Re: oops... messed up again... HERE'S the version with my replies to your comments....

Subject:

Comments:
: : Thinking-Judgment may not be responsible for inductive perception, but T-Judgment does influence the way the accompanying Perceiving function works (if not always the same way). Thus, I only meant to say that people with high T-Judgment tend to blunder over inductive perception of people. Their conclusions about people (Judging process) are even worse, but the folly begins with their "T-tied" Perceiving. : --If you are happy staring at the surface, so be it. : : That just means "Judging," doesn't it. Why do you have to correlate it with brain hemisphere? The traditional "left/right brain" ideas are pseudoscience to begin with - they have nothing whatsoever to do with the hemispherical division - so what makes you think this revised version of the old misnomer is any more accurate? : --Here we go again. It's not about "traditional 'left/right brain' ideas", which is something I've told you quite a few times before but you just don't seem to get it. Geesh, just like trying to explain the difference between dictionary "intuition" and MB "intuition" to someone who doesn't want to get it. Why do I think it's any more accurate? Because it makes sense. But since you aren't even interested about finding out what the difference really is, why bother asking? : : Being one of the most holistic thinkers I've ever known, it comes as no surprise that I've understood the theory ever since day one... that is, for the same amount of time I've been deeming it absolutely ludicrous. :) : --You aren't a wholistic thinker in the true sense of the world. That is something very obvious to anyone who talks with you. Emily's humour is wholistic. The way Einstein saw harmony in the universe was wholistic. You are intuitive but not wholistic, because it's Ni for you. I don't expect you to accept this, because you seem to take pride in being they way you say you are and whenever there's ego involved, people tend to stop listening. And yes, it comes as a surprise that you claim to understand the theory, because you obviously have misunderstood even basic concepts. : : In other words, I've disagreed with you. I'm sorry, but based on the fact that I know myself, I cannot do otherwise. : --Why do you use several nicknames? : : : --"Near-center hybrid". Is that supposed to be a "deceptively accurate and convincing sounding term"? : : It means xNFx, where x is variable but roughly the same in both places, and usually close to zero. : --In other words, you don't really know what the functions you prefer are. : : Of course I'm not going to accept what you say. You may as well demand that I accept the undeniable facts that the sky is green, the moon is made of cream cheese, and the sun goes home to sleep at night like everyone else. My disagreement with your theory is based on experience and self-observation. : --Why do you keep referring it to as "your theory"? It most certainly isn't mine, I've never ever claimed it is and I've told you whose it is. Shit, you don't ever pay attention, do you? : : Often, my Ni does segue into Ne, and my Fe into Fi, and I temporarily resemble the ENFPs I know. Then, when I return to my neutral state, I continue resembling the INFJs I know, as usual. Some INFJ's, being more introverted than myself, do not seem to display this pattern. : --Yeah, and let me guess, you resemble ENFPs because you come more outgoing, maybe less focused and so on, right? So when you just behave a bit differently than normal, you perceive it as a change and can't explain it otherwise than as a change in the nature of your functions. If that isn't ludicrous and overcomplicated, I don't know what is. Oh, do correct me if my assumptions are wrong. : : : --I think you don't get the difference between Ni and Ne. : : I get them, for I experience both of them alternately in primary position. If the theory cannot accept that, then the theory is as good as dead. : --If the theory can't accept that you don't bother to learn the difference between the functions and ignore the fact that you do have real Ne in your type makeup that might pop up every now then and just want to explain it as ambiguity of the direction of the function, the theory is as good as dead. Gee, I wonder how many theories could be pronounced dead because they don't "feel" right. : : I'm not necessarily incapable of perceiving what people tell me, but neither am I capable of agreeing with everything everyone tells me, either. I'll say it one more time: The theory you espouse looks great on paper. I can give it that much credit. But it bears very little resemblance to the way my mind works. : --I wouldn't have much problems ignoring the way your mind works, because there are always anomalies. However, I don't ignore it because I still don't think you've understood what we are talking about here. You seem to have a pretty much cast-in-stone idea of how your mind works. : : : "Clear and organized" can mean that the expression is made clear and organized during the process of expression, not necessarily during perception. That, btw, explains why you don't necessarily feel organized inside your head when you perceive things, you get clear and organized when using Extraverted Judgement, Fe in your case. : : What happened to my "obviously being used to organizing data in an orderly fashion"? ;) : --You ARE incapable of perceiving what people say to you. Let me quote something you could see with your own eyes about seven lines above. "You don't necessarily feel organized inside your head when you preceive things, you get clear and organized when using Extraverted Judgement, Fe in your case." Unless you are saying you aren't used to using Fe, what in that quote is so hard for you to understand that you had to ask me that question? Oh, I see. This is one of those times when you choose to expect an exact quote, didn't get one and missed that the very same idea was in those words. Whatever. : : : (And this, incidently is why using that Fe is so important to INFJs, according to that 'advanced theory'. Also, according to that theory, INxJ types who get lost in their head don't tend to have any way to rationally organize all the data they have) : : Aye, I've noticed that before. But saying that IxxJ's are primarily "orderly" and "step-by-step" thinkers is misleading, ISTJ's notwithstanding (who, by the way, use the Te Judgment that you say is characterized by fastidiousness). : --Will you shove that "step-by-step" where the sun doesn't shine already? How many times do I have to explain that term and it's relationship to "J"ness as a whole? Yes, it's misleading to say IxxJs are "thinkers." Only half of them are. I'm not really sure I ever said IxxJs are primarily what you said here. I recall voicing the idea that IxxJs tend to use perception and judgement in a left-brain fashion, which typically involves some sort of closure and analytic evaluation as opposed to synthetic evaluation and less clear aim towards closer, which are right-brain features. : : You can believe that if you want. : --We've seen that in your comments. : : : --Again, where do you get this idea of an "overcomplicated theoretical web of rules"? If anything, it's very simple indeed. : : "Overcomplicated" is a relative term, based on how complicated something should be realistically allowed to get. In my opinion, the M-B has a lower threshold than the Enneagram - that is, it cannot bear the weight of complexity that the Enneagram can without falling apart. : --Should I mention here that the essential theory behind the Enneagram isn't very complicated? : : : --On whose part? : : Both of us. Who else? Yet, I'm in a better position to test the theory against myself than you are to test it against me. : --Did it ever occur to you that I'm not testing it against you? I was talking about it to Bart and you felt it your duty to pop up and explain how the system is flawed. You have an active interest in proving it 'dead', 'ludicrous' and whatever terms you used, wheter or not it's used to explain you. Why is that? : : I see it as clearly as anyone you're likely to talk to. Only I do not agree with it. Perhaps that's because it fits you better than it fits me. Or maybe you could say it did, if you knew your M-B type. :-P : --What makes you think I don't know it? That I'm not telling it to you? : : : --"Adherence to that type"? Does that mean you try to behave and think like an INFJ? : : It's not necessarily conscious "adherence." : --Unless you're saying that only conscious traits and behaviours matter, what do you think a comment like that tells to a casual observer? : : When I say "I am not pulled toward tertiary Ti and inferior Se under stress," and "I am goal-oriented in many ways, organized in some ways, but almost never sequential in thought or method," and "My Ni becomes Ne occasionally, and I start to resemble ENFP's" (granted, you seemed to change your mind about sequential thinking habits representing J-ness halfway through the argument), of course you're going to assume I must be missing something, because to you, that dogma is gospel. : --That dogma is gospel? Now who's telling whom what they are like and what they are thinking? Anyway, I don't think most people naturally think sequentially about things, it's an acquired habit but something J types are far more likely to adopt. I don't think you are necessarily missing something. It might simply be that your perceptions are off the mark. :> : : Knowing myself and the way I work prior to knowing this theory, I have no choice but to dismiss it. : --I wonder if that's similar to what people initially said to Galilei and Darwin. Not that I'm comparing myself to them because it even isn't my theory. Still, if you have one way of explaining something and it seems to work, why would you even consider changing the explanation? Some people think that there are reasons while others think there are not. : : : --If you'd stop to think for a while, you'd see that "influence" is a broader term than "support". : : No matter. : --So to you human psyche is just a combination of random bits and pieces and thoroughly unpredictable. : : : I told you Ne and Ni are essentially different, you basically ignored that. : : In me, they segue into one another, and I am sporadically quasi-ENFP. Until my mind STOPS working that way, AND until somebody turns back time and prevents my mind from ever having worked that way in the past, this advanced M-B theory will remain pure bullshit. : --So that's your final word on it, eh? : : You seem certain that if only I understood what you're saying (I do, and I contest specific statements you make), I would automatically "see the light" and concede that it fits me even loosely (I don't, because it's an idiot theory that Mother Nature would condemn to "life on paper"). You can remain sure of that for all I care... this is fun. :) : --No, I'm not certain of that because you have a lot of ego-involvement in this. If your comment above "It's all BS" is your final word, I can only wonder why people who are actually considered knowledgeable about the MB system find the theory and explanations very good (and some other people say "this finally explains the role of the tertiary well and also for the first time I really understand what F is all about) and you think it's bullshit. Probably because you are a Four and whenever it servers you to be against something to prove you're different, you will oppose. "Being hit in the head with a hammer hurts." "Not me!" -- pork : : Not at all, nor should you expect someone who knows himself and who can think for himself to agree with everything you say in this matter, or with everything that some author says in a book. I have never agreed 100 percent with any author about anything... even 50% is high for me (e.g., Riso and Hudson, Isabel Briggs-Myers). If you're looking for someone to convince, you'll have to find some neophyte puppy. : --I believe there's a spelling error in your name. One letter seems wrong. : : : : So what is your type, finally? : : : --I'm not telling you. : : If you did, you might offer some testimony as to how you fit the advanced M-B theory. : --You already told me it's bullshit, so what do you care? : : Mikko

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: