Personality Cafe banner
61 - 80 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
ENFP
Joined
·
348 Posts
Discussion Starter · #61 ·
The majority of Jungian psychologists and analytical therapists follow the Jungian system and not the alternating attitude.
Is that true? The majority of post-Jungian researchers I've read (not analytical therapists as I don't know their position) assume that that 2nd function has the opposite attitude to the first. I'd be grateful for some sources (not just quoting Jung as he can be interpreted differently). Not being combative but this goes against a lot of things I've read from other psychologists, not just in popular culture. Not just a random article disputing it, but sources so I can know it's the consensus.
 

·
Registered
ESTP
Joined
·
7,147 Posts
I think this is partly from people who believe in socionics and the polr function and partly from other post-Jungians who believe in Beebe's 8 function model (trickster function - 7th slot), because the basis of it is that ENFPs can't use Ti (as it is a blindspot). Is there any reason to think this?
In all honesty, if you also take into account the theory and application behind Socionics (if you're into that as well) is that ENFp and ESFp both have Ti PoLR. Basically, it opposes your mobilizing function (aka your tertiary function) and has its opposite effect on you. Where using your tertiary function successfully gives you motivation and energy, your PoLR takes it away and leaves you feeling frustrated and inadequate.

If you go by the structure and chart of Socionics:

869815


The PoLR (vulnerable function) can be developed, but it usually irritates the ExFp, and they tend to prefer things to be simplifed for them in terms of Ti. They need help with this function and rely on others to help them use it. Here's an example of Ti PoLR from an IEE's experience/perspective:

As to IEE’s Ti-PoLR, well, it’s understandably hard for me to describe in an entirely accurate way… which is an amusing way to put it. Ti-PoLR often comes through as an inability to accurately describe details in a precise and unambiguous way; the ENFP (and ESFP) will often use the wrong wording to explain something (which often makes them appear nonsensical and unintelligent) despite having a good understanding of the topic they’re talking about. Other examples include placing too much emphasis on details which don’t relate to what they’re saying, or not placing enough emphasis on a detail which actually is important.
There’s also the insecurity in regards to statements of fact and an often painful reaction felt when somebody else points out logical contradictions in an the IEE/ENFP’s line of thought, but this has more to do with Te Hidden Agenda (which is to appear intelligent and knowledgeable about everything) than Ti PoLR.
(Source: here)

Over time, however, you can develop this according to Wikisocion:

One can "develop" the vulnerable function by recognizing that it is actually important in certain real-life circumstances. Even if the subject recognizes this, he will still usually try to avoid taking responsibility for it himself, or develop a minimalist or non-traditional approach (possibly using other functions) that is enough to satisfy one's own needs. The presence of a dual usually dissolves any concern there might be about how to approach matters of the vulnerable function.
So, I don't think that this makes an ENFp bad at logic, per-se (especially if they have a good grasp of their Mobilizing Te), but I think that they can be misunderstood in terms of "logic" (introverted logic anyway) and that can make people think that they're "stupid" when they really aren't (if you define "logic as Ti).

Depending on the situation, external logic (Te) can have an advantage over Ti in terms of real-world application and also in terms of "fact collection"/ "knowledge. Te HA (for ENFps) can manifest in different ways, according to this here:

"Hidden Agenda" aka Activating Function
Notes:
Hidden agenda (HA for short) is also known as activating function. Activating function is considered to be 2-dimensional, encompassing parameters of experience and norms, and inert. Thus a person usually has some difficulty or weakness differentiating and handling information received on this channel and will unconsciously seek it in others. Information verbalized on this channel often seems too simplified and inadequate to those who have the person's HA as their own well-developed Ego function.

Hidden agenda function is most prominent in people of inert/leading function subtype, and for this reason it often gets mistaken for their leading function in typing process. The function balances the creative function, provides it with a kind of a "launching pad". Since leading function subtype has weakened creative function, it is their hidden agenda that receives extra accentuation, making it liable to be mistaken for base.
(If you want more real world examples, you can come and read here)

For example, an ENFp has a different area of focus than someone who is an ISTj (Ti base, Se creative, which is equated to ISTP in MBTI) and they tend to frequently conflict with each other (as the base function of an ENFp is Ne and they have Fi creative, which the ISTj tends not to enjoy using, being Ne PoLR) so, it's probably them stating that the ENFp is "unintelligent" and "illogical" more than anyone else. No shame in being Ti PoLR by the way. It's not the end of the world. You can still develop it (if you really want/need to). You just have a different area of expertise and that's fine. Variety is the spice of life, after all.
 

·
Registered
ISTP
Joined
·
1,214 Posts
But I didn't get the chance to ask what the role in valuing was. Like how do you know something is "wrong"--like, for example, killing a butterfly for no reason. How do you know that is wrong or right?
You don't. It's walking through a snowstorm with a blindfold. Welcome to my life.

There are crutches, of course. The most obvious one is Kant, which hands you some very valuable tools to serve as guarding rails; and it's not for nothing that his most severe indictment of a human is behaving irrationally. Still, though, it only gets you so far, and often, you are just stumped. I tend to retreat to motivation: If there is no reason to kill the butterfly, then killing it doesn't make sense. Hence, I don't.

But you see giant gaping hole there: It only takes a subjectively-reasonable motivation to justify anything. I can do anything. I'm not bound by anything outside myself. Certainly "it doesn't make sense" binds me as strongly as "it's wrong" does for you, but there's this constant paranoia that always has me second-guessing myself, because as opposed to "wrong", "making sense" is a matter of perspective, and what if I have the wrong perspective? It makes me extremely reluctant to make decisions affecting others, and certainly so if I can't get the required time to think it through.

"Right" and "wrong" are abstract terms without any direct meaning. I can only access them by reason; you tell me something is wrong, and my first answer is ... I guess? I wouldn't know. It's for that reason I keep around people whom I trust; in important matters, I can outsource my conscience.


So, what role does right and wrong play in splitting the world in true and false -- none. And that is the strength and the weakness of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,241 Posts
@Northern Lights always glad to see your perspective. Contrast is so useful.

When I am freaking out during a movie because something cruel is being done to someone my sweet INTP daughter will say “There was NO reason for them to do that!!” But even though that’s how she says it and processes it... I think her unconscious Fe is pretty healthy. I see her easily crying with compassion, but I know she would not be able to put that part of her into words. True with my INTP sister as well. She has strong compassion unless you ask her to verbalize it or nail it down and then it becomes irrational to her and the emotions are not understood and she sometimes even denies them.

I once told an INFJ on PerC who was trying to date an INTP and who was trying to get him to say he loved her more. I told her that talking about emotions with an INTP in like talking about monkeys in a forest. When with them you see all these monkeys playing in the trees but as soon as you try to point out the monkeys in the forest with an INTP they will say “What monkeys?” and the monkeys might even vanish. LOL.

I think asking IxTPs about emotions even makes you guys feel cornered from what I’ve seen with my sister sometimes. I would instinctually never try asking my ISTP dad about his emotions... reasoning, though, we could definitely talk.

But can we follow each others’ way of thinking/feeling when the other person is talking their TI or Fi reasons for doing something through? It seems like it to me... what is your experience with that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,241 Posts
Is that true? The majority of post-Jungian researchers I've read (not analytical therapists as I don't know their position) assume that that 2nd function has the opposite attitude to the first. I'd be grateful for some sources (not just quoting Jung as he can be interpreted differently). Not being combative but this goes against a lot of things I've read from other psychologists, not just in popular culture. Not just a random article disputing it, but sources so I can know it's the consensus.
In The USA anyway, Jung’s functions are not accepted by main stream psychology. The consensus would be that we are on here discussing fairy tales as far as I understand it. However, MBTI has done a lot of research over the years and so MBTI has a little bit of acceptance. Try Wikipedia for the widest modern consensus take in English. Also the studies done under the MBTI model are available online.


I also like the work of Dario Nardi which supports the MBTI model of Ne-Fi-Te-SI for us.

I know @RedPanda says that MBTI changed Te for TI for us, but I don’t see that anywhere. A typeo? Plus what I see in myself is Ne-Fi-Te-Si.
 

·
Registered
ENFP
Joined
·
348 Posts
Discussion Starter · #66 · (Edited)
In The USA anyway, Jung’s functions are not accepted by main stream psychology. The consensus would be that we are on here discussing fairy tales as far as I understand it. However, MBTI has done a lot of research over the years and so MBTI has a little bit of acceptance. Try Wikipedia for the widest modern consensus take in English. Also the studies done under the MBTI model are available online.


I also like the work of Dario Nardi which supports the MBTI model of Ne-Fi-Te-SI for us.

I know @RedPanda says that MBTI changed Te for TI for us, but I don’t see that anywhere. A typeo? Plus what I see in myself is Ne-Fi-Te-Si.
Yes, this is what I thought was the case. Thank you for the clarification. I've read all that Wikipedia stuff before. I meant Jungian researchers when I said psychologists as I'm aware that many psychologists, therapists etc don't follow Jung's functions (though I'm not sure if that's the case everywhere), but @Red Panda seemed to be saying the system was not recognised by most researchers who DO believe in Jung, which I didn't think was the case.
 

·
exploring space
say no to flat universers
Joined
·
11,097 Posts
Is that true? The majority of post-Jungian researchers I've read (not analytical therapists as I don't know their position) assume that that 2nd function has the opposite attitude to the first. I'd be grateful for some sources (not just quoting Jung as he can be interpreted differently). Not being combative but this goes against a lot of things I've read from other psychologists, not just in popular culture. Not just a random article disputing it, but sources so I can know it's the consensus.
They have their own interpretation which is based on what they selected to be true, by taking his work out of context something which analytical therapists don't do. But, there isn't one source for this, like yea I can give you some links to read a brief history of it but it requires doing your own research and critical thinking. Why do you even care if it's consensus btw? What if the consensus is wrong lol. It's not like it's a hard science. Also, this research I posted earlier mentions the Jungian part of it too.

