Personality Cafe banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
ENFp-Fi (OP: Ne/Te); 2w1; LEVF
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Jung is considered one of the greatest names in psychology and for good reason. An undeniable genius, he left a footprint so deep on the field, the experts perpetually keep circling back to him when stuck. What he wrote on cognitive functions, he wrote based on career-long studying of his patients. To say his observations were massacred by MBTI is an understatement... :rolleyes:

Jung described:

Consciousness (subjugates the functions to itself):
• extraverted (objective reality oriented, objective relations determined, aligning with outside „objective truths“)
• introverted (self-oriented, subjective values, derives primary drive from inward information, aligns with self 1st, outside world secondary)
If most essential decisions are made extravertly/introvertly, Jung called it ATTITUDE.
When this is done habitually, he calls it extraverted/introverted TYPE.
When the person's entire life is one way oriented (for better or worse), he called it extraversion and introversion.

According to Jung, in one person, one function can be both extraverted and introverted, but the following divisions are NOT indicating that. They don't describe „introverted version“ and „extroverted version“ of the 4 functions. THERE ARE ONLY 4.


Thinking (uses its own laws to bring representations into connection - concept construct; linking up of representations by means of a concept) a type of judging, requires one to reflect
• Active (directed) thinking (done on purpose, directed; called „intellect“ by Jung) MBTI: Ti
• Passive (intuitive) thinking (not done consciously/on purpose, connections thought about establish themselves without deliberate process; called „intellectual intuition“ by Jung) MBTI: Ti + Ne


Feeling (NOT emotions/affect, but can induce them only as much as thinking can. It is an interaction between any input and ego - ego is what balances between higher moral values and lower instictive desires, in order to set up subjective set of values to determine acceptance or rejection, without concern for the intellectual connection: worth gradient) a type of judging, requires one to reflect
MBTI: Fi (sort of)


Sensation (psychological function which transmits a physical stimulus to perception; stimulus both inner - of body, and outer - of surroundings) a type of perception, just takes in without judging input
• Concrete (percieves object + details: flower,stem, color, petals; AND IMMEDIATELLY induces more processing in consciousness -> feeling tone:pleasure/dislike, OR additional sensation: smell, OR thoughts of info about it) MBTI: Se + Si
• Abstract (picks out the most noticeable characteristic/attribute of thing: bright RED flower; making it the sole content/principle content of consciousness, abstraction/representation compressed) chracteristic of artists MBTI: Ni introvert


Intuition (ANY input filtered trough the unconscious, doesn't need concrete reality; hunches, visions, always comes as complete/given - not to be assembled, posseses certainty) a type of perception, just takes without judging input
MBTI: Ni, Ne= fast Ni
Intuition is ONE, but may be perception of unconscious psychic data originating in the subject (while intuiting/percieving what is already within), or (also) induced by subliminal perceptions of the object and additional feelings and thoughts they evoke...doesn't involve any consciously understood path/origin to be assembled, even when induced externally.



RESULT:
8 cognitive categories: TSIF, TISF, FSIT, FIST, STFI, SFTI, ITFS, IFTS
2 consciousness versions: extraverted & introverted (trough which the 4 functions „flow“); flow indicated by 3 levels of consciousness: level 1: attitude, level2: type, level3: extravert/introvert (prolly mentally ill)
2 divisions: rational (judges the most in order to know) & irrational (percieves the most in order to know)

Judgers:
e-TSIF (Extraverted consciousness with thinking, aided by sensing, most differentiated in it... Their intuition and feeling not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the introverted unconscious)
i-TSIF (Introverted consciousness with thinking aided by sensing, most differentiated in it... Their intuition and feeling not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the extraverted unconscious)
e-TISF (Extraverted consciousness with thinking, aided by intuition, most differentiated in it... Their sensing and feeling not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the introverted unconscious)
i-TISF (Introverted consciousness with thinking aided by intuition, most differentiated in it... Their sensing and feeling not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the extraverted unconscious)
e-FSIT (Extraverted consciousness with feeling, aided by sensing, most differentiated in it... Their intuition and thinking not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the introverted unconscious)
i-FSIT (Introverted consciousness with feeling aided by sensing, most differentiated in it... Their intuition and thinking not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the extraverted unconscious)
e-FIST (Extraverted consciousness with feeling, aided by intuition, most differentiated in it... Their sensing and thinking not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the introverted unconscious)

i-FIST (Introverted consciousness with feeling aided by intuition, most differentiated in it... Their sensing and thinking not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the extraverted unconscious)

