!!!
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
This is the more trusted test designed by Carl Jung. But I suspect they are much alike.
All that's left of what we were is what we have become.
I don't understand, are you making this as a general statement towards society?Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle
I also believe that a balance is present in everyone and can be attained by everyone, it's just that not everyone is in the right state of mind to face and amalgamate all the facets of themselves. Some people repress certain things on purpose (albeit subconciously) and those are the types of people to whom psychology can be the starting block - from which they can hopefully go on to complete their own mental journey towards understanding, self awareness and self knowledge.It's normal for some areas of the mind to be underdeveloped, because self-cultivation requires time and energy. However, if one wastes no time in one's life, if one puts serious priority on excellence, it is theoretically possible to be strong in all of the areas of psychological function, just as it is possible, despite stereotypes, to be athletic and intelligent.
I can't relate to that being an atheistA person with good extroversion and good introversion, strong in sensation, intuition, thinking, and feeling is an ideal human. The kind we crucify.
Jon, that's the same Jung/Myers-Briggs test that SJ posted on the first page
Not exactly.I don't understand, are you making this as a general statement towards society?"All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer."
-- Henry David Thoreau,
"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"There is only ONE Walden.
I could not agree more. Glad to have that out on the table.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Experience-R-D-Laing/dp/039471475X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250004404&sr=8-1"]The Politics of Experience[/ame]"True guilt is guilt at the obligation one owes to oneself to be oneself. False guilt is guilt felt at not being what other people feel one ought to be or assume that one is."
-- R D LaingLaing attacks accepted assumptions about the nature of "normality" with a challenging view of the mental sickness built into our society.You don't have to believe in God to believe in history.I can't relate to that being an atheistA person with good extroversion and good introversion, strong in sensation, intuition, thinking, and feeling is an ideal human. The kind we crucify.
designed by Carl JungJon, that's the same Jung/Myers-Briggs test that SJ posted on the first page
I know the test was designed by Isabel Briggs-Myers, based on Jung's typological theories, I just noticed that both links were for the same test (same questions etc)
That's further expounding your point, which I understood, I just wanted to know where it was specifically directed - society, certain schools of psychology? Because, to my mind the tests aren't detrimental in the way that they categorise personality types, because acknowledging what's on the surface helps to determine what is underlying - so I don't understand your objection to it.
I'm not sure it's even thatYou don't have to believe in God to believe in history.
What? Crucifixion? An ideal human? I think you may be missing my point...
Anyway, if you think that psychology and religion are totally unrelated then you must not really know very much about C.G. Jung.I figured that you did know that, but Jon may not have. What is trusted by the mainstream is only important if you happen to trust the mainstream.I know the test was designed by Isabel Briggs-Myers, based on Jung's typological theories, I just noticed that both links were for the same test (same questions etc)In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.Didn't you pick up on my jab towards B. F. Skinner's so-called Walden Two? Further, have you read The Politics of Experience?
Indeed, I am certain that not everything which passes under the label of psychology is in fact good psychology. And pop psychology sometimes is the worst of all.
a good read of campbell's the hero with a thousand faces will take care of that. after that one, it will be abundantly clear that there is an endless amount of common ground between the two, particularly with regards to the psychoanalytical schools of psychology.
Maybe I am, I thought you were referring to that guy Jesus, who's about as historically accurate as King Arthur.
I'm not well read up on any psychologist in particular, I simply speak from experience of living in multiple behavioural therapy based environments through my Dad's work.Anyway, if you think that psychology and religion are totally unrelated then you must not really know very much about C.G. Jung.
I'm sure you can draw parallels between religion and psychology, the only difference to my mind being, psychology is tangible and based in reality/ies and religion is not.
No and no. What's the point of quoting if there isn't an underlying opinion of your own beneath it? I simply wondered where your comment was directed, don't you have a simple answer?Didn't you pick up on my jab towards B. F. Skinner's so-called Walden Two? Further, have you read The Politics of Experience?
Well sure, you don't have to accept the virtues of something simply because it falls under the right heading, or even attribute that thing with virtues at all.Indeed, I am certain that not everything which passes under the label of psychology is in fact good psychology. And pop psychology sometimes is the worst of all.
reductionism /noun/ a procedure or theory that reduces complex data and phenomena to simple terms
Can't you converse in your own words without quoting others? You're also coming across as very patronising.
I'm sorry if I haven't expressed myself as well as I might like. My time and attention have been rather limited this week. Among other things, I'm working overtime, and my little sister has just had her first baby.
No one likes to be patronized. I think that may have been Brice's original point.People who come from religious communities sometimes believe that they possess a monopoly on truth, and thus feel that they have a right to judge others and an obligation to convert them to their way of thinking.
Jack Mandora!
People who come from religious communities sometimes believe that they possess a monopoly on truth, and thus feel that they have a right to judge others and an obligation to convert them to their way of thinking.
Jack Mandora!
I don't see how you're relating that to my comment you quoted there...are you saying you're from a religious community and feel you have a monopoly on truth, a right to judge others and an obligation to convert the masses?
