with Jung and spent a memorable afternoon with Jung at his castle retreat in Bollingen on Lake Zurich.

Campbell also became involved in the Eranos Conferences. Jung had launched the series at Ascona in the south of Switzerland. These were annual conversations among philosophers, psychologists, theologians, historians, and other thinkers on archetypal themes. Campbell became a leader in that circle after Jung became older and withdrew from active participation. Campbell made notable presentations at the gatherings and edited six volumes of papers from the Eranos Conferences.

Campbell drew on many great theorists. His sense of the universality of mythic ideas came from Adolf Bastian, who noted how local folk ideas finally give way to deeper elementary ideas. These essential themes and images are similar to Jung's descriptions of archetypes and the collective unconscious. So, even though Campbell used ideas from many sources other than Jung, he was a significant figure in Jungian circles. Again, I would emphasize that of the psychological theorists from whom Campbell drew, Jung was by far the most important.

The journey through the stages of life contains many lessons. One of them is that certainty is an illusory goal. Through humbling experiences, life seems to instruct us to be flexible and to loosen the demand for control and absolute answers. What Campbell was saying was that we need to get past the quest for defining the meaning of life in a few clear phrases. Final, ultimate answers to the big questions are ephemeral. His advice is similar to Rilke's comment that we should live in the questions and perhaps someday we will grow into the answers. It is a more fluid approach.

Campbell advocates an engagement with life so intense that you would experience "the radiance of being alive." This involves a level of connection physically, emotionally, and mentally that is so rich as to feel like oneness with the flow of life. The experience is so profound that it resolves the yearning. It is not something that can be translated into a creed or a code. It is a direct experience."


 
  • Like
Reactions: Llyralen and Fru2

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,301 Posts
@tanstaafl28 I've been interested in reading Campbell at some point but lost memory of his existence, thanks for reminding me of him. I didn't know they were contemporaries!
From reading your post I can already tell that it will be a very worthy read, something that is fit for the path I'm taking. What type do you think he was? Did he mention anything about typology? Also
Campbell advocates an engagement with life so intense that you would experience "the radiance of being alive." This involves a level of connection physically, emotionally, and mentally that is so rich as to feel like oneness with the flow of life. The experience is so profound that it resolves the yearning. It is not something that can be translated into a creed or a code. It is a direct experience."
This is something I've become very aware of recently, interesting coincidence!
 

·
Host
ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE Honorary INTJ VLFE
Joined
·
19,243 Posts
@tanstaafl28 I've been interested in reading Campbell at some point but lost memory of his existence, thanks for reminding me of him. I didn't know they were contemporaries!
From reading your post I can already tell that it will be a very worthy read, something that is fit for the path I'm taking. What type do you think he was? Did he mention anything about typology? Also

This is something I've become very aware of recently, interesting coincidence!
I've read both INFJ and ENFP



https://mbtidatabase.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F120675768036
 

·
Registered
Beta Gang - EIE 8w7 - 368 sx/so
Joined
·
4,719 Posts
Einstein-- ENTP. Extremely varied interests (fairy tales, music, politics, traveling, etc) and very collaborative. If he wanted to explore something, he explored it. Of course his second function is great, but it does not overshadow his Ne. He is extremely engaged in the ideas of the outside world.
No. Einstein is ILI - Intp. He's the textbook example of Ti-Ne.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #66 ·
Thanks for your thoughts on this! I hadn't realised that Jordan Peterson was an ENFP, but it seems to make a lot of sense. Whenever he speaks, he has so many intertwining ideas intricately connected to eachother! Not unlike some ENFPs here! 😂
Jordan Peterson is likely ENTP, I wouldn’t think F.

Joseph Campbell as well, likely unless perhaps ENFP for Joseph Campbell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #67 · (Edited)
I wouldn't mind discussing their analysis, actually. But bear in mind that I'll be using critical thinking. I respect Nardi's work, but I think he attribute aspects to certain types while they can be shared with several. His work requires massive amount of generalizations and classifications of those generalizations. Some results might be correct, but the main fault of his work is that people are being self-typed, and to showcase how heavily a mistype can affect every result, I'll give a simple example - Nardi himself is an ISTJ! He typed himself through using the wrong parameters of judgment - He considers quirkyness and interest in nieche material to be an N aspect, for example. One needs to only read Jung's Si dom description in order to see that he's pretty much operating in the same manner.