Percievers:
e-STFI (Extraverted consciousness with sensing, aided by thinking, most differentiated in it... Their feeling and intuition not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the introverted unconscious)
i-STFI (Introverted consciousness with sensing aided by thinking, most differentiated in it... Their feeling and intuition not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the extraverted unconscious)
e-SFTI (Extraverted consciousness with sensing, aided by feeling, most differentiated in it... Their thinking and intuition not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the introverted unconscious)
i-SFTI (Introverted consciousness with sensing aided by feeling, most differentiated in it... Their thinking and intuition not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the extraverted unconscious)
e-ITFS(Extraverted consciousness with intuition, aided by thinking, most differentiated in it... Their feeling and sensing not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the introverted unconscious)
i-ITFS (Introverted consciousness with intuition, aided by thinking, most differentiated in it... Their feeling and sensing not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the extraverted unconscious)
e-IFTS (Extraverted consciousness with intuition, aided by feeling, most differentiated in it... Their thinking and sensing not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the introverted unconscious)
i-IFTS (Introverted consciousness with intuition, aided by feeling, most differentiated in it... Their thinking and sensing not clearly laid out, more likely to be playing out in the extraverted unconscious)

If only what is certain is listed, the „types“ are mere suggestions of congnition and are displayed as following:
Thinking-Sensing Extravert TSe
Thinking-Sensing Introvert TSi
Thinking-Intuiting Extravert TIe
Thinking-Intuiting Introvert TIi
Feeling-Sensing Extravert FSe
Feeling-Sensing Introvert FSi
Feeling-Intuiting Extravert FIe
Feeling-Intuiting Introvert FIi
Sensing-Thinking Extravert STe
Sensing-Thinking Introvert STi
Sensing-Feeling Extravert SFe
Sensing-Feeling Introvert SFi
Intuiting-Thinking Extravert ITe
Intuiting-Thinking Introvert ITi
Intuiting-Feeling Extravert IFe
Intuiting-Feeling Introvert Ifi
(next to each type 3 levels of consciousness introversion/extroversion can be noted, example: SFi2, TIe1, IFe3...)

Conclusion: MBTI is like a little kid drawing a bunny on daddy's tax return.
 

·
Registered
ENFp-Fi (OP: Ne/Te); 2w1; LEVF
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I'd also suggest you google Reynierse's revision of MBTI. I find it far better, and even more Jung-friendly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Conclusion: MBTI is like a little kid drawing a bunny on daddy's tax return.
With all due respect, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

You're right to approve Reynierse, buuut that's pretty much the only positive thing I can find to say about your opening posts.

If you'd like to get straightened out (and of course you would!), I recommend that you start with this post.

Then check out this post — which talks about Reynierse's articles.

And for more about the dichotomy-centric history of the respectable districts of the MBTI, see the spoiler in this post.

You're welcome! And welcome to Personality Cafe.
 

·
Registered
ENFp-Fi (OP: Ne/Te); 2w1; LEVF
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I talk about the source of MBTI. Reynierse is just an afterthought to indicate someone else discussing the issues about the MBTI dichotomies, because the first person to do it was Jung himself in writing of the original work.

The only dichotomy Jung created was one of extroversion-introversion. The other 4 functions were meant to "add flavor" and 3D to what he was looking at. They were never meant to be dichotomized in such a delusional way Jung never observed in reality, let alone be turned into a typing system.

There is nothing sophisticated about creating the concepts of (for example) two intuitions and defining them as opposing versions of the concept of intuition, for Jung not to have been able to think all of that up himself. The man was a visionary and is still not caught up to by the field in some sense. It keeps circling back to him.

The fact that he didn't create MBTI, and instead added into his description of intuition, a little division over what source stimulates the one intuition into "working", doesn't make MBTI more advanced insight into intuition. It just means that Jung was too based in reality and observation of his patients, to pull such a concept out of his butt and then spend the rest of his time trying reaffirm its existence using confirmation bias.
The functions were mere "suggestions" of personality shape even in their original form. Jung as far as I've heard, mentions there is good reason he put them "at the back of the book", but people missed the point and latched onto them for no good reason.

There absolutely isn't a shred of empirical evidence in modern psychology to affirm MBTI's existence, while Jung's work remains evident and invaluable for creation of more sophisticated, reality-based personality theory. MBTI keeps producing 0 results in improving anything as well, but myth and low cost of implementation, keep it alive in some of the corporate world, where proper personality testing doesn't seem like a good investment by people really not "into" psychology.
 

·
Registered
ENFp-Fi (OP: Ne/Te); 2w1; LEVF
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Young describes an extroverted consciousness. That means an extrovert more stimulated and defined by what is around them, than what is inside them. So an extrovert who is most prominently defined by intuition, isn't a "Ne using person" as understood by MBTI. He is an extroverted person (outside inclined) with intuition most prominently shaping their personality.

They use the SAME intuition an introvert uses, but will pick up on more outside intuition stimulus, than inside. Doesn't mean they are "Ne like" as MBTI describes them, since an introvert using intuition could generate ideas faster if more steeped in themselves, or simply a person close to an ambivert, getting intuitive hunches almost equally from both sides... Idea ridden, "hyper mind" MBTI Ne describes, is nothing more than quick/plentiful intuition use any introvert could manifest.

Thinking according to young is Active and single type of thinking (logical/reasoned binding of objects into concepts). MBTI divides it into Ti- predominantly inductive and Te- predominantly deductive and data based.
But that's pointless since ANY thinking using extrovert according to Jung, could easily outperform a supposed introvert in "use of MBTI's Ti", even if the two are of equal intelligence, simply because there is NO such thing as Te. Ti is nothing more than Jung's ONE thinking filtered trough how an introvert would be more likely to use it (not looking at too much outside data, but philosophize on the longest possible structure will go, before they need data), and Te is that SAME Ti within an extrovert who is just using more data.

Feeling is just person's values. Partly shown in MBTI Fi, or in socionics decribed as "gamma/delta aristocracy" when pertaining to people and highly discriminatory.
Values built can be ANY and related to ANYthing. This isn't Jung discussing feelings, but "feeling" function that CAN evoke feelings. To think up Fe is silly, since it implies formation of a particular set of human values (written into MBTI Fe-Fi descr.) is ALWAYS determined by how much a person emotes, feels others and reaches out, while Jung never went into people's individual value content.

Sensing is reactiveness and focus on physical stimuli. MBTI got this one closest to the mark I think, but again made it into a dichotomy, when there was absolutely NO need for that.

And the MOST IMPORTANT PART, what Jung said on the orientation of consciousness and how it can be prominently manifesting a functions, but it itself can be more "middle of the road" preference in addition of the degree the leading function defines the person in their preference to it... Naaah! Let's ignore that, who cares about the thing the old fart emphasized?

:unsure:

Jung quotes: "From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgement, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth."

"I differentiate these functions from one another, because they are neither mutually relatable nor mutually reducible. The principle of thinking, for instance, is absolutely different from the principle of feeling, and so forth."

Also thanks for welcoming me. I was here before long ago. It's good to be back. Very pretty forum. :kitteh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
@miuliu

You clearly haven't read the posts I linked you to, and you really should. Lots of the misinformation in your posts shows that you're just not aware of the history of the MBTI, and what Myers did (and didn't do) to Jung's original concepts, and why the dichotomies are psychometrically respectable and "type dynamics" is not, and on and on.

You praised Reynierse in your second post as being more "Jung-friendly," but you really couldn't be more confused. Reynierse isn't advocating going back to Jung, and refers to the eight cognitive functions as a "category mistake," while explaining why the MBTI dichotomies are the type categories that are real.

Since you apparently don't like to follow links, I've put a bit of recycled reckful for you in the spoiler.

 
Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in using scientific methods to the extent possible, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she'd gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the end of the 1950s, she had a typology (and an instrument) that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that identical twins raised in separate households are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and they've studied both Jung and the MBTI, and noted — correctly — that Jung's typology erred in lumping various psychological characteristics together that decades of studies have shown are not significantly correlated. By contrast, after Myers was finished adjusting Jung's system to fit the data, she had a modified version whose dichotomies passed muster by the relevant scientific standards. As McCrae and Costa explain:

Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...

Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices.​

As further discussed in this post, Jung included what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) in his very broad notion of what E/I involved. But Myers discovered that there are abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and that there's no significant correlation between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N. Jung said extraverts tend to subscribe to the mainstream cultural views of their time, while introverts tend to reject mainstream values in favor of their own individualistic choices. But Myers discovered that a typical ISTJ is significantly more likely to be a traditionalist than a typical (more independent-minded) ENTP. Jung said an extravert likes change and "discovers himself in the fluctuating and changeable," while an introvert resists change and identifies with the "changeless and eternal." But Myers discovered that it was the S/N and J/P dimensions that primarily influenced someone's attitude toward change, rather than whether they were introverted or extraverted.

