PDA

View Full Version : Jung is wrong (with all due respect)



Hugo
05-21-2005, 03:53 PM
There are no such units as :Si: :Se: :Ni: :Ne: :Fi: :Fe: :Ti: :Te:

They only serve to confuse. There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define
:Si: :Se: :Ni: :Ne: :Fi: :Fe: :Ti: :Te:

These cause problems in typing.

Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right. They are independant from S, N, F and T.

Also there are no such things as p or j, and there is no need for them.

Because Jung is wrong (with all due respect) so is Model A.

So INTj is not Introverted Thinking with Intuition, but is Introversion with primary Thinking and secondary Intuition.

INTp is not Introverted Intuition with Thinking, but is Introversion with primary Intuition and secondary Thinking.

will be continued...

Hugo
05-21-2005, 03:55 PM
That was me above. This site did not log me in properly.

metaiwan
05-21-2005, 04:23 PM
I disagree...if you read earlier Jung on his discovery of the introvert and extravert, it seems he agrees with you, but by the times he writes psychological types, he sees extraversion and introversion as attitudes of functions and not qualities in their own right. From my experience I tend to agree with later Jung.

Hugo
05-21-2005, 07:24 PM
Introversion and Extroversion are states of mind, not attitudes.

Thinking (for example) is a process.

Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.

Lee
05-21-2005, 08:26 PM
I don't think it is a clear cut as you describe it Hugo, but I have been thinking along similar minds lately.

Hugo
05-22-2005, 10:45 AM
I don't think it is a clear cut as you describe it Hugo, but I have been thinking along similar minds lately.

As I said before

There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define :Si: :Se: :Ni: :Ne: :Fi: :Fe: :Ti: :Te:

Transigent
05-24-2005, 02:38 AM
Edited for gayness.

CuriousSoul
05-24-2005, 04:58 AM
Hugo, I would say that socionics is still very much unfinished business and until the issue of typing is conclusively solved there is not much point propagating this theory to the wider world, since a wrong type is likely to only do you harm - but whether Jung was wrong - or indeed right - is a complicated question and the answers will probably be found in the dull shades of grey rather than a simple either right or wrong. We may not have found the answers yet, but I warmly appreciate your efforts at devising tests for solving the question of typing. I myself seem to be running out of ideas.

Hugo
05-24-2005, 11:28 AM
Dear Transigent,

Thank you for your message. I haven't ignored what you have said, but have read every word.

As you already know, I am I-Tn (what you might call INTj with an intuitive subtype). I analyze concepts but don't accept them without scrutinizing them.

I state my thoughts/findings, which are usually "out of the box", to have a conversation about them and to advance psychology theory, but only in connection with practical application.

Theory is useless without practical application.

Hugo
05-24-2005, 11:55 AM
Dear Curious,

Thanks for your post.

I brought up the issue of Jung with the aim of making things simpler.

As I stated:


There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define :Si: :Se: :Ni: :Ne: :Fi: :Fe: :Ti: :Te:


The fact that I/E is independant from T, F, N, S would, I believe makes things simpler.

I think with the above in mind, typing, and possibly even subtyping, is made easier. Let me give an example:


Work out whether you are


I or E
S or N
T or F


Now lets say that you are INFx. To work out whether you are j or p, ask yourself :


"What do I find more attractive in my ideal companion, the qualities of S or T?"


If you choose T then you are INFj. If you choose S then you are INFp.

:Te: and :Se: just make things unnecessarily complicated.


Also, to know what your subtype is ask yourself:


"What describes me better, the qualities of N or F?"


If you choose N then your subtype is N. If you choose F, your subtype is F.

science as magic
05-24-2005, 12:25 PM
If anything you are the logical subtype.

Hugo
05-24-2005, 01:07 PM
What makes you think that?

science as magic
05-24-2005, 02:20 PM
You are overly confident of conclusions you make with Ti not allowing for Ne input. Or that's what it SEEMS like. Maybe I am wrong.

Not that that is a bad thing I'm just saying.

MysticSonic
05-24-2005, 05:51 PM
But Hugo, in terms of the actuial theory, that would be an over-simplication of the entire issue. For instance, take the INTj. In your theory, they would be introverted with thinking as the primary function; however, you have failed in one instance: in recognizing the relationship between an introverted nature and the nature of an introverts thought's; if their thoughts were to be introverted, or in other words, directed by subjective factors, thinking would be directed in an introverted fashion. Wouldn't this particular fashion of thinking, in and of itself, be introverted thinking?

