# MBTI shorthand is idiotic and should be changed



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

Now that I've got your attention, let's talk a bit about the MBTI shorthand.

The MBTI personality type four letter code is created from the functions in a very complicated manner. Most of you have gotten the hang about this entangled system of encryption, but just to show you how incredibly impractical and dumb it is, I'll just go through it again.

*For the first letter, check if the first function is introverted or extraverted:*

_*ENTJ* has *Te* as first function. Thus *E*, since Te is extraverted.
*ISFP* has *Fi* as first function. Thus *I*, since Fi is introverted._

*For the second letter, check if first perceiving function is Sensing or iNtuition:*

_*ENTJ* has *Ni* as first perceiving function. Thus *N*.
*ISFP* has *Se* as first perceiving function. Thus *S*._

*For the third letter, check if the first judging function is Thinking or Feeling:*

_*ENTJ* has *Te* as first judging function. Thus *T*.
*ISFP* has *Fi* as first judging function. Thus *F*._

*For the fourth letter, check if the first judging function is extraverted or introverted:*

_*ENTJ* has *Te* as first judging function. Thus *J*.
*ISFP* has *Fi* as first judging function. Thus *P*._

So what the fuck is up with this? Why do we keep torturing ourselves in this manner?

No. _Really?_

I am serious.

We could just write out the two first functions instead. ENTJ could be written as TeNi, and ISFP as FiSe. This way the first two functions are automatically visible in the shorthand, without any mental gymnastics. The two remaining functions can be deduced from the first pair. Thus, this shorthand and the one we are currently using are equally informative, with regard to information about function order.

The only relevant differences are:

1. The shorthand I am proposing is more easily accessible.
2. This would end the confusion that springs from the current shorthand.

If you don't know what confusion I am talking about, I'll explain that as well:

People on these boards say stuff like _"I need to learn to become more J"_ all the time. If one is to be consistent with the MBTI system, statements like this mean _"I need to learn to acquire Te or Fe as my first or second function"_.

According to the cognitive function models we are using, this is impossible, and the statement is void of meaning.

People treat the four letters from the _shorthand_ as functions in themselves, and by doing this, they are creating a shitload of confusion.

People who say they need to become more J, usually mean they need to train attributed usually related to Te - Getting stuff done, writing lists, making quick decisions, planning for the future, keeping on the same track for long, and so on. But saying you need to become more J could just as well mean gaining attributes of Fe - Taking the opinions of others into consideration, navigating by social systems, customs and status, including people in the group and working to get the approval of peers.

If you remove one of the letters from the four letter MBTI shorthand, it suddenly loses it's meaning. For example, *E*, when it stands on it's own, means that the first function is one of Te, Fe, Ne and Se.

These functions are completely different from each other in every way except they are all directed towards the external world. There's no real use of talking of a generalized "E", as the E of an ENTP is completely different than the E of an ESFJ or an ESTJ.

Changing the shorthand from _I/E-N/S-T/F-P/J_ (INFP, ENTJ, ESFP) to _FirstfunctionSecondfunction_ (FiNe, TeNi, SeFi) would have several advantages:

*1.* It would make people stop talking about I, E, N, S, T, F, P and J as separate attributes, instead of letters representing completely different things, depending on the other letters in the code - For example, the current shorthand makes no obvious difference between the *T* in IN*T*P and an IS*T*J, even though the INTP is a dominant introverted thinker, while the ISTJ is a auxiliary extraverted thinker.

*2.* It would make the system easier to understand for noobs. You would still have to deduce the two last functions from the first two, but the current shorthand does not talk about the last two functions either. So at that point, the two are equal. However, the shorthand I am proposing actually names the two primary cognitive functions of each personality type, so the shorthand has a more direct connection to the system it's supposed to represent.

*3.* It would shift the focus from stereotype personalities _(INTJs are like this, ESFPs are like that - you've all seen the type descriptors)_ to the cognitive functions, which are more nuanced and relevant. It would be easier to see that the system doesn't just consist of 16 stereotypes, and that the system is built on functions that can be expressed in many different ways.