And so on. The appropriate way to view the Myers-Briggs typology is not as some kind of simplified (and more "testable") implementation of Jung's original typology. Instead, it's fairer to say that the Myers-Briggs typology is basically where Jung's typology ended up after it was very substantially modified — not to mention expanded — to fit the evidence.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. There's nothing wrong with reading Psychological Types if you're interested, and I've read it more than once myself. But you should realize that, although Jung had a lot of insightful things to say about various two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world characteristics that have proven to be psychometrically respectable and have been incorporated into the MBTI, there's a lot that Jung got wrong, too. And if you read Psychological Types with an overly reverent attitude, then you're being non-Jungian in that respect, if you get my drift.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
Since you apparently don't like to follow links, I've put a bit of recycled reckful for you in the spoiler.
It's not that I disapprove citing your own posts, it is something I have considered doing myself for extra credibility and all that jazz. But I always wonder what's up with referring to yourself in the third person. Is it to deny even the possibility of subjectivity in your statements?

Jung said an extravert likes change and "discovers himself in the fluctuating and changeable," while an introvert resists change and identifies with the "changeless and eternal." But Myers discovered that it was the S/N and J/P dimensions that primarily influenced someone's attitude toward change, rather than whether they were introverted or extraverted.
In essence, Myers "discovered" that S and J have the same effects on a person as Jung thought was a tendency of introversion. What is it about sensation and judgement that make it so i.e. the cause, and how did Myers exactly come up with that. And why accept the more complicated (yet lacking in insightfulness and explanations) set of dichtomies instead of the simpler explanation revolving around attitudes which nevertheless has both depth and potential for applications when treating people? I do not see why the former would be preferable simply because it can be "tested" while pretending that personality traits could be measured and tested reliably in the first place. I recall asking you some time ago (unfortunately without receiving an answer) as to why art schools aren't full of sensory kids who make use of their intuitions - just as well, since your claim was that he opposite was obviously true. I cannot help but find this kind of theorizing lacking, and at the risk of repeating myself, with a test that associates "creativity" with intution it can hardly be surprising that a lot of people studying to become creative professionals end up with the "intuitive" label. However using this as evidence is just dishonest as it only confirms a mistake that took place earlier in the process aka. assigning a vague trait of "creativity" with the even more vague concept of intuition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
I hate the idea of intuition having to do with openness, there's so much flaws in that line of reasoning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
I hate the idea of intuition having to do with openness, there's so much flaws in that line of reasoning.
If I understand you correctly:

The thing about openness is to be aware of what is flawed, and it is basically up to you if you care about flaws or not. The leap of faith into the unknown might take courage for some. Exploring unknown realities can get you mad, I know that myself.

Most of the times it's pretty sweet living in a reality without flaws. But a reality without flaws doesn't exist...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
If I understand you correctly:

The thing about openness is to be aware of what is flawed, and it is basically up to you if you care about flaws or not. The leap of faith into the unknown might take courage for some. Exploring unknown realities can get you mad, I know that myself.

Most of the times it's pretty sweet living in a reality without flaws. But a reality without flaws doesn't exist...
Wut?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
uuhmm ok nvm XD

Why do you hate the idea of intuition having to do with openness? Why are there so many flaws in that line of reasoning?
1. It assumes that thinking more abstractly would necessitate you being more open to experience and ideas.

2. It assumes if you think in a more concrete manner you'll be more conventional in your behavior and opinions on things, and vice-versa.

3. It assumes that if you're more traditional that you lack creativity. One is behavioral, openness just seems to be more about interests. The two aren't at odds with one-another, not a contradiction so I don't see why they're on a continuum.

4. It doesn't take the way you process information into consideration it seems, only the end result. I.e Being more liberal therefore means being more abstract.

5. Se is an S function, but going by how Big 5 describes openness an S would score higher on it than not. When openness is supposed to describe intuition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
1. It assumes that thinking more abstractly would necessitate you being more open to experience and ideas.


2. It assumes if you think in a more concrete manner you'll be more conventional in your behavior and opinions on things, and vice-versa.

3. It assumes that if you're more traditional that you lack creativity. One is behavioral, openness just seems to be more about interests. The two aren't at odds with one-another, not a contradiction so I don't see why they're on a continuum.

4. It doesn't take the way you process information into consideration it seems, only the end result. I.e Being more liberal therefore means being more abstract.

5. Se is an S function, but going by how Big 5 describes openness an S would score higher on it than not. When openness is supposed to describe intuition.
The reality we live in is abstract, because without our mind that imagines the abstract we wouldn't even see what we perceive reality as.

