Nervous introduction from Sweden
Jun 24, 2018 5:12:18 GMT -5 by Pine
Auburn, Alerith, and 2 more like this
Post by Pine on Jun 24, 2018 5:12:18 GMT -5
Hello!
I have been lurking here for the past two weeks of my holiday.
You truly are a bunch of interesting people; highly intellectual and forever inquisitive. I am secretly in love with some of you. Looking forward to lurk some more and then, hopefully, dare to join the fun.
I began reading about MBTI a few months ago. I ended up fixating on the functions rather than the possible assembles and hierarchies of them (the actual types, in other words). I am not sure how to differentiate MBTI as a theory, and the culture and discourse sprouted around it. Anyhow, I do find the behavioristic diagnostics problematic and, well, kind of meaningless.
Other than that, I am not acquainted with other typologies. Perhaps that makes it easier to digest CT and its specific typings of real people (since those often seem to conflict with former classifications (although, I do understand that those do not necessarily need to be considered as of comparable qualities, and can therefore co-exist as truths inside separate coherent theories (I have never used parentheses like this before. (I feel like I am pushing the boundaries of linguistics (wow, I am so sorry).).).).).
Have a nice day!
I have been lurking here for the past two weeks of my holiday.
You truly are a bunch of interesting people; highly intellectual and forever inquisitive. I am secretly in love with some of you. Looking forward to lurk some more and then, hopefully, dare to join the fun.
I began reading about MBTI a few months ago. I ended up fixating on the functions rather than the possible assembles and hierarchies of them (the actual types, in other words). I am not sure how to differentiate MBTI as a theory, and the culture and discourse sprouted around it. Anyhow, I do find the behavioristic diagnostics problematic and, well, kind of meaningless.
Other than that, I am not acquainted with other typologies. Perhaps that makes it easier to digest CT and its specific typings of real people (since those often seem to conflict with former classifications (although, I do understand that those do not necessarily need to be considered as of comparable qualities, and can therefore co-exist as truths inside separate coherent theories (I have never used parentheses like this before. (I feel like I am pushing the boundaries of linguistics (wow, I am so sorry).).).).).
Have a nice day!
Welcome! 
) 
