Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,902 Posts
What I and Jung "would mean with it" is what that linked post is about.
Would it really kill you to summarise it for those with busy lifestyles and short attention spans? I'm interested but honestly I'd rather not spend a good ten minutes on a post on a forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Would it really kill you to summarise it for those with busy lifestyles and short attention spans? I'm interested but honestly I'd rather not spend a good ten minutes on a post on a forum.
The collection of Jung quotes in the middle of that linked post is spoilered to make it easy to skip past for anyone not interested in that amount of "original source" reading, and the rest of the post is already a "summary," given the scope of the issues it covers.

I'm sorry if this post distracted you from your busy life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,902 Posts
The linked post is a summary, and I'm sorry if this post distracted you from your busy life.
Okay fine I'm just lazy. So if someone held a gun to your head and you had to describe it in three sentences or less, what's the gist?

EDIT : just seen your stealth edit, thanks.
 

·
🎀
Joined
·
11,795 Posts
@reckful,well of course behavior and cognition aren't completely unrelated,they are very related actually,and of course an ESFJ is more likely to be a people person than an INTP,but imo,you are completely ignoring all the people that are around the middle of I/E.They obviously do exist,Jung said it,even you said it,so where's the problem?
Basically,what I'm saying is that the fact someone spends friday night alone does not automatically make them an introvert and someone going to parties often isn't necessarily an extrovert.But of course,an extrovert can't not act like an extrovert in some way,extroversion has to be somehow obvious in behavior and motivations for that behavior,but it does not have to be stereotypical things.
 

·
Registered
4w5
Joined
·
1,535 Posts
In my personal experience, ENFJs and ESFJs are the most people oriented persons.

In my observations, I have noticed ENFPs will be less people persons and more likely to be obsessed with one particular type of person. An individual. This is only my observation, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
@reckful,well of course behavior and cognition aren't completely unrelated,they are very related actually,and of course an ESFJ is more likely to be a people person than an INTP,but imo,you are completely ignoring all the people that are around the middle of I/E.They obviously do exist,Jung said it,even you said it,so where's the problem?
Basically,what I'm saying is that the fact someone spends friday night alone does not automatically make them an introvert and someone going to parties often isn't necessarily an extrovert.But of course,an extrovert can't not act like an extrovert in some way,extroversion has to be somehow obvious in behavior and motivations for that behavior,but it does not have to be stereotypical things.
I don't see how anything in my posts is significantly inconsistent with anything in your latest post.

As you note, I don't say you can't be in (or near) the middle on E/I (or any other MBTI dimension). And I've repeatedly posted that MBTI type is about tendencies and probabilities (and that's true of both associated behavior and more internal characteristics), so it virtually never makes sense to say that X types "never" do this, or "always" do that.

So it sounds like we both believe that "the fact someone spends Friday night alone does not automatically make them an introvert." But I'd also note that I've never read a forum post by anybody that asserted that. Have you? And I certainly didn't read the OP's description of "people person" as that kind of cartoonish stereotype — which is why I objected to Pinina's assertion that things like whether somebody would be "likely to describe themselves as a 'people person'" (as the OP put it) were "not really covered by MBTI, and not supposed to be."
 

·
🎀
Joined
·
11,795 Posts
I don't see how anything in my posts is significantly inconsistent with anything in your latest post.

As you note, I don't say you can't be in (or near) the middle on E/I (or any other MBTI dimension). And I've repeatedly posted that MBTI type is about tendencies and probabilities (and that's true of both associated behavior and more internal characteristics), so it virtually never makes sense to say that X types "never" do this, or "always" do that.

So it sounds like we both believe that "the fact someone spends Friday night alone does not automatically make them an introvert." But I'd also note that I've never read a forum post by anybody that asserted that. Have you? And I certainly didn't read the OP's description of "people person" as that kind of cartoonish stereotype — which is why I objected to Pinina's assertion that things like whether somebody was a "people person" were "not really covered by MBTI, and not supposed to be."
Yeah,but everyone gets that,I'm sure @Pinina also knows but he was just making a point.
I mean,of course that in the end of the day, ESFJ does act like an ESFJ in one way or another,their behaviour is consequence of them being that type even if it's not stereotypical(but Fe dom is always people oriented in some way),otherwise they wouldn't be an ESFJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
570 Posts
It depends. Probably an introvert, to be honest. How many extroverts go around trying to define themselves through buzz words?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,877 Posts
^ "People person" doesn't sound very buzzy to me.
"People person" is one of the most used adjectives used to describe oneself in job interviews, CVs, presentations, online dating profiles, regular dating, even just to make an impression. It's similar to when obviously extroverts and average people use phrases like "oooh I'm soooo awkward" after doing perfectly mundane things like drinking a sugarless coffee or changing their hairstyle in a new fashion (usually nothing actually awkward, just a side bun or a slight sidecut).