Of course, you could simply redefine the term introversion in such a way that would make it compatible with your conjecture, but then your definition would also have to be evaluated.

Also, this theory is completely incompatible with Model A, although I suppose you could regard it as disposable.

Hugo
05-24-2005, 06:00 PM
You are overly confident of conclusions you make with Ti not allowing for Ne input. Or that's what it SEEMS like.

The ENTp base function description describes me pretty well:

:Ne:
ENTps have a very well-developed ability to think inventively. Very often they come up with original and radical ideas. They have the ability to foresee the development of many different concepts. Their well developed intuition often helps them to make the right decisions. ENTps are well able to understand the essence of concepts and phenomena. They are interested in and read a lot about everything that is new and unusual.

Maybe even a little bit more than the INTj base function description.

Hugo
05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
Thanks Mystic,

As I said before:

Introversion and Extroversion are states of mind, not attitudes.

Thinking (for example) is a process.

Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.

and

Because Jung is wrong (with all due respect) so is Model A.

Please also note that:

There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define :Si: :Se: :Ni: :Ne: :Fi: :Fe: :Ti: :Te:

MysticSonic
05-24-2005, 06:23 PM
Woah, I can't believe I missed all that.

So, Hugo, what is introversion and extraversion?

Hugo
05-24-2005, 06:27 PM
You'll find your answer at socionics.com

MysticSonic
05-24-2005, 06:31 PM
Are you trying to make this discussion hard? Can you just give me a direct link; I can't find what you're talking about.

Hugo
05-24-2005, 06:33 PM
http://www.socionics.com/main/types.htm

MysticSonic
05-24-2005, 06:40 PM
I suppose, but you have in no way shown that your model is superior to the Socionic one; show me that and I may begin to believe your model is correct.

The reason I believe the Socionic model to be correct is that I see those particular attitudes as an effect of the nature of the individual's thoughts, with the two natures being interested the objective world, and the other nature being interested in the subjective world.

Hugo
05-24-2005, 06:52 PM
As I said:

There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define :Si: :Se: :Ni: :Ne: :Fi: :Fe: :Ti: :Te:

The purpose of this post was to prove Jung wrong, and in doing so, am indirectly proving Model A wrong as well.

I am not presenting a model but am aiming to "purify" theory.

As I also said:

Introversion and Extroversion are states of mind, not attitudes.

Thinking (for example) is a process.

Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.

trey
05-24-2005, 08:10 PM
Interesting. So do you believe the concept of information metabolism is viable?

Waddlesworth
05-24-2005, 08:10 PM
Socionics blends many theories together. It is not Jung, although it does elaborate on his system of nomenclature. Information on Socionics is a bit scanty and fragmented, no one here as far as I'm aware has all of the information.

From what I have read it appears that Augustinavichute's "functional rings" were seen as a legitimate discovery. There is something in this that we do not know right now.

Socionics.com is a great resource but most certainly is not the final say the descriptions of each function. It is for beginners and gives beginners a general idea of what functions are, that is all.

What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that you don't have enough expertise in this area to prove anything wrong. You can believe in it or choose not to believe in it, but I really don't think you can prove anything wrong. Your first flaw lies in the fact that you are assuming socionics automatically accepts everything Jung was saying. I don't think that it does, I think that it uses his ideas and modifies and elaborates on them. It also uses informational metabolism and freud's theory of the Id, Ego and Super-Ego. It modifies Freud's theory by adding a Super-Id, which in itself suggests that Jungs concept of typology was not taken as certian, but more of an intuitive guide.

I'm not saying you aren't making any points, there are all good points you are making, but I don't think you are knowledgible enough to claim you are proving anyone or anything wrong.

discourse
05-24-2005, 08:51 PM
Say, waddles , are you in dual relationship as you seem to be so relaxed and
feel so harmonious? I would like to find out the secret of this.

Hugo
05-24-2005, 09:02 PM
Interesting. So do you believe the concept of information metabolism is viable?

Good question.

It depends what 'information metabolism' actually means.

I've never seen a definition for it.

Hugo
05-24-2005, 09:10 PM
Dear Waddles

Thanks for your reply.

As I said before:

The purpose of this post was to prove Jung wrong, and in doing so, am indirectly proving Model A wrong as well.

