# I don't buy into the functions anymore, here's why



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

1. They're defined differently in different systems. For the most part they are the same. But not exactly and it creates overlap. Something may be Te in one system but Se in another, like in Socionics. But even in one system there's overlap, either because some aspects of each function serve the same purpose or do similar things as another function. What's the point of this redundancy? There isn't. It also results in people being confused about their type. People interpret functions differently and many sites and people in general have taken it upon themselves to extrapolate on what the functions are and what they do.

2. Same applies to function stacks, but worse. Because function stacks are entirely different in different systems. But somehow people use these systems as well. So there's 1 of 2 possibilities. It's the Barnum effect in action, so even if there are set function stacks we have no way of knowing. Or there just is no way that your functions need to be stacked. The logic of stacks is also flawed. An argument for Grant stacks I typically hear is "Double judging, double perceiving, double extroverted, or double introverted functions are unhealthy and dysfunctional. So it's not that way" It being unhealthy wouldn't make it untrue. Also the idea is your first 2 functions are good, your 3rd is meh, 4th is a weak spot, 5-8 get progressively weaker than that and largely are unused. Does that sound healthy to you? In reality if this were true every type should in theory have a slew of disorders. IxFPs barely have Te, and have even less Ti. They shouldn't be able to reason if that's the case. IxTJs would all have aspergers. ExFJs would be schizophrenic since they lack Te and don't have much Ti. ENxPs should need occupational therapy with such a lack of S functions, etc.

3. It makes no sense to value some aspects of T but not others, same for the other functions. It's also not true in practice. Thinkers, Te or Ti are more logic-driven, period. Ti users use facts, Te users use reason. They don't ignore it, that's silly. If Te users really lacked Ti they wouldn't be able to make simple connections. Ti users would have no understanding of facts and just be pulling shit out of their asses.

4. Function theory has weird dogmas. The function stacks are one of many. Another is this idea that you can't be 50% perceiving, and 50% judging or anything else. No reason is given. Or the idea that type can't change.

5. It causes mistypes. People will focus on the most minute descriptions of functions and zero in on that because they're told that more than half the functions they have should be weak or not that strong. The stacks are the main problem. "My functions are Te>Ne, that's a loop, I must be unhealthy, even though I feel fine" Wouldn't it make more sense that you're just an ENTJ than "An unhealthy ESTJ in a loop"? This "i wAs uNhEaLtHy sO i tYpEd aS tHiS" is a recurring trend I'm seeing.

6. The loops, the shadow, the inferior function, etc are waaaay too specific. Especially for something not scientifically verified (that includes functions as a whole). I don't think it can be anyways because it's too subjective and people adapt and change, so why would they always cope the same way? Types would have to be robots for this to all be true. The idea that you act and react the same way cause you're the same type. Yet, this community seems to understand very well that "No two types are exactly the same" well it seems like you think they are when you enforce this super intricate idea onto people.

7. Types looking similar, acting similar, thinking in similar ways, but having no functions in common? Fuck off. It's so convoluted it's ridiculous. Why even have 8 functions if 4 of them you barely use and they just mimick the ones you do use anyways?

8. Functions pretty much do away with the P/J dichotomy. It's tacted on for no reason. "It doesn't matter that this person is stereotypically P, he uses Fe, so he's a J" Also the fact that nothing about Fe is J (or P for that matter) unlike Te which is clearly J. As well as Se and Ne which are clearly P.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

@Aluminum Frost I'm glad you've seen the light. I agree with most of your points, but I think there's room for expansion. Here are a few responses.

