Guide to becoming awesome: MBTI Edition - Page 2

Guide to becoming awesome: MBTI Edition

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47
Thank Tree75Thanks

This is a discussion on Guide to becoming awesome: MBTI Edition within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; It's probably a bit too far to one side of trying to over explain things, as I often see numerous ...

  1. #11

    It's probably a bit too far to one side of trying to over explain things, as I often see numerous concepts all joined to one point and thus try to mention a lot of them. Missing certain details can change the entire picture at times, so I tried to include as many as I could. Being too brief can often not get a message across and lead to miscommunication. It's like saying A to B to C so.... L. I understand all the parts in between C and L in my head, but have to back up and cover each step because people can't read my mind. Erred on the (overly) safe side.
    Now this explanation right here leads me to think that you're an INTP (entertaining your hypothesis, at least as your dominant expression) because while Ni does see a complex body of information and captures its essence, it tends to not see that essence in explicit terms (I sometimes like to say that Ni is like an unconscious Ti where only the results are abstractly communicated to the conscious mind, which means that if the Ni becomes too complex in the ISTP they will have to reverse engineer it to even make use of it. INxJs on the other hand are like miners who chip out Te/Fe principles from its bedrock.)
    It sounds like you're starting from a Ti principle you've latched on to, and uses Ne to extrapolate all the relevant incarnations of that principle. This is exactly the INTP thinking style.
    Ni is a bit more of an art. Like you rightly say, people can't read your mind (regardless of type) so examples and details are warranted. However, Ni-users (whether It's dom, aux or tert) have a native skill and sense of how to condense the central points that they need to communicate as succinctly as possible.
    Bottom line is, if your Ni was more active when you wrote the OP, it would be much easier to follow. But Ne is a different mode of mind, what many of us will see as the chore of chipping away at all this surrounding stuff to maybe eventually get to the point, an Ne-user will see as a fun mental exercise in discovering the environment of the principle. But all things need a balance, so there's always going too far.
    Ni wants to be reminded of the point and have everything constantly converging towards it. You can probably tell I use Ni from the fact that I'm bolding and emphasizing everything (I like to organize my points, It's really satisfying lol.)

    It's cool that you are trying to create something new. I appreciate the spirit. But my advice for now is that you take a step back and try to isolate the most tangible and clear manifestations of your hypothesis, and define it more rigorously. Look for and connect this to existing systems as much as you can; find the bottom lines, and explain to yourself and write down what the holes are in existing systems which suggest that your hypothesis is wanting.

    If you are currently in the INTP profile, this might prove challenging. Se is the PoLR (most difficult according to socionics) function for INTPs, yet it keeps your mind realistically tuned: "what is the tangible embodiment of this model?"
    Te might also be relevant, depending on how much you know about Typology and different Typological theories, as well as misc. I strongly believe that we depend on our so called 'shadow functions' to even use our preferred function well. Procrastinating, mind-in-the-clouds IxTPs turn into hard-working and frenzied researchers of all relevant information once their Te unleashes all that bottled up Ti.

    That's more than I intended to write tonight. Happy theorycrafting mayne.
    petitpèlerin, Sultanim and jkp thanked this post.

  2. #12

    So you posit that, for example, a Ne Dom ENFP would go to ENFJ, ENTP, ESFJ, ESFP and then ENTJ? That seems interesting, particularly the ENTJ bit.

    It is true, unless I am reading fiction, I am more of a skimmer than a law-abiding reader. This is probably due to a combination of natural impatience and Ne-domhood. If you are interested in reaching someone like me, you don't really have condense the wall of text, if you feel that the message is as pithy as it can possibly be. But you should provide an apparent structure that can be played with at any point, even if the undercurrent sequential story might not be appreciated. If there are new concepts/jargon that are needed to be understood to grasp the ideas of the text, provide them at the beginning and mark them under IMPORTANT: (bring along with your towel.) Also don't make the trudge through the whole thing to make understand the basis of how the types are changed. You could provide this information in a conclusion that reads like a diagram. That way, I (the impatient internet-spoiled reader) look at it and wonder "huh? that's interesting, I wonder how he got to that conclusion..." Then I am ready to read your life story. But before that, I am interested in how this applies to me and the people around me (no offense, I am sure you are a great guy.)

    In conclusion: give me places to "land" around your Saga, make more of your text readily enjoyable and rewarding on its own, without having to read the whole thing. And, for the love of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, make diagrams/simplifications of the conclusive logic if you are going to write so much text.

    My advice, as you know, you can take it, leave it to be eaten/raised by the forest animals.
    Last edited by Humaning; 08-13-2015 at 02:30 AM.

  3. #13

    Quote Originally Posted by Piercie View Post
    Now this explanation right here leads me to think that you're an INTP

    However, Ni-users (whether It's dom, aux or tert) have a native skill and sense of how to condense the central points that they need to communicate as succinctly as possible.

    It's cool that you are trying to create something new. I appreciate the spirit. But my advice for now is that you take a step back and try to isolate the most tangible and clear manifestations of your hypothesis, and define it more rigorously. Look for and connect this to existing systems as much as you can; find the bottom lines, and explain to yourself and write down what the holes are in existing systems which suggest that your hypothesis is wanting.
    Clear manifestation? You (and a few others) think I'm an INTP.

