• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

The Many Faces of INFJ

terraxceles

Fufufufu.
Local time
Today, 21:38
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
150
Note to INTPforum: the post one post before this one is absolutely not representative of how every INFJ's mind works, but how one particularly individual's personality has shaped up with regards to many external factors and secondarily, the Ni-Fe-Ti-Se configuration.
 

Puffy

Aquila
Local time
Today, 18:38
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
2,921
Location
Hanaqpacha
I think he made a few good points about the INFJ mind though. I think what you are doing to that girl is criminal but in my lowest moments I have succumbed to similar manipulation of others and it's something I can be quite good at, so I can't really criticise you. (the INFJ type configuration most fits me, just so you know.)

It is difficult to appear charming on a forum as a lot of the INFJs charm comes from voice and body language, but I can be very persuasive in real life. My neutral position is worn and INTPish but I know how to come to life in different situations. In my case I method act, depending on the scenario, because I don't like myself and different faces have proven to get certain feedback from others. You learn growing up as an INFJ what act appeals to what situation, and accumulate so much self-hatred from inevitable rejection that you learn to keep your self to your self and distant from the performance.

But I think an important part of growing up as an INFJ is to keep the possible narcissistic manipulation trend under wraps. It's too easy to make life into a game where everyone else is just a pawn. Think Sparrow, or perhaps Lyra, folks. But an important part of an INFJ's understanding of people is that they can counsel, not so they can use it as a weapon. Just because we have a weapon it doesn't mean we have to use it.

I guess it's just an arbitrary boundary. I see work as a game and I am perfectly happy to manipulate people to propel myself forward. But that's because, to the best of my understanding, a lot of people are in it as a game as well.

But, I suppose, one of the things that really frustrates me about contemporary society is the tendency in people to turn relationships into a game. I can understand how an INFJ might participate in such, but I don't want a place in manipulating peoples insecurities for sex. I have accumulated degrees of rejection and self-hatred, but turning a relationship into another opportunity to put on a mask is totally self-defeating. You are basically saying in the most intimate scenario you can't be yourself. That scores World 1 INFJ 0 in my books. I don't always want to hide behind a mask and a relationship to me seems the best place to put it to the side and show who you really are. And I will always reserve that for myself.

But tbh, I think the greatest INFJ victory was that we were given the title "Protector". It means no one sees you coming..
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
Location
California, USA
But tbh, I think the greatest INFJ victory was that we were given the title "Protector". It means no one sees you coming..
And this is why I reject MBTI's fluffs.
 

Puffy

Aquila
Local time
Today, 18:38
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
2,921
Location
Hanaqpacha
I don't really follow MBTI either though Eyeseecold. I could be called an INFJ, INFP, INTP, it doesn't make much of a difference as my knowledge of my type is built on observing myself and others who share similar qualities.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
Location
California, USA
I don't really follow MBTI either though Eyeseecold. I could be called an INFJ, INFP, INTP, it doesn't make much of a difference as my knowledge of my type is built on observing myself and others who share similar qualities.
I think that's the best way to go when it comes to something as abstract as typology. You need a heavy dose of the actual manifestations to lucidly understand and reason with this subject.
 

Bird

Banned
Local time
Today, 20:38
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
1,177
This thread is so full of patronization.

Lol.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
Location
California, USA
This thread is so full of patronization.
Without the "Lol." defense mechanism, this seems more insistent.
 

Bird

Banned
Local time
Today, 20:38
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
1,177
It made me laugh so I put lol.
I thought that's what you're supposed to do...
 

BigApplePi

Banned
Local time
Today, 13:38
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
From now on everybody ... please do what you're supposed to do.
 

Melllvar

Banned
Local time
Today, 12:38
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
1,272
Location
<ψ|x|ψ>
What you said about The Academic running Ti in real time as we speak is dead on. I have always felt that my need to speak in a perfectly coherent, grammatically precise, and concise manner is the one thing holding me back from being able to fully control the people around me. Sure, I am already exceptionally good at manipulating people in subtle ways that I can honestly say they have no awareness of; however, if I were able to let go of this Ti constraint upon my speech then I would be able to charm people to such an extraordinary degree that managing a cult, or getting in bed with practically whatever woman I wanted, would not seem very difficult. As it is, I can charm people, but a more accurate description for my current capacities along this line would be "influencing people outside their level of immediate awareness." My ex-girlfriend (in addition to considering me psychic, something I don't believe in for a second - she eventually gave up altogether in trying to lie to me) once told me that she could not feel when I was controlling her as it was happening, but that upon reflection weeks or months later (when the full context of my manipulations became clear) she could see the degree to which I had forced her behavior and attitudes in certain directions.

I'm currently in the process of getting an attractive girl to fall for me. I would say that the INFJ's ability to control such a wide variety of people comes from our capacity to see every individual personality with such a startling accuracy, and this versatile capacity allows us to titrate and direct our manipulations differently for every person. The most effective method is to use peoples' insecurities as road maps for your machinations. There is nothing more obvious to an INFJ than the insecurities of the people he's inspecting. Within five seconds of watching someone speak, I see an accurate picture of their most intimate social insecurities.

The girl I'm currently working on is considerably attractive and is sought after by nearly every man she knows. One's motives have a direct, intimate relationship to one's insecurities: for a simplified example, if a man is in business school and has an obvious desire to accumulate wealth, I know that this is tied to a material insecurity. In fact, I would go so far as to say that our insecurity is the single most important factor directing our behavior. This particular girl is insecure about her sex appeal (being attractive is not enough to soothe this sort of insecurity; she must constantly assure herself that men are enthralled with her, more so than the "next girl"). Thus, my approach in manipulating her into liking me is to be the one guy in the world who does not seem to stare at her as she walks by.

Last night, she and I and another girl and several other guys were at a bar. The other guys were generally trying all night to get her attention: tickling her, smiling at her, trying to chat her up, etc. This is typical, and it plays directly into her image of herself as a "man trap": it was enough to make her happy, soothing her insecurity, but in terms of making her attracted to the guys, it was as pitiful as swinging a sword at a fly.

I, on the other hand, paid a little attention to her, but most of the time just stared off, watched the TV, or whatever. I talked to the other girl some, but my target is socially adept enough to know that talking to the other girl might be an attempt at making her (the target) jealous.

My target rapidly began struggling for my attention. When she would say something flirty to me, I would continue (e.g.) looking at the TV for a second, then acknowledge her by turning to her and looking straight into her eyes and, with a subtle smile, respond to whatever she'd said. If she said something flirty, I would generally respond in a non-flirty tone.

The other guys started to get angry by how much she seemed to be striving for my approval. I saw each wondering, "What the fuck did he do to get that? He hardly even talked to her all night." At one point, she moved into my line of sight and started to lift up her shirt, exposing her stomach to me. Most guys would stare and wet their lips in an attempt to communicate to her "Yes, I am confirming that I do want that from you." I gave it a slow glance and then looked away and started to type on my phone.

It is important to not deny her all of the time: she will tire and eventually give up in frustration. It is critical to give her some approval some of the time, enough to make her attraction on a steady upward slope, but without crossing the threshold of giving her the ego climax she wants from you. Make it last until you can give her a real climax, and take yours too.

For anyone who wants to take advice regarding girls from this short monologue, understand that you must cater your approach to the insecurities of the particular girls; obviously, not all girls are like my target. If you want to develop a real relationship with the girl, eventually you must reach the point where you stop solely manipulating her based on her insecurities (of course, we all manipulate each other some of the time, so it will never completely end.) But you will quickly find that you lack genuine feelings toward her if you are engaged solely in control.

There is a general misconception of INFJs (especially on type forums) as gentle, overly-caring, emotional cases. The truth is, I am quite emotional on the inside, but I can control this tendency in public. INFJs who come onto forums to talk about other INFJs seem to be the type who are socially undeveloped or see themselves as social victims and want to hear other people talk about how gentle and sad they are (= ego stroke). Many INFJs, however, are selfish: since we grew up unable to open up to people and were especially hurt when we were rejected for our childhood shyness, we develop some anti-social traits. This is what leads us to manipulate people, a sort of social revenge via control, and our uncanny ability to read people makes this mostly easy. The only thing that holds us back from literally being so charming as to be able to take over the world is our inability to speak freely and think of what to say rapidly. I have always thought that if you could take an INFJ and keep his frighteningly good Ni ability to read people but give him an equally strong Fe, then he would be able to take over the world (a bit extreme but you understand). If I could trade some of the strength of my Ti and put it into an even stronger Fe (as well as bolster the Se a bit to fine tune the perfect facial microexpressions, vocal intonations, and physical mannerisms), I would be almost unstoppable. I would be able to say the perfect word at the perfect moment with the perfect amount of detail, humor, and metaphorical imagery, flavor it with the perfect amount of emotion backed with the perfect facial microexpressions, and wrap it all up into one generously powerful moment. The charm would be irresistible to anyone who was not aware of con artistry; the gullible would be swayed by the flick of my finger.

Well, have I stroked my own ego to climax enough in all of your faces? I certainly hope I have. I hope you liked that image.
I've tried hard for a few minutes now, and I really can't find adequate words to describe how disgusting that was. This will have to suffice.
 

cheese

Prolific Member
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:38
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
3,193
Location
internet/pubs
I've tried hard for a few minutes now, and I really can't find adequate words to describe how disgusting that was. This will have to suffice.
I saw this first and was all excited to read the post, but when I did, all I got was :confused:

A little in love with himself, maybe, but also extremely honest. Didn't come across that arrogant or manipulative, just aware of his skills.

BUT MAYBE HE'S MAKING ME THINK THAT!@@@!!!!#$# :eek:

I suppose in real life he'd disgust me. On a forum where presences are abstracted from their daily realities, it didn't bother me. Maybe I'm out of touch with life. Shit. Stop having epiphanies, brain!
 

Melllvar

Banned
Local time
Today, 12:38
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
1,272
Location
<ψ|x|ψ>
^ @cheese:
I think I've been surrounded by enough horribly manipulative people IRL that just reading about it on a forum is enough to make me throw up in my mouth a little. People like that (manipulative bastards, not INFJs specifically) are a huge part of why I just don't even bother trying to make friends with new people anymore. You have to always be on guard because you can never tell what their real motives might be. You end up second guessing even the smallest actions because it could all be part of some deeper ploy (in his own words, "My ex-girlfriend ... once told me that she could not feel when I was controlling her as it was happening, but that upon reflection weeks or months later (when the full context of my manipulations became clear) she could see the degree to which I had forced her behavior and attitudes in certain directions."). Worse yet, having known enough of these people you end up doing it with everyone, because you can never tell who has the slightest bit of integrity and who treats every moment of their interaction with you as part of some social game to try and bend you to their will (maybe for some specific reason, maybe just for the joy of knowing they can successfully manipulate you). Then you start worrying that you're over-compensating for their manipulation and are letting them manipulate you indirectly by using your paranoia about them against you.

And yeah, I also assumed that on some level said post was worded in a way that was meant to be somewhat offensive to people who don't employ such tactics (e.g. "Well, have I stroked my own ego to climax enough in all of your faces? I certainly hope I have. I hope you liked that image."). Or perhaps he just wanted to make me go into an endless string of second guessing like I'm doing now, showing the he could make me do it? Or maybe he was hoping someone would call him out on the behavior so he could then explain and justify himself and make me look the fool, and I've completely taken the bait? Anyway, the point is that once you start second-guessing everyone's true motives it'll never end. You completely quit being able to distinguish friends from foes, so that even when people are being nice to you, you start thinking, "Ok, what's he really up to? Better steer clear of this fucker."

Sometimes I worry I've become a little paranoid (although if I have it's probably for the best).

cheese said:
A little in love with himself, maybe, but also extremely honest. Didn't come across that arrogant or manipulative, just aware of his skills.
Edit: Oh whoops, I think I missed this part when I was responding (obviously). Um... I guess it's fair to say I got the opposite impression. Apart from the previously quoted stuff, it was also the statements like:

  1. I have always felt that my need to speak in a perfectly coherent, grammatically precise, and concise manner is the one thing holding me back from being able to fully control the people around me.
  2. The most effective method is to use peoples' insecurities as road maps for your machinations.
 

Bird

Banned
Local time
Today, 20:38
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
1,177
Melllvar you are paranoid.
 

Dimensional Transition

Bill Cosbor, conqueror of universes
Local time
Today, 19:38
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
1,165
Location
the Netherlands
This thread confuses and slightly scares me.
So I could be an INFJ, acting to itself and others to be an INTP(The method actor)?
How do you find out if you are doing this... Is there a way to determine whether you're the wrong type?
 

