# J & P not Je & Ji - Come on, reckful. Let's be avin ya



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

FDT said:


> OK, let's break this down:
> 
> 1. How does MBTI "describe everybody?" As I have been over many times, it only works *if you are at the extreme end of each scale*. That's the only way those stereotypical caricature Forer effect descriptions are going to apply to you. Sure, you can cherrypick a few anecdotes of that mechanic who is totally an ISTP or that party girl who is totally an ESFP, but that doesn't work for the vast majority of people, who fall somewhere towards the middle of each scale. Personality traits exist on a NORMAL distribution, NOT a bimodial distribution. Meaning the average person is essentially an XXXX. Therefore none of the types are going to apply to them neatly at all, and that's why the MBTI has such miserable test-retest reliability, with some people changing only one letter and others getting the complete fucking opposite type as little as a week or two later. Unless you are reliably, consistently at the extreme end of all four dichotomies -- in which case you are not only an outlier, but also unhealthy according to Jung himself -- then it's not going to describe you at all. It's pure bullshit.
> 
> Function stacks at least attempt to describe everybody in ways that are more constant and penetrate at the human psyche beyond superficial behaviors and into the realm of cognitive processes and motives. This explains why two "INTJs" may behave totally differently. Their underlying motivation - represented by "Ni-Te-Fi-Se" - is the same, but can result in entirely different behaviors. It's simply about how you do what you do, not what you do, which is extremely variable and fluctuates drastically based on mood, external circumstances, etc.


 Personality traits falling on a normal distribution is not exactly a rebuttal to my point so much as it is 100% precisely my point.

My 9 test results have averaged about 85% I, 15% E /// 85% N, 15% S /// 65% T, 35% F /// 85% P, 15% J. That is not a failure to distinguish between 100% INTP, 100% INFP, and 100% ESFJ, that is a successful identification of how strong my preference is for each side of each axis against each other side.

If somebody is extremely close to 50/50 on all four MyersBriggs axes, then that's the person's MyersBriggs type: middle, middle, middle, middle. *The point of the 100% extreme descriptions is supposed to be for seeing where you lie between them: I myself am extremely close to the 100% extremes of IN-P, and I am about twice as strongly T as I am F.*

Nobody is supposed to be 100% of anything (I am primarily INTP, secondarily INFP, and only barely ESxJ), but everybody lies *somewhere* between 100% of one end of each axis and 100% of the other end of each.



> 2. What about MBTI is so "clear" and who cares if it is? Astrology is pretty clear too, even clearer in fact. All you have to do to know your sign is look at your birthday. Doesn't make it not bullshit.


 MyersBriggs tests ask questions about your personality, then compile them into results about what your personality is like based on the criteria the tests measured. Astrology asks what your birthday is. That is literally the difference between "measuring one's height with a ruler" versus "writing heights on cards and pulling one out of a hat."

The fact that my astrology personality corresponds strongly with my birthday (Gemini) is a freak accident of probability, nothing more. The fact that my MyersBriggs tests correspond with my personality (strongly introverting, strongly intuiting, moderately thinking, strongly perceiving) is because of what the test questions asked.

Cognitive functions tests ask questions about yourself too, so that's better than astrology (high bar to set ), but you have to be an expert to understand what the codes mean.

MyersBriggs INTP is almost exactly the same as MyersBriggs INTJ, MyersBriggs ESFJ is almost exactly the same as MyersBriggs ESFP, and MyersBriggs INTx is almost exactly the opposite of MyersBriggs ESFx.

Functions INTP is almost exactly the same as Functions ESFJ, Functions INTJ is almost exactly the same as Functions ESFP, and Functions INTP/ESFJ is almost exactly the opposite of Functions INTJ/ESFP :confused2:

Also – see #1 – MyersBriggs describes the 100% extreme ends of each axis for the purpose of helping you figure out which you are closer to and how close you are to each. Again, I'm not 100% of anything, but I am 85% IN-P and 65% T, so INTP makes the most sense, especially when I emphasize that INFP is a closer second for me than are ENTP, ISTP, or INTJ.

Function stacks, on the other hand, offer no guidelines for what your closest type should be if you're not one of the rare hypothetical extremes: My functions go Ne-Fi-Ti-Ni-Te-Si-Se-Fe. That's kind of close to the ENFP function stack that Harold Grant came up with, but I've seen a lot of people here with messier function stacks than this one.



> 3. No, MBTI does not come from a scientific basis. It comes from Jung, it is inseparably tied to Jung, and it to this day still links itself to Jung's types and functions. You cannot have MBTI without Jungian functions. reckful's attempt to portray it as though you can, as though this pop psych nonsense created by two housewives with no credentials is somehow more "scientific" than Jung, is based almost entirely on a study done back in the 80's by McCrae and Costa. Every single time he brings this up he grossly and deliberately misrepresents what these researchers actually concluded about the MBTI. Which is that yeah, the scales line up reasonably well with 4 of the 5 Big Five scales that are actually scientific, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support the concept of "types."
> 
> Here's what they actually said that reckful always, always neglects:
> 
> ...


 Skipping the parts about the differences in scientific validity between both systems because reckful beat me to that:

Everybody is somewhere from 100% asocial to 50/50 neutral to 100% social

Everybody is somewhere from 100% theoretical to 50/50 neutral to 100% practical

Everybody is somewhere from 100% insensitive to 50/50 neutral to 100% sensitive

Everybody is somewhere from 100% disorganized to 50/50 neutral to 100% organized

This is useful information to know about a person: I am about 85% asocial, 85% theoretical, 65% insensitive, and 85% disorganized.

Almost nobody's cognitive functions line up the way they're "supposed" to: mine go Ne-Fi-Ti-Ni-Te-Si-Se-Fe. This is occasionally fun information to talk about, but it's not as *useful* to me as knowing that I am asocial, theoretical, insensitive, and disorganized.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Asura said:


> Just finished reading "The Case Against Type Dynamics" from start to finish in its entirety. That thing is long haha.
> 
> Despite some logical errors or hefty stretches for bias purposes-Example page 8 second paragraph, attempting to turn down dynamic function theory with correlations between dominant and auxiliary functions and their relation to certain variables. Major problem is these variables are not related to the function mentioned,
> 
> ...


These are the thoughts which I have on that article, too. As far as I understand it, it's saying that they're unable to objectively observe or measure something, which they don't have the means to objectively observe or measure. Which is obvious 

Am I missing something?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kyn said:


> These are the thoughts which I have on that article, too. As far as I understand it, it's saying that they're unable to objectively observe or measure something, which they don't have the means to objectively observe or measure. Which is obvious
> 
> Am I missing something?


Yes, and not only are you missing something, but you're missing something very important.

To somewhat oversimplify, personality typologies like the MBTI and Big Five establish their "validity" by way of studies where the types of subjects in a suitably large sample are found to correlate significantly with various other things. As one rather dramatic example, here are the self-selection ratios that Myers reported for a study involving 705 Cal Tech science majors:

INTJ 3.88
INFJ 2.95
INTP 2.92
INFP 1.97
ENTJ 1.56
ENTP 1.42
ENFP 1.09
ENFJ 1.08
ISTJ 0.68
ISTP 0.50
ISFP 0.49
ISFJ 0.43
ESTP 0.22
ESFJ 0.18
ESTJ 0.12
ESFP 0.02

Stat spectrums that orderly — not to mention that dramatically lopsided — are what you call a personality psychologist's dream. What they indicate (and the sample size was pretty large, at 705) is that the MBTI factor that has the greatest influence on somebody's tendency to become a Cal Tech science major is an N preference, and the MBTI factor that has the second greatest influence is introversion, with the result that the spectrum tidily lines up (from top to bottom) IN-EN-IS-ES.

That's the kind of data that McCrae & Costa were referring to when they praised the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature," and specifically noted that studies like these could "provide valuable replications" of Big Five studies.

Keeping in mind that twin studies indicate that those four dimensions of personality are substantially genetic, the results of that sample suggest that there are relatively hardwired dimensions of personality that can make a person of one type (e.g., an INTJ) something like _30 times more likely_ than another type (an ESTJ) to end up as a science major at Cal Tech. And I assume you'd agree that if someone had ascertained the zodiac signs of those same 705 Cal Tech science majors, it's very unlikely that the distribution of zodiac signs for those students would have proven to be substantially different than the distribution in the general population. And that's because the zodiac belongs in the _pseudoscience_ bin, and the MBTI belongs in the same bin as the Big Five.

And there's really no meaningful difference between the so-called "cognitive functions" and the dichotomies in terms of the validity standards that apply in determining whether or not they're for real.

To reiterate a point I made in an earlier reply to you, but this time with a pair of _opposite types_, what I call the Real MBTI Model (which was essentially Myers' model) for INFPs and ESTJs looks like this:

INFP = I + N + F + P + IN + IF + IP + NF + NP + FP + INF + INP + IFP + NFP + INFP.

ESTJ = E + S + T + J + ES + ET + EJ + ST + SJ + TJ + EST + ESJ + ETJ + STJ + ESTJ.

So the Real MBTI Model says that INFPs and ESTJs have _no_ MBTI-related aspects of personality in common. _None whatsoever, Kyn!_ Their temperament tugs are on opposites sides of the four dichotomies _and every dichotomy combination_ — including the combinations (e.g., FP/TJ) that purportedly correspond to the "cognitive functions."

The most popular function-centric model discussed at MBTI forums, on the other hand, says that INFPs and ESTJs have quite a lot in common — onnaccounta they're both "Ne/Si types," and "Fi/Te types."

But over 50 years of MBTI data pools, correlating the types with everything under the sun, have demonstrated that if whatever you're correlating with MBTI type is something where the INFPs are notably out toward one end of the correlational spectrum, you can reliably expect to find the ESTJs _out toward the other end._ To which somebody who's been bamboozled by the HaroldGrantians might exclaim, "WTF?!" Where, they might wonder, are the data pools where the questionnaire item or behavioral trait or whatever else is being measured is mainly an "Ne" thing, or an "Si" thing, or an "Fi" thing, or a "Te" thing, and the INFPs and ESTJs are on one side of the spectrum, and the INFJs and ESTPs (both supposedly "Fe/Ti" and "Ni/Se" types) are on the other side? And if that's what they're wondering, reckful is here to tell them that those data pools are on the same island where they keep the unicorns and the munchkins.

The notion that an INFP has "tertiary Si," and will therefore tend (_probabilistically speaking_) to have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that ISTPs tend _not_ to exhibit, is a typological assertion that — like all assertions that _crosscut the dichotomies_ in that counterintuitive way — has no more _validity_ than the notion that two people born at around the same time will tend to have aspects of personality in common because they're both Capricorns.

And another important thing to understand (and that many forumites misunderstand) is that there's _nothing_ about the Real MBTI Model framing that puts any limitation on what aspects of personality may be found to be associated with any of those dichotomies or dichotomy combinations — attitudes, values, superficial stuff, deep stuff, behavioral stuff, how-you-think stuff, or anything else. Any deep, true thing that can be said about a (supposed) Ti-dom, for example, can just as well be said about an I_TP. And any deep, true thing that can be said about a (supposed) Ti-user can just as well be said about the four TP types.

But here's the most important point (for purposes of the present discussion): as Reynierse emphasizes (and he's done some studies of his own that reinforce the point), there is absolutely _nothing_ that the standard cognitive-function-based "type dynamics" framing predicts about any type — at either a shallow or deep level — that _both_ (1) _adds to_ what you'd expect if the functions were just a "category mistake" that piggybacked on the additive/combinatory effects of the dichotomies they correspond to (i.e., that goes _beyond_ what the Real MBTI Model alone would lead you to expect), _and_ (2) has been validated by some respectable body of studies.

Nothing.

I already talked about the failure of the HaroldGrantian tandem patterns to ever show up. And another example of "type dynamics" going beyond the Real MBTI Model is the notion that N plays a stronger role than T for an INTJ and T plays a stronger role than N for an INTP — because dom/aux! Going all the way back to 1985, the second edition of the MBTI Manual noted that the preference scores in the official MBTI database didn't reflect any consistent tendency for types to get higher scores for their supposedly dominant preference than for their supposedly auxiliary preference. And nobody's managed to supply any respectable body of support for the dom/aux aspect of the Grant stack (or any competing stack, for that matter) in the 30 years since — and on the other side, there have been a number of data pools (including several from studies that Reynierse conducted) that indicate that the (supposedly) dominant function is no more likely to be the stronger of the middle two preferences than the (supposedly) auxiliary function.

Reynierse's articles caused quite a stir in the MBTI community, as I understand it. And all Linda Berens or Dario Nardi or any other proud HaroldGrantian needed to do to refute his assertion that the functions are just a "category mistake" — not to mention provide, at long last, some respectable support for the functions — was to go through the vast stores of _existing MBTI data_ and find a respectable body of results reflecting one of those HaroldGrantian patterns (TJs/FPs on one side and TPs/FJs on the other, or SJs/NPs on one side and SPs/NJs on the other). Because if either of those patterns — which are decidedly _inconsistent_ with what Reynierse calls "preference multidimensionality" (i.e., the simple additive effects of the four preferences) — ever turned up in a respectable body of MBTI data, well, that's what _validity_ is all about.

And instead, as I understand it, the response to Reynierse (as far as the validity issue goes) has been... *crickets*.

And the reason the response has been *crickets* is because the 50 years of MBTI data pools are full of evidence in support of the correlations associated with the Real MBTI Model, and spectacularly lacking in evidence in support of the HaroldGrantian "tandems" — or any other aspect of "type dynamics" that goes beyond (or is inconsistent with) the Real MBTI Model.

As Reynierse explains in the linked article, the most recent (third) edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998, and it cites a grand total of _eight studies_ involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — and Reynierse summarizes them as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

And that's not because "type dynamics" is "theoretical" and the Real MBTI Model _isn't_ "theoretical." It's because the Real MBTI Model is a _valid_ theoretical model, while "type dynamics," to the extent that it departs from the Real MBTI Model, is an _invalid_ theoretical model — like the zodiac.


----------



## Asura (Apr 2, 2016)

@reckful
You can call something the "real" MBTI model, but that does not make it the real MBTI model. No matter how you look at it. There is a reason the currently published model is used and accepted.

Dynamic theory/Functions do not say that "ESTJs and INFPs have a lot in common". It's just the opposite. Dynamic Type theory states that ESTJs struggle with the use of Fi as it is not a part of the active concious, thus the term "Grip" was made. The ESTJ falls into a grip that puts their subconscious Fi at the head. INFP grips put unconscious Te at the head, which according to theory of innate preferences is extremely *unnatural* for people of this type. It's stressful and against their entire natural being. Inferior functions are the unconscious made concious in times of stress. Meaning they are *completely opposite* of the dominant function, not similar to that same function within another type.

Comparing type dynamics and functions to the zodiac is silly. Your entire argument stands on the point that "Dichotomies are much easier to prove", which yes, is true. You can't argue there is no dominant function and secondary function off of this though. It is even explained *by Briggs* in Gifts Differing--again, By Briggs,-- That there is a "General and his Aid" as a dominant function and a secondary, even explaining the difference between how it differs for an introvert and an extroverted dominant type. --The general for the extrovert is outside of the wartent speaking to the masses while his aid is inside the tent, planning. The Introverts General is inside the tent while his aid is outside speaking to the masses.

Stop throwing out studies and claiming what is and isn't true MBTI theory. Your theories are your own and that is completely ok but don't spread misinformation about the true MBTI. 

Dichotomies are completely valid, but type dynamics in reference to natural expression of energy are too.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Asura said:


> @reckful
> You can call something the "real" MBTI model, but that does not make it the real MBTI model. No matter how you look at it. There is a reason the currently published model is used and accepted.
> 
> Dynamic theory/Functions do not say that "ESTJs and INFPs have a lot in common". It's just the opposite. Dynamic Type theory states that ESTJs struggle with the use of Fi as it is not a part of the active concious, thus the term "Grip" was made. The ESTJ falls into a grip that puts their subconscious Fi at the head. INFP grips put unconscious Te at the head, which according to theory of innate preferences is extremely *unnatural* for people of this type. It's stressful and against their entire natural being. Inferior functions are the unconscious made concious in times of stress. Meaning they are *completely opposite* of the dominant function, not similar.
> ...


Different MBTI theorists take different positions, Asura. You know this.

The most popular function-centric MBTI perspective discussed day in and day out at MBTI forums is the HaroldGrantian perspective, found in Berens and Nardi's writings and a metric ass ton of MBTI-related websites. You know this.

And it's a perspective that says, as I noted, that "ESTJs and INFPs have a lot in common," because the form of "Sensing" that both tend to use/exhibit is Si rather than Se (which differentiates them from the purported "Se types"), and the form of "Thinking" that both tend to use/exhibit is Te rather than Ti (which differentiates them from the purported "Ti types"), and so on.

Here's Dario Nardi, from his "Ask Me Anything" appearance at reddit in February 2013:

With regard to the functions, I believe a healthy adult needs at least two functions in play most of the time. Why? Because we're all pretty much tasked to do extraverting and introverting, perceiving and judging. We need a minimum of two functions to cover those bases. For example, Ni with Te. (Those happen to be my preferences, represented as INTJ).

After those two, my research suggests that the second most common pattern is our near-opposite personality type, say ISFP for INTJ. That's Fi + Se. As I look at the brain activity of midlife adults now in my lab, and not just college students, I see this more than ever. I've had two midlife INFJs. Could hardly tell if they are INFJ or ISTP.​
Yeah, baby. Not only aren't those INFJs _strongly repressing Se_, with the result that Se manifests (to the extent that it does) in a dark, twisted opposite-of-Se-ish way ("*completely opposite* of the dominant function, not similar," as you put it) — but instead, Nardi says that INFJs and ISTPs are so similar in their Se manifestations that it can be _hard to tell them apart_.

To the extent that _your favored MBTI model_ reflects the position that ESTJs and INFPs have _no MBTI-related aspects of personality in common_, then I say hooray, and you and I are on the same page. Buuut is that really your position? For example, do you disagree with the notion that there are Fi-vs.-Fe aspects of personality (different kinds of "Feeling") where ENFPs and INTJs are similar to each other (because they're "Fi types") and different from INFJs and ENTPs (who are in turn similar to each other because they're both "Fe types")?

And again, to return to my main point, and whether it's _your_ position or not, to the extent that that (very popular) notion is _anybody's_ position, then they're subscribing to a type grouping that is just as capable of being _validated_ as any other — by way of correlational studies with suitably large samples that can be as simple as having the subjects take the official MBTI and also fill out a questionnaire that asks them about attitudes, etc. that reflect Fe and Fi stuff.

And as I previously noted, _any_ MBTI framing that is inconsistent with what I call the Real MBTI Model to the extent of claiming that INFPs and ESTJs have _any_ MBTI-related aspects of personality in common is a framing that corresponds to expected correlational patterns that have never shown up in any respectable body of studies. And that's why, unless and until that changes, any such framing belongs in the same category as the zodiac.

And that's the point Reynierse made in his articles, and those articles are in the journal published by the official MBTI folks. And the _fact_ that framings that go beyond the Real MBTI Model (which Reynierse calls "preference multidimensionality") lack any respectable body of empirical support is indeed a _fact_, Asura. It's not "misinformation about the true MBTI" (as you put it).


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@reckful

While I admire your analysis and the passion to which you put into your delineation of your thoughts, I think that to truly understand any theory, one must understand each proverbial block in the building of the theory. 

For example, with MBTI, there's the Jung block, which was but a skeleton of the current existing theory. It was built, so to speak, by Myers and Briggs, and then it was expanded by Keirsey and other theorists, tested and retested by a plethora of theorists, etc... So, to be as current as possible, one must understand not only the foundation of the theory, but also how that theory evolved, why it evolved, and how professionals in the field use it today along with their peer reviews of the merits to it. 

In your case, it appears (though I'm sure it's not true) in your writing that you're taking only a few pivotal theorists and saying that they are right and citing a single study with a very small population (given that I've seen studies using 300K or more participants with MBTI), and using that to back your assertions. While I'm not saying your assertions are wrong, I think to fully appreciate theories in the method you encourage others to, one must be open minded to each piece of the theory as well as the theory as a whole. So, if one wants to discredit Jung because he was a psychodynamic theorist, one must also look at the skeleton he laid out and ascertain whether or not that skeleton reflects the so-called "unscientific" psychodynamic characteristics. So just on block one, there are two logical fallacies:

1, that psychodynamics is unscientific (it cannot be proved as scientific or not because the conscious/semiconscious/unconscious minds cannot be proven to exist and, therefore cannot be studied with today's tools).

and 

2, that Jung's skeletal theory itself is unscientific because it's linked to Jung, which might be a fair assumption on the outside, but, upon scrutiny, isn't actually true.

If one does that to each incarnation of MBTI, one can _begin_ to appreciate and approach a true understanding of what that theory is. However, one must be very vigorous and be mindful of their own biases while studying this.

