GrandpaLash
Posts: 133
Joined: 1/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: slavedesires
interesting.... thank God i did not having the Judging aspect, cause i try darn hard not to, if i point my finger, i have 3 back at me!
As I said in an earlier post, Jung's terms are easily misunderstood today. Judging does not mean judgemental. The Judging process, and we ALL have one, as we ALL have a Perceiving function, either Sensation or Intuition, simply describes how we make our judments, decisions, etc - either through Thinking = rational analysis, pragmatic reasoning, instrumental logic, or Feeling = analysis based on personal values, idealistic reasoning, ethical logic.
For instance:
A Thinking type might look at woodchipping, analyse the practical economic and social benefits and drawbacks, balance them against needs of the environment and human livelihoods, and attempt to come up with a logical reason for either supporting or opposing the practice. A Feeling type will look primarily at the unmeasurable social costs and benefits, the aesthetics, the less concrete philosophical issues like animal rights, balance them against the practicalities, and try to come up with a 'right' reason for supporting or opposing woodchipping.
The former does not inherently have any judgmentalism about it, but some Thinkers are judgmental people; the latter does not inherently mean emotional, although many Feelers are emotional. But both types also have the opposite function to some extent. The point of Jungian typology is that we should each attempt to develop all four functions (Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, and Intuition) to an adequate degree rather than sticking to the primary (strongest) and secondary processes which make up the two middle letters in our Type.
None of the types is any better or worse than the others, just different. But there are quite large variations in distribution among the population, with ESTJ (accountants, bank managers, bureaucrats, managers, businessmen) being clearly the most common type, and the INFJ/INFP types being quite rare. It is only when the values of one type are enforced over all others that problems occur.
To head off the inevitable boxophobics, not all ESTJ's go into the professions I listed, nor are all people in those professions ESTJs, but the correlations for the latter are around 75-85%, easily strong enough to make a generalisation from. But every person is individual - as a quick glance at the results in this thread show. Two ISTPs can be quite different people because their relative strengths/weaknesses in the 'scores' are different, although they will share many characteristics which differentiate them from an ESFJ, for instance.
Incidentally, anyone trying to gain statistical information from those who have listed their type here, beware. There are certain types whose very type makes them almost incapable of taking Typology seriously, and they won't bother doing the test as a rule, or being involved in the discusion except to ridicule it (and no, I still haven't had a chance to read the thread).
Didn't mean to lecture, but I am very fond of this model, and I can't help trying to make people understand it better.
Grandpa Lash
_____________________________
Sex without D/s is about as pointless as D/s without sex
|
RE: Doms/Subs different on personality tests?? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread