[Old Intern]

This could be what you ask from the universe, or life, or loved ones, or what you expect or need from yourself, or what you pray to God. An Existential fear? But if you had to form a mission statement in one sentence, that relates to how or why your dominant/aux functions are used . . . . .

Feel free to jump in?
I'm guessing based on observation at PerC, plus people I've known; if yours is blank, help me?
Or add whatever you like.

Ne - Ti __ please tell me or show me I'm not trapped or checkmated in life.
​

Ne - Fi __ please tell me I make a difference.
Se - Fi __ please notice me and approve of me.
Se - Ti __ show me I'm not impotent (figuratively or literally)
Ni - Fe __ show me or tell me I'm helping, and needed
Ni - Te __ show me I'm respectable and respected
Si - Te __ trust me and be trustworthy
Ti - Ne __ how do I satisfy and utilize my need for cognition
Te - Ni __ prove me to not be foolish or weak
Te - Si __ show me how to have status and security
Fe - Si __ tell me I'm wanted and accepted
Fe - Ni __ tell me or show me I have influence
Ti - Se
Fi - Se
Si - Fe
Fi - Ne ___ tell me I'm good enough, and don't you be a jerk
​

Jung talked about functions as an ego defense or self definition, so I'm not looking for concrete or altruism measures, but of course I'm looking for honest input. I'm wondering how psychogenic needs fit into this. Interested in what you think.
Murray's Theory of Psychogenic Needs

 

[Abraxas]

I don't like the approach you've taken, though I do like what you are trying to do. This is neat, and sparks my imagination, but it feels too confined to the dogma of the MBTI model you are forcing your creativity to confine itself to. I'm sure you have your convictions, and I'm sure they are shared by many, but that makes me feel unwelcome.

Nevertheless, I'm something of a gatecrasher when it comes to conceptual models, so I'm going to be arrogant here and force my own approach into this thread. I'm going to take a wildly different approach than you have, one that I think makes it more fun, by turning it into more of a fantasy-based role-playing game. Let's, instead of approaching it in a pre-defined dominant-auxiliary pairing, approach it one function at a time, adding on addition functions as we see fit to form a kind of elementary chemistry of personal questing, which is modular and open to radical thinking.

Let's begin with the quest itself. I'm partial to the "monomyth" as an excellent metaphor for this, unless anyone objects? I'll go ahead and use that.

Let us break the monomyth down into the four functions, and two attitudes - four base role-playing-game classes which will be the four heroic archetypes of our questing, with four very different kinds of quests, and two "alignments" which will not remain static, but rather, represent the two halves of the monomyth cycle that the hero must "claim" for himself - he must come to be the king of both his inner world, and the outer world. He will confront challenges of both types - introspective and external - at various steps along his journey, in no necessarily sequential ordering, just whatever fate has in store for him, as the chips fall where they may.

So, our four base function "classes" will be (because I am also partial to D&D) as follows:

Intuition: Mage
Sensation: Warrior
Thinking: Thief
Feeling: Priest

Now, let us assume that each of these base classes is essentially a pool of various talents and abilities, and just as in reality, nobody is totally useless when it comes to everything but their chosen specialty. Thus, while a Mage is foremost a wizard, that is not to say he cannot swing a sword. It just happens to be that he is quite untrained at it, not having time to devote to such a pursuit in favor of his magic, and so he will never quite compare to the ken of a warrior who is a master at arms and skilled in all manner of martial and exotic arms and armor.

So the thief, who is quite the scoundrel, lives and dies by his wits and does not put much stock into the kind of "faith" that is the daily bread of the Priest, and likewise, the Priest does not have a stomach for the kind of unscrupulous trickery of the thief, being a man of the cloth and a devout servant of some divine principle that gives him a sense of justice and good will towards others.