    You might be right of course, but I examined back into my teenager days, pre-teen years, and a whole host of other factors to determine if I was INTP, ISTJ, or ISTP - the three type descriptions that resonated with me when I found MBTI. That discrepancy (three types instead of one, as professionals state) is eventually what catalyzed this whole thing. Self-diagnosis at the end of the day that I might've gotten wrong and all that (did bounce it off some friends), but I tried to examine it from every angle I could beyond just my current surface behavior. I often test as INTP in online quizzes, though I rarely use them. I spoke with an INTP who often gets ISTP as his result.

    I've also gotten some positive 'ISTP' feedback here on PerC, for the record. Including some ISTPs occasionally echoing/affirming my thoughts when others ask about our type in that forum.


    Quote Originally Posted by Humaning View Post
    So you posit that, for example, a Ne Dom ENFP would go to ENFJ, ENTP, ESFJ, ESFP and then ENTJ? That seems interesting, particularly the ENTJ bit.

    If you are interested in reaching someone like me, you could provide this information in a conclusion that reads like a diagram. That way, I (the impatient internet-spoiled reader) look at it and wonder "huh? that's interesting, I wonder how he got to that conclusion..."

    In conclusion: give me places to "land" around your Saga, make more of your text readily enjoyable and rewarding on its own, without having to read the whole thing.
    I greatly appreciate that both of you are willing to provide feedback, as the lack of it has been the biggest issue so far. I've written a preliminary 'abridged' version that's a little under 3000 words long (as opposed to the current 20000 - most of the original will remain inside a spoiler). I placed the current abridged version below in a spoiler if you're interested.

    An ENFP friend of mine has recently offered to be an editor/proofreader, and I'll run it through her filter as well before bugging an admin to edit the OP yet again. Her current MBTI knowledge is at a pre-functions level, so could be a decent barometer as to whether or not she can grasp what I'm saying, though I've talked to her about it before as well. Seem to recall Michio Kaku saying that a good editor knows very little about the field you're writing about, because if they can't understand what you're talking about then what hope does the average reader have? I'll also be using her as an example in the abridged version - including a part that seems to resemble the ENTJ hurdle for her.


    The original was written over several months, with constant additions and revisions as I went along and discovered new things. You probably don't want to see the first draft version - it has several lengthy, rambling personal stories that tried to illustrate each type transition I went through (eventually decided it was too subjective to use), and it basically ended at type five with a vague 'there's further development up to 15.' Very messy. It was probably shorter though, if we want to get all technical.


    For the abridged version, I decided to skip most of the 'why multiple functional stacks is beneficial and what it provides at each stage' explanations, as that's probably the biggest place where I engaged in massive (massive) overkill. I also likely overestimated how much people would need to be eased into a concept that varies/expands from current theory. Part of that is also due to uncovering the early parts before the later portion, rather than everything all at once, so it's also a bit of a collection of my thought process as I went along and configured new pieces of the puzzle. Also lined up with the timing that Ti-Ne felt like it started operating at full power, rather than the relatively sluggish pattern recognition mode of the previous year or two, so that's a contributing factor as well to the all over the place status.


    Another piece of feedback I got recently was having some illustration of the concept - which is one part of what identifying relatively famous people is for. I figured the 'you only have one type' vs 'many people identify with more than one' was obvious right in the intro (first few people I showed it to already had that rough conclusion about their own life), but apparently not. Hard to gauge a decent level for that, as from my view the whole thing seems so blatantly illustrated all over society. Piercie's comment prompted me to add a paragraph near the start to clearly state that conflict with current theory. Also reproduced the 15 type representation functional stack, which'll hopefully help on the 'diagram illustration' front.

     
    Core Concept


    The major expansion from current MBTI that I'm proposing would be that although a person has one type, which I refer to as the core personality type, the psyche is capable of learning to use more than one functional stack - the particular arrangement of functions associated with each of the 16 types.

    One of the biggest issues this will help resolve is many people identifying with numerous types, some even believing that they have 'changed types' over the course of their life. This is in conflict with the professional stance that a person has one type that they're born with, and that it cannot be changed.

    For ease of use, I'll refer to additional functional stacks by the type name that they're connected to.

    There is a particular order and structure to the development of additional functional stacks, which serve to reinforce and expand the usage of each function.

    The most noticeable influence on a person's behavior and actions will be the four types that differ from the core type by one letter. This doesn't mean that it'll be exactly like those other types, but some common points can be observed. Taking ISTP as an example:


    1. ISTP: Core type a person is born with, which development is based upon. Those familiar with MBTI will already be aware of this.

    2. ISTJ: Reversal of J/P. I refer to this as the 'backbone' type, as it eventually serves a major support role much like the backbone of a skeletal structure. The middle letters (ST) are the same as the core, and thus the dominant/auxiliary are from the same preferences as the core type, though in reverse order. ISTP has Ti-Se in the dominant/auxiliary position while ISTJ has Si-Te in those positions.

    3. INTP: This third type shares the same dominant function as the core type. I view it as an 'expansion' of the core's abilities. It will eventually be used relatively seamlessly alongside the core type, though the extent varies from person to person and also depends on their development state. It can be a common source of typing confusion, as it can be difficult to determine whether a person is this type or the core type when considering MBTI from a single functional stack perspective. Especially if only considered at a glance, looking at surface behavior. A likely cause for many who believe/report that their type has changed over the years.

    4. ISFP: The fourth type shares the same auxiliary function as the core type. I see it as a stabilizing 'anchor' for the psyche. The Fi dominant helps provide a balancing perspective so that the Ti dominant of the core doesn't get too carried away or lopsided. A balance against too much 'cold, hard logic' as it were, in this example, which ultimately leads to a better usage of the core's abilities.

    5. ESTP: The 'capstone' of the most noticeable and influential types, helping to bring all the various areas together, and first foray across the E/I axis. It is currently quite rare for most people to reach this stage, though a number of influential people throughout history would've likely reached this stage, if not further. Further below, I've identified a few famous people who I believe made it past this point, to serve as potential illustrations.


    Here's a link to a cheat sheet listing the functional stack for each personality type.
    MBTI Type functions chart.


    The backbone (ISTJ for this example) also has a types 3-5 using the same dom/aux reinforcement principle, which develop alongside the core's 3-5, further strengthening the support structure in the background.


    There are a few patterns that are followed as additional functional stacks are developed, in order to maintain a balanced progression.


    1. From start to finish, it alternates between J or P for every new type.
    2. After the first two types, the four main preferences (S, N, T, and F) are represented every two types.
    3. There are loose pairings that combine to represent all eight functions, such as types 1 and 2, or types 3 and 4.


    Broken into a grouping of 6, 4, and 5, here is how the progression would look for the ISTP example.

    ISTP > ISTJ > INTP > ISFJ > ISFP > INTJ

    The core and backbone, along with their respective third/fourth (expansion/anchor) types.

    ESTP > INFJ > INFP > ESTJ

    The capstone types of the core and backbone, and the two remaining introverted types, as per the above three patterns.

    ESFP > ENTJ > ENTP > ESFJ > ENFP

    The third/fourth types of the capstone and its backbone type, along with the final type. MBTI and Socionics are different systems that approach the psyche from different angles (currently with no consistent conversion method between the two - I've tried), but this final type would generally be considered the 'Dual' of the core in Socionics - the two types only sharing the final letter of their type name in common.


    Sorted by the number of letters they differ from the core, all fifteen can be presented in functional stack format, with types further down having a less noticeable impact on average behavior:

    Dominant: ISTP
    Auxiliary: ISTJ, INTP, ISFP, ESTP
    Tertiary: ISFJ, INTJ, INFP, ESTJ, ESFP, ENTP
    Inferior: INFJ, ENTJ, ESFJ, ENFP


    I currently believe that there may be subtypes, similar to the concept that exists in some areas of Socionics. Rather than label them by one of the eight functions, I find that it is more efficient to think of MBTI subtypes as being a dominant or auxiliary subtype. The difference would be what order types three and four are developed, as an auxiliary subtype above would develop ISFP and INTJ as the expansion types of the core/backbone while INTP and ISFJ would serve as the anchor types. This dominant/auxiliary preference would continue on the capstone side of development, and is one reason why I broke the above up into three groups.


    The average person will generally have between 1 and 5 types active, with a higher number being more likely with age though there is no guarantee.


    Further Additions


    To discuss the most likely trigger of a new functional stack, it is necessary to expand the current MBTI functional stack model from depicting four functions to include all eight. I'll use a term MBTI has sitting around and call the other functions 'shadow' functions which are part of the shadow functional stack. This second functional stack is ordered using the same preference order as the first functional stack.

    Continuing the previous ISTP example, we would get this:

    Dominant: Ti
    Auxiliary: Se
    Tertiary: Ni
    Inferior: Fe

    Shadow Dominant: Te
    Shadow Auxiliary: Si
    Shadow Tertiary: Ne
    Shadow Inferior: Fi

    A more collapsed version could be expressed thusly:

    D: Ti -- Te
    A: Se -- Si
    T: Ni -- Ne
    I: Fe -- Fi


    The shadow tertiary and inferior, Ne and Fi in this case, will generally be the key point in activating any new functional stack because their starting state is the weakest of all eight functions. They are likely related to a person's 'hot button,' whether that be temper issues, major internal uncertainty and worry, or other weak areas. Viewing a type from that angle may also help narrow down what a person's core type might be.

    The position of one or both functions in the new type, whether main or shadow functional stack, is likely to be the point that a person has trouble making a connection at. The largest hurdle is at the sixth type - the backbone's fourth type. From our above example, it would be INTJ. The shadow dominant/auxiliary is Ne-Ti. This is a large departure from the tried and true way of doing things. In type one, there was Ti-Se. In type two, Se-Ti in the shadow functional stack. In type three Ti-Ne serves to expand the natural Ti abilities. Ne taking the lead and Ti serving the auxiliary role is a very large hurdle to overcome. Without knowing to look in the shadow functional stack, the inability to connect the main Ni-Te pair may be all that is perceived.