Add on to MBTI the fact that it has been twisted and wrung out with socionics and different function theories, the information alone is quite staggering.

I don't really have a point to this other than to convey the idea that rigorous scrutiny and study must be done at each level for one to reach the theoretical understanding that you seem to have. Many people in this community, I would think (myself included), haven't done this amount of expansive study. So, when there is a challenge brought to any of your points, it might be simply because your points don't convey so much breadth, but more the depth of one particular aspect of the theory. It isn't comprehensive, though it is conclusive.


----------



## Asura (Apr 2, 2016)

@reckful

Ok, so, I will admit as you say we may be closer to "being on the same page" than I initially thought, but, our positions still differ.

When it comes to the INTJ ENFP example, yes, I do follow the model in which they share Fi, but Fi as a tertiary function is different than Fi as a secondary. That's one of the major aspects of type dynamics. It's not just "what's stronger/weaker", it's what effect the placement of each function has on the concious and subconscious.

An INTJs Fi is subconscious but not inferior, it influences the dominant pair but is not resorted to in general times of stress. An ENFPs Fi is part of the concious personality. The active and engaging part of who we are.

These differences are not often what people who study cognitive functions recognize. 

I think the problem lies in the modern misunderstanding of type dynamics and not type dynamics itself.

All cognitive functions aside I am still a strong believer in the dominant and secondary functions, even when teaching dichotomies to clients without dynamic type.

Let me also say, I truly do respect your intelligence and ability to display information in such an organized manner. I hope you don't take my debating as an assault on you but more so a challenge to your ideas to understand their perspective

Debates for the sake of understanding are my life force haha.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

brightflashes said:


> @reckful
> 
> While I admire your analysis and the passion to which you put into your delineation of your thoughts, I think that to truly understand any theory, one must understand each proverbial block in the building of the theory.
> 
> ...


I don't know who you're talking to, brightflashes, but it isn't me.

What I call the Real MBTI Model is the one that's consistent with 50 years of studies and MBTI data pools — thousands of them. And that same huge body of empirical support for the Real MBTI Model is the same one that essentially _disproves_ the HaroldGrantian "tandems" and various other function-centric twists on the MBTI that correspond to correlational patterns that virtually never show up — no matter what aspect of someone's personality is being correlated with MBTI type.

My perspective is based on "a single study with a very small population"? I don't know what you could possibly be talking about.

As previously noted, you or anyone else who's interested can read quite a lot about the vast body of empirical support for the Real MBTI Model in this post. And if you like, there's more in this post (also linked to in the first post).

As for the notion that the more function-centric models (e.g., the Grant stack and its associated tandems) are somehow incapable of being _validated_ with "today's tools" (as you put it), see this reply to Kyn and this reply to Asura (both from this morning, in this thread).


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

reckful said:


> I don't know who you're talking to, brightflashes, but it isn't me.


lol sure it was. You mentioned just two posts ago (three maybe?) a study at CalTech that consisted of 705 participants, for instance. I could go through each one of my points and refer you to the sentence you wrote that it refers to, but my post honestly took so much time to make that I really don't want to waste any more time on it. If you don't get anything out of what I said, that's fine. But I was talking to you. : )


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

brightflashes said:


> lol sure it was. You mentioned just two posts ago (three maybe?) a study at CalTech that consisted of 705 participants, for instance. I could go through each one of my points and refer you to the sentence you wrote that it refers to, but my post honestly took so much time to make that I really don't want to waste any more time on it. If you don't get anything out of what I said, that's fine. But I was talking to you. : )


Ahem. What you said was that I was "taking only a few pivotal theorists and saying that they are right and citing a single study with a very small population (given that I've seen studies using 300K or more participants with MBTI), and using that to back your assertions."

My objection wasn't that I didn't cite that Cal Tech study (although I didn't know which "single study" you were referring to), but that you were suggesting that a "single study" was _all_ the empirical support that I was pointing to to "back my assertions."

I'm glad if we're all squared away in that department now. :happy:


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

reckful said:


> My objection wasn't that I didn't cite that Cal Tech study (although I didn't know which "single study" you were referring to), but that you were suggesting that a "single study" was _all_ the empirical support that I was pointing to to "back my assertions."


Ah, no definitely not. I even mentioned that I was certain that it wasn't true, but just that it appeared that way if one was only looking at one post and not the total of all your posts. You're excellent at citing sources. I have noticed that you lean on certain theorists in this particular thread by bringing them up a lot, but I don't think that's a reflection of you not having a breadth of understanding; I was only commenting about how it might appear to someone else to explain why one might be resistant to some of the things you say. 

Again, I really admire your analysis. I was just saying that, for me, I do my analysis either in a different way (I can't be sure how you've studied MBTI in the course of your entire life), or at least am focusing on analyzing it in a different way at the moment. : )


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@reckful Ok, I see. It doesn't make sense that a theory based on anecdotal 'evidence' takes prescedence over an alternative theory which is backed up with empirical data. Especially, to the extent that it does. In that respect, yeah, I agree, it's kind of silly. Although, I'm not saying that I personally don't see function theory as valuable and insightful. It does offer me explanations for my own experiences which aren't provided by Mbti or big 5. My main interest in PT is due to me finding answers in function theory which I hadn't found elsewhere. Had I found those answers in astrology, I might have seen astrology as valuable too. :tongue:


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

I just wanted to clarify what I said to reckful recently because I have this nagging itchy feeling that I wasn't clear. All I really meant to say is that the whole of MBTI as a theory is one that has evolved. To get an appreciation of all its evolutionary stages (in my opinion), is to study it at each stage while asking oneself why it evolved. 

