>type>were you a "good student" in school?>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?>Sakinorva testshttps://sakinorva.net/functions>attitudinal type/nu-psychosophyhttps://www.attitudinalpsyche.com/take-the-test/>16 personalities (the worst test)https://www.16personalities.com/>MBTI test (don't screen cap your IP btw)https://jupiter-34.appspot.com>Jungian types tl;drhttps://wikisocion.github.io/content/psychological_types.html>Big 5https://www.personalityassessor.com/big-five2/>paste your old messages and get typedhttps://www.uclassify.com/browse/g4mes543/myers-briggs-type-indicator-text-analyzer?input=Text>Associative MBTI/Jungian testhttps://watchwordtest.com/wtitle2.html>Turbie-Wurbie's Cutesy Test Link Compilation! UwU:https://web.archive.org/web/20231220103736/https://pastebin.com/QK0uSJaTPrevious: >>83882775
Kokoro up>typeEN(T), ENTP, serial shitposter, whatever you want to call it. >were you a "good student" in school?Define "good student".Good, as in, getting high grades? Yes.Good, as in, teachers liking me? Lol lmao no.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?There would be no such a thing as "society". Both because nobody would settle for anything, and because we would eventually die out in random accidents.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Jap circles are better.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?Introverted Intuitives in the real world.Introverted Sensoids in MBTI communities.
>>83912763>typeENTJ>were you a "good student" in school?No lol. I skipped all the time, vandalized stuff and got into fights (arguments I should say).>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Probably better then how our society is now. I imagine something like Prussia or the Roman Republic.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Didn't know they were. I guess its fine. Korea seems mentally/culturally in its 20's, Japan is more middle schooler, and China is middle aged man.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?INFJ, I like the sorcerer type. I want to be a mystical guru. But I am what I am I guess.
Time to see who passes the first class mage exam:>>83912820You fail. Do you know why? Because you merely react. You fight a defensive battle against the questions trying to argue from definition and meaning hoping to reverse the initiative in your favor. But this tactic requires another response which may or may not come, and even if it does your habit will drive you into another defensive stance always losing ground.>>83912874>No lol. I skipped all the time, vandalized stuff and got into fightsYou pass. Do you know why? You imposed your will onto institutions and individuals forcing them to react, and you did so from a position of joy and whimsy.
>>83913054Although it might sound a contradiction, there is such a thing as an "offensive defense".e.g. trying to win a defensive battle not by protecting your base and causing the enemies to fall back eventually, but actually just invading the enemy main camp yourself before they do.
>>83912763>typeINFJ-A>were you a "good student" in school?When I wanted to be. Yes, I was a straight A student. But if I didn't care, I didn't care. Most of the time I'd just skate by with B's and C's while half assed paying attention because I was bored until the boredom overcame me and then I would skip 50% of time.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Fun. All the spergs who enjoy the boring gay should would be doing the boring gay shit so the people who wanted to do the based fun things could do that. School would be completely overhauled to promote the inherent skills of people rather than making useless drone workers.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Yes.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?No, because I don't agree with that method of typology.
>What she cannot feel, she cannot consciously think. 'But I can't think what I don't feel', such a type said to me once in indignant tones. Ok I'm stopping after this one. Just consider the implications.
>83912874> INFJINFJ is actually the most hyperpopular and glorified amongst MBTI communities glazed as the rarest and adorned like royal crowns. just r/INFJ is insufferable asf, "nobody understands us, we so unique" , its the >speshultype everybody and their grandma lusts to be.sorceror is just a stereotype, TE is INTJ but behaves like a go golly esfj>>83913054Fucking C.Ai frieren clanker ass over here
>>83912763>>typeESFP-T>>were you a "good student" in school?I was homeschooled, so really doesn't apply. >>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Lol. Fun but very short-lived. >>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Probably not the weirdest thing that Koreans have ever been obsessed with. >>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?Not particularly.
>>83913255https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8q6Gnpyg1U
>>83912763>typeINTP>were you a "good student" at schoolnot really, i ruined my reputation at an early age by crying wolf to the school district because i was ignored by everyone that wasnt my immediate family. i was the problem child in a school full of kids of alumni >what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?full of egotistical retards, gone in a century >what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?SKoreans seem to be obsessed with anything vanity related, so this isnt really surprising to hear>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?ENFP? only because the chuuba i used to watch was one, and she's the only person to easily bypass my barriers in years
the fem infjs are beyond salvation. they are the mental illness behind every mary sue/self insert/tumblrina y/n fanficfolder AUverse OC-omniverse, sloppy sex with dark triad ENTP from every the corner of the universe. Since they are women, the self-centred narcisstic traits are doubled by 10. Picture a pixie cut genshin-impact axehammer "asexual" with the little round harry potter goggles. They're the bitch that self-diagnosed with schizophrenia and assassinates you if its apparent you're somehow more " schizo/speshul" than they are.Like>Hi im shizophrenic INFJ DNI homophobes>I feel.. Rats wriggling in my intestines>INFJ: Lol ok so..Full blown character assassination stage centre in the schizo discord server in /vent/ for "triggering" them. Psychoanalyzing you with their own self-projections and insensitive insecurities, like noooooo your more sperg than me? i'll show you with the most suffocating insta sobstory ever!!
>>83913308>just r/INFJ is insufferable asf, "nobody understands us, we so unique" , its theMan, Fi-groids did a massive number to this type huh.I mean, going with pure Jungism you can claim the IN(F) type IS closer to Fi-groidism but still... being unintelligible is a sore spot for IN supposedly. Happens, but it should be frustrating given they genuinely want to communicate the intuitardism, not feeling good about having it.
>>83912763>typeISTP>were you a "good student" in school?as far as everyone was concerned, i was a model student. behind the scenes it's a different story...define "good student", like, did i help the fucking poor?>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?think it'd be a self-destructive utopia. what can problematic problem solvers do when there's no more problems to solve but to create more problems to solve? maybe it'd be chill, but... meeeh... what a bore that'd be...>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?wasn't aware, don't care, not suprised. east asians are staunch believers and practitioners of signal theory and mbti can be, unfortunately, just another avenue of signaling your "virtues">is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?probably enfps.i don't fucking like them, let me make that clear. but they're good seducers -- and they *can be* knowledgeable. extremely so. and they can be... fun. occasionally.*specifically* the males. dunno why, but certain feeling types rub me the wrong way depending on their gender... most female xnfps and most male xnfjs make me want to be an hero when they so blatantly reek of insecurity. it's the darndest thing
>>83913054>Do you know why? You imposed your will onto institutions and individuals forcing them to react, and you did so from a position of joy and whimsy.
INFJ women are just expressively Histrionic and self-absored, like the dykes rallying at gay parades, execute them.INFJ men hold it back a lil, like all men do with their feelings, but they sprinkle a trail of gay self-psychoanalytic poetry, like a full psychological dox . Bitch do you want me to diagnose you?
>>83913419>INFJ women are just expressively Histrionic and self-absoredHonestly kinda true. Although my sample size is very small and very likely to contain mistypes... you know maybe the real reason you can't know anything about IN(F) isn't because of rarity or difficulties in communication, it's because EVERYONE IS CLAIMING THIS TYPE so trying to discern truth from fiction would require a fucking trial every single time.
An INFJ biwhatever ballerina a-gender asian woman got handed the authors pen to make the next X-men serialization of dead-pool, (yes, the official comics) and the whole thing was her self insert sexing him, i saw her blog and>INFJ asian pixie cut tumblr bitchDeadpool By Alyssa wong
>>83912763>were you a "good student" in school?No. I never paid attention and constantly distracted everyone near me and chatted them up. The teachers were annoyed with me and would try to get me to go to the board to do equations or answer questions and somehow I pretty much always knew the answers or could solve the equations despite not paying attention. I think they did it to check if I was paying attention or maybe embarrass me if i wasn't. Also I'd notice patterns of how the teachers assigned seating arrangements like this one time I noticed all of the smartest kids were at a certain table then i shared my theory with the table and the cute girl was suddenly like wait we're the smart ones? And I'm like yeah. Then i got moved away for distracting all of the smart kids.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Probably lots of wars and a huge genocide I'd guess.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Didn't know about that. Why are they obsessed? Do they use it for dating, work, or what?>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?Idk haven't thought about this one too much. There are some types I'm not able to immediately recognize or notice. I'm not familiar enough with these types do I need to experience them more. There's some types where I can immediately get a feel and identify them.
Everything makes me cry
>>83913318>You shouldn't think what you're feeling.I wonder where that is coming from>thinkoid gaining some self-awareness of his inferior>feeloid simply denouncing his inferior and returning to the conscious positionBoth valid angles, hard to tell without knowing the singer. Would be the first at face value.
>>83912763>>typeENTP>>were you a "good student" in school?No>>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Modern society would cease to function, but as a sustainable hunter gatherer population it would be chill, and a communal polyamory fuckfest >>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Better than obsession with fan-death >>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?Female ISTJs. ISTJ females are queens and angels on this earth.
>>83913545You know, you're the first person to pull out the right words from a song i posted and put them in the thread.>I wonder where that is coming fromYou're taking "think" and "feel" too literally, i think. It seems to me more of a conflict of attitudes, or maybe of rational. The context is he wants to get with this girl, and she isn't letting him, because her instincts are misleading and she's thinking what she's feeling. Capital "F" Feeling, as in the rational function, might very well be the thing keeping her from acting on some irrational impulse (such as love, a theme of the album), which he calls "feeling". It could just as well be that some external, objective factor (such as distance, it's other theme), which is preventing her from acting on her, what terms as, "feeling". He's obviously an introvert, and probably not a rational type.Attitude is more important than rational, which is more important than preferred function: The very structure of Psychological Types supports this. Yet, anons have this tendency to put precedence on the function, and to almost forget rational. A sister, or perhaps mother tendency, is that to axiomatic thinking, that is "to conceptualizing of functions as things naturally separated, or even opposed, as if they were poles of the earth", when functions are at their most base close together, especially a thing true directed at those of kindred rational. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn35dUE0R1k
>>83914281Can definitely see how sometimes you can interpret it as a conflict of rational and irrational >focus on the functions I suppose because they are easier to observe?The rational VS irrational conflict, while actually also its own form of Type Problem(TM), is harder to see compared to the opposition between, say, logic and emotion or facts and speculah, using some common names for these things.
I see there are more of you. I will grace each of you with my personal assessment:>>83913228You fail. You're tring to hard. >>83913316You fail. You put to little energy into your posts.>>83913327You fail. You're a simp.>>>83913397You pass. You see the good in even your most hated type.>>83913939You fail. You put to little energy into your posts.
>>83914602>You're tring to hard.To do what, exactly?
Did patchy really quit? I know he was getting pissed not enough people were responding to his textwalls and was threatening to quit.
>>83914613You like musicals made for woke lesbians. I rest my case.
>>83912763>>typeINTP>>were you a "good student" in school?Yes>>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Whiter>>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Don't care about korea>>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?No, respect is earned
>>83914640And you like gay dicks in your ass, what's that got to do with the price of rice in China?
>>83914616>Did patchy really quitDidn't notice as there were still lots if huge walls of text that I didn't read.
>>83914616>Did patchy really quit?Probably. He was bitchin bout leavin 2 threads ago, I told em no one likes a bugger who shows no curiosity and just textwalls how they're right all the time. But shit, if he didn't actually get up en leave. Not 4 weeks ago he was half the posts in the thread. I guess the brightest stars burn out the fastest. Thats why INFJ-A, Mel and ESFP-T are still around cause they move slower then a drunk mule.Don't feel bad anon, I reckon he's in some new watering hole or on discord textwalling as we speak.
>>83914714>Didn't notice as there were still lots if huge walls of text that I didn't read.They're called LLM posts. Midwits and bots use them to sound smart. Here's an example:>unrelated_touhou_or_anime_pic.jpg (that has nothing to do with the post, not even the facial expression)>Sigmund Freud stands as the undisputed colossus of the human mind, a titan whose intellect eclipsed all who followed, particularly his wayward disciple Carl Jung. While lesser minds dabble in mystical shadows, Freud sliced through the psyche with the precision of a master surgeon wielding Oedipal scalpels. Jung? A mere footnote, forever chasing archetypes in the fog of his own delusions. Freud's genius lay in his unflinching confrontation with the primal forces governing humanity. The id, ego, and superego form a perfect trinity of psychological truth: raw, sexual, aggressive, and utterly scientific. Every dream, slip of the tongue, or hysterical outburst traces back to repressed desires rooted in childhood sexuality. Jung, by contrast, fled to fairy tales and mandalas, inventing a "collective unconscious" that sounds more like a communal fever dream than rigorous analysis. Freud didn't need ancient myths; he had couch confessions and real patients revealing the naked libido. Jung's patients probably just wanted to discuss their spirit animals. Consider influence and legacy. Freud birthed an entire field: psychoanalysis reshaped literature, art, film, and culture itself. Jung was the rebellious son who ran off to play with shadows, ultimately proving why paternal authority (Freud's authority) prevails. In the pantheon of great minds, Freud reigns eternal. Jung provided footnotes Thus, Freud is superior in every conceivable dimension: intellectual rigor, cultural impact, clinical efficacy, and sheer audacity. Long live the king of the psyche!
>thread death on Semantics 101 and pseuds trying too hard to make everything an analogy and calling that symbolism/comprehension of the theory>diarygirl still seething that her pedobaiting didn't work and slog and dykie laughed in her face about it>attributing IxFP memes to INFJs to cope>patchoulinigger larps insisting it's parody or satire>actually started using the larp as a way to explore opinions he genuinely wanted to express in thread>flees at the first whiff of vulnerability and associated "oh shit, you can't detach from how people react to your true self by insisting they're not if you let shit get too real"dire and many such cases all around
>>83914721bro does NOT know the [posting history] or (((habits))) of the Touhoufag Currently Known As Patchy lmaaaoooooo
>>83914766We have kokoro now who is 1/2 togatanon + 1/2 patchy. Although they say they're gonna leave because no one here has the energy to match them which is the fate of all high enthusaism posters. All the high energy types are either:>under 20yo>on drugs >have massive adhd problems>combos of the aboveIn order to make it long term here you have to be: an oldfag who thinks they're Gods gift to the thread, so they never get truly invested thus never getting burned out, but they get enough (You) dopamine hits you keep coming back, like an smoker taking a smoke break every few hours.
>>83914540https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O07WK7-ZkHs>I suppose because they are easier to observe?You say that, yet you came away with two possible yet conflicting interpretations, taking functions to be the item of import, where as i came away with two possible and compatible interpretations, and a higher degree of certainty, as its really more two levels to the one interpretations. Were functions more easily observable, would not the opposite be true? I'm not sure why it is that people even here tend to focus on functions, but i think it's essentially some form of force of habit; residue from the before times. I think compass charts haven't helped matters. Do you remember how i used to chart the circles? >The rational VS irrational conflict, while actually also its own form of Type Problem(TM)See, this is backwards. The Type Problem only applies to functions only as much as attitude is applied to them. Thinking and Feeling for instance, are not at all incomparable, but are in fact dependent. Your dominate and inferior functions want to be together, but are separated by attitude: At the same time, in order to be together, they must be distinct from each other. I'd be more gentle here, but i'm tired and don't want to put off posting.
>>83912763>typeINTP>were you a "good student" in school?"gifted child" syndrome, but then grades kept slipping and slipping, then became too depressed and brain rotted to participate in highschool I think im still at least somewhat intelligent since I dont need to take notes for nearly anything and I cram exams a few hours before hand with the course materials just enough to pass. We'll see if the strat continues working>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?In the first episode of the kino no tabi original anime, kino wanders into an abandoned city with all its residents holed up inside, in terror of going outside in case they interact with other people, because they all gained telepathy and can hear every single thought of everybody else nearby without choice.I feel like it would be like that kinda.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?South Korea doing south Korea things. Japan has a similar system with blood types or something. Tho I get the sense of "personality" categories being more trusted in the east then the west, The western version is astrology and "personality surveys", which everybody memes on and kinda knows is partly BS (including MBTI btw). I dont know if this is the case in SK>is there any type you believe should be more respected idk
>typeINTP>were you a "good student" in school?I used to when I was very young, but I mostly just ignored everything and did the bare minimum to not get in trouble. My grades were good, though.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Highly dysfunctional and full of lazy fucks. Maybe it wouldn't be that bad 'cause INTPs would maybe feel more comfortable with social interactions.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Kinda interesting. I like how they uae it to stuff like pairing roomates, but they go too far most of the time, like with companies no hiring certain types. >is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?INFJs, the world is too materialistic right now.
>>83914836Apt assessment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJIXDOVRtVk
No one ever responds to me so I'm going to leave too.
No one ever understands me, so I'm going to continue talking as if everyone understands me!
>>83914938I think you like being misunderstood.
>XNFP types>literally the difference between the happiest person on Earth and the saddest person on Earth is just E vs IIs this the single most damning evidence against introversion?Has it ever been more over for introverts?
>>83914641You fail. You're too low energy.>>83914654You're trying to hard again. You think by acting this way you'll be as cool and Indian as Alastor's voice actor:https://youtube.com/shorts/CO83scdp_dY?si=-EwyYsdTriJQcIomBut you won't unless you tone it down.>>83914922You pass. You understood from an early age how to play the system without burning out.
>>83914931>No one ever responds to meYou say this everyday, and I respond everytime. So in fact you do get a response. CHECKMATE, I WIN, YOU LOSE. Suck it loser. TEAM ESTP FOR THE WIN BABY. BOO YAHHH.
Something that occurred to me:Most people, "Jungians" (see: patchy and heartfag) included, think that seizing conscious control over a function to produce the desired psychic contents qualifies as differentiation. When in in reality, it's ego inflation.They think "being good at thinking" means your thinking is more differentiated, and being "bad at thinking" means your thinking is less differentiated.As if, somehow, the inferior function is has less validity than the dominant function. >>83914958I wouldn't say that I like it. But, everything comes at a cost. I would like to be understood, but if the cost of that is being someone that I am not, I have no desire to undertake that cost. I would rather be true to myself and misunderstood, than to be fake and understood.Make sense?>>83914995You doofus ass, I'm not trying to be cool. But the fact you think I'm trying to be cool is telling.why would I want to be part of your dick sucking group? Lmao
>What is the anime that got you into anime?>What was a game you got gamer depression over when it ended?
>>83915065>They think "being good at thinking" means your thinking is more differentiated, and being "bad at thinking" means your thinking is less differentiated.>As if, somehow, the inferior function is has less validity than the dominant function.Are you saying he was SO autistic he took the term inferior to mean "less good"? Lol I'd believe it considering he once argued memorized facts were superior to direct experience. To me he didn't seem to understand it. The little I talked to him, he used inferior functions as a way to hand wave behaviors away eg: "an ENFJ who likes to spend time alone is cause inferior Ti". Any explaination beyond that seem very verbatim from a book or article.
>>83915163>What is the anime that got you into anime?Picrel
>>83915251>Are you saying he was SO autistic he took the term inferior to mean "less good"?Unironically yes. Both he and heartfag seem to think that "inferior" means "less developed" in the sense of a muscle that is unused and "weak". Without realizing that what is weak is not the function or its accuracy in content. But the relationship between the ego and the autonomous agent which has control over the function in question is.These are the types of people who believe being a thinking/intuitive type makes them smart, and being a feeler/sensor makes you stupid. It's a perspective that serves a purpose. An ego inflated purpose, specifically.
>typeINFP>were you a "good student" in school?In HS and before absolutely not. I literally had to go to a secondary institution to make up stuff so I could graduate. In college I have a 3.8 gpa lol>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Amazing probably. Nothing would get done but it wouldn't need to. We could just live peaceful and free in the stone age.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?I think it's based of course. Hopefully MBTI will become even more popular thanks to their influence considering they have a lot of it these days.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?I can think of one...
Bump to save the thread. one day I won't be around to save it.
who's the sluttiest reg and why is it curefag
>>83915848The sluttiest? Lilac, according to the lore.
>>83915989The lore, yes, but not the real history
>>83912763>typeINTP>were you a "good student" in school?Terrible student. I ditched school often and got D's and F's when I did attend. It's honestly a miracle that I managed to graduate on time. I had to take night classes at a community college to make up credits for it, because I put just as much effort into those as I did my regular classes, which is to say none.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Qin dynasty China with the shots being called by autistic legalists. >what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?I was completely unaware of that, but it's not surprising that they'd be into something like that, what with Japan being into blood types as a personality indicator.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?No.
>>83912763This entire thread feels like it's underage. Please leave the site before some pedo freak or tranny grooms you and starts molesting you.
lilac owes me sex
Happy Valentine's day Anons, heres your chocolate, enjoy <3 <3
>>83915848>>83915989mel gives valentines chocolates to every man in mbtishe beats lilac
I guess *him* finally discovered he has an inflated ego, but will associate it with literally everything else except himself huh.For the record, the main function is indeed the most malleable tool of consciousness as per Jung, among the functions of course, there would be more in different categories that have nothing much to do with typology. And the inferior is the exact opposite, so little malleability that it's perceived as either very annoying, random, disturbing to your current attitude, or suddenly it's the cutest thing in the world(heh).>>83914846These two conflicting interpretations exist not because if the functions themselves, but because I can't immediately pin down a single reality about the subject connected to the quote... so basically it was just intuition doing its thing and forcing speculah that does make sense as much as the face value interpretation.>circles Yes I quite remember them. Oh you are back?>Type Problem only happens when attitude is involved Now I know Jung's book is 90% about extravert/introvert type problems, but I'm sure this applies to functions as well as the rational/irrational split itself.The classic Thinkoid prejudice against Feeloids by calling them dum because they don't go along with [contents and products of thinking function activity] isn't an attitude-type problem, that's not denouncing introverted traits here, though I might draw unconscious/incorrect associations(e.g. a person of high feeling... means shrinking violet? like these shy girls sho seem sensitive to everything? watch me do anima projection too while I'm at it, and sensation being very implied at the same time)
>>83914602thank you siri <3>>83913419it's the whole effeminate, almost/absolutely entitled personality of male infjs that's off-putting to me, whereas with female infjs it makes a lot more sense and they do what works for them. i feel like male xnfj can never be high-functioning adults. likewise for female xnfp. but that's just... snrk... my feewings ;>) i'm sure i've just yet to meet an exception.>>83916293happy valentine's day, commander <3did you have a valentine today? did you dooo anything...?~
>typeintp>were you a "good student" in school?'good' as is behaived? mostly, 'good' as in good grades? lol no>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?less government and regulation>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?worst korea is worst korea>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?intps
>>83912763>typeINTP>were you a "good student" in school?fuck no, I slept in class 24/7 and only lifted my head upto take tests or when directly called on for some piss easy question the teachers thought they'd get a gotcha on me with (they eventually gave up and just said it was a shame I didn't care about my straight Fs)>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?A lot less retarded, that's for sure.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Cool ig, I don't really care that much since it has no real bearing on anything>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?Mine of course
>>83916620>'good' as is behaived? mostly, 'good' as in good grades? lol noWhat the hell. Precisely the opposite answer of mine?But it was like that, no one ever questioned the fact I was the smartest person in the room purely in terms of brainpower(and grades relfected that, supposedly, though I don't personally agree with this correlation) and ability to articulate my ideas(ironically, I only question it myself), but also irriverent, argumentative, openly object to the teachers if I thought they were fucking up(and generally be right too), oh well, you get the idea. Maybe I was kinda stereotypical as a school boy, but I don't do this anymore I promise.>>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?>intpsMBTI communities respect you more than they do to your extraverted counterpart(in MBTI terms, not Jungian functions, ok?), so there's that.If you ask me, honestly ISxJ deserve some more respect. In society they are just seen as bland comformists, and online it's very much the same stereotype, but are they really like this? Aren't they doing it just because they don't want to attract EXTERNAL attention while in reality have a much richer inner world? What kind of introvert does not have that, anyway?
>>83915163>What is the anime that got you into anime?girls und panzer is the first i watched. big time war thunder player -- and most fucking war thunder players are femboys, furries and weebs... it found its way to me through the grape vine and i figured i'd give it a try since it had tanks in it. it... *struggled* to keep my interest...youjo senki is what got me into watching anime on a regular basis. wasn't too big a fan of GuP or anime in general but i do like military stuff. it was good enough for me to realize that maybe anime's not soooo bad...>What was a game you got gamer depression over when it ended?i wouldn't call it depression, but cyberpunk 2077 certainly elicited... feelings... for every ending there was. the anime, edgerunners, was the biggest tearjerker of the franchise and i 100% recommend itnow, some thread questions of my own <3-->When did you become aware that Carl Jung was sexually assaulted by an older man in his childhood and later on in life, consequently, had an obsessive "crush" on his mentor, Sigmund Freud?>How did this knowledge affect your opinion of him and/or MBTI, if applicable?
>>83916663>>When did you become aware that Carl Jung was sexually assaulted by an older man in his childhood and later on in life, consequently, had an obsessive "crush" on his mentor, Sigmund Freud?As early as I touched PT.You see, the biggest reason the theory of types exists is for Jung to bridge himself with Freud's own thinking, as well as figuring out whether Freud or Adler would get along.>>How did this knowledge affect your opinion of him and/or MBTI, if applicable?I already knew it was a sappy unrequited love story at its core, but I didn't imagine it was GAY AS HELL too.