And by thinking more abstractly than usual peeps just means one is more prone to see/understand things as a whole, what is a connection, what might be a connection, as well as discovering stuff that don't yet exists as material matter. While thinking more like a practical person, one has an understanding what is useful or not in what we perceive as reality. Taking the reality we live in as something completely normal and for granted, which is a blessing in itself. Man idk, Im not particularly informed on MBTI tbh.. so whatever
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
It's not that I disapprove citing your own posts, it is something I have considered doing myself for extra credibility and all that jazz. But I always wonder what's up with referring to yourself in the third person. Is it to deny even the possibility of subjectivity in your statements?
Referring to myself as "reckful" is a stylistic tic that I adopted early in my forum-posting career (at INTJforum in 2009), largely for the amusement of my fellow forumites.

In essence, Myers "discovered" that S and J have the same effects on a person as Jung thought was a tendency of introversion. What is it about sensation and judgement that make it so i.e. the cause, and how did Myers exactly come up with that.
That's incorrect.

On S/N, Jung thought abstract/concrete was a core part of the difference between introversion (abstract, as he saw it) and extraversion (concrete). And Myers discovered that abstract/concrete and I/E didn't actually correlate.

On J/P, if you're looking for Jungian descriptions of the personality characteristics associated with the MBTI J/P dimension, the best place to look is his characterizations of J-doms (what he called the "rational types") and P-doms (the "irrational types"), rather than his E/I descriptions.

On the general issue of how Myers "came up with" the MBTI dichotomies, that's explained in the spoiler you partly quoted. The short answer is, she put Jung to the test, and went where the data took her.

I recall asking you some time ago (unfortunately without receiving an answer) as to why art schools aren't full of sensory kids who make use of their intuitions - just as well, since your claim was that he opposite was obviously true. I cannot help but find this kind of theorizing lacking, and at the risk of repeating myself, with a test that associates "creativity" with intution it can hardly be surprising that a lot of people studying to become creative professionals end up with the "intuitive" label. However using this as evidence is just dishonest as it only confirms a mistake that took place earlier in the process aka. assigning a vague trait of "creativity" with the even more vague concept of intuition.
The reason the MBTI dichotomies pass muster in the psychometric department — and indeed, have been found to be essentially "on a par" with the leading Big Five tests (more here) — is that the various aspects of personality included in each dimension have decades of data in support of the fact that they have a tendency to cluster together.

But hopefully needless to say, it's important to always keep in mind that virtually all respectable personality psychology is about tendencies and probabilities. It's not about what particular types can't do or never do.

In any case, the correlation between an overall N preference and artistic creativity is well-established, and there's more on that in this post and this post. And as also discussed in the first of those posts, Big Five data also supports that correlation — which is why, for example, "Aesthetics" is one of the six facets of Openness under the NEO-PI-R, which also associates above-average Openness with interest in "theories or abstract ideas," and "philosophical arguments."
 

·
Registered
ENFp-Fi (OP: Ne/Te); 2w1; LEVF
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
@reckful

Your post addresses a mistake of Jung's that I never originally saw. I don't have the book, only online material and excerpts from it, I pirated it only recently. He accounted for concrete introverts in his original work by making his dichotomies alone. All the possible variations on them are implied. It's in my first post. Improving on Jung by debunking your misunderstanding of his work perhaps?
Where did Jung say that about introverts and extroverts? I could be misinformed.

Also that other expert Reynierse I didn't study thoroughly. You mention him as if I am trying to debate on his work and link me a post speaking against the cognitive functions. You're supposedly revalidifying MBTI by discarding them in the form we use them, that which empirical testing failed to verify, and by making it more complex. I don't know him and the claims in the post you linked are more suspect to me right now, than the MBTI itself.

What I will acknowledge is that reading up a bit more on Jung, I've realized more than I thought originated from him in regards to MBTI. There I stand corrected and could return to thinking MBTI isn't as dangerous of a digression. He did support the idea of the function dichotomy, just had no intention to use it practically.

Lastly you accuse me of worshiping Jung's words instead of critically thinking about them, only for the sake of them coming from him. While I do point out the differences, my belief in the importance of treating his original work more carefully than MBTI does has nothing to do with blind belief in his genius alone. It has to do with MBTIs overall failure, lack of consensus found inside and outside the community and the digression I saw it taking from the author's original point. It's worth looking into the beginning, if you're failing at the end.
So that's just a cheap shot. I don't see why I would make you feel threatened enough to take it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
I hate the idea of intuition having to do with openness, there's so much flaws in that line of reasoning.
In theory you could say that Ne is more about openness than Ni. Ni tends to 'get stuck' in tunnel vision a lot.

That said, there's no actual research that would prove or disprove this so it's just a thought.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top