# Still Stuggling to Determine A Type? You're In The Majority



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

For some of you still struggling to determine a type, I can appreciate your frustration. But know that not only is it common for the average person not to know their type, but many will never have a preferred type. Dr. Jung, Myers/Briggs and most who have written extensively on the subject has made it clear that many of us never develop a differentiated function (Jung) or are born with a tabula rasa (Myers/Briggs), therefore any type we become accustomed to in taking test is the result of environmental dictating our personalities. 

Dr. Jung surmises that the only thing we are guaranteed at birth is being introverted or extraverted:


> The fact that often in their earliest years children display an unmistakable typical attitude forces us to assume that it cannot possibly be the struggle for existence, as it is generally understood, which constitutes the compelling factor in favour of a definite attitude. This argument, though appealing to incontestable facts, has none the less to yield before the equally unarguable fact that two children of the same mother may at a very early age exhibit opposite types, without the smallest accompanying change in the attitude of the mother.
> 
> Although nothing would induce me to underestimate the well-nigh incalculable importance of parental influence, this experience compels me to conclude that the decisive factor must be looked for in the disposition of the child. The fact that, in spite of the greatest possible similarity of external conditions, one child will assume this type while another that, must, of course, in the last resort he ascribed to individual disposition….
> 
> As regards the particular disposition, I know not what to say, except that there are clearly individuals who have either a greater readiness and capacity for one way, or for whom it is more congenial to adapt to that way rather than the other. In the last analysis it may well be that physiological causes, inaccessible to our knowledge, play a part in this. That this may be the case seems to me not improbable, in view of one's experience that a reversal of type often proves exceedingly harmful to the physiological well-being of the organism, often provoking an acute state of exhaustion.


We have been led to believe function-attitudes are a given and we merely need to develop those gifts we are born with. But functions are developed out of habitual use until they become differentiated. Marie Louise von Franz an ardent follower and prize pupil of Dr. Jung, says that we at best are capable of developing three function-attitudes that can be considered differentiated. 

Contrary to urban legend, Myers & Briggs never said that we are born with specific functions in tact. Her theory does encourage us to determine our type and develop a dominant function, and an auxiliary. But Dr. Jung never implies that a function-attitude is a given. In fact he says more than once that:


> The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness.


Thus the average person is capable of using all 8 functions, not necessarily equally but it precludes them from ever developing one as being differentiated, hence declaring a type is futile. 

If we do claim to declare a type along the lines of MBTI, then based on all principles of type, you should be able to establish your most differentiated function-attitude since in principle:


> This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

So, when you're not really trying to live a dominant for the sake of it (maybe living up to some kind of ideal?), you're not a type? I've always been a bit confused on what Jung meant by that.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I honestly did suspect this to be true though after reading Psychological Types a few months ago, when Jung seemed to paint types as those people who tend to hold some kind of authority in society - I do kind of think from experience that there are indeed people who, no matter what functions they exhibit, would be really ridiculous to actually fit into any kind of definitive "order" in terms of functions - frankly, that sounds like the majority. So much of the time, what we show to the world is dictated merely by the circumstances which, on a personal level, give the person a notion of finding the right opportunity to say whatever it is they want or feel deep down, and be able to justify it in a way that gives it as much credence as possible, intellectually-speaking. Whether or not it manifests as a type would probably have to be considered in relation to the person's consistent goals to be seen a certain way (assuming that the "type" is not just a cover-up for inferiorities), which frankly, is not remotely everyone


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I pretty much like looking for functions individually better - I just don't often find them very defining about people, unless the person uses them toward the persona, which is extremely rare (hence why they can only be depicted in an archetypal way).


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

I've found that the majority actually show a their type quite clearly and even tho they might not express themselves on a peak level all the time then they are still there.
That would also be why an ESFP student kept interrupting one of our teachers every time he said something that could offend someone in the world. Or why my ESFP sister got sentimental when she was projecting her inferior Ni at me, telling me to be careful of the impact on my future my actions today might have.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I've found that the majority actually show a their type quite clearly and even tho they might not express themselves on a peak level all the time then they are still there.
> That would also be why an ESFP student kept interrupting one of our teachers every time he said something that could offend someone in the world. Or why my ESFP sister got sentimental when she was projecting her inferior Ni at me, telling me to be careful of the impact on my future my actions today might have.


Haha, the irony of an Se dom telling an Ni dom how to handle the future. A bit like asking the Pope for marriage advice. 

It's true though that we project our inferiors onto others when we're not in the right frame of mind...


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Ellis Bell said:


> Haha, the irony of an Se dom telling an Ni dom how to handle the future. A bit like asking the Pope for marriage advice.
> 
> It's true though that we project our inferiors onto others when we're not in the right frame of mind...


Yea, my point was to show one ESFP who wasn't in any point of authority yet still lashed out with her Fi and an ESFP that was projecting a clear inferior.

I actually sat and laughed a bit in my mind when my sister talked to me like that because it was so "by the book" when it comes to inferior Ni (even tho it's kinda annoying to have someone telling you what you already know as if you were completely unaware of it).

