Judging and Perceiving in functions | INFJ Forum

Judging and Perceiving in functions

Discussion in 'Psychology and MBTI' started by Madgirl143, Feb 14, 2018.

Share This Page

?
  1. Perceiver

  2. Judger

  3. Both

Results are only viewable after voting.
Watchers:
This thread is being watched by 3 users.
More threads by Madgirl143
  1. Madgirl143

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    352
    Featured Threads:
    6
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    England
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    I have a question, how come judging and perceiving are not represented in our functions? Forgive me if it sounds stupid.

    I understand the whole Intuition vs Sensing: Introversion vs Extroversion: Thinking vs Feeling and Perceiving vs Judging. This is where the letters come in. But when it comes to functions I don't understand how someone has Introverted or Extroverted Feeling. Aren't they the same thing, I mean are Feeling and Thinking on the same spectrum or is it Fe and Fi on the same spectrum. Wouldn't that mean that anyone can use either since they're on the same spectrum? We all use the same functions and letters, more or less. I think I'm straying from the topic, what I really want to know is why don't we include Judging and Perceiving in the functions? For example INFJ = Ni, Fe, Ti, Se and INFP= Fi, Ne, Si, Te, as I can see Introversion and Extroversion; and Judging and Perceiving are not represented. So how do they come together to create a personality type. Perceivers like things open, whereas judgers like planning ahead. What determines whether someone uses Ne or Ni? Does it mean that you can't be introverted or extroverted in Judging or Perceiving; and in Introversion and Extroversion?
     
  2. Ginny

    Ginny Displaced Naiad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Threads:
    29
    Messages:
    5,917
    Featured Threads:
    10
    Likes Received:
    36,896
    Trophy Points:
    2,487
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Trovami
    MBTI:
    INFJ IEI
    Enneagram:
    1w2 sx/sp
    We use judging and perceiving to describe the functions. The perceving functions are Nx and Sx, the judging functions Fx and Tx.

    The MBTI is a bit stupid with these spectrums. The spectrum and the functions are completely different things. In my book, you either see it as letters or functions. Once I knew about the functions, it became mostly non-sensical to think of a T-F spectrum, or whatever letter combination. For me, it is a cognitive process, which can help us understand ourselves and others. The process, and how proficient we are in the use of each function, may lead to more implications in terms of general behaviour, but I wouldn't bet on it. Some of it is quite amusing, most of all when you think of how each function works in a different slot, but you mustn't take it as gospel. I admit, it's hard not to, since it can spark really great and interesting discussions, but so long as there is no proof, what certainty is there besides what you know and learn about yourself?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. OP
    Madgirl143

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    352
    Featured Threads:
    6
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    England
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Hm I see your point, I don't really take it as gospel honestly. I just find it intriguing as most psychologists don't really seem to respect Myers and Briggs test. Well it's interesting you say that, I mean INTPs and ISFPs, aren't they both perceiving types? I only usually read about INFJs as I don't like to type others, especially with my lack of knowledge. I get it now, so if functions and letters are two different things, how can they be measured by one test? Oh well, I guess it's just one other personality test based on nothing lol. I'll just enjoy it as much as I enjoy other personality test :sweatsmile:
     
    Ginny likes this.
  4. infinite dreams

    infinite dreams Serene Doge

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2017
    Threads:
    3
    Messages:
    1,307
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    6,415
    Trophy Points:
    1,327
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    INTP
    Enneagram:
    5w4
    The classification of someone as a "J" or "P" in the 4-letter typing nomenclature simply refers to whether a person's first expressed extroverted function is a Judging function (Te or Fe) or a Perceiving function (Ne or Se).

    Someone who leads with an extroverted Judging function (with an auxiliary introverted perceiving function) is thus an ExxJ.
    Someone who leads with an extroverted Perceiving function (with an auxiliary introverted judging function) is an ExxP.

    Conversely...

    Someone who leads with an introverted judging function (with an auxiliary extroverted Perceiving function) is an IxxP.
    Someone who leads with an introverted perceiving function (with an auxiliary extroverted Judging function) is an IxxJ.

