|
Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive Re: "advanced" theoriesPosted by Mikko on November 11, 2001 at 00:43:53: In Reply to: Re: "advanced" theories posted by pork on November 10, 2001 at 16:28:07: : T-dominant (and thus F-inferior) indivduals tend to have better luck in the inductive perception of a whole from a fraction in the non-human realm - chemical chains, architectural structures, etc. --Maybe this discussion would be easier if you used exact terms. You don't 'perceive' with Thinking, you use it to organize data you already have obtained by other means. Understanding something about chemical chains typically requires Extraverted Thinking and architectural structures are typically in the Introverted Thinking + Extraverted Intuition realm. : Not that they don't try to apply their inductive reasoning to the psychological realm, too, but to say that they usually end up striking out would be an understatement - they're usually not even in the right ballpark. --Do you actually have anything else to back that up with except your own petty prejudices? : : --What a wonderful example of "Jish" explanation of self. 4 clear-cut, organized and detailed explanations, revealing a way of thinking that clearly is used to organising data in an orderly fashion. : That certainly is not the way I approach the Enneagram or the M-B, or NLP or psychology for that matter. If there's any way I'm orderly, it's not in the matter of organizing data. I'm an Fe auxiliary Judger, not a Te auxiliary Judger. There is a difference, wouldn't you say? --Yes, it seems you really aren't orderly in your way of either organizing or perceiving data. At least not accurate. I was speaking about your description of yourself, not your perception or understanding of any typology or psychology in general. : Thinking is my auxiliary function, supported by my inferior Se Perceiving. --Quite. I'd say it's your tertiary function and it's not 'supported' by your inferior Se perceiving, it's influenced by it. : : Think of an INFP, like Emily. Is it likely that she would describe herself in a fashion similar to yours? : I have a slight suspicion that your head is in a cloud of M-B theory and preconclusive notions. Look at the way we describe ourelves. You may realize there's more similarity between our self-description than your circular M-B arguments would assume. --So instead of answering a simple question you start sharing your own prejudiced opinons and preconclusive notions. Is it your habit to answer to what you think people are saying instead what they actually say? : : Also, "J" types can also have fairly quick changes of heart and mind, the difference to "P" types is that they are sequential in "Js". : Sequential as in one change of heart following another? --Sequential as in there is one decision followed by another. "P" types tend to delay making a 'final' decision for as long as possible. They rather keep on acquiring new input. "J" types like to make a decision, but if they are reasonably flexible, they change that decision as soon as they have a reason to do so. : : --Now you got me thinking that maybe you are just dismissing it because you think it would inevitably put a big ol' "Step by step track-like mind" stamp on your for'ead. :) : Once again, there is nothing "step-by-step" in my approach to psychology, which is all you can truly say you know about me. --Thank you for proving my point. You seem to think being a "J" means that you must have that "step-by-step" approach, which is only really the natural dominant Te approach. It isn't a defining feature of "Jness". You, once again, ignore the "closet J/P" features of IxxP/IxxJ types, because, after all, it's all about advanced MB theory and you prefer to ignore it. : Your interpretation of the M-B appears meticulous and structured in comparison to mine, which is less so. --Which might contribute to the fact I know what I'm talking about? :In typical "P" fashion, you approach this web you've constructed in a tangential manner, but that's irrelevant, because I'm questioning the integrity of the web itself, not the appropriateness of one way of mentally approaching the web over another. --Yet you call yourself an "INFJ" and use the system. If you insist that it's very undefined and largely subjective, it isn't a system anymore. And you could call yourself a "7UjD" and attach whatever arbitrary features to that label you wish. : Thus, I will boldly suggest that your interpratation may lead to more confusion than a more holistic, ambiguous, open-ended one - not for want of mental capacity in you (if I recall, tests have confirmed that you're at least as smart as I am), but for want of an overcomplicated system's ability to be accurate. --What is "one" in "amibigious, open-ended one"? I assume you mean "interpration". Again, I can't avoid getting the impression of "Jness" in that comment. You have seen a few details of the system I have explained to you and see them as a largely incoherent mass of loosely bundled features. If you were more of a "P" (right-brain) type you might see the clear structure behind the system from my "P-ish" explanations. As we aren't in that situation, maybe you should obtain a more fully constructed explanation of the system so you could see it's not 'overcomplicated'. It's the opposite, it explains the MB theory with fewer complications and more accuracy than any of the stuff on the net. But as it doesn't readily seem clear-cut to you, rather than trying to learn more you choose to close your mind from it. (ie make a judgement and I'm sure you know what kind of a trait that is. :) :I might call it the "McKenna Syndrome." I met a fellow by that name last year on the (now defunct) chat applet. A young 6w5 ENFP, barely out of his teens, he seemed to be such a wellspring of Enneagram and M-B knowledge that it amazes me he knew where to start. It was as though every half-baked idea of every over-eager college kid were psychically channeled into his mind, and organized into a faultless web of guidelines concerning type-by-type indications. Of course, the bigger your web is, the more far-fetched your most advanced conclusions is. --Of course, if you had chosen to listen to me, by now you'd know that the idea of a 'type' according to the system I'm using is far more flexible and less cast-in-concrete in both ultimate and practical senses than anything you are using or assuming. The conclusions aren't advanced. Of course, this might have something to do with the label "advanced theory" I used, even though I would've assumed that you, if anyone, could've seen beyond that with an intuitive leap. It's actually very basic theory, but in practically all other easily available MB material the issues are either ignored or presented in a misleading manner. For example, it never ceases to amaze me how the I/E J/P relationship is almost always ignored. : This guy must have had the biggest web I've ever seen. To hear him talk, a neophyte would surely have been amazed, and proclaimed him a genius. His greatest genius, incidentally, may have been holding court over neophytes. Luckily for me, I was not a neophyte. If I had been, I may have failed to smell the BS in the air, due to his overwhelming air of credibility. Now, this guy got the idea, early on, that we were similar in a way, so he started throwing around reasons why I must be a 6 as well. Some of his interpretations of my self-descriptions and the system were so off the wall, I began to wonder whether he was serious. (Later, he implied that he may not have been entirely serious, but he seemed to get genuinely pissed off when I differed with him at the time.) We had a lively argument, and we parted agreeing to disagree. A few days later, lo and behold, I see a message from old McKenna on the board, and he says - what?! - that in the last few days, he had been in serious doubt about whether he was not actually a 4 (his premise for insisting that I was a 6 seemed to be that he considered himself "similar" to me, remember?). I was amazed. This wellspring of infinite Enneagram knowledge was caving in? Now that I see you displaying a similar pattern (the resemblance is uncanny, actually), I see another part of the overall pattern, namely in another respect in which you are similar to him. You show uncharacteristic doubt over which type you are. If the Enneagram and the M-B are the reliable guidelines they claim to be, then one's being a wellspring of knowledge should correlate positively, not negatively, with one's ability of self-assessment. --I don't readily see what this self-promotion of yours has to do with our discussion. But since it seems you explained the last few sentences in another message, I'll go there now. : : : ^(oo)^ Mikko
|
|