# How to best group MBTI types.



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

This is how I would group the types:


ENFP, ESFP, ENTP, ESTP are the types who gather loads of information about the world. Faster then they can judge it and make sense of it. 

ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISTJ these are the other perceiving types. They bow for reality. What is, is. Refine taste. 

ENFJ, ESFJ, ESTJ, ENTJ Are kinda scary, make the world as it should be. Not necessary take it for what it is. Make awesome judgments.

ISTP, ISFP, INFP, INTP. Introverted judgers. Can have very complex worlds. Want feedback and appreciation on their judgements. 



* *





Some other ways, just to put it out there:



> Keirsey temperament sorter. (SP, SJ, NT, NF)
> The 4 Temperaments
> Guardian
> Supervisor (ESTJ)
> ...





> Quadra (socionics). Groups with same functions.
> ENTP, ISFJ, ESTJ, INTP Alpha. "Spontaneous, disorganized activities "for the fun of it." Light-hearted, non-serious atmosphere with very few "heavy" moments. Skipping from topic to topic without focusing on the implementation of conclusions reached."
> ENFJ, ISTP, ESTP, INFJ Beta. "Lengthy, theatrical monologues. Loud, hearty laughter. Importance given to group rituals such as those related to food and drink. Displays of great generosity and inclusion, but with the demand of emotional involvement in group. Rowdiness. Generally theatrical atmosphere, but with periodic moments of "dead seriousness.""
> ESFP, INTJ, ENTJ, ISFP Gamma. "Trading jokes on materialistic topics (money, sex, winning and losing). Rowdiness and drivenness. Prefer socializing in smaller groups (about six people or less) and planning and carrying out productive activities together."
> ESTJ, INFP, ENFP, ISTJ Delta. "Discussion of interesting facts about people and places. Enjoy group outdoor activities. "Live and let live" attitude. Engage only in "productive" activities and discussions. Prefer smaller groups. Emotionally subdued; generally serious, but with periodic funny moments."





Its usually in groups of 4. If you had to reduce MBTI to only 4 types, group of types. What would they be and why?


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

I'd group FJs (providers) together, TJs (leaders) together, TPs (adventurers) together, and FPs (dreamers) together.
That's just how I'd do it.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> Its usually in groups of 4. If you had to reduce MBTI to only 4 types, group of types. What would they be and why?


For a discussion of "which two-letter group fits you most," see this three-day-old thread.

For a discussion of Keirsey's NF/NT/SJ/SP grouping vs. Myers' NF/NT/SF/ST grouping, see this three-day-old thread.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

lackofmops said:


> I'd group FJs (providers) together, TJs (leaders) together, TPs (adventurers) together, and FPs (dreamers) together.
> That's just how I'd do it.


I quite like this :wink:
But does your judging function make the most difference, or the S/N divide?

So is ISFP more similar to INFP, or ISTP?

I get along very well with my ISTP friend--she took a test. One thing is we are always on the same track. It's never like we have been talking for 30 mins and then just to realize that we are not thinking about the same thing. We communicate with ease and not forcing each other in any way. We also have a lot of similarities. We are just cool and happy even if no one is talking, just sit there watching TV or performance, or doing our own stuff, also great when we talk about whatever.

I know a couple INFPs or INFx. They are nice people and have a lot of interesting things to say, and we _should _get along well, we really should, but there's just something off. A lot of time when we talk, we are not on the same page. It's not just abstract deep philosophical stuff, but also everyday mundane trivia things. Then we ran out of things to say, or we are not quite interested in each other's topic. With the INFx, something just doesn't feel right even if we make an attempt to talk. Often I have to put extra effort in conversation. It's social problem, too. I never seemed to mix with any group at school. Maybe we are similar, but we never get to the point where we share much personal stuff.

Then you realize just how far and easy you can go with someone (the ISTP) you naturally communicate well.