@Llyralen, the original MBTI stack with Ti instead of Te is described in those links above too. I also showed you a screenshot from the MBTI manual 3rd ed. the other time you asked, I'll post it below again. There was a very specific theoretical reason why the MBTI stacks were those, originally, and it related to Jung's original types, but when having no conscious other functions but only the 1 dom function and attitude. When the function becomes conscious it takes on the dominant attitude, in Jungian theory. Anyways it's all in the links.

869845
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,241 Posts
Yes, this is what I thought was the case. Thank you for the clarification. I've read all that Wikipedia stuff before. I meant Jungian researchers when I said psychologists as I'm aware that many psychologists, therapists etc don't follow Jung's functions (though I'm not sure if that's the case everywhere), but @Red Panda seemed to be saying the system was not recognised by most researchers who DO believe in Jung, which I didn't think was the case.
I can’t speak for everywhere either. I think Wikipedia usually does a good job representing consensus for the USA. There is a website with all the MBTI research papers...


Okay so @Red Panda thank you for the links. You’re saying this is the original MBTI stack? That makes more sense than it being the current, which I don't see in the literature now. I think the Wikipedia article explained it... something about interpreting Jung as saying the auxiliary function is the opposite and some ideas about interpreting what he said as all the rest of the functions would be introverted if your dominant is extroverted? But Jung never put a number to how many functions there were besides he dominant. I think he was very much the father of Cognitive Functions but that more has been understood now based on his ideas. Do you happen to know when MBTI changed the stack they use?

I don’t use TI. I definitely do use Te and in third place. So the current stack is what I very much resonate with. Ne-Fi-Te-Si is how I experience life and how I learn.
 

·
Registered
ENFP
Joined
·
348 Posts
Discussion Starter · #69 ·
They have their own interpretation which is based on what they selected to be true, by taking his work out of context something which analytical therapists don't do. But, there isn't one source for this, like yea I can give you some links to read a brief history of it but it requires doing your own research and critical thinking. Why do you even care if it's consensus btw? What if the consensus is wrong lol. It's not like it's a hard science. Also, this research I posted earlier mentions the Jungian part of it too.
Thank you for that. Obviously, I'm happy to do my own reading. I've read about Jung until I'm blue in the face recently but it makes your head spin with all the disagreements within the theory sometimes. I wasn't implying that you should always follow the consensus but I think it's important to know what the current one that the Jung researchers have (as I am not trained in it) and then make a judgment. Better to have all the available information and sources.
 

·
exploring space
say no to flat universers
Joined
·
11,097 Posts
Okay so @Red Panda thank you for the links. You’re saying this is the original MBTI stack? I think the Wikipedia article explained it... something about interpreting Jung as saying the auxiliary function is the opposite and some ideas about interpreting what he said as all the rest of the functions would be introverted if your dominant is extroverted? So do you know when MBTI changed it?

I don’t use TI. I definitely do use Te and in third place. So the current stack is what I very much resonate with.
Yes, that's the original stack and so far it hasn't really changed. I've seen someone mention 4th edition has no attitude for the tertiary at all but I don't have so I don't know how they explain it.

Jung separated the functions into conscious and unconscious, and the E/I attitude as such too. So whichever attitude you prefer and is conscious your conscious functions also follow that attitude. But he considered the undifferentiated auxiliary as primitiveness in character development and inability to deal with one's unconscious.

This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of itself, and with more adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development is via the secondary function-thus in the case of a rational type by way of the irrational function. For this lends the conscious standpoint such a range and prospect over what is possible and imminent that consciousness gains an adequate protection against the destructive effect of the unconscious. Conversely, an irrational type demands a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function [p. 517] represented in consciousness, in order to be sufficiently prepared to receive the impact of the unconscious.



The real question is what you define as Te or Ti not what you identify with. To discuss such matters one has to decouple their identity and expectations from the theory as much as possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,241 Posts
Explaining with Ne and Fi....

Fi does sometimes have difficulty explaining how we feel and why we made the decision we did to people who don’t know how to Fi well. I feel like when I was younger I was constantly getting hurt and had no idea why others couldn’t understand how what they did or said impacted me. I felt like sometimes these things were SO obvious. Actually really just 4 years ago with ESTJs... I didn’t understand how they didn’t know that they were doing awful things that impacted me. My conclusion was that they didn’t care... which could be correct, but I think more correct is that maybe they are pretty blind to the impact they have on others and they expect people to be able to succinctly tell them how they are impacting you without too much feeling and with no qualms about conflict.

So I’ve been working on it all my life, basically. How to explain what is going on with my Fi to people with high Te.

Add to this that for people with high SI we Ne’s don’t talk in a step by step way... instead we bounce from thing to thing that WE know are connected but that are not connected to the Si user unless you connect the dots for them which is also kind of difficult.