I know full well that socionics is not just based on Jungs work, but without Jungs work there is no Model A.

trey
05-24-2005, 09:22 PM
Simply, information metabolism is the processing of information between a starting and end point. So I guess I asked the wrong question. More succinctly, does information itself carry properties other than those determined by the IESNTF mechanisms in the brain? If not, how does the mind handle conflicts created by information metabolism differences between said mechanisms?

Hugo
05-24-2005, 09:37 PM
I'm afraid that I do not understand what you are asking. Maybe it would be helpful if you give an example.

In additon, I haven't seen a clear enough definition of "information metabolism".

trey
05-24-2005, 10:38 PM
I don't think I can make that definition any clearer. Maybe you are just having difficulty putting it into context with your concept of psychological preference?

Conversely, I'm not too sure how to supplement that (or any) question with an example, but if there are segments that confuse you, please pick them out.

Oh, and uh..


There are no such units as

They only serve to confuse. There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define

I hate to backtrack, but would you mind doing us a favor by either substantiating your premises, or at least not arguing them ad ignoratiam?

Waddlesworth
05-25-2005, 01:46 AM
Say, waddles , are you in dual relationship as you seem to be so relaxed and
feel so harmonious? I would like to find out the secret of this.

Interesting comment. It is funny because sometimes I feel quite confused as to how my posts 'read' to other people.

I have an older sister, 9 years my senior, which is an ISFp. She taught me alot growing up, but by age 10 or 11 she left home and I had alot of troubles after this. Still, perhaps this has had an impact on my development of a more relaxed temperament. I do have a dual boss and a couple of my best friends are duals. Perhaps this is where you see the harmony. But I still have many problems, especially worrying about the future.


Hugo:

I think you are too bold in your conclusions.

To "prove" something says alot, and I don't think you did this.

Hugo
05-25-2005, 10:49 AM
Dear Trey

On the one hand you said that the definition you gave of 'information metabolism' was very basic by using the word "simply", and on the other hand you said that you cannot give a clearer definition.

I'm not so sure that you know/understand what you're saying/asking.

No offense.

Hugo
05-25-2005, 10:55 AM
Dear Waddles,

As we are dealing with theory, the matter is one of reasoning.

I have provided reasons, and have therefore proved my case. In conclusion, I believe that Jung is wrong (with all due respect).

If you can disprove it by the use of reason, then be my guest.

Hugo
05-25-2005, 10:57 AM
That was me above.

MysticSonic
05-25-2005, 11:47 AM
"The purpose of this post was to prove Jung wrong, and in doing so, am indirectly proving Model A wrong as well. "

Well, then, I suppose it can be said that the purpose of my post was in defense of Jung, whose ideas you still haven't proven inferior to your own.

Hugo
05-25-2005, 02:22 PM
On what specific grounds?

It's no good making such a general remark without substantiating it.

I've substantiated my conclusion.

MysticSonic
05-25-2005, 03:55 PM
All you've done is posited baseless conjectures; you have yet to prove that it is superior to Jung's theory.

Hugo
05-25-2005, 04:17 PM
What I have said is based on reason.

Don't forget Mystic, we are talking about a theory.

If what I say is conjecture then so is what Jung says.

Besides, you have said nothing to substantiate your claim.

Pete
05-25-2005, 08:18 PM
Dear Waddles,

As we are dealing with theory, the matter is one of reasoning.

I have provided reasons, and have therefore proved my case. In conclusion, I believe that Jung is wrong (with all due respect).

If you can disprove it by the use of reason, then be my guest.

How are old are you Hugo? Only youth or an admission of idiocy will excuse your "reasoned" statements.
If the former doesn't apply, you're in a hell of a whole as an INTj without strong reasoning powers

05-25-2005, 08:18 PM
I mean "hole".

Pistol Pete
05-25-2005, 09:06 PM
Hugo, how do broad blanket statements presented in a logical manner constitute reasoned statements? What are the reasons behind your reasons? I could say France should become the next superpower because it has a leinent policy towars nudity and this leiency towards nudity makes its citizens calmer and because its citizens are calmer its citzens are smarter and because its citzens are smarter its citzens are more knoweldgeable and because its citzens are more knoweldegeable its citzens are more prone to leadership because they know about it and on on and on . ..
This probably isn't the best example to prove the simple point that good reasoning has to be boiled down to its essence so that every question tha can be answered thais answered. In your examples, there are too many unanswered quiestions that beg further analysis

science as magic
05-25-2005, 10:07 PM
Like I said unbound :Ti: that ignores :Ne: and S in general.