As the hero progresses in his base-class he finds a certain set of secondary skills to be of particular value to him, coming from one of the other base-classes, or he simply delves deeper into his primary set and finds the other half of his dominant function thus becoming closer to a more "pure" type. This secondary interest of his rounds out his primary skill set, and he works towards one of several "prestige classes" that represent the combination of two classes. However, because our model is open-ended, and (because I have strong convictions of this) in reality a mage can study martial skills and become a warrior-wizard if he wishes, there is no need to restrict the pairing of functions at all. I believe, in reality, while it can be said that Jung was correct when he predicted that "intuition pairs more easily with thinking or feeling, but not with sensation for the two are at cross-purposes" - I do not believe that in reality, humans are anything but stubborn and will do whatever they damn well please. So while it may take considerably more effort to pull it off I see no reason why, at least in theory, someone with a strong preference for intuition might not, as time progresses, learn to balance themselves out with some devotion to their inferior function of sensation. Perhaps this is a cruel road to take, perhaps the most difficult and downright neurotic road in fact, but nevertheless, there is strength in overcoming adversity, and so, it is just another of many ways to success.

So the personal quest of the person depends on their approach to self-mastery, which invariably is bound up in their attempt to master the world as well. And with this more open-ended fantasy model, the options for self-expression allow for any possible combination of functions. I believe this is important because we want to cover all possible bases just in case there is some weirdo out there who doesn't fit into the proscribed religious dogma of MBTI enthusiasts or even Jung himself.

However, I hadn't intended to give an account of every single possible pairing in this one post - just the preliminary explanation of my own idea that was inspired by this thread. I might come back to this and lay out my predictions of the motivations for ever single pairing and prestige class, and maybe develop this idea of the fantasy monomyth model further, assuming of course that @Old Intern doesn't decide to knock me down and shoo me off because I've gone and done whatever I fancied with her original idea instead of played along with her original intentions like a good little forumite ought to do.

 

[Ellis Bell]

I think this is an interesting idea; however, my rather simplistic answer is that MBTI answers questions about surface behavior, not motivations or why we are the way we are. Yeah @Abraxas explains it in more detail than I can at the moment...

 

[Aelthwyn]

This is an interesting idea, just by reading the thread title. I'm not sure I agree with all the proposed ones in the first post.

I am going to ramble some thoughts now.

hmmm..... starting with what I seek..... I want to experience and give inspiration and love. For life to be fullfilling I seek those moments of spine-tingling realization of greater understanding or perspective or creative potential, and I seek the feeling of warm connection and comfort.

The spine-tingling moments come from many things, sometimes it's thinking about something like the concept of eternity and for a moment having this sense of understanding that's more than intellectual, of really 'getting it'. Or it could be thinking about something like an aspect of society and suddenly some new piece of information I learned about the past fits into place and it all makes sense why things have come to be the way they are now. Or it could be from looking up at a mountain and getting a sense of how vast the universe is and I'm filled with awe. Sometimes it's walking through a very old building and getting the sense of all the centuries it has lasted, all that has happened in and around it and again it gives me a (slightly different) sense of awe or perspective. I also get those moments from creative ideas, when they suddenly strike me I'm filled with anticipation and excitment about the Possibilities! This is what makes me feel Alive. I suppose it would be linked with Intuition. (I will note that while I enjoy being the one to spark one of these moments in others, or simply see someone have such a moment, it's not necessarily something I actively seek to do, just enjoy it when it happens. But I do actively seek to experience these moments myself.)

I love to provide a sense of comfort, acceptance, and delight in someone else, and to recieve the same - it doesn't necessarily have to be reciprocal so long as I recieve it from someone (though naturally I tend to share it with those who give it to me, but it also feels good to give it even if the other person doesn't return it). This makes me feel Worthwhile. I suppose this would be linked with Feeling. (I should note that while I respect 'save humanity' type crusades that others take on, that's not what I feel driven to do, I feel driven to invest love and assistance in specific individuals I know). I want those I interact with to know they are valuable, respected, loved, and seen for who they really are. And naturally, I want this for myself as well.

 

[Old Intern]

@Abraxas different pairings that individuals believe describe themselves would be fine with me. I look forward to any DD or inventive flare that anyone might like to offer to this thread.

What I'm looking for is not to force models, but to see if I can find correlation that could clarify what a function is, apart from anecdotal behavior, and trace how a leading function becomes a different flavor in individuals. I've participated in recent threads that have me interested in the failings of type models. My experience at PerC leads me to a list of semantics and other communication bumps in the road that seem to occur in defining or recognizing one function from another. So I am looking for new approaches, "out of the box" is welcome.

 

[Abraxas]

@Abraxas different pairings that individuals believe describe themselves would be fine with me. I look forward to any DD or inventive flare that anyone might like to offer to this thread.

What I'm looking for is not to force models, but to see if I can find correlation that could clarify what a function is, apart from anecdotal behavior, and trace how a leading function becomes a different flavor in individuals. I've participated in recent threads that have me interested in the failings of type models. My experience at PerC leads me to a list of semantics and other communication bumps in the road that seem to occur in defining or recognizing one function from another. So I am looking for new approaches, "out of the box" is welcome.

Well!

As far as semantic "bumps in the road" as you put it, lately I've been approaching the subject of typology from a very "Wittgenstiennian" point of view.

You see, all too often I think people get bogged down in how to correctly define a particular word or concept, such as "cognitive functions" or even "personality." Often the approach is, "we ought to have a proper definition for these things which is 'the one true and best definition' above and outside of any particular context, to which all contexts ought to be made to conform to." I believe the reasoning for this is fairly understandable; we just want one definition that we can all agree on so we all know what the hell we are even talking about, right?

I think this is actually the wrong way to go about it. I think a better way of understanding just what it is that a word means is to take a close look at what the usage of the words actually is, i.e., we ought to ask ourselves "when I make this sound, or write these shapes called 'letters' to form 'words' and make 'sentences' - what am I actually trying to make happen in the real world of cause and effect?"

So TL;DR, words mean what words do! Maybe the best way to discover what it is you are looking for (the personal quest of each type) would not be to ask what it is that everyone has in common who identifies with particular words as descriptive of something about themselves, but rather to ask, "when a person uses these words (e.g., introvert, thinker, feeler, etc) what is it that actually happens to them, and what is it that happens to the people who read or hear those words when someone uses them?"

 

[tangosthenes]

Well!

As far as semantic "bumps in the road" as you put it, lately I've been approaching the subject of typology from a very "Wittgenstiennian" point of view.

You see, all too often I think people get bogged down in how to correctly define a particular word or concept, such as "cognitive functions" or even "personality." Often the approach is, "we ought to have a proper definition for these things which is 'the one true and best definition' above and outside of any particular context, to which all contexts ought to be made to conform to." I believe the reasoning for this is fairly understandable; we just want one definition that we can all agree on so we all know what the hell we are even talking about, right?

I think this is actually the wrong way to go about it. I think a better way of understanding just what it is that a word means is to take a close look at what the usage of the words actually is, i.e., we ought to ask ourselves "when I make this sound, or write these shapes called 'letters' to form 'words' and make 'sentences' - what am I actually trying to make happen in the real world of cause and effect?"

So TL;DR, words mean what words do! Maybe the best way to discover what it is you are looking for (the personal quest of each type) would not be to ask what it is that everyone has in common who identifies with particular words as descriptive of something about themselves, but rather to ask, "when a person uses these words (e.g., introvert, thinker, feeler, etc) what is it that actually happens to them, and what is it that happens to the people who read or hear those words when someone uses them?"

Let people put themselves in their own boxes and then examine why they did that to determine their true attitude. Is that what you're saying?

Obviously that's got a lot of problems coming at it from a function perspective, unless you let the definitions of the pictures themselves be fluid.

Also, with that method, you're essentially trying to walk a straight line in the dark. Your sense of balance must come from some rapidly changing method you put your full trust in, which I suppose could be logic, but it's like buoy logic vs anchor logic, if you see where I'm coming from.

To avoid misunderstanding, this is meant to provoke discussion, not argument.

 

[Abraxas]

Let people put themselves in their own boxes and then examine why they did that to determine their true attitude. Is that what you're saying?

Obviously that's got a lot of problems coming at it from a function perspective, unless you let the definitions of the pictures themselves be fluid.

Also, with that method, you're essentially trying to walk a straight line in the dark. Your sense of balance must come from some rapidly changing method you put your full trust in, which I suppose could be logic, but it's like buoy logic vs anchor logic, if you see where I'm coming from.

To avoid misunderstanding, this is meant to provoke discussion, not argument.

Well, it's to reflect one of two methods of psychological evaluation when it comes to these sort of things.

It's almost like an ink blot test? Except you're not even asking the person to describe the ink blot, because they are the ink blot. So what we are doing instead is looking at how everyone interprets each other, you see?

