Thinking Vs. Feeling Preferences in Typological Theory.

Article from awhile ago...

iNxj theme: You should know! How do you not see it? It's so clear;c'mon, it's right there in front of you!!! Jesus Christ, connect the dots already, is it really that hard? Really?!

objectively=for another, subjectively=for self

The more I have been researching it, the more I have been stumbling upon these patterns that really stick out to me. One of them would be the tendency for thinking to be associated with objectivity while feeling is associated with subjectivity. When you analyze the way the potential answers to a question like, "Which do you value more, mercy or justice?","Do you view yourself as more subjective, or more objective?", you find what it really is asking a person to show is whether or not they believe there is an objectively right answer, or that the right answer may vary from person to person, relativistically. People who believe there is one right answer while there are many wrong answers will not be as merciful, and will seek revenge for actions he thinks that are "unjust" or "wrong", which really translates into "incorrect". This, they will view as justice. and think the judgements they pass and actions they take to correct the error are justified. Thinkers, silently claiming objectivity, may try to establish for another what would be best for them, based upon their own experiences and understanding, while that same person in a similar situation would react differently; maybe not thinking the situation is wrong or recognizing a problem at all.

Fi/Te(Te/Fi) VS. Fe/Ti(Ti/Fe)

(Fi)Te/Te(Fi) -> justice seeking, less relativistic, causing conflict if it seems like somebody has crossed their moral standards justifying it as being right, "Right" and "Wrong" dichotomy (based on consistency in action alone/perceived authenticity) + "Efficient" and "Inefficient" (based on external standards of what they would correspond to in terms of their culture, team, etc.)

(Ti)Fe/Ti(Fe) -> harmonious environment, avoiding unnecessary dispute and trying to do what is best for the all regardless of personal feelings, "Helping" and "Hurting" dichotomy (based on feeling responsible for hurting other people feelings or not helping them when they are hurt, when the option is in mind) + "Consistent" and "Inconsistent" (based on internal structures separate from external standards and checking for inconsistencies within the mental structure, or in theories)

Who There is Killing and Starting a War?

"Who There is Killing and Starting a War?"
By: Jacqueline Guerrero

 At first I thought it was disrespectful for somebody to create such a page, but when you think about it... most soldiers are victims. 

 Victims of the system. 

 They're people who went into war, not to kill people, but to save them; yet they were used as a means to an end by higher-ups. They're people who were drafted, forced; people trying to find a way to go to college, to make a future for themselves at the price of their freedom to live a life without killing, without witnessing death... and people drafted to provide for their families... 

  So I came to the conclusion that I don't actually agree, because I believe soldiers are not heroes; our soldiers are victims. 

 After being forced to kill people to push an agenda promoting freedom, at the sake of their own, if you look into the heart of any man who was in war and had to kill another, who still has empathy, you will not see pride, but you will see sorrow or remorse. As much as the military will try to dehumanize the people who they deem to be on the opposing side, turning many of our soldiers into killing machines on command(for the sake of our country), looking into a face of the enemy's child and at the child's scared mother will remind them of their own humanity... 

 What pride is there to take in killing others? In my mind, the only thing that makes soldiers heroes is if, instead of killing that innocent child and mother, they saved them. I don't think the soldiers would disagree. At the same time, I don't blame them, because it's the product of the system. 

 I empathize towards all victims, mother, children, soldier, civilian, family of those suffering loss, but I hope people realize that the reason that loss occurred and continues to occur was not for the sake of freedom; it occurred because of their loss of it.

 Fighting for what they believe in; if that alone qualified somebody for being a hero, then every person who believed they were justified in a war would be one. But that can never be the case...

That's the consequence of fighting wars over a difference belief.

Why/How Understanding Cognitive Functions in MBTI (Myers-Briggs) Personality Theory Matters, Pt. 1

  Why/How Understanding Cognitive Functions in MBTI (Myers-Briggs) Personality Theory Matters, Pt. 1

 Correlations and distinctions between dominant and inferior functions in themselves.

 By Jacqueline Guerrero 

After studying personality typing validity for years, I have discovered that this form of Typology, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), has been officially linked to neuroscience. In light of that, I thought it would be important to tackle some misconception circulating through the internet/online communities, and provide more concise understandings regarding the relations of "cognitive functions" that the test and theory is centered around. I intend to write about how neuroscience has now been connected with MBTI typology, specifically in regards to cognitive functions and in a way that will explain the link between these theories and the discoveries recently being made/validated. First and foremost, I thought it would be a good idea to provide a general map to understanding (piece-by-piece) regarding information I have systematized over time. I have shifted the paradigm of the average Joe and Typology Experts/Profilers alike, I have a reformed and provided a more accurate form of testing/screening to propose that will increase the accuracy of results, and I believe this is a crucial point in time to start circulating truth as an iconoclast.

I have found trends, through long-term study, made a new algorithm, and backed it with unbiased data. Many issues regarding the theory have not yet been formally addressed, and I will also critique the points of the theory where there is controversy, proposing resolutions. As this theory is now being used in ways such as being distributed to employers and students in college seeking careers, I believe it is imperative that certain issues be addressed. I will also post some results of some longitudinal studies and piecing together information I have collected for years. I'm read to bring my knowledge base together and produce something useful. I also have knowledge in regards to other personality theory, so I can draw comparisons to other articles and proposed theory. I, among others, have concluded that it is important these issues are formally addressed as groups of people are being formed globally around their 4 letter "type code" and bigotry is forming as a byproduct (among other issues).

I can't help but get this vivid imagery of Carl Jung turning in his grave because of the current state of affairs and misinterpretation of his proposed usage(individuation). 
These quotes from Nikola Tesla are pertinent to the issue at hand: 

• "Fights between individuals, as well as governments and nations, invariably will result from misunderstandings in the broadest interpretation of this term." -Nikola Tesla

• "Misunderstandings are always caused by the inability of appreciating one another's point of view. The best way to dispel ignorance of the doings of others is by a systematic spread of general knowledge. With this objective view, it is most important to aid exchange of thought and intercourse." -Nikola Tesla

~~~
Quick & Easy Explanation of Cog. Function Relations (between the four complementary pairs), and Import Things To Know :

Quick summary of function meanings:

• INTROVERTED INTUITION (Ni) = convergent internally (bring together connections/systematizing)
• EXTROVERTED INTUITION (Ne) = divergent externally (externally producing potential options/brainstorming)
• INTROVERTED SENSING (Si) = reflecting internally on past sensory experiences
• EXTROVERTED SENSING (Se) = experiencing in the moment and taking in sensory experiences
• INTROVERTED THINKING (Ti) = tweaking a given model for internal consistency based upon informal rules of logic and checking for inconsistencies
• EXTROVERTED THINKING (Te) = externally rearranging or internally rearranging for external consistency (efficiency and clarity/concise)
• EXTROVERTED FEELING (Fe) = treating each situation proportionately in terms of what you think is appropriate (morally sound) and in consequence sacrificing non-contextual consistency
• INTROVERTED FEELING (Fi) = building a system of moral consistency(aiming for objectivity) that does not change, regardless of changes in situation

Cognitive function pairs/interrelations regarding Dominant vs. Inferior functions: - These functions, Te/Fi, Ti/Fe, Ni/Se, and Ne/Si (and vice versa) pair up, because they depend on each other. If you have a preference for an individual function, you must necessarily have a preference for its complementary function for the following reasons. This partially helps explain why the type theory is based more about natural preference (comfortable inclinations) than ideal preferences. These descriptions take into account the specific relations respectively:

Rational subdivisions:

Te/Fi or Fi/Te

• Striving for external consistency, Te bases reasoning and its concept of the "proper" approach to logic on objective(external) standards. Consequently, in a Te system is so there no doubt about what the correct road to take in terms of asserting an idea, enforcing a rule, or correcting other people is (or otherwise it is extremely rare). Fi strives for internal consistency in terms of identifying an objective, unwavering ideal, which in turn feeds into how they respond behaviorally in the midst of change. The strength in both Te and Fi lie in their non-contextual consistency. Their combined approach is unwavering.

Ti/Fe or Fe/Ti

• Striving for internal consistency, Ti bases reasoning on internal preference for organization at the extent of potentially of negating superimposed logical imperatives (Te), and Ti will notice inconsistencies in theoretical models. Fe reacts to inconsistency in environment by adaptation, not expecting the world to change, but through adapting (changing behavior and communication style), to more effectively convey what can be concluded. Fe gauges what the other person may consider "proper" (though unknowingly acting inconsistently when it comes to external behavior). Fe tries to do what is best for the collective vs. what is best for the individual (Ti concludes the conclusion is sound via deduction) through considering impersonal preferences, often at the expense of suppressing personal preferences (Fi). This can be likened to the analogies regarding teaching a man to fish vs. feeding him, and wearing slippers vs. carpeting the world.

 Irrational subdivisions:

Ni/Se or Se/Ni

• Se absorbs sensory information constantly, taking in new information and Ni sifts through it. Ni, being a lifelong developmental system, looks for any novel information that causes egodystonic comprehension of what the ONE truth, the consistent pattern, is. It will question WHY something is different or similar when it seems out of character regarding the context, and based upon the system it has established, it will constantly guess and check, revising itself to promote more accurate interpretations of perception. This allows inductive reasoning with a fair amount of confidence as it is further refined. It views probability in terms statistic on a subconscious level, but  because usually people don't engage in metacognition, there is lack of awareness to how their conclusions are reached. For this reason, you may hear a Ni dominant person say they have a "feeling" about something, but admit they can't explain why. Without Ni, Se wouldn't have any reason to carry about the actions it thrives on (thrill of acting in the moment), because there is no anticipation of the excitement living in the present of a given situation would bring, thus no motivation. Ni treats all information coming in as equally credible (in the respect that it has no value until the quality of the information is confirmed). If there is something that seems to differ from what had become the established norm, and threatens to topple the system that had been in place, Ni seeks out an explanation. Ni tries to prevent negative consequences through anticipation, as well.

 Ne/Si or Si/Ne

• Ne is very well adapted to produce/propose novel ideas, focusing on past experiences to brainstorm what could possibly work, what may be a good idea, what may be useful, using Si to remember past experiences to identify and trigger connections. Unlike Ni, which discerns which path to follow with statistics, Ne considers each connection with equal validity/potential and probability. If a proposed idea from Ne is shot down, there will likely be several more on queue to offer. Si uses Ne in a way that affirms its value, as Si focuses on past experiences. From the perspective of Si, if the present ideas in question/being proposed and internal collection of past experiences have no apparent relevance to each other (even if the extent of perceived relevance is could be questioned by others), Si would conclude the Ne idea could not be considered pertinent to the situation at hand. Ne draws from the Si storehouse of past experiences, while Si supplements Ne with specific, individual instances to draw patterns from as it compares the past experience to the current situation's demands.

 (...that's right, people. I actually compiled a document so I don't have to keep writing this same explanation over and over, like I had been doing for years. Looks like my Extroverted Thinking(Te) does have some fighting spirit left, after all. There is much more to be added, but that will be reserved for another article.)

What IS God?

• Jacqueline Guerrero hey, I just summarized my conception of God
  

  about a minute ago · 
• 
  

  Jacqueline Guerrero Him: Oh I made a new self discovery with god
  
  Me: ?
  
  Him: A god can exist, if he exists outside of morals