What I find difficult about conversing with you is not that I don't understand what you're saying, but that none of your responses seem to relate to you, me or the conversation itself.
I think path is hinting that it goes the other way around too...that a person of science feels they have the monopoly on truth and they have the right to attempt to convert people of faith to their way of thinking. It appears to me that path is saying that you're doing this.
Do correct me, path, if I misinterpreted that.
Me? I think psychology is not reliable as a science. But at least psychology is based on logic. I just doubt its power to neatly classify people in the way that, say, the meyers briggs test attempts to. The human mind is a very complicated place and no human mind is exactly like another. Its not as bad as palm reading, tarot, or astrology but I don't have much faith in it. I do believe though, that its a young science and is worthy of being pursued. It just has a long way to go.
Psychology IS a science, and it has all sorts of branches. Things like tarot, palm reading, and astrology are considered pseudopsychology, but they're not on the same level as psych at all because psychological theories all use the scientific method and research/experiments to come to their conclusions. Just like in the "hard sciences," as we psych students like to call them, nothing is proven until it has been confirmed by vigorous research and a lot of red tape.
I've often heard people say things like you, Coz, that they don't have faith in psychology like they do in other sciences, like physics for example. I don't really get this, because both fields have people from all over the place. Psychologists come in all different forms - some from the school of behaviorism, or cognitive psych, or those who use biological models. How is this any different from the field of physics, where some physicists study quantum mechanics, others believe in string theory, and still others rely on classic models?
Each person defines their own field differently, but they are still both sciences. It's just a lot harder to conceptualize some forms of psychology as there's nothing concrete - it's all in your head.
Other psychological phenomena, like the bystander effect, are directly observed and, just like the hard sciences, psychologists can reach definite conclusions about them.
I dunno, I'm a big psych geek though, so I've obviously already fallen in love with it. I'm going into counseling for pete's sake, so I certainly hope it's not all some big hoax!
Well if that is the case, I'm happy enough with my opinion not to need to convert others to it - even though I will defend the logic of it in the course of a debate
However, my point to Path was only that he speaks in riddles, when plainly stating his opinion would be much more condusive to the discussion.
Such is the way of the Jedi, Dark. If you cannot see the path of the turtle then, clearly, the force does not run strong in your family.
Coz - Um, I think maybe Darkers meant that he/Path speaks in someone elses riddles?!?
And, the Force runs strong in Darkers - known fact.
The Man In Black Fled Across The Desert...
...And The Gunslinger Followed.
“I’m always on the Batman rule, sir.” - Kate Kane / Detective Comics 857
"It is the story, not he who tells it." Except to us collectors who have to put limits somewhere. - jhanic
Remember, Remember, The Fifth of November, The Gunpowder, Treason, and Plot.
I didn't know you were Jedi, Coz. I thought you wielded the foreskin...not the force
Path is the jedi here, not me. I liken myself more to that creature that hangs out on Jabba and laughs at everybody.
"The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be…unnatural."
~ George Lucas
But this is circular, since the logic of behaviorist psychology is that it is not necessary for people to share the opinions of the psychologist, but only for them to conform in behavior....I'm happy enough with my opinion not to need to convert others to it - even though I will defend the logic of it in the course of a debate
The fact that you took my posts as an invitation to debate has its own psychological implications.
It is often difficult to convince a Christian that they do not need to "educate" the atheists... and even MORE difficult to convince an atheist that they do not need to educate the Christians.The point of quoting is to share sources, to expand our horizons. Myself, I do sometimes actually go and read the books which are mentioned by fellow members.
When my opinion is that real truth defies simplistic analysis, wouldn't attempting to simplify it defeat the purpose?
Excellent point. I had not thought of it in that way.But this is circular, since the logic of behaviorist psychology is that it is not necessary for people to share the opinions of the psychologist, but only for them to conform in behavior....I'm happy enough with my opinion not to need to convert others to it - even though I will defend the logic of it in the course of a debate
I would say that the fact that you commented on the debate Brice and I were having, does alsoThe fact that you took my posts as an invitation to debate has its own psychological implications.
It is often difficult to convince a Christian that they do not need to "educate" the atheists... and even MORE difficult to convince an atheist that they do not need to educate the Christians.
The reason I find science attractive as an alternate to belief, in this context, is because to me science is about constantly questing for knowledge, rather than claiming to own all knowledge.
But, in a more general view, I wouldn't go so far as to say science was even my alternative to religion. I don't think there are any concepts or beliefs that quite replicate the faith of the religious. I think that's quite a stand alone ( and fascinating) state of mind.
Don't get me wrong, I've read, watched and discussed away from the internet many books, films and concepts that members here have bought up and I absolutely agree that our horizons should be expanded at every available opportunity. But to answer the last part of your reply, that I bolded, I see a big difference in simplistic analysis and simplistic terms. I mean here, I understand your meaning behind your words completely - it was just your previous mode of communication that I found confusing. I don't think there's any shame in addressing, or asking, a question simply and directly - it doesn't detract in any way from the validity or depth of your answer if you know the point you are trying to make.
