# MBTI is incorrect - a logical explanation



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> After reading this, the real question is whose brain I must splat?


Since arrogance indicates an individual's personal issues rather than their competency level, and you have competency with regard to functions, do you have anything to add to that part of the program?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Seagreen said:


> Since arrogance indicates an individual's personal issues rather than their competency level, and you have competency with regard to functions, do you have anything to add to that part of the program?


I trolled because there's nothing left for me to say that's not already been said. I really can't be bothered to expound upon my understanding of the system but to answer your question yes, I understand it extremely well though I am right now way too fucking lazy to explain why so you will simply have to take me for my word.


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> I trolled because there's nothing left for me to say that's not already been said. I really can't be bothered to expound upon my understanding of the system but to answer your question yes, I understand it extremely well though I am right now way too fucking lazy to explain why so you will simply have to take me for my word.


I don't have to take you at your word because I've seen many of your posts, which are enlightening, yet you don't have the correct answer to everything -- no one does. Sometimes when I get swept up in a net of "you're all too (stupid, whatever)," I'll poke back, but mostly I'm also too lazy.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Seagreen said:


> I don't have to take you at your word because I've seen many of your posts, which are enlightening, yet you don't have the correct answer to everything -- no one does. Sometimes when I get swept up in a net of "you're all too (stupid, whatever)," I'll poke back, but mostly I'm also too lazy.


Sure, but in this case I would say the OP is a result of simply over-thinking something that in my opinion is frankly quite simple.


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> Sure, but in this case I would say the OP is a result of simply over-thinking something that in my opinion is frankly quite simple.


From what I can tell, surfing through various typing methods on multiple forums, either people don't understand the systems or they're so much outliers, for whatever reason, that they can't settle on a type, and they tend to start tweaking the systems so they'll have a slot that makes some kind of sense to their inner sense of self. Personally, being Ne/E7, I tend to destabilize whatever I come across just to see if there's something better to be had.

Many so-called experts in the MBTI and Jungian fields question the alternating attitudes of type dynamics, and it's interesting to speculate as to whether the system should be left open to the possibility that there isn't one healthy lineup.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Seagreen said:


> From what I can tell, surfing through various typing methods on multiple forums, either people don't understand the systems or they're so much outliers, for whatever reason, that they can't settle on a type, and they tend to start tweaking the systems so they'll have a slot that makes some kind of sense to their inner sense of self.


yes, but I think you're too worried about how other people approach the system.


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

Chest said:


> yes, but I think you're too worried about how other people approach the system.


I don't know where you got worried rather than interested. I find it interesting that originators of systems are typically so positive their system will work well for everyone, when I have yet to find a system that does. One possibility is that each system takes a snapshot of a different aspect of people's personalities, and some people land in the middle of the picture and think the system is God's gift to the world while others seem to be split down the middle by the snapshot. I'm not saying that's true of functions, but it could be when it comes to MBTI personality descriptions.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> I trolled because there's nothing left for me to say that's not already been said. I really can't be bothered to expound upon my understanding of the system but to answer your question yes, I understand it extremely well though I am right now way too fucking lazy to explain why so you will simply have to take me for my word.


LOL =D
Lazyness for the win.
It comes a point where you wonder what the point is in making a point.
It becomes rather pointless really. xD

I have no idea what the OP tried to get at.
Seems like he was debating the logic of the labels or something.
That seemed like a dull affair cause the real treasure is realized in the symbols.
If you don't understand the symbol and the principles it manifest, 
you will never see the matrix so to speak.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Dedication said:


> So, what exactly is it about MBTI that is incorrect? And I don't care about all the other models or what all the other authority figures say, I just mean plain and simple MBTI, what about it is incorrect?


Nardi, Beebe and Berens support this model (although they are not sure about the ordering of the unconscious functions): 

INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe (conscious functions), Te, Ni, Se, Fi (shadow functions or unconscious functions, strongest to weakest)

This is incorrect. Si and Fe are NOT conscious functions for INTP.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> I didn't understand anything about what your arguments are with the way you've put everything in list. Seems like a lot of Ni there
> Maybe if you could put it in sentences it'd be better.
> For example, I don't understand why you wrote this
> 
> ...


It is perhaps a bit cryptic, but I'll explain... Thinking and Feeling are decision-making (judging) functions, and Sensing and Intuition are information-gathering (perceiving) functions, as you probably know. A strong T implies a weak F, but T does not affect N and S (INTP: Ti, Ne... and ISTP: Ti, Se... Ti, Ne and Se are all strong and conscious functions). This means that judging funtions and perceiving functions have to be compared separately, and there are only two or four possible levels of strength (=preferred). If Ti and Te are equally strong then Ni and Ne are also equally strong, which implies that there are two equally strong and conscious functions (since we don't compare T with N). This is impossible due to Myers' statement about a leading function (post #1). Therefore we have four levels and Ni is INTP's most preferred (=strongest) perceiving function. Why? We know that Ne is INTP's second most preferred function (premise, post #1) and we know that Ni can't be equally strong as Ne.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Tellus said:


> It is perhaps a bit cryptic, but I'll explain... Thinking and Feeling are decision-making (judging) functions, and Sensing and Intuition are information-gathering (perceiving) functions, as you probably know. A strong T implies a weak F, but T does not affect N and S (INTP: Ti, Ne... and ISTP: Ti, Se... Ti, Ne and Se are all strong and conscious functions). This means that judging funtions and perceiving functions have to be compared separately, and there are only two or four possible levels of strength (=preferred). If Ti and Te are equally strong then Ni and Ne are also equally strong, which implies that there are two equally strong and conscious functions (since we don't compare T with N). This is impossible due to Myers' statement about a leading function (post #1). Therefore we have four levels and Ni is INTP's most preferred (=strongest) perceiving function. Why? We know that Ne is INTP's second most preferred function (premise, post #1) and we know that Ni can't be equally strong as Ne.


'
I disagree.
Ti and Te, Ni and Ne etc are in open attitude conflict.
There is no way they will both be entertained in conciousness.
You forget that the functions are an *addon* to introversion and extroversion,
not the other way around.
Jung borrowed the idea of functions from a colleague and added it to his own ideas.
The direction of conciousness is the absolute determinant, then you are left with asking
what function you prefer.
Ti and Te is actually the same thing, 
but one is operating internally trying forever to abstract it's way away from the object.
While Te is embracing the object, trying to relate to the concreteness of it at every opportunity.
There are only 4 functions, but these 4 can move inward or outward depending on the individual.

Myers was a step in the wrong direction in my opinion, burrying the insights of Jung in stereotypes.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Nardi, Beebe and Berens support this model (although they are not sure about the ordering of the unconscious functions):
> 
> INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe (conscious functions), Te, Ni, Se, Fi (shadow functions or unconscious functions, strongest to weakest)
> 
> This is incorrect. Si and Fe are NOT conscious functions for INTP.


I disagree, as an INFP I'm well aware when I'm using my Te to organize the world around me, or when Si is triggered to compare past experiences. I imagine the same would be true for any person that has knowledge of the functions he uses.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> It is perhaps a bit cryptic, but I'll explain... Thinking and Feeling are decision-making (judging) functions, and Sensing and Intuition are information-gathering (perceiving) functions, as you probably know. A strong T implies a weak F, but T does not affect N and S (INTP: Ti, Ne... and ISTP: Ti, Se... Ti, Ne and Se are all strong and conscious functions). This means that judging funtions and perceiving functions have to be compared separately, and there are only two or four possible levels of strength (=preferred). If Ti and Te are equally strong then Ni and Ne are also equally strong, which implies that there are two equally strong and conscious functions (since we don't compare T with N). This is impossible due to Myers' statement about a leading function (post #1). Therefore we have four levels and Ni is INTP's most preferred (=strongest) perceiving function. Why? We know that Ne is INTP's second most preferred function (premise, post #1) and we know that Ni can't be equally strong as Ne.