    For primary introvert types, this gets a little confusing as our "P or J" designation actually denotes our auxiliary/secondary preference, rather than our primary. It blows peoples' minds sometimes to realize that function-wise, for example INTPs are primary "judgers" and INFJs are primary "perceivers."
     
    Madgirl143, Lady Jolanda and Ginny like this.
  5. Ginny

    Ginny Displaced Naiad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Threads:
    29
    Messages:
    5,917
    Featured Threads:
    10
    Likes Received:
    36,896
    Trophy Points:
    2,487
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Trovami
    MBTI:
    INFJ IEI
    Enneagram:
    1w2 sx/sp
    What ID said. :)

    Also, there are different tests. There are tests that are more like the Big 5 (or OCEAN), which puts you on scales, but there can't be anything definite behind it, as it only puts you against others who have taken the test. There are some which I am not sure about, but they seem to be 75% accurate, or thereabouts. But there are others which measure (by your judgement) how well you use each function, and make assertions from that towards which type you probably are. There is one by Dario Nardi and also one which takes Jung as its primary source.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. OP
    Madgirl143

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    352
    Featured Threads:
    6
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    England
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Where do you get all these words from, "nomenclature"? Do you like walk around with a dictionary in your pocket or something? Do they teach this in school, or is it just because it's your native language?:m083: anyways I don't think I understand, are you saying that Perceiving doesn't really mean that someone is okay with openness, like regarding life and plans? So is perceiving and Judging linked to Introversion and Extroversion?
     
  7. Ginny

    Ginny Displaced Naiad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Threads:
    29
    Messages:
    5,917
    Featured Threads:
    10
    Likes Received:
    36,896
    Trophy Points:
    2,487
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Trovami
    MBTI:
    INFJ IEI
    Enneagram:
    1w2 sx/sp
    Are you saying that non-native speakers are incapable of producing the same kind of language? Now that is just insulting.

    Perceiving describes an attitude which is displayed to the outside (i.e. first extroverted function is a perceiving function), which is why there are certain associations with specific personality or behavioural traits. This is why INFJs for instance come across as rigid, when they are in reality just as open as others. Therefore, no, it's not really linked, it's just a whacky way of describing which function is which. It is merely responsible for many false conclusions.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Lady Jolanda and infinite dreams like this.
  8. OP
    Madgirl143

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    352
    Featured Threads:
    6
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    England
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Lol no, not really, I am saying I'm finding it hard to keep up with the language. Other non-native speakers might do better or worse than me, it would be great to know what the secret is. When I'm at work, I find that people use words I don't know as if they knew them the moment they left the womb. It helps me learn new words, but it makes me a bit slow. Simple is good for me :smile:

    Right I understand what you mean, I'll continue reading on about functions, maybe a few years down the line I'll get it. Thank you.
     
  9. infinite dreams

    infinite dreams Serene Doge

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2017
    Threads:
    3
    Messages:
    1,307
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    6,415
    Trophy Points:
    1,327
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    INTP
    Enneagram:
    5w4
    Actually yeah, I do walk around with a dictionary (dot com) in my pocket. :grin:

    I think the point you're making is around the common view that J types are more "rigid," orderly, etc, while P types are more relaxed and open-ended. There are a lot of preconceptions about shared traits within the various MBTI types. Some of those have a bit of validity, while others are basically lazy shortcuts. I echo Ginny's suggestion to study the functions, and the function stacks of each type to gain a better understanding of each type's cognitive preferences and how they interrelate.

    The important thing to remember when studying MBTI is that it is only meant to be a theory of cognitive preference, not a predictor of behaviors, attitudes etc. In short it tries to determine which decision making and information gathering processes a person's brain prefers to use. In truth every person has the capability to use all the functions to a certain extent. MBTI theory states that we favor consciously utilizing 4 of these (each with a different role within the stack). It's a fascinating way to learn more about what makes us tick and to make better sense of our interactions, but really that's about all it is. When you start using it to put people into boxes, you're probably doing it wrong.
     
    #9 infinite dreams, Feb 14, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2018
  10. Wyote

    Wyote ○●○
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Threads:
    228
    Messages:
    29,441
    Featured Threads:
    15
    Likes Received:
    140,030
    Trophy Points:
    4,271
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    Ni Space
    Enneagram:
    9 Seas
    We should put this at the heading of the forum or something tbh

    :clapclap:
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. charlatan

    charlatan Permanent Fixture

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Threads:
    1
    Messages:
    930
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    682
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    Ne-ILE-H
    Enneagram:
    6 spsx
    They can't. Actually, the functions originated in CG Jung's theory, and he'd probably reject many of the assumptions commonly adopted by MBTI-ers. He'd certainly reject the idea that your top two functions alternate in attitudes: indeed, not only is it the most justified reading of his work in Psychological Types to say the top two occur in the SAME attitude (NiFi instead of NiFe, say), it's also the case that he never typed someone as having alternating attitudes except in the case where the bottom 3 function-attitudes are not differentiated, which is his word for underdeveloped. His vision of Nietzsche was as a NiTi type, and this is made clear in Ch. III of his treatise on types.

    The idea that the MBTI actually measures functions is a loose leap of faith.


    The real truth is the MBTI instrument is a tool that is well-correlated with the Big 5 (much as the Big 5 is well-correlated with its competitor, the 6-factor model of personality instantiated in HEXACO), and is much more based on statistics and data-analysis than Jungian psychology.

    I would roughly place the dichotomies (what's really measured in the tests, not the functions...) in the realm of soft empirical psychology, and Jung somewhere at the interface of philosophy and psychology (often, we wonder why do thinkers of the world come up with such different worldviews -- maybe one thinks the whole universe is a giant mathematical structure.... Jung's answer is there are psychological considerations).
    As such, as is characteristic of philosophy, there are a lot of theories and much disagreement, and that has to be dealt with head-on.

    Today, there is the jung model, Beebe's model, the Myers-original (without the tertiary in the same attitude as dom, ie NiTeFeSe vs NiTeFiSe), Myers-later -- reportedly merging with Harold Grant's standard model (the NiTeFiSe), Singer-Loomis' view that you can sorta have any combination....and other Jungian analysts who think you can change your type from say sensation-thinking to introverted feeling dominant for a period of time.


    What's for sure is that when people preach a functions model as if it "just works," they're totally wrong. The "just works" attitude in a situation so far-removed from empiricism is a terrible one. Instead, functions theory is an experimental endeavor with lots of rich insights but little dogmatic certainty to be gained. It requires philosophical argument, without any question...."just works" claims are totally to be disregarded.

    I wish I had **insert monetary quantity** for every time someone just shut up a new forum-goer with a comment like "look, you OBVIOUSLY can't have Ni+Ti as your top two, you just don't understand the theory." Worse, these people usually have half-ass read Jung and even think they're being Jungian.


    The rough idea of Myers was that TJ/FJ ~ extraverted judging, and TP/FP ~ extraverted perceiving, and that the former pairs with introverted perceiving and the latter with introverted judging. This is deeply controversial, doesn't follow from the empirical portion of the dichotomies, and I'd say the best way to utilize the dichotomies is through analyzing all the possible preference combinations. I'd say some such analyses yield something at least as insightful as the average functions-er's understanding, because they're really only looking at a few combinations like TP, FJ, and so forth.... and not at the many others.

    (BTW, it's literally impossible for the MBTI dichotomies to map to something like the Grant/NiFeTiSe sort functions stacking. The structure of the dichotomies is derived through linear modeling/factor analysis, as far as I know, and the very point of that is to derive a statistical version of 4 linearly independent dimensions, and in such a situation, you'd EXACTLY expect that ESFP is farthest from INTJ....NOT that there's something "in common" that ESFP/INTJ have that isn't common to say INTJ/INTP....ie that the former 2 supposedly use the same function-attitudes Se, Ni, Te, and Fi and the latter two use none of the same.....Ti, Fe, Si, Ne for INTP)
     
    #11 charlatan, Feb 15, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
    infinite dreams, Ginny and Madgirl143 like this.
  12. charlatan

    charlatan Permanent Fixture

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Threads:
    1
    Messages:
    930
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    682
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    Ne-ILE-H
    Enneagram:
    6 spsx
    Note that I'm not agreeing with Jung or endorsing any specific model in the above post (I have my favorites, but I don't think they're the only ones).

