# "ENxPs" some of you are in denial about what type you are



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

FlaviaGemina said:


> OK.. but it still doesn't add up.
> How are ENTJs an extraverted intuitive type in the same way that ENXPs are also an extraverted intuitive type?
> ==> What does J/P actually mean and how does it operate? Is is stuck on as an afterthought to the same process? Or does J change the nature of the thought process itself?


I'm comparison to ENTJ, ENTPs are ENxP predominantly.

So these characteristics are more prevalent than ExTx, which makes them ENTP.

So they're more focused on exploring options and possibilities rather than taking action.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Turi said:


> I'm comparison to ENTJ, ENTPs are ENxP predominantly.
> 
> So these characteristics are more prevalent than ExTx, which makes them ENTP.
> 
> So they're more focused on exploring options and possibilities rather than taking action.


OK. But ESTPs are also more focused on taking action than ENTPs. Both are P, though. So what is it that makes ESTPs focused on taking action? Surely not "ES" because we can see a clear difference between ESTJs and ESTPs, while both are ES. 
It can't be S either because ISTJs are in no way more likely to "take action" than INTJs. Depending on what kind of situation you're looking at, they're even less likely to do so.


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Turi said:


> No, he hasn't, Dario Nardi himself had literally said Neuroscience of Personality was a pilot test that "proved nothing".
> 
> Still a long way to go.
> 
> ...


So question

Say someone was an ENTJ

You believe they prefer Te and Ti equally then Ne/Ni second equally etc.?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

FlaviaGemina said:


> OK. But ESTPs are also more focused on taking action than ENTPs. Both are P, though. So what is it that makes ESTPs focused on taking action? Sure not "ES" because we can see a clear difference between ESTJs and ESTPs, while both are ES.
> It can't be S either because ISTJs are in no way more likely to "take action" than INTJs. Depending on what kind of situation you're looking at, they're even less likely to do so.


Of course it's the S/N that separates ENTP from ESTP.
Read Jungs Extraverted Sensation type descriptor. That's what ESTPs prefer. 
Read the Extraverted Intuitive type descriptor. That's what ENTPs prefer.
Both are Extraverted Thinking types as well but this rational Thinking is subservient to their preference as whichever Extraverted Perceiving type they are.

The difference between ESTP and ESTJs is ESTJs are predominantly Extraverted Thinking types and ESTPs are predominantly Extraverted Sensation types.

The 'clear' difference between the two types - and any types that differ by J/P, actually, is nowhere near as 'clear' as you seem to believe.

Read this, if you're interested.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

spaceynyc said:


> So question
> 
> Say someone was an ENTJ
> 
> You believe they prefer Te and Ti equally then Ne/Ni second equally etc.?


No, that theory was sort of a work-in-progress - unsure whether I want to proceed with that or not even though I do believe there's some truth to it.
I prefer the one I'm working with atm that would suggest say, for you as an INFJ.

Introverted intuitive type predominant (INxP really), followed by introverted feeling type (IxFJ).
Due to preferring the introverted intuitive type more than the introverted feeling type, end result becomes INFP - INFJ in 'mbti' language.

You'll find a plethora of INFJs actually prefer 'Fi' over 'Fe' too which makes sense because INFJs are not ExFJs, and ExFJ = Extraverted Feeling type.

It just makes no sense to me for say an INFJ to somehow prefer Extraverted Feeling over Introverted Feeling when they're an introverted feeler - hence the IxFx preferences.

My 'stack' would look like this I I E E for introverts, and E E I I for extraverts.

I want to flesh this idea out because it works, imo.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

FlaviaGemina said:


> OK. But ESTPs are also more focused on taking action than ENTPs. Both are P, though. So what is it that makes ESTPs focused on taking action? Sure not "ES" because we can see a clear difference between ESTJs and ESTPs, while both are ES.


What is that difference exactly?


> It can't be S either because ISTJs are in no way more likely to "take action" than INTJs. Depending on what kind of situation you're looking at, they're even less likely to do so.


The one study I can think of off the top of my head implies that INTJs are less likely to "take action" than ISTJs, being lower than the other TJs in "Tough-minded, self-oriented assertiveness" in the SYMLOG study listed in the 1998 MBTI Manual.

Even Grant stacks give INTJs "inferior Se".


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Ocean Helm said:


> What is that difference exactly?
> 
> The one study I can think of off the top of my head implies that INTJs are less likely to "take action" than ISTJs, being lower than the other TJs in "Tough-minded, self-oriented assertiveness" in the SYMLOG study listed in the 1998 MBTI Manual.
> 
> Even Grant stacks give INTJs "inferior Se".


That's why I said it depends on the type of situation and what is actually meant by "taking action". ISTJs have no Se (in MBTI) or they do have it but disregard it (in socionics).

What are some of the differences between ESTJ and ESTP? 
ESTJs are more 'conservative' in many ways, e.g. they like to get heated up about law an order, doing things the right way etc. ESTPs enjoy risky behaviours, some of which can be borderline illegal. They're also more likely to try anything that works instead of thinking that there is one right way of doing something. So far so good. We could say that's because of J vs. P because that's the only letter that is different. ESTJs control their environment predominantly by barking orders and glaring at people, ESTPs have a strong physical presence and they know how to intimidate people by invading their personal space, discouraging invaders by literally standing their ground in the physical world etc.

So why are INTJs and ENTJs not 'conservative' in the same way that ESTJs are? Both have J. 
Why are ENTPs and ENFPs not 'reckless' in the same way ESTPs are? Both have P.



> Tough-minded, *self-oriented* assertiveness"


What exactly is the 'self' in 'self-oriented' and how is it related to "taking action"? 

Anyway, let's look at the example of my ISTJ husband. When he's at a party, he insists on sitting in a corner and grumbling and he will not be persuaded to dance or otherwise make a fool of himself. Is he being assertive? Yes. Is he taking action? Not really, except by making an utterance to assert himself. Otherwise he is insisting on his right to inactivity.
Compare this to when an 'emergency' arises, e.g. the fire alarm goes off, there is a change of plan due to external circumstances .. He freezes and panics because things aren't working the way they should, I swing into action by coming up with an alternative solution and going with the flow. It's the same with my ISFJ colleague, who physically hyperventilates when there is a new policy, whereas I shrug and start implementing it (although I might curse about it).


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

spaceynyc said:


> So question
> 
> Say someone was an ENTJ
> 
> You believe they prefer Te and Ti equally then Ne/Ni second equally etc.?


I think he's saying Te and Ti etc. do not exist at all. There is only T. You just add up the 4 letters somehow and get different types.

He is actually presenting the 4-Letter model correctly as far as I'm aware. It's not only him who says this, but the "official" version of MBTI.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

FlaviaGemina said:


> That's why I said it depends on the type of situation and what is actually meant by "taking action". ISTJs have no Se (in MBTI)


I don't think that's how you're supposed to interpret function stacks in MBTI (as in if it's not in your function stack you "don't have it"). I'm not well-versed in MBTI literature but from what I've read in the official manual I've never seen anything like that.


> or they do have it but disregard it (in socionics).


Socionics is not MBTI and is irrelevant to this discussion.


> What are some of the differences between ESTJ and ESTP?
> ESTJs are more 'conservative' in many ways, e.g. they like to get heated up about law an order, doing things the right way etc. ESTPs enjoy risky behaviours, some of which can be borderline illegal. They're also more likely to try anything that works instead of thinking that there is one right way of doing something. So far so good. We could say that's because of J vs. P because that's the only letter that is different.


Yes we can.


> ESTJs control their environment predominantly by barking orders and glaring at people, ESTPs have a strong physical presence and they know how to intimidate people by invading their personal space, discouraging invaders by literally standing their ground in the physical world etc


This sounds more like stereotyping than anything. Who is to say ESTJs don't have a strong physical presence? I think Js in general are more "controlling". It's part of the J's compulsion to organize.


> So why are INTJs and ENTJs not 'conservative' in the same way that ESTJs are? Both have J.


Ss are more 'conservative' (especially ideologically) than Ns.


> Why are ENTPs and ENFPs not 'reckless' in the same way ESTPs are? Both have P.


Is this even true?


> What exactly is the 'self' in 'self-oriented' and how is it related to "taking action"?


Not sure how they did that honestly, but I believe that people focused on their direct environment and concrete information are more likely to be 'assertive' and 'take action'. And this describes Ss in general.


> Anyway, let's look at the example of my ISTJ husband. When he's at a party, he insists on sitting in a corner and grumbling and he will not be persuaded to dance or otherwise make a fool of himself. Is he being assertive? Yes. Is he taking action? Not really, except by making an utterance to assert himself. Otherwise he is insisting on his right to inactivity.


I wouldn't base too much on one anecdote. A lot of ISTJs love to dance, but in general it is true that S's are less likely to go out of their comfort zone. ENxPs try new things more than ESxPs too.


> Compare this to when an 'emergency' arises, e.g. the fire alarm goes off, there is a change of plan due to external circumstances .. He freezes and panics because things aren't working the way they should, I swing into action by coming up with an alternative solution and going with the flow.


This is very anecdotal. I'd imagine Ss are quicker to react to immediate physical changes in general like fire alarms.


> It's the same with my ISFJ colleague, who physically hyperventilates when there is a new policy, whereas I shrug and start implementing it (although I might curse about it).


This is way different than a fire alarm. In this case I'd expect Ns to be more adaptable to new policies.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Ocean Helm said:


> I don't think that's how you're supposed to interpret function stacks in MBTI (as in if it's not in your function stack you "don't have it"). I'm not well-versed in MBTI literature but from what I've read in the official manual I've never seen anything like that.
> 
> Socionics is not MBTI and is irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> ...