Why would Ti and Te be equally strong though? I don't think they can since they are very opposing.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

lapa said:


> Why say that? One process at a time maybe, not one process.
> What is this? Can't you be clear?


"One process *needs to govern*" means that one function has to be dominant. Carl Jung, Isabel Briggs Myers and everybody else in the MBTI community agree on this.



> B) Roger Pearman: "In short, we can't have it both ways. We can't argue that the functions have (a) distinctive qualities with associated attitudes and when integrated in the dynamics of the type these are (b) indecipherable aspects of the type."
> 
> Why?


If the functions are *indecipherable *when integrated in the dynamics of the type, then we can't claim that we know the meaning of Fe, Ni, Te...




> G) T and F are opposites, so Ti and Fe are opposites (Ti: external statics of fields, Fe: internal dynamics of objects)
> 
> What? Where did this come from?
> T and F are not opposites. They are separate. Meant for different things.
> ...


External statics of fields and internal dynamics of objects are from Socionics (but they are not essential for this argument).

We can argue that T and F deal with the same topic as well, since both of them are decision-making functions. The point is that when T is very strong then F is very weak. 




> Combinations c) and d) imply that INTJ's Fe is weaker than INTP's Fe. This contradicts Roger Pearman's statement, since we know that INTP and ISTP are the most *emotionally* detached types.
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> Fi is sensitive to oneself. Fe to the outside. When you can pick up the outside emotion, but are not sensitive yourself, you won't be as affected by it. Fe users are more detached than Fi users. Fe users don't take it personally, so INTP and ISTP are emotionally detached more than any other type.


Fi is about love, hate, moral decisions... (feelings) and Fe is about laughing, social norms... (emotions).

"Fe users are more detached than Fi users." We use _eight_ cognitive processes.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> Why would Ti and Te be equally strong though? I don't think they can since they are very opposing.


_"If Ti and Te are equally strong then Ni and Ne are also equally strong, which implies that there are two equally strong and conscious functions (since we don't compare T with N). *This is impossible...*"_


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> _"If Ti and Te are equally strong then Ni and Ne are also equally strong, which implies that there are two equally strong and conscious functions (since we don't compare T with N). *This is impossible...*"_


Yes, but why make that statement in the first place?
I'm reading your post again and again and I'm confused at this "and there are only two or four possible levels of strength (=preferred)"
What do you mean by that?


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 24, 2011)

It only makes sense to the halfway point, and after that point, I am completely lost. I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

hornet said:


> '
> Ti and Te is actually the same thing,
> but one is operating internally trying forever to abstract it's way away from the object.
> While Te is embracing the object, trying to relate to the concreteness of it at every opportunity.
> ...


You are right, this was Carl Jung's viewpoint. But Carl Jung isn't god... he was a pioneer and published Psychological Types in *1921*. John Beebe and Dario Nardi (and many other typologists) are convinced that Ti and Te are too different to be conceived as "the same thing". They claim that there are eight different cognitive processes and there is a connection between Ti and Te. 

"There is no way they will both be entertained in conciousness." Read the premises in post #1.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Aquamarine said:


> It only makes sense to the halfway point, and after that point, I am completely lost. I have no idea what you're talking about.


Where exactly do you get completely lost?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Tellus said:


> You are right, this was Carl Jung's viewpoint. But Carl Jung isn't god... he was a pioneer and published Psychological Types in *1921*. John Beebe and Dario Nardi (and many other typologists) are convinced that Ti and Te are too different to be conceived as "the same thing". They claim that there are eight different cognitive processes and there is a connection between Ti and Te.
> 
> "There is no way they will both be entertained in conciousness." Read the premises in post #1.


The date matters little to me.
It is if the idea is good or not.
Obviously I do not use Jungs ideas as he did.
I believe they end up being very different, but they come from the same root.

As Jung pointed out, intorversion and extroversion come first.
Then what happens?
You chose an orientation!
When?
Well *as soon as you need to orient yourself in the world* obviously,
hence as a little newborn there must be some sort of struggle for supremacy in the mind.
*The rest is basic developmental science.*
Once you have an orientation strategy, you *using it a lot* *will hardwire it into your brain.*
We all know that the older you get like 3, 5, 7 certain brain developmental paths are cut off.
Like for example picking up a language natively.
I see no reason for why this wouldn't be true for your cognitive orientation to the world as well.
That is why your type doesn't change, cause you using the orientation while growing up
has made it *an integral part of who you are.*


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> I don't believe in that distinction of Fi/Fe feelings/emotions, and why did you put Fi and Ti so high up in the order?
> INTPs have Ti, Ne, Si, Fe and INFPs Fi, Ne, Si, Te
> 
> efficiency = categories, take it from my ISTJ father who had _everything_ in order.


“Ideally I would have everything around me perfectly categorized and in their place.” 

I don’t recognize this AT ALL… and my Te is definitely stronger than yours.

"INTPs have Ti, Ne, Si, Fe and INFPs Fi, Ne, Si, Te" Where are the remaining four functions?

Being efficient is *not* the same as categorizing.

Feelings can’t be Fe (by definition).


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

This:


Tellus said:


> (> means 'more conscious than')


doesn't make sense.

It doesn't work like that.

I just picked on this specific one, but like someone else mentioned before: You´re assuming way too many things here.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> “Ideally I would have everything around me perfectly categorized and in their place.”
> 
> I don’t recognize this AT ALL… and my Te is definitely stronger than yours.
> 
> ...


Maybe because Si-Te creates than need more than Ni-Te.

The remaining four don't matter right now because you put Fi/Ti in the first four, which is what I addressed. 

Categorizing is a good way to be efficient because you know where everything is.

He is attentive to my feelings because his Fe reacts to my expression, otherwise he has no clue.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Your definition of feeling and emotion seem off btw.
Difference Between Feelings and Emotions | Difference Between | Feelings vs Emotions

http://emotionaldetective.typepad.com/emotional-detective/2012/04/emotions-vs-feelings.html

So I don't think Fe or Fi have anything to do with either feeling or emotions themselves separately.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Peter said:


> This:
> 
> doesn't make sense.
> 
> ...


Could you tell me how it works?

Do you disagree with a specific premise?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> Your definition of feeling and emotion seem off btw.
> Difference Between Feelings and Emotions | Difference Between | Feelings vs Emotions
> 
> Emotions versus Feelings - Emotional Detective
> ...


Lol, do you want me to argue your case as well?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Tellus said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In what sense? It is a theory on information processing, however as long as we don't unravel some fundamental problems, such as duality and materialism, properly understanding the link between the physical and the phenomena we call conciseness aka wtf is actually happening, it remains just that, a theory. We do not understand how the body-brain gives rise to consciousness and until this is resolved a proper scientific analysis of how we actually process information is elusive.

This is why whenever we talk about Socionics or MBTI we have to always consider them both valid and invalid at the same time. Taking it with a grain of salt so to say .

In short we assume that MBTI is possibly correct or that there is something to the functions, because we see evidence for it, but we don't exactly know what is going on.

It is sort of like religion as long as one would require faith in the theory being true, something I don't really have , despite this imo Socionics at least in theory is exactly the same as MBTI upon closer detailed inspection. The fact that identical theories arose in 2 different places and different times does give both a certain credulity. You don't have to believe this and I may be wrong or I may be right and you don't yet understand it. At this point there are many possible outcomes all equally valid and invalid, its highly possible that we are all wrong and haven't yet thought of the correct answer.



Tellus said:


> Lol, do you want me to argue your case as well?