Anyway, putting these two things together.... is the task. But do I feel like my Ne and Fi are incorrect? I think I was humble enough to think that maybe the problem was with me.... but I’ve definitely grown. Luckily due to tertiary Te which makes me have the confidence and wording to better explain both Ne and Fi. And it’s my Ne and Fi that I feel are the logical and reliable parts of me, the Te just helps me be able to put it together for others is all.

I think I just barely read that Type In Mind description of INFJs that says TI helps put their Ni and Fe together to make sense of themselves. Well my Te makes me make sense to others.... but I feel like my Ne and Fi made strong perfect sense all along....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dscross

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,241 Posts
Yes, that's the original stack and so far it hasn't really changed. I've seen someone mention 4th edition has no attitude for the tertiary at all but I don't have so I don't know how they explain it.

Jung separated the functions into conscious and unconscious, and the E/I attitude as such too. So whichever attitude you prefer and is conscious your conscious functions also follow that attitude. But he considered the undifferentiated auxiliary as primitiveness in character development and inability to deal with one's unconscious.

This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of itself, and with more adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development is via the secondary function-thus in the case of a rational type by way of the irrational function. For this lends the conscious standpoint such a range and prospect over what is possible and imminent that consciousness gains an adequate protection against the destructive effect of the unconscious. Conversely, an irrational type demands a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function [p. 517] represented in consciousness, in order to be sufficiently prepared to receive the impact of the unconscious.



The real question is what you define as Te or Ti not what you identify with. To discuss such matters one has to decouple their identity and expectations from the theory as much as possible.
let’s see if I can find more info for you on current MBTI. I printed out a bunch for others about a year ago that showed age ranges of when they felt the third and tertiary function grew.... they were the usual Ne-Fi-Te-SI as far as I know.

Yeah my T is extroverted and meets the description of Te but lesser... mine kicked in (I can trace it back) when I was around age 26-28 and stayed with me. I’m around enough Te people like my ENTJ brother in law and my ISTJ brother and my INTJ best friend from high school who married my brother, to really see it in action in them and to know that I choose Fi over Te but Te has a very different feel than Ti and I have enough Ti dom people in my family who I am close to to also know the differences in action between Te and Ti, I’d say. I think the standard run of the mill Ne-Fi-Te-SI really works for me and has for the 19 years I’ve known about MBTI and I see it all in action around me with my Ne and my Fi is strong enough to know itself very well.
Plus you know Dario Nardi’s research supports that Ne-Fi-Te-SI stack. I know it doesn’t fit everybody. Our brains can specialize, and there can be mental illness, but I experience all of the functions in the standard way and I feel the strong contrast between a introverted Fi and an extroverted Te... but sandwiches between Ne and Si.

However... I think at some point WE need to be the ones to define what it is like to use these functions. Basically I think we are passed that point, mostly. Especially with Dario Nardi’s info to add... so we can now press on just describing what it is like to be ourselves. People should come here to PerC to learn how ENFPs work. People should go to the thr ISTP forum to learn from them what their experience is like.

It’s like reading what a banana tastes like versus tasting one. And let’s say bananas are extinct and I only had one description Jung gave? But what if so many people who have eaten bananas are like “Hey... i ate a banana....I have my description.” That’s where I think we should be at. I think the individual people’s descriptions are going to be the thing. However... if they are very good at descriptions and start describing a strawberry when they are saying it is a banana then I might look at them funny if I’ve already had a strawberry. But anyway... that’s where we are at, isn’t it? We really need many food chemist to come out and define some compounds. I think the food chemist now would be Dario Nardi’s work... but we need so much more of that. We need more neuroscience people like Dario Nardi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ai.tran.75

·
exploring space
say no to flat universers
Joined
·
11,097 Posts
let’s see if I can find more info for you on current MBTI. I printed out a bunch for others about a year ago that showed age ranges of when they felt the third and tertiary function grew.... they were the usual Ne-Fi-Te-SI as far as I know.

Yeah my T is extroverted and meets the description of Te but lesser... mine kicked in (I can trace it back) when I was around age 26-28 and stayed with me. I’m around enough Te people like my ENTJ brother in law and my ISTJ brother and my INTJ best friend from high school who married my brother, to really see it in action in them and to know that I choose Fi over Te but Te has a very different feel than Ti and I have enough Ti dom people in my family who I am close to to also know the differences in action between Te and Ti, I’d say. I think the standard run of the mill Ne-Fi-Te-SI really works for me and has for the 19 years I’ve known about MBTI and I see it all in action around me with my Ne and my Fi is strong enough to know itself very well.
Plus you know Dario Nardi’s research supports that Ne-Fi-Te-SI stack. I know it doesn’t fit everybody. Our brains can specialize, and there can be mental illness, but I experience all of the functions in the standard way and I feel the strong contrast between a introverted Fi and an extroverted Te... but sandwiches between Ne and Si.

However... I think at some point WE need to be the ones to define what it is like to use these functions. Basically I think we are passed that point, mostly. Especially with Dario Nardi’s info to add... so we can now press on just describing what it is like to be ourselves. People should come here to PerC to learn how ENFPs work. People should go to the thr ISTP forum to learn from them what their experience is like.

It’s like reading what a banana tastes like versus tasting one. And let’s say bananas are extinct and I only had one description Jung gave? But what if so many people who have eaten bananas are like “Hey... i ate a banana....I have my description.” That’s where I think we should be at. I think the individual people’s descriptions are going to be the thing. However... if they are very good at descriptions and start describing a strawberry I might look at them funny if I’ve already had a strawberry. But anyway... that’s where we are at, isn’t it? We really need many food chemist to come out and define some compounds. I think the food chemist now would be Dario Nardi ‘a work... but we need so much more of that.

The problem is when people only see what themselves do and label this Fi or not Fi and miss the forest for the tree, then type others similarly. Nardi has done the same which is why he ends up saying Fi is best listeners when introversion is typically removed from the external happenings. So what he does is confirmation bias. I've linked you one of the few researches on the function stacks multiple times now and how it doesnt hold from within their own definitions. If you start your framework by "I have Fi and so this is Fi" it's circular reasoning.

Jung's descriptions are not perfect by any means but he gave pointers to some important personality differences in regards to how connected we are to the world or ourselves and who we put first. There are many people who try to figure it out better, some in here like @IDontThinkSo and others who make threads once in a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,241 Posts
The problem is when people only see what themselves do and label this Fi or not Fi and miss the forest for the tree, then type others similarly. Nardi has done the same which is why he ends up saying Fi is best listeners when introversion is typically removed from the external happenings. So what he does is confirmation bias. I've linked you one of the few researches on the function stacks multiple times now and how it doesnt hold from within their own definitions. If you start your framework by "I have Fi and so this is Fi" it's circular reasoning.

Jung's descriptions are not perfect by any means but he gave pointers to some important personality differences in regards to how connected we are to the world or ourselves and who we put first. There are many people who try to figure it out better, some in here like @IDontThinkSo and others who make threads once in a while.
I think you should really look into Dario Nardi’s work. You know food, I think? You would know how important Food Science is to a dietitian. Without objective measures none of our advice would be correct. You’re getting a bit too hasty to dismiss the food chemist in this case. And Dario Nardi was not expecting to see the flow state of Fi be during listening... but the more you look into it it makes erfect sense. Panda I think you got that line about being the best listeners from me trying to describe Nardi’s work to you (actually I don’t think he ever put it like that exactly) and you might be missing a lot by not looking into this deeper. How could it be confirmation bias when each INFP who took the test showed flow state while listening? Plus confirmation bias would mean he expected that result... it was all a surprise... all of it.

It’s not that I disagree with your logic here... but you aren’t looking into Dario Nardi’s info deeply and I think you’ve just dismissed it before studying it. I think you could follow along. My neuroscience thread in the NF forum basically step by step follows what he found out about flow state.

What you’re saying here is what I said about describing bananas. If people think they know one and they don’t... it’s actually a mango. Or maybe you’ve only seen one kind of banana and someone is talking about the whole plantain family so it gets missed that way.

Actually the best research on MBTI done on PerC has been done by @ai.tran.75 in my opinion. I tried to get in on it a bit. Have you read all of her “How do you think” threads. You should. Consensus finding or finding consistent results is an important part of objective research.

Edit:
At this point I don’t think we should be working on descriptions of bananas without asking those who have eaten bananas what it’s like. And we have a consistent test called MBTI or else what are we all doing here? At least somewhat consistent.
 

·
Retired Administrator
Joined
·
21,258 Posts
I tend to retreat to motivation: If there is no reason to kill the butterfly, then killing it doesn't make sense. Hence, I don't.
That is an interesting analysis--I enjoyed reading it. Thanks.

I guess for me it comes down to even if you're not consciously aware in the moment, that the butterfly is valuable--but in what way? (I mean it's easier to quickly "feel" the butterfly is valuable if you are sure about that beforehand, I guess.)

So like ultimately you have to judge the value of the butterfly and its life against whatever motivation you might have for smashing it--is it that it is fun to see bugs smash or maybe it's to scare someone or make someone else sad, or perhaps because you cannot avoid smashing the butterfly safely.

But it all comes down to value and I don't know how value can be assigned by logic--I mean there can be a value by association, but at the very root there must be some kind of value assigned.

Often it seems like in real dilemmas it comes to value of yourself--your survival, your enjoyment etc. vs. value for things that conflict with that (like a butterfly), or just other neutral parties.

And the rest is just figuring out what exact ratio of value to assign.

Perhaps if you feel the butterfly is very valuable--either just inherently as a living thing or because you prefer the butterfly for some reason over other living things, then the reaction is stronger initially--like that you would simply not harm it unless necessary.