    In contrast, Fi serves as the tertiary of INTJ next to a Se inferior - a pairing that matches the dom/aux of ISFP. This makes Fi a significantly less likely cause of trouble when activating INTJ.

    This essentially serves as a test of how well a person has made use of their 'expansion' in pursuit of being balanced, rather than relying on just their base strengths. A second major test for how much the other weak function (Fi, in this case) has been embraced comes when starting the third grouping - activating the capstone's type three.



    This necessitates a few extra things. First is a definition list of the eight functions that can be used by any type, in any functional stack, in any situation. The biggest thing to note is that the F functions are not necessarily related only to emotions as commonly depicted, and are used even during logical problem solving. The reverse is also true, of course. Here's the current list that I've put together. It is by no means set in stone or some gold standard.


    Si - what has occurred/worked previously - endurance - precedents
    Se - immediate surroundings - whole environments - situations
    Ni - what might work/be required in the future - possible improvements
    Ne - details - specific parts of a whole - patterns
    Ti - determine how to join multiple pieces together - efficiency
    Te - constructs: order - structure - systems - planning
    Fi - determine causes of positive and negative responses - provides vigor
    Fe - harmony - smooth conveyance - minimizing conflict - provides warmth


    Functions can go both ways, as suggested in the Fi positive/negative description. For example, Ti/Te can both put something together or disassemble it (such as when breaking something down to analyze it). Given the above needs of being fairly universal, I've tried to use rather adaptable terms.


    The second need is a description of how the functional stack works - of how the functions interact with each other. My view is that they interact in pairs over the course of a few steps. The first member of the pair considers 'multiple' possibilities, which then culminate in a 'single' result in the second function. The process starts at the inferior and proceeds to the dominant. Along with the inferior > tertiary and auxiliary > dominant pairs, I believe that there may also be an auxiliary > tertiary pairing, as this third pairing helps smooth out the process.

    There may be a few variations on this in regards to the shadow functional stack, which is a bit harder to determine. One would be that the process starts at the shadow inferior, goes up to the shadow dominant, then to the inferior before finally reaching the dominant of the main functional stack. A second would be that processing starts at both inferiors and proceeds up at the same time. A third would include a relation between the regular and shadow function of each position - a mixture of the two being used depending on the given situation being considered. There may be more than one correct answer. My intent is to provide information for others to consider that is as accurate and useful as I can make it, rather than provide a conclusive answer that precludes any alternatives.


    Example to Illustrate


    An ENFP in my circle of friends is known for possessing several characteristics - two of those are luck and superstition. Years ago, when playing video games, we all noticed that she had a tendency to have beneficial items spawn right on top of her. She tried to tell us that she could sometimes sense a pattern to when and where they'd spawn, which we mostly ignored as implausible. We eventually attributed this continuing trend to her above average luck, for lack of a better explanation. One manifestation of her 'superstitions' is that when rolling dice she'll often stop to decide whether to use the right or left hand, or attempt to roll it in a specific way.

    Both of these behaviors are completely logical, when consider via the ENFP functional stack.


    In the first case, she would've started with past (Si) cases when items have spawned while playing the game, based on the game's coding (Te - though mentally noting it is coded a certain way isn't needed). She would then note times when she did or didn't (Fi) get the item based on her actions (Te) in that circumstance. Finally, she would overlap multiple cases of when she did get an item (Fi) until they line up and a single answer/pattern (Ne) can be extracted. When she noticed this pattern occurring again, she could then walk over to the perceived point she believed an item would spawn at a given time and attempt to collect her loot.


    The second case, of superstitions when rolling dice, is similar. It would start from recalling past (Si) attempts, depending on how she rolled it (Te). She'd separate the results she liked and disliked (Fi) to focus on the mechanical method she had used in the past - such as whether she more commonly rolled a beneficial result with her right or left hand (Te). She would choose which version to try reproducing, such as using the right or left hand, (Fi) then roll the die in a specific way aiming to get a particular result (Ne). Fortunately for our board game sessions, her success in these attempts was not as pronounced as in the video game example.


    When I discussed it with her, she said it was the first time somebody could describe what goes on in her head. She may not always consciously perform every step of the process, and often simply acts on a feeling such as 'there might be loot if I go over there.' More or less reading from the ENFP functional stack produced a rather accurate depiction of her thought process, as well as an explanation for her actions that had previously appeared rather illogical or random.


    To add to that, we recently discussed some of her writer's block problems. She mentioned that she'd often rewrite various stories several times and would often see a similar, yet slightly different pattern in each. Her current trouble was trying to find a single theme to move forward with. Knowing her past actions fairly well, and also certain points that might represent when she'd activated a new functional stack, it sounded to me that she was facing the ENTJ road block - type four of her ENFJ backbone. The two initially weakest functions for an ENFP are Se and Ti. The shadow dom/aux of ENTJ is Ti-Ne - representing a need to use her core's dominant Ne in a very different way than the Fi pairing she is used to using.