It's pretty easy to fall into the trap of judging based on stereotypes, preferences or certain displayed abilities. That's not how type is originally meant to be determined, since the aspect most important in determining type is the key motivations. So I would disagree about Jung just being the base from which typology has grown to be better, because things are taken out of context and all meaning is robbed to the point that the typology community is seen as just another Horoscope community, everybody has a different opinion because everyone uses different methods, some more valid and some less.

But that's not the core issue for me in this case - The core issue is that some people here tend to refute a person's logic by showcasing some analysis that some socalled experts have made, as if it would convince the person or dismiss their opinion. This is straight up ignorance and denial and is something I find unbearable personally. I expect an answer that the person I'm discussing with has used their wits and own logic to come up with, because that's the only way to reach a mutual understanding.
I have made many threads on PerC about the importance of critical thinking. I’m glad you’re a fellow fan.

What I notice is that when people criticize Nard’s work it is usually because they don’t know much about neuroscience in general and further don’t know the structure for scientific experimentation.

I disagree with your last paragraph at a 180. The only thing that can be agreed on is actual fact, the rest is opinion. Opinions don’t have to match, they can just be interesting and different until someone gets an idea of a way to study something.

In my field we form educated opinions based on fact on which to then can form suggestions. If someone says “I think a tablespoon of vinegar a day is helping me grow hair faster” then a wild card is the placebo effect, chemically I can say I have serious doubts with a probably 99% because of the chemistry of hair and the chemistry of vinegar, but in the end maybe the only thing that everyone could agree on is that if we took 1000 people all on exactly the same diet, and divided them into 2 groups— 1 getting vinegar and 1 getting vinegar-flavored water, could we see if one group grew more hair? This still wouldn’t be the whole story until we had swapped what they were getting (a cross-over study) to see if things changed with the group getting vinegar.

So basically there are a few ways to get consensus. 1. Put the person through several years of chemistry and physiology until they understood why a bit ofvinegar would not help you grow hair faster or 2. Show them some studies that have good designs (and no not all studies are created equal) but really, once you get that data from the study, you can’t really disagree with what happened. You can disagree that the study design didn’t serve the purpose or that the measurements were done incorrectly, but you would have had to have inside knowledge. Or you can find a way that the conclusions of the experimenters didn’t match what was actually going on. People who use studies and people who report studies try to make sure to think all of these things through and come up with the best design, although I have seen groups who are just trying to get money for a product try to report very bad studies that show up in journals that also don’t care. Which is why it is hard to get into into more well-respected journals.

Meanwhile someone can drink vinegar every day all they like, but it doesn’t mean that their conclusion is correct. And I don’t know why talking with them would help me understand truth, but maybe I could understand just that person’s motivation and thought process better if that was the goal. If I’m trying to figure out a true concept like how to grow hair faster, then talking to this person is not going to help. So for facts you want to look at studies.

How do you know Nardi’s methods? What makes you say that he did things incorrectly and is an ISTJ? Were you there? I don’t know how you are getting your conclusions. Nardi has also said that several functions can serve the same purpose— of course he did. This is a very well-known thing in neuroscience in general. For instance for culturally appropriate manners Fe or Te. I’ve read neuroscience papers that had nothing to do with Nardi that discussed two different areas of the brain for empathy and that using one of them produces more extroverted behaviors after. You can see the brain waves and test for them.

Yeah, if we took the time to go through everything you just said, I’m pretty sure I could explain a lot of what you just said and I’m not sure where you got it from.

Can you tell me more about what makes you mad when people bring up studies? To me science and fact is the basis for agreement/truth, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
Jordan Peterson is likely ENTP, I wouldn’t think F.

Joseph Campbell as well, likely unless perhaps ENFP for Joseph Campbell.
Ahh I was thinking how he seemed a bit sensitive at time or gets really chuffed or cries when he hears about the lives of others improving through his advice and thought he might've been a feeler, but the ENTP has Fe Ter which I suppose makes more sense than Fi Aux? Plus the Ti Aux really show in his ability to withstand such rigorous intellectual debate.