Unless I am not an ISFP and/or she is not an ISTP, I think ISPs are very similar to each other, at least communication wise. She exposed her personal side to me and her feeling, which sounds like F to me, but I can't say. Everyone has that.

ETJ and EFJ also seem to have lots of similarities from the outside. I will have trouble telling which is which if I meet these people. I don't know, I suck at typing in general.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

uncertain said:


> I quite like this :wink:
> But does your judging function make the most difference, or the S/N divide?
> 
> So is ISFP more similar to INFP, or ISTP?
> ...


I don't think S/N is as big as everyone says. Intuitives still use their five senses and Sensors still use their intuition.
That being said, you have some cool ideas.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

lackofmops said:


> I don't think S/N is as big as everyone says. Intuitives still use their five senses and Sensors still use their intuition.
> That being said, you have some cool ideas.


Yes, a lot of NFs I know--again, they took the tests--like to gossip and talk about mundane stuff. But when you ask them, they tell you they don't like small talks.

So... the group just start those small talks by accident and then people follow it due to group pressure? Or what?
If I don't have any actual experience to share I can hardly speak in those conversations.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

lackofmops said:


> I'd group FJs (providers) together, TJs (leaders) together, TPs (adventurers) together, and FPs (dreamers) together.
> That's just how I'd do it.


I think what you are writing works kinda good. But intj and istj should not be leaders imo. EJ's are. 
Intp as adventurers, maybe in their minds. I don't think that counts. EPs are the true adventures.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> I think what you are writing works kinda good. But intj and istj should not be leaders imo. EJ's are.
> Intp as adventurers, maybe in their minds. I don't think that counts. EPs are the true adventures.


INTJ and ISTJ both have Te as a function, despite the fact that they're quieter than their extraverted counterparts. It's true that INTPs aren't physical, but they do like trying new things and exploring new frontiers.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

I always liked NF, NT, SF, ST best.

From a preference of cognitive function standpoint.


----------



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

I prefer SJ, SP, NP and NJ because they all are more valuing the same function. For example, all SJ's value Si more than Ne so they'll have a few of the same characteristics.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

I like SJ, NF, NT and SP.


----------



## GoosePeelings (Nov 10, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> This is how I would group the types:
> 
> 
> ENFP, ESFP, ENTP, ESTP are the types who gather loads of information about the world. Faster then they can judge it and make sense of it.
> ...


Fixed.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ESTP, ISTP, ENFJ, INFJ


loners/rebels, but team players, who want to prove the enviroment wrong/control it. they are good at managing personalities. They make good coaches basically.

I can't even communicate with Fi. I am convinced ESTP is closer to INFJ, than INFJ is to INFP. ESTP and INFJ meet in the middle, eventually.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

BroNerd said:


> I always liked NF, NT, SF, ST best.
> 
> From a preference of cognitive function standpoint.


I don't know how well that works. xSTPs are (mostly) nothing like xSTJs, and xSFJs are (mostly) nothing like xSFPs.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

GoosePeelings said:


> Fixed.


No you did not.


ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISTJ perceive before judge. Even if it might be an subjective process. Can be perfectly fine with a few pieces of information that he knows to be true but is without logic.
ISTP, ISFP, INFP, INTP Judge first and then find evidence. If they see something they don't understand, they might ignore it. If it happens to many times, they change the frame for what they can understand. They change their internal system of logic so this new piece of perceiving information have an explanation. Their internal world have a logic to it, and thats their main concern. It can be very painful if that logic doesnt hold up.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> No you did not.
> 
> 
> ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISTJ perceive before judge. Even if it might be an subjective process. Can be perfectly fine with a few pieces of information that he knows to be true but is without logic.
> ISTP, ISFP, INFP, INTP Judge first and then find evidence. If they see something they don't understand, they might ignore it. If it happens to many times, they change the frame for what they can understand. They change their internal system of logic so this new piece of perceiving information have an explanation. There internal world have a logic to it, and thats their main concern.


All that stuff though, and they never turn into something else. INTJ are not team players. Never will be. They are fair, and cooperative, but they are not for the team itself. Neither is INFP. They are for their position on the team. Or the position of others. Never the team as whole. I realized this through hanging out with ESTP so much. They are team players, that is why they are so rebellious. Because few people are, and they want to win. You win with teamwork.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> All that stuff though, and they never turn into something else. INTJ are not team players. Never will be. They are fair, and cooperative, but they are not for the team itself. Neither is INFP. They are for their position on the team. Or the position of others. Never the team as whole. I realized this through hanging out with ESTP so much. They are team players, that is why they are so rebellious. Because few people are, and they want to win. You win with teamwork.


When talking about team players, quadra is best. Its about relations. When trying to reach deeper and see what people are made of, who the individual are, I prefer this system in first post. For example, if you are trying to type an other person.


----------



## Varyafiriel (Sep 5, 2012)

Best:
*ET:* ESTP, ESTJ, ENTP, ENTJ
*EF*: ESFP, ESFJ, ENFP, ENFJ
*IT*: ISTP, ISTJ, INTP, INTJ
*IF*: ISFP, ISFJ, INFP, INFJ

Runner-Up:
*TP*: ESTP, ENTP, ISTP, INTP
*TJ*: ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ; INTJ
*FP*: ESFP, ENFP, ISFP, INFP
*FJ*: ESFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, INFJ


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Since we're inside the Cognitive Functions, this is the only correct answer I see.

1: ESFJ, ISFJ, ENTP and INTP. (All share and value the conscience use of Fe/Si/Ne/Ti.)

2: ESTP, ISTP, ENFJ and INFJ. (All share and value the conscience use of Se/Ti/Fe/Ni.)

3: ESFP, ISFP, ENTJ and INTJ. (All share and value the conscience use of Se/Fi/Te/Ni.)

4: ESTJ, ISTJ, ENFP, and INFP. (All share and value the conscience use of Te/Si/Ne/Si.)


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

lackofmops said:


> I'd group FJs (providers) together, TJs (leaders) together, TPs (adventurers) together, and FPs (dreamers) together.
> That's just how I'd do it.


I agree


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

Optimist Mind said:


> I'd group types together by the functions they have in common.
> 
> xSFPs and xNTJs (Se/Ni/Te/Fi)
> xSTPs and xNFJs (Se/Ni/Fe/Ti)
> ...


... you would group opposites together? How does that make any sense? They have little in common. (other than their functions, but the order is far more important)


----------



## Wartime Consigliere (Feb 8, 2011)

Eckis said:


> ... you would group opposites together? How does that make any sense? They have little in common. (other than their functions, but the order is far more important)


Opposite? I'd call Ni and Si opposite. Ni and Se are interrelated and influence each other. 

Having all functions together in a group would show a strong amount of differences in each type of the group - exactly because the placement and order of a function in their stack affects how that function is used. I think if they were grouped as such, there would be discussion into how aux-Te differs from tertiary-Te and so on. I think that'd be a great improvement when it comes to not oversimplifying a function's use overall.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

Optimist Mind said:


> Opposite? I'd call Ni and Si opposite. Ni and Se are interrelated and influence each other.
> 
> Having all functions together in a group would show a strong amount of differences in each type of the group - exactly because the placement and order of a function in their stack affects how that function is used. I think if they were grouped as such, there would be discussion into how aux-Te differs from tertiary-Te and so on. I think that'd be a great improvement when it comes to not oversimplifying a function's use overall.


Certainly, but how are ESTPs and INFJs similar? More similar than an INFJ is to an INFP, or an INTJ? You should group them by what they have in common overall, or similar functions (similar dominant or similar auxiliary), not the same functions in the opposite order.


----------



## Wartime Consigliere (Feb 8, 2011)

Eckis said:


> Certainly, but how are ESTPs and INFJs similar? More similar than an INFJ is to an INFP, or an INTJ? You should group them by what they have in common overall, or similar functions (similar dominant or similar auxiliary), not the same functions in the opposite order.