Remember that what problems do Js and Ps have thread? Ps get lost in the perception and Js get lost in the judgement...

MysticSonic
05-26-2005, 11:35 AM
"Besides, you have said nothing to substantiate your claim"

No, you have done nothing to substantiate YOUR claim. YOU have the burden of proof, because YOU are trying to prove YOUR hypotheses. I'm simply trying to show you that, theoretically, your conjecture is no more sophisticated then his.

There has been several amounts of testing showing that the extraverted function and introverted function of a particular psychological element differ in the area in which they occupy the brain; this is written in Lenore thompson's MBTI book, which despite not being definitive evidence, places Jung's "conjecture" on a higher ground then yours.

Hugo
05-26-2005, 05:38 PM
Dear Pete,

Thanks for your reply. You can’t deny that I haven’t provided a reasoned statement.

I have provided a statement in a logical manner, which constitutes a reasoned statement. As you have requested my statement has been boiled down to its essence. Of course, when you boil down something to its essence, it needs explaining, unlike what you claim: “every question that can be answered is answered”.

You say that: “In your examples, there are too many unanswered questions that beg further analysis.”


Well ask them then (ie questions)!

I thought that was the whole point of a forum.

Hugo
05-26-2005, 05:44 PM
There has been several amounts of testing showing that the extraverted function and introverted function of a particular psychological element differ in the area in which they occupy the brain; this is written in Lenore thompson's MBTI book, which despite not being definitive evidence, places Jung's "conjecture" on a higher ground then yours.

This doesn't prove that Introversion/Extroversion isn't independant from T, F, S or N.

As I said before, I have substantiated my claim with reasoning.

Let me ask you this:

Have I or have I not provided a theoretically sound statement?

If not, why not?

You've said nothing to challenge the content of my statement, but have dismissed it point blank.

Einstein came up with theories that were rejected by people in his time. Are you going to have the same attitude as them or are you going to keep an open mind?

05-26-2005, 07:16 PM
is this a joke?

MysticSonic
05-26-2005, 07:22 PM
"There are no such units as [enter introverted and extraverted units here]

They only serve to confuse. There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define

These cause problems in typing.

Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right. They are independant from S, N, F and T. "

Those are only assertions with no evidence providing proof for them, whereas I have shown to you that there is a bit of, despite being inconclusive, evidence that the opposite is true.

"Also there are no such things as p or j, and there is no need for them."

This may or may not be true; I haven't seen evidence for either side on this matter. Although one could merely simplify the concept by indicating that a judger is one who has a rational function(thinking, feeling) first, and a irrational function(inuition, sensing), second, with the inverse true for percievers, although in the actual theory, this designation is not required, as it is merely a means for typing an individual.

"Because Jung is wrong (with all due respect) so is Model A.

So INTj is not Introverted Thinking with Intuition, but is Introversion with primary Thinking and secondary Intuition.

INTp is not Introverted Intuition with Thinking, but is Introversion with primary Intuition and secondary Thinking.

will be continued..."

And all that is based off an unsubstantiated conjecture; the conjecture is unsubstantiated because you have shown no evidence supporting it.

"Einstein came up with theories that were rejected by people in his time. Are you going to have the same attitude as them or are you going to keep an open mind?"

They were right not to accept some of them, they had no proof.

MysticSonic
05-26-2005, 07:24 PM
The one directly above this post was me.

And he has a right to be sceptical of the theory, just not the right to assume his is superior to Jung's.

Hugo
05-26-2005, 09:51 PM
You left out that I said:

Introversion and Extroversion are states of mind, not attitudes.

Thinking (for example) is a process.

Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.

You will find reasoning in the above.

Also, when you say "proof" what exactly do you mean? When talking about psychologucal theory, "material proof" is not really possible, because we are taking about a theory.

Let me ask you:

What proof is there that introverted thinking exists as a single unit?
What proof is there that introversion is independent from thinking?

Thay both have as much material (or any other) proof as each other because they are both theories. However one of them can be argued, as I have done, to be superior to another. Or vice versa.

I have reasoned my point to be superior to Jung's. Nobody has challenged my line of argument.