My point being that it can be argued if we only use 4 functions or 8, but it's obvious that we have a consistent type. Just because my sister wasn't using her Se when talking to me doesn't mean that she's not a Se dom nor that she wasn't one at that time.

Jung was concerned with disorders, he didn't care about normal people and that is probably why he just gave the repeated idea that you don't usually have a clear type. He simply wasn't concerned about how "normal" people are. His job was to identify and cure mental illnesses.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> So, when you're not really trying to live a dominant for the sake of it (maybe living up to some kind of ideal?), you're not a type? I've always been a bit confused on what Jung meant by that.


Dr. Jung did not seem interested in describing types as we know them today. This is indicative of his type descriptions being based solely on the dominant function. Dr. Jung acknowledged that in principle how the function order would occur be, but he never writes a description of any type using their dominant/auxiliary and functions beyond. So yes, I believe Dr. Jung saw us all having a type, but that depended on the person distinguishing themselves from the herd and making a conscious effort to know themself as an individual. 

Two thoughts here. One could say at an unconscious level, we simply become a persona. I believe that Dr. Jung refers to this as personal unconscious in that we repress our individualism for the sake of the collective unconscious. Not to slap anyone in the face, but a prime example of someone repressing their personal unconscious can be found in suburban life or what I have always called pushing ones middle-class values onto others. We all know which type(s) are said to make up the demography of this type lifestyle, which is one reason I strongly refute any theory of type rareness. 

The other thought would be, we may be conscious of a differentiated function but still cannot decide between two. In that case Dr. Jung simply indicates we have an undeveloped differentiated type:


> This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom two functions stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped differentiated function. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.





Acerbusvenator said:


> I've found that the majority actually show a their type quite clearly and even tho they might not express themselves on a peak level all the time then they are still there.


Or put another way, there are some who believe they are capable of determining others types, therefore what is actually being said is "I believe I am capable of determining most people's types." There is a difference.


Acerbusvenator said:


> That would also be why an ESFP student kept interrupting one of our teachers every time he said something that could offend someone in the world. Or why my ESFP sister got sentimental when she was projecting her inferior Ni at me, telling me to be careful of the impact on my future my actions today might have.


The first question would be, did the person you allude to inform you that she was ESFP, or is this a subjective perception based on your observation? If the person never discussed her type with you, or to your knowledge never implied she was aware of the subject then what you are discussing is a caricature based on your perceptions. If she did indicate her type as ESFP, did she confirm it?


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> The first question would be, did the person you allude to inform you that she was ESFP, or is this a subjective perception based on your observation? If the person never discussed her type with you, or to your knowledge never implied she was aware of the subject then what you are discussing is a caricature based on your perceptions. If she did indicate her type as ESFP, did she confirm it?


Both the ESFPs were aware of MBTI, tho I didn't tell the student that she displayed obvious ESFP characteristics (I did tell my sister however and she agreed).
And it's not a subjective perception because I discussed it with an INTP and an ENFP who both agreed about my analysis. "Subjective" would imply that I never told anyone.

The student I typed as an ESFP most likely did an MBTI test since one of our teachers (a self-typed ENTP) talked about MBTI in one of his classes.
My belief that she was an ESFP was based on multiple factors such as:
A. My sister is an ESFP 
B. My mother is an ESFP 
C. I had an ENFP friend 
D. I knew an ISFP.
And ofc. other factors.

Since I don't like having discussions with people who assume that I lack objectivity then I don't feel a need to expand on this.

Believe what you want, just be wary when you talk about the intentions of Jung and MBTI as if they were the same.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Okay, that makes sense. With all of the projection that stands as "fact" here, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case - after all, projection represents the things you don't want to see in yourself, so there surely are a lot here who probably use this stuff to become part of a new "herd" (not that I'm passing judgment on that necessarily, but it's quite likely most people here do not think for themselves, let alone in original ways - I've been here long enough to see this general pattern coming up over and over and over again).


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Both the ESFPs were aware of MBTI, tho I didn't tell the student that she displayed obvious ESFP characteristics (I did tell my sister however and she agreed).


Obvious to who? What are you considering ESFP characteristics? I would be interested in how many of those characteristics are simply stereotypes. 


Acerbusvenator said:


> And it's not a subjective perception because I discussed it with an INTP and an ENFP who both agreed about my analysis. "Subjective" would imply that I never told anyone.


 But it is still indeed your subjective perception. If I were to label you with a personality disorder, then find someone to confirm that based on my or their understanding you show tendencies of someone with the disorder, does not conclude you indeed have that disorder. The problem is you have spoken to everyone but the only person that can confirm their type.


Acerbusvenator said:


> The student I typed as an ESFP most likely did an MBTI test since one of our teachers (a self-typed ENTP) talked about MBTI in one of his classes.


If you believe the person has taken an assessment, would it not be easy to simply ask their results? That does not mean the person is ESFP, it simply means that they have taken an assessment that resulted in someone who may be an ESTP type. We all have personas that we use in the world, and sometimes we buy into the persona being who we are. But only that person should take ownership of making the claim. For anyone else to make the claim is simply erroneous laced with subjectivity of how they see the other person and their own understanding of how they propose to see a particular type.