A. For your third point, I would take things one step further and extend this argument to Feeling types. I mean, doesn't every sane person use logic ("Ti") and facts ("Te") to inform their decision making? Also, the so-called processes used to decide things using logic and values aren't as distinctly separate as functionistas say they are. You can rationalise values using logic or use logic to determine values.
B. Your fourth point is correct, but there's room for expansion. Ti and Fi are called 'Judging' functions and Si and Ni called 'Perceiving' functions, even when MBTI descriptions are specifically jerry-rigged to their opposites. Someone who supposedly prefers their 'Judging' function over their 'Perceiving' function can be stronger on S/N than either T/F or J, or someone who supposedly prefers their 'Perceiving' function over their 'Judging' function can be stronger on T/F than either S/N or P. Despite being so-called Ni-doms, INJs tend to score lower on N than INPs. Finally, this all assume that someone has to prefer S/N over T/F, and vice versa. It's quite possible to have comparably strong or weak preferences either way.
C. For your fifth and sixth points, the obvious conclusion here is people resort to loops, axes, and grips to compensate for a systemic flaw. The function stacks are fundamentally inflexible, so people inject these ideas into them to twist them however way they like. That way, functionistas can have their cake and eat it too. They can argue for preferred functions when it suits them, and they can explain away inconsistencies in preference when it suits them.
D. As for your seventh point, the reason people do this is because they want the MBTI to be something it's not. MBTI lacks the tools to map out cognitive processes or to explain everything about one's personality, but people aren't content with its limitations. They want MBTI to have the answers to everything. Okay, that's a hyperbole, but admittedly not a big one. How do you use MBTI to explain everything? Use function theory. Now you have people claiming INTPs have more in common with ESFJs than they do with INTJs. Things become even more farcical when people try to turn MBTI into Socionics, with all their talk about function blocks, PoLR, and quadras, among other things.
E. It depends on how you interpret Fe. Some interpretations of Fe are strongly J in the sense of believing values to be objectively true for all, as well as being proactive to ensure needs are met.
F. Overall, I find your OP raises plenty of valid points and is constructive, but I think it's futile to expect people around here will suddenly stop using the functions. If anything, I'd argue that the functions - whatever their numerous faults - are the passion and soul of the MBTI for reasons I stated under point D. Were the MBTI to officially declare functions non-canon, I suspect it would alienate most of its 'fanbase' and hasten its extinction. Without functions, you're left with what's arguably a poor man's Big Five (a controversial opinion I don't want to defend in this thread). Jung is also a powerful name to have on your side in the right circles; despite Jung never having explicitly endorsed the MBTI, and despite type dynamics taking several liberties with his original ideas.
G. I suspect most people here are aware that the functions are a pseudoscience, but they don't care.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Another point I neglected to mention is the functions (disregarding the stacks) are unnecessary proxys. They purport to be responsible for things that we know to exist. Such as behaviors and thought-processes. Which is a trap I think people fall into and why it's hard to argue against functions in some ways. But that doesn't mean the functions literally exist. It's a lot like saying we have a sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic function because we can exhibit traits and behaviors of these things. I can't necessarily say it's unreasonable to believe in the functions, but the stacks and loops or whatever are just nonsense.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Soul Kitchen said:


> @Aluminum Frost I'm glad you've seen the light. I agree with most of your points, but I think there's room for expansion. Here are a few responses.
> 
> A. For your third point, I would take things one step further and extend this argument to Feeling types. I mean, doesn't every sane person use logic ("Ti") and facts ("Te") to inform their decision making? Also, the so-called processes used to decide things using logic and values aren't as distinctly separate as functionistas say they are. You can rationalise values using logic or use logic to determine values.
> B. Your fourth point is correct, but there's room for expansion. Ti and Fi are called 'Judging' functions and Si and Ni called 'Perceiving' functions, even when MBTI descriptions are specifically jerry-rigged to their opposites. Someone who supposedly prefers their 'Judging' function over their 'Perceiving' function can be stronger on S/N than either T/F or J, or someone who supposedly prefers their 'Perceiving' function over their 'Judging' function can be stronger on T/F than either S/N or P. Despite being so-called Ni-Doms, INJs tend to score lower on N than INPs. Finally, this all assume that someone has to prefer S/N over T/F, and vice versa. It's quite possible to have comparably strong or weak preferences either way.
> ...


I actually posted it on r/MBTI a few months ago and the feedback was pretty good. Some agreed, some at least sympathized with my way of thinking.