With enough imagination, you can say the type theory itself was Jung's very own trascendent function moment.He finally bridged Introverted Thinking(the theorizing) and Extraverted Feeling(the fact every type is valid in its own right) together, by using both auxiliary Sensation(empirical observation with patients)/Intuition(gleaming at archetypal patterns, namely the alchemical circles with 4 elements) to justify the whole thing.There we go, the truth is as plain as the day now.
>>83916293*hug*Happy Valentine's Day, Mela and the thread.
>>83915065Yes, but is posting in /mbti/ an inalienable part of who you are? Maybe as habit it's become somewhat so, but then how did it become habit? Did it used to be that you were understood, at least some amount of the time, and the thread degenerated around you? Not impossible, but i doubt it. I guess the way i phrased it wasn't quite right: I don't think you like being misunderstood, i think you prefer misappreciation to no appreciation, and maybe being misunderstood has become a habit of sorts. Not that you are intentionally obscure or anything, just that you get a kick out of, or have gotten used to, being clear but being misunderstood anyway. Something like that is what i meant. You like knowing if you are understood or not, and are used to it being "not", i suppose is what i meant.
>Impersonal[very highly differentiated] feeling and thinking are very relativistic. When we look at them they seem something extraordinary, whereas in reality they are dead, because the personal unconscious is seeking to return to a more complete life away from the extreme differentiation of one function. >So the primitive functions begin to increase. We cannot get anywhere in analysis with thinking until it reaches its antinomy-- that is, something is and is not true at one and the same time. >The same is true with feeling, and a differentiated feeling type must reach the point where the thing most loved is the thing most hated, before refuge will be sought in another function.So, the peak of rational function differentiation is simply the very concept of contradiction or a paradox? Which supposedly is solved by considering more evidence or possibilities.Hm well fair enough, but what about the irrational functions? Seeing something that is there, but also isn't at the same time, and absolutely requires rational discrimination from the auxiliaries of Thinking and Feeling?
>>83916293Happy valentines day sweet milf <3
>Though I could not then grasp the significance of the Hero killed, soon after I had a dream in which Siegfried was killed bymyself. It was a case of destroying the hero ideal of my efficiency. This has to be sacrificed in order that a new adaptation can be made; in short, it is connected with the sacrifice of the superior function in order to get at the libido necessary to activate the inferior functions. >If a man has a good brain, thinking becomes his hero and, instead of Christ, Kant, or Bergson, becomes his ideal. If you give up this thinking, this hero ideal, you commit a secret murder-- that is, you give up your superior function.wtf Jung, how much of an inferior feeloid do you have to be to fantasize about literally murdering functions? And heroes, on that note. Now I don't want to know what inferior thinkoids fantasize about.....
also wouldn't it be opposite way around? If a man is a thinking type, then having a good brain becomes his ideal you mean.... Jvng, that was some MBTI-tier slip up, just casually implying feeloids are dumb(though producing evidence of the opposite is rather difficult indeed....)
>>83916371>Oh you are back?For a time, in a way. I've been around since about early last month. I'm surprised you remember, but glad because it means i don't have to make new ones. I might do that anyway if you can keep my interest another day. I was going to make one for vPatchy, but i got busy and his performance on the textfield of honor disappointed me.>Now I know Jung's book is 90% about extravert/introvert type problemsNot just the amount of the book dedicated to it, but the structure of the book and of Chapter X, and the suffixes used. The attitude is applied with an "ed" suffix, which describes how something is (like in retarded, or >I'm sure this applies to functions as well as the rational/irrational split itself.Why so sure?>The classic Thinkoid prejudice against FeeloidsDoesn't exist. A Thinker is not just a Thinker, he's an Introverted or Extraverted Thinker, and he'll have a Feeling shadow of opposite attitude. His prejudice is against that attitude of the shadow, which though he may associate, perhaps even conflate, it with the function that most knows that attitude, the prejudice still comes out of an issue of attitude, and is fundamentally toward attitude. Should he get to the point of conflating his inferior function with the attitude effecting it, rather than turn against that function even when it is under the same attitude, he will instead take for a product of another function (so i imagine and believe to have seen, i can't speak to Jung's ideas on this point).
>>83912763>typeINFP>were you a "good student" in school?Yeah>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Utopia>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Based>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?ISFJs because they're best sensors
>>83919266>For a time, in a way.Same to be fair>Not just the amount of the book dedicated to it, but the structure of the book and of Chapter X, and the suffixes used.Dw, I know. Still, if I might add something to that, the functions start to become more important after PT in his other works, seminars, etc. e.g. "Notes of the Seminar on Analytical Psychology Given in 1925" has quite a lot of tentative definitions such as the one about static/dynamic reality/images, mapped to Sensation(static, reality)/Intuition(dynamic, reality) and Thinking(static, image)/Feeling(dynamic, image). Also the "fight between auxiliary functions in analysis" which is just not there in PT iirc.What I'm trying to say here: he focused on the functions a little more eventually, we didn't actually made this shit up only in the MBTI blogsphere(though, his system is a lot more flexible than Grant/Socionics and the likes, keep this very well in mind).>Doesn't exist.But it does? Of course, along with that prejudice you are likely to add other unconscious associations as mentioned above, like the attitude-type, but a Type Problem just happens whenever you are proceeding with the assumption that any part of your typology is universal. This can lead both interpersonal issues, and writing up theories where you straight up discriminate against the opposite type while assuming yours is the "typical" one(yes I'm hinting at that, though you might defend the position by saying the non-typical one also has good sides!).Don't see much that would simply deny somebody's current Type Problem is literally just about a function on its own, though if you look hard enough you might find out they are also still sort of biased against the opposite attitude.
>>83918627>but what about the irrational functions?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V_Sqv0qolwDon't you know first hand?
>>83919452Indeed, and I produced an answer that seems adequate to me(irrational functions can get caught into simply not knowing what's "really" real and possible anymore, requiring to fall back on an auxiliary Thinking or Feeling to argue it from reason, such as asking whether there is some logic behind X being more real than Y, or what's more in line with your/somebody's motives and general feelings about things), but Jung didn't not say it himself.
>"fight between auxiliary functions in analysis"Speaking of that, I'm quite sure I saw this a lot in fiction, along with the fact that the narrator takes a meta perspective from the side of his main or inferior function(rare, but I'm sure it does happen at times if they are willing to not save the conscious position in a fictional story)So basically two characters representing the typical views associated with the auxiliaries duke it out(e.g. like Battler and Beatrice, Thinking and Feeling, though they are both Ne-groids first and foremost), it seems to tend mainly in one direction(Thinking is supposedly the "heroic" one here, right?) but then it will eventually try to see both(Thinking can be heroic yes, but just as much as Feeling, and let me show you both how the Thinking can be not heroic and how Feeling gives you a more proper answer, sometimes).
>>83918077What makes you think I was referring to this thread when I said that? Because I wasn't. I wasn't even referring to online interactions specifically. Outside of specific people, no, there was no time that I was understood, people in general do not understand my perspective and as a consequence do not understand my words. There are people who can understand my perspective, but they are far and few between.And also, no. I don't prefer misappreciation to no appreciation. I'm content with my own self appreciation. I would rather be understood and appreciated for what I'm saying, but I'm not going to change to fit into other people's premolded conceptual frameworks in order to achieve that. I would rather be outcasted or ostracized than to become a distorted version of myself to appease the masses.I also don't enjoy being being misunderstood, nor do I any kind of satisfaction out of it. I have gotten used to it though, it's a normal everyday occurrence. If I hadn't gotten used to it by now, there'd probably be something wrong with me for real.But, that being said, I do enjoy trying to clarify the misunderstanding. Trying to work through the misunderstanding is what I do enjoy. I enjoy the mental friction, the mental load, but that friction can be acquired without misunderstanding.>You like knowing if you are understood or notThat's just a universal trait of humans.
>>83919718So close yet so far. You typed out the answer right there, yet you claim to not see it.Since I don't actually hate (You) as much as the way you argue, let me give you the hint and hope you realize it on your own: >I'm not going to change to fit into other people's premolded conceptual frameworks in order to achieve that. From the side of the conscious atittude and thus the Ego, I'm sure you really feel this way, but is that the full reality of the Self? If it was, then engaging in typology at all would be worthless for you, even picking a type would mean nothing at all. Yet here you are, looking for the "premolded conceptual framework" that can at very least approximate the inner reality. I would like to insist on the word "approximate" since I realize reaching perfect accuracy would be insane regardless of which type you actually are, but a part of you knows this is useful not merely as a parlor trick, but because it might lead to a step closer to your objective.
>>83919718>What makes you think I was referring to this thread when I said that?I didn't, it's just that i myself was referring to this thread in my first post. >Trying to work through the misunderstanding is what I do enjoy. I enjoy the mental friction, the mental loadSo, you like the 'puzzle' of it. I get that. I guess i'm the same way, to an extent. But are there no better puzzles than this thread? If there aren't, what makes this such a good one?>but that friction can be acquired without misunderstanding.Right, exactly, but here it almost always will be acquired through misunderstanding, which made me think there must be some quality special to being misunderstood that makes it worth while.>That's just a universal trait of humans.True, and a sad one.>>83919829You completely missed what i'm driving at.>>83919371>he focused on the functions a little more eventuallyYes, but eventually: Attitude is the eldest son.>Type Problem just happens whenever you are proceeding with the assumption that any part of your typology is universalYes, but i'm saying this always happens by an attitude, the function being an association, or instrument at most.>>83919489Well, fair enough, but that's not the answer i was looking for, which is the underlying principle. Like "paradox", it's a one word answer. Second chance, then i'm linking to a blog. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDmBldsB1V4
>>83919829>then engaging in typology at all would be worthless for you, even picking a type would mean nothing at allBingo. Typology itself is quite literally useless for me, and types in themselves are nothing more than persona masks, if you ask me. I say this not from the perspective of theory, but the perspective of practice. In theory, typology is nothing more than words to describe things. The description of the things has very little utility outside of conveying ideas to other people. I'm interested in the thing being described, not the description of it. As a consequence, typology, in theory, has very little utility to me because other people do not understand what the terms are supposed to be describing and use them as persona labels to avoid differentiation of their own psyche.I'm not using typology to find myself. I'm using typology to analyze a system of symbols and watch how they fail in real time to point to the psychic reality in front of people faces. Even when used by people who are self proclaimed 'Jungians'.I'm operating from a fundamentally different perspective than you, and most other people. This is precisely why I am misunderstood.
>>83919940>You completely missed what i'm driving at.Well I was just giving my own opinion on *him* regardless of context.I'm sure he gets that and there was 0 need to even post it, but sometimes people want to be told what they already know by somebody else too, just to cross-check I suppose.>Yes, but eventually: Attitude is the eldest son.Yea not denying that, the attitude is the most obvious part. For the functions, both in the books and in the actual practice with people, you need to dig deeper.>Yes, but i'm saying this always happens by an attitude, the function being an association, or instrument at most.Honestly could be true in most cases. Though I've seen that both Jung and Von Franz made examples of problems happening just between function-types.>Like "paradox", it's a one word answer. Second chance, then i'm linking to a blog. Guess the peak of the irrational function, in a single word, is the "falsification".Something that could be just a very accurate fake basically, so much that it feels real to the irrational perception, yet would fall apart if you bothered to use the rational functions properly.
>>83919966Also ahem, I just dropped that here hoping you do something with it, if you don't want to then I guess there was an attempt.
I wanna be mela's puppy but only if she'll pay for me to get lazer hair removal and promise to give me a progesterone suppository each morning. I promise to lick her feet and clean her house everyday
>>83919940>I didn'tOh, fair enough.>So, you like the 'puzzle' of it.Sort of. You're close enough that I can say you're right, but it's not exactly right.>But are there no better puzzles than this thread?Well, in a sense, no. It's not that this place itself is specifically a puzzle. It's that the people here are engaging with the same puzzle pieces that I am. Albeit in a completely different manner. They're using the pieces to try and describe themselves and give themselves an identity. They're trying to answer the question of "who am I" with these puzzle pieces. Which, paradoxically, directly contradicts the purpose of the puzzle pieces.I mean, I guess I could go to discord or plebbit and be surrounded by faggot pseuds, but who would want to do that?>but here it almost always will be acquired through misunderstandingThat's just the nature of being me. I go through the same thing with my friends and family as well. >which made me think there must be some quality special to being misunderstood that makes it worth while.The misunderstanding itself doesn't have any special quality. But there's a larger meta-understanding which can only be accessed through solving the misunderstanding at a lower conceptual level. The "reward" is not them understanding me, or me understanding them, it's being able to access that higher plane of understanding to draw the connections between the misunderstood idea through that higher plane to another connected idea to build a whole story. To put it into a symbolic metaphor, the reward for completing a quest to kill a goblin in a cave isn't the gold he drops, it's that the king will notice your deeds and give you a larger main-story quest. Sure, the battle with the goblin was engaging, and the gold he dropped was useful. But these are just means to an end. >True, and a sad one.I don't think it's sad. It's important.
In general, I would like to say that the first you accept humans are very inherently contradictory regardless of intention, the first you will feel completely at peace with yourself.You thought I wasn't aware what it means for me to claim I don't like getting stereotyped, yet intentionally play up stereotypes that lead to the true type at times, just "for fun"?But it's cool, Jung makes you accept this fact quite easily by claiming one is the conscious attitude, the other is the unconscious one.
>typeINTJ>were you a "good student" in school?I skipped High School, but probably yeah.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Extinct.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?That's terrible since MBTI is junk.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?Any extrovert who'd be my Valentine
>>83920001Sediment for the reservoir? >>83919996>Yea not denying that, the attitude is the most obvious part>>83914540Look, we made a circle together.>I've seen that both Jung and Von Franz made examples of problems happening just between function-types.Yeah? If you find them, post them.>Guess the peak of the irrational function, in a single word, is the "falsification".https://sorenkierkegaard.org/concept-of-anxiety.html
>>83920306>>Yea not denying that, the attitude is the most obvious partLol lmao. Holy synchronicity on the contradiction talk, you did that obviously on purpose.Yeah, I wonder which one is which now, maybe it's really just both because I don't see much of a reason to disregard the type problem on the basis of function-type>Yeah? If you find them, post them.Von Franz here, though she says she's quoting Jung:>In Psychological Types, Jung explains some of the misunderstandings between the types. If I had said that this office girl was calculating and acting out of opportunism, it would have been absolutely wrong; that was only a background motive in her case. Such a judgment would be the negative projection of the opposite type. It is not that she is just an opportunist or is acting in a calculating way in having such positive feelings; she has differentiated feeling. She therefore never has strong feeling reactions; she knows that where there is value there is always something negative.>anxietyDon't like it, too generic. "Falsification" is inherently closer to accidentally or intentionally manipulating the perception of reality.
>>83920429Did you read what was linked, or just the link?>"Falsification" is inherently closer to accidentally or intentionally manipulating the perception of reality.It also isn't irrational.>Von Franz hereCan you give me the full context, or tell me where it is?
>>83920429>file nameWait, why are you confused?>Holy synchronicity on the contradiction talk, you did that obviously on purpose.What synchronicity? What did i do on purpose? This sentence is completely unintelligible.
>>83920557Skimmed it a little, will do a full read soon enough.Anyways, my comment was only on the word.>It also isn't irrationalPrefer "emulation"? The concept I'm driving at is being unable to immediately tell whether you are seeing the thing or something that reproduces the thing fairly accurately, be it to your senses or intuitive grasping. And this should happen both within yourself, and out of yourself, both with and without intention.>context "Lectures on Jung's Typology", the first part called "The Inferior Function". If you can't find I could drop the pdf on a temp link...Anyways, very fun read, I'm recommending it in general and just finished doing to somebody IRL too.
>>83920571>Wait, why are you confused?Yes. Blue truthing it as:"Many people observe attitude-type because they tend to be more familiar with the the concepts of introverts and extraverts, but in an individual case it's equally as likely to observe the function-typ, especially the more known Thinking and Feeling opposition. It is merely observer effect.">>83920571>What synchronicity? What did i do on purpose? This sentence is completely unintelligible.There was contradiction talk above you coming from me, and what you did was pointing out how I contradicted myself quite quickly.Guess you missed the post in question.
>Your type>First three things you hear in this ambient field sample: https://voca.ro/1dFgAS5mdEEN
>>83920703>slotsSuch a boring and really fucking rigged way to gamble, why not Poker? That is genuinely a good mix of strategy(macro-context) and some luck(sometimes a good hand saves the day, all skill btw).
>>83920728Casino poker sucks compared to home poker, still better than slots.
>>83920306>https://sorenkierkegaard.org/concept-of-anxiety.htmlThe last quote here:>All existence make me anxious, from the smallest fly to the mysteries of the Incarnation; the whole thing is inexplicable to meAt face value it sounds like more of a rational attitude, because the irrational attitude generally goes for "it is what it is". Though, there is certainly a side of "but is it what it is? is it being faked?", which is where the rational auxiliaries finally come into play.>>83920794Fair enough, I don't play it in casinos either. There are some Se-groids and probably Ne-groids too I know who occasionally do poker nights at their place, and I join cause why not. It's low-stakes anyways
I know I may be a bit late, but pic related! I hope you all have/had a happy Valentine's Day! <3 (>^_^)><(^_^<) <3
>>83912763>typeFirst guess INTJ, Second guess INTP>were you a "good student" in school?I was a good student, until I became exhausted and couldn't deal with all the work, then I dropped out of highschool.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?probably more like japan except everyone is more pedantic, selfish, individualistic and vision oriented. otherwise though, a society of INTJs might be fun to think about in the way each and everyone's introverted intuition projects into the real world. And with valued Thinking, perhaps the systems that are might as well be smoother sliding than they are.Or it might just be a constant battle for power.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?A symptom of East Asia's culture of vanity and hypercomformist desire for categorizing.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?All the ISTPs I've known have been great.
>>83921142Happy Valentine's Day! I'm so glad you made it!
>>83921142Happy Valentine's Day Turbie. Here's your choco box. Good to see ya again.
>>83920728What do you think of stock/real estate speculation? I was thinking about options. If you could find pharma drugs pending approval and get in early, you're looking at massive returns.......I just NEED an INTP to research pharma co's upcoming drugs what they do and likelihood of approval by the gov.
I can't sleep 'cause I live next to a bunch of loud ESFP niggers and it makes me wanna seppuku myself.
>>83921633>What do you think of stock/real estate speculation?iirc we already talked about stock/shares trading and had concluded that generally requires a large initial investment and it's slow. Haven't been following that in at least a decade now so couldn't give you any pointers.Real estate, idk never bothered with that.
>>83921652Aw this poor ISTJ someone get him a baba of warm milkies
>>83921633What do you think about keeping my as your moid pet and turning me into a girl, melt chocolate on your tummy and I'll lick it all off
MBTI races>INFJ White>INTP White, Jewish or Chinese>ENTJ White>ENTP Jewish or Muslim>INFJ Indian>INFP White or NE Asian>ENFJ MENA, Indian or NE Asian>ENFP Hispanic or Polynesian>ISTJ NE Asian >ISFJ NE Asian >ESTJ Muslim or Jewish>ESFJ SE Asian>ISTP Siberian, indeginius or Russian>ISFP Hispanic or Mediterranean >ESTP African>ESFP Hispanic
>>83922036Infj twice no intjsI'm pissy now
>>83920703>>Your typeESFP-T>>First three things you hear in this ambient field sample:I only hear music and ambient conversation. >>83921142Happy Valentine's Day, Turbie. : )
He's stealing my intellectual labors again.
I bet he killed my thread so he could still all of my labor again.
Not gonna lie, if weren't for a HS religion teacher, an IRL acquaintance, and internet, I'd claim Introverted Intuition types aren't even real.Still, when I meet one, or read their stuff, I can tell.Somewhat true with Introverted Thinking too, that I only ever spot in writing (e.g. Von Franz was so fucking blatant before she even said it).The other two introverts I see often, and I don't have many issues telling extraverts apart except my own type ironically enough (because they are good at acting usually lol, people say this an Extraverted Feeling thing but let me tell you, these are blatant too)Also>archetypes To this day I haven't met a single IN who does LOVE to speculah on this shit. It's a fucking drug to them(and I get it really, when you see them, you really start seeing them everywhere). Mysticism, eh depends on whether they are religious.
>>83922134who doesn't LOVE*
>>83920801This "falsification" or "emulation" of yours is just a paradox tilted in the direction of irrationality.If one carries a rational function all the way, one will eventually end up in a paradox, and be forced to either stop, or pick up an irrational function. They end at paradox.One can not carry an irrational function all the way, for there is no end to carry it to, and you'll never be stopped by paradox. This freedom is dizzying, and results naturally in anxiety, and dread. Once these become overwhelming, then one is stopped, brought to his knees, and must stay there or pick up a rational function.
>>83922146That emendation makes your next sentence make no sense. Are you sure you aren't an ESL?
>>83920688>Blue truthing itIt's been three years and i've never read the vn, if we're doing this, you need to indoctrinate me real quick.
>>83921713I've reformulated an idea to make 30%+ gains on single trade over a short time frame. Basically:Pharma Co's have upcoming drugs they want released that get reviewed by the Gov. Info on the drugs has to be released. So I want to get an INFJ or INTP to analyize thousands of past decisions (based on criteria like capitalization, how niche the drug is and likelyhood of postive decision etc). Then cross reference that with how much the stock jumped or declined within a week of a decision, and use that to come up with the probability of a drug spiking a stock to a minimum of 30% (in couple days), and then bet based on that....If I can make 50% returns on average then it would make small investments worth it. Now I asked /biz/ and they said I was insane. But then again then also said silver would never decrease in price again.>>83921993Sure, I could turn you into a "girl" I'm capable of ANYTHING. But I need BIG HARD stacks of cash to satisfy me. Could you take a small sum like $1000 and turn it into $1100 by the end of the month?
>>83922464>So I want to get an INFJ or INTP to analyize thousands of past decisions (based on criteria like capitalization, how niche the drug is and likelyhood of postive decision etc). Then cross reference that with how much the stock jumped or declined within a week of a decision, and use that to come up with the probability of a drug spiking a stock to a minimum of 30% (in couple days), and then bet based on that.Not any of those anons. I once linked you some video about how they manipulate the news around stuff similar to that. But why do you need a person to do that? To me that sounds like a good use case of ai. I've had similar ideas on how to use it for something similar but honestly I'm debating even replying or posting this. Of course some people will already have thought of this and are doing it but why would I want even more doing it? Especially people who aren't even the person I'm replying to. I don't quite like that thought too much. >$1000 and turn it into $1100 by the end of the month?Not him but 10% doesn't sound difficult at all. The only problem is the timing. I like to wait for really red days then give myself some time until my calls hit. Usually do better than 10% if I called it right and gave myself enough time.
>>83922464>Could you take a small sum like $1000 and turn it into $1100 by the end of the month?I can do anything you need me too, boxing, shipping, flipping, cleaning, but I'm a little sissy on hrt so I'm never going to get a big win for you...Maybe I can start an only fans or something and give you all the money...
>>83922575> once linked you some video about how they manipulate the news around stuff similar to thatYou mean the mad money guy? It's crazy to think how much it's manipulated.>I've had similar ideas on how to use it for something similar.What is it? Tell me.>Of course some people will already have thought of this and are doing it but why would I want even more doing it? I'm gonna try it and find out fast if it works or not. Its as simple as that.>Not him but 10% doesn't sound difficult at all.I think a modest %10 gain is a good indication of someone's will to succeed. Most people can't even do that.>>83922578>I can do anything you needGood. Your first mission is to recommend a cute outfit. Dress me head to toe and make it look good. Don't fuck this up.>I'm a little sissy on hrt so I'm never going to get a big win for you...When did you want to become a girl? I'm just curious I'm not judging.>Maybe I can start an only fans or something and give you all the money.How do you make money now? Wagie? Neetbuxs, live with parents?
>>83923264>What is it? Tell meNo. I feel like I've already said too much. I don't like sharing my good ideas publicly but it's pretty similar to what you're already thinking.
>>83923264>Good. Your first mission is to recommend a cute outfitPic Related :3cI would fuck you!! In the pictures I've seen my biggest concern is you don't have comfy sexy enough panties that fit well probably because you're cheaping out and wanting to save money, but it's sooo important!!! That stuff is most expensive cause it's today's release VS so it's kind of a scam, we can get cheaper outfit very similar other times of year but since it's valentines~~ Best to be flirty and splurge a little on the night time and be cool and modest outside>when did you want to become a girl?idk, I've just always pretended to be a girl in MMOs and everyone confuses me for a girl and bi men always try to sleep with me so>How do you make money now?I don't, I am a complete pathetic failure and live with my parents it's why I need you to adopt me... I can't be a girl irl or even shave cause I'm too embarrassed of being found out.
holy shit TEs not even tryna hide it no more
>>83923544TE is clearly suffering from extreme AGP don't be mean.