Acerbusvenator said:


> My belief that she was an ESFP was based on multiple factors such as:
> A. My sister is an ESFP
> B. My mother is an ESFP
> C. I had an ENFP friend
> ...


I think you just confirmed my inquiry. To claim you are incapable of being objective would make no sense since I do not know you. I never made the claim that you were not objective. What I am saying however is that the entire process of labeling someone as a type itself is subjective and based on subjective opinions since only the person being observed can determine their type. 

What is clear is that anyone responding to your post here should realize they are not responding to actual facts, but simply a perception you have conveyed. Therefore any fair discussion of the person you allude to has little or no factual basis since only that person can determine their type. 

This is not a slight toward you and you are far from being in rare company of people who do this. It is however a fact that you, nor I or anyone has the ability to type others.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

@Functianalyst it's ironic that you said bi-polar because someone said that she believed I was.

To the point tho, when discussing MBTI then you can type other people, but it is prone to less accuracy due to personal perception, bias etc. but when they try to find their own type they will still be influenced by personal perception/bias of themselves etc.

I'm still trying to figure out what this thread has to do in this part of the forum. This part of the forum is dedicated to helping people find their type and not discussing the accuracy of MBTI or the ability of people to type others. That you post such a topic here is merely disruptive.

again...


> it’s simply a fact that you, nor I or anyone has the ability to type others


This part of the forum
What's my personality type?
Dedicated to helping people find their type/typing people



> But what is clear is that anyone responding to your post is should realize they are not responding to facts, but simply a perception you have conveyed


Same goes for you, yes? You do not know what information I use to reach my conclusion. You only make a guess based on your perception, I'd say that it's influenced by the fact that I'm an INFJ and that you'd see it as more credible if I was an INTP or INTJ and you'd be less likely to discredit it, but that's for another topic.

The field of psychology barely has any form of facts, the facts are usually from other fields such as neurology. So by that, Jung didn't even have "facts", he made observations and found correlations etc.
I find it a bit offensive that you speak as if I am a rarity of not having facts in a field that doesn't have much facts.

Yes, this is my view, just as you are giving yours.

I've made my point now.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Acerbusvenator said:


> @Functianalyst it's ironic that you said bi-polar because someone said that she believed I was.
> 
> To the point tho, when discussing MBTI then you can type other people, but it is prone to less accuracy due to personal perception, bias etc. but when they try to find their own type they will still be influenced by personal perception/bias of themselves etc.
> 
> ...


My inquiry using your post was to those responding, and was never meant to start a dialogue of whether you are capable of determining someone's type. You have confirmed that your belief this person is ESFP is as usual a subjective perception of what has been observed. It was a rhetorical question that I have asked many times. There are those who believe they are capable of determining others types, yet in the end, they like you conclude they have never confirmed the person's actual type. The problem is any dialogue based on this is hypothetical since you admit that in all your conclusions, you have yet to confirm the person is ESFP. If the person says they have actually taken an assessment that resulted in ISFJ, what then?

As for why the thread is here should be obvious.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Was this thread made to boost your ego?


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> If the person says they have actually taken an assessment that resulted in ISFJ, what then?


If they have read up on MBTI or taken the official test then I'd re-define my mental definitions of the ISFJ and ESFP types, simple as that. If they didn't know much about MBTI and just did a random test on the internet I'd see it as lack of knowledge until they have read up more or taken the official test.



> There are those who believe they are capable of determining others types, yet in the end, they like you conclude they have never confirmed the person's actual type. The problem is any dialogue based on this is hypothetical since you admit that in all your conclusions, you have yet to confirm the person is ESFP.


Didn't say that, I simply meant that it's possible that I could be wrong. 
The major problem with typing people over the internet is that the person can only share limited parts about their personality that may or may not be good enough to help them find their type. In "direct typing" of people that you know or have an opportunity to study over time then it's easier to make an accurate assessment.



> My inquiry using your post was to those responding, and was never meant to start a dialogue of whether you are capable of determining someone's type.


yea...


> What is clear is that anyone responding to your post here should realize they are not responding to actual facts, but simply a perception you have conveyed.


I would find more substantial things to add here, but you edited your post after I posted mine to make it look like my post was just an exaggerated response.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Jung was concerned with disorders, he didn't care about normal people and that is probably why he just gave the repeated idea that you don't usually have a clear type. He simply wasn't concerned about how "normal" people are. His job was to identify and cure mental illnesses.


I would have to disagree with this as well as the notion that what was stated above is what Psychological Types was for and about.
In a way if I was to reword this I would be inclined to say he was against people being labeled as a disorder just because they are who they are, in that they are is not who others are so in the biased ignorance of some people who think's if you are not what they are then you are by very definition some form of neurosis or disorder.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

myjazz said:


> Was this thread made to boost your ego?


I am editing this post, because I now understand why you ask the question Myjazz. I think it was more of the thread you allude to made me think along the lines of "no wonder some people mistype which is understandable." Good call though.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Acerbusvenator said:


> If they have read up on MBTI or taken the official test then I'd re-define my mental definitions of the ISFJ and ESFP types, simple as that. If they didn't know much about MBTI and just did a random test on the internet I'd see it as lack of knowledge until they have read up more or taken the official test.


