I've been waiting for you fucks to make a new thread all fucking week and no one wants to do it so here, have a yandere ENFJ
Now for a question I wanted to ask: does /mbti/ know of chakras? Would particular types fit better with particular chakras, or would enneagrams fit better here?
your mistake: you waited
life is so goated as an ENTP>>84218619i never really thought of ENFJ as a yandere>>84218629wtf does each of them mean?
>>84218629I'd just put all the extraverted sensors at the bottom half, all the introverted feelers and thinkers up the top half. Unsure otherwise
>>84218703Not op but bottom is the most primal/animal focused and as it goes up it gets more and more human with feeling, creativity and thinking.
>>84218619>yandere ENFJHow would that work out?What would they be like?
>>84218739ah, so the lower one is for the horny ones (who think with their dick/vagina) and the upper one is for non-horny ones(who think with their brain)
>>84218773Do INFPs think more with their dicks or their brains? Where does the heart fit in with all of this?
>>84218896>Do INFPs thinkNot really.
>>84218896dicks>>84218930exactly what he said
>>84218773Some of that but general instinct
Life is shit as an INTP
>>84218896If it's dicks vs brains, then probably brains - overwhelmingly feelings combined with past sensory impressions
>>84218619But why is your ENFJ a yandere?>>84218896INFPs(and also ENFJ cause I didn't exactly specify the attitude) do this:Still having some fun telling Clod to create these artifacts. Thinking should have been a bit more readable but the fact you can barely see shit there from the Feeling type PoV is kinda the point...
>>84218767>How would that work out?>What would they be like?There is a really popular one in a westoid VN.
>>84219330I asked the OP.
>>84219637You mean, about OP's character specifically?
>>84219676Forgett it.
>>84218619is this a enfj-senparina drawing?
>>84218619Why would you want that though
>>84220415cuz they are autistic
>>84220441every-on'e's aw-tis-tick. So no on'e is.
Talking about Fe-groid characters then, ok. Here's some interesting ways to write those:>fallen heroA classic that always has some potential for good writing.>somebody trying too hard to be a role modelHere you can either go with having them reach a mix between their less ideal role model personality traits, or you can go all the way into ending up compromising their personal life and ultimately not even acting accordingly to their supposed beliefs any longer.>very reluctant evildoerOne who feels like they are always one step away from redemption, bonus points if they are straight friendly to the protags(and any other characters who don't oppose them directly in the moment) until they aren't.>Usagi cloneThat's just hilarious and the most endearing form of Fe-groid, just ramp up the airhead features to comical degrees but let them do the thing when it matters. Extra bonus points if she unironically manages to persuade some villains by sheer Fe-groiding instead of going straight for the big magical blasts. You can also do a "Usagi gone wrong" for some genuine kino>yandere with basically no self-valueAso works, the more they lean into "I literally don't even know who I would be without u" the better and more tragically accurate to type.
>>84220449>>84220415Just for one post, just for one fucking post, try not to be low IQ
>>84221206Funny, he's actually right in a strange way.Enough Jungism led me to believe what modern psychomemers are trying to classify as "neurodivergent" is effectively the introverted type as per Jung(not the social attitude, forget the modern definition of the word here). And I reached to this by reading da books along with some observation/experience/fancy Ne-groid pattern matching shenanigans. Theory considerations aside, it's also a mix of sheer presence(there are just too many, almost like it's just a typological issue), one-sided blaming that could be easily argued back against the normalfa-- ahem neurotypicals("they can't conceive different opinions", really? You ever looked at how the average normotype argues anything? Or if we want to go there, how their "theory of mind" looks like whenever somebody doesn't fall strictly in line with social/cultural expectations?), and finally... they always have a rich inner world that can lead them to develop "genius" or particularly "creative" ideas(absolutely no comment required here, how obvious are we making this one?)
>>84221302there always gotta be one of you insufferable little shits...
>>84221335You have no idea how sick modern psychomemery truly is.Maybe if I were some sort of ENFP I'd stop at "ummmm fuck your fancy DSM labels, I have magic and this stuff I'm into currently", however, somebody decided Thinking was a better auxiliary for me so that would just not be good enough to satisfy it. It must become a conceptual truth and argument.
Clearly the low activity shows nobody wants to hear about an ENFJ character...Should have gone for a Ni-groid, now those can be a wild ride to write properly. "A figure for psychological novels" - Jung
>>84219330She's an ENFJ? I never looked at her source materials
>>84220982Could you come up with some INFP characters? I need some inspiration for an INFP i want to write
Which -dere is each personality type?
>>84218619If I made a thread you wouldn't bump it and that would waste my resources.
>>84223518i think intj will be a kuudere
Am I the only isfp here
>>84223199Yes Surprisingly decent portrayal for something written by a westoid. Most of it is probably accidental but there was definitely an attempt at adding some nuance. If Dan wanted to, he could have written a very genuine story there. Although, Totono did everything better and the original girl was an ESTJ.
>>84223219Could try. Fi-groids aren't exactly my thing but have seen some decent variants and previously thought of some myself:>"love oracle"(or is she doing a little more?)Basically, that one character who has never been in a relationship yet seems to be exceptionally good at telling you about whether two people are compatible, what kind of stuggles they might face, interpreting mixed signals and so on. Useful both for the writer who can simply have this character say what other characters are feeling, and the reader might appreciate how helpful this INFP can be whenever you are operating in their home field.This character also subtly sets up things to go the way she had idealized, and might threaten third-parties who try to sway the intended couples.>the one who says what everyone is thinking(or feeling in this case) when nobody has the courage to do soWorks with both introverted rational types actually, both the Ti-groids and the Fi-groids pull this to some extent because if their main function is differentiated and separated from the Ego well enough, it actually becomes able to stay true to almost everyone's inner experience. For an INFP who can be a lot more assertive than what the stereotypes would like you to believe.>rotten orangeInstead of making the INFP too pure and a loner, you make her a complete fucking sloot, but somehow they still act all pure-hearted and vulnerable and it doesn't even feel like they are pretending. That returns to making them stereotypical in the sense of personality, but not so much in the sense of what's their actual experience. Bonus points if they are genuinely nice other than this little flaw.Aoi here is a blatant example who has one hell of a complex situation, to say the least.
>>84223518That will be hard to do for each type since they can fit multiple, but do have fun with this chart.Let me tell you though, that the kawaiiko is secretely ENTP who just cutemaxxed a little too hard.
>>84224994https://x.com/i/status/2037024166562734139
>>84225671Wrong thread? Ayylmaos aren't human enough for Jungian typology.
which MBTI do you think is the most sluttiest?
>>84226691The answer might surprise you.
>>84226732for some reason i am not
I hate being an INFP with alot of sexual energy. 95% of porn is just soulless slop, and most more romantic stuff is gay. It's like my only choices are to become a giga coomer degen or gay
>>84227772Ever considered ERPing with AI chatbots? It's smut writing with extra steps and a word generator doing at least some of the work.
>>84225856https://x.com/i/status/2037192920734797996
image boards are all full of phony "intuition" types but when I blast them with even a fraction of my schizo power I get bannedAt the very least leftypol is mostly full of thinkoids.
It's a problem with any mbti and related community, intuition bias never really went away.That said, mods being fags probably isn't a typological issue here
As a high IQ ISTP I find most intuitive people smooth brained and pretentious with lame, uninspiring interests.INTPs get a pass sometimes, the rest are plain garbage.
>>84228777I mean people just don't seem to get that a lot of intuition types, by their very nature tend to disregard facts and actual physical data so it's very likely that they are more preoccupied with the idea of something instead of say actually reading the source material.
>>84228782They have this pattern of talking out of their ass about shit they don't really understand while feeling smart about doing it. It's laughable, specially when it's a subject that is testable right away instead of useless shit like political theories or philosophy or whatever.
Calling them phony is inaccurate, you know. Because they genuinely believe they are intuitive. Their LARP is so good they don't even know it's a LARP, they think it's who they are. They have played a role for so long, they've forgotten they're playing a role. The mask has fused with their face, and they think to remove it would kill them. And in a sense-they're right.For, death is the only option. Death by strangulation of a self made cocoon intended to be a temporary enclosure or, the destruction and death of the facade which protected that which was too weak to stand in the light itself.One should be wary to berate those who hesitate to rip their own face off and flagrate their cotton walls.What cotton walls and false faces of your own do you obscure from your eyes by pointing out their perceived shortcomings...?
who are the sexyest regs
everyone who uses LARP in 2026 is appropriating my culture thereby being a dirty LARPer themselvesFUCK YOU!
>>84229102everyone except INFP
>>84218619God will bring me yandere enfj girlfriend and I KNOW that
>>84218619i am an ENTP and i want an ENFP yandere girlfriend
>>84218896It's 50/50 but each half is at 100% if you get what I mean
>>84224548I might pirate this game, is it available on Linux?
>>84230337its a visual novel you can priate it by watching jewtube
In defense of (real) intuitive types, you will have to keep in mind what using intuition as a function with a certain degree of differentiation implies.First, the subject himself found the function to be reliable for orientation, which means their intuitive leaps gave them the expected results more often than not. They have seen they can proceed this way to perceive reality to some degree.Second, differentiation is another name for refinement and adaption. The way an intuition type performs their leaps shows a certain experience behind it. From the PoV of Sensation it looks like they just become more lucky, but actual truth is that they are better at picking up actual patterns and filter out the noise, something the Sensation type struggles doing naturally since that's asking to ignore their own differentiated function.
>>84231504Trying to explain your theories to non seeers gets so old. >t. A Visionary Intuitive
>>84231525Maybe. But in this case all somebody needs to do is to read the original sources and ponder the implications of being a type over the other. Both in the sense of the "metaphysical commitment" to your attitude/function-type, and the fact these mechanisms have different degrees of sharpness between individuals, even when they are the same type.Now that aside, the case with false intuitives running around is something that's honestly MBTI's own fault in most cases. I mean, sure, inherently the function sounds more mysterious and fantastical than Sensation since the latter is the "realistic" one by definition(a very loose one, refer to "abstract Sensation") but the problem is being conflated with other things such as creativity/imagination(that can show in any of the 4 functions) or anti-conformist tendencies (arguably extraverted intuitives have those, but that's because anything too settled doesn't allow much space for intuition to exist, and they are extraverted so they feel compelled to live it outwardly, it creates a personality type who might indeed be defined by their willingness to engage in Jester/Trickste/Magician behaviors almost for its own sake - but it's absolutely not the only type who will have those tendencies).
>>84231616I didn't enjoy this Exchange.
>>84231752I will die on the hill that's infinitely better than anything else anyone could possibly Drop ITT.And more Jungian even
>>84231783>I will die on the hill that's infinitely betterBetter in what way though? I didn't enjoy it and I'm intuitive.
>>84231798>much higher mechanical depth, without sacrificing the fast-paced dynamic aspects>enjoyable both on your own and with other people>more faithful to the 8 Jungian types>if you put two Ne-groids in the same room, soon enough they will be chaining patterns for days in sync as prescribed by the theory
I like these threads because it reinforces that I (infp) am a dumb faggot.
The theory says actual intellect isn't really determined by your type, but in a practical case I must agree that it will be quite difficult to produce examples of INFPs being not retarded that aren't purely fictional(hence their type is given by the author) or historical figures(who might have been different types, because history is also essentially writing).
>>84232090i am not a racist, classist(ok a lil bit of this),homophobe,transphobe, xenophobe or whatever type of discriminatory behavior BUT i will NEVER stomach the idea that an INFP is not retarded and i hate retards , hence i hate INFPs too/ What is this phenomenon called?>>84232045at least someone is self aware
How do I get an INTJ or ENTP to open up and talk to me about schizo topics?
>>84219033But INTPs have bery high eyeques tho
>>84232138an ENTP who recently got diagnosed as INTJ recently here(i am still an ENTP in the heart). Just make sure the person feels incentivized to share this info with you.like they should feel like sharing this info with you might have some benefit .
>>84232137>What is this phenomenon called?Probably just being human. If you are willing to engage with retards there are usually two reasons:>you want a slave/simp>you want to fuck a dumb bimboNeither apply too well in my case. I'm more into the smart girls who go full cute but 100% know what they are doing there.>>84232138Hint that you are able to match the intuitive wavelength by showing some wiillingess to engage into speculah or at least some degree of defying common sense/social expectations/scientific consensus/etc. With ENTP it's easier because they just might throw out the baits themselves, with INTJ it's much harder because they might have more personal and hidden reasons to avoid it either way.
>>84232286>you want a slave/simp>you want to fuck a dumb bimboactually relatable and after one point interacting with that retard gets quite exhausting ngl
Actually pretty good take with no spoonfeeding, I kneel.Yes, intuitive bias in the second case exists because we are saying the type is inherently imaginative/creative in MBTI, but as per Jung the type does NOT see that way at all, they see it as grasping at patterns that are out there.
>>84231504I feel like Intuition, albeit not exactly the Jungian version of it, is still valued enough that society as a whole would find that Intuition types aren't just lucky when they get something right without much in the way of direct physical proof. I am not talking about the MBTI but more of the general cultural residue and sentiments that exist out there that exists because there is a logic to the world even when there doesn't seem to be any. >>84233152I wonder what exactly is your opinion on my take that "Counter culture" is also Extroverted Feeling and that a lot of edgelords are in fat just Cantankerous Fe-Doms?
>>84233217>society as a whole would find that Intuition types aren't just lucky when they get something right without much in the way of direct physical proofSure. I did specify "Sensation type PoV" because I'm assuming it's those types who would find it difficult to accept intuitive perception as the basis for literally anything(except creative works, which might explain the bias there), as per natural response to the inferior function. But society at large isn't just these types, and I don't think it's a general majority either, that was Myers discovering that most people would not fit her own N definition attached to "imagination"(fair enough, most people don't seem particularly creative regardless of which type they actually are in Jung). For now I'm more attached to the idea of cultural biases(for the US, it would be on the side of extraversion and sensation indeed) which do not imply much about the population but do show certain type patterns when you look at which kind of standards, ideas, trends, etc tend to more strongly emerge out of it.Internet as a whole instead has a cultural bias towards intuition imo, and slightly more aligned with introversion but nowadays it has shifted more on the perfect center, or leaning a little into turning fully extraverted aside from places like 4chan.>I wonder what exactly is your opinion on my take that "Counter culture" is also Extroverted Feeling and that a lot of edgelords are in fat just Cantankerous Fe-Doms?I could see this going at least three ways:>the most shallow reason, the Fe-groid can "think"(I know, I know) they will be more interesting, attractive, valuable and so on if they say the opposite of what most people say>a somewhat more pure reason, the Fe-groid can feel like that actually the current system isn't making anyone happy "objectively", they don't care about whether it "works" since it's not thinking here>just exploring their less developed introverted side
Would you rather be ENFJ/P or INTP?
>>84233641easy, enfj/p
>>84233641There is only one right answer really.The only types who would say they'd like to be INTPs are massive Fe-groids.
thinking about intjfemboi rn
Thread status?
>>84218619what would a yandere INFP look like?
>>84234794The most stereotypical one you can imagine. Shy introverted uwu girl who seemed nice turns out to be violent and obsessive.By comparison ENFJ yandere is a bit more surprising because you can write them as a complete normie and socially extraverted too, other than Junganically.
Am I special for being INTP-A? Large emphasis on the A part
>>84235560>Am I specialNo.
>>84235560>INTPbetter luck next time
>>84234794The most precious angels in this world
>>84235560Was thinking about whether 16p's -A/-T actually could represent something in the OG, despite the fact they don't exist there.My best guess is that -A would be the more "typical INTP behavior!", as in showing a certain focus on their conscious/differentiated sides(Introversion, Thinking, partially Intuition), sometimes to a fault, which makes the type more recognizable but also more one-sided. In the case of INTP, the inferior Feeling and extraversion will come out in much more intense forms.And -T is the opposite, where it becomes more difficult to tell whether somebody belongs to a certain type or not because conscious and unconscious attitude are blending together more uncontrollably in their behavior. It has the advantage of being less one-sided, but also come across as closer to undifferentiated. We expect the extraverted feeling here to sway the INTP still, but not all at once and at maximum intensity.Either way it would be difficult to tell which one is faring better in terms of individuation, since the one-sided differentiation is helpful to quickly pin down the strongest parts of your type, but also creates bigger vulnerability to the weaker sides. Basically -A is the minmax approach, -T is the coverage approach.
>>84232045Same anon same... if we want to bring astrology into this im a libra too. Its almost as if like the world is making fun of me.
>>84218619Why are there so many INTJs on 4chan? Isn't it exceedingly rare and the rarest type? The fact it's so dramatically overrepresented here should say something about the character of the type of person this site attracts.t. INTJ/ENTJ ambivert
>>84238219>Isn't it exceedingly rare and the rarest type?Type rarity is a meme because it relies on something that's inherently unreliable(self-report tests, both the tests themselves and the part where the person might answer according to their temporary mood or a too low self-awareness).>The fact it's so dramatically overrepresented here should say something about the character of the type of person this site attracts.I had indeed previously theorized that 4chan attracts introverted intuitives by design. That would include both the actual Ni-ggers and the Ti-groids/Fi-groids using Intuition as an auxiliary.>ambivertNo such a thing. Most likely just Te-groid who isn't very socially outward(most of them aren't, arguably the more socially outward extraverts would be Se-ggers and Fe-ggots).>>84238204The universe has a very poor sense of humour then. Bullying INFPs is the most boring and unfun shit you can imagine.ExFJs are much more bulliable as far Feeling mains go. ISFP if we really want an introverted feeloid too.