Surely being dominant perceivers and using all the same functions makes them reach the same conclusions rather easily, even if they take opposite approaches to get there. I bet there are a lot of common values, particularly when it comes to people's supplement type (ENFJ - ESTP). INTPs and ISTPs might have a lot in common in the way they identify with dom-Ti/inferior-Fe, but beyond that there's not really much you could look into. I think if the groups were divided by what functions they had in common overall, you'd be able to reach a far greater depth of understanding what it is about Fi when coupled with Si vs Fi/Ni and things like that. It would provide context to the use of functions.

The way things are now, INFJs and INFPs are grouped together despite the fact they share *no* functions in common. That seems nonsensical to me, and seems like it'd reinforce the view that they're "only 1 letter apart" because they're grouped as NF.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Optimist Mind said:


> Surely being dominant perceivers and using all the same functions makes them reach the same conclusions rather easily, even if they take opposite approaches to get there. I bet there are a lot of common values, particularly when it comes to people's supplement type (ENFJ - ESTP). INTPs and ISTPs might have a lot in common in the way they identify with dom-Ti/inferior-Fe, but beyond that there's not really much you could look into. I think if the groups were divided by what functions they had in common overall, you'd be able to reach a far greater depth of understanding what it is about Fi when coupled with Si vs Fi/Ni and things like that. It would provide context to the use of functions.
> 
> The way things are now, INFJs and INFPs are grouped together despite the fact they share *no* functions in common. That seems nonsensical to me, and seems like it'd reinforce the view that they're "only 1 letter apart" because they're grouped as NF.


Anybody who thinks INTJs and ESFPs have more in common than INTJs and INTPs should think about checking themselves into Typology Rehab.

INTJs and ESFPs have the same functions and INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common? Not according to Jung or Myers.

If you're open to some badly-needed deprogramming, you might want to take a look at this post and this post.


----------



## scenefinale (May 26, 2014)

reckful said:


> Anybody who thinks INTJs and ESFPs have more in common than INTJs and INTPs should think about checking themselves into Typology Rehab.
> 
> INTJs and ESFPs have the same functions and INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common? Not according to Jung or Myers.
> 
> If you're open to some badly-needed deprogramming, you might want to take a look at this post and this post.


I like to think of the following as "Cognitive Processes"
Intuition, Thinking, Feeling, Sensing
and combining them with an Attitude (Introverted or Extroverted) yields a Cognitive Function. I've adopted that terminology because it seems, to me, to be the "best" way to distinguish between them while still being able to group all these terms into a hierarchy. But by all means I'm open to specifying better terminology (one of the severe downfalls of the MBTI system, if you ask me.) So in that sense, INTJ and ENTP share the same order of Cognitive Processes but utilize different Cognitive Functions.


----------



## 121689 (Jun 21, 2014)

Optimist Mind said:


> Surely being dominant perceivers and using all the same functions makes them reach the same conclusions rather easily, even if they take opposite approaches to get there. I bet there are a lot of common values, particularly when it comes to people's supplement type (ENFJ - ESTP). INTPs and ISTPs might have a lot in common in the way they identify with dom-Ti/inferior-Fe, but beyond that there's not really much you could look into. I think if the groups were divided by what functions they had in common overall, you'd be able to reach a far greater depth of understanding what it is about Fi when coupled with Si vs Fi/Ni and things like that. It would provide context to the use of functions.
> 
> The way things are now, INFJs and INFPs are grouped together despite the fact they share *no* functions in common. That seems nonsensical to me, and seems like it'd reinforce the view that they're "only 1 letter apart" because they're grouped as NF.


I strongly agree with this. ESTP's have the same functions, but in reverse. The INFP's differ entirely, changing the way they work, even though it may be the same letter (Fi vs. Fe, Ni vs. Ne, etc). I have ESTP and INFP friends, and while I'm very close with both, I will always have a better flow of socialization with my ESTP friend. We both can learn and feed off each other's dom's and aux's while using ours to help them. Sort of how I look at it.