As far as I know in MBTI feeling = / = emotions. I didn't type ENFP based on how emotional I am, which is somewhere on the level of an ISTP stereotype tbh. For me Fi is the function that allows me to evaluate the relationship between me and the object, which gives rise to a value I attribute to the object, aka subjective feeling. I process info about the object and make a decision about it that is not based on logic, but on what it triggers in me, more like a gut feeling, like when you know something is wrong because you feel it. This is extremely valuable to me in interpersonal interactions because I can ascertain how someone is feeling moment by moment. This gives me an ease with responding and managing proper psychological distance between me and other people (something a lot of people seem bad at). Now I do not attempt to influence or comply with the object, which is where I differ from Fe preference.

I am not more emotional then any IST I personally know *shrug*, but I do seem to follow what I feel and can read other people's emotional stares rather easy / empathize by default whether I want to or not and I make decisions which include these variables. I can not ignore how others feel or what impact my actions or that of other people have on me or others and I am at all times highly aware of the emotional atmosphere.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

https://www.authentic-systems.com/featured-articles/difference-between-emotions-and-feelings/

*What are Emotions?
*
According to both Carl Jung and Social Anthropologist Abner Cohen, *objects draw and invoke emotions. *This is a natural phenomenon, and is essential for human survival. When you encounter an unknown, you may have a range of sensations such as: curiosity or fear. When you give that unknown a name, it becomes a significant symbol of meaning. It is through this process that emotions become attached to every object in the universe. When some object is given a name, it not only becomes a “thing”, it also becomes something of “meaning”. On a daily basis these emotions can be as subtle as: “like”, “dislike” or “ambivalence”. Even a state of ambivalence is nevertheless a state of meaning. Therefore, to put it simply: Nothing, is ever meaningless.

Emotions offer the sense of life itself. *Emotions deliver the message: “The external world (beyond your body) matters”*. It delivers a sense of life as an abstract, metaphysical idea. Art is a solid example of this. A work of art represents the artist’s own emotional perspective of life. What you value in life, and the choices you make are the results of your likes and dislikes, understood by their emotional attachment.

Your sense of life is an emotional form, in which your world experience finds value, your reason for existence and defines your relationship with other things that exists. Emotions are an abstract, metaphysical state of mind; they are essential impressions of the world, and your relationship with it. Emotions establish your attitude toward reality, and provides your drive for all of life’s pleasures.

Additionally, these emotions are connected to your biological systems, and are designed to alert you of danger, or to draw you to something pleasurable. If you did not possess emotions, you would carelessly walk right up to a lion in the Savanna wilderness. If starving, you would not have the motivation needed to climb a tree, and pick it’s fruit to eat.


*What are Feelings?
*
*As the objects in your world induce emotions within you, they are collected in the subconscious and begin to accumulate. This is especially so when similar events are repeatedly experienced. Ultimately they form a final emotional conclusion about life, how to live it, and more importantly, how to survive physically and mentally in a world of chaos. When this happens a feeling is born. In this way, emotions serve as a sort of, “Feelings Factory”.
*
*Once feelings are established, they often feed back into your emotions to produce the appropriate result to insure survivability.
*

Conclusion: Fi is about feelings and Fe is about emotions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Feelings tell us “how to live.” / Emotions tell us what we “like” and “dislike.”

Feelings state: ”There is a right and wrong way to be.“ / Emotions state: ”There are good and bad actions.”

Feelings state: “your emotions matter.” / Emotions state: ”The external world matters.”

Feelings establish our long term attitude toward reality. / Emotions establish our initial attitude toward reality.

Feelings alert us to anticipated dangers and prepares us for action. / Emotion alert us to immediate dangers and prepares us for action

Feelings ensure long-term survival of self. (body and mind.) / Emotions ensure immediate survival of self. (body and mind.)

Feelings are Low-key but Sustainable. / Emotions are Intense but Temporary.

Happiness: is a feeling. / Joy: is an emotion.

Worry: is a feeling. / Fear: is an emotion.

Contentment: is a feeling. / Enthusiasm: is an emotion.

Bitterness: is a feeling. / Anger: is an emotion.

Love: is a feeling. / Lust: is an emotion.

Depression: is a feeling. / Sadness: is an emotion.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> The remaining four don't matter right now because you put Fi/Ti in the first four, which is what I addressed.


Okay, let's agree that we have eight cognitive functions.

This is ESTJ: Te, Si, Ne, Fi according to you, right? Ne is the tertiary function... hmm 

Which types are more traditionalists than ISTJ/ESTJ?



> Categorizing is a good way to be efficient because you know where everything is.


Your exact words: _“Ideally I would have everything around me perfectly categorized and in their place.” 

_*Ti*, no doubt.



> He is attentive to my feelings because his Fe reacts to my expression, otherwise he has no clue.


He is attentive to your feelings because of his feelings for you. 

Yes, his Fe reacts to your expression, unless he's a robot.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Okay, let's agree that we have eight cognitive functions.
> 
> This is ESTJ: Te, Si, Ne, Fi according to you, right? Ne is the tertiary function... hmm
> 
> ...


It's not according to _me_, but according to MBTI theory. So what if they are traditionalist?Not all of them are, there are many INFP traditionalists or other types. Type alone doesn't indicate what ideology you follow. 

That's not an argument.
I don't believe that Ti can be in the place of Te in the INFP because this creates imbalance. Fi needs Te to support it in its judgements, this whole introversion-extroversion exchange creates balance.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

You say it's incorrect and yet you classify yourself as an INTJ?
This entire thread is giving me a headache.


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

jcatenaci said:


> I think that the problem is that MBTI (as in the 4 dichotomy test) and Jungian cognitive functions are part of the same family but are not really compatible. As foo-foo as it is, astrology has a better understanding of human nature than people give it credit. Yes, you have your sun sign, but you also have a moon sign, a rising sign, etc. all of which are meant to explain the countless variabilities within human personality that account for the variety of our species. If we go by cognitive functions, I feel my stack goes Ne/Ni Fe/Fi Ti/Te Se and then Si. I have a pretty good command of all of them, though. Si is only the weakest because I have a tendency to lose my keys a lot, lmao!
> 
> I know I use Ne and Ni together (as I generate new ideas and then think about them, but then I also find new ideas by examining thoughts I had), but I don't really think anyone who is an N uses 1 without the other. I know that this whole community is sold on the idea that you can't, but I ask people to just sit back and think for a moment. Consider the human mind for a moment. Do you really think that someone would be able to construct vivid, detailed mental images of prior experiences without being able to become equally attuned with their environment to take in those details? That's kind of Si and Se, and I think if someone is dominant with one they are gonna be dominant with the other.
> 
> ...


Sorry it took so long to respond -- I didn't realize I was going to be gone for most of 5 days. About MBTI and functions not being very compatible, I would separate them entirely and have MBTI based on descriptions of the 16 types, and everyone trying to get their dominant function correct, with getting the aux also correct and never changing dom or aux being an amazing feat, headline news around the world. 

Methods such as astrology or numerology don't work for me since I end up in incorrect boxes without any possibility of escape. People who know me well think I should go by sidereal astrology and be a Sagittarius, or they put me in honorary Gemini and tell me not to argue, and since I don't know much about astrology other than I'm not very Capricorn-like, I take their word for it. Having some people running around in sidereal and others fitting the regular method seems to work not much better than MBTI/functions, in other words perfect for some, not so much for others.

I hear you with regard to Ni and Ne, but that's typing blasphemy to manifest both regularly, so I'm going to plug my ears. Sometimes I wonder if we should just call them N/S/T/F and be done with it, which would be difficult enough to order for many people, myself included. And where did Protozoa go? Anyone who strongly defends a system is likely going to have to eat it at some point, which, being Ne, is what I like about the world. The change part, of course.


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

Khiro said:


> Some people refuse to be categorised or lack the self-awareness to see where they fit within a system. They may still fit without realising it.