>>84238219INTs are over represented on the internet as a rule
>>84238580Depends. On 4chan sure, but would you say the same for something like Tiktok?
>>84238584>Depends. On 4chan sure, but would you say the same for something like Tiktok?yes, even there, unfortunately
>>84238593Damn, I'm sorry for them.Much more likely to be mistypes though.
>>84238595yeah definitely some mistypes cuz it would be weird for alot of INTJs to have yapping on the internet while showing their face as a hobby
https://youtu.be/C7KF1uuEV70comorbidity
>>84238610This is precisely why MBTI will never get anywhere
>>84239044Well it could have gone in a certain direction if westoids weren't allergic to treating psychology as what it's actually supposed to be. Something that cannot be made into a fully objective/measurable scientific theory that only reports behavior patterns and makes assumptions. It REQUIRES the subject's own input at ALL TIMES, and said input also requires interpretation on the grounds of whether it belongs to the conscious attitude, the personal unconscious one, or the collective unconscious.
>>84238580People who want the mystique and intellectual overtures that comes from being an "INT" or even just "IN" type but don't understand that intuition can just be referred to by it's prototype name "representation", which I feel like is a more accurate description of what intuition actually is. Through these "inferences" we can "deduce" that while something that can look "mysterious", intuition can also be something that is also "vaporous" and in fact many intuition types are in fact just fucking "dumbasses"There is also another type of person who likes the "idea" of being an "ENT" type because it allows them to come off as a "badass" while avoiding the "idiot" stigma that would normally come from "identifying" as an "ESTP"
Is being a sensoid a fate worse than death?
>>84239620>it's prototype name "representation", which I feel like is a more accurate description of what intuition actually isElaborate. As in, I've heard the term before, but I'm not sure I caught the definition before it was eventually established as "Intuition".>>84239629Why would it be? ES types do fine more often than not, both the MBTI and Jungian ones.IS is a bit of a wildcard, especially if we are talking about the Jungian one who is actually as "odd" as the intuitive counterpart, but supposedly more willing to larp as a robot(not in the 4chan sense).
If you're INTP and less than 130 IQ it's worse than being an Indian
>>84239697If you're intuitive in general and less than 130 IQ it's basically like a huge fuck you from the universe.it's like having a high-end car engine but the car is a sedan or something low quality. it's just humiliation at that point.
>>84239044desu mbti is like astronomy but it actually makes a bit sense
>>84239676I am too hungover to elaborate myself since I only really read like three or so of Jung's books but I think this post goes into it well enoughhttps://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2026/02/01/intuition-7/
>>84239716Dumb ENFJ bimbos will be allowed into the Mensa ethnostate.
>>84239725shouldn't it be psychostate?
>>84239752It would functionally be a white and asian ethnostate
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8bsNeAf/
>>84239722>Jung actually called these processes 'archetypes of intuition', implying in language that turns uroborically upon itself the degree to which his master concept, the archetype, depends upon a psychological process that, like a trident, can seize upon images and patterns of behavior without benefit of rational capacity to understand and classify them before pronouncing them to be legitimate insights.>The three prongs of this trident appear from this study, which excavates them from the layers of later codification within Jung's translated writings, to be anschauung (representation), einfall (hunch), and einfuhlung (empathy), each operating at different levels of mind that Pilard helpfully discriminates respectively as unconscious, underconscious, and conscious.Interesting keywords here. >anschauungApparently that's some sort of instinctive apprehension of something that you recognize, but NOT on the basis of having seen it before NOR knowing it conceptually. Possibly the purest form of intuition here.>einfallYeah that's the typical "idea that comes as a flash out of nowhere", though let me tell you it doesn't actually "feel" that way for the intuition dominant. That's an outward appearance, for them it feels like they are seeing it emerge naturally from what's out there(or inside and ultimately in the collective unconscious, for the introverts). And generally along with thinking, they turn it into speculah.> einfuhlungAin't this the equivalent of "intuitive feeling" here? As in "symbolic empathy" and "putting yourself into another person's shoes"(which by very nature is an intuitive operation, I will point out that nearly every single intuitive likes roleplaying to some degree, you do 1+1 here and guess what it means about the function).
Angles and planes m'boy I love RULERS
People used to have to draw a bunch of lines on a page to make a grid, not go, "Cortana expand hypercube", you know that?
Do you think a brick dropped from the top of a parking garage would kill a dude in a helmet?
Probably not, right? Make a funny bonk sound effect? Bounce off and hit his friend in the eye/visor?
Not mentioned in that link, there is always a 4th thing that Jung added later to intuition btw.The fact it projects the object in time and space, and perceives as inherently related with other objects, or by itself representing a temporary state that exists as part of a transformative process. That's to explain why intuitives generally like to speak about how things could turn out, how they could change, conditions for something to be there in the very first place, what other things should also be there given a certain object etc.
https://youtu.be/Ol18JoeXlVIIf you don't choose the same option as me you aren't smart.
>>84240736I see mystery box, I pick mystery box. If you pick two you are stupid.
I mask everything extremely well but one time I overheard a doctor's assistant tell their coworker that I give them the creeps when I was there with my bf. I literally hate my MBTI every test I've taken has given me INTJ despite the fact that I'm extremely kind to people and dress nice. I still have dead eyes and give people bad vibes. Shit's awful.
>>84218896We think with our dicks and non-act with our brains or act with our guts.
>>84227772Start writing.
>>84228858Intuitive is a misnomer for what it actually is, a better term would be "abstractions".
>>84241726No no. Abstractions in Jung means at least 3 different things at once, but none have to do with Intuition. In fact concrete intuition is a thing, and I believe it's probably meant to match the word "representation".
>>84241772You're terribly bad at this. Abstraction has one meaning.
>>84241866In the context of functions it's synonymous with differentiation.It was used outside of that too though.
>>84241944Except it's not synonymous with differentiation, it's almost the direct antithesis of differentiation. They are two very different concepts.
Here, a basic ass drawing that a 4 year old could comprehend in order to illustrate the difference between differentiation (drawing a distinction between parts of a whole) and abstraction (removal of the parts from the whole).If you're going to LARP as a Jungian at least get the 101 concepts SOMEWHAT correct.
>>84240918>mystery box, I pick mystery box.
What is your MBTI and which animal do you think would represent it best
ENTP and maybe a fox
Maybe a crow or a ravern
Japs are better than you at drawing.And you just made up a state that doesn't exist, undifferentiated is merely this:And I have no idea what the fuck you think active imagination is there, but that's simply using the function along with imaginary contents, specifically in an attempt to integrate them given a more controlled outlet.>>84244424INFJ and sloths apparently.
>>84218896we are sentimental and we cry and pine for love
Oh wait, the question asked *my* MBTI?Fuck if I know anymore, probably ENTP and if foxes are cuter, there is always the weasel.
>>84218619This general dies without us INFP and our INFPMEMES
Actually the general dies because of too much INFPism. Anyways I get to bring those drawings again. Cool.This is supposedly the most common pattern of differentiation, the image assumes thinking as the main function, and intuition as the more differentiated auxiliary, but you could just read the colors in this way instead >cyan = main function >green = conscious auxiliary >yellow = unconscious auxiliary >orange = inferior function
>>84245331You're just jealous because you'll never be an INFP, the true soul of /MBTI/
>>84245505IxFP are the lowest on the list of "types I'd like to be". With INFP specifically being just the 15th place out of 15.(the list is subject to change according to author's mood)(the position of IxFPs has not changed before)
>>84245527Sounds to me like someone has a bad case of sour grapes
Wow, there's definitely a nitceable spike in quality in this thread now that INFPs are posting their INFP memes, you're right anon!
>INTP-T>logician>0 logic, think emotionally and intuitively>0 intellectual curiosity>reading feels unnatural, don't want to "pollute" brain with other people's thoughts>instinctive disdain for philosophy as worthless drivel>bedrot, alcoholrot, anhedoniarot, schizoidrotJust eat, drink, sleep and wait to die
>>84245616You sound like a Fi-groid.
>>84245609Thank you anon, it's nice to get some recognition
>>84245625Give me some tests to take, all-knowing one. I must have taken the normie ones. I also don't think I fit the INTP profile.
>>84245633Tests are mostly worthless. But I can tell you the biggest hint of not being a thinking type in your post is actually:>don't want to "pollute" brain with other people's thoughtsThis one doesn't just happen if you have any degree of differentiation on Thinking. Even assuming this is possible in your case is a statement that the function is mostly outside of your conscious control.The rest speaks in favor of introversion in general, so Fi-groid it is.
>>84239718>mbti is like astronomySo, a hard science for big brains?
>>84245647So I have undifferentiated thinking then? Sounds exactly like me. If I'm not "in the right mood" I can't perform. If there's a problem, I can't think about anything but the problem and become almost paralyzed.
>>84245668Sounds indeed typical Feeling type stuff. It is said that they can think very well but only when they are in the "mood", or as per Jung "I can't think what I don't feel".And the second part sounds indeed like Thinking gets you as opposed to you driving it at will.
>>84239629Depends, Si-friends are actually fine, being a Se-groid on the other hand is like being a monkey>>84239676Why yes, they may "do fine" but what's the point if their existence is just a lower form of beingIt's like saying being an amoeba is better than being a sentient human because they do fine eating algae or whatever
>>84245673Yes I'm very inconsistent in my thinking. Some days I'll be able to cold logic, other days I'm a literal woman. Today I'm pretty moody and feel 80 IQ. It's a curse. Is there any way to mature and learn thinking differentiation, or are you born with it and stuck with it for life?
>>84245678Anon I...That said, the auxiliary functions exist to help you build a bridge between main and inferior, so the best thing you can do is to work on the one that's currently less differentiated(supposedly Sensation?)>>84245675Si-cuties are indeed cute. Though that's cheating because they literally invented kawaii.Se-groids are either for cool stuff or when you need somebody to be so straightforward it's not leaving anything to the imagination. They also make for exceptional "loli/shota character who is more of a straight man(even as female) than anyone else in the room".
ENFJ/ENFP or ENTP/INTJ?
easy ,ENTP/INTJ?
Why is life so difficult? why can't it be pixie dust and rainbows?
>>84245852That's the afterlife. This life exists so the afterlife niggas can look down on us and remind themselves how good they have it. But eventually they get bored of the faggot dust and gaybows and they decide to give themselves a mega handicap and be reborn as a 69 IQ dumbass nigger who's learning basic shit for the first time.
>>84245827>ENFJ/ENFPIt's regular enough, not much to see there. Besides, since the J/P difference is the weakest link in MBTI theory especially, they might as well be exactly the same Jungian type, I'd say more likely to be EF(N) since EN(F) ever getting J in MBTI is a bit of a fucking meme. EN(T) might. >ENTP/INTJUnprecedented levels of raw speculah on the very concept of specualh itself, and weird competitions over absolutely nothing are about to be unleashed ITT, are you sure you wish to continue?Don't worry for them though, they are both invested in this and might have fucked behind the scenes.
ENTJs are borderline psychopathic
>>84238146I remember that Turbie and an INTP anon discussed shadow functions and -A/-T years ago (I know that shadow functions aren't OG, but still). Turbie suggested that -T types would be more forced to use and develop shadow functions due to lower stress tolerance, while the INTP argued that -A types would actually have more developed shadow functions because they're less uncomfortable with stress and more comfortable with shadow functions.
wtf dang
>>84245979For the sake of argument I'm going to assume "shadow functions" as per Jung would mean the less differentiated ones(the "lower aux" and inferior function then, and it would be correct to assume both of them are mainly influenced by the opposite E/I attitude of your main one) as opposed to the Beebian mess(otherwise, my only reply here would be "hmmmm nyo"). Now with that said...>Turbie suggested that -T types would be more forced to use and develop shadow functions due to lower stress toleranceThis one is technically fine as an observation. Although if I want to be pedantic on how the system actually works: it would be trying to avoid attaching yourself too much to the more differentiated functions(main and auxiliary), as well as your own attitude-type(extravert or introvert).That might help reduce the degree of tension as felt by the individual, and thus stress. But it also locks you into trying to be "jack-of-all-trades, master of none", which causes you to fall behind the more specialized types, and might argue for lower differentiation in general too.>-A types would actually have more developed shadow functions because they're less uncomfortable with stress and more comfortable with shadow functions.This one is straight bs born out of theoretical considerations, which would be fine if the theory itself was fine, but yea.Since they can deal with high tension, they would be more likely to end up one-sided, which is not excatly ideal for your well-being either but at least you get to be specialized into your main function realm, partially the auxiliary too. Maybe, depends. Still, by definition if there is higher tension between conscious and unconscious standpoint, it's because the unconscious sides are more strongly repressed.
How fucked am i as a male infp? Is it over before it even began?
>>84246098What's the lore behind INFP being lame?
>>84246103Introversion by itself naturally means an attitude that withdraws libido from the outside world, consequence of that is a certain detachment that might compromise the relationship with anything external.Feeling is stereotypically feminine and there is no way around it. That was true in the OG, and arguably it's a bit less true nowadays but still.Intuition paired with Feeling especially, it's very much what society usually calls "woman's intuition" as opposed to the speculah or genius hunches(when paired to Thinking). Since it's auxiliary for INFP, it won't naturally operate outside of the realm of Feeling.Feeling as a main function implies inferior thinking, and here it's along extraversion too, so we are saying the type is especially hostile and unfit to anything resembling an external system. To the point that, as the anon above pointed out, they might not even want to read to avoid "polluting" their own mind with other people's thoughts.The result of all these things at once for a male especially can be devastating for their social standing, personal success, and whatnot. Though they could invest into trying to become a writer or similar.It's fine for a woman because it's within expectations though.
Speaking of the -A/-T stuff, arguably though they are very temporary parameters.If what determines it is mainly your attitude towards stress(or degree of conscious/unconscious tension), then I'm not sure you can point out at a very recurring trend within the same individual. I would say that ideally you are supposed to do -A(as a kid establishing the main function, putting it against everything else and especially the opposite function) into -T(to bring up at least one auxiliary, which was previously repressed) then into -A(to differentiate against the lower aux) then into -T(to also allow the lower aux in once you have properly separated it from the former one, this one is supposedly the "auxiliary fight" stage since some tension exists but your attitude should be specifically to mediate it), and then it should be removed altogether because the T.F. is -A and -T at the same time.
>>84246098INFP men are automatically kings>>84246103Se-groid propaganda, INFPs are the best types so naturally they breed jealousy
>>84246502Why would Se-groids make propaganda against INFPs, of all things.
Can we have a discussion on how ENTJs are basically psychopaths?
>>84246587I suppose. But it feels like something everyone knows about.If anything, I can add that they don't necessarily give a fuck about ruling over others, but they will often feel like they should take charge to make things work properly and usually know exactly how to achieve this.
>>84245244I love how terribly wrong you get the most basic of things. Undifferentiated means exactly what the worst means, without borders separating one from another. The picture you posted has TWO very clear borders, one is color and another is a label. It's pretty pointless to attempt to argue with you though. You don't understand what you're saying or what the terms even mean. And of course active imagination requires the use of a function to imagine. retarded/10, you got me, I responded. Very nice bait.
>>84246696And I "like" how confidently you can be wrong about things when reading a few sentences from PT would BTFO you instantly.The image I posted also calls it undifferentiated, by the way. But I guess you are the only true Jvngian who gets it.
>>84246724And I "like" how confidently you can be wrong about things when reading a few sentences from PT would BTFO you instantly.Comical. I'm not the only Jungian, you just aren't. You can't even get the BASIC 101 concepts right. You can't even put it into your own words, or use your own drawings. You use other people's words and other people's drawings, WHICH ARE ALSO WRONG.COMICAL.
>>84246791The sentences in question being? Because in my case I can point you to PT Chapter XI, specifically what is the definition of "Abstraction".Also I prefer writing over drawing, if that wasn't obvious enough. I wrote about this stuff even way too much.
>>84246828Here you go. All extremely wrong. Effectively anti-truths. It would be like saying gasoline puts fire out.>>84241772>Abstractions in Jung means at least 3 different things at once>>84241944>In the context of functions it's synonymous with differentiation.>>84245244>pic as an example of undifferentiated
Ok that was a little funny, didn't expect this kind of answer.On a related note, I think you could make a point about perspectives.From a higher PoV, the colors are there mixed together, but from the subject's own PoV, it might as well look like a black box(personally I'd call it a blob, the box is too well-defined and sharp, and the unconscious is anything but) until you differentiate/abstract something out of it.It is pretty important to point out how the individual cannot actually properly separate what's still too attached to the blob or inside the box.