Puffy

Aquila
Local time
Today, 18:38
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
2,921
Location
Hanaqpacha
@DT: By method-acting I think it is demonstrating the INFJ's capacity to continually re-invent him or herself in a way that is both persuasive to others and often to oneself.

One way I think I can describe it in myself is if I am feeling a particular pattern in my current life it can become so deep-set in my mentality that I project it over my life history. I start re-writing myself to the theme of the present. If you become a part of a new collective identity or association you might similarly project patterns of that collective thinking onto yourself.

The Joker in the dark knight was a pretty good example. Throughout the film he kept changing his life history depending on who he was telling it to. In some comics the Joker reveals a necessity in himself to re-invent himself every day. This is very extreme but that is what method acting can become.

But even on a more general level. I can clearly identify method acting tendencies in myself just by its habitual nature. I have a number of identities stored up that simply trigger into being depending on who I am with. Recently I met up with a few old friends from school. Back then I played a sort of "comedian" type character, always cracking jokes, or making weird Ni comments. I had not seen them in a long time and since then my character had become a lot more reflective, my current friends would see me more as an academic I suppose. Despite this break in character as soon as I was back with them it triggered and I was a completely different person, the one they knew.

I think all people do this to a certain degree, it's just more pronounced with an Ni-Fe combination.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Today, 07:38
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
The academic is who I am internally. The method actor is who I feel I have to be towards the outside world. I've actually been realizing lately that I don't have a Ti dominant thinking style, but an Ni one. Strictly from Jung and not the ridiculous stereotypes, I've been coming to the realization that I'm pretty much an INFJ, cognitively speaking.

Is that okay that I post here then? I do realize now that I may irritate the INTP thinking style and I don't really want to do that.
 

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 12:38
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,026
The academic is who I am internally. The method actor is who I feel I have to be towards the outside world. I've actually been realizing lately that I don't have a Ti dominant thinking style, but an Ni one. Strictly from Jung and not the ridiculous stereotypes, I've been coming to the realization that I'm pretty much an INFJ, cognitively speaking.

Is that okay that I post here then? I do realize now that I may irritate the INTP thinking style and I don't really want to do that.
Get out.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
This thread confuses and slightly scares me.
So I could be an INFJ, acting to itself and others to be an INTP(The method actor)?
How do you find out if you are doing this... Is there a way to determine whether you're the wrong type?
Functions, bro.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
Location
California, USA

terraxceles

Fufufufu.
Local time
Today, 21:38
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
150
This thread confuses and slightly scares me.
So I could be an INFJ, acting to itself and others to be an INTP(The method actor)?
How do you find out if you are doing this... Is there a way to determine whether you're the wrong type?
I think it has to do with awareness (Fe?). Are you self-aware when you are coming off as Academic? Do you tend to want to exude a certain image, and withhold that based on your surroundings? Do you consciously think before speaking, "I must use certain vocabulary so I can come off as a certain personality", but it is variable from situation to situation?

If so, you might be INFJ.
 

Dimensional Transition

Bill Cosbor, conqueror of universes
Local time
Today, 19:38
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
1,165
Location
the Netherlands
I think all people do this to a certain degree, it's just more pronounced with an Ni-Fe combination.
Ah, yes, I already thought so. I also adjust my whole personality once in a while. Probably not as dramatic as what is meant with method acting though.


Is there a way to determine whether you have the wrong functions?
That's what I mean. Someone else will have to thoroughly analyze you before you're sure you're the personality type you think you are, I think.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
That's what I mean. Someone else will have to thoroughly analyze you before you're sure you're the personality type you think you are, I think.
Are you saying that one cannot determine their functions accurately through self-analysis?

If not, then they mustn't understand MBTI properly either.


Consider only this question, and ponder it deeply: are you a P, or a J?
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
Location
California, USA
Consider only this question, and ponder it deeply: are you a P, or a J?
The next question arises: What does it mean to be P? J?

We have to eliminate ambiguity, flexibility and weasel words that do nothing but hint towards something we wish to really discuss.

Since everyone has P and J functions we have to go deeper for accuracy:
What does it mean to have a dominant P function? A dominant J function?


Answer that and we're on the right track.
 

Logic

Banned
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
174
Location
New Westminster, Canada
Are you saying that one cannot determine their functions accurately through self-analysis?

If not, then they mustn't understand MBTI properly either.


Consider only this question, and ponder it deeply: are you a P, or a J?
It actually doesn't matter how smart you think you are about the the MBTI theory, (or any theory for that matter) you can't figure out your own personality on your own (subjectively). You also have to keep in mind that the MBTI theory is flawed and also vague, so you don't really know what it is your looking for in the first place.

The next question arises: What does it mean to be P? J?

We have to eliminate ambiguity, flexibility and weasel words that do nothing but hint towards something we wish to really discuss.

Since everyone has P and J functions we have to go deeper for accuracy:
What does it mean to have a dominant P function? A dominant J function?

Answer that and we're on the right track.
I actually explained the meaning behind being a P or a J, I suppose I'll do it again.

First Meaning

Based on the MBTI system, The Judging type is a personality type that favors the Left Brain Functions as the top two functions where as the Perceiving type favors right brain functions.

Judging = Directive Functions = Left Hemisphere = Structure = Te, Fe, Si, Ni
Perceiving = Adaptive Functions = Right Hemisphere = Free-Form = Ti, Fi, Se, Ne

Second Meaning

Based on the behavior of different functions. The Judging Functions are the Thinking and Feeling Functions because they Evaluate Data. The Perceiving Functions are the Sensing and Intuition Functions because they Take in Data.

Judging = Ti, Te, Fi, Fe = Evaluates Data
Perceiving = Si, Se, Ni, Ne = Takes in Data
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
Location
California, USA
I actually explained the meaning behind being a P or a J, I suppose I'll do it again.

First Meaning

Based on the MBTI system, The Judging type is a personality type that favors the Left Brain Functions as the top two functions where as the Perceiving type favors right brain functions.

Judging = Directive Functions = Left Hemisphere = Structure = Te, Fe, Si, Ni
Perceiving = Adaptive Functions = Right Hemisphere = Free-Form = Ti, Fi, Se, Ne

Second Meaning

Based on the behavior of different functions. The Judging Functions are the Thinking and Feeling Functions because they Evaluate Data. The Perceiving Functions are the Sensing and Intuition Functions because they Take in Data.