I had said: "I find it interesting that originators of systems are typically so positive their system will work well for everyone, when I have yet to find a system that does." Here's an example: Kolbe Conation puts people into the instinctive drives of Fact Finder, Follow Thru, Quick Start, and Implementor, giving each a number from 1 to 9. After reading both of her books and researching extensively on the internet, I still don't know where I fit, and taking her test doesn't help. The author consistently refers to high Implementors as the go-to people for such things as fixing a VCR or putting up a bookshelf, and you wouldn't want me anywhere near because the tediousness would have me making a mess of things. But when it comes to the small but extremely important area of mountain sports, I'm absolutely driven to manifest Implementor, so her method doesn't cover my personality. Many methods might come close but have too many people fall through the cracks because they're almost there but not quite. I agree about the lack of self-awareness if people have just started looking into who they are, but after years of study it's not likely to be lack of awareness anymore, and the system might need tweaking to reach the goal of having everyone fit, possibly even MBTI and functions.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

mikan said:


> You say it's incorrect and yet you classify yourself as an INTJ?
> This entire thread is giving me a headache.


Okay, is there anything more specific that you wonder about?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Could you tell me how it works?
> 
> Do you disagree with a specific premise?


Well, your post claims a "logical explanation" but there isn't a real conclusion, which is kind of strange considering it's suppose to be a logical explanation.


There is this idea that the 8 functions are static and do the exact same thing in every type. They don't. The position of a function is important aspect of what they actually do. And besides that, the other functions in their specific positions also have an effect on what a function does (so for example, Ni in an INTJ isn't the same thing as Ni in an INFJ, even though both types have Ni as their first function.) The main reason is that the functions aren't independent processes. There is one process, the brain process to give it a name. The 8 functions are merely descriptions of which all of them together, while taking into account their positions can become a complete description of the brain process (i.e. a type.)

So when comparing different function orders you have to take into account that their positions and the positions of the other functions in that specific order, are a factor too. If you don't, you can easily conclude that things are incorrect.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> It's not according to _me_, but according to MBTI theory. So what if they are traditionalist?Not all of them are, there are many INFP traditionalists or other types. Type alone doesn't indicate what ideology you follow.


This was my question: "_Which types are *more* traditionalists than ISTJ/ESTJ?"

_I am still waiting for an answer.




> I don't believe that Ti can be in the place of Te in the INFP because this creates imbalance. Fi needs Te to support it in its judgements, this whole introversion-extroversion exchange creates balance.


INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe (according to MBTI and you)

Okay, but Si next to Ne makes perfect sense, right? 

Si-dominant types and Ne-dominant types are very similar, right?


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> ... I don't believe that Ti can be in the place of Te in the INFP because this creates imbalance. Fi needs Te to support it in its judgements, this whole introversion-extroversion exchange creates balance.


Saying that it must be so because it's balanced makes some sense, but it's one theory of many, and is it true? Does the human psyche need that particular balance to function efficiently? According to what I quoted earlier from a Naomi Quenk book, some MBTI educators have believed that the tertiary can be either direction, which could have, as an example, ENFP being NeFiTiSi, a possible balance in the sense that the introverted functions balance the dominant extroverted function.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Peter said:


> Well, your post claims a "logical explanation" but there isn't a real conclusion, which is kind of strange considering it's suppose to be a logical explanation.


This is my (and Aušra Augustinavičiūtė's) conclusion:

INTP: Ti, Ne, Fi, Se, Fe, Si, Te, Ni



> There is this idea that the 8 functions are static and do the exact same thing in every type. They don't.


No, but the order of the functions is the same.



> The position of a function is important aspect of what they actually do. And besides that, the other functions in their specific positions also have an effect on what a function does (so for example, Ni in an INTJ isn't the same thing as Ni in an INFJ, even though both types have Ni as their first function.)


You are absolutely right.




> The main reason is that the functions aren't independent processes. There is one process, the brain process to give it a name. The 8 functions are merely descriptions of which all of them together, while taking into account their positions can become a complete description of the brain process (i.e. a type.)


I agree



> So when comparing different function orders you have to take into account that their positions and the positions of the other functions in that specific order, are a factor too. If you don't, you can easily conclude that things are incorrect.


Could you explain this a bit further?

We are comparing the relative strength and consciousness of the functions, nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

Seagreen said:


> I had said: "I find it interesting that originators of systems are typically so positive their system will work well for everyone, when I have yet to find a system that does." Here's an example: Kolbe Conation puts people into the instinctive drives of Fact Finder, Follow Thru, Quick Start, and Implementor, giving each a number from 1 to 9. After reading both of her books and researching extensively on the internet, I still don't know where I fit, and taking her test doesn't help. The author consistently refers to high Implementors as the go-to people for such things as fixing a VCR or putting up a bookshelf, and you wouldn't want me anywhere near because the tediousness would have me making a mess of things. But when it comes to the small but extremely important area of mountain sports, I'm absolutely driven to manifest Implementor, so her method doesn't cover my personality. Many methods might come close but have too many people fall through the cracks because they're almost there but not quite. I agree about the lack of self-awareness if people have just started looking into who they are, but after years of study it's not likely to be lack of awareness anymore, and the system might need tweaking to reach the goal of having everyone fit, possibly even MBTI and functions.


Or the expectations of those seeking answers should be adjusted to more realistically accept the limitations of the systems. I can't continue with the example you've given because I don't understand it well enough, but I can use MBTI to say that there is room for overlap within some systems like these. They don't seek to explain every aspect of personality and they don't seek to tie down every facet of what they cover. Two different types can reach the same conclusion, accomplish the same task, see the same thing, all without ever having to bring up the question of type. 

Basically, I believe a system can be correct, but too limited to adequately satisfy the drive that exists within some people to go entirely without definition unless the definition is absolute.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> As far as I know in MBTI feeling = / = emotions.


Read post #68


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Read post #68


Link it plz.

You should also be aware that even something as simple as waving your hand requires brain activity that precedes conscious awareness of you wanting to wave your hands. Neurons fire before you are even conscious of the act itself. Your conscious awareness of it in reality only happens in retrospect, but your brain fools you into thinking you are actually in conscious control of waving your hand, when in fact you are not. Its really bizarre to be honest that your brain knows well in advance what will happen before you consciously become aware of it.

Source: Do Benjamin Libet's Experiments Show that Free Will Is an Illusion? - Evolution News & Views

Considering the above, what is consciousness really? Are we even in control of ourselves or is it just an illusion and things just happen according to probability as interpreted by the nervous system in advance? Are your thoughts there because you want them to be or are they simply there whether you want them to be or not and you only become conscious and aware of them in retrospect after they happen? Attempt meditation for 10 minutes and you will be painfully aware of the fact that you can't stop thinking, its automated and thoughts come and go regardless of what you actually want XD.

In light of this what are you really? The ghost in the shell exists? *Do you even have conscious cognitive functions?*

Duality seems increasingly improbable tbh.* and we very well may not even have conscious functions only a set of preferences that are not under our control, but hardwired into us.*


> The experiments show, then, that not only are decisions made before we're conscious of having made them, but that the brain imagery can predict what decision will be made with substantial accuracy. This has obvious implications for the notion of "free will," at least as most people conceive of that concept. We like to think that our conscious selves make decisions, but in fact the choices appear to have been made by our brains before we're aware of them. The implication, of course, is that deterministic forces beyond are conscious control are involved in our "decisions", i.e. that free will isn't really "free". Physical and biological determinism rules, and we can't override those forces simply by some ghost called "will." We really don't make choices -- they are made long before we're conscious of having chosen strawberry versus pistachio ice cream at the store.