I don't just have one anecdote. These anecdotes just exemplify the typical behaviour of those people. It's a pattern I have noticed in these people, but I don't think it's necessary to write down every single example, unless you want a second-by-second account of what goes on around me every day.
My husband is focused on his direct environment, but not in the same way an EXSP is. E.g. he likes to observe changes, e.g. how many new buildings there are in town etc. He also likes just looking around at restaurants. He notices things that will make him uncomfortable, such as dust, a mess etc. They bother him far more than they bother me. He could enter an otherwise perfectly clean room with one tiny item out of place and he would focus on that item and not be able to rest until he has tidied it up. I've seen the same behaviour in many ISXJs. But this does not mean he is able to deal with the physical world well. On the contrary, the physical world overwhelms him more easily than it overwhelms me and that's why he tries to control it. If he cannot control it directly, he tries to control it mentally by imagining an ideal system in which such nuisances would not exist. Then he gets terribly rattled if reality turns out to be different. E.g. when we go to the airport, he expects the sign with the gates to be in a particular place. I see where the sign really is and he ignores me because he thinks it would make more sense for it to be somewhere else. He does not go to places to look around and figure things out on the go like an ESTP or ESFP would be able to do.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

1nquisitor said:


> Yes, but it is a question of what do you do more of... The simple act of playing a sport wouldn't make you automatically extroverted. How long can you be aware of your surroundings without tiring? Take me for example: INTJ. I can use Te and organise things for quite a while, but after a certain point, I will feel like I need to withdraw and rest. Ni is my natural mental state. It is a question of preferences: how much time can you use Ti compared to how much time can you use Se, without tiring? If you prefer to use Ti more than Se, then you're an ISTP, if you prefer to use Se more than Ti, then you're an ESTP.
> 
> Yes, you're right it does get quite ambiguous... I guess that's why there are so many people mistyping or having problems finding their type. I, for one, can see both the Ni and Te within me... But I kind of use them about the same, Ni a bit more, but Te isn't very far behind... So yeah... It can get confusing at times!


You can't do anything for an infinite amount of time. Even extraverts need to be alone once in awhile and vice-versa. But what do you do more and what can you do longer? Playing solitary sports with no social interaction is introverted in nature.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

@*Ocean Helm*
Let me just bring up the point of people being "self-oriented" again just to philosophise about it. The thing is that a lot of studies use abstract categories and I'm not sure that matching abstract categories (like e.g. types) with other abstract categories (like "self-oriented") will always yield insights because the second type of abstract category could be interpreted in a number of ways.

Let's look at what "self" could mean:

- Your body/ appearance/ bodily integrity/ physical needs, e.g. "It doesn't matter that you don't like your nose because most female celebrities also have something that they don't like about_ themselves_."
+ your right to physical existence and survival: "A mugger attacked me and I defended _myself_."

- Your economic needs/ status/ entitlement + career aspirations: "Look at XYZ millionaire. He did very well for _himself_." "My best friend is going for the same job as me, but I can't let my feelings prevent me from applying, I have to put _myself_ first."

- Your opinion, e.g. on how to solve a problem: "I had to assert _myself_ against my boss in that meeting because his solution just wasn't practical."

- Your status in different types of hierarchy, e.g. social, educational, age-related etc.

- Your personal/ moral values 

- Your personal experience, narrative, perception etc.

- Your feelings, mental health etc.

I can think of many examples where these different types of 'self'-assertion would lead to different results or be incompatible.
E.g. I know an INFJ who sees cooperation as one of her core values. In some meetings, she is expected to 'assert herself' (i.e. to stress her status in some kind of hierarchy) and to seek an all-or-nothing solution based on her own viewpoint. This is what her 'opponents' in the meeting do.
But she consciously refuses to do this because she values cooperation more. She is asserting her moral self (her values) by refusing to assert her supposed economic/ hierarchical self (refusing to be pushy and uncompromising). To people who share her values, it will seem like she is being brave by sticking to her guns. To people who do not share her values, it will seem like she's a pushover and not 'asserting herself'.


----------



## Mez (May 3, 2017)

Cognitive functions are called "cognitive" because they are about "cognition" and not about "behavior". If they'd be about behavior they'd be called "behavioral functions".

As much as I understand, functions (aka cognition) is about how people process information, how they think about information, what aspects of that information they prioritize instinctively, and which they choose to discard. Not necessarily how they act, because there's an overwhelming amount of factors that can influence a person's behavior outside of his own mere self-brain-induced preferences.

A person can act as an extrovert when placed in an academic environment, but begin acting as an introvert when placed in a laid-back social environment. The questions that should be posed are "why?" and not "what?"/"how?", why he is motivated to do the things he does, why he is driven to do the things he wants to do. (even if he doesn't do them in the end)

I honestly don't believe that extroverts are incapable of shame, shyness, insecurity, doubt. Especially if every display of his extroverted behavior is in some way punished by a third party, he will learn to imitate an introvert as a reflex.
Likewise, introverts can teach themselves extroverted behavior. But just because they know how to appear convincingly extroverted, doesn't mean they enjoy it deep inside.

Dichotomy might be useful in determining a person's *current* mode of behavior, but as he matures and changes, going through different life experiences, his dichotomy result will also keep changing. But isn't MBTI more about determining the person's natural default orientation, rather than temporary changes of heart?

I was somewhat of a S as a kid, but my adult self gets N results. If I will answer dichotomy tests, as I would answer them as my 10 y.o. self, I would definitely get ISTP. But if I answer them as my 25 y.o. self, I get stuff like INTP or INTJ or INFJ. No doubt by the time I reach 35 y.o. having become more wise, matured, and confident, I'll start getting something like E_F_

So dichotomy is pointless in the sense that it doesn't really tell you anything about your long-term self. Only about your current self.

I think functions are exactly what defines the natural inborn orientation, but they seem extremely confusing due to the enormous amount of manipulative pseudo-theories about what each function represents. Functions need to be standardized and professionally defined. Not dichotomy.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

@*Mez* you made some good points about there being all kinds of other factors that can influence a person's behaviour.

However, I don't think that cognitive functions are just an internal process that has no consequences on behaviour. E.g. your T/F preferences will influence how you interact with people. The way you interact with them will cause them to react to you in a certain way etc. Your N/S preferences will affect the way you perceive the world and what kinds of things you turn your attention to.. what kinds of things you think need to be addressed and what don't. (E.g. If you don't perceive something in the first place, you're not going to do anything about it). Then people with a different perception might think you are prioritizing the wrong things, which will affect your relationship with them etc.


----------



## Mez (May 3, 2017)

FlaviaGemina said:


> E.g. your T/F preferences will influence how you interact with people.


Based on my experience, what influences my interaction with people is my knowledge about the world.
If I prioritized certain aspects in my interaction (lets say, logic) before attending university, I started prioritizing emotional cues after attending university. Reason for this is: I studied classical political philosophy, and learned a few tips on how to "handle" people. Hence, my behavior undergoes a sharp change due to academically gained knowledge. I become aware of aspects in human interaction which I've never really even suspected exist. Now that I know they exist, I behave differently.



FlaviaGemina said:


> Your N/S preferences will affect the way you perceive the world and what kinds of things you turn your attention to.. what kinds of things you think need to be addressed and what don't. (E.g. If you don't perceive something in the first place, your not going to do anything about it).


Again, I would ascribe these N/S preferences to learned behavior.
As an example, my father was working in the military bureaucracy for 20 years of his life, and spending a substantial amount of time with him, I learned to pay a lot of attention to my environment, to start seeking out and identifying potential threats everywhere I go. Although prior to spending a lot of time with my dad, I was completely oblivious to my environment to the point of nearly getting hit by a car due to spacing out.

Learned knowledge substantially affects how you behave and what you pay or don't pay attention to.
Cognition is about "why" you do it and not "what" you do.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

While we're all arguing about cognitive functions (as in function+orientation), does anyone have a link to a canonical and 'official' list of function definitions in MBTI?
I hope they're not all as hopelessly stupid and superficial as the MBTI definitions of Se one comes across on the internet.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You can't do anything for an infinite amount of time. Even extraverts need to be alone once in awhile and vice-versa. But what do you do more and what can you do longer? Playing solitary sports with no social interaction is introverted in nature.


It's true, we can't do anything for an infinite amount of time. And again the question posed by you is correct, but I don't think solitary sports are necessarily introverted. It depends on why the person does them. Just like playing team sports doesn't make one an extrovert. I'm an introvert and I played team sports and my favourite sports are team sports.

Let me give you an example of what I mean: say you play golf (it's quite solitary), maybe you like the calmness of you just being there alone with the ball and trying to calculate or anticipate the ball's trajectory and how to strike it. That would be a sign of introversion. Or maybe another person likes to play golf since he appreciates the one-on-one competition and the discussions he gets to have while playing golf with other people. That would be a sign of extroversion. I want to stress the word sign... You can still be an extrovert, even if you have some introverted traits and you can still be an introvert, even if you have some extroverted traits.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> While we're all arguing about cognitive functions (as in function+orientation), does anyone have a link to a canonical and 'official' list of function definitions in MBTI?
> I hope they're not all as hopelessly stupid and superficial as the MBTI definitions of Se one comes across on the internet.


You could get and read _Gifts Differing_.  Myers does spend time defining the functions. They're... well, some of them are surprisingly on point, others less so. *shrugs*


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> If you spend more time alone than you do prefer solitude.


Or perhaps you suffer from social anxiety and being alone is the only way you can be at peace, even if you crave for social interactions.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Jewl said:


> You could get and read _Gifts Differing_.  Myers does spend time defining the functions. They're... well, some of them are surprisingly on point, others less so. *shrugs*


There's some tables that are formed from Katherine's _initial _study of Psychological Types that outline the functions, but I'm hesitant to rely on those as gospel because well, they're from her initial study.
I do like those tables, however, as well as the bullet-point lists of traits the begin every type descriptor.

The type descriptors themselves, whilst appearing as say "Extraverted Thinking supported by Sensing" are written as more like, well, type descriptors, than function descriptors - I don't feel like the 'functions' so to speak, are really discussed or defined at all.

The function attitudes aren't discussed in the chapters pertaining to each dichotomy preference either.

If I'm totally missing a section where they define the 'functions' (outside of what I outlined above), I'd love to know so I can have a read.
I also can't find where it's clearly laid out that the 'auxiliary' is in the opposite attitude to the dominant.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

xraydav said:


> Sometimes you’re gonna have to accept that what you see as so bad in the world, may tell you more about yourself, more than the world itself.
> 
> I wouldn’t necessarily go around criticising other MBTI types so throughly. If I did, it would probably be the INTP type, and those who type as INTP. Guess my type? Some Nosy INTP.
> 
> ...


Lmao what does any of that have to do with what I said? Stop trying to silence me just cause you have no argument. If you were honest in what you were saying you wouldn't be engaging with me right now. Let it go.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Lol no, the way they interact with people may be different but they still interact with and are oriented to people. Not towards thoughts and being alone.


Based on what reasoning? The first ever Te-dom definition specifically mentioned Darwin as a Te-dom because he created a theory with a strong focus on objective data. Not out of some shallow reasoning involving Darwin being a socialite. Trying to apply these shallow stereotypes to functions is just dumb.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

AZH said:


> Based on what reasoning? The first ever Te-dom definition specifically mentioned Darwin as a Te-dom because he created a theory with a strong focus on objective data. Not out of some shallow reasoning involving Darwin being a socialite. Trying to apply these shallow stereotypes to functions is just dumb.