>>83921142An angel told me to run and escape so I'm going away forever and ever even though it's hard and sad; I've not posted for threads and only look for Turbie sometimes.I love you turbie.This will be my last post before I exit from r9k.Please repent from sins and cleave fast upon your first love, Jesus Christ, the salvation of humanity and He will provide the rest. This place is a land of confusion. Maybe I should never have revived it, but now that it has its own life. It may continue forever. If OP wants to keep it alive, or you, or anyone, then they can do so. Just keep on consistently creating, but I'm not here to please others. I do not like it here because this places causes me to sin!!! I hate it. I can't be around it. It's horrible. I wish turbie and I could have made it work and got married like lilac and centaur but she is maybe not even a girl idk, all I know is she isn't trans. What if that dream about you I had you said was correct in weird ways because I was the one reversed? I wish you would tell me. Anyway, I need a wife! If its not Turbie then I'm out. Thank you for being my girlfriend in my times of mental illness. I am sad writing this, and tears fall down my face, I would still love you to email me whenever. turbieenjoyer.unequal541@passinbox.com but this is place is sinful and I want a lot, someday we will meet again I hope. Perhaps in the life after. May Father Bless you and Keep you.May he shine upon you and be gracious.May he turn towards you and give you peace.Last night I dreamed of a train ride across the world where I blessed and shared the gospel to many. But I woke up feeling inadequate worthless, a sinner. Two paths diverge in the woods and all that. Will you all spend the next years rebuilding something that will last the fires or will you be completely given over to the reprobate mind? I pray to be delivered from everything that vexxes my spirit.
>>83921142I heard you're single now. I wanted to say Happy Valentines and thank you for gracing us and just being you.
* gleeful*Oh my goy tht Is so y gratifying,,
>TE is cheating on Turbie WITH DIARREHAGIRLWHAT IS THIS TIMELINE???
get on Th gound and grovel my litle Goys for it is iGOD manipulatineg your every Mind manuver your every nueral fire was just another afirmation archived in my divinediary offf destineay,,
>>83924105You're very manic today princess. Did you have a nice shabbat feast with abba?
>>83923478Thanks. I like the asymmetric skirt and collatered white top. And the boots are nice. But I mostly dress in utilitarian fashion like picrel (as of dec 2025). >comfy sexy enough panties that fit well probably because you're cheaping out and wanting to save money, but it's sooo important!!! It's about using money like a tool. If I get 100$ I could invest it and get 8$ a year forever. BELIEVE ME when I get enough passive mu-la that I can have fun with cloths, I WILL. That said I AM starting to buy better stuff, cause I want it to last.>I don't, I am a complete pathetic failure and live with my parents1: get neetbucks. 2: start a side hustle, I suggest flipping. I can teach you how to reach $1,000 a month fairly easily (after that it gets more complex), I'll make a graphic (unless I forget). 3: go to community college most states have grants, get certified in sometihng (like nursing assistant).>I need you to adopt me... I'm to early in the accumulation phase to take care of someone. I'm sure the day will come when I can take care of a lot of people, but it's not now.
>>83924521>to early in the accumulation phase to take care of someone.Aren't you in your 30s and have made millions of dollars? How are you incapable of taking care of a single r9k rat?
>>83922223Even after reading and seeing some parallels, I don't think the word describes it accurately enough. Also, what I believe might be happening here is a little Type Probem-ish: I seek a thinkoid term, like paradox and contradiction, while you seek to describe how it feels, the anxiety then, which is true in general terms but doesn't bring me to a reality that's specific enough to the irrationals.>>83922243Are you? That's a double negative."Haven't met any X who doesn't do Y", means "I only met X that does Y", and the next sentence says "Y is like a drug to X", reinforcing the point.>>83922291A red truth was something that will be assumed as a given fact and cannot be ever contradicted. If it eventually is, then it's considered a logic error and the plot falls apart. This rule was introduced because Battler said he simply doesn't accept the premise, and until he doesn't then he can just say Beato is lying to stop any progress.Blue truth was about a theory that must abide to the red, and can be considered also true unless countered. This rule was introduced mostly because Battler and Beatrice figured out the latter can just decide to not let the former progress, she has no obligation to produce red truths, whereas using the blue truth forces it in so far it argues for a specific point (i.e. X has a human explanation so there's no need to believe in magic)
What is the difference between thinking, instinct, and intuition to you?
>>83925193A bit biased by the Jungism here but>thinkingIt has a process that can be immediately explained and broken down in a formula. Its internal validity can be shown formally, and external validity through adherence to the facts.This gives out the impression the speaker "knows" the answer, and shows you how to reach it.>intinct, intuition In common speech these terms mean the same thing, at least in the context of figuring out a truth. An answer is produced without knowing the process and being able to immediately demonstrate on thinkoid(or feeloid) grounds. This answer isn't automatically more or less proper, it simply was reached in a different method.This gives out the impression the speaker does not "know" the answer, and calls it a reaction that doesn't tell you anything about how to properly reproduce it due to its irrational nature. It feels like a lucky guess, or a purely anecdotal statement at best.The quote says it well, because these two things are not actually opposed to each other and can be merged. You can "guess" and then "know" it was right or wrong, you can "know" and then "guess" what comes next.What is truly opposed to those is the reverse way to reason(e.g. Thinking to Feeling) or estimate reality itself(Sensation to Intuition).
>>83923910Stop being depressed TE. It's unbecoming of you. No one can save you but you. I would suggest finding a SEA or real ethnic Hispanic woman, instead of dumping your despair here onto turbie.>>83924572I'll explain as easily as possible: >1: I have to live off interest or the money won't last for rest of my life. >2: You gotta leave some gains for inflation/growth. During up times I take multiple years of income to ride out recessions.>3: TAXES: Capital gains, state exsise and then weird taxes on top of that take about 30% so long story short I get like 50k a year.>4: My morgage, HOA, home/car insurance, electric bill ALONE are $4,000 a month.>5: Anything I make from my hustles, and doesn't go to other bills or food gets shoved into investments.You see someone completely dependant on me would essentially slow the process, or even stall it out. And I don't wanna be stuck at this stage for decades. Plus I've taken care of 2 moids and roommate girl (at different points), and I'm just gonna say it: people revert to a child/parent dynamic, they treat you like the parent and not in good way. One of the moids all our interactions devolved into him begging for money all the time, the girl never asked for money but she expected me to fuggin clean up her dishes, do her laundry, make her food, and clean the whole house by myself.
>>83925349>girl never asked for money but she expected me to fuggin clean up her dishes, do her laundry, make her food, and clean the whole house by myself.You are bisexual?? Why are the foids here all bi or pansexual?
>typeINTP>were you a "good student" in school?No, had bad grades and skipped classes.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?More technologically and economically advanced, but very boring for there would be no sensors and feelers to fuck everything up.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Pseudoscientific bullshit designed to make people feel special.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?INFP
>>83925487>no sensor/feelersBut that's so uncute..... My inferior sensation and lower aux feeling doesn't want to live in a reality where there is no cuteness. Especially the introverted side, look at how fucking cute Japan is and how their country is basically a living Si-groid stereotype(with aux feeling).
>>83925277https://twitter.com/JordanGush/status/1961120038657609951https://youtu.be/Lw5-Snk8sEIWhat is this called? Where someone makes a casual observation that turns into simple advice that has a huge impact? Often something that everyone else easily overlooked.
S*ceity spits on my cognitive style and tells me I must endure it or I'll be sent to the streets and die
>>83925655Me too man. My uncle also. He's kinda a husk now because he gets a zap in his brain every time he tries to concentrate like he used to.
>>83925579First answer would be, that just intuition. Somebody makes a casual observation(just a little bit of sensation) and somehow everything clicks together and you write an entire novel about it?(overwhelming intuition)But if we want to move a little further than that, depending on your type it could simply be somebody giving you a hint about the inferior function.wow the mystery in this episode was written in a very strange way. Actually giving you the hints, the answer makes sense... but the logic the cures use is the most retarded shit ever AND contradicted by the episode itself, despite leading to the same answer.
Fun fact, if you are ENTJ, then according to PDBA, that means you're the same type as this character who is a drunk perverted virgin loser weeb romance game obsessed who gets manipulated by girls and collects anime toy figurines
>>83925852>First answer would be, that just intuition.>somehow everything clicks together and you write an entire novel about it?Yes but specifically going out of your way to share that insight with someone else to help improve something about them or their situation. What is that called and why isn't there a name for it?
>>83925921I fail to see how an ENTJ couldn't fit all of those:>easily manipulated by [anything he likes], not good at romanceSquarely inferior Feeling>perverted, collects anime toy figurinesWith a side of inferior Sensation, where he's more aware but mixes the inferior feeling with a sensation. Especially approaching the introverted attitude. Also purely on observation, every ET(N) I know likes anime, both IRL and on the internet, they are fairly consistent on this for some reason.>b-but MBTI told me they are all sigma chads literally dominating the worldHmm nyo.>>83925979Really don't think you can associate this with anything in Jung.That's just, thinking you have something useful there and giving it to another person or writing out there because why not.
>>83912763>TypeINFP>Societyeveryone would be miserable and they'd overthink everything anyone said and they'd be so boring but everyone would be nice to each other and noone would be mean>South Korea do not care at all>Respection no this is all made up
Been done already, but that's always up for a recap imo.>type>do you believe there was a point in your life, or right now you might still be a "distorted type"?>do you know somebody who is very clearly one but doesn't seem to have realized yet?As per Jung, the "distorted type", or "type falsification", generally happens when the environment forced you to adapt by an auxiliary function before you even had the time to properly refine the main function, despite the fact that you still ultimately fall back to that and it's very much the first thing you see when you aren't making any effort to use the auxiliary instead.
>>83925059>That's a double negative.No it isn't.>"Haven't met any X who doesn't do Y">the next sentence says "Y is like a drug to X"Not a single one of these words were in that post.
Okay, you meant you're post, not mine.And i misread "drug" as "drag". Whatever. I'm still bored now.
Remember though. Once it's happenstance, twice is a coincidence, three times it's enemy action.Hmmmmm...
>not really into mbti just randomly analyze what mbti do my favorite anime girls have>pretty much all infj, enfp, infp more rarely entp, intj/intp >im specifically borderline intp/j and entp seems pretty nice but i wouldnt be able to fully relate to onehow do i find an nf gf
>>83927784All mistypes btw>entp seems pretty niceThere are many words I would use to describe ENTPs, and "nice" isn't one of them.
>>83927852havent looked but its probably some corpo go getter type which i dont hatewhats mistype
>>83927860>whats mistypeReally just means getting the type wrong. To not be confused with aforementioned "type falsification", that's not just a mistake there and actually comes with benefits.
>>83927871its not fucking rocket science buddy you probably think youre smarter than you are
>>83927975Opposite way around, typing is difficult both because the theory kinda succs unless you return to Jvng, and because by default you have to go beyond their behavior and see the motives and intentions there, along with the accidents.
>>83927852my wntp bf was nice
>>83928244What's a wntp
>>83927784theyre cartoon characters bro their no were near as complex as a realperson why are you makinh this comparisonwas it an isekai?>>83928252my entp bf was nonchalant whimsy cute puppyboy that likes egostrokes
>>83926750Type falsification is not what you claim it is. It's not about auxiliaries. It's, in simple terms, LARPing with a persona that is socially rewarding. For example, presenting oneself as a thinking type because it makes you feel smart.And this is pretty much exactly how everyone uses typology, as a persona label, a social mask to avoid differentiation.
>>83928380That's just a different concept altogether. One that Jung didn't even bother mentioning because he wasn't making it about the persona in the first place.>And this is pretty much exactly how everyone uses typology, as a persona label, a social mask to avoid differentiation.That's just giga doomerism. Like yeah, I'm sure many people who get into MBTI or even 16p superficially would fit, but some are pretty serious about it(though probably misguided by blog stuff, everyone been there at least once in their typology journey I'm sure).
>>83928471Jung doesn't mention auxiliary functions at all in the way you're talking about.Ego inflation, persona masking and archetypal possession are the things which cause type falsification. Not your pseudo pop-sci 16p garbo about aux functions. Basically EVERYONE who uses MBTI fits into that category. Because that's how MBTI is packaged and sold. It's the express purpose of it.
>>83928949>Jung doesn't mention auxiliary functions at all in the way you're talking about.Not in PT, but anon are you for realz. Type falsification or distorted types aren't even something that exists outside of pure Jvng. >Basically EVERYONE who uses MBTI fits into that category.Sort of? Not knowing the "right" theory doesn't mean you aren't trying to go beyond the corpocuckery, that's a personal attitude that makes it about introspection or whatever else they are into.
>>83928471In fact, the very notion you're putting forth that the auxiliary is somehow favored over the dominant is strictly ANTI-Jung. Straight garbage. Hot out of the trashcan.
>>83928976I seriously think you need to look a little past PT, while still staying in Jungian territory of course. Those didn't come from modern MBTI at all, iirc they were brought up mostly by Von Franz(or at least that's where my ctrl+f'ing leads me to in my hueg quote collection) who to be fair has the tendency to go full speculah over brief quotes or things she talked with Jung directly(apparently the "middle realm" justification was unironically "he told me that IRL and never wrote about it LOL" goddamn it Jvng....), so trying to find out exactly where she got that from ain't easy.
>>83928972He doesn't mention it in any way in the way you're trying to frame it. He mentions it as persona inflation, ego inflation and archetypal possession. Type falsification exists, just not the way you're trying to frame it. It's primarily about persona inflation, acting in a way which is socially acceptable/beneficial, even though it is not "who you really are".It's not about functions. Very little of Jung's typology theory deals with functions. They're literally the least important thing.>>83929101I'm not even talking about PT. I'm talking about Jung as whole. PT is the book I have the least experience with, because it's not very interesting. It's just a book of definitions, effectively. I don't care what some third party said. If it doesn't align with Jung's theory, it's not Jungian. If Vagina-haver Franz said some shit about auxiliaries being the cause of type distortion, she is creating her own theory. Which is fine and all.But it's not Jungian, and defies Jung outright.
Type distortion is a very simple phenomenon. The ego misplaces its own "living location" and believes itself to be something it is not.The ego believes it is the persona, for example. This is unrelated to functions. It's related to social interaction, behaviors. When someone is forced to behave a certain way for an extended period of time due to social constraints, their ego loses its identity and melds with the persona, believing itself to be the persona. This happens with trauma, where the ego believes it *IS* the trauma responses, and refuses to be rid of them. It happens with all sorts of other socially-caused behaviors.It's a very simple phenomenon that's very easily explainable without mentioning functions at all-Because functions aren't related.
>>83929150We are talking about different things here, like you are going in a more generic sense of "personality" as opposed to specifically things related to the typology.>They're literally the least important thing.And I contest this one openly because, while PT did little with it, I will repeat that Jung himself eventually picked up the pace and started talking about functions more and more. Specifically, he was concerned with a method that involves trying to get to the inferior function by relying on the auxiliaries(specifying here, he doesn't mean the 2nd function only, but the 2nd and the 3rd, both are auxiliary). And something that I personally enjoyed was straight up making them about 4 different aspects of reality that by themselves form a complete circle(heh).>auxiliaries being the cause of type distortionOpposite way around. The type falsification would happen basically because your context really doesn't favor the main function at all, but also you cannot get straight to the inferior, what's left is anchoring yourself to an auxiliary:e.g. if you are """born""" intuitive but end up in a field where you need to always explain things thinkoidally or watch them being dismissed as mere feeloidism, such as producing mathematical proof, then guess what would happen here both to your outward behavior and even your identification to some degree. Unless you have a very perfect self-awareness of what you are doing here(i.e. still intuiting first and faster than how you use auxiliary thinking). That would be no mere simulation, you are genuinely stressing over the auxiliary to produce appropriate thinking, and in a way differentiating it early, though what you are doing is also violating your more natural disposition which leads to some sort of dissociation which can be dealt with in analysisTrying to sum this up was some work but there was an attempt.
>>83928082fictional characters dont have inherent types so your whole premise is retardedoperating within framework of mbti is not rocket science, rocket science is where you have to accoubt for its shortcomingsas ive said, im between intj and intp>>83928295are you a hs dropout or on 5 different ssris faggot learn to spell
>>83929431>fictional characters dont have inherent types so your whole premise is retardedWait until you find out how the entire theory came to be lol lol lol. Jung himself has half of his book talking about fictional stuff no joke, way more than half I'm sure.Actually, it is relatively easier(but still kinda hard) to type fictional characters both because the writer might give you unfiltered access to their "brain"(so it makes you able to tell apart what things they intend to do, what just happened to them accidentally, etc.) and try to overfit certain archetypes, or at worst just stereotypes(which would make it "easy" but the character really wouldn't stick out much). The latter just happened to me recently because I just watched first a show with annoying ENFJ stereotypal protagonist, to a side-character in a different show from the same series doing the same type, but with a little more self-awareness.
>>83929319>generic sense of "personality"No. I am talking specifically about typology, Jungian typology very specifically.>while PT did little with itHow can you get literally everything wrong? PT was the only book that dealt primarily in the realm of functions. His other books mostly just tertiarily reference them.>to get to the inferior function by relying on the auxiliariesIncorrect. You rely on active imagination, which is unrelated to any function specifically. The way one gets to the inferior function is by releasing the identity with the dominant function and allowing an attitude shift to happen.>because your context really doesn't favor the main function at all,Straight nonsense. And, you've made it abundantly clear here:>e.g. if you are """born""" intuitive That you don't understand what type means. Because you're not "born" as a type. Type is something you become. Your biology doesn't determine your dominant function. The ego's identification with and development of a function determines its dominance. You're speaking in terms of biological determinism and treating functions as skills which have preferable circumstances. There's no such thing as a situation or context where intuition isn't applicable, even in a context like law enforcement where intuition isn't generally accepted as "good enough evidence" that intuition can be used to find the said evidence. Relying on the auxiliaries more doesn't result in type distortion. It results in the exact opposite, a more differentiated psyche which isn't dominated by a one sided attitude towards a function.You're getting things almost exactly backwards. Your type is distorted because you identity with your shadow, you identify with your persona, the ego over-identifies with the dominant function and creates a one-sided attitude where the ego believes itself to *BE* the function, the ego identifies with something that isn't the ego. That's it. It's not a complex topic.
>>83929629>>No. I am talking specifically about typology, Jungian typology very specifically.Doesn't look like it to me? While Ego, Persona, Shadow etc. are all involved with the type(e.g. generally the Shadow has a lot to do with the inferior function and specifically its contents but it's not literally the same thing) too, they are not the same.Think you are getting to hung up on the "personality" part, type is a psychological compass to sort out psychic contents, and invest libido either outwardly or inwardly, very roughly speaking.> PT was the only book that dealt primarily in the realm of functions. His other books mostly just tertiarily reference them.Not talking about the sheer quantity of text, of course. The concepts in PT are mostly descriptive.Going forward, he started associating more concepts with them, and even came up with aforementioned method.>active imaginationIn fact, active imagination in his typology is basically just trying to engage with the lower functions(hence their contents) in a relatively "safe" way, while also making sure to establish some sort of relationship with the given contents.>Because you're not "born" as a typeWhy do you think I used a lot of quotation marks there.Well, going by Jung you are born introverted or extraverted apparently, but the function type develops later and there might a natural disposition here that goes beyond mere ego identification.>Relying on the auxiliaries more doesn't result in type distortion.Context-sensitive. If that's being forced on you, that is a distortion. If you are proceeding naturally due to your main function growing a little too unilaterally, then yea sure.> There's no such thing as a situation or context where intuition isn't applicableIf that were true, then the entire thing would exist in a vacuum and have literally nothing to do with reality at all, both inner and outer.Good thing Jung claimed the exact opposite.
Also what the fuck am I reading.When it comes to ego identification, it should be broken down in a [ego]->[content] relationshipIt is never possible to do [ego]->[shadow] directly, what you can actually do here is [ego]->[content that emerged from the unconscious], and since the previous relationship was [shadow]->[unconscious content], now when that content comes to light in the conscious attitude it will actually speak off something that was attached to the Shadow and might not have undergone any conscious differentiation, hence, it will be primitive.The functions work in a similar way, though the difference is that functions are a dynamic activity that keeps spawning more contents:[undifferentiated content]->[differentiated sensation activity]->[content abstracted from non-sensation stuff]->[relatively differentiated thinking activity]->[content abstracted from intuition and relatively feeling]Why am I suddenly doing unironic formulas, ask that to the auxiliary thinking..
>typeINTJ>were you a "good student" in schooli got good grades>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?highly individualistic, highly capitalist, definitely not democratic>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Didn't know about it. MBTI is basically astrology for non spiritual people tho, so it makes sense it's popular somewhere.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?I guess extroverts in general? I feel like they get too much hate, even tho I hate them too.
>>83929739Such people have to make it complex so they can bullshit their way out of confronting themselves. The truth is, the truth is always simple and small, but sharp.
>>83930182Or maybe your thinking finally gave up to what is ultimately just trying to adopt an ontological stance.By necessity, because if the very concept of a thing does not exist by itself, then I cannot claim it exists. Observable manifestations from the outside are another story.
Very crazy making an >extravert go for ontological arguments, but alas.The irony isn't lost on me, but good thing the thinking is in fact only auxiliary.Still that was a scary experience what the hell, too introverted...
I see no real point in continuing this conversation.It's not possible to engage with the current formulation of conversation. My points are not being addressed, rather just being reframed and reformulated. I make a distinction, it gets converted into a new, different abstraction.You're treating Jung as a structure which supports something personal to you. Right now, the model seems to be functioning as a position rather than a tool. Are these things that you're saying something which you're exploring, or something that you require to be true? If it turns out that what you believe about Jung's theory turns out to be false, what is lost?
Well the "personal" part would be my own sense of reason, you could say. You keep claiming the possibility of X=!X which is just formally mistaken and paradoxical.
>>83912763>typeINTP-T>were you a "good student" in school?I think I was always a good student but had a bad support system. Graduated with a 1.7 GPA in high school, then a 3.85 GPA in undergrad with two majors and two minors. I knew I was capable, all I needed was to get away from my abusive family.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?I think it'd be better. We'd all be half-inventors, half wanderers, and half workers. Ideally society would be more socialist and egalitarian. The downside is maintenance of physical things would probably stall.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Any obsession of MBTI is stupid, but it's predictable. Hyper-capitalist societies will commodity their culture and identities. People grow desperate for some form of attachment to a meaning for life outside of consumerism and will find anything to give a sense of purpose.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?Nah. Just like horoscopes it's all for fun and people taking it seriously are just desperate for an identity.
>>83930445>Well the "personal" part would be my own sense of reason.Well, at least you make it clear that my intuition was correct. >You keep claiming the possibility of X=!XJung does not posit a logically coherent system of analysis. It contains paradoxes. Paradoxes are inherent to the system, because the psyche is paradoxical by its own nature. Trying to remove the paradoxes in order to create a clean system does not do Jung's ideas any justice. Quite the opposite, in fact. It paints over the canvas which contained a picture with pure white paint. In Jungian terms, it's killing an alive symbol because it reveals something you don't want to see.My question to you is not whether x!=x is logically coherent or valid, but why anything that can't be reduced to formal reason is being dismissed automatically.
>>83930591And once again I need to put a clear distinction.The psychology itself might be contradictory and paradoxical.But the theory is only concerned with "why" it happens, and draw the lines between what's the conscious and the unconscious at very least in purely formal terms. Otherwise, the entire theory is just meaningless words.>My question to you is not whether x!=x is logically coherent or valid, but why anything that can't be reduced to formal reason is being dismissed automatically.Within this context, as explained above.In general terms? Because simply put reason cannot move from a paradox on its own, it will require more investigation. For as long I'm proceeding through your ideas or mine, necessarily I need to remove this or it stops making any sense. That is, for as long I proceed with a rational function to be precise.
Oh well, I made the attempt. If you want to reflexively dismiss paradoxes and ambiguity in order to retain your habitual, rigid thinking attitude which promises clarity over understanding, so be it. Maybe you should probe into yourself further and figure out why that is your preferred way of interacting with things that don't maintain logical consistency.But I'm not interested in a one sided rigid conversation which dismisses the real truths for convenient comfort and systematized understanding, like cleaving away the roses off the bush in order to make the bush uniform.
No one is dismissing the truth itself, but try to understand one thing:As far reason goes, it can only ever proceed internally to formal validity, or to the evidence provided by the external. If the idea is not validated by either, then simply put it's either dismissed or put in hold for further investigation. Junganically this isn't just Thinking, it's also Feeling, it either has to return to archetypal goodness and badness, or visible evidence of what actual people feel about it.Something that just doesn't find either justification is simply claimed as a fact because it is, kinda says nothing more than making you aware of itself. At this point though there's no argument in the first place, there's just seeing it. Same as above, that's irrational in general.What you fail to understand is that nobody is denying the facts, it's just trying to explain them in a way thst accords to reason as approximately as possible.Jung did this, he did not simply report facts, he drew some fancy circles about which automatically imply he's making them fit in a system, where he clearly draws the lines, he puts labels, and all of that fun thinkoid stuff.
tl;drHoly 2L vs 3L my man(psychosophy/attitudinal psyche for who isn't in the loop)
Just had a synchronicity drag me in here by force and what do I see...>dude! the problem of Munchausen Trilemma!I'm ripping the synchronicity manager a new one for this. I'm absolutely slamming the Munchausen Trilemma concept into the wall here. Threw times. The manager is next.
Damn the summoning ritual actually worked.Take that, magic deniers.