Judging = Ti, Te, Fi, Fe = Evaluates Data
Perceiving = Si, Se, Ni, Ne = Takes in Data

It was a rhetorical question, but I will take you up on your response.

Actually, what you have done is circular reasoning and a violation of Ockam's Razor. What does "Adaptive" mean? "Directive"? "Structure"? "Free-Form"? To "Evaluate Data"? To "Take in Data"?

If you can discretely answer what it means to have a dominant J function contrasted with a dominant P function, in terms of psychology, and not typology, we are done here.



*I will let you in on a secret. It's been done already. It's called Irrationality vs Rationality which Jung defined with Psychological Types. This is what we should be focusing on. And it's avoidance is the reason for today's confusion.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
I think the problem is in understanding MBTI through the descriptions it gives, rather than looking at the underlying mental structures. Or maybe this is just how I see things.

For the J and P dichotomy you must look at two things: what is the fundamental difference between introversion and extraversion (in functions, not the overall person)? and what is the difference between perception and judging (again, in each individual function)?
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
Location
California, USA
I think the problem is in understanding MBTI through the descriptions it gives, rather than looking at the underlying mental structures. Or maybe this is just how I see things.

For the J and P dichotomy you must look at two things: would is the fundamental difference between introversion and extraversion (in functions, not the overall person)? and what is the difference between perception and judging (again, in each individual function)?
Extraverted ; Non-Self <~ Psychic energy ~> Self ; Introverted

Objects - e <~ J-P ~> i - Subjects

In terms of understanding functionality, it's better to compare, for example, NiSi/NeSe rather than N/S.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
Extraverted ; Non-Self <~ Psychic energy ~> Self ; Introverted

Objects - e <~ J-P ~> i - Subjects

In terms of understanding functionality, it's better to compare, for example, NiSi/NeSe rather than N/S.
YOU MEAN NiSe/NeSi!!1 Damn socionicist >: [
 

Bird

Banned
Local time
Today, 20:38
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
1,177
Yes, he does mean NiSe/NeSi :P
 

Logic

Banned
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
174
Location
New Westminster, Canada
If you can discretely answer what it means to have a dominant J function contrasted with a dominant P function, in terms of psychology, and not typology, we are done here.
Why certainly my good chum! In fact, I'll not only answer that, I'll throw in Directivity and Adaptivity and why it's separate from the former!

Leading with Judgment means that the person will best understand and approach all things from a position within a framework of reasoning. Their perceptual points of view will be based on, and acquired through the parameters of these frameworks. A framework of reasoning is also not necessarily limited to a logical framework of reasoning, but frameworks of personal values, or of collective values as well, as they're all forms of reasoning.

Leading with Perception means that the person will best understand and approach all things from a perceptual point of view, whether that be a personal worldview or an awareness of their environment and how they react to it. Their frameworks of understanding, as well as personal and executive decisions will mainly be based on and acquired through their perceptions.

Directive means one has an innate preference for Proactivity, meaning an orientation toward closure, and accomplishment.
Adaptive means one has an innate preference for Reactivity, meaning an orientation toward open-endedness, and "Going with the flow."

Directive Perception: These perceptual Modalities provide visions of the way things have always been in a universal way, however it has a quality that compels one to believe that the world outside of them should look more like these personal points of view, so they can be thought of as a worldview, but they are also an Agenda in that the have a concept of time; beginning, middle, and end, where we should be and when.

Directive Judgment: In addition to having a Worldview map, one needs a way to navigate through that map, Directive Judgment is how you move forward through the dynamics of humans and systems to accomplish your goals, and then continue moving forward to the next goal.

Adaptive Perception
: In a rapidly changing environment, one needs to be able to take in new information as it is occuring in real-time. These perceptual Modalities reactively accept new and objective information that is coming in from the environment. These perceptual modalities can be compelling to "Go with the flow" and let the environment move in its own way instead of trying to direct it, as well as experience the world in the present.

Adaptive Judgment: These Discernment Modalities react to incoming information in such a way that resonates with agreement or disagreement, based on personal reasoning criteria. They are reactive, in that they only resonate when they have been impacted by information, and they do this for the purpose of finding where they stand on this new information.
-----
*Now let me let you in on a little secret: Jung didn't already come up with this, he technically didn't know Adaptivity and Directivity existed in the way that it does, even though he did observe the effects of said phenomenon, he grouped it in with a separate one. This isn't the first time Jung did that, he originally believed all extroverts were feelers, and later corrected that assumption, unfortunately he didn't live long enough to correct this one, but that of course is what makes it an incomplete model. So if you're not properly adding that dimension of the psyche into your calculations of typing people, then you're destined to fail at what you're trying to accomplish. it's a crucial understanding that's being overlooked and will continue to be overlooked as long as people insist on conserving to the original work of Jung.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
^This post to me is a nice portrayal of INTP-style thinking. Me hopes the following will at least indirectly portray Ni.

--

I quite like the terms "Adaptive" and "Directive" myself, but still they are not perfect representatives of the J/P distinction - indeed, no terms are. Nonetheless, I think they are worth using until something better comes along. I also quite like the Subjective and Objective terminology (which Jung used for defining I and E).

However, I also like the terminology of rational vs. irrational. Rationality means a reason based process, which may apply to logical details or aesthetic character, and also may apply to internalised reasoning - i.e. in one's head based on one's stable rational principles, as well as to externalised reasoning - i.e. in the environment, based on the principles which emerge from the situation.

Irrationality, while the term conjures up unfortunate connotations, refers simply to the active mental processes which are not rationally based - though what is meant in a positive sense is harder to define. Phrases like "going with the flow" or "referencing one's worldview" fit quite well with what is meant by the perception functions. One "sees" an idea attach itself to the situation at hand, whether it is by referencing one's store of tangible or conceptual associations, by feeling out the best direction to move in the present situation, or through surfing the waves of emerging patterns.

So, we see the rational functions as being reasoned, structural and process based - i.e. based on judgements, and the irrational functions as interpretating the situation, and providing a light which the subject will move itself towards - i.e. it is based on following perceptions.

So, in what sense is a J directive, and P adaptive? It is in the sense that judgements follow from perceptions and base themselves on them, and thus it is the source of the perception which determines one's Lifestyle. A J type sees their perceptions manifest internally, giving themselves to be structured externally. Thus, the J type is seen as giving directions, as attempting to take their way of seeing the world and attempting to enforce it. The perceptions of a P type on the other hand manifest externally, and then give way to be internally rationalised. They must inevitably adapt to the changing perceptions of the environment.