If Darwin is introverted than he leads with an introverted function and is in actuality an IxTJ. Calling extraverted functions extraverted is "shallow stereotypes" yeah alright boss.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> If Darwin is introverted than he leads with an introverted function and is in actuality an IxTJ. Calling extraverted functions extraverted is "shallow stereotypes" yeah alright boss.


I'm calling it shallow reasoning because you're being absolutist about a particular definition. Then you're trying to apply it to functions nonsensically. Meanwhile your every response is just sounding like a crappy attempt at trolling.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

AZH said:


> I'm calling it shallow reasoning because you're being absolutist about a particular definition. Then you're trying to apply it to functions nonsensically. Meanwhile your every response is just sounding like a crappy attempt at trolling.


An extravert is someone that gets energy from people. Te, Se, Fe and Ne are just the type of extravert they are, they're still extraverts. If you're not extraverted than you don't lead with an extraverted function. You spend more time in your head and lead with an introverted function. What is so hard about this? I'm the troll for saying extraverts are extraverted, lol wut?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I don't think extraverts can have social anxiety to THAT degree. And wouldn't one have to be introverted to be overthinking it to the point of anxiety?


Why not? Anxiety is unrelated to typology in most cases. Plus overthinking something does not an introvert make. Hell, I could make an argument that the absolute worst overthinkers are Ti inferiors.

If you go by MBTI's idea of extroversion as something oriented around the social... as it's seen as initiating, being expressive, gregariousness, activity and enthusiasm (aka. your friendly neighbourhood ESTJ). Whereas introversion is seen as receiving, being contained, intimacy, reflection and quietness.

Well then, it'd be possible to check out as either one here simply because it's the more accurate one, despite not even being close. There are plenty of scenarios where other parts of personality as well as external situations weight in more than these types of labels. Too much variation to say anything for certain.

Besides, these strike me as momentary preferences anyone could have and that could chance and also not always be mutually exclusive... some tendencies may be more deeply ingrained in you, sure, but I fail to see how these are things that would deeply define you as a person... they may give indications on what your temperament or attitude are but it's pretty vague at best and pathetic at worst.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> An extravert is someone that gets energy from people.


No they're not. A Te/Se/Ne/Fe-dom is someone who prefers objective thought over subjective thought. Jung 101.



Aluminum Frost said:


> I'm the troll for saying extraverts are extraverted, lol wut?


You tell me what you are then. You are applying the wrong definitions to functions. You show ignorance of the subject matter by doing so, and you're acting like you know best. What does that make you, if not a troll?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

AZH said:


> No they're not. A Te/Se/Ne/Fe-dom is someone who prefers objective thought over subjective thought. Jung 101.
> 
> 
> You tell me what you are then. You are applying the wrong definitions to functions. You show ignorance of the subject matter by doing so, and you're acting like you know best. What does that make you, if not a troll?


Yes they are, find me even one description of an Exxx type that doesn't describe them as being more social than introverts, I'll wait. The way your describe it makes the distinction pointless, you're saying that sitting down and reading all day makes you an extravert because you're being externally focused. So dumb....

Wrong definitions? The functions are even described as having to deal with people and being more high energy. All you did was change the definition with this convoluted interpretation you have.


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

I got the popcorn out


continue


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

spaceynyc said:


> I got the popcorn out
> 
> 
> continue


It's like 5 on 1. If this continues I WILL call back-up


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

xraydav said:


> For ENFPs, a weakness is Si - they start to colour their world in this very negative light. They see the immediate world only so far as their subjective terms and subjective descriptions of an experience . This is how they break down into neurosis or the manner of which they attack others or defend themselves. Te and cold hard logic of organisational thinking and deductions (I.e.” this is my final judgement based on this and this”) is also a common defence mechanism. They use both functions in a negative way, they see others and the world in terms of blacks and whites and categories, rather than shades of grey. They start to see everything in terms of subjectivity in their own sensory and immediate world, they see characters, not the immediacy of their own experience.


To buy into any of this - you have to accept a few things that simply aren't supported by any credible research or studies - namely, that the functions work on a bipolar axis, i.e that 'dominant Ne' types will always have 'inferior Si' - this doesn't line up with any studies ever, really, this one is a good start.

You also have to accept the Harold Grant cognitive function stack - as you suggest ENFPs use tertiary 'Te' - this function stack has no credibility to it whatsover and has been practically disproven at this point - not to mention, the official stance of the MBTI folks (CPP inc) is that the tertiary 'function' is in the opposite direction to the dominant, meaning officially, ENFPs have tertiary 'Ti'.

This stack originated from this book - and I've got a question about it, that anybody can answer - where is the data that Grant and Co used, that influenced them to the point they believed the tertiary function would be oriented in the same direction as the dominant?

I find it difficult to accept what you're stating, as it's built upon too many shaky assumptions.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> It's like 5 on 1. If this continues I WILL call back-up


To be fair, everyone is addressing you because you are the "host" in this thread. If you don't want to deal with people let me know and I'll gladly take over.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Yes they are, find me even one description of an Exxx type that doesn't describe them as being more social than introverts, I'll wait.


I already did - Carl Jung's descriptions. The definition is objective focus vs subjective focus. Not social vs asocial.

The citation is Psychological Types by C. G. Jung (1921)



Aluminum Frost said:


> The way your describe it makes the distinction pointless, you're saying that sitting down and reading all day makes you an extravert because you're being externally focused. So dumb....


I never said anything even slightly close to that. Still pretending you're not just here to troll?



Aluminum Frost said:


> Wrong definitions? The functions are even described as having to deal with people and being more high energy.


Your turn to provide proof - find me a citation for each of Ne, Te, Fe and Se to always be people-oriented. I'll wait.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

AZH said:


> I already did - Carl Jung's descriptions. The definition is objective focus vs subjective focus. Not social vs asocial.
> 
> The citation is Psychological Types by C. G. Jung (1921)
> 
> ...


You're using cognitive functions that are most commonly used and then using info from psychological types as evidence. You're contradicting yourself. 

Trolling? How are you not saying this when you say that being externally focused makes you an extravert? A book is external.

Literally any type description.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

AZH said:


> Based on what reasoning? The first ever Te-dom definition specifically mentioned Darwin as a Te-dom because he created a theory with a strong focus on objective data. Not out of some shallow reasoning involving Darwin being a socialite. Trying to apply these shallow stereotypes to functions is just dumb.


Take the blinkers off - you're completely ignoring Extraversion here, and instead have intentionally targeted 'Te' to build your case upon.

From _Psychological Types_ - I'm sure you know how it goes - sing it with me now:



> Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself.
> 
> Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. . . . His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote.


Remember, Extraverted Thinkers _are _Extraverted types.

If anybody can explain to me, how in the actual fuck, any introverted type magically extraverts themselves in the fashion above, due to their 'auxiliary' function being the way they deal with the external world, that would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You're using cognitive functions that are most commonly used





Aluminum Frost said:


> Trolling? How are you not saying this when you say that being externally focused makes you an extravert? A book is external.


Do you think you're talking to someone else? Because these are not things I've said or done.



Aluminum Frost said:


> Literally any type description.


Cop-out response noted.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

AZH said:


> Your turn to provide proof - find me a citation for each of Ne, Te, Fe and Se to always be people-oriented. I'll wait.


He doesn't need to, because Jung outlined Extraverts as being people-oriented, amongst other things.

There's no need for him to try and cherry pick information from descriptors of each type ala you, @AZH - for this reason - they're all Extraverted types and therefore what Jung says about Extraverted types applies to the _Extraverted _Sensing type, the _Extraverted _Intuitive type, the _Extraverted _Feeling type and the _Extraverted _Thinking type.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

AZH said:


> Do you think you're talking to someone else? Because these are not things I've said or done.
> 
> 
> Cop-out response noted.


Then why are you disagreeing with me regarding what extraversion is?

How is that a cop-out response? -_-


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Turi said:


> Take the blinkers off - you're completely ignoring Extraversion here, and instead have intentionally targeted 'Te' to build your case upon.


You don't even understand what that fallacy means and how it is supposed to be applied. This isn't even slightly about ignoring raw data. It's about a definition and how it functions. If there is even one example in which extroversion is not socially oriented, then you cannot define it as social. Simple logic.

I'm really not interesting in a conversation like you had with Aluminum Frost in the past, where you talk complete nonsense, get completely raped in a debate with him, and then pretend you pwned him. It really is like Pigeon chess: Debating with you "is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." So do not talk to me in future.



Aluminum Frost said:


> Then why are you disagreeing with me regarding what extraversion is?


Because objective vs subjective is not the same thing as social vs asocial. If you are really interested in going over the general Jungian concept, I would be quite happy to outline it. Large parts of it extend into things modern MBTI experts say.

But if you wish to only use dichotomies - ok. Extroversion is exclusively about social energy in that context. But assigning dichotomy definitions to functions isn't how functions work.



Aluminum Frost said:


> How is that a cop-out response? -_-


You didn't provide a single example. That's a cop-out.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> > Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself.
> >
> > Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. . . . His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote.
> 
> ...


If I remember correctly @reckful at some point pointed out that what Jung described here about extroversion could not be applied to _all _extroverts equally, as later _research_ showed that certain extroverts had different characteristics than others. Can't for the life of me find the bit about this which I am sure you'd require directly from the source, but I am sure reckful himself wouldn't mind recycling some of his older posts for our viewing pleasure.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Ocean Helm said:


> Not my post but Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary (link) refers to Jung a lot.
> 
> It's not a theory so much as an interpretation, which if you were to read the entire post, does attach different E/I attitudes to the conscious and unconscious.
> 
> You could try actually reading and understanding the post. It's incompatible with Grant, and Beebe, and de-emphasizes the E/I orientation of individual functions, just as Jung did.



I did however, end up reading your reference on that post by Reckful, and I do agree with his working through but his proof does not connect in any way to the conclusion, he merely jumps to the conclusion that an Ni user would better be described as Ti-NiSeFe. Jung wasn’t stating that when he said “inferior and tertiary functions are more unconscious than the dominant and seondary functions” or any of the other evidence Reckful interpreted. 

likewise, if this is the way people will go about interpreting the functions stack , without consideration for research and criteria developed for determining the characteristics of cognitive functions. Then count me out. 

As an INTP I cannot relate in any way to the logical process of Ni or Se. I clearly and obviously use Ne and Si consistently. I believe anyone who needs to see “other functions” would probably need something in the way, of self insight and learning more about ones identity and thought process. My Ti-Si Thinking is very obvious and consistent across my communications even now. Likewise, so is my Ti-Ne thinking. 

In the link you referenced I saw an arbitrary explanation, which although connected to the Jungian literature does not come to terms with making a reasonable logically structured deduction (reasoning being connected to the working through or proof), necessary for me to see reckful’s theory (the basis of your theory) as an opposing interpretation to the Grant Stack or what I see as the Jungian Stack in the Grant Stack .


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ti-Si?
We still on this?
Not a thing. Not official stance. Not verified by shit.
You can be Mr.Ti-Si if you want but let's not pretend the Grant stack has any kind of credibility to it, @xraydav.

This is ridiculous:



> if this is the way people will go about interpreting the functions stack , without consideration for research and criteria developed for determining the characteristics of cognitive functions. Then count me out.


Link me, if you will, to any credible research or study whatsoever, that proves the validity of cognitive functions.
Bonus points if you can provide this for the Grant&Friends stack.

I'll wait.

One link. One single link is all I want.

One thing that say, yes, this proves people who prefer INTP consistently prefer Ti-Ne-Si-Fe in that order.

Literally one thing that proves that, whether in general or for even one single type. Anything.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@xraydav so do you agree with the concept that Jung would believe one's consciousness and the functions that compose it are oriented primarily in one direction, and one's unconsciousness and the functions that compose it primarily in the opposite direction? If I try to get in Jung's mind it's the only thing that makes sense.

As far as your anecdotal experiences, I really don't care. I'm not trying to describe reality. I'm just trying to describe Jung, who I don't have any faith in. It's just funny to me how people love to cite Jung, while at the same time espousing anti-Jung ideas. If I were to match myself up to Jung's perceiving types, in order of best fit I'd get Ni-Si-Ne-Se, and for his judging types I'd get Ti-Fi-Te-Fe. This can directly fit in certain branches/interpretations of Socionics but not in other places that I know of.

The link isn't a direct proof but close enough for me to say that it is an accurate prediction of what Jung would say on the topic. The leaps (more like connecting the dots) taken to arrive at such a model are much, much more trivial than the leaps that need to be taken to arrive at Myers, Grant, or Beebe stacks, which go against the grain that Jung laid out which is also why I call them *anti-Jungian*.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Senah said:


> Haha. I sit around and read books all day, as does my mother. We are both ENTPs. Actually, I have sat around reading books for the past 3 days. She has sat around reading books for the past 2 weeks. That is actually kind of funny.


If you read and spend more time alone than with people than sorry to break it to you but you're an introvert.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

xraydav said:


> You are making a logical fallacy called Appeal to Consequence.
> 
> If P then Q. Q is desirable/undesirable as a consequent, therefore, P is true.
> 
> ...


I think you need to stop with the mental gymnastics. He asked for proof of extraversion being described as social and that's what I gave him yet I'm somehow wrong in your eyes for doing so, stop moving the goalposts. He used psychological types as evidence because extraversion was not referenced directly in the descriptions. But Jung agrees with me regarding what extraversion is in his book. Therefore it is implied because they are EXTRAVERTED functions.

I have no argument? What did you argue? You think you're right but you've presented no evidence or arguments, all you did was act pedantic and try to downplay mine. Try again kid.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

@*Turi*, as you’re getting a bit personal rather than logical or observant, (for example actually, reading my post would be helpful).. this will be my last message to you - to answer your question, I linked you two didn’t you see the links I referenced in my post previous to the last. That’s evidence. Also I cited Jung’s psych types, because if you don’t contort and read it axiomatically as is, you will see a grant stacking will eventually form. (I also stated the manner of this in my previous post, previous to the last)

@*Ocean Helm* Although I am to take this into account it doesn’t stand the test of empiricism (and you haven’t really attempted to make any further points there other than as you said I was doing - giving me personal anecdotes - is that a personal processing issue you have? Not something I as an INTP can relate to at all). 


He makes obvious logical leaps - he first states that 1) “Jung viewed the conflicting aspects of extraversion and introversion as so fundamentally opposed that it was ultimately impossible to truly reconcile them in terms of anything in the nature of conscious reasoning.”

and 2) then states that Jung believes he was a Ti dom and then an Ni dom, 

and then he states that’s 3) “some theorists have suggested that Jung's view of the functions of a Ti-dom with auxiliary N (assuming the S remained in the unconscious) are better viewed as (Ti-Ni-Se-Fe.) “

the OP in your link states : 4)” Myers largely rested her contrary case on the sentence where Jung says the auxiliary function is "in every respect different" from the dominant function.”

He also states 5)“Jung specifically refers to the tertiary and inferior functions as the "unconscious functions" and the dominant and auxiliary functions as the "conscious ones"; and he notes that "the unconscious functions ... group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones.”

————
————

Statement 1 completely contradicts statement 3) ( where 3) is the conclusion) , because if extroversion and introversion were irreconcilable, it would be impossible for statement 3) to occur (Ti-Ni. Se-Fe. Where two cognitive functions both Introverted are acting against one another in the “conscious realm” as described in 5).

Statement 4) (apparently by Jung) completely contradicts, statement 3), as the conclusion doesn’t create a function Stack where the dominant is in every way, different from the auxiliary function (i.e. Ti is similarly introverted compared to auxiliary Ni and is not in every “way different”)

Statement 2) is an anecdotal experience and irrelevant to statement 3). Statement 3) suggests all of a sudden that “some theorists” supposed so, and that doesn’t mean anything without any reasonable evidnece connected to that statement. These are logical jumps to Statement 3).
_
My conclusion on your article and theory: Your theory is based on faulty assumptions . The article you based on theory on has not been logically structured and does not flow logically from premise to conclusion. It makes logical leaps along the way. Although, the link between evidence and interpretation (conclusions coming from perceived literature) is logically sound, it doesn’t logically flow to the final statement about the function theory (as observed in statement “3)” )
_
I will not refer to a theory which I do not see as satisfying logical consistency on a basic level like this. If I refer to a theory it has to have logical consistency and structure as to its conclusions.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I think you need to stop with the mental gymnastics. He asked for proof of extraversion being described as social and that's what I gave him yet I'm somehow wrong in your eyes for doing so, stop moving the goalposts. He used psychological types as evidence because extraversion was not referenced directly in the descriptions. But Jung agrees with me regarding what extraversion is in his book. Therefore it is implied because they are EXTRAVERTED functions.
> 
> I have no argument? What did you argue? You think you're right but you've presented no evidence or arguments, all you did was act pedantic and try to downplay mine. Try again kid.


lmao mental gymnastics would be the perfect description for your post above. Next time you make a personal attack, look right below, left from centre, and it says “report post”. No need to make any judgments about me, just note that it’s there. 

There is nothing enlightening or of value that you have contributed in this post. “I gave him yet I’m somehow wrong in your eyes for doing so, stop moving the goal posts.”

What does the quoted even mean? Before you say something, you need a reason for having said it. You seem to have difficulty doing that here. Please explain how I was “moving the goal posts”. Whatever that means . 

Extraverted or ExtrROVerTED or extrogjifnjfjsjd. You cannot reasonably expect one’s activites (sitting at home reading a book ) has anything to do with their Ego, their consciousness or personality(their individual differences) - because guess what ? EVERYONE CAN SIT AT HOME AND READ A BOOK .

How are we going to test empirically, any of the statements you have presented in this thread in your argument against Jung ? 
_what exactly is your point? Do you have one? Or are you just a massive troll ? (You keep saying stuff like ”you’ve presented no argument” without every presenting an argument to begin with. What is the matter with that?)_


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

xraydav said:


> lmao mental gymnastics would be the perfect description for your post above. Next time you make a personal attack, look right below, left from centre, and it says “report post”. No need to make any judgments about me, just note that it’s there.
> 
> There is nothing enlightening or of value that you have contributed in this post. “I gave him yet I’m somehow wrong in your eyes for doing so, stop moving the goal posts.”
> 
> ...


Uhhh...you've repeatedly made judgments about me. And I'm not the one contradicting myself, you are.

Your misinformation is enlightening? What I said wasn't supposed to be enlightening. All I'm saying is extraverts are social and spend more time with people and recharge this way, it's common sense, you're just dense.

Your inability to understand things is the fault of your own. If you don't understand math for example it's not because math is wrong, it's cause you're stupid. Why not try to understand instead of throwing temper-tantrums?

No shit, but if you're at home reading books and not interacting with people more often than not you're an introvert. Extraverts gain energy from people. Extraversion has to do with energy levels, this is a scientific fact.

What do you mean against Jung? Jung is defining extraversion the same way as I am. You're the one that's arguing against him. My point is people are trying to twist the concept of extraversion and they aren't actually extraverts. How am I a troll? Cause I hurt your stupid little feelings and disagree with you? You're just delusional and I can't reason with you.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

xraydav said:


> The argument you used about the validity of Harold Grant Stacking could be stated for all personality theory relating to Jung: read the bottom of the above link (p.10) : “nearly impossible to verify or falsify”, “difficult to test empirically”, “low internal consistency”
> 
> Obviously, everything based on such a theory would be considered to “have not credibility”. Psychiatric and psychological development(clinical practice) demands otherwise though.





xraydav said:


> i don’t have it and I highly doubt a source from over 20 years ago, is the official MBTI certification from CPP or any accredited MBTI expert authority.
> 
> If you’re gonna trust an empirical “credible” manual from so many years ago, why not just go with what Carl Jung himself has said? Understand that the cognitive functions oppose each other in ways that would logically have to create a stacking as described by Harold Grant as well, as Dr Beebe. (Beebe is a psychiatrist himself, much like Jung)





xraydav said:


> All personality theories relating to Jung are flawed (did you really read what I wrote?), because they only pass a certain level of empricism , and it’s difficult to show causation and statistical significance in most psychological theories as well (did you know that?)
> 
> So what if “MBTI practitioners used it today?”. They use questionnaires to determine type. Questionnaires are also biased due to self report. What is your point?
> 
> It’s not a sketchy logical leap, I just told you the “Grant Stack” is merely a re-iteration of the Jungian literature.





xraydav said:


> As an INTP I cannot relate in any way to the logical process of Ni or Se. I clearly and obviously use Ne and Si consistently. I believe anyone who needs to see “other functions” would probably need something in the way, of self insight and learning more about ones identity and thought process. My Ti-Si Thinking is very obvious and consistent across my communications even now. Likewise, so is my Ti-Ne thinking.
> 
> In the link you referenced I saw an arbitrary explanation, which although connected to the Jungian literature does not come to terms with making a reasonable logically structured deduction (reasoning being connected to the working through or proof), necessary for me to see reckful’s theory (the basis of your theory) as an opposing interpretation to the Grant Stack or what I see as the Jungian Stack in the Grant Stack.