The only person that has disagreed with me is Admin on page one, to whom I have posted a reply. I have yet to receive an answer from Admin.

Why don't you say what you think - do you agree with my point or disagree with my point? Whatever your answer, give reasons.

STOP GETTING SIDE TRACKED

diamond
05-26-2005, 11:39 PM
Didn't you ever think out loud? Through conversation and brainstorming with others?

Hugo
05-27-2005, 01:31 PM
Hi Blaze,

The answer is Yes.

MysticSonic
05-27-2005, 01:53 PM
Your theory is superior to Jung's because of, what, it's simpler? Occam's Razor as a choice to choose the superior idea is a logical fallacy, thus you have failed to prove that your reasoning is superior to Jung's.

If I'm wrong, I'd like you to tell me why it's superior, because I obviously am too simple to understand or pick up on any notions you may have posited that may have illustrated this notion.

Jung's idea has evidence to back it up, yours doesn't.

And it is true that nothing can be "proven" as of yet in psychology, with proof being used in terms of a scientific proof; however, there can be evidence showing a particular idea may or may not be superior to another, which has been shown with Jung's in comparison to yours.

Hugo
05-27-2005, 03:13 PM
As I said:
“Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.”

You state that:
“Jung's idea has evidence to back it up, yours doesn't. “

Are you sure? If so, show me it.

You say that:
“there can be evidence showing a particular idea may or may not be superior to another, which has been shown with Jung's in comparison to yours.”

I’d like to see you explain this one.

diamond
05-27-2005, 03:35 PM
Hi Blaze,

The answer is Yes.

Thank you for responding!

So, ergo, the process for extraverted and introverted thinking is different, not the same as you are suggesting.

Perhaps you are getting limited responses due to your adversarial approach.

What "proof" is there for any of these abstract concepts? You'd have to look to social and psychological research. I'm here to tell you that social research is inherently limited by design and is subject to flaws and subjective interpretations.

But you do seem to have a high level of energy about this . . . do you think your energy comes from your thoughts or your body?

Hugo
05-27-2005, 05:12 PM
So, ergo, the process for extraverted and introverted thinking is different, not the same as you are suggesting.

Thanks Blaze,

I don't have an adversarial approach, except with Mystic. You should see the way that he talks to me. But I'm having fun with him anyway! This is where my energy comes from.

I'm taking the same approach as you are about "proof", which perhaps Mystic understands now.

What I am saying is that :Te: or :Ti: don't really exist as single units, contrary to what Jung says.

Really, Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right that can be separated from Thinking. You can make links between Introversion/Extroversion and any of the following:
T, N, F, S

With this in mind, there is no point in:
:Si: :Se: :Ni: :Ne: :Fi: :Fe: :Ti: :Te:

Hugo
05-27-2005, 05:14 PM
That was me above.

Waddlesworth
05-27-2005, 06:00 PM
In socionics, if you understand it, you will realize that :Te: and :Ti: are mutually dependent upon one another. No, they are not separate units, but still are distinguishable as so.

Perhaps some time soon I will post a description of what I have deduced the model A is trying to say to us. This takes time to write, but It is clear as day.

Hugo
05-27-2005, 06:31 PM
Dear Waddles,

It looks like we are getting somewhere.

I know from Socionics that Te and Ti are mutually corrective but I’ve never heard that they are mutually dependant. As far as I know Ti and Fe are mutually dependant/supportive.

Please tell me where you got your information from? Thanks.

But may I say that there are problems in “creating” distinguishable units of Ti and Te, because they are difficult to define. For example, look at Si (MBTI) and Si (Socionics). They have different definitions for Si.

There are also differences of opinion as to the definitions of T, N, F and S.

It is unnecessary to create distinguishable units, which only serves to confuse.

I think that, on this basis, Model A should be abandoned.

MysticSonic
05-27-2005, 07:03 PM
"'Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.'"

"Are you sure? If so, show me it."

I already told you, Lenore Thompson's research shows this.

"I’d like to see you explain this one."

Jung's has evidence for it, yours doesn't; it's that simple.

"I don't have an adversarial approach, except with Mystic."

I'm sorry you feel that you have to be this way when discussing things with me; I just get a bit frustrated sometimes when people don't immediately listen to what I say. It's a bad habit....

Hugo
05-27-2005, 09:17 PM
Thanks Mystic.

What's your type by the way? Maybe we have difficulties due to different types.