The /mbti/ Grimoire says that, if you literally vomit your entire Thinking function all over the thread, so hard that you can literally see formulas spill out from your guts, and yet it's contrasted in an almost equal force by a paradoxical counteraction, it will eventually put in motion a phenomenon of pure Jungian causality(better known as "synchronicity"), which is known to affect "Patchy anon". Typically at least 2 parties are required for this operation.The target initially begins to come out in pure ethereal form(usually referred as "lurking"), until the body is fully formed again and he might be able to least leave a single reply. Once materialized, the Danmaku Witches(claiming peer-review from the Middle School of Magical Girls, though this was never properly demonstrated) recommend to attempt establishing contact through your inner "Speculah", not the outer, it must truly come from within and be not contaminated, or it might destroy the physical form once more.
Jung slop is boring. Mbti is fun. Why is this true?
Ain't it the opposite way around Jung is writing a goddamn grimoire but acting like it's thinkoidal, MBTI is SOVLLESS corpo cuckery that doesn't even properly say anything about how much of a good corpo drone you are. Also tertiary function logic error
I have been under the spell of feeling pretty lonely which is something that I don't really feel that often.
>find archive posts with all the right root keywords I'm researching >archivemancy, I call it>really right keyword uses. what wavelength overlap with myself... how interesting>zone out>look again>it's just different archetype possession posts. I had a contamination possession moments looking at the posts. the posters had sacrificed the respectively opposite quadrants as if by the book >they had self-contained depth but next to none of the holistic depth ...Playing Lego out of people's whatevers. Is nauseating. On the other hand, it's whatevers, in the first place. You butcher them, cook them up, cut that up, eat that up daily and never really complain. Actually, you blame them when their whatevers don't fit the recipes you frequent. Also, you didn't have issues with the food analogy being a food analogy so you're a fatso.
But we're in the mbti thread. Corpos use mbti. No one posts in the Jung thread.
So, admitting our descent into magic aside(it's okay, everyone will memory hole this in a few post and we will seem thinkoids again), managed to meme who I assume to be an ET(N) into both Jung and Von Franz. This is going place, can't wait for them to point out their own type.Just for the sake of I even prepared a list of people/characters we know to use as examples of types.>be me>first say I want to avoid odd misunderstandings by engaging too much >not even a full month later the excitement takes overEeeeeeh okay maybe forget the list?
Bumpin the thread, while in bed, with a fuzzy head, so im takin meds.
>typeintp>were you a "good student" in school?i was thrown into the gt program early. i was widely considered one of the smartest kids for most of my life. That started changing in early high school, though I was still considered smart (but I started falling into the smart but lazy or truant/apathetic trope).I stopped doing homework and things in eighth grade. I tried to escape more into vidya or shit like WoW at the time. I was still widely regarded as one of the smartest until senior year, but my grades began to drop around sophmore year. I was still in a scholars program where you take as many AP classes as possible before college. I then nearly failed out of university in aerospace engineering by my junior of uni after not going to class for nearly 3 years other than exams. I eventually finished, but my transcripts look bipolar. I did far better when I started grad school years later while working, though i felt like it was a fake - pay for a degree - type program even though it's a well-regarded university.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?probably soulless houses, clean streets, no people out and about, efficiency and well thought out industry and conscientious people. However, there'd be a pervasive sense of depression and everyone seemingly not allowing anyone else close. There'd be open-mindedness, but no actual warmth. Lots of people who try to escape to the woods and never socialize with anyone else. >what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?don't know. i don't view MBTI as very accurate in the least, and i believe it's just an arbitrary way to classify people arbitrarily. I don't see it having much measurable value from a psychological standpoint or for use in a quantitative sense. >is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?don't know
>>83932288 tutu dogwhistledouble dubs of crossfading
>Your type>Your feelings toward illicit substances and have you done any
>>83932579>Your typeYou>Your feelings toward illicit substances and have you done anySorry, I'm not a drug affict who does shrooms, weed, or lsd.
>>83932579I didn't have inhalation with those drugs!
Recently I had a sudden bout of loneliness, I no longer feel it. It was so weirdly intense though, I rarely if ever feel lonely
gonna take a break from this board. sorry if the threads die without megl
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JTeZuIbj1y0&
The above argument reminds of a dialogue between two characters written by an anon on this very website, just a different board. I assume they were respectively ENFP and ENTP, and the context was about whether the fun of magical shows is about figuring out the tricks, or not knowing them.The ENFP grill, obviously, takes the side of making it all about the wonder and that beginning to think about it would just destroy the entire thing.The ENTP grill, even more obviously, takes the side of arguing that pointing out this isn't saying anything both the audience and the magician aren't already aware of, elaborating on how through the scheme is doesn't make it any less wonderful. That is merely a more intellectual kind of fun and some people are into that.Eventually this escalates in something shockingly close to what was being said here:the former seems reluctant to subject everything to human reasoning because it feels rigid, forcefully imposed, and wonders if there's some sort of shadowy authority who wants us to destroy all wonder with our own hands, or rather our minds. And if such a thing is true, why would anyone want to listen to it? Just to feel smarter?the latter says that actually human reasoning, coupled with just enough imagination, is the most flexible thing in the world and the most peculiar aspect is how you can simultaneously say something that "makes sense" yet it's exactly as magical as the show you are watching, in other words, that is merely how humans create their own magic.The context was obviously set up to favor the latter if you ask me(objectively, the magician does what the ENTP says), but it might be my own typological bias on arguments I would use too.Very fun parallels, didn't notice until I thought about it at night.
Also, I have the feeling(intuition) that the actual point being made there returned to Fe-groidism, which is to say trying to solve a Type Problem with pure "but these fictional people(and thus real people who would find themselves caught in a similar situation) aren't even actually disagreeing on what they both feel like".Eeeh, to be fair I'm starting to wonder whether Jung himself exaggerated this one because he himself has inferior feeling(and personally, there are some things* I don't agree with when it comes to assuming whether two different types would understand each other or not). For how big and unsolvable the Type Problem seems, it's because we are tackling it purely as a theoretical problem.* e.g. "the hardest thing for you to understand isn't your complete opposite, but opposite attitude-type with the same function-type, so an extraverted thinker and an introverted one" , in actual practice that doesn't seem to hold unless the conflict is more specifically between a differentiated position and an inferior one: exactly like Jung's differentiated Ti-groidism opposing Freud's inferior Te-groidisms.So the biggest irony here is that Jung himself had the answer all along, he wrote exactly what he was missing himself, yet still proceeded as if he isn't seeing it.
>>83932579>Your typeINFP>Your feelings toward illicit substances and have you done anyI have done shrooms, weed and lsd. I can hear satellite signals now.
>>83932579>>Your typeENTJ>>Your feelings toward illicit substancesI think done sparingly some are ok, DMT seems interesting. > and have you done anyI was addicted to dexedrine for 3 years (after mil). At first It felt like I was a kid again, like winter was summer. It could instantly solve issues: Tired? Unmotivated? Can't focus? sad/anxious/etc TAKE SOME, problem solved. It gave me nuclear-motivation, magnetic charisma & creativity that flowed like a waterfall. ...For a while I was functional even optimal, but I pushed my self to far/hard and took ungodly amounts, and then I couldn't stop, my need felt like a person dying of thirst. I would be up for 5-6 days, ringing in my ears was endless. I started believing the most insane paranoid shit. I started seeing/hearing stuff (even having conversations LOL). Then I started to really fuck up: I got mugged cause I lost all common sense, I OD'ed (& two hours later I took more), then I crashed my car...I realised I would keep falling down and there was no bottom so I quit. For like 2 weeks I basically just slept. And then for like 6 months I was a sad doomer, I covered cravings by pounding down energy drinks, after that I was fine. What I learned was normal life is mildly pleasant (if you can resolve your issues) and that outlasts a drug high 30x longer with no downside.
>>83934217You think you've cracked the code on jungs 'type problem' with your little armchair psychoanalysis session. 'I have the feeling' yeah, no shit, that's literally your dominant function doing cartwheels while you pretend you're doing deep theory. Congrats on having a hunch and immediately dressing it up as profound irony. You're not exposing some hidden contradiction in Jung. You're just projecting your own unresolved Fe-Ti tension and calling it insight. The whole thing reads like someone who's spent way too much time on typology forums trying to sound like they've transcended the discourse. 'Fe-groidism' 'Ti-groidism' 'inferior Te-groidisms' you can't do anything but 4chan memespeak. But you do you, Fe-nigger 'philosopher king'.>>83934264You chase fleeting chemical euphoria that leaves you exactly where you started, except poorer and with worse working memory. I'm outgrowing you in real time, so enjoy your plateau, "king".>>83934692Oh wow look at you Mr sober like you just unlocked the final level of adulthood. You quit drugs? Cool. You replaced them with what, blogposting? You're just a former addict who stopped poisoning yourself, bare minimum achievement unlocked. I'm an active life addict to science and learning, and the tolerance only goes up because the ceiling keeps rising. Enjoy your beige recovery arc champ.
>>83934907But the contradiction is there? Well, not internally, it's a mismatch with actual outside world experience, but it has a formal explanation too. Can go both ways, since Jung himself provided evidence of eventually "properly" typing Freud as a Fi-groid first and foremost, and what caused the type problem was the inferiority of his Te-groidisms. Hardly anything that tells me his own opinion there was any more valid than mine.
>>83934907>I'm an active life addict to science and learningLOL This has to be bait. >Enjoy your beige recovery arc champ.You're a frogposer "champ", you're not better then anyone.
>>83934962Oh GOD, ANOTHER WORD SALAD FROM THE TYPOLOGY CULT>Jung himself provided evidence of eventually properly typing Freud as a Fi-groidSOURCE NEEDED RIGHT THE FUCK NOW. You can't just drop 'jung said so' then act like that settles the debate. Show me where Jung explicitly says 'Freud is a Fi-dom with inferior Te'. Just because Jung retroactively slapped a type label on his ex-BFF after they had a massive falling out doesnt magically make it objective truth. Thats called confirmation bias + personal grudge, not a formal explanation. Your entire argument is 'well Jung changed his mind once so my head canon is valid'. NO. Thats not how evidence works. Thats how typology circlejerks work. Post the actual quote or GTFO. Im begging you.
>>83935040Use the archives my man, this shit was quoted several times now.>but it's still no objective proof of typingNot today, I invoke Devil's Proof right here. How do I obtain "objective proof of typing" at all? It's either going to be Jung's opinion, or mine based on purely empirical observation. In this case specifically, I'm going to trust Jung on this one, he knew Freud way better than anything I could possibly do by reading his stuff.
>>83935040>SOOUURCE?!?! No, you can't make inferences from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION. Do you have a degree in that field? You don't? Then your argument is invalid.
Oh well, just to move on:https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/73765545/#73770688tl;dr Jung says that Freud, after looking carefully, is an IF(N)(or INFP, however you want to call it.)This stuff was quoted so many times that it's imprinted in my memory. Usually either in the context of Freud himself, or to prove what kind of stuff Jung does to type people(seriously, he just went in and say "I typed him backwards because people can start acting from the inferior function"? talk about a massive trap that I'm not sure how the hell you would even avoid normally)
>>83935004Oh wow straight to the personal attacks. Adorable. It's honestly kind of cute how you're projecting so hard.>>83935064Look, it'ss just amusing how you folks keep circling back to the same tired devil's proof shtick like it's some mic-drop moment. But hey, if leaning on Jung's personal anecdotes floats your boat over y'know a shred of peer-reviewed consistency in typology, more power to ya my nigga.>>83935072You really just copypasted that mangled strawman and thought you cooked? Adorable. Peak comedy. Keep going, champ I'm genuinely entertained.
>>83935154>Oh wow straight to the personal attacks.I hope the irony isn't lost on you with the rest of your post(s).>it'ss just amusing how you folks keep circling back to the same tired devil's proof shtick like it's some mic-drop moment.Unfortunately though, it's very real. How exactly would I obtain anything better? If somebody else typed Freud, you could question both their experience and theoretical knowledge, but if Jung does it, that's the highest cap you could possibly hit both ways, I'm sure that doesn't require any further explanation.>peer-review>typologyNow you are just being nasty. Closest thing you could really do here is gathering a bunch of fags willing to waste some time learning the Jvng by heart and then try to dig up as much as they can possibly do about Freud, and see if Jung was justified in "deducing" he typed his ex-BFF backwards.Well huh, have fun with that lol. I will be here posting some cute magical girls and actually making some progress. Eventually going to bring up a cool way to break down the Type Problem in both a direct(for now I will leave it as the equivalent of attitude-based) and indirect form(aka fighting about how to fight, a meta type problem, generally related to functions instead), once I organize my thoughts on it a little better, it's very messy.
>>83935204The point was never that Jung didn't retroactively slap some type label on Freud after the fact . The point is that Jung developed his entire typology framework precisely because he needed an intellectual escape hatch from Freud's one-note libido gospel. He literally said the acrimony between Freudians and Adlerians came down to unrecognized type-antagonism. So yeah, he "deduced" Freud backwards as in, reverse-engineered why the guy's theory felt so alien and limiting to him personally. It wasn't some airtight forensic typing; it was cope dressed as insight.
>>83935285That might have been his initial intention, and he said as much, but what's your point then? Can't "cope" produce valid insights, even by pure accident?(It goes without saying, that Jung did a lot more than just stopping at Freud and Adler, just read the book and this should be obvious enough)Ultimately this is just proceeding from contradictions, and well, the method is known to work.
Might as well throw it out and see what happens?The Jung vs Freud Type Problem can be broken up like this:>Direct form: introverted thinking vs extraverted thinking>Indirect form: main function vs inferior function / conscious attitude vs unconscious attitude, although it is the same function, some mismatch existsIn a hypothetical case where the indirect form doesn't happen, I will assume then that it's possible to find a middle ground through it. Which is what people will naturally try to do, hence it won't look like anything like the Jung vs Freud one.>ok but why?Let's flip it like this:>Direct TP: introverted thinking vs extraverted thinking>Indirect TP: not happening, you are both using your conscious attitude and the main function, it is also both thinking.Since consciousness is about differentiation and adaptation, and also able to take advantage of other tools such as the auxiliary functions, it should be a lot more possible to heavily reduce the degree of the direct TP by intentionally seeking a common ground or going full circle(in this case, internally consistent formal logic should either produce proof eventually, or have them already available - and overwhelming empirical proof of a specific relationship really existing in the external world might contain a formal rule, or one should be created unless we just want to deny the truth, no?)>why can't this also happen in the Jung vs Freud example?The unconscious attitude is primitive, emotional, fanatical about stuff, it won't allow you to question it and you are not in control of what you are doing there. It won't try to adapt itself well to reality, as V.F. puts it will come across as sensitive and tyrannical.There we go, hopefully the concept is clear enough?The shit I do at night instead of sleeping man...
Oh and huh, I used thinking as example just for the sake of, but if you want to see it the other way:>Direct TP: extraverted feeling vs introverted feeling>Indirect TP: [same as above], it is feeling nowSo here you can fully argue Jung is the one who fucked up on the feeling side, if you don't like the thinking framing and thought this is about blaming Freud for everything. Of course, Jung himself framed it about thinking but I would be committing a type problem myself if I said the previous one is somehow more valid than this one.
>it's another episode of Te-gger building up thinkoid rapport and then getting confused when I'm Ni-ggin' live>he's literally trying to differentiate my thoughts, almost Jungian-style, as if thinking I'm having an inferior thinking moment (I guess my ENFJ persona works too well?), but only getting extra confused when I show thinkoid coherence when pressedNever gets old, never gets comfortable either.>>83935451I'm not really following. The type problem in their relationship, or in "conflict" between their systems? If anything, their systems were based on their respective interior functions. You've COINCIDENTALLY (huh? huh? huh? bullshit) brought up a point I have fresh material for.You'll definitely love to learn that the bigger semi-split is that Freudian therapy is focused around the Adonis-archetype ailments of the Lover archetype quadrant of the psyche, whether for men or women.Jung is fundamentally more of a holistic generalist for the psyche.t. Moore.Not sure where Adler fits here... Let's see... Dibs on the Warrior quadrant!>but, Magician?Magician is basically any psychoanalysis in the first place. t. Moore.Jung and Jungianity were lacking in King quadrant though, despite obviously having potential for it, and going ok as generalistic... So whose psychoanalytic approach would fit the most for the King cultivation? Uhh... Let's see... Order and arrangement... Clean your room, bucko... *gasp* PETERSON!?
>>83935777>interiorInterior to their psyche depth... So, inferior.
>>83935204>>83935333You have deep LLM use experience but can't notice LLM linguostructure?
> 83935154> 83935285No, the cherrypie on top of the banquet are the STRATEGICALLY POSITIONED pseudotypos.Underage as hell...
>>83935777>as if thinking I'm having an inferior thinking moment (I guess my ENFJ persona works too well?), but only getting extra confused when I show thinkoid coherence when pressedThat sounds really entertaining. >you should think more about this man>actually..... sometimes I think about it and... [unzips auxiliary so hard it looks like the main function]>dude what the actual fuck, how much did you think about this? why didn't you say that in the first place? I totally didn't do this too I swear.>The type problem in their relationship, or in "conflict" between their systems?Both are valid ways to see it.100% agree that Jungian psychology is hiding his inferior Fe-groidisms in plain sight. (in Freud's case, it's not even fucking hiding at all, the Te-groidism is all there)Which other function/attitude would be so concerned about making sure you can create a theory of types that's 100% fair to everyone, and claim its can be used to mediate conflicts both in analysis and interpersonal relationships? All of this started by him not wanting to dismiss Freud and Adler a priori, and just claim it makes sense for different people. Holy Fe-groid my man.>You'll definitely love to learn that the bigger semi-split is that Freudian therapy is focused around the Adonis-archetype ailments of the Lover archetype quadrant of the psyche, whether for men or women.Uniroincally suggesting me to read about Freudian therapy... but sure will keep that in mind.>Magician is basically any psychoanalysis in the first place. t. Moore.More evidence of the magician archetype possession just keeps piling up here. Though that would be true for the entire thread.>>83935813I had a suspect, but like I said before, it works as a springboard to drop this stuff anyways so nevermind.Though, it does make unwilling to continue if somebody admits they will not even try to engage personally and simply keep delegating their thinking to LLMs.
>>83935813>LLM linguostructure?explain llm linguostructure.
>>83935880Hard to properly pin it down, but LLMs naturally structure sentences in roughly the same ways unless asked to adopt a different type.It was being maked to some degree, but the biggest telling sign in our context would be this sentence structure>it wasn't X, it was YAppeared multiple times in a row. Picked it up but didn't say anything, both because I saw little point in trying to dismiss everything as LLM, and because I didn't consider it a smoking gun yet.
>some IT(N) madam working through my stuff openly cracking jokes at her coworker for the latter's delicate attention to Fe-gging and Se-nsoidingI want to turn the Jung-vision off but I just can't huh.>>83935880If I could explain it, I would sell seminars on it.>>83935862ENFJ persona use is stressful 50% of the times... Without it, I wouldn't have the 100% of times of me getting to use it. Or maybe any social contact is stressful 50% of the times for me... Hmm...>(in Freud's case, it's not even fucking hiding at all, the Te-groidism is all there)Te-groidism onto the Lover quadrant... Yup now I see why Von Franz noted how treated Freudian clients felt healthy but really bland and unsatisfied.Now, in Jung's case... Magician-maxxing under inferior Fe-eling... It also now makes sense why so many laymen get caught up in wanting to get absorbed by the awe woo symbolics rather than, DUH, differentiate and individuate themselves out of the psychoid Tang soup.>Which other function/attitude would be so concerned about making sure you can create a theory of types that's 100% fair to everyone, and claim its can be used to mediate conflicts both in analysis and interpersonal relationships?Hmm, isn't it a holistic-in-itself devil's advocate to try to getting to such a system? I'd say any function and any attitude could head for this, for their own reasons.From my viewpoint, in Jungisms, the inferior Fe-groiding is in the archetype based awe woo impositions from transferences and synchronicity events. I really didn't see any Jungian writer bring up, well, DISCERNMENT of what's really a synchronicity event and what's not. In my viewpoint, some of such discernment would also involve, you know, differentiation of the feeling function at least just for this matter, too. Exactly such proposals are absent...>>83935936Want a curveball bomb? Some people actually get psyopped into adapting LLM linguostructure from the exposure.
>>83932579>>Your typeESFP-T>>Your feelings toward illicit substances and have you done anyNot my thing. I have nothing inherently against users; if anything I feel sorry for them, as I have yet to meet one who wasn't miserable.
>unzip benis joke in the same post discussing FreudOh no.... Fucking Fi-groid...>>83936022>Yup now I see why Von Franz noted how treated Freudian clients felt healthy but really bland and unsatisfied.You mean exactly like modern psychomemes?>I'd say any function and any attitude could head for this, for their own reasons.Of course, but in Jung's case you might wonder if this is his conscious attitude in the first place since when you read him you just see pure unfiltered Ti-groidisms, and magical circles... wait what. Oh well, he reassures you the magical circles are merely to explain archetypal structures, has nothing to do with lower aux intuition touching upon the inferior feeling and having T.F. moments(after he was finished with Sensation, of course)>Want a curveball bomb? Some people actually get psyopped into adapting LLM linguostructure from the exposure.Wish I could be surprised, but yeah sure.I used a very similar argument just a few days ago to explain inferior intuition-driven samefagging accusations when it's just me and other anons picking up stuff like filename patterns via exposure, and also me being annoyed by the inferior intuitisms so forcing it a little just to throw a wrench into it and claim it's proof you have to intuit harder than that.
>typeIntp>were you a "good student" in school?Avergae>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Advanced and cool>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI??>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?No. All types can have dumb fucks.Anyway. Im a UPS delivery driver and i fractured my tailbone due to slipping on stairs so now im off 2 weeks and paid 80% of my salary.I just installed Virtual DJ and playing with stems. It's a gamechanger but also conpletely messed up my routine and old methods. I feel like i have to relearn how to dj.
>bitter and resentful because the thoughts have always been there but then you finally find other people who at least have an interest in the concepts if they do not live/experience the same but they found the concepts through the words not finally found the words for inherent knowings so even though you have a common lexicon to operate through (on a good day) something in the SOVL says "Not this way; not them"Innate alienation when encountering foreign lifeforms ane shiiiiieeeeee
>>83912763>typeIntp>were you a "good student" in school?I was an outcast.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Probably like the most autistic parts of Asia like Japan. Everyone respects public propriety. We'd basically operate like a neural network. Like an ant colony. >what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?First time I've heard of this>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?Mine
It's not a gatekeepy thing it's "You *actually* need to get on the same [PAGE] soon or we're timelines apart til death" but w/e
>>83914641>No, respect is earnedThat's so fucking gay in 2026. Being an entitled gaslighter is the meta. It has been proven to be the winning strategy. There's no honest people in power and never has been. Everyone hates the jews yet they control the world.
Shitnavel shitgaze thread not a OKCupid for Jungsans yeahnobut like the field of typology itself should basically be for [TYPE] to find other [TYPE] or [COMPLIMENTARY/CONTRASTING]Because the>Pick apart if I'm a prick at heart I might get taxonomic territorial dibs>Fuck the victors, the spoils, history, and being itself, if I master IDentification what I says is that isn00b IOOnz really harsh the q u e s tlikeYou're allow'd. You're just.. here And stuffNo one stopping (no1wan)But what you're doing isn't typology or what [TYPE] doeth isn't typologyBecause the objective thing is either more than you're up to or exactly what we've been trying to find more people that been done If that brief overviews begins to warm up the bullet points at large (big) ((picture))
>stop experiencing emotion or karmic entanglement related to just being right (product of seeing the As It Is and not recally-b-in' the ego before during and after)>all that's left is being Right without the right to emote ( only thing in the entire incarnation clause: Feel It Your Way (TM) )Fffuuuuuuuugggggggggggggg(They won't get it because every time they think they've reached that stage it's just the self-assured faux detachment and/or hormonal apathy/grandiosity)so [Who Know That Feel] doth thou incline toward indulgence back into lower sense sensorials/intensities or do you sit for a while in theYeahYepYyyeeeeeeuhuhYerp
"A volition-first introverted intuitive is like if [your definition of volition is as based as your comprehension of the building blocks of comedy]"It happens but it's misrepresented if understood and misunderstood if reppin resented
>>83936097>You mean exactly like modern psychomemes?Freud definitely is cooler.>and magical circles...There's a lot of untapped potential of their application for Jung. So much that I'd never even think of calling them magical circles.>>83934692>felt like I was a kid again, like winter was summer. It could instantly solve issues: Tired? Unmotivated? Can't focus? sad/anxious/etc TAKE SOME, problem solved. It gave me nuclear-motivation, magnetic charisma & creativity that flowed like a waterfallI get that from bioavailable antioxidants and Ray-Peat-would-approve ATPase boosters.>whichTrade secret... Easy to find out such, though.I can see why it could be extra addictive when such effects are from drugs instead. I probably wouldn't be able to quit. For perceptions of others, I probably wouldn't get notably more incoherent, anyway.