You're not nearly as well-informed as you seem to think you are on what Jung said, and the history of the MBTI, and the differences (including in the empirical support department) between what I call the Real MBTI Model and the Harold Grant function stack.

INTPs and ESFJs either have MBTI-related aspects of personality in common or they don't, xraydav. You claim you're an INTP, and so you "use Si consistently" — but that's a nonsensical assertion by respectable-personality-typology standards _unless_ it's the case that there are "Si" aspects of personality that SJs and NPs tend to have in common (despite being _opposites_ on both of the associated dichotomies), and that the SJs (for example) _don't_ have in common with the SPs or NJs (despite being opposites on only one of the two associated dichotomies).

And one of the reasons I call my model — which isn't really original with me, and was essentially Myers' model — the _Real MBTI Model_ is that 50 years of MBTI data pools have now made it reasonably clear that the Grant stack is an emperor without any clothes. There is _no_ aspect of personality associated with _any_ preference pairing (e.g., "Si" and SJ) where, if you flip _both_ of the associated preferences, you end up with a type foursome (in this case, the NPs) who exhibit that same aspect of personality to a greater degree than the two foursomes you get (in this case, the SPs and NJs) by flipping just one of those preferences.

If you're open to further enlightenment, I suggest you work your way through these posts:

• The Real MBTI Model

• The bogosity of the "tandems"

• The dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI

• Debunking the MBTI "Debunkers"


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

xraydav said:


> @*Ocean Helm* Although I am to take this into account it doesn’t stand the test of empiricism (and you haven’t really attempted to make any further points there other than as you said I was doing - giving me personal anecdotes - is that a personal processing issue you have? Not something I as an INTP can relate to at all).


Are you serious? I provided the personal anecdote to show that my personal experiences doesn't match up with any of these function stacks in discussion, not as a testament to the validity of anything, although I don't see any evidence backing up any kind of function stacks.


> He makes obvious logical leaps - he first states that 1) “Jung viewed the conflicting aspects of extraversion and introversion as so fundamentally opposed that it was ultimately impossible to truly reconcile them in terms of anything in the nature of conscious reasoning.”
> 
> and 2) then states that Jung believes he was a Ti dom and then an Ni dom,
> 
> ...


T-N are conscious (introverted attitude) and S-F are unconscious (extraverted attitude). Since they exist in different realms they don't clash. You are creating a contradiction out of thin air. If S is to become conscious as Jung described happening in some people where the tertiary function becomes a bridge to the inferior, it becomes introverted in orientation, which would lead to something which can be expressed like Ti-Ni-Si-Fe. This is what I would call ITN-3.


> Statement 4) (apparently by Jung) completely contradicts, statement 3), as the conclusion doesn’t create a function Stack where the dominant is in every way, different from the auxiliary function (i.e. Ti is similarly introverted compared to auxiliary Ni and is not in every “way different”)


Jung only was referring to 4 functions: T, F, N, and S. So when presented with the statements.
A) Your primary function is T.
B) Your secondary function is in all ways different from T.

And given the choices, T, F, N, and S, what could you choose? Apparently Jung thought it was N and S, which is why he said exactly that.


> Statement 2) is an anecdotal experience and irrelevant to statement 3). Statement 3) suggests all of a sudden that “some theorists” supposed so, and that doesn’t mean anything without any reasonable evidnece connected to that statement. These are logical jumps to Statement 3).


What would you like, citing of the specific theorists? @reckful seems pretty knowledgeable in this area so I took his word for it. Statement 2 is not "anecdotal" in the context of what Jung believed, if this is what we are arguing. Even IDR Labs/CelebrityTypes said this in an article about Nietzsche and they promote function axes and Grant stacks.


IDR Labs said:


> Update II: Nietzsche as an Ni-Ti Type
> 
> Though Jung never commits entirely to any specific function model in Psychological Types, a closer reading of the passage on Nietzsche’s type in Chapter 3 would nevertheless seem to suggest that Jung thought Nietzsche an Ni-Ti-Fe-Se type:
> 
> ...





xraydav said:


> _My conclusion on your article and theory: Your theory is based on faulty assumptions . The article you based on theory on has not been logically structured and does not flow logically from premise to conclusion. It makes logical leaps along the way. Although, the link between evidence and interpretation (conclusions coming from perceived literature) is logically sound, it doesn’t logically flow to the final statement about the function theory (as observed in statement “3)” )_


It's not hard logic, yes.


> I will not refer to a theory which I do not see as satisfying logical consistency on a basic level like this. If I refer to a theory it has to have logical consistency and structure as to its conclusions.


But then you turn around and support Grant stacks as somehow related to Jung? :crazy:

Where is all this skepticism that you showed for the model that I put forward?


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

I find that extroversion versus introversion is something that is best understood in the sense of a dichotomy. Trying to use functions to determine or understand this strikes me as a fool's errand, especially given how much trouble people have determining what functions they prefer in the first place, let alone the exact order.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I'm not though. If you're more social than not then you're an extravert. If vice-versa you're an introvert. You dishonestly focus on just the process but ignore the fact that to be dominant in said process you have to be more social than not. The function descriptions and type descriptions define it as the person whose dominant in it as being extroverted. But like I said you choose to ignore this. If you relate strongly to Te for example but aren't extraverted then you have an introverted function that's stronger. You'd be an IxTJ, not an ExTJ. Why is this so hard to understand?
> 
> Also you're dancing around the question. Is somebody who reads books all day is an extravert or an introvert?


In other words, you can't or refuse to see the distinction, sticking to your internal subjective belief that introversion and extraversion are solely focused on being social or not. 

Read some Jung. Introverts are fixated on the subjective and extraverts, the objective.

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Duo said:


> In other words, you can't or refuse to see the distinction, sticking to your internal subjective belief that introversion and extraversion are solely focused on being social or not.
> 
> Read some Jung. Introverts are fixated on the subjective and extraverts, the objective.
> 
> Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


1. Answer the question

2. Jung defined extraversion as being social, Turi already pulled up the excerpt. Like he said, you're building your argument on "Te" and what Jung said but ignore the fact that Jung also defined extraversion as being social and Te is EXTRAVERTED Thinking


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. Answer the question
> 
> 2. Jung defined extraversion as being social, Turi already pulled up the excerpt. Like he said, you're building your argument on "Te" and what Jung said but ignore the fact that Jung also defined extraversion as being social and Te is EXTRAVERTED Thinking


Jung. Read it.



> Everyone is, admittedly, orientated by the data with which the outer world provides him ; yet we see that this may be the case in a way that is only relatively decisive. Because it is cold out of doors, one man is persuaded to wear his overcoat, another from a desire to become hardened finds this unnecessary; one man admires the new tenor because all the world admires him, another withholds his approbation not because he dislikes him but because in his view the subject of general admiration is not thereby proved to be admirable; one submits to [p. 417] a given state of affairs because his experience argues nothing else to be possible, another is convinced that, although it has repeated itself a thousand times in the same way, the thousand and first will be different. The former is orientated by the objective data; the latter reserves a view, which is, as it were, interposed between himself and the objective fact. Now, when the orientation to the object and to objective facts is so predominant that the most frequent and essential decisions and actions are determined, not by subjective values but by objective relations, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. When this is habitual, one speaks of an extraverted type. If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, as to correspond directly with objective conditions and their claims, whether in a good sense or ill, he is extraverted. His life makes it perfectly clear that it is the objective rather than the subjective value which plays the greater role as the determining factor of his consciousness. He naturally has subjective values, but their determining power has less importance than the external objective conditions. Never, therefore, does he expect to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the only ones he knows are outside himself. Epimetheus-like, his inner life succumbs to the external necessity, not of course without a struggle; which, however, always ends in favour of the objective determinant. His entire consciousness looks outwards to the world, because the important and decisive determination always comes to him from without. But it comes to him from without, only because that is where he expects it. All the distinguishing characteristics of his psychology, in so far as they do not arise from the priority of one definite psychological function or from individual peculiarities, have their origin in this basic attitude. Interest and attention follow objective happenings and, primarily, those of the immediate environment. Not [p. 418] only persons, but things, seize and rivet his interest. His actions, therefore, are also governed by the influence of persons and things. They are directly related to objective data and determinations, and are, as it were, exhaustively explainable on these grounds. Extraverted action is recognizably related to objective conditions. In so far it is not purely reactive to environmental stimuli, it character is constantly applicable to the actual circumstances, and it finds adequate and appropriate play within the limits of the objective situation. It has no serious tendency to transcend these bounds. The same holdsgood for interest: objective occurrences have a well-nigh inexhaustible charm, so that in the normal course the extravert's interest makes no other claims.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Duo said:


> Jung. Read it.


Jung. Read it

"Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself.

Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. . . . His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote."


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. Answer the question
> 
> 2. Jung defined extraversion as being social, Turi already pulled up the excerpt. Like he said, you're building your argument on "Te" and what Jung said but ignore the fact that Jung also defined extraversion as being social and Te is EXTRAVERTED Thinking


If pulling up excerpts from Jung is what you want, here is another one for you, where he actually _defines_ the attitude instead of giving a general overview of your _typical_ extrovert in action:



> The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on. the part of the object had to be continually frustrated. The extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance must always be paramount.


The social part is just "the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected", there were plenty of other things in there so why get caught up with just that?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> If pulling up excerpts from Jung is what you want, here is another one for you:


I don't see the problem here. I'm not the one who brought up Jung anyways, someone else did to back up their argument but then they want to ignore something also written in that book that tells them they're wrong.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

PiT said:


> I find that extroversion versus introversion is something that is best understood in the sense of a dichotomy. Trying to use functions to determine or understand this strikes me as a fool's errand, especially given how much trouble people have determining what functions they prefer in the first place, let alone the exact order.


Determining the dominant function should be the priority when typing someone, don't you think?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I don't see the problem here. I'm not the one who brought up Jung anyways, someone else did to back up their argument but then they want to ignore something also written in that book that tells them they're wrong.


Nuh uh.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> Determining the dominant function should be the priority when typing someone, don't you think?


Why?
Functions aren't proven to be a thing.
Just go by dichotomy


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

VoodooDolls said:


> No Ne isn't high energy. Ne and Ni are tired as fuck of this world actually.
> Ne has little friends for it is too magical and unlikely in the eyes of SJs.
> While Ni is locked up behind wooden blocked windows, for being thought as crazy, just bad vibes.
> The alienation of Ne and Ni differ in this: Ne decided alienation was conforting
> ...