But if you are faced with a really serious dilemma like you're driving and you don't want to hit a butterfly but logically you know that if you swerve you could crash the car and your kids are in the car, then being able to think it through logically is going to help more in the moment.

But that still comes down to valuing the kids vs. valuing the butterfly, and perhaps why. Like do you value the kids just for your own selfish reasons--because they will perhaps take care of you when you are older, or do you value them as individuals that for no real benefit to you, you want to see grow and flourish and you would sacrifice a butterfly or even yourself for that.

And the same is for the butterfly (minus it's being pitted against something more valuable to you) and whether you would just value the butterfly on it's own--for being alive. Not necessarily going to do anything to benefit you, but perhaps makes you happy to know you've not caused it harm because you want it to be free or something.

I wonder if it is more of a P thing to sometimes struggle with deciding some ultimate conclusion, but perhaps to be able to try to make those decisions to deal with the moment--like logically realize that you mustn't swerve the car to avoid a butterfly, or else in the moment realize if your kids are gleefully jumping on butterflies without understanding what death means, to stop them and release the butterfly instead because you shouldn't kill something for no reason.

Because I can relate to not necessarily having some end-game plan when I make decisions, and I don't like making decisions that affect others either. Being wrong is usually really painful, when it might not be as painful to be wrong about something that doesn't affect another person or thing that we care about.

I can't relate to feeling blind--just listening to my emotions most of the time and thinking through it, but I've done a lot of wrong things in my life, and some of them were due to just not following the logical consequences, or realizing with common sense what would happen. Making mistakes that injured or killed. I guess that's life though--we all have to make mistakes and learn.

I think that the idea that the butterfly shouldn't be killed unless there is reason to kill it affirms that life has some value, and perhaps the butterfly is valuable just because it is alive. It's not threatening our lives unless it's like you have to swerve to get around it.

My friend made me think about that b/c I tend to swerve for squirrels and things and she (I suspect she might be a TJ) was like "if you crash the care and kill me, your best friend, for a squirrel--I am going to kill you!" So I was like...yeah, that's a tough choice, though there are things that'd be easier--like if it was a kid in the car (lol I'm such a bad person, but seriously there are different levels of "not worth it!". And that's also why I think ethics are ultimately subjective. Also, I never read Kant. But I also tend to drive carefully and slow so I hopefully never have to actually make that sort of choice--it's also why I don't really like driving and have panic attacks way to easily. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llyralen

·
exploring space
say no to flat universers
Joined
·
11,097 Posts
I think you should really look into Dario Nardi’s work. You know food, I think? You would know how important Food Science is to a dietitian. Without objective measures none of our advice would be correct. You’re getting a bit too hasty to dismiss the food chemist in this case. And Dario Nardi was not expecting to see the flow state of Fi be during listening... but the more you look into it it makes erfect sense. Panda I think you got that line about being the best listeners from me trying to describe Nardi’s work to you (actually I don’t think he ever put it like that exactly) and you might be missing a lot by not looking into this deeper. How could it be confirmation bias when each INFP who took the test showed flow state while listening? Plus confirmation bias would mean he expected that result... it was all a surprise... all of it.

It’s not that I disagree with your logic here... but you aren’t looking into Dario Nardi’s info deeply and I think you’ve just dismissed it before studying it. I think you could follow along. My neuroscience thread in the NF forum basically step by step follows what he found out about flow state.

What you’re saying here is what I said about describing bananas. If people think they know one and they don’t... it’s actually a mango. Or maybe you’ve only seen one kind of banana and someone is talking about the whole plantain family so it gets missed that way.

Actually the best research on MBTI done on PerC has been done by @ai.tran.75 in my opinion. I tried to get in on it a bit. Have you read all of her “How do you think” threads. You should. Consensus finding or finding consistent results is an important part of objective research.

Edit:
At this point I don’t think we should be working on descriptions of bananas without asking those who have eaten bananas what it’s like. And we have a consistent test called MBTI or else what are we all doing here? At least somewhat consistent.

You're missing the point, the problem is how he takes by fact that this is introverted feeling because INFPs supposedly are introverted feelers. He doesnt try to find out what introversion is like across the types and fundamentally first, and then apply it deductively to see if someone is that. He derives his conclusions about brain patterns by accepting de facto the grant stack so all that comes after that is confirmation bias.

I have seen his vids and work first hand before you made threads about it btw. Posted about it years ago here too.
 

·
Registered
ISTP
Joined
·
1,214 Posts
I guess for me it comes down to even if you're not consciously aware in the moment, that the butterfly is valuable--but in what way? (I mean it's easier to quickly "feel" the butterfly is valuable if you are sure about that beforehand, I guess.)

[...]

I think that the idea that the butterfly shouldn't be killed unless there is reason to kill it affirms that life has some value, and perhaps the butterfly is valuable just because it is alive. It's not threatening our lives unless it's like you have to swerve to get around it.
I really don't think that is the case, though. The outcomes, here, might be the same, but the difference in the process of getting there very much exists. It's also a very fundamental difference, I think, not something superfical. It's one of the things that shows how different people really can be.