I by no means meant to say that MBTI wasn't scientific. I mentioned the common statement from armchair psychologists that psychodynamics is unscientific, but only to illustrate that (in my opinion) it is a logical fallacy (I gave two reasons I would use to refute this). 

My main intent was to applaud reckful's analysis and point out that some of his statements seem to favor certain theorist, but not to imply that reckful doesn't have a broad understanding of MBTI.

Similarly, @Simpson17866 also shows a very interesting analysis of MBTI and one that I, personally, identify with the most (but just because it makes the most sense to me currently).

Additionally, @Asura 's comments about the Axis dichotomies and the conscious/unconscious functions as being originally part of MBTI is also an important factor (to me, at least).

I only meant that these parts of the whole are all fascinating, but the parts of the whole theory aren't ever going to give the full picture. That's why I felt that I had something to add by mentioning the importance of studying all facets of the MBTI specific theory. 

I hope that's clearer, if I wasn't clear to begin with. I've never been very good at explaining myself I don't think, and when I have something that I think might be helpful to add, I want to make certain that it's understood.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

brightflashes said:


> I just wanted to clarify what I said to reckful...


I actually thought your criticisms of my posts were pretty much right on target.


* *




April fools!


* *




We good, though. No offense taken.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Here's how socionics describes the interaction between quasi-identical types such as infp-infj.



Wikisocion said:


> Partners typically have a lot to say about the same kinds of topics (as do, typically, any members of a single club), and their conversations gravitate to these common spheres of interest, but they take entirely different approaches to every subject. They both take note of the same phenomena, but describe and analyze them in completely different terms that the other finds interesting, but completely unsatisfying. This is because the language and approach of one partner's leading function corresponds to the strong, but undervalued demonstrative function of the other. Each partner tends to be impressed with the other's skillful use of his leading function, which they perceive more as a "performance" (due to their own attitudes toward their demonstrative function) than a sincere and honest expression.
> In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.
> While generally sympathetic towards each other and sharing many of the same weaknesses, quasi-identicals are almost unable to offer meaningful assistance on a personal level, and quickly become annoyed with each other's expectations.


Again, this is going by functions, I still want to see how this could be explained without them. 

I think the trust part is a good point. I find mistrust creeping in quite easily with infj's. I've also noticed a similar mistrust with istp's, but it wasn't so confusing since I could just assume they were mean, haha. In contrast, in estj relations/interactions, there was a feeling of mutual trust established quite easily. I realise my own experience on this isn't a good enough sample size to go by.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kyn said:


> Here's how socionics describes the interaction between quasi-identical types such as infp-infj.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think it makes much sense for me to try to "explain" (using dichotomies and dichotomy combinations) a Socionics description that is itself an alternative _explanation_.

I'd say the more appropriate approach would be for you to offer up one or more _real life examples_ of interactions with INFJs that you've experienced, _and_ that you think exemplify typical INFJ/INFP differences, and explain how you think the Socionics model explains those differences.

At that point, the ball would be in my court to either (1) offer an alternative explanation that doesn't make use of any "type dynamics" stuff (i.e., function-based components that are outside the Real MBTI Model), or (2) tell you that I don't think the example you've given me to explain is particularly representative of typical INFJ/INFP interactions.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@reckful. I wish I could have provided some clear, concise examples for you, but I would have run out steam and given up trying before I finished. 
I'm treating you to something of a stream of consciousness post instead. I came to my conclusion while typing, so I just left it in there. 


* *




This one's a personal observation and I can't say I recall another infp discussing it, so it's possibly just coincidental, but I'll throw it in here anyway. I've experienced this with 3 infjs. We're having a disagreement either online or via pm. Infj's stopped responding to me, not due to the debate becoming repetitive or anything like that. Then infj's immediately went elsewhere on the forum and began publicly discussing the conflict. They didn't go elsewhere and present both sides to their new 'audience', they simply presented their own side and their explanation, along with my side of the argument but omitted my explanation. Which inevitably led to their new audience validating their pov. Imo, not only is it bad manners, but it shows a refusal to acknowledge another perspective. If they thought what I was saying was wrong they could have explained why I was wrong or they could have ignored it. They could say that they still think I'm incorrect, even if it just didn't sit right with them for some reason. All things considered, their reaction to the situation displayed (imo) narrow mindedness and a lack of integrity. 

Which leads onto my next example. I've already mentioned their attitudes towards mistypes. The whole "infps mistype as infjs because they want to be special" notion that crops up again and again. Their reasoning seems to be that infj's are super rare, there's lots on PerC, therefore most are mistypes. Personally, I saw how many infps & infjs were on PerC and noticed that it was very disproportionate compared to the general population. My thoughts were simply, it makes sense since they're both interested in understanding people and introverts are more likely to be online, anyway. It seems a reasonable explanation, yet even after being pointed out to them, some don't accept it. They'd rather bitch (publicly) about infps trying to be special by pretending to be _their_ type. This implies that they believe themselves to be better and therefore, infps will delude themselves rather than accept who they are. It's really insulting from an infp perspective. Then they go on to say "I don't think we're special, I don't know how people get this idea". 