We're talking about functions, not the things you see when you haven't taken your meds.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

If you wanna listen to a parrot talking go check out the nt team videos on youtube. Can't recall the name for their Chanel. Godsake. Jung gave us the key for solving the puzzle for becoming the superman nietzche talked about by using what was needed, instead we are gluttony then demented and think the mold is even real.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Hopefully our misunderstanding doesn't has to do with gender rights. I hope with are both humans.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

I found the perfect summation of thread you created... 




Aluminum Frost said:


> Please, debating you is like playing chess with a pigeon.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

xraydav said:


> I found the perfect summation of thread you created...


It's like playing against a loyal, strategic ornithurae that saved thousands of soldiers during WWII?


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Ocean Helm said:


> Are you serious? *I provided the personal anecdote to show that my personal experiences doesn't match up with any of these function stacks in discussion*, not as a testament to the validity of anything, although I don't see any evidence backing up any kind of function stacks.
> 
> T-N are conscious (introverted attitude) and S-F are unconscious (extraverted attitude). Since they exist in different realms they don't clash. You are creating a contradiction out of thin air. If S is to become conscious as Jung described happening in some people where the tertiary function becomes a bridge to the inferior, it becomes introverted in orientation, which would lead to something which can be expressed like Ti-Ni-Si-Fe. This is what I would call ITN-3.
> 
> ...



The bolded (“my personal experiences state that the function stacking is wrong) doesn’t mean the function stacking is wrong, the bolded suggests you are mistyped, and should consider what other functions you use. 

You sre doing exactly as the OP states I am doing - “moving the goal posts” - here is why... I am not x, therefore I am , z type. Z type does not fit me and is undesirable, therefore x has to change or is wrong. Likewise, this is very similiar to Appeal to Authority, because which based on the bolded is the logical fallacy you are making. If p then q, q is undesirable, therefore p is wrong. (That is a fallacy) 


Either way, unless you have REAL EVIDENCE a book or anything, to give me (@Turi - your words to me) the real theory you are both basing your fallacious conclusions off of, then I will never trust what you have to say as anything close to a rational thought, but a mere brainfart. 


Additionally you much like @*reckful* have still not acknowledged or addressed any of the blaring logical inconsistencies(refer to my previous post) in the post you almost treat biblically, as a foundation for your concepts of typing others. What theory is above criticism ?- Please tell me.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Other than that @*reckful* you assume my level of expertise and knowledge in your counterargument, (that is a logical fallacy - appeal to authority/expertise). Additionally, you again made a logically inconsistent argument. (It must be a personality error for you - I believe see this exact same processing issue in INFPs and those with inferior Te, as they can only “unconsciously” structure logically ordered statements.) You stated:

1) Stating Si is something that INTPs using “Si consistently” is a nonsensical assertion.

yet you say 

2) “the unconscious functions.. group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious functions”, where conscious functions are dominant/auxiliary and unconscious functions are tertiary/inferior.


1) contradicts and is logically inconsistent with 2) , as INTPs have Si as tertiary function, it would be grouped and “correlated” with their use of the conscious functions (dominant and auxiliary ). Therefore, whenever they use their conscious functions, they’d use their unconscious functions alongside, _as both are correlated and therefore co-occur_


. And if you know what “correlation” , means -that means there is a significant correlation or relationship between the two events or behavioural phenomena, that they both do co-exist or co-occur together. (That is a fundamental definition, what you will learn in any psychology statistics or statistics course)

Here is the definition of a statistical correlation -


> a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone


This is generally the type of definition, scientists, neuroscientists and research psychologists would have base their assumptions on when defining whether a relationship is attributable to causation or correlation. (The latter is what we refer to as “dichotomy”) 





Aluminum Frost said:


> We're talking about functions, not the things you see when you haven't taken your meds.



What underlying frustration in your life led you to act to cause the people around you omnidirectional suffering?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Anyone else feel like there's too many similar threads?
So many threads fall down the same god damn trap-door.

Cognitive functionistas fumbling about and trying to baffle their way with bullshit against the credible research and data that has been accumulating over the last half a century, while the people with an actual brain keep banging on the same truth that is 'the functions are disproven' 'the Harold Grant stack has no credibility and doesn't withstand any research or studies' 'the tertiary function is literally, officially, in the opposite direction as the dominant function, so the Grant stack is illegitimate anyway and dom-tert loops are therefore a fallacy'.

Something I think most people should read is this.

It outlines how the more preferences the types share, the more similar they are - this extends to the P/J divide, because it shows how for example, an ESTP and an ESTJ are very similar, due to the fact they both share E, S, T, ES, ET, ST and EST preferences.

P/J in this instance has _minimal or no affect _on how those preferences manifest - what this means, is that the idea of say, an ESTP using Se-Ti and an ESTJ using Te-Si is a fallacy and is disproven - because the 'version' of E, S and T, that these two types share in common is _not _different.

I'll break it down another level - ESTPs do not 'use' a different form of Thinking, or Sensing, than ESTJs.

What makes sense then, considering the preferences - is that both of these types are Extraverted Thinkers and Extraverted Sensors - this idea would be supported by that research, in that it accomodates for the thinking and sensing of the two types in this example being the same - which is what that study suggests.

The study points out that E/I has an affect on how those preferences act, to relate this to the example I provided - it means that an ISTP uses their S, ST, SP, and STP preferences _differently_ too how an ESTP uses them.
ISTPs then, are not simply introverted ESTPs.

They're using a _different _form of sensing, thinking and perceiving - not the same ones in a different order.

So we're actually looking at ISTPs being _introverted _sensing and introverted thinking types - and ESTPs being extraverted sensing and _extraverted _thinking types.


If any 'stack' is to be supported by the research, surely it's IIEE for introverts, and EEII for extraverts.
This winds up with both dominant and auxiliary 'functions' being supported by the research.
Tertiary function is in the official direction.
Inferior function is aligned with Jungs theory.


Of course, the bipolar relationship shared between the functions is also shaky, because this idea has been disproven by Singer-Loomis, imo - but if we're going to force ourselves to be restrained by _any _'stack', this should be it.



This idea makes sense, guys, people need to get on board with this and welcome it, rather than just dig their heels in, fearful of the truth and change.

I understand it will be difficult due to how ingrained the Grant&Friendz stack is in the typology community, and how you've all - myself included - harped on about our 'functions' in accordance with the Grant stack in the past - i.e INTJs harping about their 'Te' and INFPs harping about their 'Ne' etc. 

Simple fact is, we should embrace something that is actually closer to the truth, and is aligned with what the research suggests, even if it makes us all look a little silly at first.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Turi said:


> Anyone else feel like there's too many similar threads?
> So many threads fall down the same god damn trap-door.
> 
> Cognitive functionistas fumbling about and trying to baffle their way with bullshit against the credible research and data that has been accumulating over the last half a century, while the people with an actual brain keep banging on the same truth that is 'the functions are disproven' 'the Harold Grant stack has no credibility and doesn't withstand any research or studies' 'the tertiary function is literally, officially, in the opposite direction as the dominant function, so the Grant stack is illegitimate anyway and dom-tert loops are therefore a fallacy'.
> ...


I agree with everything you said, Turi, but sadly your plea to the online typology community to see the light will largely fall upon deaf ears. I suspect a large part of why many are so invested into the Grant stack is because it confirms their subjective impressions of what other people are like cognitively.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> I agree with everything you said, Turi, but sadly your plea to the online typology community to see the light will largely fall upon deaf ears. I suspect a large part of why many are so invested into the Grant stack is because it confirms their subjective impressions of what other people are like cognitively.


No doubt this is true.
I really think we should push for truth and objectivity here, and start advocating what the actual research suggests, essentially outlawing/abandoning the Grant stack.

I realize this is personality theory, nobody cares about 'truth', can't "prove" anything etc etc but we can at the very least _try _to cure the plague.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

xraydav said:


> The bolded (“my personal experiences state that the function stacking is wrong) doesn’t mean the function stacking is wrong, the bolded suggests you are mistyped, and should consider what other functions you use.


Uh what? I am not trying to say that at all. Wow you are bad at reading comprehension.

You provided your personal anecdotes, and then I was merely positing that *if I were to use my own personal anecdotes then I wouldn't support any stacks*. But of course _I assumed the exercise was trying to figure out what Jung believed_ which means the entire thing about what stacks fit or don't fit my personal reality is irrelevant.

For the record, I don't "buy" any function stacks as being great models of human cognition.


> You sre doing exactly as the OP states I am doing - “moving the goal posts” - here is why... I am not x, therefore I am , z type. Z type does not fit me and is undesirable, therefore x has to change or is wrong. Likewise, this is very similiar to Appeal to Authority, because which based on the bolded is the logical fallacy you are making. If p then q, q is undesirable, therefore p is wrong. (That is a fallacy)


You continue to attribute a purpose to what I said which was never intended. Once again, you create fallacies out of thin air. So much for being "logical".


> Either way, unless you have REAL EVIDENCE a book or anything, to give me (@Turi - your words to me) the real theory you are both basing your fallacious conclusions off of, then I will never trust what you have to say as anything close to a rational thought, but a mere brainfart.


Please carry this attitude over into judging Grant stacks. I beg you.


> Additionally you much like @*reckful* have still not acknowledged or addressed any of the blaring logical inconsistencies(refer to my previous post) in the post you almost treat biblically, as a foundation for your concepts of typing others. What theory is above criticism ?- Please tell me.


You seem to have a problem with being obsessed with "logical inconsistencies" to the degree that you create them out of thin air even when they don't exist. I don't know if it's part of your identity as "INTP" or what.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Turi said:


> Something I think most people should read is this.



This article states 1) the factors of Extraversion and Introversion (massive MBTI generalisations, btw - not JUNG) tested by MBTI/FDM, are stated on p.45 (top right) to be “consistent across the lifespan” and the patterns where the types correlate to each other in the psyche, are “consistent across the lifespan”

2) Psycholgical types share similarities* to other psychological types. ESTPs to ESFPs, or ISTPs. 