----------



## Draki (Apr 4, 2014)

I think the socionics quadras are the best groups. They have the same functions, they like each other, communication is easy and in real life tests they showed that quadra member search for each other. They also need each other because their strong functions are the weak ones of the other two in a quadra. Of course you can nevertheless cooperate with any other type of other quadras and like them, too. 

There are also the 4 club of socionics (researchers, socials...) But they found out that e.g. the researcher club (NTs) will split up after some time into gamma vesus alpha quadra, xNTP & x NTJ are quiet different. 

Sometimes it's a little bit difficult to see why xNTPs and xSFJs belong together as they tend to dislike each other at first, but the older you get the more you're seeking to improve your weaker functions imo. Duality needs conflict otherwise you don't grow. Therefore MBTI suggests duality between INTPs and ESFPs but imo the functions are too different. There is too much conflict with the vulnurable functions and so on. That's not the improvement types are seeking.

@Captain Mclain your own example makes it even clearer what I mean. Of course these types have something in commen but you choose one type of every socionics quadra which basically means that they probably wouldn't like each other so much. I myself don't feel very connected with most ISFPs (gamma quadra) for example, but you would group me together with them because we are Ji (and Ti vs Fi is a huge difference). I don't think there would be a good atmosphere between them in real life. 

Of course you can group types up like you want, usually it makes sense somehow if they have something in commen. 
But socionics is a very good system in my opinion, and they naturally seem to belong together. It also relates to my real life experience. So in my opinion these are the best groups in theory. 
But again, in real life and for relationships there are other important factors, too.


----------



## Draki (Apr 4, 2014)

Eckis said:


> Certainly, but how are ESTPs and INFJs similar? More similar than an INFJ is to an INFP, or an INTJ? You should group them by what they have in common overall, or similar functions (similar dominant or similar auxiliary), not the same functions in the opposite order.


well think about what inferior function means. It's a function you're bad at and need (and also want) help (usually when you et older in your 20's and 30's. It's kind of you're goal in life to develope it. The dominant Ni functions needs Se but suppresses it, so they need to learn to integrate it in their life. And also the tertiary function shouldn't be negleted (Ti in the case of INFJs). ESTP has Se and Ti as strong functions but weak Fe and Ni. INFJs the other way around. So they can help each other perfectly (duality relationship). Of course there will be conflict but that's necessary to grow.

In socionics also the other functions are considerated (called shadow functions in MBTI). ESTP also have strong Si and Te but they don't value these functions so much. And they have weak Fi and Ne which they don't value, so they don't want to improve them usually. Fi is the best way to hurt an ESTP it's their vulnerable spot and they kind of ignore Ne. They both value and devalue the same functions. That's what the socionics quadras are about. 

What have INFPs and INFJs in common? 
It's Fi, Ne, Si, Te versus Ni, Fe, Ti, Se. You see, they have the opposite functions. Exactly those function they don't value/like. 
Fi doesn't like Fe and Ti doesn't like Te, those who use Ni don't value Ne and so on.
So MBTI suggests now that they could learn a lot from each other because they perceive the world totally different. On the other side they cannot give each other what they are actually searching. In the case of INFJs it would be Se and Ti (xSTPs), not Fi and Ne (from INFPs).

What have INTJs and INFJs in common? 
A little bit more than with INFPs at least. They both have and value Ni dominant and so weak Se which they are searching to improve. However their other two functions are different. So an ESFP would be semi-duality for an INFJ. The ESFP would have Se (good for INFJ) and then not Ti but Fi (so it's not perfect). 

There is a lot more to it. Socionics is quite interesting^^ wikisocion.org is a good source to learn about it. But it takes some time.