  as in morals don't apply to him
  morals would be created for us, so that we could survive
  so what applies to us wouldn't apply to him
  
  Me: yup
  morals are irrelevant
  
  Him: so not tampering with shit, would make sense
  
  Me: there's just actuality
  also
  bias doesn't exist
  like in truth
  there is no connotation
  so any positives or negatives
  would simply be something humans attribute
  in all respects
  same with definitions
  which means meaning
  and ultimately, purpose
  when you extrapolate on that concept
  absolute neutrality, leaving complete potential for things to go in any direction
  
  Him: is god neutral then?
  neither good nor evil?
  honestly that would make the most sense
  
  Me: yup
  that's the truth
  now think about all potential that could ever happen
  it could be symbolized by random, correct?
  which could be symbolically represented by Pi
  and starting at a random place on Pi
  
  Me: you follow so far, right?
  
  Him: yup
  
  Me: okay, so
  then imagine 1 symbolizing a whole
  a whole system
  or geometrically
  a circle
  imagine the circumference of that circle determines the length before a strand of Pi resolves and a new sequence starts
  when it meets the start point again
  now imaging the midpoint is determined by the radius, or the diameter crossing through
  the center before the resolve
  imagine there are many circles symbolizing each individual even changing
  each being a whole representation
  each of a varying size
  the only thing that remains consistent regardless of the length of the circumference
  or the location of the midpoint in consequence
  would be Pi
  like in the equation
  therefore throughout all events
  and all change
  if there is a system
  even if the product of that system is an unknown variable
  the thing that makes that system a constant is the consist proportion, or Pi
  *consistent
  and if you imagine the constant as being consistent
  you can liken pi to the yet to be manifested potential
  that already is
  the point between the recession and expansion in the big bang
  would be the point where a new sequence begins
  or in present time
  where each individual perceived difference occurs
  despite the fact that there is a constant
  Pi could be considered a binding principle between the known and unknown
  the then, now, and to be
  validating them all
  hence it's a transcendental number
  it transcends the system, because it denotes the limits of the system
  and that's God
  
  Me: and we are Pi, since we are the consciousness that binds the two aspects of duality
  that aren't really true, but appear that way
  prolonged consciousness, that fluctuates, but remains
  not in one place at one time, either
  hence the higgs boson
  and why empiricism is doomed to collapse in on itself should physicists come to the same conclusion and be able to prove it or symbolize it logically
  as I just did
  the reason they can't consistently identify the God particle
  is because the God particle isn't consistent
  XD
  and I've known this and just kind of have been laughing to myself
  because essentially
  their lack of theory will make them look like dumbasses, once their ego centric arguments eventually fail
  that's the reconciliation between spirituality and the physical
  mediated through logic
  see, oneness is what spiritual strives to understand the nature of
  meditation promotes introversion, which promotes concepts connecting
  as they do during dreams
  so yes, while it is abstract and subconscious more often than not
  meditation is actually a great way to increase you understanding of the nature of reality
  

  a few seconds ago · 

Theory on the development of Cognitive Functions (Beebe/Mbti/Jungian typology)

So we all know cognitive functions are neural patterns we develop as their pathways are reinforced through use, but what do you suppose the typical cause of their development is? Do you believe n/s, s/n, t/f and f/t are inborn, or do you believe they are dependent highly on life experience? They say cognitive function order is supposed to be static, and generally this seems to be the case, but I have encountered exceptions. I would like to hear your perspectives on this.


Warning, complicated theory, but I really, really would appreciate commentary and feedback. If you guys could run this theory through your Ni and point out if or where it is unsound, even if you don't have the reason why, that would be appreciated, too:

I think when we are born, we already have a tendency towards one particular type of cognitive function, Nx, Sx, Tx, and Fx, and that's how we initially start making sense of the world. As we get older, we start to develop our second function, and unless we have a disability or it is repressed (like our first function), our environment either alters or represses our natural tendency. Our third function follows the pattern of Na/Sb, Sa/Nb, Fa/Tb, Ta/Tb, each a or b symbolizing introversion and/or extraversion, and our least preferred function is always determined by our most preferred (what comes most naturally). I think the reason Nx (general intuitive functions) types are most likely to have the lowest Sx (general sensing functions), is because our Nx is based upon the information we take in via Sx.

If we are Ni dominant, we take in information via Se, but we use very little Se to draw in a ton of information which we use to interpret the meaning of a situation. (If we are Ne dominant, we use our introverted sensing to externalize patterns we experience through sensation?)

I think this pattern may apply to all types, but I'm not sure. Like maybe Tx types are easily overwhelmed by Fx, Fx types are easily overwhelmed by Tx, and Sx types are easily overwhelmed by Nx, therefore we all naturally try to avoid our individualized forms over overstimulation. Introverts avoid external overstimulation, and Extraverts avoid internal overstimulation. I believe we each have varying threshold of what we can tolerate in respect to our weaknesses, and what we are overstimulated by is determined by more than just chance. I think that may be determined either by genetics (fundamentally), or the types of experiences our brains are exposed to while still the womb... and we adapt to what we are accustomed too, the early something is engrained into our mind, the more a part of our behavior (or interpretation technique) it becomes (as it is established the younger we are, up until a certain point, the more quickly we make and strengthen neural connections) , and maybe what we are exposed to is determined by what our mothers are exposed to, or choose to expose themselves to during their periods of pregnancy when our brains start to develop... so this could explain the seemingly genetic link between our personality type and our parents? I have a feeling our personality type may be more well establish by what our mother exposes us to, though... thoughts?