[This is the contention throughout the research article, which they try to prove to a certain likelihood by the averages of extraversion versus introversion, etc in the empirical results to some avail, but some correlations * are null and equate to zero - showing zero significant correlations (I’ll explain why that is in a bit)]

So Statement 1) tells us why Statement 2) is making false assumptions related to its empirical finding, if the ages did not show any discrepancy, than it would also infer that the MBTI dimensions were developing across each participant’s lifespan. In other words, the ESTP shows a connection to what the ESFP represents, as the study viewed the ESTP as he/she grew older and used more of his/her unconscious functions (including his/her Feeling function)

Likewise,_I don’t know why you’re telling me this, I obviously agree that there are correlations between what the letter said represent (conscious and unconscious functions), in fact that was my argument against you and Reckful,who were formulating a theory that was logically inconsistently with Jung’s conclusion or what that empirical findings’ representation alludes to. (That there are “correlations” between conscious and unconscious functions.)_

Likewise, this doesn’t disprove Jung, this disproves MBTI, and the entire article is based on arbitrary MBTI dimensions or “letters” and not the Jungian functions themselves. (which is also the reason for the zeroed or null statistical results across certain dimensions or correlations inconsistent to others correlations studies in that CAPT experiment - the relationships are based on arbitrary psychological constructs which do not incorporate the nuances of psychological behaviours or orientations measured - I will link a theses which further extrapolates this point)

Also please keep in mind you’re referring to the “journal of psychological type”. That is from CAPT and their findings would, be biased to their authority. It’s not a recognised peer reviewed scientific or psychological journal. Likewise, the author consistently uses personal pronouns like “I believe”. or “I think”. Not scientific, or credible or objective.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

> It outlines how the more preferences the types share, the more similar they are - this extends to the P/J divide, because it shows how for example, an ESTP and an ESTJ are very similar, due to the fact they both share E, S, T, ES, ET, ST and EST preferences.
> 
> P/J in this instance has _minimal or no affect _on how those preferences manifest - what this means, is that the idea of say, an ESTP using Se-Ti and an ESTJ using Te-Si is a fallacy and is disproven - because the 'version' of E, S and T, that these two types share in common is _not _different.
> I'll break it down another level - ESTPs do not 'use' a different form of Thinking, or Sensing, than ESTJs.
> ...



I obviously know ESTPs and ISTPs are different. Your original source is not in agreement with that statement. You’re contradicting your self and your source.

Singer-Loomis haven’t “disproven” Jung. Read this theses. Their results showed a statistical result, that only 25% of participants had any appearance of what you and Reckful stated are “inferior functions opposing superior functions” (That means a majority of participants, did in fact have opposing inferior and dominant functions. 

Singer-Loomis then got worried over a statiscal minority and made their own likert scale measuring a psychological construct (which by definition, is a hypothetical imaginary and unobservable phenomena, so it doesn’t matter which interpretation you choose either way - both test poorly on empirical validity, as said on p.31 that it has Low criterion validity and cannot be trusted as a empirical tool.
(https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5268&context=etd)


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Soul Kitchen said:


> I agree with everything you said, Turi, but sadly your plea to the online typology community to see the light will largely fall upon deaf ears. I suspect a large part of why many are so invested into the Grant stack is because it confirms their subjective impressions of what other people are like cognitively.



I think you’re making a common Fe or maybe ISFJ auxiliary Fe “social values” processing error, or what we would call an Appeal to Majority. 

You base your conclusions on what the “typology community” thinks, while the “typology community” is not a community at all. it’s a consistent group of individuals who have learned in their own way and are interpreting the facts given to them. 

Whether you are right or not, doesn’t depend on whether the typology community thinks this or that. It depends on your argument - an argument you have clearly



* *






not provided 






i will now be leaving this thread , as I have already shown in my previous posts , with glaring logical inconsistencies that despite pressuring others to address the inconsistencies, have gotten nothing but “air” ( @Ocean Helm) and personal attacks. Learn to argue logically rather than with personal attack, logical fallacies, and empirical studies where no critique or counterargument has been considered. Likewise, most of the research papers were not understood in terms of basic statistical analysis or a basic understanding of academic psychology or scientific empiricism. Your counter “scientific” or “psychological theories” were unverified, logically inconsistent or based on “shaky” assumptions or little empiricism or evidence (please refer to previous posts for reasoning) Therefore, there is no point arguing with people who do not understand or agree with mere scientific empiricism or scientific critique (considering original scientific evidence alongside contradictory scientific and reasoned statements), from this point on, and therefore, I shall leave. Good day.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

xraydav said:


> I think you’re making a common Fe or maybe ISFJ auxiliary Fe “social values” processing error, or what we would call an Appeal to Majority.
> 
> You base your conclusions on what the “typology community” thinks, while the “typology community” is not a community at all. it’s a consistent group of individuals who have learned in their own way and are interpreting the facts given to them.
> 
> ...


ISFJ? Did you just type me as an ISFJ, even though I've never ever tested as an S type, and can't identify with any of the SJ types? I'm sorry, but this is more proof that the Grant function stacks are complete bullshit.

*ISFJ?*






Of course not everyone on online typology communities share the exact same opinions and understanding of typology. It wasn't my intention to imply that's the case.

Nevertheless, my point is that the majority of people - both on PerC and on other typology forums - buy into the Harold Grant function stack, and I don't even need to show you proof of this when the predominance of function stacks is self-evident. Just pop into the "What's my personality type" section of these forums, and you'll hardly find anyone there who types solely based off of dichotomies. The _vast fucking majority_ of people who post there use the function stacks.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> Anyone else feel like there's too many similar threads?
> So many threads fall down the same god damn trap-door.
> 
> Cognitive functionistas fumbling about and trying to baffle their way with bullshit against the credible research and data that has been accumulating over the last half a century, while the people with an actual brain keep banging on the same truth that is 'the functions are disproven' 'the Harold Grant stack has no credibility and doesn't withstand any research or studies' 'the tertiary function is literally, officially, in the opposite direction as the dominant function, so the Grant stack is illegitimate anyway and dom-tert loops are therefore a fallacy'.
> ...


You're not a skeptic though. You literally go with what you agree with in the moment and react with hostility towards anyone/anything that says otherwise. These past weeks you've been flip-flopping between using functions and using dichotomies. 

Sorry but if you trust someone elses observations over your own than you're not a free-thinker. You're just mindlessly agreeing with what you're told.

Who said that ESTJs and ESTPs don't act similarly? Nobody, people who use functions don't say that. They do however say that the two process information differently so all you've done is create a straw-man. The ways in which ESTPs and ESTJs are different is easily explained if you go by functions too. Te is very J, Se is very P externally. 

How do you know ESTPs and ESTJs don't use a different S and T? The research doesn't test that so you're just pulling shit out of your ass.

ISTP is an introvert, ESTP is an extravert. This one isn't even a function thing. E/I is most tied to behavior though. It's just something that's readily apparent. The two live different lives. This point is you trying to have your cake and eat it too though. "Functions don't exist, everything is explained by letters" "An ISTP isn't simply an introverted ESTP" Do you not see the contradiction?

"So we're actually looking at ISTPs being introverted sensing and introverted thinking types - and ESTPs being extraverted sensing and extraverted thinking types."

You're being way too literal here. And are you saying that ESTP then has introverted feelings and intuitions? Or are they extraverted all around? 

"Fearful of the truth" Lmao xD

Enneagram and instinctual variant correlations, you know research says you're wrong  As do correlations in other areas having to do with type.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

@Turi I have a couple of questions about your stance on cognitive functions.

First of all, you draw up a correlation between a J type and dominant rational function, as well as a P type and dominant irrational function. This is supposing that J types necessarily have a greater preference for T/F over S/N, and vice versa. How does this explain those INJ people who are torn between T/F, or ITP people who are torn between S/N?

Secondly, if you're firmly of the opinion that we'd be better off ditching function stacks, why do you still humour them in forum discussions?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

xraydav said:


> i will now be leaving this thread , as I have already shown in my previous posts , with glaring logical inconsistencies that despite pressuring others to address the inconsistencies, have gotten nothing but “air” ( @Ocean Helm) and personal attacks.


Things don't become more true the more you repeat them. Can you please type me though? Based on how you gave Soul Kitchen ISFJ, I want to learn my One True Type.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> Things don't become more true the more you repeat them. Can you please type me though? Based on how you gave Soul Kitchen ISFJ, I want to learn my One True Type.


You mean as opposed to your ever-changing mood bracelet dichotomy type?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> ISTP is an introvert, ESTP is an extravert. This one isn't even a function thing. E/I is most tied to behavior though. It's just something that's readily apparent. The two live different lives. This point is you trying to have your cake and eat it too though. "Functions don't exist, everything is explained by letters" "An ISTP isn't simply an introverted ESTP" Do you not see the contradiction?


There is no contradiction here, unless Turi is saying that there are no combination effects.

I know you'll find reckful say things like "ISTP = I + S + T + P + IS + IT + IP + ST + SP + TP + IST + ISP + ITP + STP + ISTP" which he called the True MBTI Model. It doesn't use functions but it does open up the possibility that letters, when combined, can have an additional predictive effect outside of what could be modeled simply by using single letters.

I know I posted the table in the past from the MBTI Manual which you asked me to explain, but the data collected there hints at there being a combination effect between the E/I and N/S axes. There isn't much in the way of evidence for the others, but without more studies it can't really be determined.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

xraydav said:


> Other than that @*reckful* you assume my level of expertise and knowledge in your counterargument, (that is a logical fallacy - appeal to authority/expertise). Additionally, you again made a logically inconsistent argument. (It must be a personality error for you - I believe see this exact same processing issue in INFPs and those with inferior Te, as they can only “unconsciously” structure logically ordered statements.) You stated:
> 
> 1) Stating Si is something that INTPs using “Si consistently” is a nonsensical assertion.
> 
> ...


You clearly haven't read those posts I linked you to in my last post. Or if you read them, you didn't understand them.

And you've misrepresented what I said in the posts in this thread and that one post you did read.

You say that I "stated" that the assertion that INTPs "use Si consistently" (as you did) is "nonsensical," buuut what I said was that it was a "nonsensical assertion by respectable-personality-typology standards _unless_ it's the case that there are 'Si' aspects of personality that SJs and NPs tend to have in common (despite being _opposites_ on both of the associated dichotomies), and that the SJs (for example) _don't_ have in common with the SPs or NJs (despite being opposites on only one of the two associated dichotomies)."

Do you disagree with that?

And you go on to suggest that I've contradicted myself because I referred to "the unconscious functions ... group[ing] themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious functions" — but that was part of my description of _Jung's_ typological model, and has nothing to do with my views on the subject. And I made that distinction specifically and emphatically at the end of that post, so I guess you must have run out of steam before you got there — which didn't stop you from feeling free to post in this thread as if you'd read that post and found it wanting in various "logical" respects.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

@reckful, you admitted to relating to the Introverted Feeling function in my type thread. From my understanding, you're running with the logic that Ni and Te are applicable to INTJs insofar as they piggyback off of the dichotomy combinations INJ and TJ, respectively, and have repeatedly shot down the validity of typing based on function axes, such as the idea NPs are more like SJs than SPs or NJs.