Which is probably why NT arrogance is less irritating, because NTs admit they're arrogant. 

Again, with the whole 'fake' vs 'selfish' stereotypes. It's as though infjs are attaching different importance on particular values. One infj mentioned on the thread I linked to that if she's being nice to someone, why should they care if she's not being herself. While I believe in the importance of being nice and kind to others, kindness and harmonious atmospheres don't always outweigh integrity. It depends on specific circumstances, motives, actions, potential or actual outcomes. All those factors are taken into consideration when assessing what's appropriate and what isn't. 

Also from personal experiences (which are a little too personal to share the details), they seemed to place lower importance on motives and higher importance on actions. For instance, if I've accidentally offended them and offered a sincere apology, then it shouldn't become a big deal. 1 it was unintentional, 2 I've apologised, 3 I've said I understood, 4 It's the first time, 5 the end result was positive, etc. So all factors considered, they outweigh the importance of the actions. I don't need to hear a detailed account of how my actions effected them if I've already acknowledged and understood the situation. If I did the same again then maybe, because I obviously didn't understand the first time. In these particular contexts, they appear over sensitive and manipulative. Infjs similarly mention infps being over sensitive, which could be explained by them both placing different weights on the same values. 

A common infj complaint about infps is that infps turn situations round to make it about themselves, essentially attention whoring. Infps explain that they're not 'making it about themselves' to get attention, but it's an attempt to understand. So, they're trying to find a situation they've experienced which can help them relate. It's their way of showing that they're listening, trying to understand and possibly help if necessary. I don't think someone can offer good solutions to a problem which they don't understand. It's possible, but offering a suitable solution when you don't understand the problem is a fluke rather than an accurate analysis. Offering sympathy without understanding would be either pacifying someone because cba to put in the effort or the best I can offer because I can't understand. It seems empty to do that and not meaningful or helpful. If I understand, I can say the right thing and offer more appropriate solutions, I can't perceive that as 'making it about myself'. If it was about me, then I would hope they're trying to understand me otherwise they're offering me nothing meaningful or significant. 





Conclusion. 
They're making value judgements with the same information, but assessing it differently. 

They place kindness above integrity when I would deem it unnecessary, which gives me the impression of being fake and/or manipulative. 

Infps placing integrity above kindness seems to give infjs the impression that infps are selfish and inconsiderate. 

Placing more importance on motives or more importance on actions, leads both to think the other is over sensitive. They believe the other is making 'mountains out of molehills'. I think the issue is that an infp's mountain is an infj's molehill and vice versa. 

These subtle differences are evident in interactions, but not exactly things that could be tested for. The socionics description explains the different angles and perspectives on the same content, which leads to annoyance and mistrust.



Edit. Just wondering what a 'limbic' intj is like? 
Never mind, I've found one you made earlier. :wink:


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Celebrity types have an infp or infj test. I was skeptical, but I got infp result. 65% infp.

INFJ or INFP Test - CelebrityTypes.com

First question is good manners vs sincerity. 
I'd be interested to know if this test is accurate for other infx's.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kyn said:


> @reckful. I wish I could have provided some clear, concise examples for you, but I would have run out steam and given up trying before I finished.
> I'm treating you to something of a stream of consciousness post instead. I came to my conclusion while typing, so I just left it in there. ...


Well, I'm OK with just saying we've reached a kind of impasse if that's your preference — but also willing to continue the discussion, buuut you still haven't given me what I was asking for.

As I've previously noted, but will repeat here for ease of reference, here's what the Real MBTI Model looks like for INFJs and INFPs:

INFJ = I + N + F + J + IN + IF + IJ + NF + NJ + FJ + INF + INJ + IFJ + NFJ + INFJ.

INFP = I + N + F + P + IN + IF + IP + NF + NP + FP + INF + INP + IFP + NFP + INFP.

And also as previously noted, there is _nothing_ about the Real MBTI Model framing that puts any limitation on what aspects of personality may be found to be associated with any of those dichotomies or dichotomy combinations — attitudes, values, superficial stuff, deep stuff, behavioral stuff, how-you-think stuff, or anything else.

You've said that INFJs and INFPs "have the same motivations, interests and temperaments," but I think it's really a mistake to say that any particular dichotomy (or dichotomy combination) is the only one relevant when it comes to "motivations," or "interests," or whatever.

If you're focusing on an aspect of personality that truly is a _typical difference_ between INFJs and INFPs, then you should be open to the idea that, regardless of what _kind of thing_ it may be — a "motivation," or an "interest," or a "value," or etc. — it could turn out that the proper "slot" for that aspect of personality (under the Real MBTI Model) is any one of these:

J vs. P (i.e., it involves a typical difference between J's generally and P's generally)
IJ vs. IP
NJ vs. NP (which might well be something that functionistas tend to talk about as an Ni/Ne difference)
FJ vs. FP (which might well be something that functionistas tend to talk about as an Fe/Fi difference)
INJ vs. INP
IFJ vs. IFP
NFJ vs. NFP

And as reflected in that list, there's significant overlap between the Real MBTI Model and the most popular cognitive functions framing, assuming that you stick with the dominant and auxiliary functions — and to the extent that "Fe" descriptions (for example) are made up of aspects of personality that really are typical of MBTI FJs.