    A note that might help is that the shadow functional stack of a type is the same as the main functional stack of the backbone's capstone of that type. In the case of ENTJ, it would be INTP.


    Application


    Thus, a similar structure can be used to gain a rough idea of what the hurdle in development might look like for whatever point of development that a person might be at. The situation representing their personal road block will vary from person to person, as everyone is different. There is a likelihood that some of the 'life changing' moments, that many speakers and people talk about experiencing, is related to when they activated a new functional stack. A significant event that differs from the norm of some kind is generally required, so that the situation is not something easily/fully resolved by the currently available functional stacks. Hopefully having an idea of what to look for will lower the average stress level that seems to often accompany overcoming the larger hurdles.


    Determining current progress is something that has to be done on an individual basis. The problem/situation that might represent their current mental hurdle will also vary from one person to the next. Eliciting help from another person can prove quite useful.


    A (very) rough yet quick test that I sometimes employ uses the type descriptions of the 16personalities website. Particularly the 'strengths' of the 'strengths and weaknesses' page for a given type (full description can be useful as well). An honest assessment of how many of the listed strengths seem to fit a person can give a ballpark idea of their current progress, though it is relatively subjective and imprecise. Examining how the person has changed over the course of their life may yield a clearer picture. Early childhood behavior can serve as something useful to examine when determining a core type.


    The truly tricky part is actually overcoming each hurdle in a healthy manner - there's a reason so few people overcome the hurdle of activating that sixth type in particular. Being that I'm basically just a conceptual grease monkey, the best steps I can point to as preparation is to actively embrace the third and fourth types. Doing activities that'll make use of those two weakest functions so that the psyche can learn to better integrate them. In my case, this largely occurred when I read a lot of manga. Some of them were emotional (Fi of ISFP) and I chose to continue reading from that genre rather than avoiding it. The sheer quantity and variety of genres that I went through caused me to start to notice common patterns and formulas in the story structure (Ne of INTP). Eventually I started making a list of the series that stood out and impressed me (little bit of everything), meaning that I was actively looking for these things.


    Different things will work for different people, but the main point is to pursue balance and a wider range of experiences, rather than always staying in a comfort zone.


    Wordcounter.net puts it just shy of 3k, though I'll be reusing the intro and will put the 'Crash Course' at the front + use the 'Closing Thoughts' from the current version. Those added in will put it a little over 4k, which is still less than a quarter of the current size.
    Last edited by Windmill Slam; 08-15-2015 at 04:18 PM.

  4. #14

    Or: Be ENTP

    I'm kidding
    thewoodlandfairy thanked this post.

  5. #15

    Quote Originally Posted by Windmill Slam View Post
    I greatly appreciate that both of you are willing to provide feedback, as the lack of it has been the biggest issue so far. I've written a preliminary 'abridged' version that's a little under 3000 words long (as opposed to the current 20000 - most of the original will remain inside a spoiler). I placed the current abridged version below in a spoiler if you're interested.
    I'll make sure to check it out!

    Her current MBTI knowledge is at a pre-functions level, so could be a decent barometer as to whether or not she can grasp what I'm saying, though I've talked to her about it before as well. Seem to recall Michio Kaku saying that a good editor knows very little about the field you're writing about, because if they can't understand what you're talking about then what hope does the average reader have?
    You have the right idea, but I can see there being one potential problem with giving it to someone unfamiliar with functions. The potential problem being that they don't understand how functions are supposed to work in the first place, so they don't know when you're violating rules or why.
    That's what you have to understand when you're proposing a new system: the exact rules of the old system (whether they're correct or not in the end is irrelevant) and why you're breaking them. If you don't know, the reader could only know by accident, or falsely believe they understand something they don't. And if the reader doesn't know the original rules, breaking them becomes completely invisible.
    That's why I and probably others here are hesitant to dive right in and voraciously eat up your hypothesis (besides our other objections) there are so many implied rules that may not be readily obvious, that are broken when you suggest to overthrow a system. Unless it gives indication of being aware of those rules and leaving a promise of explaining why they're broken, most people just won't gamble and give it a fair shot. I'll explain what I mean with implied rules in the spoiler below.

     
    I came across an example of such a violation today chatting with someone. Now, MBTI has little special authority and we can throw around models as we want because It's not real science, but strictly according to the model, It's relevant. He told me he's an ISTJ with a focus on Ti & Fi. This idea is deeply problematic in the 'MBTI + functions paradigm':
    Level 1 Problem) ISTJs prefer Te not Ti, so what does it mean to be an ISTJ that focuses on Ti? Fi makes some sense; It's similar to being an SLI-Si subtype in socionics, you have the Si and Fi emphasis. I guess MBTI doesn't have much to say about that, and soc supports the concept. But Ti? It appears to violate the idea that ISTJs prefer Te. You can explain it in some alternative way and find a way to make the model fit, beacuse It's not specific enough to completely prohibit that, but doing so just to ad hoc fit yourself into a profile in a world with so many mistypes and misuses of Typology, it immediately looks sketchy.
    Level 2 Problem) If you're a bit deeper into the 'functions 201' or whatever, you'll understand the characteristics of the functions, their proper place in a type profile. Some are judging functions, some perceiving. The reasons there are different judging functions is because they employ different strategies for judging, and you won't find two judging functions in the same profile which are both introverted or both extraverted (Te and Fe or Ti and Fi) - because they would be processing each others' information. If you contemplate it deeper, you arrive at a point where you can see that all of these pieces have very strict places in the model, with little wiggle room.
    So when someone says they prefer Ti and Fi, they look like they don't understand the model, because both are introverted judging functions. INFPs often look like INTPs in certain cases because the Ti and Fi are competing judging strategies, and their difference pretty much only amounts to which reference frame they use (Ti is in a impersonal frame and Fi in a interpersonal frame).
    You don't hear explanations like this everywhere, which is precisely why so many people misjudge the depth the models really have.


    I figured the 'you only have one type' vs 'many people identify with more than one' was obvious right in the intro (first few people I showed it to already had that rough conclusion about their own life), but apparently not. Hard to gauge a decent level for that, as from my view the whole thing seems so blatantly illustrated all over society. Piercie's comment prompted me to add a paragraph near the start to clearly state that conflict with current theory.
    Going back to what I explained about violating the original model, the typological models are more intricate than they appear at first glance. "Many people identify with more than one" is not a good argument, because it assumes A) that these people have clear comprehension of each profile, including the right perspective to see it in (meaning the way the profile frames all the included elements, not just *having* the elements. Everyone has all functions, though some silly conservatives won't agree.) Asking the average person to identify their own personality is like asking them to identify the appropriate Gauge Boson in the Standard Model of particle physics. They know what being themselves feels like, just like how Hiroshima victims on the outskirts could feel the effects of the radioactive decay due to the W boson particle) but not how to most accurately model it in concepts and relationships. That's much more niche than so. And lest proper science give them a hand, relies in the case of Typology on what Howard Gardner termed Intrapersonal Intelligence, which I've personally found to be highly variant among people. Some people just simply can't make any sense whatsoever of what's going on inside of them, and some can explain themselves in-depth.
    It also assumes B) that subjective experience alone overrides theoretical underpinnings. They don't in Science, and unless you're trying to start a religion, you should aspire to the same ideals. If you have good intrapersonal intelligence you might know what best describes yourself, but there's no way to make other people know that simply by assuming It's true (and appealing to the example of others is the bandwagon fallacy, and appealing to your own example is anecdotal fallacy; they cannot be a substitute for reason.)

    I hope I've managed to convince you that this is not as easy as it looks. My aim is not to discourage you, but if you're gonna do something, you might as well do it right.
    Sincerely, Piercie the destroyer of dreams
    Windmill Slam and Nehtaro thanked this post.

  6. #16

    I recommend that you check out this talk by the father of Quantum Computation. It's awesome.

    Merisela thanked this post.

  7. #17

    I'd watched the TED talk before, but did again for good measure. He mentioned in a slide that scientific knowledge is tested by observation, not derived from it. Useful distinction to make (that in all honesty is probably still not clear in my head), but he didn't suggest where it was derived from.

    Nikola Tesla had a thought related to that, though of note is that his quote doesn't contain the word 'all':



    Properly tuning our receiver is a lifelong process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Piercie View Post
    I can see there being one potential problem with giving it to someone unfamiliar with functions. they don't know when you're violating rules or why.

    That's what you have to understand when you're proposing a new system: the exact rules of the old system (whether they're correct or not in the end is irrelevant) and why you're breaking them.
    Hard to know how or when to break a rule if you don't know exactly what it is and when it works properly (or appears to do so).


    MBTI has little special authority and we can throw around models as we want because It's not real science
    What I'm proposing has turned into (it wasn't at the start) an attempt to push MBTI pretty close to being able to get a yay or nay on if it's an actual science, or at least establish a falsifiable connection to it, as I'll mention below. That's the biggest issue with much of typology - there's not a lot of ways to prove or disprove the ideas. Thus some parts of the actual scientific community looks down on psychology (one TED talk guy, don't think he's an actual scientist, once made a 'this is biology, not psychology' clarification). Heck, I look down on some parts of it because those portions sound like vague rubbish.

    Whether I'm using the methods correctly or not to provide something that is falsifiable is another matter.

    He told me he's an ISTJ with a focus on Ti & Fi. This idea is deeply problematic in the 'MBTI + functions paradigm':
    Level 1 Problem) ISTJs prefer Te not Ti, so what does it mean to be an ISTJ that focuses on Ti? Fi makes some sense; It's similar to being an SLI-Si subtype in socionics, you have the Si and Fi emphasis. I guess MBTI doesn't have much to say about that, and soc supports the concept. But Ti? It appears to violate the idea that ISTJs prefer Te. You can explain it in some alternative way and find a way to make the model fit, beacuse It's not specific enough to completely prohibit that, but doing so just to ad hoc fit yourself into a profile in a world with so many mistypes and misuses of Typology, it immediately looks sketchy.
    Level 2 Problem) If you're a bit deeper into the 'functions 201' or whatever ... you arrive at a point where you can see that all of these pieces have very strict places in the model, with little wiggle room.
    You don't hear explanations like this everywhere, which is precisely why so many people misjudge the depth the models really have.
    Yes, I agree that the idea you were presented with is one that is different enough from the 'standard' definition that it warrants seeking further clarification rather than being accepted 'as-is.' What does he mean by Ti and Fi/how does he define them? Or even, what does he mean by having a 'focus' on them? How much focus, especially in relation to other functions? Is it in relation to the perceived focus of other ISTJs? And of course, how did he arrive at the conclusion that he's ISTJ? What factors were considered to establish that?