So, is there anyone out there who can see any advantages whatsoever with the current shorthand? Why is it like this? Is it made to create confusion and make the system inaccessible on purpose? What's the point?

Discuss!


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

A perfect example of taking something that works fine, modifying it into something less accurate but more marketable, then taking the credit.

Sincerely, an NiTe.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I think all your points are valid. The MBTI type codes are sort of meaningless in a way because they're not even correct for introverts technically speaking. It's just become shorthand that everyone is used to, but as you point out, a lot of stereotypes and misnomers have evolved as well (like the terms SP and SJ). 

I have observed Jungian psychologists not really adhering to MBTI style type codes and rather referring to people as Extraverted Intuitives or Introverted Sensing types instead, which is far more accurate. It says far more about a person to say Introverted Feeling type with a Sensing auxiliary IF(S) than ISFP. It also eliminates the confusion between people thinking there is somehow a continuum between introversion and extraversion in the Jungian model or thinking they are somehow in between INFP and ENFP which of course makes no sense -- you can't be halfway between a Feeling type and an Intuitive.


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

I like the ones that make words.

I'm so FiNeeeeeee!

I'm gonna stab you with a NiFe!

You're so en-TiSe-ing.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

I like this. I like this a lot. I/E, N/S, T/F, and J/P are really just generalizations of the functions. I think that has certainly caused a bit of confusion for me in the past. Plus, I made a thread about Js being indecisive and @LiquidLight pointed out that most people associate J with Te traits, just as you mentioned.


----------



## Ozymandias (May 6, 2011)

@NiDBiLD Good to have you back on the forum! It's been a while. I've had the time to put together something myself that also disregards the rigid 4 -letter association with personality and rather breaks down our day to day thinking into the cognitive functions themselves.

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/69158-dcft-dynamic-cognitive-function-theory.html

It's a pretty heavy read so make sure you have the time to do so. I added a lot of detail so to prove my hypothesis. 

Enjoy


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

Does it really matter though, because the cognitive functions themselves are just fictions?


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> Does it really matter though, because the cognitive functions themselves are just fictions?


This is a good point. The cognitive functions do not directly map the brain or it's actual parts. It's pretty much just an abstract air castle that loosely corresponds to some psychological phenomena, while it disregards others.

But we're using the system, and it is in my experience a useful tool. So we can just as well make it easy to do so.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I've considered exactly this as well! Great points, @NiDBiLD! It's faaaaaarrrrr more effective in doing what the MBTI _should_ have been doing all along to help people, since this was the original intent of it's creators anyhow (ironically, it confuses and brainwashes people more than it helps in the end): It should have been modifying the theory to accurately map onto real people rather than modifying the person to "accurately" map onto the theories, as any psychological theory that claims that there are 16 behavioral trends settled by the arbitrary, meaningless J/P dichotomies _is_ basically the equivalent of astrology, since in reality, no one can ever predict the behavioral outcomes of people they don't know on an individual basis, since no one can ever predict the personal internal motivations of individuals without knowing them and knowing them pretty well for that matter. External judging functions (Fe or Te), as well as other functions, can easily mimic each other from person to person and can certainly vary enough not to produce predictable outcomes that align with the J/P "prophecy." The more I have learned about the cognitive functions, the more I realized how true the astrology accusations about MBTI are, especially due to it's associations with Kiersey's crappy temperament sorter. The behaviorist field of psychology is very dangerous (it is used to brainwash), as it isn't even psychology to begin with (behavior results _from_ the psyche - it itself is not the psyche at all, and this is very interesting when one keeps in mind how often and easy it is for people to modify their behavior for reasons of self-protection, which all goes back to classical conditioning).


----------



## myexplodingcat (Feb 6, 2011)

No kidding.

I particularly dislike... okay, fine. Keirsey temperaments are crapfully inaccurate.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

I agree.

It would help people discover their type accurately, and would stop typism (to a certain point).


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Why do you need to write the orientation of aux? Its already known from the orientation of dom.