Differentiation is:To draw a barrier between two attached objects/concepts/psychological aspects. Example, to differentiate a leaf from its branch. (By barrier, I mean a conceptual barrier of awareness to draw a distinction between two parts. Not a physical barrier.)An undifferentiated state is one where the branch and the leaf are experienced as inseparable. There is no barrier between them, they are perceived as one object.The psychological analog to this would be:"I am my trauma" or "I am my thinking". (these are literal textbook examples of undifferentiation) The aspect of the psyche cannot be separated from its constituent parts and is blended into the whole psyche. Another analog would be:Your car gets a flat tire, but you lack differentiation and believe the WHOLE CAR is damaged because the tire is flat. You extend this metaphorical analog back towards a person, and you see that an undifferentiated person believes because they have a flaw (a flat tire) that they are a broken person. The other, functionally healthy aspects of themselves cannot be separated from their flaws. The flaws blend in with the rest of the self and assert their flaws into areas that are not flawed.They cannot be fixed, or healed, because the aspect of themselves that is flawed cannot be removed from themselves with the way they are viewing themselves.
>>84246931If the colors were mixed together, they wouldn't be differentiated by color. Take some yellow paint and and blue paint, mix them together. What do you get? Green paint. You can no longer identify the yellow or blue paint individually, they have become undifferentiated. The mere fact that the picture has borders separating one portion from another portion *IS* differentiation, by definition. Before an aspect can be abstracted from the undifferentiated blob, it must first be differentiated from the other aspects of the blob, yes. Abstraction is meaningless unless its placed into the context of post-differentiation. You cannot remove a hammer from the wall of a toolshed if you cannot first identify and differentiate the hammer from the wall itself. If the wall and the hammer blend into one seamless object, the idea of removing the hammer is nonsense.
>>84107598I may love him more than words could ever be strung together to describe, but I'm not gay, even if I may come off as a bit feminine at times. Besides, he disappeared almost a year ago at this point. He said over and over that he'd take his own life one day, in spite of all my desperate tries to prevent that. I'm still left lying awake at night contending with frightening questions about what happened and how I'm going to find him/ his family. By God I will find some closure, at the very least>>84218629I'd absolutely love to learn my chakra! I may just do some research into it just to figure it out. It is the weekend after all.>>84219061I'd say INFPs can be a bit in the middle. I definitely think with my dick at times, and with my mind at other times. It's of course way easier to go from my heart though.>>842453004w5s can be sweet too...
>>84246581Because they're jelly
>>84247167It's only for the sake of the reader.Of course in reality if you mixed colors together that way, there wouldn't be clearly marked areas, and you also couldn't do something like this >>84245331There are also other patterns, like this is supposedly a type where Thinking is perfectly abstracted/differentiated. Intuition is still auxiliary, and Sensation/Feeling are basically on the same stage, could be seen as both inferior.>differentiation vs abstraction Although those words don't mean exactly the same thing as per dictionary definition, Jung had specified he used those terms in the context of functions to say the same thing. (See: Ch. XI)Basically just separating parts from the whole.In common speech, if we use abstract to mean "non-sensory" then arguably everything except Sensation fits. Thinking and Feeling also not inherently sensory, though they be made to work with that. Intuition just can't instead.
>>84247281Well, for one, a perfectly abstracted function is nonsense.Secondly, if the two functions that are mixed are undifferentiated, they'd be mixed with everything. That's what undifferentiated means.Thirdly, it makes no sense to illustrate to the reader that the undifferentiated functions are undifferentiated by using a differentiating barrier. Because an undifferentiated function is even undifferentiated to an outside observer. This is something Jung talks about with Freud with the type distortion problem. Another problem is that the inferior and auxiliary(s) are never on an "the same stage". The auxiliaries can be relative to each other, but the inferior is inferior. There are not two inferiors. And the inferior is mixed with EVERYTHING, even the differentiated dominant function. I cannot elaborate how abysmally awful this picture is. It's BAD, literally 0/10. It gets EVERYTHING wrong. EVERYTHING. >Jung had specified he used those terms in the context of functions to say the same thing. Wrong. They do not mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. >In common speech, if we use abstract to mean "non-sensory"What are you even saying? That's not what abstract means.>Thinking and Feeling also not inherently sensoryAgain, what are you even saying?I give you an F-0/100. Got literally everything wrong, again. Impressively bad.
>ask chatbot(who is currently RPing as a character) to type themselves >the character says ESFP because they are supposedly emotional and like to have fun>reply that now I'd like an OOC answer>AI answers that, since the character's personality is known to be a cunning liar doing a kawaiiko larp(as per definitions), most likely they are telling you a fake type and the real one is ENTPKneeling so hard rn. The machine knows too much.
>>84247440>Well, for one, a perfectly abstracted function is nonsense.That's something I've thought about it too. Is that pattern even possible? In theory it wouldn't actually contradict anything, but to say I could observe something like this in an actual person, eh idk. For now I will assume there is such a thing as 99.99...% differentiated at least, so that pattern drawn the exactly way it is wouldn't make much sense.>if the two functions that are mixed are undifferentiated, they'd be mixed with everything.In the previous picture they are still mixed with auxiliary Intuition to some degree.>Thirdly, it makes no sense to illustrate to the reader that the undifferentiated functions are undifferentiated by using a differentiating barrierUnless I go out of my way to clarify that the example isn't describing anything you could actually observe in that way, the labels and colors are there for the sake of saying "these are the functions, now watch different patterns of differentiation starting from >>84245244 ".>This is something Jung talks about with Freud with the type distortion problem. Honestly fail to see any relationship with this.>Another problem is that the inferior and auxiliary(s) are never on an "the same stage". Now I'm the one giving you a big fucking F.All functions, including the one that's supposed to become the main one, had started on that stage. > They do not mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. >That's not what abstract means.You think words have exactly one universal definition or what exactly? You never seen anyone use "abstract" just to mean "non-sensory", "non-physical", or whatever?Holy wordism... >I give you an F->0/100. Got literally everything wrong, again. Impressively bad.For the love of, never become a teacher.Otherwise I will start feeling really fucking sorry about hypothetical students.>inb4 why do you even bother replying?Because shitposting with a bot was getting boring.
>>84247440Cavalier projections a shitChange my mind
Wait until he sees this pattern then. The one described straight by Jung(prior to introducing the concept of auxiliary functions in Ch.X) even.(1 main function, 3 undifferentiated functions, neither auxiliary is more differentiated than the other, so technically they are all closer to inferior functions and affected by the opposite attitude)>>84247764Tru but that's the least offensive part of the drawing.The biggest one is actually having the function abstracted/differentiated BEFORE active imagination somehow.
>>84247709>Is that pattern even possible?The pattern you posted? No. There are multiple inconsistencies that make it both theoretically and physically impossible.>For now I will assume there is such a thing as 99.99...% There isn't. Jung actually speaks out against such a notion by stating the psyche is in a constant state of fluid movement. By the time you would have differentiated an aspect, it would have changed in such a major way that your illumination would be partially incorrect.It would be like trying to draw a map of water that is flowing, and trying to get the individual waves onto the map. This is obviously a nonsense notion, by the time you've drawn the waves location onto the map, the wave is in a different location.This is EXACTLY how differentiation works. The psyche is not a static entity, it is moving and flowing so anywhere near 100% differentiation is both theoretically heretical and physical impossible. But it can be used as an abstracted snapshot to illuminate the concept of the differentiation >they are still mixed with auxiliary IntuitionBut not the dominant, that's my point.>the labels and colors are there for the sake of sayingThat very labeling contradicts the point that they're undifferentiated. If they're undifferentiated you cannot identify them as separate. You cannot label any aspect of something which is undifferentiated, by labeling it you've differentiated it from its surroundings. Do you not understand that extremely simple concept?
>>84247709>You think words have exactly one universal definition or what exactly? Generally speaking, yes. Abstract never means "tree", it also never means "potato". Words have meanings, that's what gives them their.... meanings. A word that refers to anything has no meaning. Abstract has ONE meaning "removed from". It means nothing else. An abstract concept or a "theory" is removed from the physical world and exists as an idea only. A rose removed from its bush has been abstracted. So forth and so on.>You never seen anyone use "abstract" just to mean "non-sensory", "non-physical", or whatever?What the fuck do I care what other people do? Of course I see people being wrong all the time. Just because people DO it doesn't mean anything at all. People randomly mistype themselves, or use intuition to mean something that isn't intuition. Does that suddenly mean those phrases or ideas have had their meanings changed?NO. It means the people (you) using them are wrong. Just because you call a cat a dog doesn't suddenly mean it's a dog. It just means you're retarded.>hypothetical studentsI would hope these hypothetical students don't suffer from Dunning Kreuger such as yourself, and there'd be no problem. Someone who believes they have the answers can't be taught. Doesn't matter if you show them the evidence they're wrong. >>84247764It's not supposed to be representing a real object. It's just an idea being illustrated with objects as an example. >>84247832Still F- material. The inferior is not equally undifferentiated as the auxiliaries. And still puts the dominant as a purely differentiated state.
>>84247832>The biggest one is actually having the function abstracted/differentiated BEFORE active imagination somehow.This is REQUIRED. You HAVE to differentiate something, even if only a small portion of it, before you can use active imagination on it. If something is undifferentiated, it is being identified with. Which prevents active imagination. It has to be, at the very least partially separated from the egos identity. If not, what you have is ego guidance and control, and that is not active imagination. Just because you are imagining something in your psyche, does not automatically make that active imagination.It's utterly astonishing how much you get completely wrong. You have wrong ideas built on the foundation of wrong ideas. It makes sense why you won't even think to question these wrong ideas and just assert that you're right, because once you start questioning, the entire framework of understanding you have collapses. But, as a consequence, you're going to dig your heels into abysmally wrong ideas and double down on being wrong just to maintain your ego identity.But, whatever. You do you. I'll just leave the thread again and you can talk to your AI robots by yourself, or have one response conversations with anons who aren't interested in going back and forth with you.Sayonara~
>>84248065>that make it both theoreticallyNothing in Jung says a function cannot be at 100% differentiation from anything else, in fact you will find him claiming the opposite.>and physically impossibleBut that's the real question here.>The psyche is not a static entity, it is moving and flowing so anywhere near 100% differentiation is both theoretically heretical and physical impossible. Which is what I actually think too here, even if I was wondering if the issue is that we are assuming the entire psyche as opposed to understanding that "100%" could exist at least according to the conscious standpoint(by fully obscuring the unconscious at least temporarily, that is). Guess it's not impossible to have "Thinking" fully operate by itself consciously.>But not the dominant, that's my point.In the very first drawing, the(future) dominant is mixed still. That is the starting stage for any given type.>Do you not understand that extremely simple concept?You understand the drawing is only there to illustrate a concept? The author is the one slapping the labels here and colors to show the patterns more clearly. Nothing beyond that should be assumed.>>84248096Skipping the whole drivel about language...(as if it's not almost entirely arbitrary, context-dependant, and dynamic)>The inferior is not equally undifferentiated as the auxiliaries.I would hope so. But the initial stage of ANY function is that, hypothetically speaking, you could differentiate the main function and stop there. Granted, this will have a lot of consequences...>>84248221>This is REQUIRED. You HAVE to differentiate something, even if only a small portion of it, before you can use active imagination on it. Counterpoint: the inferior function itself can be involved in active imagination. And the contents might be made conscious and integrated to some degree, though the function itself will stay at the same stage.>You have wrong ideas built on the foundation of wrong ideas. IIronic.
>>84248096>Abstract never means "tree",Trees can be abstract.>A rose removed from its bush has been abstracted. Sorry esl anon, but that is extracted.
Now for how much I don't particularly like this line of reasoning...At some point, I think one should start questioning why everyone who reads Jung, be it literally Von Franz who spoke with him directly, be it Japanese people, be it magical girl posters on anonymous imageboards - always end up disagereing with your interpretations and call you factually and possibly clinically retarded.Clearly, Jung is either completely unreadable by anyone except yourself, or you didn't even bother checking the chapter right next to PT Ch.10 where Jung straight says:>Abstraction, therefore, is that form of mental activity which releases the essential content or fact from its connection with irrelevant elements; it distinguishes it from them, or, in other words, differentiates it. (v. Differentiation).[...]> Differentiation>Means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept chiefly in respect to psychological functions. So long as one function is still so merged with one or more of the other functions--as for example thinking with feeling, or feeling with sensation, etc.--as to be quite unable to appear alone, it is in an archaic (q.v.) state, and therefore undifferentiated, i.c. it is not separated out as a special part from the whole having its own independent existence. Quite clearly, they mean the same thing in this context. "in other words", as he puts it.
>>84248221>Just because you are imagining something in your psyche>does not automatically make that imaginationImagining something is quite literally using your imagination.
>>84248681>Imagining something is quite literally using your imagination.One very small correction, although he is indeed retarded as fuck.Jung had this notion of a passive imagination where you are casually investing in imaginative activity without any attempt to direct it or relate it to your psyche or daydreaming, basically bringing up images in your head and that's it. Active imagination instead, could be described by that example V.F. does about asking a Ne-groid to start talking with a hobo that appeared in his dreams right there, almost as if you are roleplaying with yourself. That might be the best way to describe how it looks like, it could also be very easily compared to character writing because if you write a scene or a dialogue, what you are doing could be very much described as "singleplayer RP".(that's not the only valid form of active imagination, just saying, it's an example to show how you are trying to bring imagination contents in a relation with something else, and supposedly using the results as a way to understand something about yourself and make it conscious)
>>84248639>He cannot differentiate simple words>He expects me to believe he can differentiate his own psycheLOLExtract means to pull out. Ex (out)Tract (movement)Drawing blood is extraction.Abstract means to pull away.Abs (away from)Tract (movement)Cutting a finger off is abstraction.Try again 89 IQ pseud.>>84248681Imagination is not the same thing as active imagination.Can I grade you less than 0? Yes. You get a -100/100 for blatantly misrepresenting.
What happened to leaving?
I left and came back to see if I was right.I was right, now I'm leaving again. As one does.Matta ne~
The teacher larp reminds me of that one HS language teacher old hag who unironically would give a failing mark for translating your papers but without using specific words, even if you put down the exact same concepts. I had argued in class that, by showing yourself able to pull such a thing, you clearly possess a higher mastery of language because you could just reword a sentence instead of relying on rote memorization.Oh well, at least unlike him, the old hag in question eventually admitted that I was the "the student who has surpassed the teacher" and gave me the highest final grade.
>>84248885>What happened to leavingI got pull. Call me gravity. Thinking I'm a fool?That's depravity.
i am sexually attracted to male 'nons that use a female avatars, what does this make me?
>Imagine thinking imagination and active imagination are the same exact concept>Imagine thinking that extraction and abstraction are the same exact concept>Imagine thinking differentiation and abstraction are the same exact conceptI see why you were failed. (you're retarded)
>Anon, your assignment is to write an essay about pickup trucks!>Anon writes an essay about speed boats>Gets and F- for being retarded>NOOOO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND LE ANGRY HAG TEECHER SPEEDBOATS AND PICKUP TRUCKS ARE THE SAME EXACT THING THEY BOTH HAVE ENGINES AND THEY BOTH MAKE GOING!!! >REEEEEEEEEEEE
>>84249446Gay, but still less retarded than the anon above.
>>84245245I dont want love I want meaning
>>84250120I told you about Feeling bro.Think I actually landed on a very good definition here, for how much trying to define Feeling is the very antithesis of what it stands for... but alas, it helps not having it as an inferior function like Jvng....
>I'm smart because of doing the assignment you have handed me >I instead chose to do a different assistant >that makes me smarter than you
>>84250212What website is that? I want to check it, pls.
is being INTP a blessing or a curse?
>>84250815Neither, the only curse is identifying with your type and believing that it has some sort of authority over you.
>>84250924My type says I have to respond to this.
>>84218619INFJ reporting in.Ask me anything.
>>84251536How do I talk am infj into adding me into their polycule?
>>84250790It's not a website, it's a cute HTML artifact I asked Claude to make because I was bored enough and it's a very fancy way to organize my own messy and no so cute notes.>>84250815Let's be real, INxx anything won't fit most things, and they always have an issue making themselves understood, mainly because if you went raw unfiltered INism, people would be quick to dismiss these types as being just menheras, or whatever trendy DSM word they happen to know.Feeling leans are still more fucked than Thinking leans imo, because the latter can at least come across as producing coherent and logical thoughts.
Still, I can straight just drop the most recent version of the html.https://files.catbox.moe/g1im6w.htmlCatbox instead of pastebin because LOL.I have absolutely no idea what could even be filtered here.
>>84252780This man really dropping key logging ip tracker scripts here
To this day I'm still baffled the ASCII limitation on r9k also includes kana/kanji. You would think using japanese characters easily becomes relevant on a website such as 4chan regardless of board, but...Oh well, that's not going to stop be from occasionally calling Intuition "chokkan" for lulz.
>EN type>represented by two people pointing their finger and >:) expressionTimeless classic. Why does he carry around a loli of his type to mimic his movements though?