Anyway, as I said before, Lenore Thompson's research doesn't prove that Introversion/Extroversion isn't independant from T, F, S or N.

Jung has no more evidence than I do.

As Blaze said:

What "proof" is there for any of these abstract concepts? You'd have to look to social and psychological research. I'm here to tell you that social research is inherently limited by design and is subject to flaws and subjective interpretations.

Waddlesworth
05-27-2005, 11:10 PM
Hugo, by dependent I meant correction. Support is just a "weak" form of correction. All of the functions are dependent upon one another.

Transigent
05-28-2005, 02:32 AM
Edited for gayness.

Hugo
05-28-2005, 07:13 PM
The thing with mathematics (for example) is that it has wide practical application. Socionics on the other hand does not.

Concepts are fruitless without practical application.

The main use I have found of socionics is finding your Dual. But even this is a problem because typing is a problem.

However typing, I believe, becomes easy when you just deal with I, E, S, T, F and N. It is easier than dealing with
:Si: :Se: :Ni: :Ne: :Fi: :Fe: :Ti: :Te:

I have not seen any practical use of defining or dealing with the 8 functions.

Transigent
05-28-2005, 07:37 PM
Edited for gayness.

Hugo
05-28-2005, 09:35 PM
Unfortunately, Socionics does not claim to help resolve relationship problems. It only states intertype relations.

As I said before in connection to typing...


Decide whether you are:

I or E
S or N
T or F


Now lets say that you are INFx. To work out whether you are j or p, ask yourself :

"What do I find more attractive in my ideal companion, the qualities of S or T?"

If you choose T then you are INFj. If you choose S then you are INFp.


Also, if (for example) you are Introverted with primary Thinking and secondary iNtuition, your dual is Extroverted with primary Feeling and secondary Sensing.

See – I can work out your dual without Model A or the 8 function.

Transigent
05-28-2005, 09:39 PM
Edited for gayness.

Hugo
05-28-2005, 10:36 PM
The reason I said:

See – I can work out your dual without Model A or the 8 function.

…is because you said:

No "8 functions" means no dual

…which isn’t true, because you can work out your dual without the 8 functions. And you seem to support what I say in your final point.

Transigent
05-28-2005, 10:44 PM
Edited for gayness.

Hugo
05-28-2005, 10:45 PM
I said:

Now lets say that you are INFx. To work out whether you are j or p, ask yourself : "What do I find more attractive in my ideal companion, the qualities of S or T?"

If you choose T then you are INFj. If you choose S then you are INFp.

An INFj's dual is ESTj
An INFp's dual is ESTp

An ESTj's primary function is T, which INFj is attracted to over S.

An ESTp's priimary function is S, which INFp is attracted to over T.

Transigent
05-28-2005, 10:47 PM
Edited for gayness.

Roger
05-28-2005, 11:32 PM
Hugo has come along to show us that not all INTjs have higher than average IQ's. Thanks Hugo, you have dispelled a myth some may hold that all INTjs are bright, as it is apparent that my learning disabled, yet wonderfully delightful ISFp friend, who was in remedial high school classes, possess a higher level of intelligence than you.

Hugo
05-28-2005, 11:47 PM
...although it does seem that Transigent has a lower IQ than Hugo.

What a shame.

And by the way. Transigent's mother needs to teach him some manners.

Cone
05-28-2005, 11:52 PM
Roger, you sound like an ENTj, i.e. making rude comments that have no constructive purpose whatsoever, obsessing over "manners", and thinking that intelligence is the most important thing in the universe.

Transigent's IQ lower than Hugo's? Ha!

Hugo
05-28-2005, 11:52 PM
I think that Transigent is really thick aswell.

Hey Transigent, have you been to see a shrink lately?

If not, maybe you should.

Hugo
05-28-2005, 11:54 PM
Hey Cone,

Are you sure you're an INTp.

More like an IDIOt.

Transigent
05-28-2005, 11:58 PM
Edited for gayness.

Hugo
05-29-2005, 12:04 AM
The fact that I advised you to get a shrink and the fact that you think that I am shrink, show that you're too stupid to understand anything.

Transigent
05-29-2005, 12:16 AM
Edited for gayness.

Hugo
05-29-2005, 12:24 AM
I don't deny that I am thick

Need I say more?

I think not.

Hugo
05-29-2005, 12:29 AM
I don't deny that I am thick, but what leads you to that conclusion? I don't really see how I have been 'thick' in this thread. (Maybe others, but not this one.)