Then you look for certain things in common with the way everyone tends to react to certain function descriptions. By seeing the way those descriptions effect them directly after reading them, and while they are discussing them, we gain a kind of insight into the functions themselves because we start to see how they are understood by real people, and not by the psychologists who invented them. We're allowing them a certain degree of subjectivity because that is actually essential in getting a better look into their essential nature.

If that's more or less what you meant by a buoy instead of an anchor, then I think we are on the same page.

 

[tangosthenes]

Well, it's to reflect one of two methods of psychological evaluation when it comes to these sort of things.

It's almost like an ink blot test? Except you're not even asking the person to describe the ink blot, because they are the ink blot. So what we are doing instead is looking at how everyone interprets each other, you see?

Then you look for certain things in common with the way everyone tends to react to certain function descriptions. By seeing the way those descriptions effect them directly after reading them, and while they are discussing them, we gain a kind of insight into the functions themselves because we start to see how they are understood by real people, and not by the psychologists who invented them. We're allowing them a certain degree of subjectivity because that is actually essential in getting a better look into their essential nature.

If that's more or less what you meant by a buoy instead of an anchor, then I think we are on the same page.

Well, this is pretty much what I figured you were talking about. With the buoy logic thing, refer to the walking a straight line in the dark. What I meant by this is that you would be picking an arbitrary starting point, and then leading through a discussion with the person until you can categorize where they are going with it. Basically a method useful for establishing the relevance of the cognitive functions in a clinical, one-on-one setting with psychologist and experiment subject. Seems pretty similar to how they were developed in the first place.

But then, we run into the same problems as we currently have.To correct this is a cumbersome process, requiring the time of many practitioners comparing studies to make comparisons of. Which, of course, could be done with enough interest. But the ideal would be for one person to develop a well-founded theory, and have it be as accurate as possible. I see this more like an empirically designed theory anchored in objective data... which I remember you were against in another thread.

Anyway, there are ways to make it accurate, but what bothers me about the "buoy" approach is its... I guess, similarities to continental philosophy: hard to access, flesh out, and it tends to not be clear enough to be constitute an easily translatable understanding from person to person. You can't be sure you've understood what they are saying unless you've already thought it yourself. And as evidenced by this very theory, that is not likely to happen with everyone who wants to pick up the sword and train in this form of psychology.

may have some typos...tired
again when you read my posts, fleeting passion for topic ≠ hostility

 

[Abraxas]

Well, this is pretty much what I figured you were talking about. With the buoy logic thing, refer to the walking a straight line in the dark. What I meant by this is that you would be picking an arbitrary starting point, and then leading through a discussion with the person until you can categorize where they are going with it. Basically a method useful for establishing the relevance of the cognitive functions in a clinical, one-on-one setting with psychologist and experiment subject. Seems pretty similar to how they were developed in the first place.

But then, we run into the same problems as we currently have.To correct this is a cumbersome process, requiring the time of many practitioners comparing studies to make comparisons of. Which, of course, could be done with enough interest. But the ideal would be for one person to develop a well-founded theory, and have it be as accurate as possible. I see this more like an empirically designed theory anchored in objective data... which I remember you were against in another thread.

Anyway, there are ways to make it accurate, but what bothers me about the "buoy" approach is its... I guess, similarities to continental philosophy: hard to access, flesh out, and it tends to not be clear enough to be constitute an easily translatable understanding from person to person. You can't be sure you've understood what they are saying unless you've already thought it yourself. And as evidenced by this very theory, that is not likely to happen with everyone who wants to pick up the sword and train in this form of psychology.

may have some typos...tired
again when you read my posts, fleeting passion for topic ≠ hostility

But it's not an "arbitrary starting point" - you want to get an objective definition, right? Then look at reality. Look at real actual life. What is the purpose of talking about any of this, not theoretically, not conceptually, but in real nails in wood, rocks and iron, reality.

When someone reads Jung's description of extraversion and thinking, what then really actually happens to that person? What does that person then actually really do as the direct result of reading that thing that a moment ago they had not read? What real physical actual measurable objective thing happened as a result of Jung writing what he did, and someone reading it?