By your own logic, shouldn't you be disqualified from identifying with Fi? Or is it simply that there are aspects of Introverted Feeling you can see in yourself without claiming the whole function?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Soul Kitchen said:


> @reckful, you admitted to relating to the Introverted Feeling function in my type thread. From my understanding, you're running with the logic that Ni and Te are applicable to INTJs insofar as they piggyback off of the dichotomy combinations INJ and TJ, respectively, and have repeatedly shot down the validity of typing based on function axes, such as the idea NPs are more like SJs than SPs or NJs.
> 
> By your own logic, shouldn't you be disqualified from identifying with Fi? Or is it simply that there are aspects of Introverted Feeling you can see in yourself without claiming the whole function?


It's been my experience that all four of the IN types tend to feel like they relate better to typical Fi descriptions than typical Fe descriptions. As just one example, there's a 350-post thread at INTJforum where people have posted their responses to Nardi's cognitive functions test, and where INTJs and INTPs both tend to favor Fi.

And as further discussed in the spoiler in this post (reviewing those same results), INTJs typically get high Ni scores _and high Ne scores_ (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test, and the T functions tend to be somewhat favored over the N functions (even though INTJs are supposedly N-doms).

And I view all that as an example of the failure of lots of "cognitive function" characterizations to even line up very well with the two-dichotomy combinations that they're purportedly associated with (and even if you just focus on the results from the dom/aux types).


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

reckful said:


> It's been my experience that all four of the IN types tend to feel like they relate better to typical Fi descriptions than typical Fe descriptions. As just one example, there's a 350-post thread at INTJforum where people have posted their responses to Nardi's cognitive functions test, and where INTJs and INTPs both tend to favor Fi.
> 
> And as further discussed in the spoiler in this post (reviewing those same results), INTJs typically get high Ni scores _and high Ne scores_ (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test, and the T functions tend to be somewhat favored over the N functions (even though INTJs are supposedly N-doms).
> 
> And I view all that as an example of the failure of lots of "cognitive function" characterizations to even line up very well with the two-dichotomy combinations that they're purportedly associated with (and even if you just focus on the results from the dom/aux types).


I see your point. As an INP, I should relate more to Ne than Ni while preferring Ji over Ne, but I can identify equally well with both N functions, and I have a bit less obvious a T/F lean than I do an N lean. Curiously enough, I scored more strongly on Ti and Te than Fi and Fe, respectively, although both Ji functions were much stronger on the whole.

Another example of inconsistency between Jungian functions and MBTI dichotomies is Si. Since Myers and Briggs had shifted the domain of abstraction from Introversion to Intuition, I could easily see how an Introverted Sensing type as conceived by Jung could be considered an IN type.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You're not a skeptic though. You literally go with what you agree with in the moment and react with hostility towards anyone/anything that says otherwise. _These past weeks you've been flip-flopping between using functions and using dichotomies_.


No, I haven't.
The rest of this post isn't worth responding to as you haven't comprehended what I've said, and I'm not going to repeat it again.




Soul Kitchen said:


> @Turi I have a couple of questions about your stance on cognitive functions.
> 
> First of all, you draw up a correlation between a J type and dominant rational function, as well as a P type and dominant irrational function. This is supposing that J types necessarily have a greater preference for T/F over S/N, and vice versa. How does this explain those INJ people who are torn between T/F, or ITP people who are torn between S/N?


I don't see why they can't be INxJ types, or IxTP types.
I don't really see the point in restricting ourselves to any particular 'function stack' when the functions themselves aren't valid.

I just think the idea of the stacks being IIEE for extraverts and EEII for introverts make the most sense, out of any stacks, if we're going to force ourselves to use stacks.




> Secondly, if you're firmly of the opinion that we'd be better off ditching function stacks, why do you still humour them in forum discussions?


Outside of the idea outlined above and the 'simple cognitive functions' test I created which was essentially a test, I haven't really humoured the 'functions' in a while, occasionally I'll have an idea i.e the "Ni as a compass" thread, but even in theorizing about them, I don't believe in them.

It's more like I'm trying to capture my image of what I think they'd look like, rather than anything related to their validity imo.

As for 'function stacks' - the only one that makes sense to me is the one above, if we really _have _to use one.


But, this idea is sketchy due to the sliding-scale nature of the official MBTI test.

It places each dichotomy preference into, well this:










If someone is kind of in between say, E/I there, they will magically shift between say, introverted iNtUiTiOn and feeling as opposed to Extraverted iNtUiTiOn and feeling depending on the day, according to that "stack" - which imo kind of sucks, but it's better than the massive wtf that occurs with the Grant stack with regards to the other dichotomy preferences.

I also just prefer those sliding scales because they show how someone close to the divide but maybe more say, S than N, will actually be more similar to someone with slight-moderate N preferences as opposed to a fellow S type with a very clear preference.

So while I do prefer dichotomy above all else, I just think if we _have_ to force ourselves to use any stack, _for reasons unknown_, then the one I outlined above makes the most sense to me.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Soul Kitchen said:


> ISFJ? Did you just type me as an ISFJ, even though I've never ever tested as an S type, and can't identify with any of the SJ types? I'm sorry, but this is more proof that the Grant function stacks are complete bullshit.


I don't think this criticism is in error, although it was worded in a way that assumes others ought to be pre-aware of my not identifying with ISFJ. How could I have expected others to already know my test results and how I relate to types, even if that wasn't my intention? 

However, there is one error I haven't addressed, @xraydav. It's a fallacy to type an introvert as having a conscious extraverted function, which is another reason why the Harold Grant stack is bullshit.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> However, there is one error I haven't addressed, @xraydav. It's a fallacy to type an introvert as having a conscious extraverted function, which is another reason why the Harold Grant stack is bullshit.


Yeah, this is a problem for me.. I don't have any preferred mode of extraverting, I don't prefer to extravert, I'm an introvert.

It doesn't make sense that I either:

Magically make decisions according to external rules and logic, or in accordance with external social norms; and/or that I
Magically am oriented towards seeing objects/people as they are objectively, and/or the possibilities they present in accordance with my current environment.

None of the above, for me, and I imagine it's a similar scenario for most 'very clear' introverts.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Turi said:


> Yeah, this is a problem for me.. I don't have any preferred mode of extraverting, I don't prefer to extravert, I'm an introvert.
> 
> It doesn't make sense that I either:
> 
> ...


I get the sense we'd be in agreement on there being four functions, not eight, with the extraversion and introversion of each function varying based on its level of consciousness.

As I've said before, I would most likely be an Introverted Intuitive type, but in saying that, I should also stress there would be an extraverted factor to my intuition. I relate almost as much to the Extraverted Intuitive type description, and my top three functions on Nardi's test are Ne, Ti, and Ni - all sitting around 39-40 at "excellent use".

Although I'm most likely an introvert, I'm not strongly introverted.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Soul Kitchen one heuristic that could be helpful is to imagine 4 functions as 4 blocks of differing densities, increasing the further down you go in the stack. So if you're N first, T second then you can say:
N = 1
T = 2
F = 3
S = 4

And your entire psyche is like an ecosystem between these blocks and some sort of sea, which isn't constant in density over time. So maybe in your most normal state it'll be around 2.5 and that'll mean the N and T will float and the F and S will sink. But the N will be floating a little higher and the S anchored down on the bottom of the sea a little stronger. But when things change the T can sink (when the sea density gets below 2), or the F can float (when the sea density gets above 3) and bring some of that inferior grime to the surface.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Soul Kitchen one heuristic that could be helpful is to imagine 4 functions as 4 blocks of differing densities, increasing the further down you go in the stack. So if you're N first, T second then you can say:
> N = 1
> T = 2
> F = 3
> ...


Thanks for that, it makes a lot of sense. 

I guess the changes in sea density can represent either prolonged changes in one's life, such as a time of crisis or existential angst, or a momentary change, such as being particularly vexed or stressed out by something.

Do you see yourself in this heuristic?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Thanks for that, it makes a lot of sense.
> 
> I guess the changes in sea density can represent either prolonged changes in one's life, such as a time of crisis or existential angst, or a momentary change, such as being particularly vexed or stressed out by something.


Yes, and the functions take on different character based on where they are pushed.


> Do you see yourself in this heuristic?


Well sort of in that my Feeling is sort of on the borderline between sinking and floating and my Sensing often feels like legendary lost sunken pirate treasure that may not even exist. But I don't feel like I fit Jung's idea of my inferior function being oriented in the extraverted direction. It's still more introverted than not. In Jung's types I'm like Ni/Ti > Fi > Si/Ne > Te > Fe/Se. If you take the irrational/rational recaps into account, I would prefer Ni over Ti and Se over Fe.

Functions have so many different definitions, especially when subdivided into 8. You mentioned Nardi and he has me as Te/Ne on top, which I just find funny.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> Yes, and the functions take on different character based on where they are pushed.
> 
> Well sort of in that my Feeling is sort of on the borderline between sinking and floating and my Sensing often feels like legendary lost sunken pirate treasure that may not even exist. But I don't feel like I fit Jung's idea of my inferior function being oriented in the extraverted direction. It's still more introverted than not. In Jung's types I'm like Ni/Ti > Fi > Si/Ne > Te > Fe/Se. If you take the irrational/rational recaps into account, I would prefer Ni over Ti and Se over Fe.
> 
> Functions have so many different definitions, especially when subdivided into 8. You mentioned Nardi and he has me as Te/Ne on top, which I just find funny.


You'd basically have to be an ENTJ to get Te/Ne on top, lol. You'd still have an extraverted factor to both your conscious functions, but not to the point where you wouldn't have an introverted preference for them.

In my case, with my Sensing function being unconscious, the question of orientation would almost be a non-factor. That's not to say it wouldn't be opposite of Intuition in orientation, but the Sensing function would need to have a clearly distinguished character in the first place in order to be quantifiable. This is why I believe it's not very useful to type people based on their alleged inferior function, provided it's worth typing people with functions at all.

As for the tertiary Feeling function, it wouldn't have the distinct introverted lean of my conscious functions, but nor would it be fully extraverted either. It would almost be just a Feeling function, and that's it.

Below is a rough outline of what would be my most likely function heuristic, when taking into considering an average ratio. The proportions would vary from time to time. Usually it would be Ni-Ti/Fe-Se, but sometimes it would be something like Ni-Ti-F/Se, or even Ni/T-F-Se or Ni-F/T-Se.

Intuition (170): Ni 100, Ne 70
Thinking (130): Ti 80, Te 50
Feeling (100): Fi 55, Fe 45
Sensing (50): Se 30, Si 20


----------



## MakeItRain (Feb 8, 2017)

A part of me feels like we're just energetic and more scatter-brained INFPs, but it seems the same for ESFPs just being bubblier more outgoing ISFPs


----------