*aka you have no free will, you just imagine you do.  and we have no idea what the conscious self actually is haha.* If type exists this means you can't change your type aka you have no control over how you prefer to process information, it is predetermined by your biology, what you can do is determine whether to act on the impulse or not & chose another one instead aka making a conscious decision. It is in this after the fact state that we can consider truly having a free will, but we do not apply this to everything, for example you do not chose whether your heart beats or not.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Seagreen said:


> Saying that it must be so because it's balanced makes some sense, but it's one theory of many, and is it true? Does the human psyche need that particular balance to function efficiently? According to what I quoted earlier from a Naomi Quenk book, some MBTI educators have believed that the tertiary can be either direction, which could have, as an example, ENFP being NeFiTiSi, a possible balance in the sense that the introverted functions balance the dominant extroverted function.


I believe it is necessary. Fi and Ti also have many similarities, one is connected to creating values and analyze from feeling the other analyzes from facts but in practice also creates values for the Ti person and sometimes quite strong ones since they base them on logic and facts. If the two were in the same type it could create great inner conflict. That's how I see it at least. Do we really need 3 functions to balance the 1 dominant?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> This was my question: "_Which types are *more* traditionalists than ISTJ/ESTJ?"
> 
> _I am still waiting for an answer.
> 
> ...


Ne for STJ offers creativity, new ideas, innovation but it's also limited by their Si-Te so it's not the same as in NPs. They might entertain ideas and concepts that NPs occupy themselves with frequently but they will become grounded more easily by their SiTe.
Same goes for the Si-Te in NFPs, it works to balance the other two but don't overpower them.
Si next to Ne doesn't mean they are close to power, if we'd assign numbers to how strongly the functions are preferred, Si would be a few numbers below Ne, not right next to it.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> Link it plz.
> 
> You should also be aware that even something as simple as waving your hand requires brain activity that precedes conscious awareness of you wanting to wave your hands. Neurons fire before you are even conscious of the act itself. Your conscious awareness of it in reality only happens in retrospect, but your brain fools you into thinking you are actually in conscious control of waving your hand, when in fact you are not. Its really bizarre to be honest that your brain knows well in advance what will happen before you consciously become aware of it.
> 
> ...


This is a bit off topic, right?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> Ne for STJ offers creativity, new ideas, innovation but it's also limited by their Si-Te so it's not the same as in NPs. They might entertain ideas and concepts that NPs occupy themselves with frequently but they will become grounded more easily by their SiTe.
> Same goes for the Si-Te in NFPs, it works to balance the other two but don't overpower them.


This was my question: "_Which types are *more* traditionalists than ISTJ/ESTJ?"

_I am still waiting for an answer.



> Si next to Ne doesn't mean they are close to power, if we'd assign numbers to how strongly the functions are preferred, Si would be a few numbers below Ne, not right next to it.


INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe

Okay, so what does this order mean?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My MBTI Personality Type - Understanding MBTI Type Dynamics (The Myers & Briggs Foundation)

"Type is _more than_ just the sum of the four preferences. The four-letter MBTI® type formula is a shorthand way of telling  you about the interaction of your four mental functions and which ones you prefer to use first. This is called type dynamics, and it is an important part of understanding your MBTI[SUP]®[/SUP] results. Below are some basic facts about type dynamics.


One preference has the most influence on you. This is called the dominant function.

The next *strongest* preference is called the auxiliary function. It is important because it serves to support and balance the dominant. 

The third *strongest* is the tertiary function.

One preference is the least *strong*. This is the fourth function, often called the inferior function."


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> This was my question: "_Which types are *more* traditionalists than ISTJ/ESTJ?"
> 
> _I am still waiting for an answer.
> 
> ...


I answered to you.

What you quote from the site doesn't refute what I say. The dominant function is the strongest yes, and the rest are gradually less strong, but how much weaker they are from the previous function is not necessarily linear.


Btw don't get me wrong, I am considering your theory these last days and will for the next, I'm just brainstorming.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Tellus said:


> This is a bit off topic, right?


Nope, the factual findings do point to us working subconsciously and consciousness only happens after the fact, it basically equates to a phenomena of awareness in time or in other words a delayed awareness of change, a awareness of subconscious phenomena after it occurs.

This basically would mean that we have no processes that are conscious when it comes to information processing, we just think we do aka there do not seem to be any conscious abstractions such as dominant Fi, only a preference towards functioning according to Fi dominance subconsciously and fooling yourself that it is conscious because you subconsciously seem to prefer it by default and become aware of the change.

 so we can't say that Fi doms have conscious Fi, they have subconscious Fi that enters consciousness after the process begins to unfold aka Fi preference (the actual biological process of this is being studied by Dario Nardi as far as I know).

Cognitive processes seem to begin unfolding before any of them ever enter awareness,*you think thoughts before you become aware of thinking.*


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Here's a description for Te which I relate to a lot, but because it's a weaker function for me most of these cause me anxiety rather than work right. I can use it in a good way when organizing my notes and stuff for my work/school.
Extraverted Thinking (Te)

_Extraverted Thinking deals primarily with understanding and organizing the external world. Extraverted Thinking wants everything to make logical sense, and has very little patience of unproductive activities.

Extraverted Thinking has a desire to control their environment, and can feel lost when they are not able to shape their own external world._


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> I believe it is necessary. Fi and Ti also have many similarities, one is connected to creating values and analyze from feeling the other analyzes from facts but in practice also creates values for the Ti person and sometimes quite strong ones since they base them on logic and facts. If the two were in the same type it could create great inner conflict. That's how I see it at least. Do we really need 3 functions to balance the 1 dominant?


It's possible that Ti with Fi could create great inner conflict, but PerC as a whole seems to treat it as a solid fact when it's a theory that may or may not be accurate. And no, we don't necessarily need 3 functions to balance the dominant, I only brought it up as another possibility for balance.

I'm posting on this thread not because I have answers but to bring up questions, since not just some on PerC but the MBTI/Jungian author community also disagrees on how to order the functions.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> Ne for STJ offers creativity, new ideas, innovation but it's also limited by their Si-Te so it's not the same as in NPs. They might entertain ideas and concepts that NPs occupy themselves with frequently but they will become grounded more easily by their SiTe.
> Same goes for the Si-Te in NFPs, it works to balance the other two but don't overpower them.
> Si next to Ne doesn't mean they are close to power, if we'd assign numbers to how strongly the functions are preferred, Si would be a few numbers below Ne, not right next to it.


The exact relative strength of the functions is irrelevant since Fi is a more logical alternative. Ti, Ne, Si, Fe contradicts Myers' statement.

Secondly, there isn't a big difference in strength between the auxiliary function and the tertiary function. The Jungian functions are traditionally presented in a wheel for a reason.

Thirdly, if we are assuming that there is a big difference in strength between the auxiliary function and the tertiary function, then there is a VERY big difference in strength between the dominant function and the inferior function. This is simply not the case. (75:15:5:1 LOL!!)


This was my question: "Which types are more traditionalists than ISTJ/ESTJ?"

I am still waiting for an answer.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Tellus said:


> The exact relative strength of the functions is irrelevant (but it is probably not linear). Two diametrically opposite functions can NOT be placed next to each other, since it would contradict Isabel Briggs Myers’ statement. Ne interferes the least possible with Ti (judging vs perceiving functions), but Si would definitely interfere too much with Ne (and consequently Ti).
> 
> Secondly, there isn't a big difference in strength between the auxiliary function and the tertiary function. The Jungian functions are traditionally presented in a wheel for a reason.
> 
> ...


It's not irrelevant because the difference in placement of the function creates differences between types, hence why STJ are different than NFP but still have the same functions. 
Given how much Si connects me with the past and helps my Ne return to the moment I'd say it's fine that they are next to each other. You can see that difference with Ne doms.
I don't think the gap of strength is the same for each person or constant, everyone has different strengths, but probably retain the order.