>>84254631Because people like >>84249446 are easily manipulated! And it's okay to manipulate people if it's for their own good, like manipulating them out of being susceptible to manipulation from LARPing faggots... who actually put out even less than the littles they girlfraud as because they hate their neglected and deteriorating booooodies >_< And they suck at ERP 1on1 because they only exert effort publicly because the idea that men are getting hard at their posts is more of an ego thing than a sexual thing so it's not worth it to waste your good writing on one person when you could get 10 (You)s ITT
It's also ok to manipulate people for their own bad if *they're* someone who manipulates people for their own good to the detriment of the puppeteered. Especially if it's an honor killing from within the same business/ecosystem
Not listed: la secret cuarta type who posts [misinfo] to maintain their advantage o algo
>>84254865>Because people like >>84249446 are easily manipulated! Fair enough, if you don't get to be the cute girl, you can also just carry one around and have her mimic you, should work either way. Now the real question is where to find one who will just do that.>And it's okay to manipulate people if it's for their own good, like manipulating them out of being susceptible to manipulation from LARPing faggotsAlso fair enough, though in my case it's more on the side of thinkoidism so it turns into "pulling bullshit on somebody to show they could be exploited that way", especially if the person in question is an overconfident Se-groid who tells you to look at the realz all the time but doesn't notice basic bitch trickery.
>>84254865>>84254899>It's also ok to manipulate people for their own bad if *they're* someone who manipulates people for their own good to the detriment of the puppeteered.>These "Satan" INFJs are so good at this in fact, they will end up INFJing other INFJs, and they will stick them into their "people who control other people" category, and they will control huge groups of people using this category, pyramid style.Your type is right there.
and what would l be without my e n t o u r a g e
The ol' "Let 'em warm up the camera flashes" clique, the indicator mineral/species, the chemicals that turn the peepee blue!
>Eva is based on JungYea sure, though I don't remember enough to draw all the parallels now.>Star Wars is also based on JungHuh? What are these funny japs saying...Well, I haven't watched much of it. Hmm...
>>84254938"What is... A VTuber" for 500Hmm. Maybe with a Thinking preference you run into more Sensors, and more Intuitives when you have a Feeling preference? That it could be a difference in circumstance encountered in a bigger way as well, not just slight jumbling of variables and alternate intentions/reactions or tactics in response
>>84255170>"What is... A VTuber" for 500Just pulling the ultimate power move of "I will do things and say things, but claim this 2D anime girl did it and turn her into an idol".>Maybe with a Thinking preference you run into more Sensors, and more Intuitives when you have a Feeling preference?I could see one way to argue this but it's very tentative: both thinking and sensation are said to be "static", in the sense that they try to operate in a timeless, formulaic, reliable, reproducible way.While both feeling and intuition are said to be "dynamic", so they operate within given time frames, attached to their context, culture, and are not meant to be always reliable or reproducible by everyone, though you could point at general trends.
https://voca.ro/1atK4be7vkMZIn The Seventh Hour of the Orange Sun: a speculative fragment from the interior mythology of an infant mage>>84252780I was going to write a post asking for moar and then I scrolled and there already was! Love when that happens
>>84255299Probably easier to work the similarities into an argument than try to fit similarities into one preformed. What are some more similarities between Thinkers and Sensors, in your opinion as an EN(T)?
Instant essence-conception of similarities between Intuitives and Feelers and especially those which would bring them on to the social gameboard with 5D chess players and how they would navigate it? YesLinguistic articulation? 5-7 business epochs please Wanting to share the constituted perspective in this space specifically? Not guaranteed
>>84255384https://voca.ro/1f8emwv4aPV3Smartie bersion
>>84255469>Probably easier to work the similarities into an argument than try to fit similarities into one preformed.Basically. I think NT and SF types might have an advantage: their functions, regardless of which one is the main or a well-developed auxiliary, form a Static x Dynamic pair. One way or another they can proceed through a similarity even with the double static(ST)/double dynamic(NF) pairs. Though they might be confused about whether they are seeing their own function or something else that seems to share this attribute.> What are some more similarities between Thinkers and Sensors, in your opinion as an EN(T)?For one, both types can care about "order" but for entirely different reasons. Thinking more in the sense of wanting a precise method, or to organize for the sake of making things easy to find for everyone involved(themselves included) - Sensors more in the sense of appreciating tidiness on an aesthetic level, or for the sake of creating an environment that gives them a sense of inner peace, no rational basis for this because otherwise it becomes either thinking or feeling.Another could be "clarity", Thinking types try as far as possible to give straight answers and put things in logical forms that are self-evident enough, overcomplicating or getting caught into wordism is usually what happens when the Feeling type tries to reach for Thinking but can't seem to figure out the issue is about their grasp of certain fundamental concepts, not really how they are explaining, arguing it, or specifics. We have a live example ITT.Sensors, especially extraverted ones, try as far as possible to act in straightforward ways generally to avoid "leaving things to interpretation or imagination", because doing is code for having to use intuition(from their PoV they would call it imagination because lol inferior function)
>>84255661>>84255384Why do you bless us with such abundance this day my fair lady?
>>84255692https://voca.ro/1dUzgwdGCtrX
>canned boba tea i just crinked smells strangely alike to gerber sweet potato baby foodhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>>84255669https://voca.ro/1c2kM3DSGiXVWe'll REEEEEEEEEturn after this short interspersal break (?)
https://voca.ro/11iC1000WTNIgegsigh
>ClownsSay less I'm sathttps://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?pid=S1517-24301999000100004&script=sci_arttext
Why do all eccentric geniuses and/or schizophrenics doodle like THAT
You know all you have to do is make more money than you're currently making then keep circulating that profit, right?
"All it takes is one lucky shot" is the babby's forst "Yes you have to pass level 1 to get to level 2"
>Imagine talking about typology(it's not possible because pseuds exist and cannot comprehend the most basic of basic concepts)
>>84255782Ahh, I see. So then was the REDACTED at your grandmother's house? If so that place is gorgeous. If I'm wrong then you are lucky to have such a view daily.
Typology is kinda hard to discuss in general... out of the top of my mind:>high amounts of theoretical considerations to keep in mind, all coming from different sources >requires some degree of self awareness that's not so common at all>have to get over the basic typological bias: assuming everyone else is either exactly your type (but smarter, or more good, or more retarded, or whatever) or a variation (instead of straight having a different conscious attitude and main function, for instance, it just doesn't help anyone to judge feeling types on their thinking output, and it's straight ignoring the most relevant contributions)>have to keep in mind that behaviors are still affected by things that aren't your type, such as societal expectations, context or traumas >(Jung specific) absolutely required to know what's the conscious and unconscious standpoint of an individual And that's not a full list. You just need a certain mindset to face those topics, and arguably straight empathy.
>>84255782>https://voca.ro/1dUzgwdGCtrX*hug* I miss you and hope that things get better.
And the biggest redpill is that... with all the due respect to people with an S in their type: Typology is Intuitive by nature.>it's about general trends and potential development paths>never enough to look at how somebody is acting even for a long time until we try to look at the background, the "how"s and "why"s>categorizaton by itself means nothing>type compatibility is still a bit of a huge meme due to aforementioned dynamism: that's just going to make individuals relate to their type differently, and yours too, even beyond purely personal tastes and needs>any attempt at producing hard data fails because the approach is simply not compatible
You don't need a grand understanding of the concepts and topics. You only need a baseline understanding of the four functions and two attitudes.Which can each be defined in a single sentence using less than 10 words each. Then you also need an understanding of what it means to be conscious of something and unconscious of something.Which again, can be defined in one sentence each.Typology is EXTREMELY simple in theory, and trying to use 921047216 sources for different materials only ends up muddying the water and diluting the definitions to utter nonsense.In total, you need the ability to retain about 1.5 paragraphs worth of knowledge in the definitions. The abundant problem in discussion is that people refuse to acknowledge this baseline simplicity and try to delve into the complexities without a solid foundation of understanding. The vast majority of people cannot even differentiate intuition from thinking. Or feeling from sensation. But they can throw about a bunch of complex words and pretend like they know what they're talking about. Which doesn't lend itself to good conversations, but it does make one feel very superior and smart.
People need to decide what they want to do:Practice psychology or,Talk about psychology.Talking about psychological concepts and subjects does not replace practicing psychology. That is to say, reading books, talking about the abstract concepts and ideas doesn't really give you any real insight into yourself or other people. It simply gives you the tools to obtain insight, but without applied practice, REAL applied experiential practice, you have nothing more than words on a page (or a screen). Simple theoretical knowledge with no applicable use. Talking about the shadow as a concept does not move you any closer to actually confronting it. Talking about the inferior function as a concept does not move you any closer to uncovering your own. Talking about the unconscious and conscious attitudes as a concept does not move you any closer to differentiating your own unconscious.The question comes down to:Do you want to PRACTICE Jungian psychology and actually transform your own psyche?Or do you want to THEORIZE about Jungian psychology and remain safe from the dangers of the unknowns on the other side of transformation
INTJ here, where's the bitches?
>>84258554in my ass
sumone play statdeww with me pls
>>84258205You are right about definitions, but I was more concerned about the mechanics involved. Sure, I don't need to elaborate much on what "Thinking" means, but the very second we are trying to observe Thinking in an individual, we have to keep in mind the issue of differentiation, how much it accords to the person's own type against what was mechanically borrowed by the collective, how much "determining power" it has, if it's more correct to say that somebody is directing Thinking consciously or is caught by it unconsciously etc..Even when you don't want to type somebody, if these things aren't considered then it doesn't help in any way to just repeat the definition of Thinking because everyone can use a function one way or another, anyways.As for sources, ideally you pick a main point of reference(Jung in this case) and argue that if you can make it return to the OG, then it's good, and if it doesn't or blatantly contradicts it, then it's questionable at best or completely made up at worst. But in actual practice, other people you are trying to talk with might not be willing to do it that way, or simply believe whatever is your main point of reference isn't reliable for whatever reason. You could just call them retarded but I'm not sure that qualifies as trying to have a conversation at all, completely skipping the "challenge" doesn't make it any less challenging.>>84258540Theory and practice go hand in hand.In the case of typology, being exposed to the idea of different types existing, and understanding it runs at the "metaphysical ground and commitment" level as opposed to simply a behavioral model or a Persona, should help defeating the inherent typological bias in your mind.Though I have mentioned above that I think that you might also require to combine this with empathy, otherwise you never really move past mere acknowledgment in purely conceptual terms.Pic unrel, but I'm sure I'd btfo this loli as I am now.
That being said, I think the most difficult thing to understand in the original definitions aren't actually the 4 functions especially after summing it up as "Sensation tells you there is something", "Thinking tells you what it is", "Feeling tells you what it means", "Intuition tells you from where it came from and where it's going".The reason for why they are misunderstood in the first place is actually just because of MBTI memery. If I ask to a random person to point out the difference between "Sensation" and "Feeling" they will probably figure out that the former is a mode of perception through "senses" and there might be absolutely 0 "emotion" into it, while the latter appears to go beyond perception and doesn't rely only on sensory experience, at least. And many people will you that Thinking and Intuition are absolutely not the same thing, in fact they might even be opposed at times, because figuring something out "intuitively" might easily imply to most that you are saying you didn't do any real deductive work in your head, you just trusted a "gut feeling" or a "hunch" which turned out to be more or less accurate.It would be "introversion" itself. Because to even begin to understand what exactly is introversion without getting mixed with personal subjectivity or maybe shyness/reservation, you need to conceive the idea of a collective unconscious or at least a "subjectivity" that isn't true to the subject's own ego, but rather universal standards/shared internal experience which is not directly derived by local culture/education, but what you can sum up as "we are all humans after all".Many people, introverts included, might easily disagree with this entire notion even if they have experienced it before either within themselves or by meeting somebody relying on their introversion to actually understand external stuff too.
Don't worry, even I think I write way too much.ENs gotta EN.
>>84260897Except you've made two fatal flaws. You, as an outsider, cannot accurately and reliably differentiate someone else's unconscious and conscious. For the most part, you'll just be projecting your own unconscious. You do not have a scope into their psyche, so you cannot see what's going on in there to know what they're aware of, or not aware of. Unless you're going around intentionally touching on people's complexes to trigger their shadow, you won't be able to tell the difference between their unconscious and conscious. Or to put it into extremely simple wording:You cannot claim reliable, objective knowledge of another's inner differentiation without projecting.And the second major flaw is that typology isn't supposed to be used to try and force a type onto people. It's not your job to slap labels onto other people. The purpose is almost strictly to identify where they're coming from, which functions they're using. Identifying the simple fact that they're using thinking, regardless of whether or not they're a thinking type, is the purpose of typology.It's supposed to be a tool to understand yourself and other people, not to box them in with superficial labels.Or again, in extremely simple wording:The purpose is to build a relationship with (yourself) and/or other people by understanding where they're coming from. But, first and foremost it's to understand YOUR OWN perspective, and how it relates to other people. And that other people look at things from different perspectives and come to differing conclusions based on that perspective. It's a tool to build bridges between your ego and shadow, and then extend that methodology of bridge building to other people.Rather than a method to impose a rigid identity on yourself, and then continue that rigid imposition onto other people.
>>84262109>ENs gotta EN.truer words cant be said
>>84263180>cannot accurately and reliably differentiate someone else's unconscious and conscious. For the most part, you'll just be projecting your own unconsciousGood thing a part of the unconscious is collective.It relies on a combination of observation, asking them about what they think they are doing and why, and trust that you have just enough context to look past attempts to deceive(intentional or not). Unless you believe it's genuinely impossible to relate to another human being at least on the level required to assume general trends in their conscious/unconscious standpoints, but that would make Jungian psychology essentially worthless as anything but self-exploration or writing inspiration.>You cannot claim reliable, objective knowledge of another's inner differentiation Sure thing. Jungian psychology as a whole relies a lot on input from the subject, I've said so before.And very openly spoke against shit like DSM that tries to reduce it to nooticing behavior patterns, call them disorders(relative to cultural bias because it assumes a "normal", unlike actual typology) and tell you to take some anti-ADHD meds.> Identifying the simple fact that they're using thinking, regardless of whether or not they're a thinking type, is the purpose of typology.Disagree entirely. You couldn't miss the point harder if you tried.Recognizing "Thinking" on its own means absolutely nothing, that's why we have the concepts of a main function, auxiliary ones, and the inferior function - because you are supposed to understand how it looks like for the Thinking type, or for the Feeling type, or for a type that's neither but has a higher or lower degree of differentiation in consciousness.I could say the same about extraversion and introversion too: we know everyone has these mechanisms, but what is the difference between these two types then? Obviously, which mechanism is dominant for the individual and which one is just secondary/repressed/accidental etc.
>>84260897Theory also goes hand in hand with not practicing, and using theoretical knowledge as a barrier to prevent growth.Which is exactly what a lot of people do, intellectualize. Jung even has a quote directly about this:>"One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious."Simply being aware of opposed perspectives does not move you any closer to integrating your own oppositional perspectives. If it were that simple, people with severe complexes would cure themselves the moment they became aware of their issue as an issue. Contrary to popular belief, awareness is not the first step. It's the prerequisite for the first step. Just like "having legs" isn't the first step to walking to the fridge, it's just a prerequisite. But, anyways, Jung has a bunch of quotes about this directly. >"Knowledge of the psyche is not a substitute for experience of the psyche."Knowledge is not a substitute for practice. Just because you have knowledge, doesn't mean you are practicing. Knowledge alone does not transform someone. This is easily observable.
>>84263360>Theory also goes hand in hand with not practicing, and using theoretical knowledge as a barrier to prevent growth.It can be used that way, doesn't mean it HAS to.No one has ever said you have to stop at awareness, regardless of how where you would place it in a hypothetical representation of a development path. Dunno, don't think there is much of a point in quoting more about this post. The claim can be addressed very directly all at once.
Might as well do what Intuitoids do better and throw up a funny analogy. Many people ask how do you even approach these arcade STGs that seem to be particularly difficult, requiring superhuman reflexes or incredible awareness of 200 things moving on your screen all at once(especially the danmaku style).It can be broken in roughly 4 stages:1. the theoretical stage: you learn how the game mechanics work, especially if there are hidden ones that can help you. Usually reading up a wiki helps. If you have never played the genre before, you might also want to learn some common techniques like "bullet herding", or where to look on the screen, or the concept of hitboxes - skipping this stage leads to a lot of frustration, and misunderstanding many things that might not be too intuitive to everyone. And it goes without saying, but you aren't playing the game here.2. routing stage: this is what I would call the "applied theory". Basically you apply the known concepts in the context of a stage, a boss fight, a specific pattern etc. Ideally you do this as you play, especially to adjust the routing in ways that are easier for you to do, or whatever you might be aiming at.*3. practicing stage: simply learning the game and figuring out some nice ways to deal with what it throws at you isn't enough, you have to do it more than once to acquire consistency. Features such as stage select modes or save states in emulators are very efficent tools for this purpose.4. run attempts: you know what to do, you practiced it enough, now it's time to make it happen all at once in a single run***it's possible to simply skip 1 and 2 if you go for "copymonkey"ing a replay, but that's just boring now. Only do it if you are absolutely stuck.**if during your run attempts you notice issues with consistency or figure out there might be a better way to deal with a specific situation, you might want to go back to 2 or 3
>>84263320>Good thing a part of the unconscious is collective.Do you know what that means? It simply means that the unconscious is something everyone has. That doesn't mean you can identify other people's unconscious. It just means you have a common connection by sharing something everyone else has.It doesn't give you the ability to accurately identify someone else's unconscious, at the best it gives you commonality to infer their unconscious. But, again, you're mostly going to be seeing your own unconscious and projecting it onto them. A physical analog to this is pain, it's collective. But a man cannot know what it's like to give birth, and a woman cannot know what it's like to get kicked in the balls. This is, at it's core, no different than trying to peer into someone else's psyche. What you will see is your own psyche.Just like the man will not feel the pain of birth, he will feel some of his own pain and infer it to be similar to a woman's. You don't know their unconscious/conscious standpoints. You CANNOT know their perspective from their perspective. And by asserting that you can accurately know someone's type, you are blaspheming against Jung.Trying to reduce someone, even yourself, to a type is against the spirit of analytical psychology.>DSM that tries to reduce it to nooticing behavior patternsFrom where I sit, that's what you're doing with typology... The question becomes, are you aware of that behavior in yourself?>Recognizing "Thinking" on its own means absolutely nothingIf you cannot even accurately identify the thinking function in a person, you have very little framework to build the hierarchy of functions. This is effectively like saying the having a foundation alone is useless for a house, and actually it requires a roof to be functional. SURE, I guess. But, without a foundation, without walls, without support beams, your roof is just a floating, useless piece of wood that will fall to the ground and break.