----------



## Wartime Consigliere (Feb 8, 2011)

reckful said:


> Anybody who thinks INTJs and ESFPs have more in common than INTJs and INTPs should think about checking themselves into Typology Rehab.
> 
> INTJs and ESFPs have the same functions and INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common? Not according to Jung or Myers.
> 
> If you're open to some badly-needed deprogramming, you might want to take a look at this post and this post.


Thanks for the links and info. I'll check them thoroughly out eventually. Could do without the condescending tone though.

ESFP:
Se - Fi - Te - Ni

INTJ:
Ni - Te - Fi - Se

INTP:
Ti - Ne - Si - Fe

If interpreting those functions stacks as being correct warrants me for 'badly-needed deprogramming', then maybe those posts should be stickied elsewhere in the forum 'cause I'd say it's a pretty common interpretation. Are you referring to the 8 function model where INTJs have shadow Ne, Ti, Fe and Si functions when you imply that INTPs share cognitive functions?

I never said INTJs have more in common with ESFPs than INTPs just because the functions were shared. I just mean that there are some pretty significant similarities that people overlook. This is especially noticeable with the with the supplement type (INTJ - ISFP), because of the shared attitude of the dominant function (rather than both being perceiving dominants in the case of INTJ - ESFP). They fairly often look like 'inside out' versions of each other in my opinion.



scenefinale said:


> I like to think of the following as "Cognitive Processes"
> Intuition, Thinking, Feeling, Sensing
> and combining them with an Attitude (Introverted or Extroverted) yields a Cognitive Function. I've adopted that terminology because it seems, to me, to be the "best" way to distinguish between them while still being able to group all these terms into a hierarchy. But by all means I'm open to specifying better terminology (one of the severe downfalls of the MBTI system, if you ask me.) So in that sense, INTJ and ENTP share the same order of Cognitive Processes but utilize different Cognitive Functions.


I like this. Cheers. Cognitive processes is a good term to add to my vocab, but I've always found the contrast of INTJ/ENTP an interesting one having shared N>T>F>S even though there are no common functions. I'd be curious to see if there was any meaningful expansions on this as a sub-topic like cognitive functions are.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Optimist Mind said:


> Are you referring to the 8 function model where INTJs have shadow Ne, Ti, Fe and Si functions when you imply that INTPs share cognitive functions?


No, I'm certainly not referring to any "8 function model," nor am I implying that INTJs and INTPs "share cognitive functions" — as you'll see if you read those linked posts.

As James Reynierse (among others) has rightly noted, the "cognitive functions" are a "category mistake."


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

*reckful*, I'd like to take you seriously but as long as you haven't debunked Socionics convincingly yet, I can't. Most of my (dare I say our?) 'Cognitive Function' knowledge comes from Socionics. As long as Socionics stands it doesn't matter what Jung, Myers or any other authority figure has said or done.

Socionics has a model that's observably true in our world and explains it with the Cognitive Functions. I'm talking about the Intertype Relationships here. Because all the other systems and theories from Jung, Myers, etc, have no say on this, it does not matter what they say or how they're proven right or wrong. It's Socionics that stands (in my humble opinion) as the superior typology model when it comes to Cognitive Functions.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Dedication said:


> *reckful*, I'd like to take you seriously but as long as you haven't debunked Socionics convincingly yet, I can't. Most of my (dare I say our?) 'Cognitive Function' knowledge comes from Socionics. As long as Socionics stands it doesn't matter what Jung, Myers or any other authority figure has said or done.
> 
> Socionics has a model that's observably true in our world and explains it with the Cognitive Functions. I'm talking about the Intertype Relationships here. Because all the other systems and theories from Jung, Myers, etc, have no say on this, it does not matter what they say or how they're proven right or wrong. It's Socionics that stands (in my humble opinion) as the superior typology model when it comes to Cognitive Functions.


I'm not suggesting that anybody's preference for the respectable districts of typology should result from faith in any "authority figures." It should result from the fact that the respectable districts of typology are the ones whose type dimensions and models have a respectable body of studies in support of their validity.

Socionics is not one of those districts.