Exactly, even if the person confirms their type with little knowledge of type and I am not discussing MBTI since that theory does not use cognitive functions, then I would have to know that the person at least has a basic understand of the claim being made. 



Acerbusvenator said:


> Didn't say that, I simply meant that it's possible that I could be wrong.
> 
> The major problem with typing people over the internet is that the person can only share limited parts about their personality that may or may not be good enough to help them find their type. In "direct typing" of people that you know or have an opportunity to study over time then it's easier to make an accurate assessment.
> 
> ...


The problem with typing anyone whether on the internet or face-to-face is attempting to decipher what is authentically the person from a persona being used to adapt. How do you know the difference which was pointed out *here*. You simply cannot type another person with any accuracy, and any results are based on your own perception of how you understand a theory. Now if you would like to discuss your point on ESFPs in general then my response would be:


Acerbusvenator said:


> Yea, my point was to show one ESFP who wasn't in any point of authority yet still lashed out with her Fi and an ESFP that was projecting a clear inferior.
> 
> I actually sat and laughed a bit in my mind when my sister talked to me like that because it was so "by the book" when it comes to inferior Ni (even tho it's kinda annoying to have someone telling you what you already know as if you were completely unaware of it).
> 
> ...


I have no idea what you are referring to in saying someone lashed out using Fi. Introverted feeling is just that, introverted. It is not used to connect with the world unless the user is being pushed or strong-armed.


> The proverb 'Still waters run deep' is very true of such women. They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and not infrequently their temperament is melancholic. They neither shine nor reveal themselves. Since they submit the control of their lives to their subjectively orientated feeling, their true motives generally remain concealed. Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way. Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized, a suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others. One distinctly feels the movement of feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, such an event only occurs when the object has in some way too strong an effect. The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other's path. There is little effort to accompany the real emotions of the object, which tend to be damped and rebuffed, or to put it more aptly, are 'cooled off' by a negative feeling-judgment. Although one may find a constant readiness for a peaceful and harmonious companionship, the unfamiliar object is shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responding warmth, but is met by a manner of apparent indifference or repelling coldness. [p. 493]


When you say it was by the book when Ni is the inferior function, I am completely unsure of what you mean by “by the book”. As for the last statement, where did you hear Jung did not care about “normal” people?


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Ha! I knew that you just posted here to get attention.
Guess Myjazz had his question answered.

When I said "by the book" then I was referring to Naomi Quenk's book.
Was That Really Me?: How Everyday Stress Brings Out Our Hidden Personality: Naomi L. Quenk: 9780891061700: Amazon.com: Books

Also, MBTI uses 8 functions, not 4 dichotomies. They just use 4 for simplicity.
My MBTI Personality Type - Understanding MBTI Type Dynamics

Whatever, you have given your opinion and you can keep it kiddo.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Ha! I knew that you just posted here to get attention.
> Guess Myjazz had his question answered.


Well I will wait for Myjazz to respond, but let me understand what you are saying. I create a thread, you come from out of nowhere to respond to a thread I have created, and I am the one seeking attention? Really?


Acerbusvenator said:


> When I said "by the book" then I was referring to Naomi Quenk's book.
> Was That Really Me?: How Everyday Stress Brings Out Our Hidden Personality: Naomi L. Quenk: 9780891061700: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> Also, MBTI uses 8 functions, not 4 dichotomies. They just use 4 for simplicity.
> My MBTI Personality Type - Understanding MBTI Type Dynamics


Really? Can you show us where Naomi Quenck uses the 8-model function in either of her books? While you are at it, can you show us where the Myers Briggs Foundation incorporates all eight functions and not the four dichotomies? Make sure you know the difference between MBTI theory and someone who has simply written a book on the subject.

If you want to debate the subject of the thread, I will entertain that. But continuing your dialogue because I asked the obvious question, in which you concede, whether the person allude to confirmed your subjective perception, the it sounds like you do not handle faux pas well.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

That was a rhetorical question that apparently wasn't completely understood for the majority of the whole, if at all at that matter.
At least it wasn't completely twisted in as what I said 

I am unsure as to what it is I am to respond to, or in the wait of my response. As I mentioned it was a rhetorical question that's all.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Like I said, you have given your opinion and you can keep it. :wink:
I simply don't care to put a lot of energy into disputes of ideas.

To turn this another way.

MBTI and Jung's "psychological types" is pseudo-science. It isn't based on real facts, but mainly on observations (Dario Nardi's work being an exception). Most of these observations were "what type is this person" and not "is the system accurate". 
When it comes to Jung then his system isn't accepted in modern psychology, can you find any large university that teaches out psychological types? or at least acknowledges the accuracy of his work? At most, Jung's psychological types and MBTI has the facts of astrology with the difference that both are based on the subjective observations of 1 man (namely Jung).

Now, if you don't mind then I will exit this discussion. roud:


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

what the hell happened to this thread?

... i have a few questions. i've been prompted to place them here, and i agree the answers--or even the discussion--can help others, especially in a sub-forum about determining type. 