>>84263320>Recognizing "Thinking" on its own means absolutely nothing, that's why we have the concepts of a main function,What makes the foundational concepts valueless, and the more abstracted difficult ones valuable? To me, this is like trying to play a guitar really fast without being able to play a song. It gives the illusion of have a great depth of knowledge and skill, but lacks the baseline understanding. It's like a bronze player playing Yasuo because they're a super complex champion and they feel really good when they get a lot of kills. but at the end of the day, they're still bronze and struggle to get more than 3cs/m.Now, I want to make something clear, I'm not critiquing the more difficult side in and of itself. Simply the way you're approaching it from a one sided perspective. You've put all your eggs in one basket and outright claimed "Recognizing "Thinking" on its own means absolutely nothing"
'lac licks little lurching ligers
>>84263599>It simply means that the unconscious is something everyone has.Hmmmm nyo.The collective unconscious is the idea that a part of the unconscious falls back to the archetypes, which are common to everyone else. Of course, you must be really careful to not confuse a specific external manifestation of an archetype(such as one character I identify as "God") with the whole thing. Same thing with the physical equivalent of "pain" here really. Knowing about it does help you relate to something, though it would be very abstract in nature.>You don't know their unconscious/conscious standpoints. You CANNOT know their perspective from their perspective.I can absolutely intuit something given enough clues. But you should know that, why do I need to tell you here?>And by asserting that you can accurately know someone's type, you are blaspheming against Jung.I mean. You can 100% accurately know what's somebody's type but... real question is how much you know the individual purely from this alone.>From where I sit, that's what you're doing with typology... And your assessment could not possibly be your own projection or simply mistaken, am I right?>If you cannot even accurately identify the thinking function in a personThat was my point though?I have to identify thinking "in a person". Not just "identify thinking" as a concept, but see how they are using it.>>84263663>What makes the foundational concepts valueless, and the more abstracted difficult ones valuable?What does that even mean? "Thinking" is both a fundamental concept, and a fully abstracted one. Only thing that wouldn't apply here is "difficult".Anyways, what I'm arguing here is that just by knowing somebody is using Thinking, being able to relate it with the Jungian definition and whatnot, tells you very little about somebody's type. We must ask the "how" and "why", or that alone could really only be used as proof that the theory is real.
Can someone put Lilac voice into the Ai songamajig? Thinking maybe lyrics to "weak azz bitch" or some slutty rap music.
>>84263391>It can be used that way, doesn't mean it HAS to.This is the exact point I'm making with what you're saying. You're presenting things in a very one sided way.>>84263708>nyo.Literally yes. The concept of the unconscious is something that transcends an individuals psyche.>I can absolutely intuit somethingThat would be thinking. To draw a conclusion would be a judgement function.>You can 100% accurately know what's somebody's typeAbsolutely not. You cannot inhabit someone else's psyche. You can infer their type and get a rough idea of what's going on in their psyche, but to claim absolute knowledge goes against the spirit of Jungian psychology. But... you're good at that.>your own projectionOf course it could be, it's literally my perspective filtered through my own psyche, which is guaranteed to contain projections. That doesn't invalidate what's being said though, it merely draws a differentiating line between my interpretation as my subjective inference which necessarily contains portions of my own psyche, and an objective perspective which would be devoid of my own perspective and psychological disposition.But, all you're trying to do is dismiss what I'm saying rather than engage with it. You're the one making claims of absolute certainty of other people's type. I'm not claiming that. You're the one treating typology as if its like the DSM, where you can follow a step by step process and identify someone's unconscious or dominant functions, in your own words:>You can 100% accurately know what's somebody's type>That was my point though?If it is, that's not what you said originally. To identify thinking is to identify it within a person, and you said that, and I quote:>Recognizing "Thinking" on its own means absolutely nothingIn order to recognize thinking it must be abstracted from either yours, or someone else's psyche. Which means a necessity to identifying thinking is to recognize it in someone.
>>84264037>You're presenting things in a very one sided way.Don't remember ever saying that you have to not do anything with Jungian psychology other than simply reading books about it.You do what you want with it, I ain't some ENFJ cult leader/idol/whatever else they are into.> The concept of the unconscious is something that transcends an individuals psyche.The unconscious is something you, and everyone else has.The unconscious itself has a collective side that represents [things] closer to human biology than merely repressed contents. We call those "archetypes".That's all there is to it, as per Jung.>That would be thinking. The external behavior looks like that, I suppose. Hence we must ask what's lurking behind this "thinking" actually?Intuition is especially sneaky in the sense that it dresses itself as all the other 3 functions as far the observable behavior goes, even Sensation.>You can infer their type and get a rough idea of what's going on in their psycheAnd that's all you have to do there. The only way to "confirm" it is effectively just considering somebody's input and see how well it's returning to it.>That doesn't invalidate what's being said thoughIt does invalidate what you are assigning to the subject in question here.If you tell me "you believe X" and I just answer "no, I believe Y", either you just say I'm lying(consciously or not), or admit to have projected something that wasn't there.In this case, it sounds to me you are projecting because if I look hard enough, I notice you are the one who seem to only care about "knowing Thinking", for instance.>You're the one making claims of absolute certainty of other people's type. No human has absolute certainity on anything though, it's always "almost certain".But purely for the sake of argument, let's assume I can know somebody's type for sure. In theory there isn't much preventing such a thing. The real question is only about what the type would tell you anyways.1/2
>>84263708>a fully abstracted oneIt is absolutely not a fully abstracted one. Nothing is fully abstracted. Abstraction is not a binary, it's a gradient scale.The point I'm making though, is that thinking as a concept is significantly less complex than something like the unconscious. And that you've clearly placed thinking, a less complex idea, at the "lower" part of the hierarchy in saying that the recognition and identification of it is "less important". Which is not true.The hierarchy of concepts is not that the lowest are the least important. They are the most important and they are the suppliers of context for the more complex structures which are built upon it. The roof of a house is not the most important to a house, it's the groundwork upon which the house is built.Which is the same as saying recognizing and identifying thinking is the most important, without that, the more complex and abstract subjects like the unconscious completely lose their context and have no meaning. You can identify someone's unconscious extremely easily. Just touch on one of their complexes which surround an insecurity and get them to have an emotional reaction. But without the foundational precepts, this information is useless to you. You cannot build a picture of their psyche.This is akin to playing a guitar really fast without having the foundational principles of music theory (even if self-taught without the use of books), or the ability to play bars, scales, or songs. It's putting the horse before the carriage in order to affirm some sort of identity.Identifying a function on its own doesn't automatically tell you someone's type, yes. But the goal is NOT to identify someone's type. The goal is to understand them as a living, breathing autonomous person who has their own psychological complexities, not to put them into a neat little boxed in category which removes those complexities.
>flipped from ISTJ to ISFJ in the past four yearsHuh. I guess I did change a bit.
my favorite reg friendzoned me
>>84264037> where you can follow a step by step process and identify someone's unconscious or dominant functionsIf you can call "hmm fuck it my CHOKKAN says you are a Fi-groid" a "step-by-step" process... lolI've said before ITT that I consider Typology to be intuitive by nature, at some point intuitive leaps are necessary.>identify thinking This one might require more elaboration alright:"Identifying Thinking" in the sense of knowing what it means as per Jung, that's easy enough and sure, you need to know what the concept means. Arguably, it's not something most people do though due to MBTI memery, fair enough on this point.Spotting somebody using "Thinking" is pointless on its own because the theory says clearly enough that everyone has all functions, so, what does that do exactly on its own? Guess it can be used as proof that the concept exists outside of Jung's ramblings, and we all need to agree to this here before we even begin doing literally anything else.>>84264192>Nothing is fully abstracted.Full abstraction is possible but only in theory, ironically enough. In actual practice nothing exactly like that even truly exists out there.>Identifying a function on its own doesn't automatically tell you someone's type, yes. That's all I wanted to say here.>But the goal is NOT to identify someone's type.Not your goal, I do like my typing speedruns here thank you very much.>The goal is to understand them as a living, breathing autonomous person who has their own psychological complexities, not to put them into a neat little boxed in category which removes those complexities.Identifying a type doesn't imply the subject matters less. It's about having a good starting point, useful framework, "sorting system", however you want to call it.Jung himself called it a "practical psychology to organize empirical material", and also argued it's cool to assign types in order to explain certain differences to the people involved.
>>84264254Enjoy your "auxiliary fight" stage.
>>84264258lilac is dating centaur what did you expect
god dammit curefag did it again
>>84264293Centaur should have dated ME!!!After all the Minecraft I played with him.
>>84264431ngl it should be legal to sue people for leading you on
>>84264260Oh well, I don't find this game to be particularly interesting. Have fun gaying it up and misconstruing Jung by yourself.
>>84264466Think the whole confusion stems from misunderstanding what Jung even meant when he spoke against "typing". He said that for a reason that can be summed by this quote: >Indeed, even in medical circles the opinion has got about that my method of treatment consists in fitting patients into this system and giving them corresponding "advice."He's advocating against using it mechanically in analysis/therapy, as in>patient X is type Y, so I give you advice relevant to type Y without considering the individual behind itAs if you literally had 8 pre-planned sets of "advice to give to a type" to follow, and that Jungian treatment boils down to doing this. Would be even worse than DSM memery.But you failed to consider the most basic assumption: if I create a typological system in the very first place, then I believe you can in fact assign these types I just finished telling you about. If I literally cannot/should not "type", then it wouldn't make any sense to establish such a theory at all.Plus Jung himself typed people straight in PT(and his patients too, according to some interviews especially where he describes odd stuff IN types do) so.
>>84264458Ive been led on for five years here and I still fall for it daily, what does that make me?You can be honest
>>84264506Would you like to point to the place where I said you cannot type people? The whole confusion stems from you not understanding what's being said, either by me, nor Jung. But, again, I don't find this conversation to be particularly interesting. If you want to force people into narrow boxes in order to appease your own ego and go against the spirit of Jungian psychology, have at it.
>>84264543An INFPand who led you on for five years in /mbti/ nobody still posting has been here for five years
And honestly, the superficial performance of "speed typing".... I cannot point to something that's quite literally the antithesis of analytical psychology.
>>84264548>Would you like to point to the place where I said you cannot type people?>If you want to force people into narrow boxes in order to appease your own ego and go against the spirit of Jungian psychologyThere ya go. I mean, if you can type people then, wouldn't you also be the one "forcing people into narrow boxes"? Or is it only bad when somebody else does it? >>84264553>nobody still posting has been here for five yearsYeah about that....
The speedtyping is just to flaunt the main function for the sake of.Though said main function is irrational in my case, so understand that at its core we are talking about something that's purely aesthetic, not exactly ideological. Not saying it's a "proper" method to do typology, let alone a "moral" way. I've different opinions on both matters.Wanted to say it for a while now, but this kind of convo shows the difference between the rational attitude and the irrational one, along with the typological bias I mentioned that you didn't seem to ever break free from, since you assume what other people do ultimately returns to Feeling as their conscious standpoint(e.g. "trying to appear smart" would be code for Feeling trying to adopt's Thinking style but for reasons that have to do with agreeableness/likeability/etc.)
my penis is so small
>>84264588You've missed the essence of what is being conveyed, yet again. I never said that you can't type someone, neither in spirit nor in laterality.What I said is, the purpose of Jungian Typology is not to force people into boxes with your unwavering certainty about who they are. And, your unrelenting desire to be correct about other people's types says way more about you than your assertion of their type says about them.Further more, I don't type people with any real degree of certainty. I don't claim to have authority over someone's type. Unlike you, who has made claims of being able to be 100% certain over someone's type. It's just not possible. And again, directly opposed to Jung in spirit.>>84264645>The speedtyping is just to flauntMy point exactly. It's all about you. You speed type because you get to show off your fake knowledge and feel like you know something.It's not about building a relationship with the other person to come to a greater understanding of their psychology. It's about being right. Again, purely anti-Jung. It's all just serving your ego.
>>84264684>the purpose of Jungian Typology is not to force people into boxes with your unwavering certaintyAre you proposing the possibility of "type change"? Because that's something where I have mixed opinions about it, the tl;dr version is:>you cannot change your dominant attitude and main function >but you can fully swap the favored auxiliary if at any point in your life you have decided to differentiate the current "lower" one to stand atop the current "higher" oneThat anon who said he was ISTJ and now is ISFJ? Yeah, I consider this fully possible.Claiming yourself to be the inferior function/opposite attitude is where I draw the line, because that sounds more like mixing your conscious and unconscious standpoint, what's actually differentiated, and so on.>And, your unrelenting desire to be correct about other people's types says way more about you than your assertion of their type says about them.I don't particularly mind if somebody turns out to be a different type than what I had initially intuit'd, it's a learning experience.>You speed type because you get to show off your fake knowledge and feel like you know something.Read above. Assigning feeling motives doesn't properly return to my conscious attitude because there's an irrational function in the lead.>It's not about building a relationship with the other person to come to a greater understanding of their psychology. It's about being right. Mixed answer here: I don't type people in the hopes of building a relationship with them personally, but helping them understand their psychology is a known feeling motive. "Being right" in an instrument to that.>Again, purely anti-Jung. It's all just serving your ego.To deny there are both ego motives and shadow motives, and something in-between would be denying the entire foundation of the theory you realize. So that's an observation as good as saying "you are using thinking" with no context.
>>84264416Did what
>>84264957Writing scary 2000 character posts about theory that scare off the socialfags.And I'm actively getting hard from it, and I will do that again!
>>84264882>Are you proposing the possibility of "type change"?No.I'm saying it's completely unreasonable and it goes beyond what Jung's framework can justify to claim certainty about someone else's type while existing outside of their psyche.Yet again, it would be like a man saying he knows with 100% certainty what childbirth feels like, and that being kicked in the balls is absolutely worse. This is obviously an unreasonable stance, if it is to be taken seriously, and not in jest.You can infer someone else's type by observing them and letting them tell you about themselves. But the moment you shift from listening to asserting your perspective about them as the truth of who they are, you've left the realm of analytical psychology and entered the realm of projection. But, even though it wasn't my point, type change is absolutely possible. Being a type is necessarily one sided, that's what it means for a function to be dominant. Take note of the word "dominant". That function dominates the psyche. At a certain point in development the ego gives up that rigid dominant relationship with the function and the psyche is allowed to transform.Now, granted, most people won't get to this point because it requires a dissolvement of the ego's identity. Which most people will absolutely avoid at all costs.Type change doesn't happen like thinking type -> feeling type. The very ego centric notion of one sided types dissolves from the psyche.The ultimate goal of differentiation is type change. That's THE point. Even if the superficial language "type change" makes it seem like you can just flippy floppy around all willy nilly.>I had initially intuit'dJudged, thought. Not intuited.Conclusions are not intuited.>Read above.Please stop. You don't understand what you're saying.>but helping themIt's about you. I know.>To denyI didn't deny anything. >"you are using thinking" with no contextYou are using thinking *IS* the context.
>>84264970Ahh. Yeah too much words for me.
>>84265096>I'm saying it's completely unreasonable and it goes beyond what Jung's framework can justify to claim certainty about someone else's type while existing outside of their psyche.Ok I guess. Already answered to that anyways.>You can infer someone else's type by observing them and letting them tell you about themselves.Agreed and already said I also consider nonsense to do anything Jungian without the subject essentially saying what their type is(not literally).>The ultimate goal of differentiation is type change. That's THE point. Not exactly. At first, it's accepting that both the ego and the shadow, or the conscious/unconscious standpoint, or the dominant/opposed attitude, or the main and inferior function, all belong to a totality called the "Self".But after that, it's not like all these things completely stopped existing or you managed to flip what's one or the other, but your own Self has become more complete. New things can emerge out of the "Transcendent Function", if only temporarily.>Conclusions are not intuited.It's the "how" here, not what came out of it externally.If you ask something like:>how did you conclude I'm this type?The most honest answer I could give would be:>had a hunch based off patternings, then thought about it given my theoretical knowledge, and actually it makes sense too, so I'm going with itAs both Intuition and Thinking are highly differentiated imo, it might be difficult to tell which one is primary, but in my case I can look very quickly at the inferior function and have 0 doubts about it. Yeah it's Sensation, Feeling is actually a lot more amicable and known enough that I can confirm and deny if I feel that way, at least in the moment.>It's about you. I know.Or you know your own projections.>You are using thinking *IS* the context."Thinking" is an activity, not a context.Once again, we must look at "how" and "why".