    I'm merely pointing to the fact that the dogmatic certainty with which functions models tend to be stated by e.g. type practitioners is incredibly misplaced, and they don't realize that even experts at type don't agree on the basic things.

    As for criticisms of the MBTI by psychologists, at least a lot of the ones I've seen are really easily addressed: for some reason, people use the MBTI as if it measures genuine discrete dichotomies. maybe it's peddled by some of the official crowd. Empirical psychology a-la the big 5 has long moved in the direction of continuous dimensions (a spectrum between T/F with lots of shades between) over the discrete dichotomies.
    If one simply drops the assumption that the tests correspond to Jungian functions theory closely, and also drops that the dichotomies are discrete, frankly the MBTI is well-correlated with the Big 5, which is to say it should be a pretty useful marker of personality given the Big 5 is one of the most celebrated ones.

    I understand criticism, but uncritical acceptance of criticism of the MBTI is also irksome.

    I think beyond this basic complaint, perhaps there are finer-tuned complaints, such as the Big 5's claim to being derived through lexical analysis, i.e. factor analysis on self and peer ratings based on dictionary terms.....and thus hypothesized to be a "complete" representation of personality.

    This is not really a complaint about the MBTI, however. It's more speaking as to one thing the Big 5 IS good for that the MBTI can't make a claim to. The fact that the 5 dimensions of the Big 5 have replicated quite successsfully across multiple cultures is impressive, and suggests there is some commonality to the structure of personality globally, and that the 5 factors aren't just 'random.'

    OTOH, two points can be made:

    (1) the HEXACO may well supplant the Big 5 at its own game. One of its main claims to fame is that it is derived from lexical analysis from the very getgo utilizing lexicons of diverse cultures, and thus the 6th factor of personality may simply be natural, rather than an anomaly

    (2) HEXACO was derived in an age of greater computational power, so the number of factor-analyzed terms is greater....so it suggests that the Big 5 getting wide acceptance may well be due to a premature decision

    Hence, given that there's a model that could beat Big 5 at its own game, we should note that actually, there are many personality inventories that are more specialized, and aren't really looking for this broad sweep of personality. Some focus on cognitive styles. And so forth.
    One could do a whole inventory just sub-analyzing the Openness to Experience dimension of the Big 5.

    The interesting thing about the MBTI dichotomies is they're a blend of cognitive styles and fundamental personality. And one interesting interpretation of them is that their correlation to the Big 5 could suggest that there's something fundamental about them, and yet more to the point, that their inclusion of content about cognitive styles suggests that there are some relations between these and fundamental personality, which is probably what the Jungian project set out to show.

    It's just that there are a lot of more specialized insights about the functions theory side of things that won't be captured by this Big 5-correlated perspective. Those should be individually addressed.
     
    #12 charlatan, Feb 15, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
    infinite dreams and Ginny like this.
  13. OP
    Madgirl143

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    352
    Featured Threads:
    6
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    England
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Thank you for your contribution, really informative. My head is going to crack if I continue asking questions like lol :grin:
     
    Ginny and infinite dreams like this.
  14. Ginny

    Ginny Displaced Naiad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Threads:
    29
    Messages:
    5,917
    Featured Threads:
    10
    Likes Received:
    36,896
    Trophy Points:
    2,487
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Trovami
    MBTI:
    INFJ IEI
    Enneagram:
    1w2 sx/sp
    @charlatan Do you think we could somewhere make a list of all the information on the different theories (links to pages which contain good intel, etc), so that everyone can contribute to (hopefully) eventually come to a working theory, which incorporates everything, with its up- and downsides? I would like to know the opinions of those more knowledgable than me (people like you, for example), that have their own personal insight into each of them. Perhaps that way we can school other people who visit and want to know more about the essence of the content we share.