If someone is a people person, you'll know within 5 minutes because they're the ones striking conversation with you or being loud and surrounded by a large social circle. They might say that in self descriptions but it's usually "social" or "friendly" and to most strong extroverts (haven't read the thread but I guess that ESxPs, ENFXs and ESFJs are in the lead) that's pretty normal behavior.

Also social extroversion =/= cognitive extroversion.
I've seen many IxFJs being more outgoing than most ENTPs or ESTJs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
ENFJ's are. They also talk the most. ESFJ's are people persons but only to people in their in-group. Female ESFJ's can come off as queen b's if you are in an out-group.
That explains a lot! :O

"People person" is one of the most used adjectives used to describe oneself in job interviews, CVs, presentations, online dating profiles, regular dating, even just to make an impression. It's similar to when obviously extroverts and average people use phrases like "oooh I'm soooo awkward" after doing perfectly mundane things like drinking a sugarless coffee or changing their hairstyle in a new fashion (usually nothing actually awkward, just a side bun or a slight sidecut).

If someone is a people person, you'll know within 5 minutes because they're the ones striking conversation with you or being loud and surrounded by a large social circle. They might say that in self descriptions but it's usually "social" or "friendly" and to most strong extroverts (haven't read the thread but I guess that ESxPs, ENFXs and ESFJs are in the lead) that's pretty normal behavior.

Also social extroversion =/= cognitive extroversion.
I've seen many IxFJs being more outgoing than most ENTPs or ESTJs.
I agree. I think the only time I used the phrase "people-person" was here on the forum, and that hurt my teeth. I prefer to see myself as "extremely social in comparison to others" or "overly friendly". Of course, I see nothing wrong with that, it's actually quite fun and useful.

One thing I know for sure about ExFJs - they usually are surrounded by a large circle, or at least one person. I'm not sure about being loud, but I find that when there is something to be said and it's appropriate for the situation - it will be said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Also social extroversion =/= cognitive extroversion.
I've seen many IxFJs being more outgoing than most ENTPs or ESTJs.
All four of the MBTI dimensions involve tendencies and probabilities, and also involve multifaceted clusters of personality characteristics. So it could simultaneously be the case that (1) extraversion has a tendency to make someone more social, and (2) that any particular IxFJ acts "more outgoing" than any particular ENTP or ESTJ.

In any case, the idea that Jungian (and/or MBTI) extraversion is about "cognitive extraversion" rather than "social extraversion" is a meme that pops up a lot on internet forums, but it certainly doesn't reflect Jung's perspective (or Myers's). For more on that (with lots of Jung quotes), see this post (which I already linked to earlier in the thread).

There's really no question that Jung thought that extraverts were the "people persons," and also believed that that issue was a core component of went it meant to be extraverted or introverted.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,877 Posts
All four of the MBTI dimensions involve tendencies and probabilities, and also involve multifaceted clusters of personality characteristics. So it could simultaneously be the case that (1) extraversion has a tendency to make someone more social, and (2) that any particular IxFJ acts "more outgoing" than any particular ENTP or ESTJ.

In any case, the idea that Jungian (and/or MBTI) extraversion is about "cognitive extraversion" rather than "social extraversion" is a meme that pops up a lot on internet forums, but it certainly doesn't reflect Jung's perspective (or Myers's). For more on that (with lots of Jung quotes), see this post (which I already linked to earlier in the thread).

There's really no question that Jung thought that extraverts were the "people persons," and also believed that that issue was a core component of went it meant to be extraverted or introverted.
I've seen that post, I'm not impressed.

Jung came up with 8 cognitive functions that both Meyers and Briggs and Keirsey bastardized into "four dimensions" based on stereotypes and factors that have little to do with cognition. Social extroversion has nothing to do with Ne or Te, judging and perceiving aren't valid traits and they only help pinpoint which function is the dominant (I support the Socionics switch for introverts)

Don't get me started on people only having a "thinking" or a "feeling" function. They use both.
Humans are multifaced individual, you can't really boil them down to shallow dicothomies and percentages.

This is why you have people wondering "I'm an INFP but sometimes I act a bit J, maybe I'm INFJ?".
I'm way closer to an INTJ than an INFJ, you can have your theory and i respect that but don't say it's based on Jung's work because he never made it all about unspecific dichotomies.

More like, it comes from psychologists who cracked the code and wanted easy recognition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
I've seen that post, I'm not impressed.

Jung came up with 8 cognitive functions that both Meyers and Briggs and Keirsey bastardized into "four dimensions" based on stereotypes and factors that have little to do with cognition. Social extroversion has nothing to do with Ne or Te, judging and perceiving aren't valid traits and they only help pinpoint which function is the dominant (I support the Socionics switch for introverts)

Don't get me started on people only having a "thinking" or a "feeling" function. They use both.
Humans are multifaced individual, you can't really boil them down to shallow dicothomies and percentages.

This is why you have people wondering "I'm an INFP but sometimes I act a bit J, maybe I'm INFJ?".
I'm way closer to an INTJ than an INFJ, you can have your theory and i respect that but don't say it's based on Jung's work because he never made it all about unspecific dichotomies.

More like, it comes from psychologists who cracked the code and wanted easy recognition.
As the old expression goes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Whether Jung was right or wrong, and the extent to which Myers was right or wrong to make the adjustments she did to his original concepts (based on years of data-collecting), raise lots of issues that reasonable people can have differing opinions on.

But what Jung actually said, and what changes Myers made to his theories, are largely factual matters, and as far as those factual matters go, you really don't know what you're talking about. You're just regurgitating a lot of the typical forum myths about Jung vs. the MBTI and the functions vs. the dichotomies that get passed around on a daily basis in the Great Internet Forum Echo Chamber.

If you ever find yourself open to the idea that almost everything in the post I've quoted is spectacularly off, and want to read more about the dubious Harold Grant function stack (the one that says INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common), the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post, this post, this post and this long INTJforum post (also linked to in one or two of the others) about "why I'm a dichotomies guy."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that last linked post:

McCrae & Costa article (click on the pic on the right to access the full article)
Reynierse article
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,877 Posts
I'll check the articles you've linked me, I've already read your own post about it.

If you want to talk facts, cognitive functions factually describe how certain cognitive patterns are meant to operate while keirsey's descriptions don't. If you put everything into dichotomies, you cannot be able to explain why an ISFJ and an ESFP are so vastly different from each other despite both having a sensing and feeling preference. You cannot even chalk it to the different letters because an ISTJ and an ISFJ are worlds apart and a single 'thinking' vs 'feeling' preference cannot settle the matter, it's simplistic to think so.

If I read an INFP description all it tells me is that I'm supposed to be imaginative, introverted, sensitive, peaceful, quirky, a perfectionist, self critical and introspective but those are traits that define a lot of people. It's buzzwords and astrology, it doesn't tell me anything about myself. Some descriptions paint me as a hippie cry baby and I resent that, as many other INFPs do.

However if I read about the cognitive functions, they tell me I'm an Fi dominant which means that I operate and process information through my own set of values that are not necessarily "fluffy hippie with pink hair". I've seen a lot of ENFPs complain that they're much more logical and brooding than the bouncy stereotype lets them know and ESTJs clarifying they're not corporate bosses who only want to set traditional rules. Why do people claim that 'type can change' or that they cannot be ESFPs because they don't get drunk every night? Because stereotypes never helped anyone and never will and in psychology extroversion and introversion are a lot more than enjoying people or preferring to be alone.

Everyone uses both intuition and sensing, feeling and thinking and what matters is translating the importance and relevance of these terms into concrete personal processes. An "S" description based on Se will make a Si-dom think they're an intuitive instead because it doesn't fit and dismissing feeling as being emotional doesn't really cut it especially for strong Fi users as the vocalization of feelings is Fe territory. Ever wondered why people's typings are so all over the place? Wishful thinking, forer effect and completely inadequate tests that force people to choose in between two options while discrediting someone's motivations behind a choice completely.

Look at how many people claim to hate their opposite while Socionics has proven it's one of the most ideal matches. Mistypes and misconceptions left and right, the tests and descriptions are wired to make INXX types sound more interesting and this is why every person, every celebrity, every character get typed as an INTJ or an INFJ. I've seen straight up ESFJs type as INFJs because who doesn't want to be the soulful and mysterious sage who can understand people and the universe? The negative stigma comes from an inability to take the system seriously. Which is fine but it's not facts.

Socionics :: The 4 Dichotomies

The dichotomies are best explained though socionics and as you can see, they don't fit your model.

Compare this two descriptions of an INFP:

Portrait of an INFP
Socionics Types:

Which one is more informative and actually expands on one's psyche?

Claiming that E vs I is what makes a person "social" is quite misleading.
What are the hidden motivations for them to be?
Stimulation (Se)? Needing to be involved with groups (Fe)? Convenience and connections (Te)?

You cannot wash down types to 8 letters because the human brain is way more complex than that.
MBTI is a pseudoscience but it doesn't mean it should be treated like a buzzfeed quiz.
 
21 - 40 of 54 Posts
Top