I think I just realized the personality type I'd rather be. One that still cares about others but not too much and perhaps a bit more "logicall too" 😬 - and even more “creative” - I’m sure there’s downsides too. Just admiring the grass on the other side. 😋
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #69 · (Edited)
I was agreeing with you, I hope you know that. But then you had to argue the point about my personal experiences with Se-doms. I'm saying in my personal experience (and yes it's probably a small swatch of ESFP/ESTPs I've been around, maybe 12 in whole) but all 12 are more socially active and extroverted than I am. It's from MY PERSONAL experience, so you can't change that fact. From your experience, you've met an outlier which as I stated in my post they do happen so I don't know why you're splicing hairs. Though as he is an ENTP (Devil's advocate) I can see his point about Ne vs Se.

Let's take a graph. If I was to put all the ENFP/ENTPs on it we would score somewhat in the middle and around it, Our bell curve could be slight to the left of center (introversion in the traditional meaning). This is from the countless polls and discussions on several MBTI sites about ENFPs. Occasionally we get an outlier that's more extroverted and then two years later they start double thinking they're really an ESFP/ESTP. Why? Because they're more extroverted and into physical experiences than the rest of us. More of us would place around the center or left of center. I've lost count on how many posts I've seen ENFP's wondering if they're INFPs because of our Fi. You would still have an occasional outlier of an extremely outgoing ENFP in the right and one in the far left. Outliers do happen when you're dealing with a population of ALL the ENFPs/ENTPs. Their human beings something happens to put them into those sections. Now if we take the ESFP/ESTP they might have a bell curve in the center as well but more of them fall slightly right of the mark (extroverted in the traditional meaning). I hope that better explains it. I understand you're a scientist, a nutritionist so I don't think I have to be redundant and have to explain a bell curve. Even though I agree with you, I was still giving credit to @tanstaafl28, which I think you've missed his point and are greatly overthinking. I can't believe I'm saying it, because I overthink everything.
The only thing I’m standing for is that inside of each type is a pendulum or bell curve between introversion and extroversion. which we agree on.

You are saying here that you think/observe ENFPs in general have a median of extroversion that is closer to introversion than that of the general public of ESTPs and ESFPs. That’s fine that you see that— and you are right, many people have said so, although I always wonder why it is a point to people, it hasn’t helped me understand myself better. I don’t know if I agree with ENFPs being more introverted in general or not. I think in general I might agree, but I would have to ponder why I think that would matter. I just stand for a pendulum or bell curve (yes) within each type. In general introverted/extroverted isn’t the way that I help people see and understand Ne or Se and I see it as more irrelevant (and this is I guess where we disagree?, and disagreement is fine, right?) in determining Se or Ne.

Here is why: I have a few more ambiverted INTJs in my life and I’ve heard people say “No they can’t be INTJs, INTJs are very introverted”. Well… a few of the ones I know are more ambiverted, so my opinion is that this generalization of the whole type doesn’t help people understand and recognize INTJs. And it really doesn’t help people understand Ni in general. Same for us….but as I said… all I’m really standing for is that there is a bell curve or pedulum swing and so that’s where I’m coming from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ai.tran.75 and NIHM

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #70 ·
Ahh I was thinking how he seemed a bit sensitive at time or gets really chuffed or cries when he hears about the lives of others improving through his advice and thought he might've been a feeler, but the ENTP has Fe Ter which I suppose makes more sense than Fi Aux? Plus the Ti Aux really show in his ability to withstand such rigorous intellectual debate.

I think I just realized the personality type I'd rather be. One that still cares about others but not too much and perhaps a bit more "logicall too" 😬 - and even more “creative” - I’m sure there’s downsides too. Just admiring the grass on the other side. 😋
I don’t know, honestly, I haven’t seen videos of Jordan Peterson crying. Now I’m starting to wonder ENFP if he cries that his work has helped others…lol. I think ENTP, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe Black

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,301 Posts
Can you tell me more about what makes you mad when people bring up studies? To me science and fact is the basis for agreement/truth, etc.
Simple - Humans are biological beings, and biological beings are part of an open system.
Put an organism in certain sanitary conditions, and it would react in a way it usually wouldn't.
Studies require sanitary conditions, otherwise unknown parameters would affect the results.
Scientific observations in studies tend to only record the main measurments looked for, and they definitely fail to record all of the results, because there are many aspects that are too vague, too unscientific, too unprofessional, too personal, too arbitrary, too contradictory to the goal of the study, or too uncommon to be able to be recognized by the person conducting the study.
Studies often have a limited scope and time to operate and observe the biological organism in while depriving it from its regular state, thereby reaching misleading conclusions.