>BUT DOING WHAT YOU WANT IS fI>Yes.And . . .Just fucking moral scrupulosity OCD by any other name innit>I feel INTIMATELY AND UNIQUELY RESPONSIBLE for where the future is headedPlus the CPTSD and tism is just autonomy-absolutist two wolves inside you dry humping while the psychosis (obsession compulsion facets) ponzi schemes God into giving you everyone else's sins to bear>Gurhh hurhhk sorroy I can be a bit UNCOMPROMISING I just wouldn't want THE CESSATION OF SUFFERING SINGULARIZING ANY SOONER TO BE POSTPONED ON MY ACCOUNTparaphraselikesIf Buddhism is not a religion a Maitreya complex is not equixactly a """Gqd""" shrimple dimple duplex suplex so on and datasetpoisoningforth
You could outline three major ways to distinguish psychological attitude of a person:1. Social introversion/extraversion - not a useless term despite its pop-psych origins.2. Jungian habitual libidinal attitude introversion/extraversion - see PT as a book, or PT as it's chapter X, etc.3. (Jung-compatible) Psychopractical introversion/extraversion [WIP drafting ongoing and pending . . .] - not all psychological substructures are assembled equal. Libido may focus the flows on archetypal/objective factors, but what has true leverage in how the person is processing the factors may be elsewhere. It might not even affect the social/Jungian typing, except only accelerate it. I certainly see people conflate 3 with 1 and/or 2 though. This looks like a non-addition, so far, hmm? I'll just explain what I mean. A 1-2. introvert/extravert may orient their reclusivity/socialization and feed their "subjective"/objective factor-producing complexes based on focusing more on either fantasia, or perception. Technically fantasia is the ground for metacognition, and you can metacognize over perceptions and metacognition. You technically could perceive metacognition without doing metacognition too, maybe. Maybe any start of either starts from both, but that's not so irrelevant. You certainly would have difficulties differentiating the two when you're in primitive state. Oh, this is not quite clear, still. I don't know, maybe try inductive/reactive attitude for your mind? You certainly can have a reactive introvert, and an inductive extravert. Well?
>type - (III)N(T)-AOh yes... It's all coming together... Quite nicely, dare I say...>>83912763>>were you a "good student" in school?I was almost all kinds of a student.>>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?I don't know, you imagine that.>>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?It's not deep enough.>>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?All types deserve respect! People, however...
>>83936425Magical circles are fine, I just gotta because I was born skeptical as hell.No really, even as a kid I wouldn't even believe in something like intuition, staggering self awareness, I know.>you told other kids Santa doesn't exist in school didn't you?Yes! >>83936737>1Social attitude isn't a smoking gun, but a hint.A bigger hint is asking whether you are fine just staying in your own head, or you always want to keep your mind/body occupied with something else. Extraverts will quickly associate the first with anxiety, worry, or generally something negative, introverts will quickly associate the latter with restlessness, difficulty staying focused, uncontrolled hyperactivity etc.Do not give specific context, because an actual smoking gun is that the extravert always asks context, the introverts will defer to "generally yeah", because one doesn't naturally see his own internal consistency without any given external object, the other actively seeks to stay true to it regardless of them.>2Yes>3 I believe what you are trying to say is that the flow of libido might temporarily flow in the opposite direction, but for the specific purpose of eventually trying to return to the habitual direction? Like an introvert who's genuinely moving towards objects, but he's doing some while keeping the "leverage" on the subjective factor at the end of the day?Pretty sure Jung himself had a similar idea straight in PT Chapter X anyways, so called "numinal accent". Unless I'm not getting exactly what's the point here.
>>83936737>inductive/reactiveMaybe inductive/explosive is better... I want a I/E distinction.[truncated]Explosive is explosive, ok? Nobody is 100% explosive and nobody is 100% inductive. It's fine!Inductive/explosive.>>83936945>as a kid I wouldn't even believe in something like intuitionIt took me years of reading gut bacteria, gut feel, and then intuition papers to finally go "ok, maybe intuition is real enough to consider it, I guess." The intuitard tricks I had been using to fiercely argue that intuition is just a buzzword...>I believe what you are trying to say is that the flow of libido might temporarily flow in the opposite directionNot quite, no.I think the implicit macropoint I'm drawing from is that fantasia - aka transcendent function - is not a guarantee for individuation at all - so much that you could actually make a type out of a preference around it.aka, to paraphrase Moore: "you can be in some Jungian analysis where you're analyzing dreams for all of your sessions, and no matter how much you're progressing in the dream analysis, for you as a person it's certainly universally worse than a simpler psychoanalyst sending you to a martial arts club."First of all, it's about preference between either originalia factors or fantasia factors.>what's the difference? you make imagos of either anyway, no?But the imago content would differ, wouldn't it?Another way to explain it.This is the closest systemic explanation to extremes of "OVERPROCESS SOMETHING SO HARD IT TELLS YOU TO STOP vs TAKE SOMETHING AT FACE VALUE SO HARD YOU TEAR ITS FACE OFF"By the way Jung is all on overprocessing UNLESS it's a synchronicity, then he tears its face value off and wears it like a bloody ritual mask.Another way to explain it.Consider a natural chart of a whatever type pair [whatever]=>[inductive]=>[fantasia]=>[whatever][whatever]=>[explosive]=>[originalia]=>[whatever]Whatever functions & objective/subjective factors are completely interchangeable.
>>83934011What you're describing is a thinking type and a feeling type, not two intuitive types.But, also not applicable, because my problem wasn't with logic in general, or the function of thinking. It's specifically the way it's used, and identified with, AKA ego inflation.Two intuitive types wouldn't take issue with the opposing judgement auxiliary functions of a similar type on premise alone. That is to say, an ENTP wouldn't take issue with an ENFP's feeling unless that feeling contradicted the intuition of the ENTP, and visa versa. This is because thinking/feeling are not antagonistic to intuition. If they both agree on the perception, they generally would not disagree with the opposing judgement. Over identification not withstanding.>>83934217As I stated before, that is not the issue. It's not a type problem. It's a problem of the very problem being described in the conversation. Namely, type distortion and its cause, over identification with a function. In this case, thinking.I always find it humorous that you and Patchy think I'm arguing for a feeling approach. When I'm not. I'm arguing for an intuition approach. One that doesn't collapse everything into certainty and keeps the possibilities alive. But both you and he seem to be allergic to those possibilities. It *HAS* to be the way you think it is. The uncertainty must be eliminated.That is the issue I'm pointing to. Thinking in and of itself is a non issue. It's the motive it serves which is the issue.If you pay semi-close attention, you'd notice I'm putting forward thinking logic. In most of the conversations. It's just not rigid, unbending logic, although sometimes overstated. It serves the fluidity of intuition.
>>83937121>[truncated][Expansive? Executive? Exertive? Exaltive? Exaptive? No, exaptive is myself around Jungian theory. Exudive? Exactive? Maybe exactive. ERECTIVE? No, I'd rather explosive. Exacting isn't reactive enough. But explosive... ]
>>83934962>since Jung himself provided evidence of eventually "properly" typing Freud as a Fi-groid first and foremostJung never typed Freud. Stop lying. He used Freud as an illustrative example of inferior feeling. Jung believed Freud was an extroverted thinking type, and himself to be an introverted thinking type. Which was the cause of their opposing perspectives on analytical psychology. https://jungiancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vol-6-psychological-types.pdfParagraph 705, differentiation>Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, >just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies, as for instance in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosisHere he talks about how Freud's feeling bleeds into his thinking through the inferior differentiation. And explicitly uses him as an example of inferior feeling.>>83935040>SOURCE NEEDED RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.Here's the receipts, anon. Jung believed Freud was an extroverted thinking type with inferior feeling. But never formally typed him. He just collected the evidence. These fucking pseudo-Jungians are the worst. Can't get anything he says even remotely correct. It's always the exact opposite of true.
>>83937121>It took me years of reading gut bacteria, gut feel, and then intuition papers to finally go "ok, maybe intuition is real enough to consider it, I guess." The intuitard tricks I had been using to fiercely argue that intuition is just a buzzword...Can't remember how I even convinced myself but the simple idea of the brain "thinking" subconsciously, and that having actual validity sounded fair enough and one thing leads to the other.>T.F. not necessary for individuation Doesn't it entirely depend on how far you want to take it?>the restI get what you are trying to say, though I'm unable to confirm whether it has to do with Jungian attitude-type.Maybe? Technically the attitude also has an effect on contents that's a little more subtle than the functions, if only in the sense of highlighting the parts coming from without or within, and expecting more contents to come from the preferred direction. You can argue that's why some feel more "real" and decisive than others for an individual.Other than that, for now I can't draw the logical connections.
>>83937265......well yeah, I guess inferior sensation is a nasty thing. Happens to me too. What doesn't usually happen to me though, is making shit up completely.
>>83937341Would you like to point to what was made up?
>>83937379Personally, I prefer you use the hint there and figure out what just happened on your own.
I had a dream where i traced turbie enjoyer:turbie (could be either) posts back and found them posting in a orphan abuse child porn boardIs this a message from God?
>>83937382I just want you to say that Carl Jung was wrong about his own typology and you know better than him.Because I only made one claim in that post.>>>>>>just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies, as for instance in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosishttps://jungiancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vol-6-psychological-types.pdf
>>83937320>Can't remember how I even convinced myself but the simple idea of the brain "thinking" subconsciously, and that having actual validity sounded fair enough and one thing leads to the other.Oh yeah? Can it do formal mathz?Why it didn't do my homework for me huh?>>T.F. not necessary for individuation>Doesn't it entirely depend on how far you want to take it?No, it might be necessary at least somewhere at least as some unconscious step, - but it's more like that presence of T.F. itself does not guarantee or signify individuation happening, unless you zoom in and start counting psychecrumbs. But may as well go Deleuzian, as he'd help AGAINST that.Moreover T.F. won't clean the bucko's room for the bucko.>I'm unable to confirm whether it has to do with Jungian attitude-type.It's rather uncoupled/independent, as I see it. If anything, the unhabitual attitude would be in the unconscious like it's any other unhabitual attitude or function - undifferentiated, too. See: Jung example. HMMMMMM. I wonder if Freud's system could be said to be explosive, with induction only during the inferior function moments.>>83937394I had bad premonition dream about TE, too, so this can't possibly be too wrong.
>>83937399>I just want you to say that Carl Jung was wrong about his own typology and you know better than him.Sure, it took me a while to figure out why Freud got typed backwards, Jung really didn't know what he was doing there, thankfully I can rely on nearly magical insights given by random speculah I do before going to sleep for some reason.
>extravertoid implicitly taking slight offense I'm using "officially" as a sort of a slurHmph. Maybe I should invent a yet another typology dichotomy.>>83937399>Carl Jung was wrong about his own typologyMany such cases thorough his writings.>and you know better than him.Me? I do!Sorry sweeties, but a hastily half-assembled car is not something to fawn over, no matter how much you overdose on participation mystique about it.>>83919266In a matter of trve honovr, you don't get to back out...Huh? Puzzles? Maybe this weekend, maybe not. I'm not forcing myself if I'm not feeling like it.
>>83937453>Oh yeah? Can it do formal mathz?>Why it didn't do my homework for me huh?Works on my machine> but it's more like that presence of T.F. itself does not guarantee or signify individuation happening, unless you zoom in and start counting psychecrumbs. I guess. However unlikely it sounds, in theory you could just not do anything with whatever emerged from the T.F. moment, both in the sense of relating it personally and it having no external impact.>>83937623>Many such cases thorough his writings.He did in fact:>believe Thinking and Sensation are always functions of the introvert, and Feeling/"representation" are always extraverted>type himself based on this, but then eventually claim his more auxiliary is apparently intuition>claim Freud is a good example of a Te-groid, then sa--- ahem, I mean then *I* discovered he was a Fi-groid, of course >base his initial claims of incompatibility between types almost purely on this
>>83937600>>83937623>The two ego inflated people are quick to assert their inflated egoWhoda thunk it!?(me)
>>83937752Claiming that Jung can make mistakes, and proving he did according to himself, is having an inflated ego now?Your attitude is inherently anti-Jungian, he would not want anyone to deify him. In fact I remember him saying he was frustrated about people just regurgitating his stuff without trying to think it through.
"INFJ-A" casually MOGS me in anti-Jung competitions despite my best efforts yet again literally how do I cope you fucking bullies?
>>83937793Sorry man, we just don't have what it takes. Unfortunately we differentiated thinking, at least partially, instead of investing all the way into trying to put our cocks into the entire collective unconscious and every single archetype contained within(literally, non-figuratively), basically practicing some sort of psychic metafuckery until you literally dream of it, go into analysis to ask why the fuck you are seeing dick and ballz when you sleep, and watch the analyist smugly reply "well usually futas, though in this specific case that was mine lolololol"
>>83937768>"Jung typed Freud as a feeling type!">Here's the evidence contrary to that where he directly stated Freud is a thinking type with inferior feeling>W-W-WELL I MEANT HE MADE A MISTAKE, HE'S NOT INFALLABLE YOU KNOW!!lol. cOpE>>83937856>we differentiated thinking>We inflated thinkingFTFY. Rigid thinking isn't differentiated, it's over identified with.
>>83936328>>83936427You could use investing into coherence more, since even off the mark pointoids are fun to chew through.That might be a rigid volition for sure in the description, but if intuition is involved in there, then only as inferior. As differentiated intuition wouldn't allow such participation mystiques as some baseline mode of engagement with intuition. ...aw, now I'm missing the unironic unposturing Deleuze-anti-structure-I-have-no-words-for-this-but-if-you-get-it,-you-get-it crazies I got to e-message with.>>83937856Somehow, lost the ylyl.
What exactly is your take on clavicle, the guy who smashes his chin with a hammer to look maxx.His behavior seems oddly feminine to me.
>has to try reinventing concept of thinking to prove he doesn't need classical thinking >it, in fact, requires classical thinking
>>83937942You should differentiate your reading function harder, though problem is, it can get falsified by the retardation function.Also I don't get it, using anything thinking at all instead of simply hard memo'ing quotes automatically maps to ego inflation? Jesus lol, I don't know how you can even deny the function is inferior in yourself with these claims.That would be like me claiming that if some cute grill decides to attach a little ribbon to her magnifying glass she has a massively inflated ego and wants me to see her as the very personification of cuteness itself, in fact, a manifestation of the cute archetype that should be worshipped just for existing within my field of view, smell, or other senses that I'm not quite sure I have, psychically speaking.>>83937950I made an IN(T) laugh, my life is complete. Everything was building up to this moment, only took nearly a decade of reading oldass psychoanalysis books.
>Differentiated thinking is when I like what's being said because it makes me feel smart>Undifferentiated thinking is when it's yucky and I don't like it because it's saying words I don't like and it contradicts what I think is true! >:(- Carl Jung, (according to pseuds)
>DIFFERENTIATED IS WHEN RIGHT AND UNDIFFERENTIATED IS WHEN WRONG AND I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE EVER WRONG SO I'M DIFFERENTIATED EVERYWHERE I'M THE FUCKING CARL JUNG 2.0 WHO WAS NEVER WRONG EITHER BECAUSE I'M IN PARTICIPATION MYSTIQUE WITH THE WOO WHICH I DON'T HAVE TO THINK THROUGH, BECAUSE I'M NEVER WRONG, BECAUSE-Aight, now could you use your zero blindspots guru psyche exactly like it's supposed to function - you reach ambivalence so you stop saying anything, which is usually complete trash in your case, often involving your unhealthy obsessions that would give Freud a field week? Much obliged!
>Carl Jung said don't treat his words dogmatically, you should question everything!>Especially you should question his words when the words disprove your own personally approved methodology for viewing and judging the world>If Jung says Freud is a thinking type, that has to be questioned, because my entire framework is built upon the fact that I believe he's a feeling type.>And if that framework is incorrect, everything I know about typology turns out to be incorrect, even my own hekkin based thinking type could be wrong!>I CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN>SO OBVIOUSLY JUNG WOULD APPROVE OF MY QUESTIONING OF HIS TYPING OF FREUD!
So you confirmed the pseuds are feeling types who value ideas based on [feeling-judgement]?Oh well, no objections on my end. Sounds fair enough.Anyways...>>83937125Though I can admit I'm not 100% sure on the typings due to some mixed signals, EN(something) appeared quite obvious there. The conflict is probably better described by attitudinal psyche though, 2L vs 3L.As for the idea of auxiliaries creating a small version of the type problem too(that can quickly saved by the main function though, and eventually returns to it), that seems true enough both in Jungian theory(the so-called auxiliary fight, though it's an internal process but I don't see how this cannot happen literally with another person involved too, or rather be started because of another person), some IRL conflicts(I did catch people believing feeling to be my own inferior function... well, they didn't say it like that, but you know what I mean, especially in my HS thinkoid phase), and fictional stories(Umineko literally has an auxiliary fight, incidentally same types involved as my example).> One that doesn't collapse everything into certainty and keeps the possibilities alive. Speaking of intuition, I felt that coming eventually and had prepared an answer:what you are perceiving here is the difference between a double dynamic approach(feeling and intuition) and a mixed dynamic-static approach(intuition and thinking), it is quite true that thinking will try to narrow down the possibilities via true/false statements, and the thinking truth is ultimately a single static formula. Unfortunately for this mere auxiliary function, it has to deal with the fact that the main one can shotgun them and create contradictions on a daily basis, sometimes hourly basis.
I haven't been reading this thread, but this seems to once again be relevant, so i'm reposting it.
>>83938210Typologically, I wonder how it went there.Something like... the lower auxiliary in Freud, supposedly Sensation, picked up some sort of fact about sexual libido specifically, true to itself since sure I can get behind the fact a part of our psychology is indeed shaped by it. But then it reached to inferior thinking and instead of seeing the true fact properly, that turned it into an obssessive idea that apparently can explain nearly everything in psychology? And the justification for that, as per Jung, is basically Fi-groid tier projection "I have accidentally thought of it, so clearly everyone else thinks in this very same way and only in this way"(correcting it a little because I know better!)(but really it's a bit more accurate like this)
>>83938142It's very possible, yes. They could be dominant feelers over identifying with their own inferior thinking. Just like Freud with a dominant thinker over identifying with his own inferior feeling.Producing the very topic which was discussed, type distortions. That being said, I'm not going to claim to know what their type is (beyond mere memeings).>EN(something) appeared quite obvious thereWhy does it appear obvious, though?>but I don't see how this cannot happen literally with another person involved tooIt could happen, but it's not a matter of if it could happen, rather the circumstances which would bring it about. As a general rule, people with the same dominant functions who agree on what the dominant function has perceived or judged won't quarrel over auxiliary things. There are circumstances in which that could happen, but it would be a consequence of one (or both) of them identifying too much with their auxiliary function. That isn't to say that two people of the same dominant function won't have small little quarrels over phrasing due to the auxiliary functions. It's not that either thinks the other is wrong, but that their phrasing just feels somewhat off, this would be a mini-type-problem associated with auxiliary functions. But assuming both have relatively healthy psyches, it would be a nothingburger of a disagreement. Because both people would have relatively differentiated auxiliary functions. And by that I mean an ENTP's feeling is not so undifferentiated that the mere existence of a feeling argument which is not in opposition to their thinking argument won't be enough to cause a big fight. (the same applies to an ENFP)But this is not the same for a thinking type encountering a feeling type's feeling judgment, or visa versa. These two types in general don't see eye to eye. Because these two functions are antagonistic to each other, they're psychically oppositional. One's right is the other's wrong.[cont...]
>>83938142>>83938692But that logic doesn't follow through to the dominant function being supported by opposing auxiliary functions. N+F is not opposed to N+T. But, T+N is opposed to F+N. The logic of an ENTP doesn't feel cold and rigid simply due to its thinking nature to an ENFP. Simply due to the fact that ENFP's thinking is relatively differentiated itself AND because thinking doesn't undercut the perception of the intuition. But also, as a general rule, the dominant intuitive types don't try to reduce their intuitions. That's a direct contradiction to intuitions purpose. Intuition is expansive, intuitive types want to hold onto that expansion not collapse it. They want to follow the intuition for as long as it will run, and they will add more psychic energy into the intuition to keep it flowing. To collapse intuition into something static is to pull the libido away from the intution's image, which is not what intuitive types do in general.Collapsing the intuition violates the dominant principle of the function and undermines what it means to be a dominant intuitive type. This is the intuition of any other type than a dominant intuition type.
>>83938388>Typologically, I wonder how it went there.Well, wonder no more! Now, you too can read the "PROBLEM OF TYPES IN HISTORY" for the low low price of your self assurement. [red]Jung blatantly includes Freud as an Extraverted type here[/red]: There are four ways to reply to this, those being1) Freud is an Extraverted Thinker2) Freud is an Extravert, his function type is undifferentiated rational, or 2a) doesn't matter 2b) is uncertain 3) Freud is an Extraverted Feeler4) Jung was wrong about FreudFailure to reply to this red truth will be considered aporia.
>>83938770You start off on the wrong footing.>[red]your red truth is a not a truth.[/red]Jung's assessment of Freud's type is not a clinical diagnosis, he's not prescribing him a type. What Jung is doing is identifying the patterns which he can observe within Freud. I reject your bait-framework which is geared at reducing the complexity of paradoxes down to nameable certainties entirely, and substitute a real Jungian perspective:>[red]The point is that Freud exemplifies the type distortion and function differentiation issues that Jung discusses, rather than being a good example for any specific type.[/red]
>>83938692Actually quick reply here because I do agree on most things, but some small corrections are necessary aside from the obvious one on Freud.>why ENBecause they are two speculaheads, almost accurately described as such by the author himself. >big fightNah they are frens, though accurately enough the ENFP is quite sure this is how they really feel about each other and doesn't really doubt it aside from a few throwaway joke lines. The ENTP genuinely doubts whether the other grill is merely tolerating her. Can clearly see which one is weaker on feeling and isn't really well adapted to the situation yet. >main function mechanics Intuition is willing to accept a static "image" as long it describes a dynamic reality.e.g. labelled archetypes are quite fine, of course it's implying that this can manifest in many different ways in reality, and it is always subject to a development process. What the intuition-thinker doesn't like is the static stereotype instead, the one that doesn't develop in any given path at all(yes, still mad)>>83938756Generally, yes N>T doesn't firmly opposed N>F. But a minor opposition is absolutely present.As for the rest, I think you are talking about a type who is particularly one-sided here. If their auxiliary is pronounced enough in consciousness, they will try to apply at least some degree of rigor there. The thinking one absolutely appears more "static" as you put it because it wants to break it down in formuals, while feeling is more fluid and, while it does produce judgments, there's no formula making them fully reproducible.>>83938770Oh no not again.... fuck witches, we are doing magical girls now.
>>83934907>I'm an active life addict to science and learningbruh stop flaming the milf if youre gonna post shit like this, it's just cringe
>>83938884>Because they are two speculaheadsWhat does that even mean? Speculation is not the realm of Jungian intuition. It's the realm of thinking. Speculation is trying to evaluate, which is to judge. Intuition does not evaluate. Speculation is an organizing principle which tries to narrow things down to something, true, false, might, might not, etc. Make sense? Speculating about "what might happen" is not intuition, that is some sort of judgement. >Intuition is willing to accept a static "image"Of course. But, a static image doesn't describe a dynamic reality. A static image describes a static object. The thing being rejected is not the static image, it's the claim that the static image can point to or describe a dynamic reality. Because it can't. That's the job of a symbol, and symbols are not static images. A sign on a road with the image of a hill on it pointing in a direction down the road does not point to a dynamic reality. It's points to a known, collapsed certainty. Namely, the existence of a hill down the road.Putting a label on a symbol doesn't collapse it to a static image. It just gives it a name. Reduction happens only when the name is mistaken for the thing itself. Calling an archetype an archetype does not drain its libido, the symbol remains alive so long as it is not treated as exhaustively known, or identified with. >But a minor opposition is absolutely present.Yes, but generally only superficial opposition. Something simple like "I agree with what you're saying, but I don't like the words you used." That flavor of disagreement. >As for the rest, I think you are talking about a type who is particularly one-sided here.Actually the opposite. I intentionally excluded one sided types.>while feeling is more fluid and, while it does produce judgments, there's no formula making them fully reproducible.This also isn't correct. Both thinking and feeling are formulaic. They're both rational functions.
>>83938871>your red truth is a not a truthSo, you simply reject the game. So, I propose a new gamehttps://lichess.org/txSwLx3YNo stakes, just an experiment.
>>83939111It's a conceptual layer lower. I reject the framework upon which the game's rules were built.>chessI can tell you for certain I would lose. I don't really play chess at all. I think I've played a total of 2 games of chess in my entire life. And that was like 20 years ago.
teeeeeeest123112
>>83939179Come on, the point is to have fun, not to win. This new room doesn't have a timer.https://lichess.org/RERNTRL4
infps are cunts
>>83912763intpnoprimitiveas retarded as the plastic surgeryno
Honestly I don't know why even bothering when he's denying so many realities at once but>"what might happen" is not intuition The very second the context moves into an unrealized possibility and it cannot be directly derived by pure reason or observation of previously established facts to claim it will be merely identical to them, intuition is called forth. That's the kind of thing we are talking about here since, for instance, a topic is simply "creating dreams". Should be obvious enough which realm is this.>static image doesn't describe dynamic reality If it didn't, at least to a sufficient degree, Thinking would be fundamentally incompatible with Intuition.Pic rel: dynamic reality described by a static thinking image, and specifically an archetype too.>disagreement on a auxesAuxiliary "fight", however minor, goes a little beyond merely saying the words aren't exactly the same you would have used.>one sided typesThen why is this hypothetical intuitive refusing to work with thinking or even feeling?>feeling is formulaicWhat did he mean by this.1+1=2 is a formula, always true 1 is likeable isn't always true, I don't like 1s, now what? >but I disagree on 1+1=2Falsify it then>butWelcome to Thinking. It's opposed to Feeling for a reason. It does not care about your rapport with the object (be it external fact or formal logic)While Feeling is describing the rapport itself, and that is shown to never produce anything formulaic, best case scenario is popular opinion.