How is that not objective? Nothing could be more objective. We are literally distilling it down to it's purely objective essence, ignoring personal interpretation, ignoring even things like... grammar, punctuation, theory, concepts, and whatever else gets in the way of directly looking at the way that one bird over there chirping irritates the lion and so it gets up and moves fifty feet to it's left where it can take a better nap. We are looking at what words REALLY ARE in reality, the objective reality of words. Not what we think they mean, not what we think they ought to mean, but what they really actually mean in real physical reality regardless of what we want them to mean, even if we don't like it, or it doesn't make sense, or it doesn't make us happy.

 

[tangosthenes]

But it's not an "arbitrary starting point" - you want to get an objective definition, right? Then look at reality. Look at real actual life. What is the purpose of talking about any of this, not theoretically, not conceptually, but in real nails in wood, rocks and iron, reality.

When someone reads Jung's description of extraversion and thinking, what then really actually happens to that person? What does that person then actually really do as the direct result of reading that thing that a moment ago they had not read? What real physical actual measurable objective thing happened as a result of Jung writing what he did, and someone reading it?

How is that not objective? Nothing could be more objective. We are literally distilling it down to it's purely objective essence, ignoring personal interpretation, ignoring even things like... grammar, punctuation, theory, concepts, and whatever else gets in the way of directly looking at the way that one bird over there chirping irritates the lion and so it gets up and moves fifty feet to it's left where it can take a better nap. We are looking at what words REALLY ARE in reality, the objective reality of words. Not what we think they mean, not what we think they ought to mean, but what they really actually mean in real physical reality regardless of what we want them to mean, even if we don't like it, or it doesn't make sense, or it doesn't make us happy.

Maybe here's the core of my misunderstanding:
"we gain a kind of insight into the functions themselves because we start to see how they are understood by real people"

"What real physical actual measurable objective thing happened as a result of Jung writing what he did, and someone reading it?"


I'm reading these as two completely different things. The first seems to involve a interpretive response by the person that the researcher takes as true on faith of the reliability of the person(buoy), the second could be something other than a response by the person(such as an EEG I guess, or something possibly better).

If I haven't misunderstood, what sort of measurement do you see as being best?

I ask this because with the first one, it seems like trusting the person to understand Jung's writings is kind of against the whole basis of the thing. I understand that you'd be looking at differing modes of thought within their speech patterns, but in order to establish a reliable guideline to interpret their speech or whatever communication you'd like to use, you have to identify what these speech patterns are actually showing in the first place. Do they show the functions being used while superseding neuroses, compensating behaviors, learned patterns that go strongly against their own preference?

I understand what you mean about the purpose of the theory, to learn about oneself in reflection with and against these identified patterns that form a comprehensive psyche(I don't know the actual terminology, so take that loosely). I'm mostly just musing about the implications of what you're thinking.

 

[Abraxas]

Maybe here's the core of my misunderstanding:
"we gain a kind of insight into the functions themselves because we start to see how they are understood by real people"

"What real physical actual measurable objective thing happened as a result of Jung writing what he did, and someone reading it?"


I'm reading these as two completely different things. The first seems to involve a interpretive response by the person that the researcher takes as true on faith of the reliability of the person(buoy), the second could be something other than a response by the person(such as an EEG I guess, or something possibly better).

If I haven't misunderstood, what sort of measurement do you see as being best?

I ask this because with the first one, it seems like trusting the person to understand Jung's writings is kind of against the whole basis of the thing. I understand that you'd be looking at differing modes of thought within their speech patterns, but in order to establish a reliable guideline to interpret their speech or whatever communication you'd like to use, you have to identify what these speech patterns are actually showing in the first place. Do they show the functions being used while superseding neuroses, compensating behaviors, learned patterns that go strongly against their own preference?

I understand what you mean about the purpose of the theory, to learn about oneself in reflection with and against these identified patterns. I'm mostly just musing about the implications of what you're thinking.

Look like, forget grammar. Forget definitions. Forget all of that.

Someone comes along and reads Jung. Their brain makes it mean a lot of whatever. And as a direct result of their brain doing that, they feel a certain way, and go do a bunch of stuff. They say things, believe things, etc.

So the real life meaning of what Jung wrote, just ends up being in reality something different than whatever he thought he meant. What it means isn't other words and ideas it means physical events in space and time.

Like the example I gave. The bird chirps over and over and it's so damn annoying to the lion. What the chirping actually means in the "lion language" is "BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. BLAAAAAAAAAH. FUCKING BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH ARE YOU LISTENING? BLHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA MOTHERFUCKER."