I answered to you, if you seek only a "yes or no" answer, it's not my problem.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> Here's a description for Te which I relate to a lot, but because it's a weaker function for me most of these cause me anxiety rather than work right. I can use it in a good way when organizing my notes and stuff for my work/school.
> Extraverted Thinking (Te)
> 
> *Extraverted Thinking deals primarily with understanding and organizing the external world. Extraverted Thinking wants everything to make logical sense, and has very little patience of unproductive activities.
> ...


100% true. Te is placed in the weakest position for INFP and ISFP... and we use *eight* functions so Te is in the *fifth* position (most conscious to most unconscious).

"I can use it in a good way when organizing my notes and stuff for my work/school." 

This is Te... but what is your argument?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Watch "The Number 8 is Hurting my Feelings" on Youtube.

Kristin: "INFP and INTP are kind of similar... it's just different focuses in a way"

INTP (according to MBTI): Ti, Ne, Si, Fe --> Ti is the strongest function

INFP (according to MBTI): Fi, Ne, Si, Te --> Ti is the *weakest* function

Most mathematicians are INTP so Ti and Ne are important cognitive processes in mathematics.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://personalitycafe.com/infp-forum-idealists/23894-infp-mathematical-bent.html

_"So I'm an the verge of thinking that I'm an INFP. But one thing keeps coming back, I'm heavily interested in math and other technical things, computers and science and whatnot. I think my interest is a bit different than a predominately thinking type."

"The answer is YES. I am obsessed with logical thinking and puzzles. I love computer programming and science was my best subject in school. Anything technical I will study it. And I am INFP."

"It may surprise you to learn that in Gifts Differing, Isabels Myers says that INFPs are often found in the field of science."

"I've only just discovered MBTI personality types, and I'm now almost completely convinced I'm INFP (but I'm still reluctant to commit to changing it in my profile information haha). One of my biggest doubts about my type was the fact I am in the first year of a science degree majoring in physics and minoring in maths and chemistry. However, looking around, especially on this forum where it is actual people rather than websites with a stereotypical description, it seems there are quite a few INFPs who are into maths and science."_


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Tellus said:


> _
> 
> So when comparing different function orders you have to take into account that their positions and the positions of the other functions in that specific order, are a factor too. If you don't, you can easily conclude that things are incorrect.
> 
> ...


Ni in Ni-Te is very different from Ni in Ni-Fe. That's because it's one process that has 2 aspects, Ni and Te (or Fe). If you talk about Ni only, all you can say is that it finds patterns. But you can't say anything about these patterns.

Fi is the third function in INTJs. But it's the first function in INFP's. In an INTJ, Fi basically performs a moral/ethical check (that is, what ever is considered moral/ethical by the person.) So when an INTJ brain's Ni-Te process comes up with something that it doesn't consider ethically corect, it's Fi doing that. To an INTJ this is a very easy and comfortable part because there's no doubt involved. Fi could not be more different for INFP's. So Fi in the first position and Fi in the third position can not be considered the same thing.

Some explanation for this is that depending on position, the input data is completely different. Fi in the third position basically just deals with what ever the first 2 function come up with. Fi in the first position is processing information from the senses, comparing that with past experience and is guided by the second function (Ne which is not an ideal guide for Fi.)

So when you think the function order is different,... You will have to take all of this into account as well.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Tellus said:


> Ti, Ne, Fi, Se, Ni, Te, Si, Fe
> 
> Less preferred and less conscious -> then more preferred and more unconscious -> then less preferred and more unconscious
> 
> This doesn't make any sense.


Why? 

Because there is a switch from "plus to minus", which means that the 5th function is "less conscious" than the 8th function. Therefore we have to place the most preferred perceiving function (Ni) in the 8th position.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Watch "The Number 8 is Hurting my Feelings" on Youtube.
> 
> Kristin: "INFP and INTP are kind of similar... it's just different focuses in a way"
> 
> ...


Hmm yeah, this wouldn't be far from how I experience being ENFP. Despite typing as one I very much am into anything IT, like taking things apart to see how they function and enjoy learning anything that seems useful, for example quantum physics for fun or how I could potentially apply photography and psychology together to produce a technically clean picture that transmits and idea but resonates with peoples subconscious. I especially seem keen on combining things. I also do not seem afraid of taking apart a camera lens and fixing it, to me its just fun and I tend to enter "the flow" as I do it. Was always very good at math as well despite not enjoying it on it's own, its more like a requirement for other things. Very stereotypical STP-ish imo. Have you met an ENFP before who compares and contrasts all existing models of laptops from various places based on technical capabilities in order to maximize cost/performance for the specific task he will require that tool? I basically ignore all feeling & prior preconception or opinion, rely on a logical process of elimination judging by hardware stats.

In photography it bothers me for example that nobody builds cameras that lack amateur functions. I and other people who know how the tool functions do not tend to use some features of a DSLR, because those are redundant. Why does my K-3 need an auto function is beyond me. I do not feel like paying for that if I never use it, I can understand why a K50 has auto thou.

For me it has to do with pleasure and competence. I do it because I like being good at it  and my mental capabilities do not seem to stand in the way of understanding complex logic, especially concrete complex logic with a physical component and I may flip out and get pissed if someone is being impractically illogical .

*I still think that functions are not conscious in any way as the actual physical process isn't conscious and I do not experience Ne or Fi process as something that is active in my awareness. For me both are the basic default way I function in a passive way. For example I have absolutely no control over how the emotional atmosphere affects me, I can't turn off the process of perceiving and interpreting it, but a lot of Ts I talk to seem oblivious to it or aren't affected at all.*

I see NE for example as pattern recognition of how stuff is connected and I do that be default without actively attempting to, it just happens. I see patterns of connection in everything and expand on them / draw conclusions most often automatically ..a sort of involuntary cross contextualizing, ex: stairs are not necessarily perceived as a physical an object, but a way to get upstairs that can be replaced with other possible ways to do the same. If I think about it and become conscious of how I actually perceive stairs, it becomes apparent that I am not directly aware of the specific physical details in front of me, I reduce it to an abstraction that serves a function, which has the same function as something else in another hypothetical situation.

Everyone sort of does this tbh, for example our sense of time is abstraction, because time doesn't really exist outside of the mind. We think it does, but in fact it is just an abstraction we use to perceive linear change. This is why we feel time flows from the past into the future. In reality there is only the impermanent present, but that is for a lot of people difficult to comprehend. Apparently this has also led to problems in physics where time-space is in question atm ...because neither are stable & depend entirely on the observer as mental crutches (aka relative), we need to conceptualize impermanence somehow otherwise how the fuck are you going to calculate velocity .


----------



## AlphaOmega (Jun 14, 2014)

Not sure if the 16 profiles should be expanded to include the "inbetweeners". You will always have inbetweeners.

But I believe it's rather correct for any type who has over 60% at least, in each direction.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> Hmm yeah, this wouldn't be far from how I experience being ENFP. Despite typing as one I very much am into anything IT, like taking things apart to see how they function and enjoy learning anything that seems useful, for example quantum physics for fun or how I could potentially apply photography and psychology together to produce a technically clean picture that transmits and idea but resonates with peoples subconscious. I especially seem keen on combining things. I also do not seem afraid of taking apart a camera lens and fixing it, to me its just fun and I tend to enter "the flow" as I do it. Was always very good at math as well despite not enjoying it on it's own, its more like a requirement for other things. Very stereotypical STP-ish imo. Have you met an ENFP before who compares and contrasts all existing models of laptops from various places based on technical capabilities in order to maximize cost/performance for the specific task he will require that tool? I basically ignore all feeling & prior preconception or opinion, rely on a logical process of elimination judging by hardware stats.
> 
> In photography it bothers me for example that nobody builds cameras that lack amateur functions. I and other people who know how the tool functions do not tend to use some features of a DSLR, because those are redundant. Why does my K-3 need an auto function is beyond me. I do not feel like paying for that if I never use it, I can understand why a K50 has auto thou.
> 
> ...