TiN
SeT
NeF
NeT
NiF
etc


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

NeTi (neh-tee) doesn't scream "awesome" as much. I'm going to vote no.


----------



## Van (Dec 28, 2009)

*Neti pot*



mkeath said:


> NeTi (neh-tee) doesn't scream "awesome" as much. I'm going to vote no.












Turns out the Netis are still more interesting than the Tines:


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Van said:


> Turns out the Netis are still more interesting than the Tines:


Oh good a pot to drain nasal congestion.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

I agree with most parts for several reasons. First though, 

The J/P dichotomy is very very useful, as Te, Fe, Fi, and Ti all focus more on more complex heirarchies rather than the perceiving functions which are much more simple and grounded and smooth (live in the experience of "follow the heart" for example).

*But* the MBTI doesn't even use the J/P dichotomy and decides to use the 4th letter to describe which one is extroverted.

But if they were going to do that, why not just use a different damn letter!?

Because they were trying to make money by using Jung's work, therefore having to use the same letters, perhaps.

One benefit of that though, is the little groupings that put all NF's together, and SJ's etc... but I haven't studied the groupings so I can't comment if they even hold water or not. Perhaps someone could provide the stats on that.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> One benefit of that though, is the little groupings that put all NF's together, and SJ's etc... but I haven't studied the groupings so I can't comment if they even hold water or not. Perhaps someone could provide the stats on that.


Those groupings don't really make any sense once you divorce them from the standpoint of societal roles. What makes an NT? Ni+Te? Ne+Ti? (in Kiersey terminology only Ni+Te and Ne+Te are NTs), but why not types with Ni and Ti? Only types with Intuition and Thinking as the first two functions count as NTs. Same with NF, all NFs have Intuition and Feeling as one of their top two functions - but...ISFP is closer to INFP than to ESFP. And ENTP is closer to being an NF and INFJ is closer to being an NT in the ways these types actually manifest themselves. ISTP is much more like INTP than ESTP. 

But wait, what about SJs? The only thing all SJs have in common is Si as either the leading or auxiliary function. But STJ and SFJ are very different. So once you get out of the idea of social roles and look at these designations from a functional standpoint they don't make a lot of sense.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

@Naama Because everyone would misconstrue those letters as well.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Those groupings don't really make any sense once you divorce them from the standpoint of societal roles. What makes an NT? Ni+Te? Ne+Ti? (in Kiersey terminology only Ni+Te and Ne+Te are NTs), but why not types with Ni and Ti? Only types with Intuition and Thinking as the first two functions count as NTs. Same with NF, all NFs have Intuition and Feeling as one of their top two functions - but...ISFP is closer to INFP than to ESFP. And ENTP is closer to being an NF and INFJ is closer to being an NT in the ways these types actually manifest themselves. ISTP is much more like INTP than ESTP.
> 
> But wait, what about SJs? The only thing all SJs have in common is Si as either the leading or auxiliary function. But STJ and SFJ are very different. So once you get out of the idea of social roles and look at these designations from a functional standpoint they don't make a lot of sense.


That makes sense, but I haven't even looked at what the social roles might be yet. There is a thread out there saying why SJ and SP seemed to show more commonality than SF and ST. I just haven't got into it yet, but I'd be interested to know. Thanks for the help. I certainly don't expect you to go dig up anymore but always appreciative.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Souled In said:


> That makes sense, but I haven't even looked at what the social roles might be yet. There is a thread out there saying why SJ and SP seemed to show more commonality than SF and ST. I just haven't got into it yet, but I'd be interested to know. Thanks for the help. I certainly don't expect you to go dig up anymore but always appreciative.


If you have a bit of time and are up to it @_Eric B_ has a great and informative primer on temperament which will basically tell you everything you ever wanted to know...and more. But roughly the Kiersey temperaments correlate to Melancholic, Sanguine, Choleric and Phlegmatic (the four temperaments as defined by Hippocrates and Plato). 
Temperament for Dummies

and this followup
http://www.erictb.info/erica.html


----------