We now see the sense in which the respective terms apply, and it is in this specific sense that the words are to be interpreted. A J-type is of course capable of adapting to new circumstances, and a P-type of being directive. Afterall, the J's compass must come from somewhere and the judgements must be directive of something, and the P is capable of shaping their environment and thus externally structing the world to provide them with their preferred perceptions, as well as being oftentimes quite relentless in trying to enforce their particular rationally formed worldviews.

The directiveness and adaptiveness applies to the link between judgment and perception. In more general terms, a Directive is just as adaptive as an Adaptive, and Adaptive just as directive as a Directive.
 

kibou

Member
Local time
Today, 13:38
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
93
I prefer dividing up the MBTI J/P to D/A and J/P, since the original MBTI J/P uses the same term to refer to two different things. I feel like that's where a lot of the four-letter confusions come in; for example, why an INFP starts with a judgment function. It's because they are adaptives starting with adaptive judgment.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
Location
California, USA
YOU MEAN NiSe/NeSi!!1 Damn socionicist >: [
Yes, he does mean NiSe/NeSi :P

Nope. I meant NiSi/NeSe.

Why that over N/S? Because the root of Psychological Types is E/I.

Extraverted > Rational > Thinking/Feeling = TeFe_NiSi
Extraverted > Irrational > Sensing/Intuiting = NeSe_TiFi
Introverted > Rational > Thinking/Feeling = TiFi_NeSe
Introverted > Irrational > Sensing/Intuiting = NiSi_TeFe


Ni and Si get their information from the same source, but they interpret it differently. This means Ni and Si are more related than they first seem to appear, yet they are inseparable and contradictory, it's like your twin that you can't stand but have to endure because you're family. So this is why I say if we want to understand the interconnectedness yet differences between the functions we should look at, for example, NiSi rather than N/S.





Why certainly my good chum! In fact, I'll not only answer that, I'll throw in Directivity and Adaptivity and why it's separate from the former!​
Most excellent. :)

Leading with Judgment means that the person will best understand and approach all things from a position within a framework of reasoning. Their perceptual points of view will be based on, and acquired through the parameters of these frameworks. A framework of reasoning is also not necessarily limited to a logical framework of reasoning, but frameworks of personal values, or of collective values as well, as they're all forms of reasoning.
What sticks out to me most as fundamental of Judgement is "parameters". Parameters of frameworks. Good, we're in agreement and have an understanding.

Leading Jugders make their perceptions fit into the parameters of their frameworks.

Leading Judgers are xxxJ

Leading with Perception means that the person will best understand and approach all things from a perceptual point of view, whether that be a personal worldview or an awareness of their environment and how they react to it. Their frameworks of understanding, as well as personal and executive decisions will mainly be based on and acquired through their perceptions.
Okay, now if to "judge" is to consider information as it fits or does not fit within the parameters of a framework, then to "perceive" is to subdue parameters of any and all frameworks and receive information purely based on intensity of experience.

Leading Perceivers make their judgments adhere to the intensity of their experiences.

Leading Perceivers are xxxP



Okay. We have Leading Judgers who "fit information into frameworks" and Leading Perceivers who "fit frameworks onto information". In terms of cognition, if this is the case, then the first function of a Judging type is logically a Judging function. And the first function of a Perceiving type is logically a Perceiving function.

A type that is NiTe, with a dominant Perceiving function, but fits information into frameworks is illogical. The ready state of an INTJ is Judging and therefore requires a dominant mode of "frameworking". Ni is not frameworking, but rather accepting the intensity of the perceptual information of the environment. Thus NiTe truly latches frameworks upon perceptions and is therefore not a Judging type, but actually INTP.


Directive means one has an innate preference for Proactivity, meaning an orientation toward closure, and accomplishment.

Adaptive means one has an innate preference for Reactivity, meaning an orientation toward open-endedness, and "Going with the flow."

Directive Perception: These perceptual Modalities provide visions of the way things have always been in a universal way, however it has a quality that compels one to believe that the world outside of them should look more like these personal points of view, so they can be thought of as a worldview, but they are also an Agenda in that the have a concept of time; beginning, middle, and end, where we should be and when.

Directive Judgment: In addition to having a Worldview map, one needs a way to navigate through that map, Directive Judgment is how you move forward through the dynamics of humans and systems to accomplish your goals, and then continue moving forward to the next goal.

Adaptive Perception
: In a rapidly changing environment, one needs to be able to take in new information as it is occuring in real-time. These perceptual Modalities reactively accept new and objective information that is coming in from the environment. These perceptual modalities can be compelling to "Go with the flow" and let the environment move in its own way instead of trying to direct it, as well as experience the world in the present.

Adaptive Judgment: These Discernment Modalities react to incoming information in such a way that resonates with agreement or disagreement, based on personal reasoning criteria. They are reactive, in that they only resonate when they have been impacted by information, and they do this for the purpose of finding where they stand on this new information.
Why is it that "Directive" and "Adaptive" are caricatures of Judging and Perceiving according to Jung?


What seems to be the case is functions that have been defined already have been redefined. "Cutting a pie into 4 pieces and then cutting it into another 4 pieces".

Judging Perception
Directive Perception: Si, Ni

Judging Judgment
Directive Judgment: Fe, Te

Perceiving Perception
Adaptive Perception: Ne, Se

Perceiving Judgment
Adaptive Judgment: Ti, Fi

This does not make any sense. A function cannot both be judging and perceiving, it is one or the other.

NiTe becomes Ni [Judging Perception] - Te[Judging Judgment]

A violation of Ockam's razor. There is no need for Ni to be a judging function if it is accompanied by one already. Ni should be fully and wholly perceptual, and therefore, so should the NiTe type be a dominantly perceiving type.


*Now let me let you in on a little secret: Jung didn't already come up with this, he technically didn't know Adaptivity and Directivity existed in the way that it does, even though he did observe the effects of said phenomenon, he grouped it in with a separate one. This isn't the first time Jung did that, he originally believed all extroverts were feelers, and later corrected that assumption, unfortunately he didn't live long enough to correct this one, but that of course is what makes it an incomplete model. So if you're not properly adding that dimension of the psyche into your calculations of typing people, then you're destined to fail at what you're trying to accomplish. it's a crucial understanding that's being overlooked and will continue to be overlooked as long as people insist on conserving to the original work of Jung.
Alright, true Jung did not have "Adaptivity" and Directivity" but he did acknowledge the second functions in types.