(*here me out! i know it's a wall-o-text, but you may find it interesting*​)

according to some--who read a lot more about the subject than i do--Jung said that the attitude is what occurs first (if it occurs at all), and after a definitive orientation (introverted/extroverted) has solidified, a dominant function can then come about (emphasis on "can then come about" and not "will come about"). this makes sense, and a person can easily see this in children where they gain a certain energy; one that either clearly exists in a way that is objectively identifiable, or one that is only "objectively" noticed by the lack of its existence... so, i can see what Jung was getting at. 

but... i can't wholly go along with it. what we have is a situation that occurs and a explanation that "fits" it, and i can't get out of my head the idea or notion that while it is "fitting", there might be something that can explain the situation just as well--something that can easily be missed due to the fact that what goes on to make a type is largely invisible, and if it's invisible, we have to admit that we're just shooting out into the dark lake dredging up items that somehow tell us everything about the lake. until we can jump into the water itself, i'd like to do some dredging of my own. what i'd like to do, is to give a few different scenarios on "the beginnings of type", in the hopes they will either be crushed by a certain fact that i haven't come across (i know, surprising right?) that will show that, while we can't see directly into the water, what we have now to understand the formation of its contents is still more valid, *or*, to show that the issue itself it up to speculation and interpretation; that while what we take for granted seems true and may even be true, what's proposed can't be countered with some sort of structure that accounts for, and limits any other way, which, to me would point the direction of speculation onto that structure itself—and possibly to the idea that there may be more than one “beginning”. (but most likely, i’ll just learn something new, or be shown that what i’m saying is no different than what Jung said and that it’s just coming from a different angle—but maybe others will learn something too) 

1) what if the attitude comes second? what if the defining point upon which a development of type rests is the continuum between one mode of functioning and its opposing factor? could someone not clearly show tendencies for Fe & Ti, Te & Fi, Ni & Se, or Si & Ne, implying preference to these two different sides, but have a battle that wages and pulls them from one perspective to the next? to me, if this could or does happen, it would mean that the attitude itself didn’t give birth to a set of functions, almost like picking one of two lottery wheels and taking a spin, but that something integral to that individual, something innate like a mental groove set in stone already existed, and that this person has yet to “pick a side”. this mini-argument is one of: innate attitude--> “chosen” dichotomy vs. innate dichotomy--> “chosen” attitude—now, i get the feeling that this “mini-argument” can be shut down by any number of facts, but i would like for one to address the internal foundation that is universal between all people in order to either break or confirm it, only because to me, with my limited knowledge (not being facetious, just stating a fact) i’m left only to recognize the pitfall of adhering to logic that stems from an assumption to prove/disprove, and not to take into consideration the assumption itself and what a counter argument may mean in terms of how we define this assumption.

2) what if it’s not the attitude or the dichotomy that is innate, but the general, for lack of a better word, “letter” (S, N, T, F)? could one not start from this ground in development, to have a tendency to fluctuate between both orientations—not well, not even poorly, but just as a starting point in their own development (keep in mind, i am aware of the warring that would ensue if one were to attempt to operate—again, if it were possible—at both levels at once, but i’m speaking of a person in which type doesn’t technically exist yet, so the problems that would normally come about would be to such a low degree that just functioning wouldn’t be all that problematic, and may even mimic that of a toddler—a being that is beginning to determine a type). so this mini-argument is one of: “letter”-->attitude-->dichotomy vs. attitude-->dominant-->dichotomy 

again, if this can be directed to the structure of the mind, i’d like it to be—if it can’t, then any sort of discussion is fine really. this whole thought-bubble was mainly for a different perspective, and even if it’s not the one i was looking for, it may be better than what i had hoped. everyone feel free to join in, whether you know a lot or a little.


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

celticstained said:


> what if the attitude comes second?


I'm inclined to think the attitude does come first, as Jung surmised. In my, admittedly limited experience with infants, I recall that some are more attention-seeking and some seem content to left alone. Just a thought.


----------



## Tru7h (Oct 16, 2012)

I have to say that there is validity to what Functianalyst has proposed and I am lead to side with his thoughts for they hold truth. We are well aware that we may project ourselves as one personality to a particular person or group and then as another personality to others as our cultures tend to influence us to "fit in". Now, I could be incorrect, but I theorize that we have an instinctual acclimation to meet the perceived "expectations" of a given person or group in the hopes that we form favorable relationships. All of us have our individual interests and mindsets, but we are conciously aware that we must compromise our immediate gratifications in order to form more favorable relationships with others. If one is unwilling to master this primitive, then one is not willing to harmonize with others for the sake of better relationships. No matter who we are, all of us have an innate desire to be accepted as it creates a foundation and security from which we can rest and build upon. The "Popular Kids" are clear examples of this as they build upon what their cultures have deemed to be the most-desired features in a "top-of-the-line" lifestyle, mainly based upon materialism and socially-accepted behaviors. When someone acts out of the context of those socially-accepted behaviors or does not possess the most currently valued materials (ex. SmartPhone), that person is considered inferior as compared to those who do fall within the "popular" context. Since this rejection is emotionally-damaging and we are prone by instinct to either avoid or confront the uncomfortable, we are either bound to be down-graded in the social hierarchy or to alter it with our differing points of view, being the catalyst that can spark a revolution in the social hierarchy.