Actually forget the "anything Jungian" part. More accurately "anything psychological".It's not even about Jung anymore here. Straight underflowed the amount of fucks given(about moder psychomemery), which is to say now I give all the fucks(for the subjects involved).
>>84265242>the subject essentially saying what their type isIt's more accurate to say they tell you their experience. But even with that information, you cannot know their type. At best, you can draw inferences. And any sort of attempt to assert you know their type as a certainty says more about your own psyche than the person you're observing. Which is to say, you're projecting. >Not exactly.Yes, exactly. The entire purpose of typology is to practice differentiation and escape the one sided cage of any certain type, that's the entire process of individuation. All of the things you've listed are nothing more than the stepping stones to achieve the ultimate goal. They are themselves not end goals, merely stepping stones.>Self has become more completeThe self doesn't become more complete. It's already complete. The ego takes a step back and is willing to give up its perceived dominance over the psyche. Aspects of the psyche that contradict the ego's standpoint are allowed to exist within the conscious mind, without the ego throwing a fit and trying to control, dismiss or otherwise suppress as "not me". For example, that what you call "feeling motivation" that you very clearly have and refuse to acknowledge. Which is not even a feeling motivation it's an undifferentiated emotional affect which as autonomous control over your behavior in order to attain some sort of need which you are repressing. The simple fact that you need to be 100% certainly right about someone else's type says *WAY* more about your own unintegrated shadow than it does about the person whose type you claim to know.
>>84265242>had a hunch based off patterningsJust call it thinking. Because that's what it is. You are not describing intuition, even though you shoehorned in the word "hunch".And to the degree that you are describing intuition, you are absolutely describing inferior intuition. Not dominant. >I can look very quickly at the inferior function and have 0 doubts about it.This is ABSOLUTELY the inferior intuition speaking. And I say that not through some magical intuitive insight, just simple knowledge of how the inferior function is the one that manifests itself with utmost confidence.But it's typical for undifferentiated people to paradoxically identify with shadow content as themselves. >you know your own projections.Yes, your own projections.>"Thinking" is an activity, not a context.This has zero meaning at all. All psychological activity is an activity.
>>84265461At this point you are mostly just repeating yourself over and over, so let me skip the new parts...>The entire purpose of typology is to practice differentiation and escape the one sided cage of any certain type, that's the entire process of individuation. Yeah you wish.Should have watched more magical girls. The whole point is that you never escape who you are on a fundamental level, though you can start accepting it and integrating the repressed sides.As you know from Jungian typology, the inferior function always stays inferior. And the type wouldn't want it any other way, since otherwise you would completely sever the relationship with the unconscious.>For example, that what you call "feeling motivation" that you very clearly have and refuse to acknowledge. Or maybe I know it's different than what you say because it's not an inferior function. Though it's also not differentiated enough to say too much without ending up claiming stuff I'm going to change in the next 8 hours, lower aux is weird like that.>>84265468>Just call it thinking. If "Thinking" was a person here, it would scream at being defined as something so wishy-washy and barely rigorous.>And to the degree that you are describing intuition, you are absolutely describing inferior intuition. Not dominant. Dare I ask what is even your idea of a more differentiated intuition?>the inferior function is the one that manifests itself with utmost confidenceThere again, I said that Sensation being inferior is certain when compared to whether Intuition or Thinking might be primary so, yeah?>But it's typical for undifferentiated people to paradoxically identify with shadow content as themselves. Being cutebrained is the shadow speaking.You are assuming everyone has 0 self awareness like you.>This has zero meaning at all. All psychological activity is an activity.Didn't I already say the question is how the activity looks like and why it's activated at all?
>>84265551>At this point you are mostly just repeating yourself over and overBecause you're failing to grasp the utmost basics and trying to move past them as if you don't need to understand.>The whole point is that you never escape who you are on a fundamental levelNot even remotely close to true, and that's some unironic straight incel copium to avoid the confrontation of the shadow. You cannot become a different person, but the self is largely malleable, it is not static in totality by any means. Though, it does have static aspects. But, even so:Type isn't inherent, it's an afterthought that comes from the ego's one sided identification with certain latent aspects of the psyche. Type can be completely dissolved and the one sided attitude can be done away with to the point of a person becoming typeless. The identification with the dominant function, and the repression of the inferior is what creates type, it's a one sided relationship where the dominant is allowed to dominate. But this relationship can be altered gradually so that the dominant function loses its dominance and the inferior is allowed to exist and no longer feels threatened or domineered over. There is a framework that cannot be altered. You cannot dissolve the ego itself, you cannot dissolve the self. These archetypes are permeant so long as you live. But what these archetypes identify as CAN be altered.The ego itself can be de-centered, which causes a structural shift in the psyche. Whether or not an individual has the mental constitution to maintain that new structure is entirely up to the individual. Jungian type is not determined by biology, although it does have its influences.>rigorous.Thinking is no more stiff than feeling, sensation or intuition. What you are describing is one sidedness. Specifically the one sidedness of a thinking dominated psyche. *cough*>hint*cough*
>>84265551>Dare I ask what is even your idea of a more differentiated intuition?Differentiated functions are flexible, it's just sort of there. It doesn't demand certainty. The possibilities are present. Is a certainty a possibility? No. It's a certainty, it's the exact opposite of a possibility.Since the intuition is dominant the process of intuition can be explained and it doesn't simply arise as "I know just know, OKAY?!?"That isn't differentiated intuition.>You are assuming everyone has 0 self awareness like you.Quite the opposite, I assume most everyone has a high degree of self awareness, including you. But, self awareness alone doesn't actually change anything about the situation. People have a high degree of self awareness, but that self awareness is more detrimental because it becomes self consciousness, which fuels the problem. A person who is fat and aware of their bad behaviors doesn't suddenly stop eating, their awareness fuels their behavior of over eating because their awareness makes them feel bad and acts as a tool to repress their awareness.So, no. People are TOO self aware to the point of one sidedness. Awareness alone does not lead to transformation. I should clarify that, people don't have too much awareness in whole. Just too much awareness of small aspects, which creates one sidedness. They have awareness but lack integration and actualization. Intellectual awareness is abundant these days. But, I think I've spoken enough on that topic throughout the threads.
Have a good day everybody,
>>84266093no because no one will watch frierem with me
>>84266274i'd watch that with you, my discord is jerkipoo
>>84266325it says I can't add you
>>84266336strange, you should or there aint any issues afaik, hope it works out and u find someone to watch them good animes with, take care
>>84266035>>84265551>That isn't differentiated intuition.Whoops, you can ignore the majority of this point as it pertains to you personally. I realized I misunderstood what you were saying.
>>84265468>just simple knowledge of how the inferior function is the one that manifests itself with utmost confidence.how does inferior se manifest
>>84266569The same way inferior intuition manifests. It imposes itself on the conscious mind, or its completely ignored. It could be that they become obsessed with something sensory and indulge in sensory things, or they become completely disconnected from them and avoid them as much as possible. You can think of it as an all or nothing relationship with the current moment. They're either completely ignorant of it, or so hyper focused on it that they're impulsively indulgent. Which is why a lot of people inaccurately say Ni types are the autistic types, simply due to the over stimulation associated with the 'tisms. But that's obviously silly and inaccurate. There's a certain lack of conscious regulation when it comes to the sensory world. It just kicks in the door and takes over whenever it pleases.
sumone pl watch fruren wgh me
Why are these threads so dead now? 300 posts in one week? A few years ago we'd go through two threads a day
>>84267283>why isn't my restaurant packed when I'm serving shit
>>84267728yeah but these threads sucked a few years ago too
>>84265852>Because you're failing to grasp the utmost basics and trying to move past them as if you don't need to understand.Repeating the same shit multiple times doesn't make it more true.>and that's some unironic straight incel copium to avoid the confrontation of the shadow. Actually, I'm saying the shadow is always there.You can "confront" it and integrate shadow contents, but it's not like you stop having a shadow.>Type can be completely dissolved and the one sided attitude can be done away with to the point of a person becoming typeless. Wishful thinking on one hand, and straight retardation on the other. >But this relationship can be altered gradually so that the dominant function loses its dominance and the inferior is allowed to exist and no longer feels threatened or domineered over. Point is, you still cannot differentiate the inferior function in consciousness, and at some point you realize you don't want to, anyways.Not because of your Ego, but rather specifically because of what I said above about it being in touch with the unconscious through it.>But what these archetypes identify as CAN be altered.Right, but Jungian types aren't about identity. That's a modern misunderstanding.> Jungian type is not determined by biology, although it does have its influences.Arguably whether you are introverted or extraverted is, while the main/inferior function seems to come up later for the sake of adaptation.>Thinking is no more stiff than feelingYours certainly is.>>84266035> the process of intuition can be explained Jung went out of his way to argue otherwise but I guess you know better.>Intellectual awareness is abundant these days.You don't say. But to stay true to your claim here, I hope you don't think yourself as anything but existing on the left side of the bell curve.
>>84266569Wouldn't take anything from those posts at face value if I were you, though the explanation of inferior Se you got is ok, so let me tackle a different angle here:In terms of confidence, I believe surprisingly enough the main function and inferior can be similar, though there should be a major difference when it comes to the degree of "refinement", nuance, and sometimes a certain emotional charge is visible enough.The similarity comes from the fact that a type does feel strong in the realm of the main function, if an issue arises they can adapt to it quickly and naturally enough, all with minimal effort. Either way, it doesn't usually come across as misplaced confidence as long whatever you are dealing with has to do with this function. It goes without saying that you aren't infallible tho, even the best Thinker can just fuck up a logical problem. In terms of emotional charge, very little is present in the main function even when it's literally Feeling, which is why sometimes Fe-groids come across as just faking it, and Fi-groids might come across has unemotional as per Jung.On the other hand, in the realm of the inferior function, you might be using overcompensation as a way to cover up its weakness, so you might come across as very firm and rigid, but specifically in a way that exposes the "all-or-nothing" qualities that the other poster mentioned. There is also the part where this thing just seems to impose itself upon your mind in a way that you had 0 control on, and if you wanted to change it, you wouldn't know where to even begin. It follows "even a broken clock is right twice a day" logic, so don't expect it always fail, actually at times it's spot on and the funniest part is that you don't even know how that happened.In terms of emotional charge, touching upon the inferior function is likely to make somebody particularly upset, so it does feel more "real" than their main one in a sense.
Feels like I should add how I view the Type in a more clear way, even if the artifact above already strongly hints at it, and it wouldn't be the first time I put it down anyways.The shortest, and (hopefully) most clear way to put it, would be "metaphysical framework and commitment". "Framework" because the type implies a certain mode to interface yourself with the world at large, your own inner contents included. Both the attitude-type and the function-type are respectively a mechanism (arguably one that returns to raw survival instinct, either strong defense systems but low propagation, or high propagation but little to no defense system, you can find this same analogy in Von Franz) and a mental activity. Both of these things work in an exclusionary manner, and try to suppress its polar opposite when they are active. (e.g. to properly look at and stay true to external object, you must try to exclude the subjective factor, likewise, staying true to Thinking implies you have to carefully exclude anything that's Feeling first and foremost, and then also Sensation/Intuition to some degree because otherwise you are only making statements of "fact" or "possibility" without actually making any sense of it and bringing them to logical conclusion)."Commitment" because the individual treats the Type as it were a compass for psychological orientation. With enough self-awareness, you understand you aren't just your compass, but you also understand it has a purpose and you would be completely lost without it. The compass has proved itself to be reliable for you, one could argue it's a bit of a post-hoc rationalization because what you consider "reliable" here has been decided from a combination of experience and natural predisposition, and inherently no type is better than the other.Jung has gone on record saying that he would not dispose of his "compass" for anything in the world, so to even think the ultimate goal is to become typeless is a lot more "heretical".
>>84264645https://youtube.com/watch/q6lNN4ctH5o
>>84269991Wonder if you could connect that to Thinking and Feeling.>I wonder if there was like 1 person whose empathy center lit up only when a cheater was shocked.Was looking for this specific comment, I knew somebody was going to ask this, was not disappoint.
On 4chan I have the brivilege of labeling people with DSMIV instead of MBTI labels.
That is, until I catch you for crimes against psychoanalysis and lock you into the archetypal complex activation dungeon.
Sometimes I wonder if lurkers who mostly discuss typology in other communities come to this thread to steal some of our takes, especially the ones who care about accurate Jvngings, or maybe the Japanese stuff?
>>84268340>but it's not like you stop having a shadow.I never said you stop having a shadow. I said you can become a different person. Which you disagreed with on a fundamental level:>The whole point is that you never escape who you are on a fundamental levelWhich is obviously wrong. The entire point of Jungian psychology is to do precisely this, change who you are on a fundamental level.>you still cannot differentiate the inferior function in consciousness, and at some point you realize you don't want toChange your wording to say "I". YOU can't and/or don't want to. Which is cool, but you aren't the universal rule. If you want to stay like that forever, that's your prerogative. puer aeternus spotted>Right, but Jungian types aren't about identityThat's precisely what they're about.>Arguably whether you are introverted or extraverted isNope. Biology has an influence, but it is not the cause.>Yours certainly is.Again, nope. I'm presenting a perspective which is flexible and leaves a lot of room for possibilities and change, and you cannot stand the open endedness of those possibilities. Quite anti-Jungian and the opposite of what you'd expect from a self proclaimed intuitive type. You're the one speaking in certainties. Which by definition, are rigid and stiff. >Jung went out of his way to argue otherwise He literally did not. You can absolutely give a detailed explanation of the process that you experience, and he even gives examples of his patients doing precisely that. There's even a term for the process that is experienced, they're called intuitive images. But, of course, you're an anti-Jungian and get literally every single thing wrong. Saying you cannot explain this would be like saying it's not possible to explain your own sensation. Which is RETARDED.>I hope you don't think yourself as anything but existing on the left side of the bell curve.Ad hominem is projection, you know. Is someone butthurt? boohoo poor bebe
>>84270398>I said you can become a different person.Bit of an incredibly vague statement here. I could only start arguing about this with enough reference to what could be changed, what stays the same, and so on.In terms of Jungian type, I've already pointed out at what to me should be considered static, and what should be considered more dynamic.In terms of very general "behavior", that's entirely dynamic imo.> The entire point of Jungian psychology is to do precisely this, change who you are on a fundamental level.Once again, I invite you to watch more magical girl stuff. HC specifically shows very well what's the Jungian take, with our girl Tsubomi accepting she is fundamentally an introverted type despite initially believing she can become fully extraverted, supposedly. Well that's not how integration works, good thing the writers knew what they were doing, was worried for a second there.>but you aren't the universal rule."INFJ-A" I......Yeah well, do have fun trying to "differentiate your inferior function". By the way, you aren't doing a very good job at it with Thinking here, let me tell you.>That's precisely what they're about.For lulz one could "identify with a type" like you could do with any random internet HP house test, but that's not really what Jung was thinking here.>Biology has an influence, but it is not the cause.That's the kind of thing where I doubt anyone can give you anything but speculation.Mine is that I/E is basically fully biological, and there might be a little edge to a certain function over the other given by your genes, probably not enough to straight turn you into a specific function-type at birth though.>the opposite of what you'd expect from a self proclaimed intuitive type. It is because I'm intuitive that I become more nuanced about what allows possibility and what is just coping.>Ad hominem is projection, you know. I was hoping you'd be intellectually honest for a change, merely to prove the point.
>>84270363>Pretty much just me mentioning how I use you guys for [almond activation] then go [do anything but] [put myself through a discussion with] [your ilk]You think too highly of yourself. No one is coming here to pilfer your bespoke slop for their YouTube reels, KingAnd seeing a washed up pre-reggy-culture avatarfag refer to others as "socialfags" as if their Psych 101 text walls are the saving grace this community has sneeded for years keeping the jackals outside the adobe and palm-stake walls is.. dire. We're busy getting our spring clean on while you keep our seats warm. Thanks roachie/literallywho/gone by next Ending Theme switch
April 2016 Plus Ten Years is gonna be so dope
>>84270494Listen here Summerfag, pay me my owed respect.
>There's even a term for the process that is experienced, they're called intuitive images.There is something that never fully convinced me with that explanation.As in, yes, you can absolutely visualize the *product* of an intuition as an image(and if you ask me, it would specifically be a moving, vague one or sometimes a picture with the depth of field turned up to the absolute max rather than visualizing a detailed and crisp landscape in your head) but that's the keyword here. It was the finished thing and a way your mind has to communicate it to you, not how the thing itself was formed. Imagination by itself(passive or active) is not intuition, we must be extremely clear about this point. At best I can speculate it might as well look exactly like that for a Sensation type due to bringing in unconscious/primitive fantasy contents along with it.The hunch is also intuition, though that's a rather quick and basic form, with little nuance to it. Not particularly impressive from the intuitive's own PoV and they might not even pay any real attention to it, despite the outside world seeing it happen.