Jung had Extravert-Introvert. This was determined by either E or I base, respectively.

Jung had Irrational-Rational or Perceiving-Judging. This was determined by either N/S or T/F Base, respectively.

Jung had Sensing-Intuiting. This was determined by either N or S base, respectively.

Jung had Feeling-Thinking. This was determined by either T or F base, respectively.

So, what was Jung missing that Myers-Briggs had? The systematic inclusion of a subordinate auxiliary.

A type, according to Jung, and Myers-Briggs Four Letter Code, that is:
I base - Introverted
N/S base - Irrational-Perceiving
N base- Intuitive
Ni base- Introverted, Irrational, Intuitive

is INxP or Ni_TeFe. The only thing that cannot be functionally determined through necessitation of the base function is the auxiliary. In the above example, we are left with two types, INFP and INTP or the "Introverted Irrational Intuitives".

There is no functional need for Adaptivity or Directivity, these are arbitrary inclusions proposed by Myers and Briggs indirectly through Je = J and Pe = P. They are unnessary and skew the Jungian cognitive functions as based on the Jungian Attitudes.



So, the question is, why do we have Adaptivity and Directivity?
 

Logic

Banned
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
174
Location
New Westminster, Canada
I prefer dividing up the MBTI J/P to D/A and J/P, since the original MBTI J/P uses the same term to refer to two different things. I feel like that's where a lot of the four-letter confusions come in; for example, why an INFP starts with a judgment function. It's because they are adaptives starting with adaptive judgment.
Your exactly right Kibou.
-----
@ESC

Your actually hitting on one of the flaws within the MBTI system.

The terms Perception and Judgment in terms of MBTI are actually referring to the Adaptive and Directive functions in terms of Pod'Lair.

There's something logically wrong with having two opposing meanings for the terms Perceiving and Judging right? This is why Pod'Lair cleared up this flaw by coming up with different terms to refer to different things.

Judging was replaced with Directivity and Perceiving was replaced with Adaptivity. However the terms Perceiving and Judging are still being used, but they gained different meanings. Judging is now thought in terms of 'Evaluating Data' and Perceiving is now thought in terms 'Taking in Data'. MBTI doesn't really address this properly.

This is the, as I like to say 'incomplete and incorrect' system that MBTI uses.

Perception = Ti, Fi, Ne, Se = Functions that 'Go with the Flow'
Judgment = Te, Fe, Ni, Si = Functions that 'Direct the Flow'
N/A or Perception again = Ni, Ne, Si, Se = Functions that 'Take in Data'
N/A or Judgment again = Ti, Te, Fi, Fe = Functions that 'Evaluate Data'

It's easy to see just how flawed this is.

This is the new and improved Pod'Lair system.

Adaptive = Ti, Fi, Ne, Se = Functions that 'Go with the Flow'
Directive = Te, Fe, Ni, Si = Functions that 'Direct the Flow'
Perception = Ni, Ne, Si, Se = Functions that 'Take in Data'
Judgment = Ti, Te, Fi, Fe = Functions that 'Evaluate Data'

A beautiful harmony of logic.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
There's something logically wrong with having two opposing meanings for the terms perceiving and judging right? This is why Pod'Lair cleared up this flaw by coming up with different terms to refer to different things.
Well, yes it can get confusing in conversation. "The J functions..." - "wait, do you mean Je and Ji or Je and Pi?". Jx/Px can denote Ji&Je/Pi&pe, where as J-type/P-type main functions can be described as the Directive/Adaptive functions.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
Location
California, USA
@ESC

Your actually hitting on one of the flaws within the MBTI system.

The terms Perception and Judgment in terms of MBTI are actually referring to the Adaptive and Directive functions in terms of Pod'Lair.

There's something logically wrong with having two opposing meanings for the terms Perceiving and Judging right? This is why Pod'Lair cleared up this flaw by coming up with different terms to refer to different things.

Judging was replaced with Directivity and Perceiving was replaced with Adaptivity. However the terms Perceiving and Judging are still being used, but they gained different meanings. Judging is now thought in terms of 'Evaluating Data' and Perceiving is now thought in terms 'Taking in Data'. MBTI doesn't really address this properly.

This is the, as I like to say 'incomplete and incorrect' system that MBTI uses.

Perception = Ti, Fi, Ne, Se = Functions that 'Go with the Flow'
Judgment = Te, Fe, Ni, Si = Functions that 'Direct the Flow'
N/A or Perception again = Ni, Ne, Si, Se = Functions that 'Take in Data'
N/A or Judgment again= Ti, Te, Fi, Fe = Functions that 'Evaluate Data'

It's easy to see just how flawed this is.

This is the new and improved Pod'Lair system.

Adaptive = Ti, Fi, Ne, Se = Functions that 'Go with the Flow' = IP & EP
Directive = Te, Fe, Ni, Si = Functions that 'Direct the Flow' = IJ & EJ
Perception = Ni, Ne, Si, Se = Functions that 'Take in Data'
Judgment = Ti, Te, Fi, Fe = Functions that 'Evaluate Data'

A beautiful harmony of logic.
What I addressed included Pod'Lair. There is no need for the extra categories of Adaptive and Directive and the only reason why they exist is because your's truly decided to funk up the types.

Look at this:

Ti Fi = Introverted Judging = IxTj IxFj
Te Fe = Extraverted Judging = ExTj ExFj
Ni Si = Introverted Perceiving = INxp ISxp
Ne Se = Extraverted Perceiving = ENxp ESxp

Your Directive, "Direct the Flow" are still xxxJs but they lead with Rational functions.
Your Adaptive, "Go with the Flow" are still xxxPs but they lead with Irrational functions.

Directive/Adaptive is logically superfluous. And the fact that it was added after Psychological Types, with the development of MBTI, means that the only course of action is to throw out MBTI and restore what it means to be a Rational base and an Irrational base!



Viva la Revolucion!
 

Logic

Banned
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
174
Location
New Westminster, Canada
"Leading Judgers are xxxJ"
Let's get something straight here, I don't care what dichotomy system you're using, but when I say Lead Judger I'm talking about any type that has Ti, Te, Fi, and Fe as a dominant function.

"Leading Perceivers are xxxP"
and when I say Lead Perceiver I'm talking about any type that has Se, Si, Ne, and Ni as a dominant function.