I didn't know you were Jedi, Coz. I thought you wielded the foreskin...not the force
salacious crumb my good man, salacious crumb. and i can't fucking believe i knew that.Path is the jedi here, not me. I liken myself more to that creature that hangs out on Jabba and laughs at everybody.
. . . but i'm paralyzed with not caring very much.
~ spike
THATS HIM!
It depends on what you think that its purpose should be. The most visible and famous application of psychology is in personal counseling. There, as we all seem to agree, some forms of it can sometimes do some good for some people. However, that is not all that there is to it. For many years, psychologists and sociologists have also participated in the designing of the institutions and systems with which we deal every day. Don't you guys realize that the establishment uses psychology on you all of the time? I mean, I'm not talking about some foreign conspiracy. It's simply the structure of the modern world. Current psychology is not too good at getting people to attain higher consciousness, but it is pretty good at getting them to buy shit.
You're reducing the range of possibility to conclude that I am either falsely ashamed or truly incapable. You continue to confuse my purpose with your purpose. Certainly people do sometimes deny "aspects of themselves that they dislike" or struggle with, but there's no call for the kind of Freudian thinking which presumes the attitude of [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Im-Youre-Thomas-Harris-M-D/dp/1578660750"]I'm OK, You're Not OK[/ame].
I thought that it had become clear that you were already trying to analyze me. That's why I chose the words "...has its own psychological implications."I would say that the fact that you commented on the debate Brice and I were having, does alsoThe fact that you took my posts as an invitation to debate has its own psychological implications.
There's no doubt that indeed there is meaning in my associating Brice's words with my own experiences and motives, but you having wanted to debate him still doesn't prove that *I* wanted to debate you.
I don't deny that I do want to change people. Firstly, however, I don't pretend at all that this is for their own good. The people I have in mind are trying to control me and mine and *I* don't like it. Secondly, you don't have to take it personally; I spoke abstractly because I was thinking abstractly. If that is what you wish to identify with, however, then so be it.J. Edgar Hoover once called the reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. "the most dangerous man in America."
That is our history.In general, in the present day, as whole demographics, yes.It is often difficult to convince a Christian that they do not need to "educate" the atheists... and even MORE difficult to convince an atheist that they do not need to educate the Christians.
However, I did not say that atheists are more guilty of intolerance. What I said was that an individual atheist can be harder to dissuade. The Christian may at least accept the idea that God will work things out. The atheist who loses his sense of self-righteousness has no sense of righteousness at all.
Honestly, tho, I probably would have just let you have the last word if this had been it.
In this context, (psychology) constantly questing for anything could be labeled an addiction. The religious claim is not that we have all knowledge; it is that the right knowledge is enough. There are questions which science, by design, cannot answer. The scientific method is a carefully rigid system of selective ignorance. This most definitely is a positive development, allowing us to distinguish what is scientific fact. However, there is a difference between truth and information. Without wisdom, all the science in the world can only bring destruction. Science can give us technology, but not tell us what to do with it. Unless there is an overarching philosophy, such matters are decided only by personal whim, or by politics, which science observes, but does not control.
As for the impression that I claim to "own" the truth...
Have you heard of "Object Permanence"? Infants reach a cognitive stage at which they come to recognize that an object removed from their sight has not ceased to exist.
That is what faith is like.
If I don't quickly share, in a way that you are comfortable with, that doesn't prove that I won't share at all.
"It's a deep, dark, evil, political plot;
pretending to talk to Whos who are not."
~ Horton Hears a WhoI'm not asking for your credit card, just some patience. Seriously do wish that I didn't have to, but it's the best way that I know.
"I could always haul a gun faster than any of my mates, but I've never been much good at thinking around corners.
Eddie remembered trying to tell Roland that jokes were riddles designed to help you build up that often overlooked talent, but Roland had ignored him. The way, Eddie supposed, a color-blind person would ignore someone's description of a rainbow."
~ Stephen King
I'm not concluding any such thing about you Path, my point was very simply that I didn't understand what you were saying because you answered all my questions with seemingly random quotes from other people.
I thought that it had become clear that you were already trying to analyze me.
Doesn't prove you wanted to debate mebut you having wanted to debate him still doesn't prove that *I* wanted to debate you.Are you feeling persecuted by me? Path, I don't give a shit, this is just a discussion you're not on trial
How does the atheist lose his sense of self righteousness? Are you saying that one can only have such a sense if they have faith in God? Because if you are, all I have to say to that is bollocks, quite frankly.What I said was that an individual atheist can be harder to dissuade. The Christian may at least accept the idea that God will work things out. The atheist who loses his sense of self-righteousness has no sense of righteousness at all.
How gracious of youHonestly, tho, I probably would have just let you have the last word if this had been it.
Well, we're not getting anywhere, because I feel as though that quote is more relevant to you than me."It's a deep, dark, evil, political plot;
pretending to talk to Whos who are not."
~ Horton Hears a Who
Posting Permissions