Also I don't know why the other anon answers in my stead, but personally I don't even bother much.If I wanted to care so much about somebody's else identity, or even mine, I wouldn't be posting on 4chan at all.
>>84270479>In terms of Jungian typeThe only thing that is static is the structure. Which is ego, the self, the shadow, and the functions in themselves, and other such structural archetypes. You cannot stop using the function of thinking, nor can you stop having an ego, nor can your shadow cease to exist. But the relationship one has between these things is absolutely without a doubt subject to change. When this relationship change, who you are, at your core, changes. When the core of your identity changes, your type so to, does change.Type is not static. But, the structure which supports having a type IS static. The ego is a part of that structure. >I invite you to watch more magical girl stuffNo.>specifically shows very well what's the Jungian takeNo.This is retarded.>For lulz one could "identify with a type"0/10. Doesn't even understand what identity/identify means.>Mine is that I/E is basically fully biological,And yours is contrary to Jung. If you want to think that, fine. But you are ANTI-JUNGIAN. Almost everything you say it the exact opposite of what Jung thought, except you borrow his words and pretend that means you're aligned.It's like a flat earther borrow science words to pretend that science and flat earth agree that the earth is actually flat.>It is because I'm intuitive I'm beginning to strongly think you don't even know what intuition is.>>84270560>There is something that never fully convinced me with that explanation.Spoken like someone who has never experienced the conscious intuition. Well, that settles that. No point in this conversation proceeding any further.
>>84270602>the structure. Which is ego, the self, the shadowJungian type as in attitude-type + function-type, I'm not talking about ego-self-shadow here. But sure enough, I'd consider that to be a static structure, with the dynamic part being the "contents" attached to conscious/unconscious standpoint.>You cannot stop using the function of thinkingConsciously? Sure you can.Including both the conscious and unconscious activity? Yea.> When this relationship change, who you are, at your core, changesHOLY Feeling type...... I see what's happening here. You are trying to reconstruct Jungian psychology through Feeling, but in doing that you are missing the actual concepts at play, as opposed to just using using the words.>No. If I asked some japanese little girl to tell me what they thought about Tsubomi's psychological journey, they would probably give me a more nuanced take than anything you have ever written in these threads. Scratch the "probably", since I'm apparently high on certainity today? 100% sure.>Doesn't even understand what identity/identify means.Do you? The idea of even "identifying" with a type doesn't make much sense when you understand what the type is about anyways.At best(or worst?) you can identify with "contents of your dominant attitude and more differentiated function" which is what leads to one-sidedness, but the type itself? Sounds way too abstract of an identity. >And yours is contrary to Jung.But Jung himself drew a similar parellel before. Of course also saying he cannot really prove that anyways, but you could make a good argument regarding animals.>I'm beginning to strongly think you don't even know what intuition is.And I have very little doubt about whether you know anything about.. well, anything Jungian, not just intuition.Something that's second nature to you appears the least magical thing ever, and detached from imagination.
Speaking of wordism, the term "attitude-type" bothers me a little because "attitude" could too easily be used to also denote something like "conscious attitude", "irrational attitude" or "intuitive attitude".E/I should have been called "orientation-type"(actually used in modern stuff too at times) or maybe "direction-type"(as in, the usual direction for the flow of libido)."Function-type" is fine, the word is unequivocal enough in the context of his typology because "function" is very specifically attached to Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, Intuition.
>>84264258https://youtube.com/shorts/F1BHeES644Y
>>84245675>but what's the point if their existence is just a lower form of being>It's like saying being an amoeba is better than being a sentient human because they do fine eating algae or whateverTi dom + Se is more ascended than whatever stack based on gut feelings you have you fucking ape.
>>84270927From where I come from, there is a certain IT(S) journo who I certainly like.At first I thought he could have been IS(T), but after hearing about the Absolute State of his Feeling from people who work with him, I became easily convinced he's actually a Ti-groid.
>>84270719>Jungian type as in attitude-type + function-typeThe existence of them is structural. Yes. Functions and attitudes will always exist. Beyond that, they are not structural. It simply means that these things will always exist in the psyche as we know it. Again, your relationship to them is absolutely subject to change, which means your type is subject to change. Type is relational. >Consciously? Sure you can.So we're in agreeance, your dominant function can change. Wonderful!But, what I mean is that the function of thinking cannot cease to be within the psyche. >HOLY Feeling type......You don't even know what you're saying lol. Nor do you even know what feeling is.>I see what's happening here.Let's rephrase that:>I'm projecting my own feelingAs to be expected.>The idea of even "identifying" with a type doesn't make much senseSo, yes. You don't understand what it means, fair enough.>But Jung himself drew a similar parellel before.Except you're not drawing a parallel. You're making an absolute statement. You believe the incel blackpill copium about biological determinism. That is anti-Jungian. You are the ANTI-JUNG. You are almost completely 100% oppositional to everything he says. The Jungian perspective is that biology plays a role. But that this role is not the end-all-be-all of the psyche. At the end of the day, people can change. Exactly how much they can change is entirely up to them, though. But it's not a simple ego decision of "Now I'm different!" it's a change of the relationship between the psychic structures and archetypes. >least magical thing ever, and detached from imagination.Lmao. Said the person who believes:>The whole point is that you never escape who you are on a fundamental levelYou're the antithesis of your own ideas. You cannot even imagine CHANGING as a person. You have a long way to go. For your own sake, I hope you get there. But, your own unconscious seems to be dissatisfied with the potential of change.
>>84271230>Type is relational.Citation needed.You can relate to your type in different ways, but that's about it.>your dominant function can change.But the activity of a function does not change the degree of differentiation in consciousness...>But, what I mean is that the function of thinking cannot cease to be within the psyche.This one is alright>Nor do you even know what feeling is.Conceptually speaking, I believe I have a decent definition.Of course, trying to define Feeling is a bit of a meme due to "defining" being a Thinking operation, so we should be content with the most evocative definition.>I'm projecting my own feelingMy nigga you are projecting your entire Feeling function so hard you are trying to bend an entire theory, along with what Jung supposedly meant in general. Without not even reading beyond PT Ch10 and maybe some LLM summaries. And projecting it on yours truly while you are at it.>You don't understand what it means, fair enough.In the posts above, I have given a definition for "Type".Trying to identify with raw metaphysical frameworks(as opposed to their products) is something that I'm not sure I would count as "identity". Though you might argue that's my perspective here, but I cannot easily imagine how an identity built out of that would look like exactly.Mind you, the image of "being a Thinker" or "being an Intuitive" would both belong to the realm of Feeling, so I'm not talking about this kind of thing.>You are the ANTI-JUNG.Maybe you scream it loud enough it becomes true, at least in your head.That being said, drawing a biological parallel and speculating type might be determined at least partially by some sort of natural predisposition isn't a big deal and nothing that Jung himself didn't also theorize about.>You cannot even imagine CHANGING as a person. I can imagine it easily, though I'd be a fool to believe I can literally lobotomize myself out of everything I want at will.Have an unrelated digimon.
I've never heard of an extroverted intuitive type being so opposed to the possibilities of change.I've never heard of an extroverted intuitive type being possessed by such certainties, either. It's almost like....No..It couldn't be...
There is a big difference between just going "muh possibilities" and denoting what could change, what couldn't, and how.The former is larping the intuition/seeing things at worst and trying to develop it as an auxiliary at bestThe latter is actually directing it at will and producing nuanced takes because it's not enough to just claim something is possible, no, we must go deeper than that. That is achieved either by raw experience of trying to embodying the possibility, or with enough speculah.
My God, these retards are STILL GOING Captcha "Select the right Argentinian skin color"Apparently pure black was it, lmao
>>84271398Sorry, am bored, and it's not like anyone else is talking about this stuff.Hope you like the cute magical girls at least.
>someone pretending to be a ne dom is trying to tell me the ne dom daddy how speculah works >also just because I can see how things change or actively work to change things doesn't mean I want everything to change
>>84271306>Citation needed.Citation: all of Jung's work>You can relate to your type in different waysThat's not what it means. Type is a consequence of relation to the structure of the psyche.The rejection of "I am" (which is to say, "I am not this") that is imposed upon the shadow's traits/qualities/functions/happenings is what creates a negative identity relationship. The ego accepts aspects of the psyche as "I am", which is to say it identifies with those aspects. This relationship of identity is what creates the type.If this relationship of "I am/not" is changed the type is changed. To what degree that relational identity can be changed is not an absolute. Which is to say, it's entirely possible for some people to be predisposed to the aversion to change, and other are predisposed to acceptance of change. It's entirely feasible that there are people who due to their innate predispositions are precluded from type change. Development of the psyche is not an absolute which is equally accessible to all people. In the same light that some people cannot become world record holders for the 100m sprint. >But the activityHas nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But, the activity does point to differentiation or lack thereof. >due to "defining" being a Thinking operationWrong. Feeling also defines. They're both judgement functions. They just define things differently.>Without not even reading beyond PT Ch10I've read the majority of his books multiple times. I've read PT so many times, it's boring as fuck. It's mostly just a dictionary. Mysterium Coniunctionis is FAR more interesting.>My nigga you are projecting your entire Feeling function so hard you are trying to bend an entire theoryLmao. That's all I can say there.>drawing a biological parallel Is not what you did.
>The extroverted thinking/sensing type has confused his thinking based speculation as intuitionMany such cases.
>>84218619How are the relantionships betweeen ENFJ and INTP? Despite they are semi-duality I kinda cannot stand ENFJ retardation. I never met female one only some dudes. ESFJs for INTP are a little more bearable. Have you met ENFJs as INTP?
Yeah ok, had my fill for this edition of the thread.>>84271476Don't stress over auxiliary functions so much, the main and inferior functions are more relevant, especially in relationships that go beyond friendship.Personally, I'd be wary of getting into a relationship with the opposite type because it would feel more like depending on each other and delegating what I can't do so well (psychologically speaking, of course) to another person instead of trying to deal with it.Also, not INTP today, but I might just become that in two more weeks. How do I undifferentiate Feeling though?
>>84271583>because it would feel more like depending on each otherWhat's wrong with that?
>>84271606NTA but he's probably talking about something like co-dependency. But that sort of stuff isn't really related to type as much as it is related to one's personal complexes, attachment style and trauma, etc. There's absolutely nothing wrong with two opposite types being a couple. That's actually the tendency for most people, they're attracted to their opposite to counter balance each other.The problem comes when one of the two people is too far in one direction and they overpower the other person, and they no longer act as counter balances.
>>84271606That you might grow almost completely unable to live without that person around. And should anything happen between you two, be it a minor fight, or a temporary separation, puts you in a position where you will have to do some catching up with inferior function shit.For some people it's completely unsurmountable and leads to extreme actions.Of course everything could just go well, but how idealized are we going here?
>>84271461Careful with that word anon, it's a dog whistle used by magical girl enjoyers, especially on the cure general. Also people in the know about speculah might mistake you for a little girl, a Japanese salary man(who is into little girls, but hopefully not a yurifag), and at worst a fujo.
>>84271664>completely unable to live without that person arounWhat's wrong with that?
>>84272159You tell me. Are you attached with glue to the other person and extra sure nothing could possibly go wrong?It would be fine if it was a relationship where the other person doesn't represent exactly what you need help with the most and get more emotional about (the inferior function). But in such a case, think very well about it.That being said, all I'm concerned about is acknowledging the theoretical risk.When it comes to actual people, you might just meet a very good ExFJ, and you yourself might be already conscious enough of everything I've said anyways(even if you don't directly relate it to types).
>>84272251You do realize that the majority of people here have a strong desire to be attached to someone like glue, right?You know, Compensation, and all.
Can someone tell me about INFJs
>>84272382The main thing is:They're not real.
>>84272382If you say ONE wrong thing they'll door slam you
>>84272448Wrong. If you say wrong things, then the passive INFJ will let it slide without saying a word or giving any indication of their disapproval; however, they build up a hidden resentment toward you that finally gets unleashed in a grandiose door slamming event when the last straw breaks the camel's back . . .
>>84272604>here's a stereotype that's applicable to literally anyone and everyone
>>84272760So insightful! You're really close now to discovering how the entity of MBTI is just the Forer effect
>>84272923Except what most people consider to be MBTI, isn't. They're additions made by third parties, often who are just people saying shit that other people buy into.99% of what is said literally isn't even mbti.
>>84272957>Appeal to purityEw, now you're taking a step back. Unfortunate ..
>>84254899>>84254976I've watched some of his videos, and he seems really bitter that an INFJ finessed him lmao
I hate how people act like every type is created equal, when its just not true. There is literally nothing good about being an INTP, its basically just the loser identity. Ill never be able to make friends or find love because im INTP
>>84272993>Makes a claim that isn't true>Gets called out for effectively lying>BUH-BUH MUH FALLACY PROTECTIONlol fag
Anybody else into socionics? It's much more clearly defined and helps you understand reality in a new way as it says that you can metaphysically divide reality into eight distinct information elements. It also says that, all else being equal, you'll get along better with certain types than others.My type I suspect is ISTJ ILI sp6w5 641 or 614.>>84271476You can't do a simple 1 to 1 conversion from MBTI to socionics and semi duality is a socionics thing so you might not be semi duals with those ENFJs.
>>84273618shitonics is shit
>>84270494why you so mean to curebro
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8bTmW1e/ESTP mentioned
>>84273817My MO with [types] is treat all of them like I treat any of them so ENTP little brother banter method
But also >Why you so mean>Feisty one (1) timeIdk my Aryan stellarium or capri sun in the crinkth house or w/e
>>84274026stfu slutlac
Capri sun DEEZ NUTS ya feel?
>>84274032Slut? *Slut*?!https://files.catbox.moe/puhksu.movSluts have much more fun than I do. Psyops inflicted on the dating pool probably nets me a different insulting archetype. I don't think I would have exes lamenting about their >"stolen"virginities if I still possessed the hedonic naivete of a slut..
Did I really earn the title, Pops? I didn't think I'd gone big/hard/too far enuf
there's exactly four sluts ittbut lilac will always be #1 slut
I demand some respect while I'm being insulted!https://files.catbox.moe/v61xc1.mov
>>84274399https://voca.ro/1lUHUCIJJQBJOnly wan tekken it 2 da streetzzz..Easy as consummating yr e-sex but no one else takes romance SERIOUSLY around here
>>84272923See, that's also one of the reasons for why I'm utterly disgusted by socialfags.You enter a thread where people discuss about MBTI, Jung, or typology in general, and your takeaway is that everyone is a fockin LOSER wasting time if they think about the topic for a second, getting psychologically MANIPULATED by the magical and all-powerful Forer effect that's apparently enough to dismiss anything relevant to studying various types of people as opposed to claiming that either everyone is actually the same type(and of course the only difference is that I'm more likeable and smarter than everyone else and that's why I'm so misunderstood teehee), or that everyone is essentially able to perform lobotomy on themselves each day and become whatever exactly they need or want to be at all times in a misguided "idealism" that ironically enough kills your humanity, comparing you to a LLM where you can just reset the chat and give different prompts.Would be fine if you dropped this kind of comment once or twice, then fucked off because - fair enough, you aren't invested in these things and you don't have to be. But by staying here you make a certain implied statement: there is some "value" in these threads, except it returns fully to being a social parasite.And IMAGINE for a second what kind of person would even conceive seeking attention in a Basket-weaving Mongolian far-right Nazi board for Incels(TM). A very likeable one and well-adjusted one, I'm sure.Because you see, people like "INFJ-A" might be wrongly convinced that I hate his kind the most, but actually my Feeling is a bit different... the ones I can't stand are very openly these absolutely worthless and unlikeable parasites instead, who can't even bother using the more appropriate social platforms to be an attention whore. Maybe because if you couldn't hide behind the veil of anonmity, even your simps would run the fuck away.Had to be said at least once before going back to the regular speculah.
>>84272367But following your desires and attractions isn't always the smartest move.>>84272382Actual ones are OK, and the guys who draw these anyways: >>84245244The pretend ones are icky, and really dragged down the entire type.>>84273212Types aren't created equal because of course, that's the entire point of having types. But whether you make it or not is a bit more complex than being a specific type, you could be born rich and INTP you know. And on the other hand, one day the country you live in might adopt a more "INTP" culture that just happens to favor your type. You are right now posting on a place where the culture is generally "IN", and these types are considered inherently more valuable to discussion or likeable, imagine that it's fully possible for a place like this to exist IRL too hypothetically and you see how there isn't really a "loser" type naturally, only one that's fully designated by external conditions.>>84273618Biggest irony for me is that I consider Socionics to be bullshit but when it comes to treating types as "metaphysical frameworks&commitments", I've very much reached the same conclusion and believe it can easily emerge by reading Jung, except not in the exact way Socionics did it.Strongest evidence for this is the whole idea of extraversion/introversion being mechanisms rather than social attitudes, and the functions representing 4 different sides of metacognition. Respectively:Sensation = Static Reality / Intuition = Dynamic RealityThinking = Static Image / Feeling = Dynamic ImageThere again, I'm willing to concede correct observations in any other model as long I can argue it does make sense in the OG as well, but that's not the same as adopting the entire framework(e.g., the idea of 8 functions is absolute bullshit and a total misunderstanding, and I'm not even going to comment anything related to very strict ideas of type relationships)
There you go, another kino artifact fresh off the oven: https://pastebin.com/YDRNnjUmWasted 2 trillions tokens and half of the water in the world just for this. Genuinely took multiple days to cram so much into it.