Not only does he accept he's thick, but he also wants an explanation.

It seems as if Transvestite has drawn his own conclusions.

Hugo
05-29-2005, 12:32 AM
Mr Transexual,

Ask you mother (if you've got one).

the Real roger
05-29-2005, 12:38 AM
Post number 2
Uh, those subsequent Roger posts and were not me-yet they seem to have come up at the same time as Cone's postings.

Is Cone giving life to his many imaginary perspectives? Ie Hugo, Pistol Pete, Roger...what other aliases do you have Cone?

Transigent
05-29-2005, 12:40 AM
Edited for gayness.

diamond
05-29-2005, 01:41 AM
WTF????

C'mon people, it's only a theory.

We're getting a little caught up here, no? And there is netiquette, after all. Settle down and play nice!

But hugo, why do you keep posting here if you find socionics so impractical and useless?

Transigent, are you really transexual? When were you going to tell us?

Waddlesworth
05-29-2005, 02:43 AM
Alright, this is weird, funny, and sort of terrifying.

Hugo
05-29-2005, 03:41 AM
[quote="Blaze"]But hugo, why do you keep posting here if you find socionics so impractical and useless?[quote]

To see if anyone can prove me wrong.

Waddlesworth
05-29-2005, 04:36 AM
Alright, I'm just going to say this, agree with it, don't agree with it, whatever.

In theory there are perceivers, and there are judgers(I'll leave out the I/E dichotomy for now). We all know the explanation of what a perceiver and a judger is, so I won't spend the time writing that.

A person "accepts" information(+) via this means of thought. That is, a perceiver accepts input of information via perception. There are two qualities to perception, however.

One of these qualities is "Sensing" the other is "Intuition". If you are a perceiver you are ALWAYS accepting these types of info, you can't accept info related to Judgement(the explanation for this is not fully clear at this time although perhaps it has to do with strength and weakness as well).

one of these two qualities (S/N) is stronger than the other. It overpowers it, it clouds the voice of the other quality.

So, One of these qualities is "weak", one is "strong". If your intution is stronger, that is the "strong" quality, and therefore sensing is "weak". One of the voices is stifled. The strong one is always confident, the weak one is always insecure and therefore always open to suggestion. Makes sense- In this case there are two categorized forms of input, one sensory, one seemingly abstract(my guess it that it is visual/ related to vision over sensation). These two functions are the dominant INPUT.

To accurately comprehend reality all of the functions are necessary. The body must interact with the outer world and the inner world of all of the functions simultaneously, but somehow some of the functions are stronger than others. This appears to be what makes consciousness possible. Since the perception aspect of reality is being "used up" through accepting/processing much information, this information must reach conclusions via the "producing functions"(-) (this is the best definition I can give you at the current moment). This aspect, since the person in question is a perceiver, must be the judging aspect of the psyche. Therefore we have a similar process going on in terms of "Strong" and "weak". One of the functions is stronger than the other, either "feeling" or "thinking". This is the OUTPUT.

Somehow this is, and it is difficult to believe that they can all be the same strength. If they were then, like I have said, you have a "gooey mess" of functions. No goal, no direction. Look in nature, countless examples exist, not only in humanity, but in nature at large. nature has structure, and in these structures roles are also assigned.

So there we have consciousness. I combination of strong and weak forces interacting. The most dominant of each dichotomy interact, whereas the weaker ones also interact(with the strong and weak). The weaker functions tend to be less active since the INPUT is less, and the OUTPUT is therefore less as well(when looking at a weak producing function).

The model A appears to be structured on the basis that Strong accepting and Weak accepting functions are not adjacent, yet they are both adjacent to both producing functions. This suggests that the producing functions, strong and weak, can produce for either function. Perhaps.

But inside of all of this we have the I/E dichotomy, as well as the "unconscious" or "vital" ring. So how does this fit in?

Well, for one, if a person accepts info from the outer world, they are using that aspect of reality up, so the must create using their inner world.

So the unconscious is just the weaker half of the I/E dichotomy of each function!