And lastly, I'm not here to indirecty peer review someone's study, I'm here to learn and to share how to recognize, incorporate and deal with all aspects of human consciousness in real time. Some facts about a study aren't going to help me in that regard, this is a shared experience I'm looking for.

Also I have read Nardi's book, he explains how he conducted his studies, the people were asked to fill in a simple questionaire - that's how their types were determined. He's more concerned about the mapping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #72 ·
@NIHM. Oh hey… actually I think you can test extroversion which puts out a chemical that reduces sensitivity to negative stimuli and is associated with the frontal cortex. I think Dario Nardi actually did studies showing how much each type used these executive frontal cortexes… so I think extroversion or introversion has been measured by him as a median. He has more ENFps than any other type, so the subject sizes are pretty different, but actually I will look at this. Well… I’m not sure how relevant it is to who j personally am or if I’d use it to help someone tell the difference between an ESxP and an ENXP but I will look at his data and let you know. I’m expecting you will be confirmed correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NIHM and Joe Black

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #73 ·
Simple - Humans are biological beings, and biological beings are part of an open system.
Put an organism in certain sanitary conditions, and it would react in a way it usually wouldn't.
Studies require sanitary conditions, otherwise unknown parameters would affect the results.
Scientific observations in studies tend to only record the main measurments looked for, and they definitely fail to record all of the results, because there are many aspects that are too vague, too unscientific, too unprofessional, too personal, too arbitrary, too contradictory to the goal of the study, or too uncommon to be able to be recognized by the person conducting the study.
Studies often have a limited scope and time to operate and observe the biological organism in while depriving it from its regular state, thereby reaching misleading conclusions.

And lastly, I'm not here to indirecty peer review someone's study, I'm here to learn and to share how to recognize, incorporate and deal with all aspects of human consciousness in real time. Some facts about a study aren't going to help me in that regard, this is a shared experience I'm looking for.

Also I have read Nardi's book, he explains how he conducted his studies, the people were asked to fill in a simple questionaire - that's how their types were determined. He's more concerned about the mapping.
They took the MBTI test. It doesn’t disprove anything. In fact it is the only way to correlate MBTI is to use MBTI. There is no other way and it doesn’t mean you can’t learn from it.

I hear so many people who are not in science fields talk about the constricts of studies like this as if you should just throw all studies and science out and what it means is that you/they don’t understand how science works. You can control for much, not all, but much. The more studies you read and the more base information and the more study design and the more you can recognize what science actually does and how to use it to produce fact.

Understanding the limitation of a study is an important thing for the person doing the study and they will report the limitations and so Mang people hear that and think it means the study means nothing just really because they don’t know how it all works or how to read it all.

Again, limitations are not a reason to throw data out, instead they are like hurtles for a track star. You report them, you try to leap them and when you figure out a study that properly controls for some of them, you know you have a good study. Again, limitations are just part of science. You have to figure out study designs that get ahead. You have to know why you are studying it in the method that you are. You have to know those limitations.
 

·
Registered
ENFP-A - 2w3 - JEEP
Joined
·
5,853 Posts
@NIHM. Oh hey… actually I think you can test extroversion which puts out a chemical that reduces sensitivity to negative stimuli and is associated with the frontal cortex. I think Dario Nardi actually did studies showing how much each type used these executive frontal cortexes… so I think extroversion or introversion has been measured by him as a median. He has more ENFps than any other type, so the subject sizes are pretty different, but actually I will look at this. Well… I’m not sure how relevant it is to who j personally am or if I’d use it to help someone tell the difference between an ESxP and an ENXP but I will look at his data and let you know. I’m expecting you will be confirmed correct.
Ohh looks like a great project.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,766 Posts
I was agreeing with you, I hope you know that. But then you had to argue the point about my personal experiences with Se-doms. I'm saying in my personal experience (and yes it's probably a small swatch of ESFP/ESTPs I've been around, maybe 12 in whole) but all 12 are more socially active and extroverted than I am. It's from MY PERSONAL experience, so you can't change that fact. From your experience, you've met an outlier which as I stated in my post they do happen so I don't know why you're splicing hairs. Though as he is an ENTP (Devil's advocate) I can see his point about Ne vs Se.

Let's take a graph. If I was to put all the ENFP/ENTPs on it we would score somewhat in the middle and around it, Our bell curve could be slight to the left of center (introversion in the traditional meaning). This is from the countless polls and discussions on several MBTI sites about ENFPs. Occasionally we get an outlier that's more extroverted and then two years later they start double thinking they're really an ESFP/ESTP. Why? Because they're more extroverted and into physical experiences than the rest of us. More of us would place around the center or left of center. I've lost count on how many posts I've seen ENFP's wondering if they're INFPs because of our Fi. You would still have an occasional outlier of an extremely outgoing ENFP in the right and one in the far left. Outliers do happen when you're dealing with a population of ALL the ENFPs/ENTPs. Their human beings something happens to put them into those sections. Now if we take the ESFP/ESTP they might have a bell curve in the center as well but more of them fall slightly right of the mark (extroverted in the traditional meaning). I hope that better explains it. I understand you're a scientist, a nutritionist so I don't think I have to be redundant and have to explain a bell curve. Even though I agree with you, I was still giving credit to @tanstaafl28, which I think you've missed his point and are greatly overthinking. I can't believe I'm saying it, because I overthink everything.
I agree from a function pov - Ne dom are the most introverted extroverted due to where our energy stems from . Se enjoys living their 5 senses out loud and experiencing it right there and then hence it’s likely that they’ll appear more extroverted. My istp husband is an ambivert and if we were to be compared to one another on a social scale then he’s needs more social interaction than I do . Same goes with the isfp in my life - Se is a very loud function.
Like you I’ve also seen many Ne doms questioning their type over and over again - heck I wonder if i’m enfp or infp every once a while


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: NIHM

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,301 Posts
@Llyralen Have you checked out Jung's definition of extraverted thinkers? My mind has a way of quantifying and validating external variables, I've been in university and believed in science until it was proven to me to be ineffective and very limited in scope. My natural way of being disproves the assumption that things need to be insulated for the sake of study of properties, at least things that have to do with psychology as I can't see atoms or molecules(which can actually exist in a closed system). Cause and effect are things I naturally pay attention to ever since I was born, and I can see a lot of inconsistencies in that regard from a lot of studies.

Throw a study at me if you want and I'll show you many more limitations and inconsistencies than have been described.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
I got a bit different question about this topic - how would anybody differentiate dom Ne from Ne in any other position (bring a concrete example here), based only on acting, writings or expressions of a person whom we necessarily can't even observe (for example, if they've been dead for long time)? I've became a bit sceptical about typing others based on how they look from outside as especially when they're writers, actors, singers, scientists or smth like that, we mostly only see their public display not their actual personality, which might be different.

Tbh, I don't think that particular interests, hobbies and other such things are directly related to any particular personality traits or thinking patterns thus such things aren't a good base to determine anybody's actual type in my opinion. So what'd be the good way to tell whether anybody is "obviously Ne dom" based on their display only? :) If that's possible at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
Can you explain with your own analysis how Si inferior can be noticed in people, and with some examples of yours, as well as how Ne is repressed, it would probably help...
If I'm not mistaken, I didn't see answer to this question in this thread yet - so rising it up as I'd be interested in that analysis too :) Exactly - how does inferior Si look like from outside? I know it's a bit derailing question but knowing it might still help people to prove their thoughts about if a particular person is actually Ne dom or not.
 

·
Registered
*NFP 852 Intellectual ambivert, amphibian, empath, strategist, mystical, anarchist, weird stuff
Joined
·
327 Posts
If I'm not mistaken, I didn't see answer to this question in this thread yet - so rising it up as I'd be interested in that analysis too :) Exactly - how does inferior Si look like from outside? I know it's a bit derailing question but knowing it might still help people to prove their thoughts about if a particular person is actually Ne dom or not.
Thank you mate.

I saw some videos of derailing enfp (in the grip of si), I cannot see myself in this.
So I would be glad to read comments about Si dom or Si derailing, whatever we may call it. The more I learn and watch videos the more I seem to bite my own tail...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
heck I wonder if i’m enfp or infp every once a while
Every now and then I wonder if I'm high functioning autistic/Aspergers or just a non-selfaware INFJ.

(background: I can find it easy to read people's moods and sometimes, I completely miss it like some blind spot, and also find it hard to make and keep friends... like wtf and I doing wrong? Maybe I'm just a really off putting kinda person? Maybe I'm just an ultra intense INFJ? It can't possibly be my pittbull and twin machetes that I always carry around right? jkjk 😬)
 
61 - 80 of 90 Posts
Top