And the lion is like "God, JESUS CHRIST. SHUT UP." Goes over and finds someplace else to sleep because god DAMN.

That is the real meaning of what the bird was "saying" to the lion. It really meant that - NOT whatever the bird meant to mean. What the bird MEANT it to mean... who cares. What it ended up meaning was what it really actually meant.

It's the same with Jungian functions, you see? Like, Jung meant whatever he intended to mean when he wrote what he wrote. But how it actually ends up influencing people, what people end up really doing, feeling, thinking, and believing as a direct result of being exposed to the language he used - regardless of whatever he wrote is "supposed to mean" - that is what the real, objective meaning of his words actually is in reality. The effect they actually really have. The bottom line.

So instead of playing this game with words where we think words define other words and we just play around with words and pretend that means something, we just think of words as being causes or effects.

We stop and we remind ourselves that everything is either a cause, or an effect. Everything which can be said to have any kind of ontological existence of any sort must be either a cause or something, or the effect of something. If a 'thing' has no causal power of any sort, then it isn't a 'thing' at all - it's literally no-thing.

So, let's use an immediate example.

This reply to your post I just wrote. What is the real effect that it has on you after having read it? How does it make you feel? What does it make you believe, or suspect? What are you going to do now? Thank it? Quote it? Maybe ignore it?

Whatever actually ends up being what people interpret my post to mean, the effect it really ends up having, regardless of my intention, is just what my post actually means in reality and not just in my imagination.

So we just have to decide, not ask - decide what we want Jung's functions to mean. How do we want them to define us? And if what you want is a consensus - a unanimous or near unanimous agreement on that - well, maybe you won't ever get it. But maybe you can get a good large group to react the same way, or feel the same way, or think the same things as you do about what Jung wrote. Really, that's the best you can get. You can try and convince a lot of people that he meant X instead of Y. To what end? "So they can have a stronger sense of self and their identity and have some direction in life and to understand others." What does that mean though?

It basically boils down to "so we can feel good, because reasons, and do X instead of Y, because reasons."

And to that extent, then, we can just say whatever the heck we want if it will get people to feel good, because reasons, and do X instead of Y, because reasons.

We don't have to sit here and shuffle around slogans, dogmas, jargons, technicalities, interpretations, and whatever have you. We can really get abstract and creative and look at it as like, "well I can just say whatever the hell I want if it gets her to break up with that asshole and she feels better for doing it." Like, you get what I'm saying?

We don't need to limit ourselves to a completely arbitrary paradigm or psychological language or "scientific" language. We can just say whatever needs to be said about whatever needs saying, because reasons.

Lol.

 

[tangosthenes]

Look like, forget grammar. Forget definitions. Forget all of that.

Someone comes along and reads Jung. Their brain makes it mean a lot of whatever. And as a direct result of their brain doing that, they feel a certain way, and go do a bunch of stuff. They say things, believe things, etc.

So the real life meaning of what Jung wrote, just ends up being in reality something different than whatever he thought he meant. What it means isn't other words and ideas it means physical events in space and time.

Like the example I gave. The bird chirps over and over and it's so damn annoying to the lion. What the chirping actually means in the "lion language" is "BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. BLAAAAAAAAAH. FUCKING BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH ARE YOU LISTENING? BLHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA MOTHERFUCKER."

And the lion is like "God, JESUS CHRIST. SHUT UP." Goes over and finds someplace else to sleep because god DAMN.

That is the real meaning of what the bird was "saying" to the lion. It really meant that - NOT whatever the bird meant to mean. What the bird MEANT it to mean... who cares. What it ended up meaning was what it really actually meant.

It's the same with Jungian functions, you see? Like, Jung meant whatever he intended to mean when he wrote what he wrote. But how it actually ends up influencing people, what people end up really doing, feeling, thinking, and believing as a direct result of being exposed to the language he used - regardless of whatever he wrote is "supposed to mean" - that is what the real, objective meaning of his words actually is in reality. The effect they actually really have. The bottom line.

So instead of playing this game with words where we think words define other words and we just play around with words and pretend that means something, we just think of words as being causes or effects.