As for the unconscious, well the unconscious acts in a form of strong and weak correction. Corresponding with the strong Accepting block is the negative of the same function(in the ID). It corrects the nature of the first block based upon past experiences. It is a block of personal knowledge. If an Ne is going "wow, imagine the possibilities!" it has to be kept in check by a weaker, yet always present ID function of Ni, which says, wait, does this correspond to what you know(of the E/I world)? the ID serves the EGO using "personal knowledge". It is corrective. When you place a person with a contrary the voice of the ID is essentially accentuated, making any activity impossible since both voices are constantly correcting one another. For the Strong creating block is a similar situation. The creativity is always held in check by knowledge of the outer or inner world(depends on E/I dichotomy). "Can the idea be implemented?"

The Super-Id does the same for the Super-Ego, but it is weaker, that is why is it only Suggestive(weak accepting) and Estimative(weak producing). It does not have sufficient knowledge/input to confidently deal with the environment.(support, which is taken over by duality)

Look at any Si type. They use Se to make sure their Si is in constant stimulation. There is a reality to this and it is all made up of strength and weaknesses. It is a perfect "dichotometric"(my own term) system. It has a strong and weak I/E, J/P etc... etc...

It perfectly represents the strong and weak aspects of consciousness in all of their forms and resonations. It looks perfect. Is it? well, it's all about understanding. I think the system itself if flawless so long as it is being used by a person that understands what this flawlessness means. "Strong" and "weak" are vague canopy terms, but they are real. everything has strengths in exchange of weaknesses. To me it seems a natural law.

But hugo, who are you? how old are you? are you a student? why are you attracted to socionics? why are you so skeptical about it? tell us about YOU.

Transigent
05-29-2005, 05:28 AM
Edited for gayness.

discourse
05-29-2005, 09:39 AM
That last post was not made by me, some jerk used my name.

Hugo
05-29-2005, 12:38 PM
Mr Transexual,

Ask you mother (if you've got one).

OK guys, that was me.

If you still haven't guest who I am, then ask MysticSonic (hint, hint).

Hugo
05-29-2005, 12:53 PM
That last post was not made by me, some jerk used my name.

Who are you calling a jerk?

I'm not a jerk.

Why would I call myself a jerk?

Hugo
05-29-2005, 12:54 PM
That last post was not made by me, some jerk used my name.

Who are you calling a jerk?

I'm not a jerk.

Why would I call myself a jerk?

That was me.

Hugo
05-29-2005, 12:59 PM
Mr Transexual,

Ask you mother (if you've got one).

OK guys, that was me.

If you still haven't guest who I am, then ask MysticSonic (hint, hint).

Did I just reveal my real name?

MysticSonic
05-29-2005, 02:43 PM
I think that's trying to prove a point, or perhaps some random asshat.

Just use your better judgement and ignore him.

Waddlesworth
05-29-2005, 03:33 PM
oh my god, this is funny.

Jimbean
05-29-2005, 10:49 PM
I can’t tell weather or not this is funny or sad.

Herzy
05-29-2005, 11:00 PM
I think it's all rediculous. :?

Jimbean.
05-30-2005, 09:17 PM
I can’t tell weather or not this is funny or sad.

In my defense, I'm not as stupid as I can sound-no, honestly!

CuriousSoul
05-31-2005, 05:47 PM
Posting under other people's user names is plain wrong and inexcusable. What I wanted to add though is that many of us are using public computers and it is theoretically possible somebody could be posting from the same IP address. It does seem highly unlikely, but should it nevertheless happen the burden of proof required to prove one's innocence in such cases can be very hard to meet.

trey
05-31-2005, 06:28 PM
www.e-thug.net

CuriousSoul
05-31-2005, 06:39 PM
Trey, I am afraid I may have missed your point, but do you think it is possible somebody could steal your IP-address? Or do you know more about computers, how easy is it to change your IP-address, use proxy servers etc. There is a potential danger in relying too heavily on technical evidence that may not be as reliable as it seeems.

I think this site could also do with more explicit rules of conduct. Some people may well think it is just a harmless practical joke to post under other people's names, but when it happens to you it can be bloody annoying. I know a lot of people do not like explicit moralizing but I think it would be good to have clear public rules on what you are allowed to do on this site and what will get you banned immediately. Any thoughts?

***EDIT***
Actually... I came to think it might be more appropriate to continue this discussion in the Site Discussion. I shall write a post there. Join the discussion in the thread Rules of Conduct? (oldforumlinkviewtopic-427.html)

trey
05-31-2005, 07:22 PM
yes i am aware of the perils of the internet. i also don't know why that post was directed to me.