Now that I have expanded on our accomodating natures, we can understand that we cannot accurately determine one's personality type as everyone is capable of inconsistent behaviors between different social groups and their cultures. However, an honest dictation of one's responses to an examination such as the MBTI can lead to the most accurate assessment of one's personality type.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

ChanceyRose said:


> I'm inclined to think the attitude does come first, as Jung surmised. In my, admittedly limited experience with infants, I recall that some are more attention-seeking and some seem content to left alone. Just a thought.


i'd wager that my experience is even less than yours, lol. i have some nieces and nephews, some of my friends have kids... so that's all that i've seen really. 

i don't actually disagree with Jung, i was just hoping that my post would cause someone to give reasons other than what we can see on the surface in order to attack my points. 

i'm actually hoping to come across some bit of information that would be more telling to the actual structure of how our minds come together. 

for example: we have a square. we have two rods; one that ends in the shape of a square, and one that proposes the shape we're seeing isn't actually a square. in reality, we have only what we can see as evidence of what shape of the thing actually is, so, one attempts to find an alternative method of shape-finding. in doing so, it seems as if this is a three-part equation: a blank mass+rods+shape; so since we can't trust our eyes that the shape is what it appears to be, we instead look to what is equally invisible, and attempt to see which of those rods fit that blank mass. 

if anyone followed that half-ass analogy, i'm not trying to say that we should look to an even less visible form for answers, but i was just hoping that someone would have knowledge of that less visible form, so they could say, "actually, the more accepted rod is the 'more accepted' *because* it fits that blank mass, and while the other seems applicable it actually can't fit the way our minds form themselves".


----------



## Tru7h (Oct 16, 2012)

I think what you are alluding to is simply theorizing on what is least understood due to Jung and other psychoanalysts never having expanded on those "least understood" details. All we would really be doing is theorizing even further since nobody else has yet done so.

I understand where you are coming from, but since what Jung was expressing is in fact "theory", we would only be contributing our own logic and comprehension of the subject he explored.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Educational as always, @Functianalyst, thank you. You have given me much to ponder on in terms of typing.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Okay, yes, what @Functianalyst is saying about typing being subjective is 100% TRUE. I mean, from experience, how would you really know what someone's type is just by functions alone (and definitely by descriptions alone)? I mean, fundamentally, intuition is intuition, no matter what a person's relationship to it, feeling is feeling """"""", etc. These functions are about the same in everyone just by their inherent nature - it's only how they get played up toward the ego that would technically constitute a type. I can list a handful of people I know who come off like both sensors and intuitives (so, I can't tell the dominant), feelers and thinkers, any type you choose to find evidence for in them, basically (which is free - you can look for anything in someone and find an explanation for them to be any type, largely because honestly, type is inherently variable based on how a person chooses to adapt via all the conscious/fairly conscious functions, because they need to to survive anyhow - and then, since types describe human characteristics anyway, then obviously, you'll see them in everyone). I mean, I know all kinds of people with personas that have nothing to do with the so-called internet stereotypes who might as well be the opposite of what you imagine. Typing people is hard - you would really have to examine the intentions of their reasoning a lot to really boil something down, which is a largely intuitive exercise - not something that can be done based on the persona of the person. Marie Von Franz, the prominent Jungian analyst, just tried to look for signs of a person's inferior function, because that would be where the person doesn't usually have much of a persona to mask it. I've seen people who I suspect to be INTJ with ESFP, ENFP, ENTJ, INTP, INFP, etc. personas (based on random stereotypes alone) - I've seen ENTPs with ISFJ personas, I've seen ISTJs with ISFP personas, INFJs with ENFJ, ISTP, ESTP, etc. (the persona classification is TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE AS WELL - I have no idea why people here act like there are universal standards for these anyway, because there aren't - that would be using type as a parlour game, which I just did anyway, because using it that way, there's no way around it). I mean, if someone can just DESCRIBE how a person seems to channel their thought, felt, intuition, and sensation through intentions or even better, direction of libido, then I might believe them when they say that someone comes off like a type - type is just about how a person directs his/her thoughts in terms of those four functions - I'm not convinced it really adds up to be any kind of "type" of person who can be stereotyped at all - it's pretty much just aribitrary - if the person switched functions and such, they would probably still have the same general persona and act like the same person with the same character traits and everything - if you had, say, an INTJ (in terms of functions ONLY - the descriptions are no better than a horoscope) acting like an ESFP (supposed to be the "complement type" in terms of functions, NOT PERSONA), guess what? The person would probably be acting exactly like the person you knew, but just more outgoing and maybe lacking self-control more than usual (due to the influence of the shadow, basically) - they wouldn't have a different persona at all - they actually just might be being more honest on impulse, rather than mentally crafting responses in their heads to protect themselves through their conscious persona. The general things you always kind of gleaned from impressions of the person before this would still be there (so, say this person has an intellectual persona - they still will have it (because who would be a fool to change personas at the expense of their shadow? Who would WANT to? No one.), but now, you frankly will probably have a more extraverted, probably more silly person in place of the consciously more reserved introvert (only by nature of being an introvert) - someone who is just being very open about themselves and their current thoughts in an almost unfiltered way - a little like the person if they were drunk (not to exaggerate too much) - you might just start to notice the person showing psychological tendencies, of maybe, to Von Franz, animalistic sensation, but that's all the inferior really is - just how a person comes across when extraverted, suddenly, a rough sensation type in the case of INTJs (as in, the QUALITY of their sensation is perhaps a bit rough and shaky - it's really not that noticeable unless you just happen to notice something that might not seem like what you would do in the realm of physical expression (and it will seem primitive - very basic and minimalistic - the functions themselves, contrary to what people are popularly mislead to believe online, are not actually that important on their own, because on their own, everyone has them all, it's just when they come in contact with introversion, extraversion, that they tend to get affected in certain ways).