>>83939295>1+1=2 is a formula, always trueWRONG baka. 1+1 = 1. All things are combinations of things, an apple is made of component parts. By combining two things you create 1 bundle.
>>83939425Pretending to not know what the formula means isn't an argument but more importantly....So thinking isn't formulaic but feeling is? Genuinely what did he mean by this.
>>83939295>1+1=2 is a formulaIt's an equation.
>>83939225That didn't go how I expected, honestly.
>>83939569Did you have fun? I did. You really had my heart racing at times.
Awnser the question:>What's your worst public humiliation moment?>What's your most embarrassing sex fantasy?>What's the lamest thing you've done to impress someone?>What's your worst body-part insecurity?>What's the worst thing you've said while drunk/high (or heard a drunk person say)?>What's your most embarrassing Google search history item?>What's your worst drunk/high text story? (can be someone else)>What's your most awkward bedroom moment?>what game/anime story made you cry the most?>How much porn do you watch per week?>What's the most pathetic thing you've done for attention?>What's the most pathetic age you've pretended to be?
>>83939583Yeah, it was pretty fun. You definitely got me a few times too.
>>83939619>What's your worst public humiliation moment?shitting myself and having the nuggets roll out my pants leg in front of a group of people>What's your most embarrassing sex fantasy?anything with family>What's the lamest thing you've done to impress someone?write shitty songs/deface their art/projects>What's your worst body-part insecurity?weight>What's the worst thing you've said while drunk/high (or heard a drunk person say)?I've admitted to grand larceny>What's your most embarrassing Google search history item?I can't think of anything>What's your worst drunk/high text story? (can be someone else)dick pics to mom>What's your most awkward bedroom moment?getting shit on, not anal or anything, she just let loose when she was orgasming>what game/anime story made you cry the most?grave of the fireflies>How much porn do you watch per week?more of a perpetual thing>What's the most pathetic thing you've done for attention?ties back to 3>What's the most pathetic age you've pretended to be?never pretended to be an age I wasn't
>>83939619>>What's your worst public humiliation moment?Probably the time I walked up behind a stranger and hugged her because I mistook her for someone I knew. >>What's your most embarrassing sex fantasy?Not telling. >>What's the lamest thing you've done to impress someone?Started wearing my hair in twin-tails. >>What's your worst body-part insecurity?My height. >>What's the worst thing you've said while drunk/high (or heard a drunk person say)?I mocked some 'gangsta' types a bit louder than I thought I was; thankfully still not loud enough for them to hear. >>What's your most embarrassing Google search history item?No clue.>>What's your worst drunk/high text story? (can be someone else)Someone at my RPG table drunk texted another player letting him know how she felt about him. He stopped showing up. >>What's your most awkward bedroom moment?Can't think of any. >>what game/anime story made you cry the most?Tenshi ni Narumon. >>How much porn do you watch per week?Almost none. >>What's the most pathetic thing you've done for attention?Become a YouTuber. >>What's the most pathetic age you've pretended to be?Wasn't clearly defined.
>>83939619>What's your worst public humiliation moment?Maybe when I got stage fright while performing as a little kid with my brother and ruining things for us both>What's your most embarrassing sex fantasy?Too many>What's the lamest thing you've done to impress someone?Early on in high school I used to dash out of class to get lunch from the long lines at the cafeteria early for all of my "friends." They all paid me for it, of course, but most of them weren't my real friends and it was pretty pathetic. Luckily I realized that and dropped it after a month. I was just desperate for being not hated after middle school>What's your worst body-part insecurity?My shoulders/arms>What's the worst thing you've said while drunk/high (or heard a drunk person say)?Too many>What's your most embarrassing Google search history item?Demi Lardner age>What's your worst drunk/high text story? (can be someone else)Too many>What's your most awkward bedroom moment?Can't think of one>what game/anime story made you cry the most?I cry to a lot of things, but Mother 3 left me feeling completely empty for a solid 24 hours until I realized I'd missed the final cutscene. The ending is better without the final cutscene.>How much porn do you watch per week?Don't watch porn>What's the most pathetic thing you've done for attention?Too many>What's the most pathetic age you've pretended to be?13-16 when I was 10-12 to have access to different forums, never pretended outside of that
MBTI is basically astrology for linkedIn corporate approved buzzfeed tier shit with mix of diet Carl Jung for people who are to rational for astrology but not rational enough to dismiss this bullshit.
>>83939619What if I don't find these questions particularly interesting?
>>83940443It's legit you're just low iq probably (heard the same opinion 10000x over btw)
>>83936189>filename and pic suggest a femaled person attempted or coerced a feminine male into pegging or other such anal typed sexual activity before fleeing the country.
>>83940443/mbti/"much ado about nothing", as usual.look how the kids exalt themselves
>>83941103That's the midwit take actually:>low IQTypes themselves by 16p memes, never heard of functions, can't tell the difference between MBTI types and renamed Big 5.>midwitHehe mbti is literally astrology >high IQHas realized Jung saw it all, just made a few road bumps along the way and he himself admitted as much.Von Franz after him also saw more, though sometimes she took it a bit too literally, haha funny sensoid womanMyers saw a truth about how introverts seem to react outwardly mostly via auxiliary functions, even if internally they have something else that's valued above it. Though this isn't exactly how their entire auxiliary function works either, it merely appears more visible in observable behavior, the actual determinants will still be subjective most of the times, even before calling the main function directly. The extraverts, likewise, mostly explore their own inner world through an auxiliary first, but that is merely a safe anchor to make sure they don't fall in too deep, since the function is indeed still mainly working along extraversion.Beebe saw a truth about the "7th function" which is more accurately just how the third/lower aux function really works. Grant made a logic error.
Also little revision:Von Franz actually saw the auxiliary stuff in introverts too. She just didn't elaborate much upon that idea.So Myers casually stumbled upon(?) the same facts, but misunderstood how to properly interpret it, haha not so funny feeloid woman... actually no this isn't hilarious at all, what the fuck? At least Von Franz practical humor is what it is, you can tell she doesn't literally believe feeling types think dogs lol
>>83939619We should assume the worst about the people making such questions and BULLY the everloving FUCK out of them.
>any archetype has its own spacetime t. MooreInteresting...[///]>pop-psych people raving about the child archetype as the archetype of joy and enjoying life are so out of touch with own Lover archetype energies that they project that onto children t. MooreI know, right?>>83939295>picBy the way, in enneagram archetypes talk, I mistakenly went with that the Puer Aeternus is a magician quadrant thing. That's rather obviously incorrect as it's more of a macrotype of archetypes despite being an archetype itself. Any quadrant could be serving the Puer.I'll probably have to restructure Moore's stuff like I had to restructure Jung's stuff.Mmm I should outline extra recap notes for myself, I'm really getting my intuition triggered by something I feel like I had forgotten to find by extra cross-checking and meditation.
>gods are explicitly not archetypes and vice versa, as gods have personalities and thus at least some degree of balance, compared to archetypes being just one-sided vectors t. MooreAgreed, right until you take an archetype of some specific god, and now it's suddenly completely ok with working as an archetype of one-sidedness towards that god.>>83927322This applies to synchronicities too?
>>83942336>This applies to synchronicities too?Not until we somehow prove there is a way to control Jungian casuality.
>>83942409That's what's Jung had raved about though?
>>83942446There might be [common psychological reasons] for why certain behaviors, ideas, and whatnot, might show up at the same time even in different people who aren't in direct contact.
Alright time for the real typological and Jung-accurate research>type>what's pic related?
>>83942805>>typeESFP-T>>what's pic related?It appears to me to be a stepladder/
>>83942805>type IN(T)>what's pic related?An Ace Attorney reference AND an OSHA inspector bait.
>>83942805>typeEN(T)>what's pic related?A Type Problem:>Extravert makes sure to properly grasp the full essence of the object>Introvert produces a quick reaction to it at best>Sensation sees it as what it is>Intuition is only concerned with what kind of things you can do with these kind of objects>Given that, Thinking makes sure to slap the most "correct" label on it>But then, Feeling says some weird shit about "narrow-minded cultural assumptions"And no one here still has figured out the truth: that's merely climbable object X and the details of an object that could be used to increase or decrease your relative altitude are a Devil's Proof.
Type of the proble-..Top o' the mornin' to yehttps://youtu.be/Vzyn60Zns-E
>>83939179Dress it up however you like, the bare truth is that you rejected the game, just like you did that first chess game. By rejecting my red truth as a red truth, you rejected any red truth as a red truth, and thus the very foundations of the game. It's not like you had no room to maneuver. Even ignoring the viable defensive positions which were laid out, you could have attacked the red truth with a blue truth.
>>83939619>What's your worst public humiliation moment?i don't really feel shame. as such, i can't think of anything! how boring...>What's your most embarrassing sex fantasy?being made to do the dark bidding of someone i admire in order to help them accomplish their dreams. allowing myself to become their property and letting them use me as a tool to fulfill their desires>What's the lamest thing you've done to impress someone?probably act like i don't feel pain whenever i accidentally hurt myself. then when the spectators are gone, i'm cursing, groaning and/or limping like a baby>What's your worst body-part insecurity?my knees bend too much and i'm kinda bow-legged when i'm not consciously correcting my leg posture... been told it's cute but i don't really think so>What's your most embarrassing Google search history item?probably the googling of the cp laws/age of consent laws of various states and countries on my work computer... it was, at least, *somewhat* relevant to my line of work...>What's your most awkward bedroom moment?i bit somebody's boob during missionary and my nose started bleeding. bled all over them and the bed as i lifted myself off them but it was kind of hot. we laughed uncontrollably. had to pull out and put a tissue in my nose but we kept going after that. they joked that's what i get for biting them, i whined "why do *i* bleed when you're the one getting *bit*???">what game/anime story made you cry the most?cyberpunk (both the game and the anime)>How much porn do you watch per week?little to none>What's the most pathetic thing you've done for attention?probably post on r9k>What's the most pathetic age you've pretended to be?i tell people i'm a teenager fresh out of high school all the time and they genuinely believe me then feel betrayed when someone tells them the truth. i'm in my 20s
>>83941567>highest IQ"Astrology is better"
>>83942839AA references reminded me how it did some cool stuff with EF and IF types. Two pretty big ones that twist the stereotype in interesting ways.>one appears very sharply irrational in casual behavior, would easily be a P type in MBTI memery, but the type is EF(N) as noted by anyone who points out what are her more mature points, also has a certain big scene dedicated to feeling very insecure about her inferior function>the other plays up the stereotype on purpose for... reasons, she isn't the stereotype BUT she is actually the type connected to it, and it will show quite clearly when it's nearly impossible to disturb her Feeling(as she herself points out proudly) until you call her out for poor Thinking(and the scenes when that happens are peak entertainment, bravo Takumi)You can guess which is which, with enough Jungism.little hint on the second, she is a major character in exactly one game.
>>83912763>type INTP>were you a "good student" in school? Lmao>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you? Lmao>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI? They will soon regret it>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is? Poor ISFJ/ISTJ... others will never understand.
>>83943767Sakinorva is this you? Drop us off your test formulas
>>83943556On a serious note? Not really no, 16p unironically better than astrology because at very least you got something out of your own input. Granted, we are on the same tier as getting typed by H.P. houses but still.Classical MBTI is taking a step above that, but barely.The fun begins when you move past that and try to discover the Jungian roots, only problem with that is what you end up with is less of a "personality theory" and more of "metaphysical framework you subscribe to in your mind to navigate through both inner and outer reality".And honestly? That sucks for guessing personal character in the moment, but it very much satisfies the need to find something that's not purely being shaped by your traumas or disorders(which are relative to an ideal "normal" person never actually seen IRL).
How do I live as stupid INTP?
>>83944268>16p unironically better than astrology because at very least you got something out of your own inputSkill issue.
Shot through the chart! And you're to blame!>>83944268>"metaphysical framework you subscribe to in your mind to navigate through both inner and outer reality".Astrology does that, too?Actually, astrology would have been better as a system if it would have tried to not concern itself with time and dates. Even despite that it has some statistical correlations a bit there and there.Maybe it'd've prevented the PSEUD kinds of astrology enjoyers (much unlike myself, who also has way-way-way less skill in quickdraw chart interpretations, at that) from utterly EMBARRASSING themselves by NOT EVEN TAKING A HESITATION METACOGNITION MOMENT to REALIZE THEY'RE BEING RUTHLESSLY BAITED by RANDOMIZED CHART into DRAWING THEIR PROJECTION IMAGO SUBJECTIVE COMPLEX CONTENTS of a PERCEPTION of a PERSON out, all LAID BARE, a TIGHT FIT into the BARNUM EFFECT SLOT of the - PFFFFT! - so-called """interpretation""" as they'd try to call it . . .https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/83468012/#83471034Most unfortunate blunders of 2025 - #1 top champ . . .Contender of 2026? Trying to intuit Robert Moore being a misancentric chud and missing all the guesses . . . More natrium chloride, perhaps?And both are from the same person. . . Goodest grief . . . Obviously, to outperform "INFJ-A" in unironic PSEUDATORITY is a feat to admire, quite so, truly.
>>83944384>Actually, astrology would have been better as a system if it would have tried to not concern itself with time and datesSomething something about getting massively falisifed by too much extravertism. But honestly even for the average extravert who cares about actually understanding people for a microsecond that would feel so SOVLLESS, yet I can't deny they throw themselves at it. You need some Uta-tier of inferior thinking(which is to say, barely literate, speaking in baby sounds like this stuff) to just delegate your entire function to the stars, dates, time, idk. >. . Goodest grief . . . Obviously, to outperform "INFJ-A" in unironic PSEUDATORITY is a feat to admire, quite so, truly.Look maybe we will need separate weight categories here because I INTUIT we are a bit too out of his league when he gets serious.I mean, ITT he pretty much finished claiming Intuition and Thinking cannot work together
>>83944424>weI think it's cute you latch on to patchy like this.>>83944384>astrology would have been better as a system if it would have tried to not concern itself with time and dates.No, it's integral. If you take away that away you just have a mess. It's actually flaw is getting overspecific and ridged, but that's user error more than anything.
>>83944424I can buy into "such stars are seen during such seasons, such seasons have such biophysical effect on the planet and its lifeforms, you could narrow down some consistence of sorts" or "people's gestation, birth, and initial adaptation are inevitably influenced by the seasons this happened under, winter is certainly different from summer", but I am not buying into "actually, 95% of different charts' positions aren't applying in an intra-consistent manner across the chart for you, because, under the Offtopical Zodiac system with orbs set at 0.666 degrees and the chart viewed at 10 degree angle, the lines of your chart form a penis!"
>>83944475The biggest user error is not seeing astrology as the raw half-assed tool it is.Dude. DUUUUUDE. Astrology is so impotent, that, across history, most of inquisitors didn't even qualify it as magic! It's sucks so hard that astrology charts weren't even seen as magic circles despite both using planetary symbols! It's like dumb 16p memes of its time!
>>83944493>"such stars are seen during such seasons, such seasons have such biophysical effect on the planet and its lifeforms, you could narrow down some consistence of sorts" or "people's gestation, birth, and initial adaptation are inevitably influenced by the seasons this happened under, winter is certainly different from summer"Sounds like it's trying to not move too further from "things in the universe affect you because your part of it"-tier of logic which I guess is a true statement but this thought is exactly as banal and pointless as it sounds to do anything with it. As in, that's it? Well, everything is explained then, "things that exist within a smaller set are affected by a bigger set(how? hmmm I refuse to explain)" what's more to THINK about it?> "actually, 95% of different charts' positions aren't applying in an intra-consistent manner across the chart for you, because, under the Offtopical Zodiac system with orbs set at 0.666 degrees and the chart viewed at 10 degree angle, the lines of your chart form a penis!"Ah it's Freud again, every single time.>>83944537>most of inquisitors didn't even qualify it as magic!True actually. Not even the magical girls want that shit.Genuinely they just go for Jungian archetypes nowadays, people for a second feared this was going to be an astrology theme because "Star Detective", however,>Cure Arcana Shadow
>>83942805>typeINFJ-A>what's pic related?A representation of many injuries to come. And 7 year bad luck.>>83943173https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OzmlCmTvc4>>83943273I didn't reject the game, nor the ideas red truths. I rejected your specific red truth as such, it was a falsification, an inaccurate telling of reality. And since you built the game on the foundation of a red truth that was in fact, not true. The game itself was flawed. The words you attempted to speak should have resulted in your own choking, because it was false information. Therefore I couldn't respond with a blue truth. Because a blue truth implies the red truth is true.If I were to operate within your false red truth as a red truth, when it wasn't a red truth, I would have validated it as a truth. The only option is to say say it's not true. Because it isn't.
>>83944475>I think it's cute you latch on to patchy like this.Because the alternative would be investing in Fi-groid Jvngian fanfics where I can literally murder symbols by using the wrong function(always thinking, of course), words and ideas are one and the same because god forbid having to see any conneciton beyond grammar rules, nothing can be learned by reading(fuck would anyone write books then? mental masturbation?), taking anything to a logical conclusion is verboten and every argument should stay on the tier of "X is X", "X is not X", "X is X" in an infinite loop until somebody gets tired, or apparently the biggest proof of intuition is the degree of how much people misunderstand you(that's what confirms my type btwwww) and finally despite reading a theory of types somehow the conclusion of that was that everyone has the same type as mine but they could pick different personas I guess?
You Red Truth only direct quotes, sillies.Interpretations or understandings go into the Blue Truths.>>83944581Actually, the seasonal biophysical explanation is my devil's advocate invention and I have seen exactly zero astrology enjoyers or astrology critics try to arrive to that.Completely elementary and obvious invention that should have been done like 100 years ago at least.Canon nu age astrology mindset is trying to play science (stupid game, stupid prizes in the first place) but philosophically believing in at least a single reliable implicit order layer of the world (instead of adapting a provisional model like proper science would. But either is a cult where you're punished for not subscribing to the model that won't be guaranteed to be sold to you with consistency), with the stars (and, relatively, the Earth) either showing the way or being the levers. Pretend like I've also injected 100 grams of woo here and now this paragraph is peak astrology.It certainly doesn't help that anyone with interesting insight (I've seen only 2 of such people) are completely reluctant on spilling the beans in the "ruining the magic" way and just tell you off to cherry pick evidence that would support only their claims.It ain't easy seeming to be anti-scientific for the sciencefags while also seeming to be anti-magical for magicfags I tell you.
>>83944658>You Red Truth only direct quotes, sillies.Or in more general terms, Red Truth has to be the canon of whatever mystery gameboard you are trying to write now. The facts that cannot be argued and will be always assumed as true, though it's possible to play some stupid wordplays or have a blue truth that basically just reverses the intended interpretation without denying it altogether.>It ain't easy seeming to be anti-scientific for the sciencefags while also seeming to be anti-magical for magicfags I tell you.So what happens when you are neither science nor magic? We reach areality now?
Always funny when writers accidentally reveal their typological bias>exactly one innocent Introverted Feeling type(Jung-accurate ofc) in the entirety of Ace Attorney trilogy>it's pic relSomething something about personifying the inferior function either in an immature character or an evil one.might have missed somebody since I skimmed the fuck out of the list and vaguely recalled the types, but seems right to me
Moore thought modern society has too much tribalism...Moore!MOORE!We haven't had real tribalisms for millennia and we ought to bring them back.>>83944679>So what happens when you are neither science nor magic? You get synchronicities that have to be told to fuck off or else they gaslight you into becoming schizophrenic.Endless amounts of people could not resist, and have succumbed into the soil way too soon.Their cadavers are spat on with speeches of "profoundness."On a more coherent note, science/magic aren't the only way to discover, learn, and interact.Children do just fine with basically phenomenology and empiricism without the scientific method.Same for civilizations before the scientific method was settled.>We reach areality now?Surr-vitality, more like.
>>83944931>Children do just fine with basically phenomenology and empiricism without the scientific method.Kinda fair but I think the joke is that astrology would fail on both sides. And if the magical people don't want it either, where does it go?
>>83944961Oh, magics folk of the inquisition times did like astrology. It was exactly a widespread mundane nothingburger. Roughly speaking, it's like circles. You can have circles both in geometry and in grimoires.
>>83944992>You can have circles both in geometry and in grimoires.Dang, I knew that geometry books were yet another dirty trick of those WITCHES. When I held a compass in my hand, I always felt like this is some sort of weird magical tool after all.
>>83944657>the alternative>>83944493Consider, back in the day, when and what people's early memories will be would be much more influenced by when they were born. Also depending on when they were born, certain annual festivals would happen at different ties in relation to their personal new year. Aside from those correlations, which are no longer relevant, it's useful tool for introspection.>It's like dumb 16p memes of its time!16p didn't spring up from nothing, and neither did astrology as we know it.>>83944679We won't choke on our words, so the only way for Red Truths to be trustless is to direct quote. However, Red Truthing a direct quote defeats the purpose: He too rejects the game.
>the alternativeIt's not like you have to chose... or maybe you do...
>>83945026>However, Red Truthing a direct quote defeats the purpose: He too rejects the game.Back in Umikeko days, most red truths were either straight quotes, basic facts, or very ambiguous statements like "INFJ-A is properly typed"(yeah in psychosophie as 3L I suppose).
>>83945055Yeah, and it was pointless.
>>83945090Red truth was established as a rule in the VN pretty much only to stop this Ne-groid from always just denying the premise.The actual point is to produce an argument that fits the red truths, in themselves they were merely a tool to force progression whenever a fact is being contested or shoot down a human theory that could otherwise be argued to be possible still.So, technically speaking if we agree everything Jung says is the truth we have to start from, technically we don't need red statements. But they were for funsies anyway
>>83945090Reader's skill issue, wouldn't you say? Hmm?>>83945151>But they were for funsies anywayThey were absolutely useful for thinking. Marking out notes with colors isn't just for show.>>83945007Encirclement? A wicked spell of the Witch of Tactics...>>83945026>it's useful tool for introspection.Yeah, and my point is, natal charts and horoscopes get in the way of that."Today, we're introspecting on Mars in Aries! Remember to submit your homework in the form of gossips on affairs this time! Bonus points for your charts' Chiron references! Class dismissed!">much moreDon't underestimate the seasons' effects on the body. Biological bodies literally have different gene expressions during different seasons. I'd argue some old festival (when such were common all the time, anyway) is not much of a factor compared to a whole epigenetic configuration cycle shaping the development of every layer of your body.
>>83945188>Reader's skill issueActually accurate in the sense that the reader is supposed to trust the hints when given, something something about the fact that if you just don't trust anything the detective novel says, then you can't even begin to think about the mystery.>what about red herrings?There should be hints pointing at the fact they are red herrings, or that eventually gets revealed before we get to guessing the culprit/whatever else the story is asking about. If none apply, then you go with Occam's razor basically, it's a straight hint.Funny saying that when the reason for why I still can't guess a mystery currently is because I don't know whether to trust exactly what the protag said, or assume she simply can't fucking tell the difference. Though to be fair, no one expects it to be solvable right now and the speculah turns to meta hints(the latter answer would satisfy the themes, the former would turn it into a shitty Madoka remix and cures would NEVER do this)
>>83945151In other words, you agree. >>83945188>natal charts and horoscopes get in the way of thatOne of it's virtues is that it gives a grounding to the exercise. >Reader's skill issueIt was a poorly constructed sentence, but you should still have been able to get the meaning from it. Still, i'll rewrite it.Consider, back in the day, when and what people's early memories would be was much more influenced by when they were born, compared to now.
>>83943173I love songs like this.
>>83945475>In other words, you agree.Just explaining the purpose of the fancy red text as far the VN goes.... I don't even know what the fuck we are trying to figure out anyways, Freud's type? It's IF(N) as per Jung and I could red text it any day, without choking or logic errors.
>>83945475>Consider, back in the day, when and what people's early memories would be was much more influenced by when they were born, compared to now.I see your point, and I raise a counterpoint.An overstressed and underpaid nursery worker, whether in summer without an AC, or in winter with excitement for the holidays, would have more influence type variability impression on the newborns of the season, than whatever old cultural and socio-economic factor types of conditions you'd see in days of yore. You know, such compartmentalizations of professionals, back then, were seen, I suppose, only in baby farmers (a fascinating historical artifact of a profession, dare I say. Such GRIM ageism, most spectacular rapistry of any goodwill and morality...).My gawwdness, astrology should actually be re-approached from scratch, then.>One of it's virtues is that it gives a grounding to the exercise....Astrological Watchword is what's to be made, hmm?...
>posting musicals as a substitute for authentic unique personalityKeklmao
I have nothing else to contribute besides my musical tastes, sonically speaking.