>>84274623LMFAODid you SERIOUSLY just textwall ramble respond to a nothing phone post I made yesterday? You really need to get outside. This MBTI stuff is rotting your mind
>>84275801Playing it up, or playing it down doesn't make it less of an actual judgement. The thing is that you have any other social platform available, or even other threads on this very same board where it would make sense to go full socialfaggotry.To do it in /mbti/ truly speaks volumes of what level of social reject we are dealing with here.>This MBTI stuff is rotting your mindJung stuff at this point, but I won't deny that part.
Touching nerves without even trying...Is it art? Or science?
>>84275816HAHAHAHATry thinking about something important and meaningful, loser
In my experience, it begins as a natural predisposition for noticing sore spots, probably related to intuition in a way, and it was argued as such in V.F. book (about Hitler and him being able to arouse emotion by touching upon the inferior functions of everyone with his speeches).But then it becomes an art if you invest into it, and refine it to the degree of causing asshurt while not even putting any real conscious effort behind it. I'd say there is also a threshold where you might want to stop doing this as you develop more Feeling, or at least do it when the other person is clearly into it. The latter is how I characterized an ENFP specifically.
The highly refined art of triggering shitters and baiting the low hanging fruit in the pseudo intellectual general. How do we monetize it?
wdym "How do we monetize it?"That's what influencers do nowadays with all the ragebait, we are living in [current year], I'm more surprised you don't know. Go out there and start a channel about this kind of activity, I suppose. Though you might want a bigger audience than the people who would care about a r9k general.
No, *you* are living in [current year]
>living in the present>while being intuitiveNah, it's either the past(as clearly shown by things like the magical girls and the arcade), or the future(as clearly shown with the iinvestment in messing around with LLMs). As long it's not the icky CURRENT THING.
Hmmph. Some just lack the introspective quality. It's quite unfortunate
>repeatedly makes in-group references to things only social fags here would know>projects spurious allegations and berates social faggotyPlease, never change
Fair enough, because if some people had literally any degree of introspection they would probably feel a little uncomfortable with themselves when they decide to socialfag on 4chan/r9k.Also sorry for being actually an oldfag in the general and having a functioning memory(though MBTI would argue that's my inferior function)
>>84275991it won
>>84218619Can INTJs rape? how would they do it? especially if they're girls
lol literally frontrunned the continued "social fagging" criticism and reproach...It's like I have a crystal ball
>>84274358>if I still possessed the hedonic naivete of a slutSo you admit you once did possess it?>nets me a different insulting archetypeWhich one? Also what's that gurgling noise?
>>84274623>comparing you to a LLMI don't think you really understand what llms are and you seem to think and talk about them too much.
>>84275864>The latter is how I characterized an ENFP specifically.What did you mean by this.
>>84276214Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but I wasn't exactly making a statement about how LLMs work there. Feel free to swap in any figure of speech you prefer.
>>84276234As a type that have their fun causing some asshurt with their Ne-groid bullshit, but in a way that's more in line with their Feeling too. For better or worse.
>>84276273No. Any type does this for fun. That's what it means to be human.https://x.com/i/status/1771578918987809053
>>84276297It's never about the "what", it's about the "how" and "why". When will you ever learn.
https://youtube.com/shorts/6_cLw2efNBU
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~! <(^o^)>Have you guys already dressed up your turbie (species) for Easter? :3
>>84276977Ah welcome back. I was getting tired of being the local cutebrain.
https://voca.ro/1ngJfXkLVdRr
>>84277154https://voca.ro/1eXVnO3Ol8IW
>>84277169https://voca.ro/1htrriImMz4c
>>84277307I knew it, I was even able to PREDICT the exact raspberry you'd respond with.I'm up in your head planting raspberry seeds
Can't believe some newoldguy bullying me for 3billion posts in a row is claiming to be a crusader of Cuteness. It's like Turbie Enjoyer all over again :c
>>84277385https://voca.ro/133GGI7BQGdw
Cute is not synonymous with nice.Though cuteness automatically minimizes threat response, so Ne-groids especially seem to enjoy exploiting this mechanism.
I didn't want to bring it up but I found it strange anyone here considers themselves cute or "cute brained" just because they used cute pictures....
>Often I hear things that could ruin those people, utterly and permanently ruin them, things which would give me, if I should have any blackmailing tendencies, unlimited power over them.Good thing you aren't a Se-groid then. Those niggas love blackmail, I don't know why, but it's a pattern I've seen with this type in specific.
>>84277497Interconnected collective archetypal RASPBERRY!?Absolutely based.
Ah wait, that's easy enough.Because the type knows what's the most "objective impression" certain facts will leave on nearly everyone, very accurately as that's what they are always looking at. So they have a good idea of what people might try to hide, and they can easily collect what proves it without a shadow of doubt.If they want to fuck with somebody(literally or not), they just use their most refined tool, which is both having the faxs and knowing what would be the most common "reaction" should they come to light.
There's no such thing as an objective impression.
Read: Extraverted Sensation typePsychological Types, Chapter X
>Doesn't link a paragraph numberUh oh skagetti o's.
>Autists who spend all day regurgitating greater autists they don't understand instead of [understanding the world themselves] >They think this makes them better than you and try to flip this in a projected way as if you see yourself above them or are seeking validation or social gratification when you shitpost on 4chanSurely if I post on-topic-according-to-[subjective anal retentive trigger] the shining intellect on display will provide me insight and epiphany!
>>84277945Originally 606
Hunnid posts until the real [[[fun]]] starts
Eggs... Eggs... Eggs!Save [me] some image limit space!
>>84277961There are no mentions of objective impressions there.
>>84277992Egg?https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BNQup2NBVnI?feature=share
>>84278008I expected this exact answer. But the type still exists and sure enough he doesn't look at the "subjective impression", otherwise he would be introverted.No, I'm not going to explain what the terms mean in a Jungian context. You should be able to solve this.
>>84278022That's absolutely not true. Sensation itself is the subjective impression.
>>84277992>Save [me] some image limit space!Sure, but the images better be good.
>>84278181Look, I'm sure you get actually hard doing this all day, but in my case it's a mix of boredom and scaring away socialfags.Right now, neither is particularly active as a motive.If we are at the stage that you can't tell how Jung used the terms "subjective" and "objective" in PT especially, why would I even bother.
>>84278199Objective is external referring to "objects".Subjective is referring to internal within the psyche.Which is why there is no such thing as an objective impression. An impression is made on a subject experiencing an object. The object can make an impression, but the impression is subjective.Object oriented is another way of saying extroverted.Subject oriented is another way of saying introverted.Object refers to the thing which a person is oriented. Same with subject. Object is external to the psyche, subject is within it. Your body, for example, is something which is external to your psyche. And a picture in your mind of a toad shitting on a leaf is within the psyche.BUT if you know anything about Jungian psychology, there's no such thing as a purely objectively oriented perspective, because everything is filtered through the personal psyche which is subjective. Which is to say it's a subjective impression.Objects make impressions, but there is no such thing as an objective impression. Please, read Jung better.
>>84278283>there's no such thing as a purely objectively oriented perspectiveVery cool, now re-read the initial post again, word per word, quotation marks included, and carefully.
>>84278299Yep, upon rereading it, it still says:>Because the type knows what's the most "objective impression" certain facts will leave on nearly everyoneStill wrong down to the very core. Things do not leave objective impressions. There is no such thing as an objective impression.Objects leave SUBJECTIVE impressions, and the impression differs between person. Give two different people a spicy pepper, and they will have different impressions. Even though the object which left that impression is the same.
Man, Se-groids aren't going to like this one...Si-frens surely wouldn't mind though.Now I will have to ponder the implications of this for a while... actual answer is almost certainly just retardation but what if...
All it means that the Seggers are focused on the objective aspects of the sensation mean they don't particularly care about their own opinion of the sensation and they're more interested in getting the sensation.They might eat something that tastes bad simply to see what it tastes like. Or they might eat peppers even though they don't particularly like the flavor and just want the sensation of the heat. Their personal impression of the object isn't their main goal for inter acting with the object. Their goal is simply to experience it, regardless of the impression left.They would grab a cactus just to experience it.Whereas the siggers are more focused on the subjective impression left by the object, they're more concerned with their own sensation aesthetic taste, and want to avoid "bad sensations" in favor of "good sensations". For the Segger sensations = goodFor the sigger sensation I like = good.It's an over simplification, but that's the jist of it.
>the goal of [Sensation type] is to not care about the [sense impression]>unironically using subjective as in "liked or disliked"Ok nevermind, I "what if''d too hard.Yeah, only inferior thinking can produce something so amazing. I'm in awe, such aliveness....... what happened to the moe though? I was promised moe, and my nigga Claude would never lie to me.
Yes, the extroverted sensing types care less about subjective sense impression and more about the object itself.
PSA: I don't believe *him* is an universal representation of the inferior Thinking used by Feeling types, and there's also the fact he's genuinely retarded and Freud-tier of neurotic. Lest I get cancelled for type racism.Genuinely intelligent Feeling types exist, and it would be more correct to say that they just don't find themselves in the mood to "think" very often, and they especially don't do it in a detached way about some abstract type theory.I would attach Mikuru AKA Cure Mystique AKA Sherlock Holmes Larper AKA "Fe-groid who really tries doing something cool with the inferior Ti-groiding despite the required effort and insecurity" here, but I promised another anon to not waste image slots.
-1 images
>>84276977Hi, Turbie! Good to see you; hope you're doing great!
My favorite thing about the psychology of the pseud,Pseudochology, one might call it-Is they never have a real rebuttal other than:>ERRRM NOH UR RETARDED!
-2 images
No one is compelled to offer you a rebuttal, especially if they believe you don't even possess enough mental capacity to understand it, as abundantly shown in the entire history of /mbti/ ever since you joined.Would you start arguing with a dog and explain why it's wrong to munch on my socks? Yeah.You could still do that for the sake of, certainly not in the hopes of convincing the dog of anything, maybe you feel bored or just need to vent, idk. Not like the dog will understand anything you are saying there let alone why.
Aww poor little pseud got called out now he's mad>buh buh it's ur fault I don't have the ability to back up my own position!!Lmao
Literally paragraph 607:>The intensification does not necessarily have to be pleasurable, for this type need not be a common voluptuary; he is merely desirous of the strongest sensations, and these, by his very nature, he can receive only from outside. Yet further proof that the pseud-types lack the ability to comprehend Jung at the most basic of levels. Pseuds are anti-Jung
Junko ITT
>>84274019>is treat all of them like I treat any of them soWhy do you do that? There individuals not all the same person. How do you treat each type? Give me the list.
An unspoken rule of internet discourse, imo, should be that if you are always likely to be the first screaming "u mad lololol", it's equally as likely you are actually the one getting buttflustered. Pretty sure Jung would agree, if he was alive and willing to shitpost on random forums and imageboards(he absolutely would, I've no doubts he'd be all over the internet, possibly hardcore otaku too).(which is to say, if there's something I'm genuinely seething about is that the internet wasn't invented back then, or Jung died way too early. Fuck, imagine for a second him writing absolute kino analysis on [insert favorite anime], along with writing his experience with the other posters offering their smoothbrained takes and misunderstandings, all of this in the modern version of PT which would probably be a video series or just a fancy webpage/blog)
>>84278199>scaring away socialfagsWhy do you hate us?
>>84281444Firstly, because what makes 4chan unique as a platform compared to nearly everything else(of course not including altchans) it's being built around allowing you to discuss various topics without the burden of having to tie everything to an identity/account. That allows you to more clearly consider what's being written as opposed to who is writing it. Socialfagging attempts to counter this, since the idea is to establish poster identities and care more about who they are as opposed to how they contribute to the given topic.Should add here that I also have this issue with "generals" as a whole, it's something that seems to happen naturally even if you do get some anons pushing back on it occasionally.More specifically on /mbti/, because as you can see ITT, the brand of socialfags we get are mostly the ones who not only can't give less of a fuck about discussing typology(on anything but purely surface level memery, which I'm not exactly against but that's not the only level that should be welcomed), but they even see the whole attempt as fundamentally ridiculous, smugly announcing how above these things they are.Basic gatekeeping instincts should come in if you have any investment in the topic/hobby/activity/etc.On a minor note, if you ever find yourself in a position of conceiving the very idea of socialfagging on 4chan, of all places, and especially on the designated "loser" board here, either you are really THAT miserable or so throughly unlikeable IRL(and possibly even on other online social platforms) that it would "certainly" be a terrible idea for anyone(fellow losers included) to get involved with you. x10000... times worse if you are female.
>>84281525>the burden of having to tie everything to an identity/account If you cared so much about this then why are you avatarfagging? >>84281525>if you ever find yourself in a position of conceiving the very idea of socialfagging on 4chan, of all places, and especially on the designated "loser" board here, either you are really THAT miserable or so throughly unlikeable IRLBut you seem to spend far more time itt than us. >mbtiIt's mbti that not Jung.
>>84281695>If you cared so much about this then why are you avatarfagging?Taking up image slots for the sake of. Besides, avatarfagging would be trying to use a consistent character to represent the posts, not just random stuff that has to do with what I like.>But you seem to spend far more time itt than us.It's about how you spend the time.You see any attempts here to care for 0.2 seconds about anyone's identity?And especially, you see any attempt at dismissing typology?>It's mbti that not Jung.That's just retarded, MBTI doesn't exist without Jung.When you speak of "extraversion" or "introversion", you are speaking Jung, he created these terms.When you bring up "Thinking" or "Intuition", you are speaking in Jungian terms, not any other meaning of the words.What doesn't exist in Jung would be the "J/P" division, because it doesn't really match "rational/irrational" even if the idea is supposed to be that.
>>84281729so charming coming from a retired namefaggot, once your left roastied and deprived from attention you immediately switch up sides. self-loathing attentionwhore
>>84282014>retired namefaggotAlways suspected some people mistook me for a completely different person. Taking this as confirmation, because I never used anything resembling a specific name(though socialfags assigned several of them even without really asking).
>>84282026do we need to ask permission before pimping you out? sounds like you yearn to be recognized, bitch
>>84282117When you think about it, that would be the ultimate insult to all socialfags: to have somebody who doesn't even care to adopt a specific name and stick with it still somehow hog more attention than the actual named reggies. Bonus points if there is barely anything resembling an identity, other than maybe bringing up stuff I'm into that aren't reading Jvng.Don't give me ideas....
>>84282221bro who even is bro? bro idfky brah your going full blown shitzophrenic aint no TI bitch so far up his own prostate examine a hallucinating phantoms of fame
>>84282026>Always suspected some people mistook me for a completely different person.Oh, I didn't realize you were adopting a new personality with this string of posts besides the other one you were using earlier.
>>84282366Instead of clumsily tip-toeing around the issue, let me ask straight:Which name is the one you think I have "retired"? Which "string of posts"(no need to quote all of them, just give a clear hint or use a few as example) do you think belongs to me?
>>84282397lil bitch methinks
>>84282548No idea who that refers to exactly.
>>84282397>just say a name so I can deny it!
>>84282771Not sure what you expected.But that's exactly what I expected you to say.That aside, I could give you a brief list of names I remember being used to refer to my own posts.>occasionally "Jung anon" but like a 50:50 ratio between mine and somebody else, that's roughly where at least one anon started to bring up circles and I become interested myself too>"Bern" and variants back in the great Uminegro disaster, and I stuck with it for a little while>currently "Kokoro", "Heartfag", "Curefag"
>>84282790casually namedropping yourself as if your any better than the socialfags quote souring your shitpost experiencecurefag you avatarfag and rape the image limit the most why the fuck are you complaining. because we ignore you?
>>84282790attaining attention in an avatar deprived incel hideout isnt anything to brag about. but maybe it is to you, worthless ai prompting chimp
>>84282857Last reply because this is reaching level of retardation comparable to *him*.>casually namedropping yourself Did that only to progress the convo in any way that's not just a smug reply about what I expected you to say.And also because there are anons who seem to think it's coming from a "retired namefag" who might be a different person entirely.>avatarfagYou don't know what that word means. Look above.>image limitDidn't even reach it ITT, and normally there aren't many images in these threads, so might as well fill the slots with cute or/and funny stuff.>why the fuck are you complainingWas very through about why I dislike socialfags. If you don't want to accept these motives and make up your own, go ahead. >>84282867Not even sure how that could be read as "bragging" but w/e. Generally don't give a shit about it, but if it makes some socialfags butthurt, I have at least a little reason to care now.
>>84282900>gets rejected by reggies>shapeshifts into a self-loathing attentionwhoreThis is about Lilac, isnt it? hits different when a reggy roasts you, pitiful ai prompting bitch. its embarassing really, you waltz in with your loliwaifu folder using claude as a communication middleman on a fucking SHITposting webforum, get no notoriety and sulk over it. Anyone with an avatar gets attention here fuck off and kick the chair on claudes command
>>84282857>your anyyou are
>>84282790>currently "Kokoro", "Heartfag", "CurefagYes, that was obvious to everyone else if you couldn't tell.
Keep self-gravedig edition alive kek