    However, the question also presents itself: What if he is correct? He is an ISTJ and he does indeed have a 'focus' on Ti and Fi. How can that be explained? Does the current model have a method of doing so, or has something been observed that it cannot explain? Exceptions to the rule indicate there is more to learn, though of course we should also be sure there is even an actual exception.
    So when someone says they prefer Ti and Fi, they look like they don't understand the model, because both are introverted judging functions. INFPs often look like INTPs in certain cases because the Ti and Fi are competing judging strategies, and their difference pretty much only amounts to which reference frame they use (Ti is in a impersonal frame and Fi in a interpersonal frame).
    How does the model say that it must be one or the other? That you can't use both effectively? Maybe not simultaneously, but last I heard science clocked the speed of thought at a pretty brisk pace, so there should be plenty of time to swap between the two. There may be a preference for one function, and it might be the area that a type is -much- better at, but does it claim that the other function (such as Ti and Fi) cannot also be used quite effectively? That there can't be synergy? A bit like a swordsman using a stick to fight with - not the default option, but combined with skill and practice in numerous areas one can make a little do a lot.

    To make a crude example, to go with your above mentioned types, is there anything that (for an actual INFP) would absolutely prohibit the Ti-Ne result from 'INTP' to use Ne as the intermediary to then be processed via Fi-Ne? Ti and Fi might not operate at the same time/place in a functional stack, but if all functions are being used it should be conceivable that information can flow back and forth and both 'judging strategies' can provide input on a matter.

    For something like that to occur you'd likely need oh, I don't know, multiple functional stacks present? ;) Might represent an 'alternate' hypothesis route that science likes to use. Of course, proving their use or not sends us back to fairly subjective territory once again.


    Asking the average person to identify their own personality is like asking them to identify the appropriate Gauge Boson in the Standard Model of particle physics. ... And lest proper science give them a hand, relies in the case of Typology on what Howard Gardner termed Intrapersonal Intelligence, which I've personally found to be highly variant among people. Some people just simply can't make any sense whatsoever of what's going on inside of them, and some can explain themselves in-depth.

    It also assumes B) that subjective experience alone overrides theoretical underpinnings. They don't in Science, and unless you're trying to start a religion, you should aspire to the same ideals. If you have good intrapersonal intelligence you might know what best describes yourself, but there's no way to make other people know that simply by assuming It's true [I](and appealing to the example of others is the bandwagon fallacy, and appealing to your own example is anecdotal fallacy; they cannot be a substitute for reason.)

    I hope I've managed to convince you that this is not as easy as it looks. My aim is not to discourage you, but if you're gonna do something, you might as well do it right.
    Yes, aim to do it right. Otherwise you're just making more work for yourself (or others) in the future. The constructive criticism is appreciated. The model talk/explanation is helpful, as their rigidity is not something I naturally make extensive use of. If something is accurate though, it should be explainable in a variety of ways including inside the constraints of a model.

    I've also seen that a few people report testing all over the place in terms of the preference letters/types they get, so I'd agree that simply using subjective measures to determine type is insufficient. In many cases, a well crafted test may either yield accurate or close to accurate results (get them in the ballpark), but it won't work for everybody 100% of the time. Something a bit more absolute would be needed, especially from an outside 'diagnosis' standpoint.

    Here's a quote I've appended to the bottom section of that 'abridged' version since posting it. The concept was briefly mentioned in the original post, but I have since become quite convinced of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Windmill Slam
    As an added thought, my observations up to this point have brought me to the conclusion that people of the same type share similarities in many physical characteristics in comparison to other types. Whether this be in facial structure (ears, nose, etc.) or overall body build, shape, and structure. I have even identified potential signs of remaining at a certain point (such as not being able to activate the sixth type, the backbone's anchor) for a prolonged period of time. To me, this correlation of type to physical attributes indicates that achieving a greater overall balance of the psyche may also have a positive health impact.

    Those are still simply observations, however. Extensive and rigorous analysis will need to be employed before a causation link between the psyche's balance and physical health can be verified or falsified. I'm not claiming it to be the sole factor. Humans are far more complex than that. Merely that the state of the psyche seems to be one of the variables that has an influence upon a person's health.
    In short, type (and function balance) is related to physical appearance and even, to an extent, physical health. I may not be an expert on the scientific method, but I think that should give (my interpretation of) MBTI a relatively falsifiable method of being analyzed via the scientific method in comparison to what pretty much any typology system has offered up in the past.

    There's been countless people that tried to link mental state to physical health, but at least I'm trying to point at a method that's a bit more specific and, dare I say, structured than something like 'think positive.' I also simply ended up at this conclusion during analysis, rather than starting with it or intentionally trying to find such a link.