>>83945764https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y1c3xllo8c>>83945546>Just explaining the purpose of the fancy red text as far the VN goesYes, and in doing so you revealed my conclusion. [purple]From this conclusion, you tend to reject the game, while i tend to seek it.[/purple]>I don't even know what the fuck we are trying to figure out anywaysI was just being playful last night. I didn't have any special aim other than play; i just wanted to see where the game would go. However...>Freud's type? It's IF(N) as per Jung and I could red text it any dayDo so.>>83945573>My gawwdness, astrology should actually be re-approached from scratch, then. >Astrological Watchword is what's to be made, hmm?Yes!
>>83945764>authentic unique personalitySounds like a buzzword euphemism for "thing everyone pretends to value and shame others for, but never actually cares about." This is as inane as trying to shame people for some specific masturbatory subrhytm coming after the 47th minute.So far, most of the people who posted musical whatevers ITT are absolute cringelords so I agree with the post's sentiment anyway lol lol lol lol lol
>>83944658>Interpretations or understandings go into the Blue Truths.The aforementioned false red truth should have been a blue truth. It was an interpretation by anon of Jung's words. >[red]Jung himself never said that Freud WAS an extroverted thinking type, he did not prescribe a type to Freud. He did however describe Freud as a thinking type as a way to use him as an example for several different concepts within the theory. Namely, inflation and type distortion, because Freud identified with what Jung believed his own inferior function to be, feeling Due to the fact that Freud's thinking was often contaminated by his own inferior, undifferentiated feeling affect.[/red]Jung's point was never to claim a psychological certainty about Freud's type. He never sought to claim Freud is or isn't one type or another. That would collapse Freud's participation within the symbolic structure of typology into a sign. Freud was never intended to be a sign that points to a typological certainty. Merely a living representation of the qualities one might expect to see of someone who fits into an archetypal structure of typology itself. >>83945026>He too rejects the game.Only when the game is built upon a false truth. A necessary quality of a red truth is that the the red truth represents something objectively true. >>83945546>It's IF(N) as per JungLiterally wrong. Jung uses him as an example of inferior feeling, dominant thinking extroverted attitude. There's a quote PT here: >>83937151
>INFJ-A mistakes Patchy for Jvnggrim
>>83945957I misclicked, OKAY?!Here's the intended quote >>83937265
>>83914995Oh, a pic that took effort Cool
>>83945934>A necessary quality of a red truth is that the the red truth represents something objectively true. [purple]It just needs to be something that if entertained as truth will progress the story.[/purple] But, if it makes you happy, and for the sake of inducing a game, i have no problem with the use of Purple Truth.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCCfc2vAuDU
If there's an implicit order to the world, it's of delusions.Explicitly, honestly, a layer containing a world of delusions.There's certainly a consistency in something being so useless for reality and fantasy and "self-improvement individuation integrations under devil's advocate care" that it's just that, a dismissible delusion... but, it's having a self-coherent structure of sorts? How come? Even if you relate to it only when your cognitive functioning is rather not at full processing threshold on the matter at the given moment, how come there's a possibility to relate to it to a certain point, in the first place?It'd be nice to just leave it at that it's like truncated or mistranslated cellular trash and it's just your intuition trying to inter-infer the probably intended coding that was the driver, but...?>>83914958You could use... Hmmm... Don't want to spoon-feed the onlookers who won't listen to the lectures, but Moore's lectures on 4 quadrants address some of this and that a lot.Hmmm~ Actually, you'll probably won't come to a conclusion I'm considering as a point to bring up. Hmm~ Oh well~ Spilled milk~
>>83946093I'll get to Moore when i'm done with the Ancient City.>probably won't come to a conclusion I'm considering as a point to bring upWell, at this point it'd be cruel not to.
>>83945764And its just one echelon above posting cringey facebook mom reaction pics LOL
>>83945890Since we going all the way in again, let me do this instead:[blue]Jung had never explicitly typed Freud as the "extraverted thinking type", it's possible he was talking about his inferior function/opposite attitude.[/blue][blue]Freud's mode of engaging with "extraverted thinking" is clearly marked by all the traits of an inferior function: overly concrete, fanatical about his idea, reductive of psychology as a whole to a mere extension of the sexual instinct.[/blue][blue]Freud's work is then the personification of his "extraverted thinking", but that does not speak of the entire character of the man himself.[/blue]Had a bit more blue in store but I forgot for now lol....
>>83945934I should really read posts in full before replying to them. Seems i've been slipping...>Jung himself never said that Freud WAS an extroverted thinking typeI didn't say that he did in, my Red Truth was that he was "blatantly" included AS a thinking type THERE (here). My "there are four ways to reply to this" wasn't true, but that wasn't in red, so why should it be? It would have been more agreeable of me to put it in purple, but it's legit as a red.
>>83946072[yellow]If entertained, it will progress whose story?[/yellow]If the murderer presents a truth which tells a story that he isn't the murderer, is the truth even true?There's a reason the utterance must remain true. Because it violates the rules of the meta-game to state something false. If someone attempts to move a chess piece in a way that violates the rules of the game, you don't go along with it simply because questioning the movement would reject the game being played. You point out the illegal move because that's validating the game. [red]To reject an illegal move is not to reject the game itself, but actually an acceptance of the game.[/red]
Another complete nothingburger to argue about...>>83946130Okay. Have fun, take your time.Kierkegaard has some turn-off tangents, so his book is extra slow digestion type for me, though I'm reading it.>Well, at this point it'd be cruel not to.Oh, no no NO NO NO, NO, anddd NO. There's no hyperpotence in [I'm not going to write what I had a split-flash direction intention for, just now. In the end and in either way I'd like to just call your statement grandiose and silly: in context, in temporality of the context, in "economics " of libido, in the psycho-dynamics of individual people's psyches within themselves and as a relational space-]
Poor Patchy-The-Sensoid cannot fathom arguing on meta-level topics. It has to pertain to the observable reality. What a shame.
>>83946197 [gold]It's "gold"[/gold] I wonder if we can spoiler color truths... >If the murderer presents a truth which tells a story that he isn't the murderer, is the truth even true?Yes, but only within the context of that story. When the story is progressed to it's conclusion, it will butt up against other contexts, at which point it will shatter, revealing the very truth it sought to conceal.Chess doesn't work as an analog, it's a fundamentally different game; This game is more like king of the hill. Or, to use a chess analogy anyway, it's like refusing to accept some rule variant.
>> 83941851>We should assume the worst about the people making such questions and BULLY the everloving FUCK out of them.lol. lmao.
>>83947211>Patch Van Gogh, MS paint version I KNEW he ate his penis after he chopped it off !!! Integration tastes best with a heavy saute
Dick Van Gone
>CricketsOh come on! That one was good...
>>83946950It does work as an analog, though. Because a red truth which is a lie in service of a story which is ultimately untrue violates the core principle which defines what a red truth is.Using a red truth to spread false information is equal to using knight to go in a straight line across the board. It violates the very rules of the game, and what it means for a piece to be a knight. Granted, the rules of the game can be altered, but that's something that has to be stated. Other wise you have two incompatible rulesets playing against each other.To go back to the red truth in question: >>83938770The other error is assuming that any one answer can be chosen and it alone stands correct. Jung's discussion of Freud does not justify collapsing descriptive observations into a categorical typological verdict. That was never Jung's aim. Freud serves as an example for type distortion and undifferentiated rationality, where a preference for thinking is contaminated by inferior feeling. This allows multiple descriptions to coexist as interpretations, but forbids any of them from being asserted as a "correct". To an outside observer of Freud, what you would see is both thinking and feeling in almost every aspect of his being. His type has been distorted through his inferior functions possession.>[red]Jung treats Freud as a symbol to represent: an extroverted attitude, undifferentiated rationality, inferior feeling, type distortion and shadow possession.[/red]And with that, he cannot be collapsed to any singular type. He is both a extroverted thinker AND an extroverted feeler AND he's an undifferentiated type. 1, 2 and 3 are all symbolically valid, and none of them may be asserted as finally correct.
>>83947562I cannot believe I read the entire thing whilst managing to only wince the once
The fully integrated personification of this image
Fully integrated personification of THIS image, more accurately.
I suppose that's better than the FAILED, not-even-close attempted integrated personification of THIS image, ala Patch ..
I wish my gf knew Jung. That way I could tell her to integrate this dick
My least favorite thing about intuition:>It doesn't work backwards. You could have this amazing string of interconnected images and reach the end, and bam-everything except the beginning and the end are [dead]. Ponder and ponder as I may, the causal chains have been severed, the libido has left the chat.Left with two beautiful images which, in themselves, explain nothing- yet, demand nothing either.
>>83948309mine doesn't work that way and will keep working because there's always a new connection to look for between existing known connections
Yeah for real sounds like an S type wrote that. If it stops working, then it's probably tertiary or inferiorMy Ni has NEVER left the chat. It IS the chat
>>83948421It seems like you're describing new information being added to the cycle with another function, libido is added with other functions. Which is something else entirely from what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about continuing, or being unable to continue. I'm speaking specifically about reconstruction of previous images in the chain. Once the chain reaches an end, which it will inevitably. All that remains is the starting link and the ending link. >>83948447Don't be silly. Dominant functions withdrawal libido as well. I see some identification with a function, inflation, want to bet you're actually the inferior intuitive type? If a function never stops, it's because you believe you are it, which means it's undifferentiated. Which means it cannot be dominant. Uh-oh, undifferentiated-intuition-anon. You played yourself.
>>83948549lol oh no he's using his retarded understanding to try to argue lmao
>>83948588>[goes full retard on your face]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKy4PUr64I
Taking my >use brackets to imply the provided commentary is but a minimized summary of the true thought process being shared in part, as partthing and swag jacking in general to assert I'm anything but one of the most prolific presences *is* quite transsexual of you
Imagine being insecure enough to need to be a "prolific presence" on an anonymous backwater Yikes
>>83948309Thing you are talking about specifically experiencing intuition as a lower function accidentally, and then focusing on the sense impressions which makes you blind again about the intermediate links.Intuition is, formally:(Thing A) Intermediate Link between A and B, as a casual spacetime relationship that's not immediately explained, or derived via logical deduction.(Thing B) Either Thing A or Thing B could be stored as an unconscious sense impression in your mind, what arrives in your consciousness is what's in-between, and once it does you fixate it as a content, and through an auxiliary function you assume the existence of either A or B, or both, to explain yourself how it makes sense.Somebody with a strong intuition does not lose track of the intermediate link itself, but he loses track or does not become aware of A and B until this matters for the purposes of explaining the intuition. And many times he isn't able to do this but he knows he saw it somehow.
Guaranteeing for a moment, the passage of time, a moment of bliss on the weathers of mine-A raindrop comes steaming, down from the skyA moment too soon and it lands in the eye.Oh why, oh why, am I caught with thee?Two tundras of gleaming speak unto me"Be thy a maiden or a modern dupree?"Cast off thy clouds, and then thou shall see.
>>83949289I don't "need" anything and it's not in my nature to gatekeep or to claim credit for memes or trends but it's kind of insane to be bitched and moaned at for [existing] by someone [obsessed with emulating your existence and participating in waves your multiple personality disorder generated]It's just crazy to be voluntarily catty and at all concerned with the social hierarchy of a 4jew general and then to shirk accountability via projection by insinuating me commenting on how gay that gay shit is is the actually gay thing. Shrimple
>>83948447So yes this anon is perfectly right.The intermediate link as a content for an intuitive never leaves, it is roughly equivalent with consciousness itself until a new content of the same kind will eventually replace it (since you never stop perceiving until you purposely ignore everything else to focus on an auxiliary)
>"M-muh intellectual labours" Anon actually just channeling for the collective unconscious of the thread>Seen as petty and of basal priorities >In reality, both a font of justice and a beam of light washing over and illuminating the exploitation of vital cultural and communal touchstones
>>83947562Alright last one.Repetition request -- "[previous red truth] was, and is, Jung's own incontrovertible position on Freud's type."
>>83949303N....no. You've defied the Jungian definition of intuition. Jungian intuition does not preserve the intermediary casual chain, it's lost with each jump. The bridges are burned behind it. As far as I can tell, you're basically just describing thinking.You have a starting image, a series of jumps with burnt bridges, whose images can sometimes be reconstructed through memory and/or thinking, and an end point. The middle parts of the series are largely lost. You cannot work backwards from the end image with intuition as a means to reconstruct the bridges. And, by reconstructing the images, they have lost their, shall we say, je ne sais quoi, their intuitive life force. It has been drained and replaced with a thinking libido which retains its image in a static, observable form. >>83949359Ugh. Ego inflation and misrepresentations. My least favorite combo.
>>83949452Damn it. I did it again.>>83949452This: >Ugh. Ego inflation and misrepresentations. My least favorite combo. was meant for >>83949364
>>83949452>You've defied the Jungian definition of intuitionWhere?>As far as I can tell, you're basically just describing thinking.No because Thinking is makes its whole process known to consciousness. It proceeds step by step, and what's so "good" about thinking in a general sense is that I can tell you all about it to lead into the same conclusion with your own thinking as well.An intuitive blurts out:"There is a casual connection here, why do I say so? Which facts exactly lead me to this? What is even the reasoning? I still don't know any of these things, but assume... ">You have a starting imageYes, of the intermediate link. Not of a sensory reality.When Jung says you cannot reverse-engineer intuition easily is because you saw the link as a finished product, you saw the chain itself but not what's connected to basically. You did not see Thing A and/or Thing B(consciously, that is, it might turn out you did register certain sense impressions unconsciously if you dig hard enough or somebody else points it out) to draw the connection thinkoidally and that's why it appears essentially hallucinated to the outside world, and sometimes even to you if you want to fall back on rational functions.
>takes look at thread>looks like two people think they're talking to me at each otherinteresting
>>83949536>Where?Where what? Where do you defy it? The entire thing.>Thinking is makes its whole process known to consciousness.Overstatement, but sure, I get your point. Thinking is a rational function.>An intuitive blurts out:You're making it very difficult to engage with what you're saying here, because you're mixing intuition and thinking into one things and making an implicit implication that intuitive necessarily reflect on their intuitions with thinking in real time while they're happening. But that's exactly what they don't do.By in large, the intuitive types does not know the conclusion, they don't know what the connection being made is. >Yes, of the intermediate link. Not of a sensory reality.An intuitive image. I never mentioned sensation. >cannot reverse-engineer intuition easilyNo. Not, "not easily". Cannot. It's irrational. You cannot reverse engineer intuition, period. That's like the defining quality of intuition. >you saw the link as a finished productAlso no. It's a series of interconnected jumps. You can represent it as a static image or a "finished product" with thinking, but that's not intuition. It's thinking. Intuition does not created finished products.>You did not see Thing A and/or Thing BIntuition does not deal in connections between things in this manner. That's thinking again.But, my original post never even mentions sensations or external objects. So I'm not sure where these are coming.
>>83949627>You're making it very difficult to engage with what you're saying hereHonestly fair enough, I'm assuming they try to move to the auxiliary thinking eventually because it's not a pure type. If he is, then he will stay content with "I saw a casual connection".The latter part is only stressed to show how the intuitive himself did not automatically reach "Thing A" and "Thing B", though he could if he tried to think/feel about it, or pray a sense impression unconsciously registered eventually manifests in consciousness accidentally.(it is also assumed that all things are sensory facts here)>You cannot reverse engineer intuition, period. That's like the defining quality of intuition.Would be more accurate to say "produce a thinkoidal or feeloidal content to relate to the intuition" which gives the impression of having reverse engineered it though of course it was fundamentally irrational perception as much as an impression derived from sense activity.>Intuition does not created finished products.Jung had very expllicitly claimed otherwise. It is a generic trait of irrational functions, they are "magical" as it were, only the result is available to consciuosness though later you can argue it wasn't magic because fuck witches.>Intuition does not deal in connections between things in this manner. That's thinking again.Intuition deals with casual connections in general. Though the manner I'm explaining it reflects that of thinking of course, I cannot force you to see it directly.>But, my original post never even mentions sensations or external objects. Because it hinted at being able to focus on "Thing A" and "Thing B", facts basically, yet casually memory-holing the intermediate link as if it slipped out of consciousness.But the intuitive as a type doesn't let it slip until he wants to move on the next image, intentionally, since a differentiated function is directed as far as possible.
And it *feels*(intuitively) like that I had written all of this in the original post, then I went to check just to be sure, and as it turns out yes, it was merely restating my own original post in more words, thinkoidally there were barely any new concepts thrown around.
When you read Jung's definition of the introverted intuitive type, you merely took the sensory analogies literally and then confirmed it via auxiliary feeling by relating to being misunderstood. But if you took the thought a little further than that, if you had internal experience of intuition as a function of consciousness, then you would know it is logically opposed to anything sensory. Jung himself got initially misled here by forcing the association a little too hard, thankfully he made sure to introduce the concept of an intermediate link latter on.That was never about inferior thinking specifically, and of course the very strong focus on "experience" should have clued me in that it has to do with forming internal sense impressions, not a "feeling", that is more of a way to color your language to make it come across as less dry than somebody like Patchy. And besides, the rejection of thinking always was a little forced as opposed to a pure feeling type being simply frustrated by his weakness.Of course, all of this happened because your true type is ISFJ-A, you cannot easily "think" or "feel" apart of sense impressions, and they don't reflect external objects because indeed, they reflect the subjective factor instead. Case CURETTO Closed.Yes I'm Kobayashi'ing this one.
>>83949677>I'm assuming they try to move to the auxiliary thinking eventually because it's not a pure typeBut that's precisely what intuitive types tend to not do. They stay in the realm of intuition. They don't generally tend to ask what an image means, what it's trying to say, they don't tend to reconstruct it, or anything like that. Unless for some reason something sticks out in a meaningful way. They're generally content to just follow the flow of images until they stop. The mere existence of the images is the aim of the conscious attitude.>"Thing A" and "Thing B",Again, I don't know why you're bringing up things because intuition is largely unconcerned with the connection between known things. It doesn't draw connections between two observed objects. That's thinking. >derived from sense activity.This is the only problem I have with what you're saying here. Because intuition is not necessarily derived from sense activity. It's entirely possible for intuition to arise independently of sensation.>only the resultYes, but the result of intuition is not finished. Intuition is a symbolic representation of unconscious materials. The image being presented to the conscious mind is a symbol, and symbols by their very definitions are not finished. They're moving, changing, alive, like a river flowing through a canal. To take a picture of a river and make it "finished" would be to reduce the symbol of the river to a static image, and kill its flowing energy. Yes, only the result of the flowing image is presented to the conscious mind, not its meaning, or where it came from; but the symbolic image itself is not finished, not static. It continues to flow and change, unless arrested by thinking or feeling, whereupon it collapses into a static image which loses its intuitive je ne sais quoi.TOO MANY WORDS.
>>83949677MORE WORDS BECAUSE MORE WORDS IS MORE GOOD>Intuition deals with casual connections in general.No, that's thinking. Casual connections are by their very nature rational, A->B->C. A causal relationship implies the links are retained and the relationships are known. That's not intuition. That's a thinking masquerading as intuition. Intuition perceives connections without knowing why they are connected, the causality is precisely what's lost. Causality is rational.>"Thing A" and "Thing B", facts basicallyThe only thing I mentioned were intuitive images. No facts. No sensations. Nothing external. The starting point was an intuitive image, the end point was another intuitive image. The middle ground was a series of intuitive images connected by unstable bridges which collapsed upon crossing, losing the previous image. Upon reaching the final image, all that remained was the starting image and the ending image, and the more I tried to think about them the blurrier and more staticky they became. They lost the very quality I was trying to regain through the process of trying to re-create them.Anyway, I need to go to sleep now.
>>83949817I have read your post, taken your point into consideration.And upon deliberation concluded:-------Nah-------
>>83949897>But that's precisely what intuitive types tend to not do.Ok but real people aren't pure types. So my quote is something that you can more easily relate to external realit---- ah goddamn it, extraverted type problem again. Every fucken time. Still, it works if you focus on actual people ok? I just automatically assumed the irreality of pure types and it will work well outside of merely redefining Jung's words.> It doesn't draw connections between two observed objects. That's thinking. There is no "drawing" and no "observed objects"(consciously at least, careful to avoid this mistake here), it just appears as a hunch. After it already has, somebody who has auxiliary thinking might break it down in a conceptual, deductive form. Though in a way that is merely an attempt to explain away the irrational "image" in their own head.>Because intuition is not necessarily derived from sense activity. It's entirely possible for intuition to arise independently of sensation.Sense activity is not equivalent to sensation, hence intuition can react to what you just saw with your eyes but didn't form anything but a purely concrete(read: primitive, inferior) sense impression of yet.>Yes, but the result of intuition is not finished. As far the current intermediate link goes, yes it is.>Intuition is a symbolic representation of unconscious materials. Actually "perception by the way of the unconscious" without any sort of symbolism applied to it. Though you might do it afterwards in an attempt to explain the intuition somehow.>The image being presented to the conscious mind is a symbol, and symbols by their very definitions are not finished.You got way too attached to the "symbols" here.Not much more to add really, intuition does not see "symbols". If anything, the inferior function in general would pick up symbols of the unconsc------ oh, quite right in your case. Now you actually played yourself.
it's weird to see non intuitive types try to jungsplain how intuition works to a intuition dom
Calling that Jungsplain is generous, after all I can't quite recall Jung saying anything on "intuition=symbol" or "intuition is the door to the unconscious for everyone"(straight denied even! he said intuitions are directly in the way if you are an intuitive type) as opposed to "intuition is basically a sixth sense but I don't like calling it like that thinkoidally".What I did read, however, is a red truth about essentially the concept of casual relationships, becoming aware of space-time connections even without being able to properly think about it until later, and so on. And that is Jung what literally just went in to associate with intuition himself, very correctly, aside from the sensory analogies in PT(because he's a dum IT(S) head who eventually activated the other auxiliary and reached the truth, just didn't associate it with Jungian psychology but it was very much how I work on everything, while sensory reality might as well not exist on its own until I can establish these).
Shh... /mbti/ is sleeping.And hopefully having dreams to analyze Junganically.
>>83949359>it's not in my nature to gatekeep or to claim credit for memes or trendsNot in your nature, but yet you do it. And often. Yeah, okay... I'm sold>It's just crazy to be voluntarily catty and at all concerned with the social hierarchy of a 4jew general and then to shirk accountability via projection by insinuating me commenting on how gay that gay shit is is the actually gay thing.You trying to backpedal and pretend you didn't do the thing you did just reeks of an even deeper insecurity than originally picked up on...Bigger yikes
>>83949376Someone genuinely meant this. WOW
>>83951361You mean that anon meant it genuinely, or there is somebody out there other than the anon who posted it who might believe it?
I love it when someone projects SO HARD onto you that they even manage to project their own projection. Truly one of the phenomena of all time
Somebody put /mbti/ back to sleep///
>>83912763>typeINTP 5w4>were you a "good student" in school?no. Had no inspiration or motivation to do well in my subjects, only was ever really slightly above avg. in maths and science>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?horrific. it'd be a sight that would make God weep.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?pretty cool actually, i wish other countries would find trivial stuff like this more fashionable.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?ISFP maybe, i love all my artists out there.
>>83951627Ok sure, I produced a cool way to write the difference between Sensation and Intuition but honestly? It's tiring to redefine this shit over and over only to convince a dumb feeloid with a side of sensoid(or opposite way around?) that he doesn't quite get it. And other people seem to get it anyways, I get it myself, so yeah, keeping it in my notes.(believe me you don't want to how how fucking scattered they look, I literally throw shit at the wall, refine it a little, and assign it some keywords for CTRL+Fing purposes haha stereotypes funny).Also just noticed I fucked up the spelling, I meant CAUSAL connections, holy inferior sensation.....
>>83950039>Ok but real people aren't pure types.I made no mention of pure types. I spoke of a general tendency for people with a dominant function to prefer to say in the realm of that function.Intuitive types desire to hold onto their intuitive images for as long as possible, which necessarily includes suspending judgement and sensation. They actively avoid trying to move to the auxiliary function to remain in perception, unless for some reason an image speaks to them in a way which stands out enough for them to judge it.>Sense activity is not equivalent to sensationSense perception is equivalent to sensation, but sensation is not equivalent to sense perception. In the same way that affect(emotion) is feeling, but feeling is not affect.I'll reply to the rest later I have stuff to do.
>thread had reached page 9It's over...............>Please unblock spur.us and mcl.io to proceed.What's this bullshit now?
Please... just let me die... WHY WON'T YOU LET ME DIE!
>>83952994I'm surprised it lasting this long after TE departed (again).
>>83952945>They actively avoid trying to move to the auxiliary function to remain in perception"actively avoiding the auxiliary function" doesn't sound very right. Think you are getting confused here because Jung first described pure types, and then later added that in actual reality, people often also develop an auxiliary function. And sometimes, a casual observer might not even be able to tell which is the real main function until you pay attention and notice the auxiliary function doesn't sound true to itself, or perhaps you notice the real inferior function.As for the Sensation stuff, it's more like[sense activity] -> [Extraversion: impression of the object's actual sensory attributes] + [Introversion: subjective impression of said sensory attributes] = [psychic content that can be read and worked through with Sensation]>>83952994>spirit>not deadWhat did he mean by this?