The kind of reasoning I talked about is simply a decision, not a recognition of some intrinsic value, and it is the same kind of decision as, say, not switching on the lights on a bright noon. The room is already flooded by sunlight, so switching on the light serves no purpose, it makes no sense. And in just that way, killing the butterfly makes no sense. Conceptually, the butterfly has no different value than the lightbulb I don't turn on, a piece of wood I'm not chopping, or a rock I'm not crushing. They all are of the same quality. This is the difference: You wouldn't assign value to a rock, and therefore claim you should not crush it to powder unless you had a very good reason. It's not "wrong" to do that. But operating under what makes sense, it's still pointless; and all of those examples are, in exactly the same way.

Or to invert: I could switch on the light, I could chop a piece of wood, I could crush a rock, or I could kill a butterfly, each without very good reason. But I don't, because I never do pointless things. The thought doesn't even cross my mind.

Which is not say I don't think life doesn't have an intrinsic value that separates it from a dead stone. I certainly do. But it's an abstract notion, a theory I agree with, ultimately something I chose to believe. It's not something that's directly and innately motivating anything, only indirectly, through a periode of reflection and reasoning, and not in the moment I make a decision, as the driving force in what I ought to do. The point is that you can conceive of a person disagreeing that life has an intrinsic value, and still end up with him acting in a way that is broadly in line with most other people that do agree on such value.

Even if Hume disagrees, reason can be a functional substitute for sentiment, and a good thing that is, too, because otherwise, some people would be left with nothing at all. So perhaps if Kant and Hume disagree on this exact aspect, in truth they only write about different kinds of people. I wouldn't be opposed to that solution.

Which, to sort-of return to the original topic, if one were to define "properly" as "fundamental in every decision" and "unable" as "reluctant", one might have a point; -- I certainly feel reluctant to not base every decision on such.


@Llyralen : When around IxFPs, I always think we're very similar except looking at everything backwards respectively. So in one sense, I understand very well, I just disagree entirely. I think that is a relevant distinction here. Generally, getting where someone is coming from always should be possible, it's just that it might not ... well, make sense :p (But that's fine! It doesn't have to, I never would demand it must. Something is not a priori better if it makes sense or worse if it doesn't, just different. I think that is the basis for getting along.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,241 Posts
You're missing the point, the problem is how he takes by fact that this is introverted feeling because INFPs supposedly are introverted feelers. He doesnt try to find out what introversion is like across the types and fundamentally first, and then apply it deductively to see if someone is that. He derives his conclusions about brain patterns by accepting de facto the grant stack so all that comes after that is confirmation bias.

I have seen his vids and work first hand before you made threads about it btw. Posted about it years ago here too.
So... I can’t miss a point you didn’t bother to make yet. You keep showing me how little you have delved into Dario Nardi’s information. it’s okay if you don’t want to learn something, but don’t pretend you know something when you don’t.

Usually whenever you’ve talked about your concerns about this research then it has allowed me to see how little you understand about it. That is okay if you own it. Usually your concerns show me that you don’t understand this area of science, again that’s okay, but I think you are capable and it would expand your thinking. You kind of keep trying to squeeze blood from the same rock, in my opinion.

Usually do you get to tell scientists exactly what they should study and how they should tell you their information? If they don’t tell you what you want to hear in the way that you want to hear it can you just ignore science? Someone can discover a planet but since they aren’t talking about the current planets you dismiss their work?

Introversion and extroversion have been well explored by neuroscientists before Dario Nardi decided to study a possible correlation between MBTI instrument and neuroscience patterns. This is probably the part of Jung’s theories that are the most accepted and studied by mainstream neuroscience. How would you know that each functions introversion Or extroversion has any commonality at all unless you have looked into the neuroscience? Isn’t that an assumption? Isn’t it also an assumption that it wasn’t addressed in his book. It was addressed, btw. But he doesn’t have to follow your rules for discussing what he has discovered.

It turns out the commonalities of introversion and extroversion as understood by neuroscience are addressed in his book. Extroverts produce more of a chemical that helps them ignore negative feedback, introverts are more sensitive to negative feedback. That’s the commonality. I bet you could find more studies on that much beyond Dario Nardi.

The things to really learn from Dario Nardi are the flow states of each dom function. For instance, that every Ne dom showed the same pattern when faced with the same new information and the other types did not exhibit this or less sustained in the case of INxPs. For another instance that each ENTJ put new information through the same “super highway” centers of their brain (like ranking, coat-benefit analysis, etc) to make.quick decisions constantly.

If you continue your pattern, the next time you talk about Dario Nardi you will bring up concerns about what I’ve stated here without reading it yourself. You will assume that you understand the functions better than the science. You will be rejecting science for your own assumptions. When you test over 100 Ne doms and their brains light up in a similar way with a R value of 93-95% then you have objective data that shouldn’t be argued with. There is data like that for each dom function that should be looked at. Do people not know when data has crossed the border into fact? I would like to see more people studying this and applying it. We have so little by way of fact in Cognitive Function theory and if the facts aren’t studied then we might as well be talking about flat-earther stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dscross and 556155

·
exploring space
say no to flat universers
Joined
·
11,097 Posts
So... I can’t miss a point you didn’t bother to make yet. You keep showing me how little you have delved into Dario Nardi’s information. it’s okay if you don’t want to learn something, but don’t pretend you know something when you don’t.

Usually whenever you’ve talked about your concerns about this research then it has allowed me to see how little you understand about it. Last time you didn’t even know that you can’t use lefties in neuroscience research.

Usually do you get to tell scientists exactly what they should study and how they should tell you their information? If they don’t tell you what you want to hear in the way that you want to hear it can you just ignore science? Someone can discover a planet but since they aren’t talking about the current planets you dismiss their work?

Introversion and extroversion have been well explored by neuroscientists before Dario Nardi decided to study a possible correlation between MBTI instrument and neuroscience patterns. This is probably the part of Jung’s theories that are the most accepted and studied. How would you know that each functions introversion Or extroversion has any commonality at all unless you have looked into the neuroscience? Isn’t that an assumption? Isn’t it also an assumption that it wasn’t addressed in his book. It was addressed, btw. But he doesn’t have to follow your rules. He can discover something new without any “he shoulda”.

It turns out the commonalities of introversion and extroversion as understood by neuroscience are addressed in his book. Extroverts produce more of a chemical that helps them ignore negative feedback, introverts are more sensitive to negative feedback. That’s the commonality.

The things to really learn from Dario Nardi are the flow states of each dom function. For instance, that every Ne dom showed the same pattern when faces with the same new information and the other types did not or less sustained. For instance that each ENTJ put new information through the same “super highway” centers of their brain to make.quick decisions.

As far as I know, the next time you talk about Dario Nardi you will bring up concerns about what I’ve stated here without reading it yourself. Also you will be rejecting science. When you test over 100 Ne doms and their brains light up in a similar way with a R value of 93-95% then you have objective data that shouldn’t be argued with. Do people not know when data has crossed the border into fact? I would like to see more people studying this and applying it. We have so little by way of fact in Cognitive Function theory and if the facts aren’t studied then we might as well be talking about flat-earther stuff.
I've made that point to you countless times already, in almost each Nardi discussion probably.

When did I reject the whole brain pattern thing? I have posted about this before you were even a member in this forum. That doesn't fix the methodological errors in his research. He can be both right and wrong about things but unless you're willing to investigate all the premises and the foundation of typology you'll never figure them out yourself.

You can keep jumping to conclusions about what I know or don't know, besides you always like to assume that one has never read or heard something until you tell them about it, or at least you've done this to me countless times when I say something you don't like. BTW I posted some other neurological research in some other thread over at the type forums but of course you like to jump to your conclusions again.

I'm tired of repeating myself and giving you the same arguments, explanations, information and even sources/links over and over for months and you not to engage with what I'm saying at all, it's not even a matter of agreeing, but literally minimal engagement and deflecting to Nardi or your own sense of identity and creating a meta discussion like this one, that leads nowhere except where you want to be. Like holy shit this is one the most slanderous post anyone's made about me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,326 Posts
We're not "logic driven", or in otherwords we're not "logic first". We're information driven, or to be more precise pattern driven.

What this basically means is that we take in a LOT of data/information/experiences hence why we are driven to behave in ways that will facilitate this happening, and why we feel underwhelmed when we're not able to do this. Where Te "logic" comes in is when all that information is pattern-formed, then filtered for excess waste (a.k.a. we form a lot of patterns very quickly with Ne, but in order to draw solid basis we need to filter out those that lack long-term merit), we can then use our Te to use the useful patterns in order to create logical structures and judgements.

So while we aren't logic driven like T-doms, we have advantages in that we are driven toward information gathering, and we tend to grow our skills and make choices in alignment with doing so- therefore while our Te is not as directly applied as a Te-dom's initially, over time we can develop a diverse and solid portfolio of logical judgements and conclusions. This process takes time though as we need a lot of input data in order to come up with solid judgements, and of course this varies in competence from ENFP to ENFP to a large degree for many many different factors, and also requires processing time to filter through the stages before it becomes a solid framework. I look at teenage ENFPs posting on reddit and many of them are trying to apply Te judgements when their base of experience is simply not large enough hence why they get so many loose strings, and I'd dare to imagine that a 50 year old version of myself looking at myself now might say the same things even though I have developed a huge amount.

I'm not going to compare Ti and Te since that is another topic in my mind, as Te and Ti approximate similar end goals with very different processes, but INTPs and ENTPs I met during my teens were still pretty poor at overall logical output at that age when I remember back to my experiences with them.
 
61 - 80 of 89 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top