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> [snip]


Really great points. I'm ISTP, but I have ENTP, ISFP, INTP, ESTP, INFJ, and ISTJ personae, and those are the ones that I notice. There may be others that I don't notice at all.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

celticstained said:


> according to some--who read a lot more about the subject than i do--Jung said that the attitude is what occurs first (if it occurs at all), and after a definitive orientation (introverted/extroverted) has solidified, a dominant function can then come about (emphasis on "can then come about" and not "will come about"). this makes sense, and a person can easily see this in children where they gain a certain energy; one that either clearly exists in a way that is objectively identifiable, or one that is only "objectively" noticed by the lack of its existence... so, i can see what Jung was getting at.


Celtic, the attitude is always present and is always occurring. It is not something we develop as we do functions. Instead as Dr. Jung concludes:


> Since, in the light of these facts, the attitude-type regarded as a general phenomenon having an apparent random distribution, can be no affair of conscious judgment or intention, its existence must be due to some unconscious instinctive cause. The contrast of types, therefore, as a, universal psychological. phenomenon, must in some way or other have its biological precursor.


The one constant in type is that we have an attitude, arguably at birth. It may take a year or so for observers to determine that attitude, but it was always present and how we first learn how to adapt cognitively to circumstances. 

As stated earlier, whether we ever learn to use a specific function is another thing. Many go through life possibly never developing a specific function-attitude since functions develop the same way as habits. In fact thinking/feeling and sensing/intuiting are merely the result of habitual use over the course of time. If we develop a specific way of processing cognitively, then at some point it latches on to our general attitude and becomes a function-attitude. Yet even at that point, we may develop the particular function attitude, but never to where it can work independently or be a stand-alone function, or what Dr. Jung refers to as being “differentiated”. The one reason we may not be able to discern a type is for this reason, we never develop a function to a point of, as Dr. Jung describes:


> This absolute sovereignty always belonging empirically to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first.


If one is unable to establish a differentiated function, then claiming a type is superfluous since no one function-attitude stands alone. 


celticstained said:


> but... i can't wholly go along with it. what we have is a situation that occurs and a explanation that "fits" it, and i can't get out of my head the idea or notion that while it is "fitting", there might be something that can explain the situation just as well--something that can easily be missed due to the fact that what goes on to make a type is largely invisible, and if it's invisible, we have to admit that we're just shooting out into the dark lake dredging up items that somehow tell us everything about the lake.


I don’t think you are alone since Dr. Jung himself says:


> As regards to the particular disposition I know not what to say, except that there are clearly individuals who have either a greater readiness and capacity for one way or for whom it is more congenial to adapt to that way, rather than the other. In the last analysis it may well be that physiological causes, inaccessible to our knowledge, play a part in this. That this may be the case seems to me not improbable, in view of one's experience that a reversal of type often proves exceedingly harmful to the physiological well-being of the organism, often provoking an acute state of exhaustion.


----------



## Tru7h (Oct 16, 2012)

I think everyone searching for answers in this forum to their MBTI type really needs to read this topic. What people on this forum should be seeking is the lead function followed by what function supports the dominant. Those who post here must be as honest as they can become in the responses to the questions lest they should want to live a lie.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Tru7h said:


> I think everyone searching for answers in this forum to their MBTI type really needs to read this topic. What people on this forum should be seeking is the lead function followed by what function supports the dominant. Those who post here must be as honest as they can become in the responses to the questions lest they should want to live a lie.


A post that made sense


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Ask @Sparky


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

celticstained said:


> 1) what if the attitude comes second? what if the defining point upon which a development of type rests is the continuum between one mode of functioning and its opposing factor? could someone not clearly show tendencies for Fe & Ti, Te & Fi, Ni & Se, or Si & Ne, implying preference to these two different sides, but have a battle that wages and pulls them from one perspective to the next? to me, if this could or does happen, it would mean that the attitude itself didn’t give birth to a set of functions, almost like picking one of two lottery wheels and taking a spin, but that something integral to that individual, something innate like a mental groove set in stone already existed, and that this person has yet to “pick a side”. this mini-argument is one of: innate attitude--> “chosen” dichotomy vs. innate dichotomy--> “chosen” attitude—now, i get the feeling that this “mini-argument” can be shut down by any number of facts, but i would like for one to address the internal foundation that is universal between all people in order to either break or confirm it, only because to me, with my limited knowledge (not being facetious, just stating a fact) i’m left only to recognize the pitfall of adhering to logic that stems from an assumption to prove/disprove, and not to take into consideration the assumption itself and what a counter argument may mean in terms of how we define this assumption.
> 
> 2) what if it’s not the attitude or the dichotomy that is innate, but the general, for lack of a better word, “letter” (S, N, T, F)? could one not start from this ground in development, to have a tendency to fluctuate between both orientations—not well, not even poorly, but just as a starting point in their own development (keep in mind, i am aware of the warring that would ensue if one were to attempt to operate—again, if it were possible—at both levels at once, but i’m speaking of a person in which type doesn’t technically exist yet, so the problems that would normally come about would be to such a low degree that just functioning wouldn’t be all that problematic, and may even mimic that of a toddler—a being that is beginning to determine a type). so this mini-argument is one of: “letter”-->attitude-->dichotomy vs. attitude-->dominant-->dichotomy
> 
> again, if this can be directed to the structure of the mind, i’d like it to be—if it can’t, then any sort of discussion is fine really. this whole thought-bubble was mainly for a different perspective, and even if it’s not the one i was looking for, it may be better than what i had hoped. everyone feel free to join in, whether you know a lot or a little.


Celtic, I did not have time to read through the remainder of your post until now. I was in the process of providing an elaborate response, but I think it is best to simply remind everyone on this forum again that Keirsey is not MBTI, and MBTI is not Personality Type theory as proposed by Dr. Jung. They have completely different basic principles. Most notably Dr. Jung never wrote his theory to be quantifiable as did MBTI. His theory is fluid and dynamic wherein the MBTI uses forced dichotomies. So when people attempt to understand Dr. Jung’s theory using MBTI principles, they begin to look at things as either/or instead of in addition to. 

Although I have referred to his theory more times than I can count, it can be located *here*. If you want to understand Peter and Isabella Myers’ theory, that is “Gifts Differing”. With the exception of referring to the types by their dominant function, Myers-Briggs never alludes to function-attitudes. Instead they only use functions referring to an INTJ as N-T-F-S, not Ni-Te-F-Se.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

There have been some great responses to this thread. As always Jungyes and Mad offer extreme enlightenment. Tru7h thanks for your insightful input as well. It was not my intent to create this thread to discourage anyone from finding their best-fit type. It was written to offer encouragement that it is a very normal process. Remember it’s always darkest before the dawn. 

Just some advice that I have given here before:

1)	Never let any crank tell you that they know you better than you know yourself or that they can tell you your type. You may as well go to a psychic (no disrespect to the psychics);

2)	Repeatedly taking test to determine your type is Einstein’s definition of insanity. If you have taken a particular type of test on five occasions, you have become immune to the test and should know the results based on your answers, before concluding the test;

3)	Descriptions have to be written so general that it cannot describe everyone. You should never confirm your type by a description. In fact once you determine your type, you will realize just how futile descriptions can be;

4)	If you have limited your contact to just interacting with the type you think you are, then you will not only “be” that type, you will be a “wannabe”. 

5)	Finally I can’t stress enough, learn and be able to discern between the type theories; appreciate there are many theories out there with their own defined principles. Keirsey’s temperament is not MBTI, and MBTI is not Jung’s Personality Type theory. Know when you are trying to use MBTI tools to understand Jung. 

Hint, if you see someone using cognitive functions make sure they are using them in the right context. MBTI never used cognitive functions, so if someone is using INTJ, to explain Jung's work, then they are muddling MBTI and Jung. If you see someone using two-letter codes in reference to MBTI, know that they are muddling that theory with Keirsey's temperament.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Ask @_Sparky_


Hi FlightsOfFancy, thank you for bringing attention to this thread. 

Many people have a harder time than others in finding their type, and a common problem is due to them nitpicking details, like questioning introverted or extroverted feeling. Instead, figure out what personality types the people close to you might have, and how you compare with them. When you narrow down to two or three personality types, find the people with more similarity to you, because their personality type is likely yours as well.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Functianalyst

Thank you. You truly word your points brilliantly!


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> Celtic, I did not have time to read through the remainder of your post until now. I was in the process of providing an elaborate response, but I think it is best to simply remind everyone on this forum again that Keirsey is not MBTI, and MBTI is not Personality Type theory as proposed by Dr. Jung. They have completely different basic principles. Most notably Dr. Jung never wrote his theory to be quantifiable as did MBTI. His theory is fluid and dynamic wherein the MBTI uses forced dichotomies. So when people attempt to understand Dr. Jung’s theory using MBTI principles, they begin to look at things as either/or instead of in addition to.
> 
> Although I have referred to his theory more times than I can count, it can be located *here*. If you want to understand Peter and Isabella Myers’ theory, that is “Gifts Differing”. With the exception of referring to the types by their dominant function, Myers-Briggs never alludes to function-attitudes. Instead they only use functions referring to an INTJ as N-T-F-S, not Ni-Te-F-Se.


i've read the link before, i'm just testing the waters to see what others have to say, or to look at it differently. sometimes finding why the alternatives aren't right can you show you why the former is correct. but i guess it mainly comes down to the general principles, and the acceptance of those principles since it would be so hard to not only prove/disprove the alternatives, but also the original theory itself. kind of like having to start somewhere. 

anyhow, thanks for the answers man.


----------