"Why is it that "Directive" and "Adaptive" are caricatures of Judging and Perceiving according to Jung?"
Did you miss the entire point of my last post? Directivity has absolutely nothing to do with fitting anything into frameworks. Structure, time, proactivity, these have nothing to do with making decisions. Adaptivity likewise has nothing to do with leading with perception, the whole point of demonstrating "Adaptive Judgment" and "Directive Perception" was to show that the two principles are completely separate.

"This does not make any sense. A function cannot both be judging and perceiving, it is one or the other."
I didn't say they could be! I said a Judging function can be Adaptive and a Perception function can be Directive. I said that Adaptivity/Directivity is separate from Judgment and Perception. You can't change a person's wording to something that's contradictory and then accuse them of contradicting themselves. Irrationality and Rationality does share a descriptive correlation with Adaptive and Directive respectively. Meaning when you hear how Jung describes these principles, you can tell he's actually talking about Adaptive and Directive, the problem is how Jung understood them. Irrationality and Rationality are actually two separate phenomenon combined into one. You see, Jung believed all Judging functions were Rational Functions, and all Perceiving functions were Irrational functions, and when a person has a Judging function as their Dominant function, then they'll show rational behavior, and when a person has a perceiving function as their dominant function, then they'll have Irrational behavior.
In other words, if you lead with Judgment, you must be Directive, because according to Jung the two are one and the same.

This isn't actually the case, Leading with Perception, and Leading with Discernment are completely separate from being Adaptive or Directive. For instance a Ti-Ne:Si-Fe is an Adaptive that Leads with Judgment, and a Ni-Fe:Ti-Se is a Directive that Leads with Perception.

"There is no functional need for Adaptivity or Directivity, these are arbitrary inclusions proposed by Myers and Briggs indirectly through Je = J and Pe = P. They are unnessary and skew the Jungian cognitive functions as based on the Jungian Attitudes."
No, there is. You see, when you combine Directivity with Lead Judgment under the umbrella of "Rational" then you'll start calling every directive you see Rational, and assume they must also lead with Judgment, because to you Directive behavior is the same as Lead Judgment, even though it's not, Ni-Fe:Ti-Se for instance have Directive behavior and still lead with Perception.

"So, the question is, why do we have Adaptivity and Directivity?"
Because without it you're doomed to erroneously mistake the phenomenon of Directivity for being Lead Judgment or vice versa, and Adaptivity with Lead Perception and vice versa.

"Your Directive, "Direct the Flow" are still xxxJs but they lead with Rational functions."
No, they don't. According to you a Ti-Ne:Si-Fe is Rational, and a Rational is the same as directive right? Well a Ti-Ne:Si-Fe is sure as hell not directive, as neither Ti nor Ne are directive functions, they have nothing to do with structure, closure, or accomplishment, or anything else that makes directivity directive. So if you're going to call a person a Ti-Ne:Si-Fe because you saw directive behavior (of what you call rational behavior), you'd be mistyping them.

"Your Adaptive, "Go with the Flow" are still xxxPs but they lead with Irrational functions."
No they don't, Ni and Si aren't even close to going with the flow, Ni and Si make the flow.

"Directive/Adaptive is logically superfluous. And the fact that it was added after Psychological Types, with the development of MBTI, means that the only course of action is to throw out MBTI and restore what it means to be a Rational base and an Irrational base!"
Okay ESC, now you're the one that's using circular reasoning. All that you've demonstrated is that Adaptivity and Directivity isn't in Psychological Types, that has nothing to do with whether it's valid or not. You're using a Theory's principles to prove themselves, it doesn't work like that, that's called Circular Logic.
 

terraxceles

Fufufufu.
Local time
Today, 21:38
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
150
This is the new and improved Pod'Lair system.

Adaptive = Ti, Fi, Ne, Se = Functions that 'Go with the Flow'
Directive = Te, Fe, Ni, Si = Functions that 'Direct the Flow'
Perception = Ni, Ne, Si, Se = Functions that 'Take in Data'
Judgment = Ti, Te, Fi, Fe = Functions that 'Evaluate Data'

A beautiful harmony of logic.
Ji ≠ Go with the flow.
Pi ≠ Direct the flow.

A perception function cannot direct, and a judgment function cannot adapt. It makes no sense.
 

Logic

Banned
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
174
Location
New Westminster, Canada
A perception function cannot direct, and a judgment function cannot adapt. It makes no sense.
Okay, so by your logic, envisioning a plan or a model doesn't involve perception? Planning out an agenda is a directive activity, so using your own logic it cannot possibly involve Perception, right? Au contra-ire. When you plan out an agenda, you need to have an Introverted perception, a way to be informed of how the world out there works so you can know how to move through its dynamics. Well, that just happens to be directive, when you plan something out, you're creating a path, an internal vision that compels you to walk that path. That's perception, and That's Directive.

Judgment only means making a decision, making a decision sounds very "yang" because you're taking a position of some kind, however Pi isn't directive because it's taking a position reactively, based on the information that has been thrown at it. It's taking a position in response to being impacted by something else, this is adaptivity, it's not directing, it's in a state of waiting and only resonates in response to incoming information and stimulus. So yes, this means "going with the flow" Reacting to the flow isn't directing the flow, it's only responding to it.
 

terraxceles

Fufufufu.
Local time
Today, 21:38
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
150
Okay, so by your logic, envisioning a plan or a model doesn't involve perception?
That's what I said, it's perception, not judgment.

When you plan out an agenda, you need to have an Introverted perception, a way to be informed of how the world out there works so you can know how to move through its dynamics. Well, that just happens to be directive, when you plan something out, you're creating a path, an internal vision that compels you to walk that path. That's perception, and That's Directive.
Yes, but what you are basically doing is using your Pi function to observe and make predictions and your Je function to plan the agenda. Which would make the Je function directive, and not necessarily Pi.


Judgment only means making a decision, making a decision sounds very "yang" because you're taking a position of some kind, however Pi isn't directive because it's taking a position reactively, based on the information that has been thrown at it. It's taking a position in response to being impacted by something else, this is adaptivity, it's not directing, it's in a state of waiting and only resonates in response to incoming information and stimulus. So yes, this means "going with the flow" Reacting to the flow isn't directing the flow, it's only responding to it.
OK...? So we are in agreement?
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
Directive and Adaptive seems to describe the actions of the top P and J function in unison. The directing is coming through Je, and the adaption through Pe. Thus, it is a description based on your extraverted activity, just as J and P are, but tries to clear up some ambiguity in terminology.