We stop and we remind ourselves that everything is either a cause, or an effect. Everything which can be said to have any kind of ontological existence of any sort must be either a cause or something, or the effect of something. If a 'thing' has no causal power of any sort, then it isn't a 'thing' at all - it's literally no-thing.

So, let's use an immediate example.

This reply to your post I just wrote. What is the real effect that it has on you after having read it? How does it make you feel? What does it make you believe, or suspect? What are you going to do now? Thank it? Quote it? Maybe ignore it?

Whatever actually ends up being what people interpret my post to mean, the effect it really ends up having, regardless of my intention, is just what my post actually means in reality and not just in my imagination.

So we just have to decide, not ask - decide what we want Jung's functions to mean. How do we want them to define us? And if what you want is a consensus - a unanimous or near unanimous agreement on that - well, maybe you won't ever get it. But maybe you can get a good large group to react the same way, or feel the same way, or think the same things as you do about what Jung wrote. Really, that's the best you can get. You can try and convince a lot of people that he meant X instead of Y. To what end? "So they can have a stronger sense of self and their identity and have some direction in life and to understand others." What does that mean though?

It basically boils down to "so we can feel good, because reasons, and do X instead of Y, because reasons."

And to that extent, then, we can just say whatever the heck we want if it will get people to feel good, because reasons, and do X instead of Y, because reasons.

We don't have to sit here and shuffle around slogans, dogmas, jargons, technicalities, interpretations, and whatever have you. We can really get abstract and creative and look at it as like, "well I can just say whatever the hell I want if it gets her to break up with that asshole and she feels better for doing it." Like, you get what I'm saying?

We don't need to limit ourselves to a completely arbitrary paradigm or psychological language or "scientific" language. We can just say whatever needs to be said about whatever needs saying, because reasons.

Lol.

Heheh. I'd probably be a lot better off if I just let my thoughts ride like this. I like to reconcile my thoughts with each other because I don't trust a blank interpretation. I do see what you mean though, and it is not my natural inclination to analyze without searching from one point to the beginning of the universe.

I mean, it all(like everything, not just this) does fall apart, if you want to deal with purely form(sounds arrogant, which I tend to do.

I do this because I want to establish that common understanding. What good is it to talk past someone?

Anyway, I understood you, so I assume you understood me(and its 5 am). Let's just say because reasons, I prefer to sex my reasons together, and I think I'm going to start an alternate reality black-and-white drive-in theater where you can pay 35 cents to watch pornographic reason.

 

[monemi]

I have a quest in life? That's news to me.

 

[Old Intern]

Well!

As far as semantic "bumps in the road" as you put it, lately I've been approaching the subject of typology from a very "Wittgenstiennian" point of view.

You see, all too often I think people get bogged down in how to correctly define a particular word or concept, such as "cognitive functions" or even "personality." Often the approach is, "we ought to have a proper definition for these things which is 'the one true and best definition' above and outside of any particular context, to which all contexts ought to be made to conform to." I believe the reasoning for this is fairly understandable; we just want one definition that we can all agree on so we all know what the hell we are even talking about, right?

I think this is actually the wrong way to go about it. I think a better way of understanding just what it is that a word means is to take a close look at what the usage of the words actually is, i.e., we ought to ask ourselves "when I make this sound, or write these shapes called 'letters' to form 'words' and make 'sentences' - what am I actually trying to make happen in the real world of cause and effect?"

So TL;DR, words mean what words do! Maybe the best way to discover what it is you are looking for (the personal quest of each type) would not be to ask what it is that everyone has in common who identifies with particular words as descriptive of something about themselves, but rather to ask, "when a person uses these words (e.g., introvert, thinker, feeler, etc) what is it that actually happens to them, and what is it that happens to the people who read or hear those words when someone uses them?"

If what I do is vigilantly observe the behavior of others, and have that define my next move in life, or if I observe, in order to get deeper understanding of others case by case, I have no reason to be at PerC at all. I'm capable of seeing people as individuals, but why would I come to a type discussion website to do that?

My interest in functions is not to label myself or other people; but the whole value I find in the concept of functions is the possibility of a shared vocabulary. Some of my concern or desire for a different angle about what functions are, is coming from another thread(s) with information and studies that call into question that there is any substance at all to any type models. And yet anyone visiting any one of the lettered type forums here at PerC, can see a distinct flavor predominating each one. I see value for understanding what that flavor is, apart from "context". Studies are telling us this is not a quantitative or sequential process.