This is interesting, but what is your argument? There are many ENFPs who like puzzles (my brother for example) and there are many ENFPs who are good at math. But there aren't many ENFP mathematicians, scientists or engineers. Why? Because Ti (instruction, structure, classification, register, parameter...) is your least preferred function (only Si is weaker).

"Despite typing as one I very much am into anything IT, like taking things apart to see how they function and enjoy learning anything that seems useful, for example quantum physics for fun or how I could potentially apply photography and psychology together to produce a technically clean picture that transmits and idea but resonates with peoples subconscious. I especially seem keen on combining things. I also do not seem afraid of taking apart a camera lens and fixing it, to me its just fun and I tend to enter "the flow" as I do it."

This is Ne... you like ideas, possibilities and associations.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Tellus said:


> This is interesting, but what is your argument? There are many ENFPs who like puzzles (my brother for example) and there are many ENFPs who are good at math. But there aren't many ENFP mathematicians, scientists or engineers. Why? Because Ti (instruction, structure, classification, register, parameter...) is your least preferred function (only Si is weaker).
> 
> "Despite typing as one I very much am into anything IT, like taking things apart to see how they function and enjoy learning anything that seems useful, for example quantum physics for fun or how I could potentially apply photography and psychology together to produce a technically clean picture that transmits and idea but resonates with peoples subconscious. I especially seem keen on combining things. I also do not seem afraid of taking apart a camera lens and fixing it, to me its just fun and I tend to enter "the flow" as I do it."
> 
> This is Ne... you like ideas, possibilities and associations.


Was just reinforcing the behavior described in the INFP mathematician quotes . Its different then from a T's standpoint, I'm a sysadmin and photographer because I enjoy creating & puzzle solving....but I hate the user error :S..that fucking meat-bag between keyboard and chair! o_o I also have a degree in psychology (no idea what to use it for thou)...way to reinforce feeler stereotypes. :\ the reason I think I never really continued psychology was that I find fixing IT systems over 9000 times easier & more enjoyable then attempting to fix people.  I also consider teaching the worst possible profession anyone can have, with social worker being the second worst. All 3 always felt like patching the wounds of a sinking ship ^^;...I have a kind of dick-ish approach of : "learn or die XD! I'll provide the info & advice. Too fucked up to function and no potential other then death?...well better luck in the next life old man...not gonna waste time. Its too late now if you haven't done stuff thus far."
*
Function preference does not necessarily lead to certain career or job or even hobby preference, mindset, values, behaviour or whatever outside of information processing, which is why I always considered MBTI ill advised for companies when recruiting personnel.* Its a dick-ish move to have preconceptions about someone through type .


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> Function preference *does not necessarily *lead to certain career or job or even hobby preference, mindset, values, behaviour or whatever outside of information processing, which is why I always considered MBTI ill advised for companies when recruiting personnel. Its a dick-ish move to have preconceptions about someone through type .


Function preference tells about the *most likely and/or most suitable* profession for a certain type. This was (and still is) the actual purpose of MBTI. Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers thought their knowledge of personality preferences would help women who were entering the industrial workforce for the first time during WW2.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Function preference tells about the *most likely and/or most suitable* profession for a certain type. This was (and still is) the actual purpose of MBTI. Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers thought their knowledge of personality preferences would help women who were entering the industrial workforce for the first time during WW2.


That is true, however I learned the following at the uni: MBTI is not valid, it is unusable and a mistake to utilize in HR. There are several problems most of which have something to do with the test itself. Its a self report test :\ we can't expect accuracy and the results are always questionable. The other problem is that information processing preference does not translate into behavior well, you can't predict behavior based on cognitive processing preference. There are other variables that have an influence over the results, for ex. levels of social anxiety, undiagnosed depression, interviewer bias, forer effect/confirmation bias etc..

The Holland Code inventory test is better suited for career & job preference approximation.  sysadmin and photographer are not high on the ENFP list of preferences  for ex.


----------



## Alex Chan (Jun 17, 2014)

I feel like everyone is picking me to pieces in this article 0_0


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Premises are off, specifically C to F :mellow:


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Peter said:


> Ni in Ni-Te is very different from Ni in Ni-Fe. That's because it's one process that has 2 aspects, Ni and Te (or Fe). If you talk about Ni only, all you can say is that it finds patterns. But you can't say anything about these patterns.
> 
> Fi is the third function in INTJs. But it's the first function in INFP's. In an INTJ, Fi basically performs a moral/ethical check (that is, what ever is considered moral/ethical by the person.) So when an INTJ brain's Ni-Te process comes up with something that it doesn't consider ethically corect, it's Fi doing that. To an INTJ this is a very easy and comfortable part because there's no doubt involved. Fi could not be more different for INFP's. So Fi in the first position and Fi in the third position can not be considered the same thing.
> 
> ...


Yes, information is processed differently for each type. This is implicit in MBTI but it is explained thoroughly in Socionics, where functions and information elements are two different concepts.

"So Fi in the first position and Fi in the third position can not be considered the same thing"

This contradicts Roger Pearman's statement (premise B, post #1): "In short, we can't have it both ways. We can't argue that the functions have (a) distinctive qualities with associated attitudes and when integrated in the dynamics of the type these are (b) indecipherable aspects of the type."


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

See post #106


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> That is true, however I learned the following at the uni: MBTI is not valid, it is unusable and a mistake to utilize in HR. There are several problems most of which have something to do with the test itself. Its a self report test :\ we can't expect accuracy and the results are always questionable. The other problem is that information processing preference does not translate into behavior well, you can't predict behavior based on cognitive processing preference. There are other variables that have an influence over the results, for ex. levels of social anxiety, undiagnosed depression, interviewer bias, forer effect/confirmation bias etc..
> 
> The Holland Code inventory test is better suited for career & job preference approximation.  sysadmin and photographer are not high on the ENFP list of preferences  for ex.


My brother (ENFP) took the official MBTI test and he got ENTJ, so the results are obviously questionable. 

"Popular Career Choices by Type" (attached image)


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Erbse said:


> Premises are off, specifically C to F :mellow:


Could you explain a bit further?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

David Letterman, ENTJ: Te, Ni, Fe, Si, Fi, Se, Ti, Ne

Jennifer Lawrence, ENFJ: Fe, Ni, Te, Si, Ti, Se, Fi, Ne

These two make many associations (Ne) that are obvious to them but often quite hard to follow for the audience. Compare with Ellen DeGeneres (ENFP) and Jon Stewart (ENTP).


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Yes, information is processed differently for each type. This is implicit in MBTI but it is explained thoroughly in Socionics, where functions and information elements are two different concepts.
> 
> "So Fi in the first position and Fi in the third position can not be considered the same thing"
> 
> This contradicts Roger Pearman's statement (premise B, post #1): "In short, we can't have it both ways. We can't argue that the functions have (a) distinctive qualities with associated attitudes and when integrated in the dynamics of the type these are (b) indecipherable aspects of the type."


That's all Good.

What I meant is that a function deals with different information depending on position. It does the same thing, but with different input information.

The function itself didn't change at all.


Why is it so difficult to understand that the same process can appear different because of different input info and different priority given to that process?

It's like a bus. One goes to New York, the other to L.A. It's the same type of bus. But they end up in different places.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Tellus said:


> David Letterman, ENTJ: Te, Ni, Fe, Si, Fi, Se, Ti, Ne
> 
> Jennifer Lawrence, ENFJ: Fe, Ni, Te, Si, Ti, Se, Fi, Ne
> 
> These two make many associations (Ne) that are obvious to them but often quite hard to follow for the audience. Compare with Ellen DeGeneres (ENFP) and Jon Stewart (ENTP).


Where do you get this idea from that many associations is Ne??? They are having a conversation and associations are made.