You say, I "haven't debunked Socionics convincingly yet," and that Myers' and other psychologists' decades of studies "don't matter" as long as Socionics "stands." Well, I don't think "stands" and "matter" mean what you think they mean...

You'll sometimes hear people disinclined to give up on astrology tell you that it's wrong to think astrology's been _disproven_, because whatever the real/true astrological theory may be has never really been properly tested, and what's more, maybe nobody's really figured out what the real/true astrological theory might be yet.

And my response to those people is: That's fine, but if you want me or anybody else to pay any serious attention to astrology, then somebody's got to come up with the real/true theory and then they or somebody else needs to do some studies that provide respectable support for it. Until then, I have better things to do than read anybody's unsupported speculations. The burden's on the supporters to _prove_ their model; not on the nonbelievers to _disprove all possible models_.

If you want to tell me, reckful, I agree that that INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se Harold Grant function model is probably horseshit and that there's really no respectable support (yet!) for any functions model to the extent that it's not just piggybacking on the additive effects of the (purportedly) corresponding dichotomy preferences, BUUUUUUT I think the Socionics folks have come up with a real/true function theory that goes beyond what can be accounted for by the dichotomies (and dichotomy combinations) and that you can't tell me has been _disproven_ because nobody's every really properly tested it yet.

And if that's what you're telling me: Again, my response is that if you want me or anybody else to pay any serious attention to Socionics or any other cognitive functions ("type dynamics") model/theory, then somebody's got to do some studies that provide respectable support for it. Until then, I have better things to do than read anybody's unsupported speculations. The burden's on the supporters to _prove_ their model; not on the nonbelievers to _disprove all possible models_.

And in the meantime...

You say, "Most of my (dare I say our?) 'Cognitive Function' knowledge comes from Socionics" — but for you to be referring to Socionics as "our" Cognitive Functions theory in the PerC CF subforum is kind of silly. There's a separate subforum for Socionics, as you know, and the cognitive functions descriptions and model that most of the posters in the CF subforum are working with are the Thomson/Berens/Nardi INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se model and accompanying function descriptions.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

reckful said:


> And my response to those people is: That's fine, but if you want me or anybody else to pay any serious attention to astrology, then somebody's got to come up with the real/true theory and then they or somebody else needs to do some studies that provide respectable support for it. Until then, I have better things to do than read anybody's unsupported speculations. The burden's on the supporters to _prove_ their model; not on the nonbelievers to _disprove all possible models_.
> 
> If you want to tell me, reckful, I agree that that INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se Harold Grant function model is probably horseshit and that there's really no respectable support (yet!) for any functions model to the extent that it's not just piggybacking on the additive effects of the (purportedly) corresponding dichotomy preferences, BUUUUUUT I think the Socionics folks have come up with a real/true function theory that goes beyond what can be accounted for by the dichotomies (and dichotomy combinations) and that you can't tell me has been _disproven_ because nobody's every really properly tested it yet.
> 
> And if that's what you're telling me: Again, my response is that if you want me or anybody else to pay any serious attention to Socionics or any other cognitive functions ("type dynamics") model/theory, then somebody's got to do some studies that provide respectable support for it. Until then, I have better things to do than read anybody's unsupported speculations. The burden's on the supporters to _prove_ their model; not on the nonbelievers to _disprove all possible models_.


Do you mind enabling PMs? I'd like to talk to you more about this, but don't want to derail the thread.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Schweeeeks said:


> Do you mind enabling PMs? I'd like to talk to you more about this, but don't want to derail the thread.


Sorry. Nothing personal, but "no PMs" is my general policy. I'm not interested in discussing things that would be out of place in forum threads. If you want to discuss something that would be just be _off-topic in this thread_, you can start another thread, although there's no guarantee I'll decide I want to participate. The fact that PMs make me feel kind of _obligated to respond_ is the single biggest reason I avoid PMs.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

niss said:


> I would think that they would be paired according to dom/aux shared functions. So, ENTJ/INTJ and ESTJ/ISTJ.
> 
> EDIT: I say this because ISTJ and ESTJ are so close in personality styles and approaches to cognitive reasoning. Same with the others.