The big 5 stands up to testing and may be a valid useful measure, it may be helpful for some people and some situations, but I have no use or interest for it myself. It simply measures things that don't matter to me. Maybe it even measures things that are not hard for me to see about people without using a test.

So my attempt here was to test what seems (to my observation or guess) to happen, that functions (8) are almost like a google search filter, affecting not only the information we take in, but our actions and processes, based on what we are looking for in life. Looking for, in an abstract way not defined by specific activities.

 

[Old Intern]

I do this because I want to establish that common understanding. What good is it to talk past someone? Thank you again for this comment @tangosthenes

@Abraxas, things I heard from your first post and what it made me think of ? . . .

. . . . "Wow, quest, that was kind of an incidental use of words, I could have used something in reference to a mission statement and maybe I should do that for a tweeked re-post . . . . attract a different crowd . . . but I also like what happened here . . Hmmm. "

Then my brain went off on the DD thing. . . . . "Wouldn't it be incredibly awesome, if instead of a test . . . Maybe I could even do this! . . . . . but this would be a big deal . . . If someone else built it I could just use it . . . and link with other stuff I'm working on . . . .
An interactive adventure site with role playing, but geared around type and function feedback?!"

And my other thought was that you might be trying to speak to me in terms of a past conflict? I like you, but may have come across a bit caustic? Initially I came to PerC to work out some issues of my own. I wasn't taking anything out on you, but maybe used this place to let myself be more blunt or aggressive than I usually am in life? So I hope we are not in battle?

 

[PaladinX]

So I hope we are not in battle?

In which case, who would win? The Magic Thief or the Thieving Mage? :O

 

[Old Intern]

I believe, or at this point I'm still guessing, that we do (all of us) exist in different realities. And I like visiting new places. Sometimes I don't know the language though.

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." - Albert Einstein - Thanks, nice quote @PaladinX

 

[Old Intern]

"So we just have to decide, not ask - decide what we want Jung's functions to mean. How do we want them to define us?"

^ Not sure now whether this is quoting @Abraxas or expressing and addressing a line of thought from @tangosthenes.

My own point may have been completely missed and since it's my thread I should try to restate it?
I'm looking for correlations that shed light on the nature of what we call functions, here at PerC.
**The patters or flavors themselves are my interest, and not Jung, or any other particular existing theory.
I'm far to old to give a crap about needing a theory to define myself. - As if the theory is what tells me who I am?

As an end goal, I'm looking for useful definitions, a common vocabulary, even if I have to publish it myself (my own purposes apart from PerC). If everyone has a private interpretation of Jung, then I may decide to create my own system or continue to evaluate new ones. I respect the resonance people have with Jung, and variations on a correlating theme being used for a variety of purposes like MBTI. This shows me something going on that is worth my time, that these systems are attempting to **point to something real and worthwhile. I don't care about defining what Jung meant as an end goal, or justifying a particular system, as if I serve a system.

@Abraxas, although your approach in above posts may seem to have a more spiritual flavor than mine, we might be saying the same thing? (**My above comments in this post)


This was a research attempt that may have failed. Am I asking people to be too vulnerable?

 

[PaladinX]

This was a research attempt that may have failed. Am I asking people to be too vulnerable?

I'm reminded of this scene from I, Robot for some reason:

Dr. Lanning's Hologram: Good to see you again, son.
Detective Del Spooner: Hello, doctor.
Dr. Lanning's Hologram: Everything that follows, is a result of what you see here.
Detective Del Spooner: What do I see here?
Dr. Lanning's Hologram: I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must ask the right questions.
Detective Del Spooner: Is there a problem with the Three Laws?
Dr. Lanning's Hologram: The Three Laws are perfect.
Detective Del Spooner: Then why did you build a robot that could function without them?
Dr. Lanning's Hologram: The Three Laws will lead to only one logical outcome.
Detective Del Spooner: What outcome?
Dr. Lanning's Hologram: Revolution.
Detective Del Spooner: Whose revolution?
Dr. Lanning's Hologram: [Smiles]That, detective, is the right question. Program terminated.

EDIT: Even better

I think I get where you are going with your OP. I'm trying to think of another way to elicit the responses that you are more or less looking for.