    I for one have been looking for information on Jung's model, but haven't found a complete text yet. It interferes with my plans to study all the theories and come up with one that reconsiles them all.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Madgirl143 and infinite dreams like this.
  15. charlatan

    charlatan Permanent Fixture

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Threads:
    1
    Messages:
    930
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    682
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    Ne-ILE-H
    Enneagram:
    6 spsx
    He never really wrote down a "model" in the uber-structured form the MBTI-ers have taken it, and it's more like he had long essays in Psychological Types discussing various people's types in a more unstructured way.
    So mostly, you have to read it and decode it.

    But I can present you with the short-and-sweet version (I do consider myself relatively unbiased+thorough, and I have a nose for exceptions, so I rarely get attached to one way of thinking): Jung didn't think of introversion/extraversion of functions as separate from introversion/extraversion of the overall psyche. At least in Psychological Types, and I've never seen evidence to suggest this fundamentally changed. Meaning, the person is an introvert or extravert, and what he felt is that any developed function of an introvert/extravert (only one could be fully so) operates in a special way.
    He spent a ton of time just discussing introverts and extraverts by themselves, without ever attaching a function to those things, even if he also covered in Ch. X (which has come to be sort of overused in lieu of his other writings) that the functions look different in each attitude.

    Basically, Jung's "model" was the simplest of all of them.... a dichotomies model: intuition/sensation, feeling/thinking, introversion/extraversion, rational/irraitonal. He thought the developed aspects support the "ego" ie the center of conscious activity, and that the rest color the unconscious.

    The attitude of the auxiliary is controversial, because technically Jung only thought one function is truly differentiated (what he means by differentiated is developed, but the reason he uses that specific term is he pictured undeveloped functions to be fused with others, rather than standing in a more fine-tuned way for themselves, as e.g. you'd see of feeling fused with sensation as being fused with primitive pleasure/pain sensations, more on the level of physical disturbances than cognitively mediated value judgments).

    However, in reality, it's quite clear the aux was GENERALLY considered to be in the same attitude as the dom, for the following reason: Jung seemed to think the aux pairing with the dom subordinates it to the same attitude and renders it also in a suitable sense a superior/conscious (as opposed to inferior) function....he not infrequently used language like the superior functionS, ie the top two. Although he did think of the tertiary as a second auxiliary.

    There's no question Jung's language is contradictory here, and that I'm providing the likely meaning only: here's what he says about one function alone being conscious

    However, bafflingly, he says this shortly later


    In his seminar on Zarathustra, however, he does speak of the aux being undeveloped when Nietzsche relied exclusively on intuition. But as a normal matter, Jung seemed to think 2 would be developed. As many as three could be somewhat developed, as a rule, with the last always remaining inferior, but often 2 inferior functions could be spoken of (if only 2 were developed).

    Well I can certainly reconcile them (go ahead and quiz me, and I can tell you my sources for everything), but I suppose more by telling you what they focus on/how they organize things differently. It's hard to say if there is a 1 true functions theory, as it might just be that there are a lot of interesting observations you can make if you understand the ideas rather than 1 final structure.

    In a sense, Jung's original style, which didn't follow a rigid 'stacking of function-attitudes' model was a lot closer to this. Socionics is kind of the opposite. It aims to make very rigid rules/categories. That's where it goes astray, as most of those rules are pretty arbitrary when you actually think about it.

    I'd say my present style is taking Jung, adding some ideas from socionics, adding a lot of my own thoughts that I hope improve on all the others.... but forgetting most of the rigid rules of socionics. The reason I incorporate some socionics is it's much more complex than Jung and thus has some improvements, but I continue in the style of Jung, prioritizing depth of the ideas over fixing a final rigid structure.
     
    #15 charlatan, Feb 15, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
    Ginny and infinite dreams like this.
  16. Ginny

    Ginny Displaced Naiad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Threads:
    29
    Messages:
    5,917
    Featured Threads:
    10
    Likes Received:
    36,896
    Trophy Points:
    2,487
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Trovami
    MBTI:
    INFJ IEI
    Enneagram:
    1w2 sx/sp
    I would love to discuss things someday (i.e. once I think I have a thoroughly developed picture of my own, rather than having most of it puzzled together from a few third-party sources), in favour of quizzing you. Besides, don't you think I should have some knowledge about what to quiz you on, rather than you having the upper hand the whole time?