Very true.
However, interestingly, ESTJ and ENTJ have the same dominant function.
ISTJ and INTJ, on the other hand, have different dominant functions but the same secondary function. Weird.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

lackofmops said:


> Very true.
> However, interestingly, ESTJ and ENTJ have the same dominant function.
> ISTJ and INTJ, on the other hand, have different dominant functions but the same secondary function. Weird.


This is going by what is presented to the world - in all four cases, that is Te. It is easier to see the E/I differences in most situations, but the Ni/Si is more difficult. Many people get confused determining type between ENTJ vs ESTJ and INTJ vs ISTJ, but it is more rare to see someone confused along the E/I dichotomy.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Still looking for "da best" are we?
Superiority for the win.
Maybe it is just different.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

hornet said:


> Still looking for "da best" are we?
> Superiority for the win.
> Maybe it is just different.


I facepalmed.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

reckful said:


> I'm not suggesting that anybody's preference for the respectable districts of typology should result from faith in any "authority figures." It should result from the fact that the respectable districts of typology are the ones whose type dimensions and models have a respectable body of studies in support of their validity.


I have misunderstood you in this case then, I did get the impression that the autority figures were, in a way, a part of the theory.



reckful said:


> You say, I "haven't debunked Socionics convincingly yet," and that Myers' and other psychologists' decades of studies "don't matter" as long as Socionics "stands." Well, I don't think "stands" and "matter" mean what you think they mean...
> 
> You'll sometimes hear people disinclined to give up on astrology tell you that it's wrong to think astrology's been _disproven_, because whatever the real/true astrological theory may be has never really been properly tested, and what's more, maybe nobody's really figured out what the real/true astrological theory might be yet.
> 
> And my response to those people is: That's fine, but if you want me or anybody else to pay any serious attention to astrology, then somebody's got to come up with the real/true theory and then they or somebody else needs to do some studies that provide respectable support for it. Until then, I have better things to do than read anybody's unsupported speculations. The burden's on the supporters to _prove_ their model; not on the nonbelievers to _disprove all possible models_.


It would indeed be ridiculous if the burden of proof fell upon the disbelievers.

If you want to tell me, reckful, I agree that that INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se Harold Grant function model is probably horseshit and that there's really no respectable support (yet!) for any functions model to the extent that it's not just piggybacking on the additive effects of the (purportedly) corresponding dichotomy preferences, BUUUUUUT I think the Socionics folks have come up with a real/true function theory that goes beyond what can be accounted for by the dichotomies (and dichotomy combinations) and that you can't tell me has been _disproven_ because nobody's every really properly tested it yet.



reckful said:


> And if that's what you're telling me: Again, my response is that if you want me or anybody else to pay any serious attention to Socionics or any other cognitive functions ("type dynamics") model/theory, then somebody's got to do some studies that provide respectable support for it.* Until then, I have better things to do than read anybody's unsupported speculations. *The burden's on the supporters to _prove_ their model; not on the nonbelievers to _disprove all possible models_.


I agree with you on the whole. 

To comment a little on the bolded part, by this comment, am I understanding correctly that unless substential proof has come forth, you won't delve into Socionics? I'm asking this because I always have the idea that you're missing a part of information. I'm assuming it comes forth from our different understanding of the personality type theories.

It always feels like your understanding of the dichotomies are a hundred times greater compared to your understanding of the cognitive functions. I might be very wrong, but to me, it appears that way.



reckful said:


> You say, "Most of my (dare I say our?) 'Cognitive Function' knowledge comes from Socionics" — but for you to be referring to Socionics as "our" Cognitive Functions theory in the PerC CF subforum is kind of silly.


That's true, there was hesitation on my part on whether or not I should've posted it in the first place.


----------