Ne means that from one idea or concept, many possible outcomes into the future are possible and these will show up in the brain of an Ne dominant person. But not at all in ENTJ's and ENFJ's. Obviously, because Ne is their 8th function.

You do not understand the functions very well. You´ve read descriptions of functions and are interpreting them in such a way that they match your bigger idea. It's very typical behavior of INFP's and INTP's (and that's because of having Ne as their second function).


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Peter said:


> That's all Good.
> 
> What I meant is that a function deals with different information depending on position. It does the same thing, but with different input information.
> 
> ...


I agree 100%, but you are contradicting yourself (_"So Fi in the first position and Fi in the third position can not be considered the same thing").

_The same process will appear a bit different, of course, otherwise there wouldn't be 16 types.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Peter said:


> Where do you get this idea from that many associations is Ne??? They are having a conversation and associations are made.
> 
> Ne means that from one idea or concept, many possible outcomes into the future are possible and these will show up in the brain of an Ne dominant person. But not at all in ENTJ's and ENFJ's. Obviously, because Ne is their 8th function.
> 
> You do not understand the functions very well. You´ve read descriptions of functions and are interpreting them in such a way that they match your bigger idea. It's very typical behavior of INFP's and INTP's (and that's because of having Ne as their second function).


Ne is the *most preferred* perceiving function for ENTJ and ENFJ, but it is *unconscious*. This is obvious when you are watching shows and interviews with David Letterman and/or Jennifer Lawrence.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Tellus said:


> Ne is the *most preferred* perceiving function for ENTJ and ENFJ, but it is *unconscious*. This is obvious when you are watching shows and interviews with David Letterman and/or Jennifer Lawrence.


correction: intuition is the most preferred perceiving function for the ENTJ and ENFJ, but Ni will be conscious while Ne will be unconscious. They will be exhibiting both regardless


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Chest said:


> correction: intuition is the most preferred perceiving function for the ENTJ and ENFJ, but Ni will be conscious while Ne will be unconscious. They will be exhibiting both regardless


???

Read post #1


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Tellus said:


> INTP prefers T to F (not T to N/S)


correct



Tellus said:


> Combinations c) and d) imply that INTJ's Fe is weaker than INTP's Fe.


it's not weaker it's more unconscious. It's just as "strong" as Fi, meaning INTJs are more attached to feelings than INTPs



Tellus said:


> E) Functions 1-4: less preferred also means less conscious.


wrong, for examples: Si for and ESTP is less conscious than Ni, that doesn't mean it's less preferred than Ni.



Tellus said:


> Ti is similar to Fi (and Ne is similar to Se), which means that c) and d) contradict Isabel Briggs Myers' statement.


first part is correct, but that c) and d) function order doesn't make any sense, I see you're having trouble with "shadow functions"

think of it this way: INTPs prefer thinking over feeling it doesn't matter if Te is conscious or not it doesn't affect Ti because it's part of the same spectrum which is "detachment from emotions." and "impersonal analysis" 

ps: the 5th function should not be a direct sequel to the 4th (that wouldn't make any sense really), 5-8 is just a mirror for 1-4.



Tellus said:


> Ne is not INTP's most preferred function (2nd position), so Si is not INTP's least preferred function


Ne(along with Ni) is the preferred perception function and Si(along with Se) the least preferred for the INTP.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Chest said:


> "Combinations c) and d) imply that INTJ's Fe is weaker than INTP's Fe."
> 
> it's not weaker it's more unconscious. It's just as "strong" as Fi, meaning INTJs are more attached to feelings than INTPs


Fe is the least preferred function for both INTJ and INTP, but INTP is more emotionally detached than INTJ. Thus, Fe is an unconscious function for INTP.




> wrong, for examples: Si for and ESTP is less conscious than Ni, that doesn't mean it's less preferred than Ni.


Si is *more *preferred than Ni for ESTP. Si isn't less conscious than Ni, but *more unconscious*.



> first part is correct, but that c) and d) function order doesn't make any sense, I see you're having trouble with "shadow functions"
> think of it this way: INTPs prefer thinking over feeling it doesn't matter if Te is conscious or not it doesn't affect Ti because it's part of the same spectrum which is "detachment from emotions." and "impersonal analysis"
> ps: the 5th function should not be a direct sequel to the 4th (that wouldn't make any sense really), 5-8 is just a mirror for 1-4.


???



> Ne(along with Ni) is the preferred perception function and Si(along with Se) the least preferred for the INTP.



Ne and Ni are *not* equally preferred:

A) preference Ni = preference Ne = preference Ti = preference Te (two levels of preference) 

This contradicts Myers' statement.

My MBTI Personality Type - Understanding MBTI Type Dynamics

B) (preference Ti = preference Te) > (preference Ni = preference Ne)

"INTP prefers T to F (*not T to N/S*)"


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Tellus said:


> Fe is the least preferred function for both INTJ and INTP, but INTP is more emotionally detached than INTJ. Thus, Fe is an unconscious function for INTP.


it's not entirely unconscious



Tellus said:


> A) preference Ni = preference Ne = preference Ti = preference Te (two levels of preference)
> 
> This contradicts Myers' statement.
> 
> ...


I've made a thread in the 'cognitive functions' about the use of the word preferences in different context means different things
check it out

example: you can't put preference regarding T vs T along with T vs F


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Chest said:


> it's not entirely unconscious


?


> example: you can't put preference regarding T vs T along with T vs F


Could you explain a bit further?


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Tellus said:


> ?
> 
> 
> Could you explain a bit further?


Te and Ti are both thinking when you use one you're using the other to some extent what that means is for an INTP Te doesn't have need for compensation because it's not being repressed, what is being repressed is feeling, in this case specifically, extraverted feeling (Fe)


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Chest said:


> Te and Ti are both thinking when you use one you're using the other to some extent what that means is for an INTP Te doesn't have need for compensation because it's not being repressed, what is being repressed is feeling, in this case specifically, extraverted feeling (Fe)


This is incorrect. Te and Ti are two separate cognitive processes (which are located in different parts of the brain according to Lenore Thomson, Dario Nardi...), but there is still a connection between Te and Ti. 
(Ti, Ne, Te... is not possible) 

Watch "Extraverted and Introverted Functions: What's the difference?" (2:20-3:00) by InterPersonality on Youtube.


If we are assuming that your argument is correct then:

(preference Ti = preference Te) > (preference Ni = preference Ne)

1, 2: Ti, Ne, Fi, Se, Te, Ni, Fe, Si and Ti, Ne, Fi, Se, Si, Fe, Ni, Te

3, 4: Ti, Ne, Se, Fi, Te, Ni, Si, Fe and Ti, Ne, Se, Fi, Fe, Si, Ni, Te

5, 6: Ti, Ne, Fe, Si, Te, Ni, Fi, Se and Ti, Ne, Fe, Si, Se, Fi, Ni, Te

7, 8: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe, Te, Ni, Se, Fi and Ti, Ne, Si, Fe, Fi, Se, Ni, Te

9, 10: Ti, Ne, Fe, Se, Te, Ni, Fi, Si and Ti, Ne, Fe, Se, Si, Fi, Ni, Te

11, 12: Ti, Ne, Se, Fe, Te, Ni, Si, Fi and Ti, Ne, Se, Fe, Fi, Si, Ni, Te

13, 14: Ti, Ne, Fi, Si, Te, Ni, Fe, Se and Ti, Ne, Fi, Si, Se, Fe, Ni, Te

15, 16: Ti, Ne, Si, Fi, Te, Ni, Se, Fe and Ti, Ne, Si, Fi, Fe, Se, Ni, Te


1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 imply that INTP and ISTP aren't the most emotionally detached types (Fe).

3, 4, 15 and 16 imply that INTP is more physically active (Se) and less considerate (Fi) than ENTP.


----------