    But honestly, do you have Jung's Psychological Types on hand? (Someone gave me a link for Ch. X, but really, who gives a fuck about just one chapter without its context with the previous ones?) I think my knowledge is incomplete without looking at the roots myself. Not that I don't value your opinion, but I am still very much a Te PoLR, as in that I trust my own judgement the most (so long as it is about rational stuff). Otherwise it just feels like I am going into battle blindfolded, without having sure, first-hand knowledge to come back to.

    For the moment, I doubt I can get away from the stacking, whether MBTI 2.0 or socionics, simply because it makes so much sense to me that each function would work in a different fashion when it's in a different slot within the stack. I guess it is in some way also fluid, in terms of development of each function, but the behaviour of the function is still predictable if you factor it in. Or is it a fallacy?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    infinite dreams likes this.
  17. charlatan

    charlatan Permanent Fixture

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Threads:
    1
    Messages:
    930
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    682
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    Ne-ILE-H
    Enneagram:
    6 spsx
    LOL! It's not a battle! I hate the very concept of dogmatic opinionatedness, and I assure you my style is to listen to people's doubts endlessly and clarify for days, months, years if need be to convince you --- not to just assert + have you accept.

    However, yes you should read the book to confirm if you have any doubts. Currently I don't have it on me, but I did check it out/read it at one point. I just meant that Jung's writing isn't very juicy in terms of directly coming to stuff about the model -- there's a lot of poetic discussion that won't be relevant to the juicy controversial stuff that's more relevant to 'stackings'

    Generally, in rational discussion, I'd say one should trust someone based on the estimate of their knowledge, intellect, and their tendency to be unbiased. That means, interestingly, that there are cases where the rational thing could be to mistrust oneself and trust another more, BUT, the right way to do it is not to blindly accept the claim of someone who meets those qualities, but rather to doubt your certainty until you find incontrovertible proof that you understand their position and that it's actually more incorrect than yours. Or confirm that they're right after all.

    I certainly know people where if I'm not agreeing with them, I'll be very, very wary that I'm the one making the mistake, not them, but of course then one must work hard to find out whether that hunch is correct rather than trusting them blindly.
     
    infinite dreams and Ginny like this.
  18. Ginny

    Ginny Displaced Naiad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Threads:
    29
    Messages:
    5,917
    Featured Threads:
    10
    Likes Received:
    36,896
    Trophy Points:
    2,487
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Trovami
    MBTI:
    INFJ IEI
    Enneagram:
    1w2 sx/sp
    I believe this is exactly what I am attempting to do. I feel like I have got an increase of hubris, which I shouldn't claim to have because of my lack of first-hand knowledge. This is why I am conflicted in taking your knowledge for what it is, because I can see that you have that knowledge, but if someone were to challenge my authority in this field, I couldn't name you as a source, like that person should know you and your level of knowledge. Because your level of authority is not the same for me as for the other person. I am the only person in that situation that can recognise it.

    I fear I tend to be extremely biased, for the knowledge that I have (because it seems to work), but it is not my own, as much as I have incorporated it into my inner database to the degree where I cannot say for sure what its source is.

    I had a metaphor before I came online today. It seems to me like I have developed a picture of the theory, and learning that it is not deep knowledge (but only surface-level knowledge), I am attempting to run the whole concept over with a truck, and try to rebuild it with a new and more steady foundation (Jung's work). I will continue my search then, but thank you.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  19. charlatan

    charlatan Permanent Fixture

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Threads:
    1
    Messages:
    930
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    682
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    Ne-ILE-H
    Enneagram:
    6 spsx
    Alright, I guess my point was I already know the sources for all I say---I quote things / if not at least tell you the chapter/context. You could then look it up in the book, ie it would speed needing to sift through it all. I'd say go ahead read the whole thing if patient though. Just was offering casually anyway, no expectation.

    I don't think there are authorities in this field, as it's too experimental. So ultimately I think you're on your own to come up with good logic -- the authorities all disagree anyway. But I do maintain knowledge of how exactly they do so for bookkeeping.
     
    Ginny likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page