Presumably, by "Directive functions" is meant those functions which make up the top two of a Directive type, i.e. the Je and Pi functions, and by Adaptive functions, Ji and Pe - not because Ji adapts and Pe directs, but because they are the functions that a Directive or Adaptive primarily uses.
 

Logic

Banned
Local time
Today, 10:38
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
174
Location
New Westminster, Canada
That's what I said, it's perception, not judgment.
You can't use the terminology based on MBTI to what I'm talking to you about.
MBTI does not equal Pod'Lair.

Pi = Perceptive Directive

Yes, but what you're basically doing is using your Pi function to observe and make predictions and your Je function to plan the agenda. Which would make the Je function directive, and not necessarily Pi.
No, Je functions don't plan anything on their own, functions don't work in isolation. What Functions will you always see directly above or below a Je? A Pi Function. Why's that, you ask? Because you need a directive Perception to inform a directive Judgment. Je is how you take action, but you also need a map that can guide how you should take actions, you need Pi to inform you of what actions need to be taken and when.

You can think of Pi as being the hunter perceptions. Having Pi above Je means you'll perceive before you take action, but this is by no means adaptive. They'll Perceive first in the same way a Tiger hunting its prey will Perceive first, they're taking the time to perceive their prey so they can understand what exactly it is, and thus how exactly they should attack it, as soon as they have the answer they make a move. In other words the perceiving is done for the sake of making that movement, it's informing you of exactly how you should move.

There's a very good chance that our "INFJmale" friend on Page 4 really is in fact an INFJ, he definitely sounds like one anyway. Almost everything he's talking about is a demonstration of the directives of Ni-Fe. He even uses the word "Prey", which is pretty interesting.
Take this quote for example:

The most effective method is to use peoples' insecurities as road maps for your machinations. There is nothing more obvious to an INFJ than the insecurities of the people he's inspecting. Within five seconds of watching someone speak, I see an accurate picture of their most intimate social insecurities.
He 's basically talking about using his Ni-Fe to get an assessment of what kind of person they are, and then using that point of view as a road map to how to maneuver around that person to get what you want out of them through manipulation. This is extremely directive.

OK...? So we are in agreement?
If you still think Pi is adaptive and Ji is directive then we're obviously not in agreement.
 

terraxceles

Fufufufu.
Local time
Today, 21:38
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
150
You can't use the terminology based on MBTI to what I'm talking to you about.
MBTI does not equal Pod'Lair.
I was under the mistaken assumption that we were discussing MBTI.

Anyway, Podlair is still getting this wrong, Pi-doms lead with irrational functions and thus, should be adaptive (in theory). However, in real life, they exhibit J-like behavior, which goes to show that the entire model -- including the function definitions which make Pi functions sound like Ji functions -- is getting it wrong.
 

Bird

Banned
Local time
Today, 20:38
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
1,177
I was under the mistaken assumption that we were discussing MBTI.

Anyway, Podlair is still getting this wrong, Pi-doms lead with irrational functions and thus, should be adaptive (in theory). However, in real life, they exhibit J-like behavior, which goes to show that the entire model -- including the function definitions which make Pi functions sound like Ji functions -- is getting it wrong.

I await Adymus' rebuttal.
Try not to be too long-winded though.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:38
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
I await Adymus' rebuttal.
Try not to be too long-winded though.
Does Adymus still come here? I figured he'd said all he wanted to.

This must be the calm before the storm. :storks:
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Today, 07:38
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
Is it really appropriate to designate Fe-auxiliary as a manipulative function or one that has to impose itself to exist? I think to see it this way is to focus on only what the negative manifestations can be. See we could do the same for Ti. I could say it is a self-serving function that expects the logical order it sees and creates to be accepted by others, even though it may not even make sense for others to do so. That's manipulative in its own way and all it takes is for me to come across one Ti-dom that acts this way in an unhealthy manner to reach these conclusions.

See what I mean? Fe and Te are just goal-seeking functions, it can involve just the self or others. If someone wants to see one or the other as manipulative, then fine, but I think their problem wouldn't be with the functions, but with life being one big complete process of manipulation since the moment of conception.
 

kibou

Member
Local time
Today, 13:38
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
93
terraxceles, directive and adaptive are Pod'lair terms that are used to divide the two different definitions of J and P that are used in MBTI into two separate ones. It divides it up this way:

First J/P definition in MBTI, which is Directive/Adaptive in Pod'lair:

Directive: the J in the 4-letter MBTI type (so all xxxJs are directive), and the functions that appear in in the top two slots of xxxJs - Ni, Si, Te, Fe. (All xxxJs have a combination of those two functions in their top two)

Adaptive: the P in the 4-letter MBTI type (xxxPs), and the functions that appear in the top two - Ne, Se, Ti, Fi.


Second J/P definition in MBTI, which is Discernment vs Perception in Pod'lair:

Discernment:


When Logic uses the terms "Judgment" and "Perception" functions, he's actually using the Pod'lair terms Discernment/Perception, which is an exact match with this second definition of MBTI J/P. It's pretty confusing to have two different sets of terms being referred to by the same MBTI J/P label, which is why Logic is preferring to use the Pod'lair terms which divides the two MBTI J/P definitions:

1. xxxJs and top 2 xxxJ functions VS xxxPs and top 2 xxxP functions
2. J functions (Te, Ti, Fe, Fi) VS P functions (Ne, Ni, Se, Si)

Instead of using J/P to refer to both of these, Logic is using these terms:

1. Directive VS Adaptive
2. Judgment VS Perception

^^I think the latter is a lot less confusing.
There have also been further confusions in this thread because EyeSeeCold is working off of Socionics' use of J/P, which is different from MBTI J/P (ex: Socionics INFp leads with Ni, MBTI INFP leads with Fi). Earlier in the thread when talking with Logic he applies the definition of Socionics J/P to MBTI J/P which led to a lot of confusion (not just in this thread, but in other threads too).

Most of the confusion in this recent part of the thread is coming from semantic confusion. Since MBTI doesn't differentiate between the aforementioned two different definitions of J and P, while Pod'lair does, I think it makes more sense to use Directive/Adaptive to refer to the first definition of J/P in MBTI, and J/P to exclusively refer to the second definition of J/P in MBTI. Then we would all be on the same page instead of spending so much time on semantics.
 
Top Bottom