>>83952994CLEAR!>*Defib sound*Don't you die on me.
>>83953282>pure typesAgain, I'm not talking about pure types, and I'm not talking about an undeveloped auxiliary function. Being unable to have a, for lack of a better term, "pure" experience with a function implies that function is undifferentiated. It is necessarily mixed with other functions. Someone with a more differentiated intuition, namely an intuitive type, will have experiences with intuition which lean far more heavily into the intuitive images and suspend both judgement and sensation in order to perceive the intuitive images for as long as possible. A pure type is simply an abstract theory, they're not psychological realities. But, the fact of the matter is intuitive types resist premature judgement which would cause the intuitive image to cease its unfolding. >[sense activity] This entire chain is just sensation. All of this psychological content, even the psychological process of sensation, is itself, sensation. The sense data, the object impression and the subject impression are all sensation. In the same sense that feeling (judgement) and affect (emotion) are both feeling (function). There's a level of differentiation that's required to parse out the differences, but it's still the same function at its base.
>>83950039>hence intuition can react to what you just sawThis is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make:Intuition does not require sensation. You can have an intuition without ever having perceived something with your senses. >As far the current intermediate link goes, yes it is.The result (image) is not finished. The process (creation of the image) is finished. But once that creation is finished, a new image will be sought after by the intuition creation process, the old image will act as a diving board to jump into new waters. And upon arrival into the new intuitive territory, the link between the two images will be severed. One cannot "unjump" from the second image back to the previous. If the person desires to remain in the first image, it must be arrested by another function, ceasing the intuitive jumping process. This arresting of the image runs counter to the very nature of the intuitive type. That isn't to say they never arrest an image, because they do, most notably because an image stands out for one reason or another as significant. But it is to say that the intuitive types desire is to feed libido into the intuitive process to follow the flow of intuitive images until the process of intuition acting autonomously within the conscious mind withdrawals libido itself. Whereupon the conscious mind will be left with a hand full of disconnected images, likely only one or two. The starting image, the first jumping board, and the final image, the most recent pool. Everything in between is lost because the connections were severed. The images themselves can be reconstructed through memory with the aid of thinking, but they lose their intuitive lifeforce. Their symbolic resonance is lost and replaced with a physical sign. A static image which cannot be leapt from, nor dove into.It's a polaroid picture of a pond. One cannot swim in a picture. It's static. Cannot be participated within. Nothing more than a memory.
>>83954191>CLEAR!>>*Defib sound*>Don't you die on me.All right, let's shock a flatline and then quit.
>>83950039>Not much more to add really, intuition does not see "symbols".Intuition does not categorize the symbols as such. But it does produce the symbols. Intuition creates and perceives the symbols, it does not deem their symbolic meanings, nor judge them as symbols. Merely produces and observes. That is to say the meaning of a symbol does not come from intuition. It comes from feeling or thinking.The act of trying to parse out the meaning of a symbol, or even deeming it to be one is the very thing an intuitive type does not do (in general). Because this process ceases the intuitive flow.
>Intuitives according to *him* and MBTI memeryCasually walking around in a park whlle producing symbols and flowery metaphors to explain the deeper truths of life, without even knowing they are doing as much...... an existence that boards on ethereal, beings of pure metaphysics in direct communication with the unconscious, the spiritual realm, and possibly some alien race.>Actual intuitardsWriting fanfics and doing speculahs about a piece of a half eaten bread they saw last night at their dinner table. By the way, it's been there for 4 months now and somebody else had to tell them to throw it in the trash already.
>>83955342Who said anything about not realizing it? It's in the forefront of their conscious mind. >Writing fanfics and doing speculahsThinking (or possibly feeling) type. Speculation is the realm of thinking. It's a judgement about the connections between two things.>By the way, it's been there for 4 months now and somebody else had to tell them to throw it in the trash already.Stop trying to fanfic your own meaning of inferior sensation.
The beepydeez and gnarcs are so good at articulating exactly what their victims would say if they weren't too mindmelted to back2 reality. Fascinating and ironic
Meltdown DEFCON level 2Will we get the full melt tonight?
>It's another episode of projecting themselves mental disorders onto others because nothing to do
What type has like 10 exes and they all happen to be "abusive" and awful people and the person is just an innocent traumatized helpless victim who dindu nothing in each relational collapse???
>>83955711Female intj's
>>83955711Femboy intj's
I really wish people would stop misrepresenting inferior sensation as "unable to perceive something" as if the inferior sensing types don't see the reality in front of their face.Because that's not even remotely close to what it is. In fact it's exactly the opposite, it's not that they're unaware of the object in their sense perception field, it's that they fail to draw the correlation between the intuition and the object (if in fact the intuition is related to an object at all).In their psyche, the object bears no significant relevance to the intuition, it remains unimportant. The object is not forgotten, the object is not ignored as if it doesn't exist, the object is not "unseen/unobserved", it merely exists in a state of "not connected to the intuition I am currently having". Jung gives an example of this in PT with a man who wanders into a particularly, shall we say, run down part of town with urban brothels. The intuitive type fails to give authority to the concrete reality around him, and is absorbed by the abstracted symbolic images which arise in his psyche which themselves point to the dangerous situation he has found himself in.The women and environment are perceived, but their meaning is filtered entirely through intuition rather than grounded sensation, and the meaning which arises from intuition is never correctly integrated through the inferior sensation to draw the correlation between what is actually perceived and what arises intuitively. Merely being aware of the women in their existence doesn't draw the correlation between the archetypal images which represent the danger the women themselves represent. A conscious connection has to be drawn through the integration of sensation bridging the two opposed functions into a unified representation of reality.
Imagine caring this much about a nearly forgotten theory which has largely been ignored by the scientific community because it has next to no validity
>i hekkin love science!
I met my best friend here years ago and might have lost him to suicide. I hope I'm wrong and he still lurks these threads. I wish he knew how much I love and miss him
>>83955711infj and infp would both claim, i know that. but fr? maybe isfj
I love how every response to the question was introverted types, which directly defies the introverted attitude.
I don't always ascribe to unfinished ideas cobbled together into theories by senile crackpots in the twilight of their career -- the basic precepts of which are empirically neither verifiable nor falsifiable -- but when I do, I make sure to buy in to the ones which are found in bottom of the dustbins of history located way waaaay in the back of the supermarket and even more "off the beaten trail" than the small shelf of fallen and damaged goods which have been marked down in price because nobody wants them, like Jung. Just like those cans/tins of pineapple slices with the dents in them and the sides crushed inward that you can pick up for 3, sometimes even 4 for the price of 1, with fringe theories you're risking your mind to the intellectual equivalent of food poisoning and mental botulism...But that's what makes it exciting. That's why you buy them. For the love of the risk game. And sometimes they're still good...
>>83957733The question about which types deserve more respect?Well, if I really have to include an extravert.....>ES(F)/ESFPThis one wins out easily, they might be liked because funny/cool but hardly "respected". They tend to be reduced to the stereotypes quite a lot, you know, party guys, attention whores, sex freaks, whatever. Not talking about MBTI communities either, IRL people or unrelated internet communities are very willing to project shallowness on these.The ES(T) instead can easily anchor himself on Thinking to show they actually think about stuff, somewhat too practically but that's good and useful so yeah. Generally they earn more respect.Can't think of another type amongst Es who is downright disrespected in most place.>Extraverted IntuitivesGet some flack for appearing scattered and random but people quickly respect somebody who can engage in nearly every topic, or if they are more feeloidal openly show support as the Greatest Fan(TM)>Extraverted Thinking They don't many fans on a personal level but they are quickly associated with achievement and success so... disrespected how exactly?>Extraverted Feeling Guess this one can sometimes be disrespected from afar, but they are quite good at winning any feeling judgment they want from somebody else including respect.
>>83955711This is basically just Feeling ego in general, trying to claim their position is the most good not in merely in terms personal sentimentality, but as an ethical truth as it were. The attitude is a little more difficult because you could argue both ways: extraverted because it tends to self-propagate a little too much for introverted standards, but also introverted because they are saving their internally consistent position while projecting inferior Thinking onto external objects.The latter seems to hold a little more true, so the answer I would give without any further investigation is Fi-groid.
>actually go from Jvvvnging to Magical Girl'ing in a random IRL convo with sis>only because she casually mentioned idol anime and I guess the last thing I watched had idols technically? Well yes but actually about Magical Girl anime instead....>yeah fuck the original topic, time to go full Kokoro, let me not even mention Heartcatch despite the JvngismAbsolutely TERMINAL Ne-groidism
Not the type of fag to usually do stuff like this but feeling expressive>typeINTP>were you a "good student" in school?No, got very bad grades and even worse attendance after age 16. Got good enough of a score on the swedish version of the SAT to enter most university programs though. Had decent grades and attendance before 16.>what would society look like if there were only people the same type as you?Impossible to say, likely society would start selecting for groups with more varied personalities caused by either genetic mutations are differing environments.>what do you think of South Korea's obsession with MBTI?Nothing, never heard of it.>is there any type you believe should be more respected than it currently is?Don't usually categorize people as MBTI types so I don't have much of an opinion since I have no observations.
Is there an Enneagram general?
Thread slowed down to a crawl today.>>83960926No but you can post Enneagram here.
Speaking of fanfics, V.F. should have dropped the Jungism and try to write a novel with a villanous Fe-groid.She seemed really taken with just how cold and disturbing their thinking function can turn, she might be trying to stay neutral but she can't really help herself seeing something off with these types.
And now I'm reminded of something even more funny and relevant to the previous discussion:[red]"On the basis of an accurate knowledge of his character, I consider him to have been originally an introverted feeling type with inferior thinking." - Jung[/red][red]"Jung never said anything about Freud's type as a human being; he only pointed out in his books that Freud's system represents extroverted thinking. What I add now is my own personal conviction, namely, that Freud himself was an introverted feeling type, and therefore his writings bear the characteristics of his inferior extroverted thinking." - M.L Von Franz[/red]What the fuck did they mean by this.
They mean that Freud was undifferentiated.
"Neurotically blurred", actually.But my concern here was why V.F. went for "Jung never said anything about Freud's type as a human being" when Jung quite literally did exactly that. Who figured it out first? Did they never talk about it to each other? The justification isn't exactly the same either, with one mentioning differentiated feeling values when it comes to precious stones, jade, etc. and the other says it actually showed in the way he dealt with his patients.
Because Jung *DIDN'T* say anything about his type as an individual. He never prescribed Freud, the person, a type. Also Jung didn't say Freud was a feeling type with inferior thinking, he said the exact opposite.
do any older poster still come here?hello?or is this a complete federal operation takeover with autistic culling and AI training fully mixed in by now?
I'm quite old indeed here.>Also Jung didn't say Freud was a feeling type with inferior thinking, he said the exact opposite.Yet the red truth claims as much.
[red]A red truth claiming a lie is against the rules of the game and thus invalid.[/red]
literally zero people are interested in you arguing with yourself.we are interested in centaur posts.
No one is interested in your schizop-- ahem inferior intuition either.And I suppose the obvious explanation is that Jung changed his mind after PT. This is what the wording suggests, either way.
>>83961690>- JungWhere does he say that?
>>83962473Literally no where except inside anon's imagination.
>>83962473>The red truth is simply truth, and there no need to provide evidence, proof, or room for a counterargument!!- Bernkastel, Witch of Miracles. Also claimed in red.
y-you mean... lilac... centaur... chuck... prince... rxy... himeno... everyone...they are gone FOREVER? and you've been keeping this operation alive for no reason?
>>83962366>Jung changed his mindClassic.It's funny how similar talking about Jung is to talking about JoJo.
Which is to say, HOLY Ti-groid my girl.>>83962485Sorry anon, didn't want to say it that way, but most reggies you mentioned aren't here.
>>83962495>Sorry anon, didn't want to say it that way, but most reggies you mentioned aren't here.i know it's a thing to hate regulars and such, but it actually kind of sucks to not be able to hear from old regulars. i've been busy with real life.it's like moving away from distant family and having no ability to send christmas cards or happy birthdays, but you wish everybody well. it's a distant, abstract, separated family kind of feel.i think that it's for the greater good in term of intelligence agency tracking, but it's also just kind of sad.
>>83962280>>83962280We just went through this shit earlier this thread. At least i posted a screenshot. Whatever.>I consider him to have been originallyThis doesn't imply Jung changed his mind, it implies Freud changed type. Freud's type is in the past tense, what Jung considers it to be is in the present tense. We know that "Jung changed his mind" is a possibility because of how he talks about Freud in Psychological Types, but the wording itself does not imply this.
>>83962542Not too much into reggy culture myself but for what's worth some of them actually tried to do more.Also let's not forget Gus' endless typing journey.
>>83962559Was thinking he did because he seems to imply you need to look at him more accurately.>Freud changed type Would be more willing to say he changed his behavior and went to invest into the inferior function/attitude. Though that would never actually make it a differentiated function in consciousness.Genuinely, too much of Jung's typology speaks against a reverse "type change", best case scenario is effectively swapping around auxiliaries or manage to differentiate at least one so hard that you might be argued to be nearly identical to a type who also did as much, coming with all the lower aux inferiority until we actually return to the "natural" type.
>>83962559Gus?well, in terms of reggy culture in 2017-2021, most people got the contact information of people they were interested in talking to personally. i enjoyed talking to people anonymously.
>>83962601Er meant to reply to >>83962558>>83962604That one anon who claimed different types nearly every week or month.Imo? Basically Introverted Sensation but so fully caught in the inferior intuition, which in these types appears to be truly random yet meaningful.
>>83962558Your own opinion can't be a red truth. Red truths are objective binding declarations. [red]A rock dropped from a building will fall to the ground, unless impeded by another force or object.[/red]THAT is how you use red truths. It *HAS* to be an object fact. Stop cheating and breaking the rules.
>>83962601>Would be more willing to say he changed his behaviorRed truth says "type", and nothing about behavior.>too much of Jung's typology speaks against a reverse "type change"Yet, this is what the red truth says.Will you sauce the quote now?
>>83962627You can use the blue to add what is more of a theory or an interpretation.But in this case, no cheating happened, they are straight quotes.>>83962631Regardless, [red]the inferior function stays undifferentiated[/red].[blue]Jung is trying to say he switched to his unconscious "type", but he never made the Thinking function conscious. As such a complete reversal of the function-type is impossible in terms of conscious differentiation, but it might be purely in terms of how you show yourself through your books or even on certain behaviors.[/blue]This one grows kinda annoying to deal with, until you Occam's razor it and claim Jung just changed his mind.Source is unnecessary as per red truth rules but: >>83935124>ok butPut that shit on Google or something.
>>83962700Okay, but the red truth has just been defeated by another red truth, so red truth rules no longer apply.
>>83962700Jung never said Freud had inferior thinking. He said the exact opposite.
>>83962721If two red truths are genuinely in perfect contradiction, then what happens isn't simply replacing it with the newer one unfortunately.... that is a logic error until it can be argued otherwise.Personally, I don't believe there was one here because it has several explanations, from Jung not typing Freud at all in PT, to merely changing his mind.
>>83962735That's just denial now....
>>83962744Yes, it's a denial of your blatant lie.https://jungiancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Vol-6-psychological-types.pdfParagraph 705, differentiation>just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies, as for instance in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosisHe states it outright.
>>83962795The (Freud) there refers to "Freud's theories", not Freud's own type.Or, again, Jung might have changed his mind.If he said that Freud is a fucking Fi-groid as plain as the previous quote, can't pin it on anyone else.Also hey V.F. reached the same conclusion supposedly without asking Jung(?)
>>83962832He's referring to Freud and his work. Freud's work is an extension of Freud's perspective on the world, and thus indicative of Freud's own psychological processes. He's not prescribing a type to Freud though. He's describing Freud through the lens analyzing his work. Jung is describing his own perspective of what Freud appears to be through the lens of analyzing Freud's own work.
>>83962892>Freud's perspective on the world, and thus indicative of Freud's own psychological processes. The inferior function and unconscious perspective yes.That would be the equivalent of the aforementioned Fe-groid believing that her "hitting you with a block of ice on the head"-tier thoughts coming from the unconscious are universal psychological truths which unfortunately this type might unironically believe
>>83962929He blatantly states he believes Freud to be inferior feeling.Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies, as for instance in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis. He's blatantly used as the example for inferior feeling. There's two types mentioned there, inferior thinking (Freud not mentioned) and inferior feeling (Freud mentioned).
>>83962965>He blatantly states he believes Freud to be inferior feeling.No>sexualization (Freud) As in, the original idea of "libido" as SEEEEXOOOO
>>83962976Okay, you're boring.
>>83963026I suppose denial makes for more interesting fanfic writing, but not much for proper theorizing.
>>83962832>The (Freud) there refers to "Freud's theories", not Freud's own type.Read the chapter in full, and you'll (hopefully) see that's untrue. This is an indefensible position. Even in the letter you quoted, he's replying to someone who asked if he still considers Freud an extravert, implying that he did consider Frued an extravert at one time, an implication which is accepted in Jung's reply.>>83962738If you had just sauced the quote instead of being a bitch, then we could have had a real conversation before this point. https://aras.org/concordance/ernst-hanhart-2-18-1957This is just a matter of whether you trust Jung's evaluation in PT, or in some letter twenty five (25) years latter (presumably published after his death). To me, this reads less like him changing his mind, and more like him getting nostalgic. As an Introverted thinker, Freud's inferior Introverted Feeling would naturally be what Jung liked most about him, and in being prompted to reconsider his type after a long time, it's only natural he remembered his old friend fondly. One could make the argument that being close, Freud's Extraverted Thinking pissed Jung the hell off and clouded his vision of his Feeling, but then one wonders how they managed to put up with each other as long as they did... Maybe it was a side effect of the cocaine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpIhsGg2SJ0
>>83963050>I suppose saying what I'm doing then pretending you're the one doing it- I win!
>>83963059Fully accept that Jung might have simply changed his mind, but the rest is up to you to prove.Argument from feeling can be reversed very easily by just claiming he was SEETHING at Freud and "mistyped"(though this is debatable as it doesn't look like he's typing him) him in PT, but then eventually returned to a more reasonable position. This seems to follow, since PT itself was prompted by trying to figure out what happened between him and Freud as well as Freud and Adler theories.>>83963063What is even the fanfic?Own contribution to this entire discourse was adding an "Indirect Type Probem" form based on, essentially, the disparity in differentiation between the two subjects and the function involved. Which maps easily enough to low differentiation leading to more fanatical, emotional, etc. behaviors than the flexible and adaptable ones when the function is well differentiated.
>>83963134What rest? Prove What? You're too dumb to be so cute, you know, and that's what makes you boring.>Argument from feeling can be reversed very easilySo easily, i did it myself in the post you replied to.
>>83957733Maybe extroverts are less likely to be on this site/board/thread
>>83963751Maybe neurotic extroverts are most likely to be on this site/board/thread
What if the real typology was the friends we made along the way?
Bumpu-ingu za threado so iz doestno dai. desu.
>>83963362I mean fair enough, but you will concour that relying on assuming Joong's feelings, not even being able to properly interrogate the subject doesn't lead to anything resembling a solid argument. And if the point is about the degree of falsification, then I can easily claim it's not "all or nothing".Moreover, you completely failed on every other point so far, you won't find any quote making a more firm typological claim than the one where he literally says "he was originally an introverted feeling type with inferior thinking". Keep your Dunning Kruger in check next time, other people have read more than you did.
It's gonna hit the bazgina rimato shortly tho
Also, *I* am not cute, my unconscious is.The very contrary of my conscious attitude is cute, but it is spontenous and undifferentiated, unironic little girl tier... let loose on the chans because that is a place where an inferior function can exist without any real threats.Yet, as soon the conscious attitude is up again, it does things like those. Quite sure there is no need to really explain why I would hold back a quote I already have, and what I'm trying to carefully expose here, about these JVVVVVVNGIAN purists who project their ignorance on others a little too much and try to turn that into confidence.
>>83965708>you won't find any quote making a more firm typological claim than the one where he literally says "he was originally an introverted feeling type with inferior thinking"You won't even find this quote. Because it doesn't exist.
Still fully in denial aren't we. Something something stages of grief at this point.
>How could you deny this thing that doesn't exist!?It simply does not exist.
He finally fucking lost it.
>It exists, trust me bro!Lol. DE-LU-SION-AL.
Scrolling up would solve all your trust issues.
Re-reading won't solve anything.Because the quote doesn't exist.[red]Jung NEVER said that. [/red]
And if "THAT" refers to this statement:"Freud was just such a case. On the basis of an accurate knowledge of his character, I consider him to have been originally an introverted feeling type with inferior thinking."Then I file a motion for Logic Error right here.
[RED]THAT WAS NEVER SAID BY JUNG.[/RED]Caps because it's double true.
You're quoting a third party that re-interpreted Jung's words to give them a different meaning, and pretending those words were said by Jung.Jung. Never. Said. That.
Anyways, proceeding beyond the blatant logic errors here(which implies I'm going to discard the entire plot built upon them), though I'm sure you have already figured out what I can point out next, is that you really appear kinda similar to Freud here.......
You think Jung said Freud was a feeling type?Quote the letter, and post a link to the letter.(it doesn't exist in the letter, or any letter for that matter) so you won't.
Or maybe scroll the fuck up. There is a link ITT, provided by another anon replying to me even.
I'm not rereading the entire thread to find one link that doesn't exist.>CTRL+F>.comMostly youtube links, no links to letters. Doesn't exist here.>.orgMostly my own links to Jung's actual work. Also doesn't exist here.It.Doesn't.Exist.Either post it or concede you're wrong.
Nothing I can do here, I suppose. If even pointing out at a source somebody else provided doesn't work, perhaps you should admit to some FREUDIANISMOh well, personally, all I can do is go back to the magical grills after the (partually invisible) (You) collection.
>If even pointing out at a source>Doesn't link the post>Doesn't link the article the post mentioned>Doesn't link anything>Just claims it exists>I can't do anything else, I better run away to my animes!!Bye pussy.
>CTRL+F>originally an introverted feeling type with inferior thinkingNo links.>Open up some Jung letters>CTRL+F>originally an introverted feeling type with inferior thinking>Zero hits>Inferior thinking>Zero hits related to FreudWow. It's almost like THE LINK DOESN'T EXIST AND JUNG NEVER SAID IT.WOWOWOWOW.
Uh-oh metly, type problem, seething, and all of that.
>uh oh, my bullshit has been called out!>time to pull out my cope card!
Good thing we are at the "end of thread" stage.I'd be FEELING sorry about clearly shitting it up right now.
>Good thing we're at EOT that way no one will see my blunder of claiming that Jung said something he didn't actually say and then going into full copium mode
I firmly believe in everyone(or rather, whoever is even interested in this shitpost chain for whatever reason)'s ability to read... except yours, that is, that's where my lower aux just has no trust anymore outside of the faint possibility(and now we return to the main function thank god) that somebody is just playing dum for the lulz.
Hang on...>*puts on old-man-reading glasses*Yep, that's a load of bullshit from a sensoid, just as I intuited.
He says this after falling for the mystical intuition bullshit when I'm like... "this is just the most common thing in the world, there is 0 magic in it, the brain just picks up patterns and I noooootice what the--- oooh, so you are supposed to feel like that on your main function huuh..."*Mikuru gets it.jpg*
What's this young whippersnapper faggot saying now?>*adjusts old-man-reading glasses*Yep, more bullshit from a sensoid, just as I intuited via my senses.
Man I wish I was a young whippersnapper....Though I suppose Freud would say that about me for, obvious reasons.
Freud wouldn't call you a whippersnapper,he'd call you dumb for mis-quoting Jung.
This isn't the Jung thread.
This isn't the Jung threadBut he will be un-deadRisen up from the graveHuddled around into the nave
It's a Jung thread by default because if you want to know anything about this typology, you have to ultimately fall back to him.If you decide to never do that, then quickly enough, you will be overwhelmed by all the flaws and the suspension of disbelief required to not question if the theory ever mapped to anything coherent both with external reality(that is, how actual people are like), and with a logically consistent idea.Still, Jung himself wasn't perfect either. He got almost everything right, but there were some bits that stuck out to me, such as the initial typing of Freud, or why would the hardest thing for you to vibe with is opposite attitude/same function if they are both going full circle anyways and Jung himself talked about how an introverted thinking type can get into the extraverted style of thinking as a complement to his own ideas and at least a way to explain it, why is the extraverted thinker not doing that too in the opposite way around? Why not everyone else?Unfortunately for myself, I'm born quite sensitive to contradictions in the external world, though it takes ages for me to see my own lol.
No. We can use Myers Brigg instead.
Ew no. With MBTI/16p unironically *him* has a point, that is more of a way to spot your Persona or your current mood than your actual type, and even beyond that there are too many categorical mistakes(many times functions are mixed together, intuition and thinking especially) and stereotypes(the Si=memory shit) to deal with, not to mention attempting to move it to the field of actual behavior as opposed to the so-called "metaphysical framework", or "compass for orientation in your consciousness", however you want to define it aside from "psychological type" without trying to imply that will map to behavior 1:1 in each micro-context.>ok but what's bad with that?The fact it's fucking BULLSHIT for as long you don't apply the proper framing to it.