And to the extent of the _overlap_, my point is that it doesn't make sense to say that the functions "explain" stuff — e.g., any typical INFJ/INFP differences — that the dichotomies don't, because anything a function-centric person frames as an Fe/Fi difference (for example) can just as well be explained by a dichotomy-centric person who frames it an FJ/FP difference.

So what I was asking you to provide me is a couple examples of things that you see as typical INFJ/INFP differences, and where you think the proper _explanation_ of that difference is one or more aspects of _type dynamics_ (i.e., the function-centric framing) that is _outside the overlap_ — i.e., that either _goes beyond_ the Real MBTI Model's straightforward collection of slots (the dichotomies and dichotomy combinations) or is _inconsistent with_ the Real MBTI Model.

Here's a theoretical example: you might tell me that you think MBTI SJs are the _most nostalgic_ types, because you think nostalgia is an "Si" thing. And _if_ it's true that SJs are the most nostalgic types, then as long as you're just talking about SJs, a Real MBTI Model guy like me might be on board with you, with the only difference being that I'll say that nostalgia is an "SJ" thing rather than an "Si" thing. But you and I would still be assigning the _same aspect of personality_ to the _same group_.

So far, so boring. But here's the fun part: now suppose that you tell me that INFPs have "Si" as their _tertiary function_, and that's the _explanation_ for the fact that INFPs are _more nostalgic_ than INFJs. And you further point out that there's no dichotomy or dichotomy combination that INFPs have in common with ISFJs that INFJs don't _also_ have in common with ISFJs — soooo if somebody sticks with the Real MBTI Model, then how do they explain that there's an aspect of personality (proneness to nostalgia) where INFPs are more like ISFJs than INFJs are like INFJs, eh, reckful? How do they explain that?!

And that's where I pour on the INTJ charm and I say Kyn, you're cute when you gloat, but _bzzzzzzzzzzzzt!_ — you're also _wrong_! INFPs are _not_ more nostalgic than INFJs.

And I further explain that if SJs are truly the most nostalgic types, then that means the most significant contributors to nostalgia-proneness are an S preference and a J preference. And that also means (1) that FPs (with neither preference) will be the _least_ nostalgic types, and (2) that FJs (with the J contribution but not the S contribution) and SPs (with the S contribution but not the J contribution) will tend to be less nostalgic than SJs, but more nostalgic than FPs.

So I'm not misunderstood, tho, my point here isn't about nostalgia, and I don't even know if SJs are truly the most nostalgic types. I'm just using that as an example of an aspect of type dynamics (the Harold Grant version of the tertiary function) that, from a _theoretical_ standpoint, points to potential INFJ/INFP differences that are inconsistent with the Real MBTI Model.

A second aspect of type dynamics that's inconsistent with (or maybe I should say _goes beyond_) the Real MBTI Model is the _hierarchical_ aspect of the dom/aux relation. So you might point me to what you claim is a typical INFJ/INFP difference and say that it's because, although both types have N and F preferences, the difference you're pointing to is an example of INFJs tending to favor N over F (cuz they're N-doms), while INFPs tend to favor F over N (cuz they're F-doms).

The Real MBTI Model, by contrast, suggests that whether an INF tends to favor N over F or F over N will tend to hinge, instead, on which of those two preferences is stronger — e.g., that an INFP with a strong N preference and a borderlinish F preference will tend to exhibit a stronger N tug than an F tug, notwithstanding what "type dynamics" claims about which of those two is the "dominant function." And so the Real MBTI Model suggests that there really shouldn't be any _typical INFJ/INFP differences_ that exemplify INFJs tending to be more N-ish and INFPs tending to be more F-ish.

And a third, somewhat related, aspect of type dynamics that's inconsistent with the Real MBTI Model is the one that says that introverts (especially) tend to be effectively _schizophrenic_ in the J/P department, since the nature of their dominant function (in judging/perceiving terms) is the opposite of their J/P designation (which supposedly reflects how they deal with _the external world_). People that buy into this framing will tell you that INFJs may appear more judgmental and closure-seeking than INFPs _on the outside_, but deep down inside, the INFPs are actually more judgmental and closure-seeking, while the the INFJs (deep down inside) are the more _essentially_ open-ended and spontaneous and etc.

And again, the main, big-picture assertion of yours that I've taken issue with is the notion that there are INFJ/INFP differences that are explained by type dynamics (in one form or other) and that the the Real MBTI Model doesn't explain. And so, for an INFJ/INFP difference that you're pointing to to work as an example for purposes of that debate, you need to _both_ (1) describe the difference, _and_ (2) tell me _what_ aspect of the functions framing you think "explains" that INFJ/INFP difference in a way that the Real MBTI Model can't.

ADDED: And to maybe clarify, it's #2 that's been missing from your examples so far. And again, it doesn't work for me when, in place of #2, all you do is say that the INFJ/INFP difference you're describing can't hinge on J/P because J/P has nothing to do with "motivations" or "values" or whatever — because the Real MBTI Model doesn't limit the _areas of personality_ that any particular dichotomy (or dichotomy combination) can potentially influence.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@reckful after some in depth consideration, I've concluded that it's likely a case of familiar vs unfamiliar perspectives. Thanks for being willing to discuss it though, I appreciate it. 

Do you know of any sources explaining IJ, INJ, etc. personality traits that you could link to?


----------