    Small example: I have observed that one of the subtypes of ISTJ (I think it's the Te/auxiliary one - still not great at determining which is which when it comes to subtypes) has noticeably larger/taller ears than the other subtype, and also compared to most other types in general. It's a bit subjective and there'll of course be the individual variance factor, but as I'm so naturally disinclined towards models it's a bit hard to know exactly what qualifies as a something that can be measured in scientific terms.

    And it isn't intended as an "oh, this guy has larger ears, maybe he represents an instance of the subtype where that happened." It's a "this subtype will always have certain physical features and attributes, some of which depend on their stage of development" statement. Well, I suppose I should append that other factors (like ethnicity, genetics, blah blah) might impact it as my sample size is super small. However, all the combined MBTI aspects I've determined have held up and survived everything I can throw at them so far (author confirmation bias aside), and I tossed the kitchen sink quite awhile ago. So a similar, (sub)type based pattern should be evident even if other variables are changed (like gender). PerC is full of reference photos, though amount varies by type.


    There's 16 types, two subtypes (that I've identified), and men and women are different. That's already up to 64 variations before you even throw in other factors like age, development status, time spent at a particular stage of development, and all the other possible variables outside of typology - many of which we're unaware of. I can't identify even close to all 64, but I'm familiar with some. I'm sure more subtypes will be discovered in the future (Jung got to 8 as I recall, and MBTI to 16) as there's still a few more billion human variations to account for beyond just 64, but let's try to nail down the basics first.

    Since we're on the VI subject, I might as well throw out an even bolder claim - though I won't yet assert that this occurs 100% of the time. Too many other factors, but when it does occur I have generally found that it can be linked to MBTI concepts.

    Crazy Town 2.0
     

    Know those older guys you see with a spare tire around their stomach, but otherwise their body looks relatively fine? Potential ISTJ. Far more than one factor to consider with visually typing someone, but you've seen my previous attempt to explain multiple influencing factors, haha - does all go back to functions though. Other types have their own variations and body builds that'll be identifiable. Older ISTJs also vary from younger ISTJ appearances in some areas. The head shape seems to get a bit 'rounder' compared to a 20 something ISTJ.

    Si-Te. They're literally constructing extra endurance due to their strong functions. Weak functions are Fe-Ni, which essentially represents how well the psyche can determine the rate to burn that endurance, how much might be needed, and how that amount might vary from previous amounts of endurance that were needed.

    Next door reverse of that is Si-Fe (ISFJ). Strong idea of how much energy to burn, less skilled at knowing how much to stockpile, eventually trending towards a thin/frail figure. Extravert types flip function order, so ESTJs have a tendency to be the thinner ones while ESFJs plump up as time goes by.

    So yes. I'm suggesting that MBTI can explain/point to a factor (not the only one!) that has an influence on weight gain/loss. How many stories have there been of sudden, dramatic weight loss (some televised, such as on Oprah) after years of struggling with the issue? "Eat right and exercise" doesn't seem to give the full explanation, even if they are important elements.

    Also noticed some things that lead me to think that hair loss/male pattern baldness might also be connected, but that's more of an idea floating about that isn't super pinned down yet.

    Those are simple connections. The really outlandish ones I need to keep under my hat until the more basic stuff can be verified/falsified. I did say that the function definition list needs to be adaptable to any situation.


    Those outcomes aren't overnight events and can take years. Function strength/usage varies from person to person as well (past traumatic event preventing growth/certain function usage, blah blah), which then throws us in the direction of subjective land once again. Nor do we have a good method of measuring function strength in the first place.


    Most of that is examples of people that are stuck partway through development at some point or another for an extended period of time (aka, damn near everybody). On the plus side, I've already identified someone that I believe to be a developed, balanced ISTJ for sake of comparison and contrast - Warren Buffett. At a glance, he looks like a Te/aux subtype. So INTJ 'expansion' and ISFJ 'anchor,' among other things of note.





    There's a reason I'm not good with models. They have a tendency of just getting in the way, generally ceasing to be all that useful, spontaneously combusting, or exploding.


    Also, second Tesla quote because he's that awesome. And ISTP bias/favoritism, as I currently believe him to have been a developed ISTP (Ti/dom) after considering every factor I can currently muster. I considered that he might've been NT at first, but process of elimination eventually suggested otherwise.



    Knock knock.
    Taj Badalandabad thanked this post.

  8. #18

    Wow, this is great !
    thank you for posting

  9. #19
  10. #20

    dont share istp with normies


     
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] Personalikitty: MBTI Cat Edition (Part 2!)
    By redsunflower7 in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-06-2016, 11:16 PM
  2. [INFP] Personalikitty: MBTI Cat Edition (Part 2!)
    By redsunflower7 in forum INFP Forum - The Idealists
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2015, 01:50 PM
  3. A Fellow Enthusiast of the MBTI - ENFJ Edition
    By summerfirefly in forum Intro
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-18-2014, 10:34 PM
  4. The Type Cast (MBTI Edition)
    By Monsieur Melancholy in forum Member Polls
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 02:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0