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby (Apr 11, 2013)

Aluminum Frost said:


> the fact that nothing about Fe is J (or P for that matter) unlike Te which is clearly J. As well as Se and Ne which are clearly P.


Um, what? The way I learned functions, Judging functions are the ones you make decisions with (how you _feel_ or _think_ about something). There is introverted judging (Fi and Ti) and extroverted judging (Fe and Te). At least that's the way it works in Jungian/MBTI based theory (I'm not as well versed on Socionics).

Anyway though, I think you raised some valid points and I agree that function theory isn't very good. However, I do believe functions exist. I say this because if functions didn't, I should be (in theory) more similar to an ISFP than an ISTJ (or at least _as_ similar), which I am not. I relate well to ISTJ's whereas ISFP's are enjoyably bizzarre. And I don't think that's just me. I think most ISFJ's relate way more to ISTJ's than ISFP's. Interestingly, ISFJ's and ISTJ's (theoretically) share the same dominant and inferior function, whereas ISFJ's share none with ISFP's. Also, the grip experience. Many types who share the same inferior function report having similar grip experiences. I.E., for Si doms like myself (and ISTJ's), the "catastrophizing" element of being in the grip.

Now, I'm not trying to convince you to believe in functions. I just feel like there is a strong enough case for them existing. The order of how one uses them, strength of each function, how the so-called "shadow" functions work, and other details, however, I do feel are up for debate.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Those are some good observations. It's good to see more people realizing the faults. If you look into the history of MBTI, down to even the gossip parts, the decisions for the stacks were done quite arbitrarily and Jung never endorsed the MBTI. 
The E and I that Jung described were not accessory to functions, they were something like standalone functions on their own, separate preferences for how to adapt. So the original functions were 4 not 8 and the way the pairing works is that, for example someone who prefers E is basically a SeTe for an STP for example. The P attitude in theory relates to Jung's E and J relates to I. There's explanation about this in this thread.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> The P attitude in theory relates to Jung's E and J relates to I. There's explanation about this in this thread.


Seriously, you're bringing up the E-P and I-J thing again? It's the opposite of that. Myers arguably took inspiration from Jung's extraverted rationals in conceiving the Judging preference, whereas Perceiving fits slightly better with introversion. When I read descriptions of Perceiving, the emphasis is on experiencing life subjectively with a live-and-let-live approach. In contrast, descriptions of the Judging preference imply an interest in meddling in the affairs of others to make them conform.

Even with Jung's extraverted irrationals, there are many "J-ish" traits. To compare extraverted intuition with introverted intuition, his extraverted intuitive portrait talks about someone who actively reshapes the external world to realise its potential, while the introverted intuitive likes to explore ideas internally without any desire to turn them into action. Jung explicitly notes that "it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem", claiming it takes differentiation of judgment "to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere".

Also, if P and J really had an E/I skew as you insistently claim they do, you'd expect that skew to reflect in the data, but there's no statistical correlation at all between them. The only substantial skew is with S/N, which I attribute to S items appealing better to Judgers and N items appealing better to Perceivers.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Seriously, you're bringing up the E-P and I-J thing again? It's the opposite of that. Myers arguably took inspiration from Jung's extraverted rationals in conceiving the Judging preference, whereas Perceiving fits slightly better with introversion. When I read descriptions of Perceiving, the emphasis is on experiencing life subjectively with a live-and-let-live approach. Which fits best the Extraversion attitude of adaptation, as the E accepts influence of the world to shape him and change him and prefers not to act on the object for purely his own personal gain (hence not subjective in the introversion way). In contrast, descriptions of the Judging preference imply an interest in meddling in the affairs of others to make them conform. Which fits the Introversion adaptation attitude - seeking to be on top of the object to make sure it doesnt overwhelm and disempower them
> 
> Even with Jung's extraverted irrationals, there are many "J-ish" traits. To compare extraverted intuition with introverted intuition, his extraverted intuitive portrait talks about someone who actively reshapes the external world to realise its potential, while the introverted intuitive likes to explore ideas internally without any desire to turn them into action. Jung explicitly notes that "it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem", claiming it takes differentiation of judgment "to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere". The difference is, Extraversion reshapes the object with a positive relation to it, while introversion reshapes it in order to reaffirm himself. As for the withdrawal of the introvert, it can happen when he is powerless and too overwhelmed, it's just another way to protect himself. The extravert can also withdraw socially, for other reasons. Jung was likely wrong in conflating outgoingness with adaptation to the degree he did, read the thread I linked for more on that.
> 
> Also, if P and J really had an E/I skew as you insistently claim they do, you'd expect that skew to reflect in the data, but there's no statistical correlation at all between them. The only substantial skew is with S/N, which I attribute to S items appealing better to Judgers and N items appealing better to Perceivers.


As for the last paragraph, I take it you are talking about the MBTI E/I axis, which is the sociability? Because I'm not talking about that, and what you're saying doesn't make sense unless you are talking about the MBTI E/I axis. The separation of outgoingness and adaptation attitude is prob the best thing M&B did, even if by accident.
The P/J axis is mostly a joke, because it was inspired by the way M&B misunderstood the attitudes of adaptation, but they do measure some of the behavioral symptoms relating to them, mainly the need for control & power over the object that Js prefer (Jungian Introversion) and the opposite for Ps, at the theoretical level. 
At the practical level, unfortunately, probably because of the questions asked it doesn't succeed in working well most of the time, because I agree the J questions appeal to S and maybe even Ts more.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> As for the last paragraph, I take it you are talking about the MBTI E/I axis, which is the sociability? Because I'm not talking about that, and what you're saying doesn't make sense unless you are talking about the MBTI E/I axis. The separation of outgoingness and adaptation attitude is prob the best thing M&B did, even if by accident.
> The P/J axis is mostly a joke, because it was inspired by the way M&B misunderstood the attitudes of adaptation, but they do measure some of the behavioral symptoms relating to them, mainly the need for control & power over the object that Js prefer (Jungian Introversion) and the opposite for Ps, at the theoretical level.
> At the practical level, unfortunately, probably because of the questions asked it doesn't succeed in working well most of the time, because I agree the J questions appeal to S and maybe even Ts more.


Yes, I'm talking about the E/I axis as defined by sociability. I agree with you that Myers was right to redefine extraversion and introversion into a measure of sociability, although I agree with you for different reasons - namely that Jung associated extraversion with concrete thinking and introversion with abstract thinking (note: thinking in the layman's understanding of it). Never mind what Jung thought his types were like; if you're going to claim that E/I and J/P correlate, it would be ridiculous to do so with the implication that it's relevant to MBTI types when they're a different animal (something we can agree upon). You can only talk about differences insofar as you're describing how the two different systems don't match up.

Jung actually associated a desire for control and power with extraverted thinking the most, and least of all with the introverted irrational types, whom he considered the "most fruitless of men". His extraverted thinking type sought to make people conform to their agenda, and when they didn't, it was they who were in the wrong. I see a lot of Jung's extraverted thinking in Myer's characterisation of Judging. Jung also considered the extraverted intuitive to have its own idiosyncratic sense of values which, at times, may run contrary to what's conventional.



Extraverted Intuition said:


> The morality of the intuitive is governed neither by intellect nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his intuitive view of things and a voluntary submission to its authority, Consideration for the welfare of his neighbours is weak. No solid argument hinges upon their well-being any more than upon his own. Neither can we detect in him any great respect for his neighbour's convictions and customs; in fact, he is not infrequently put down as an immoral and ruthless adventurer. Since his intuition is largely concerned with outer objects, scenting out external possibilities, he readily applies himself to callings wherein he may expand his abilities in many directions.


Jung's introverted types sought to withdraw from objects, like you said, so that they wouldn't be overwhelmed by them. That's not what I'd call "seeking to be on top of the object".


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Yes, I'm talking about the E/I axis as defined by sociability. I agree with you that Myers was right to redefine extraversion and introversion into a measure of sociability, although I agree with you for different reasons - namely that Jung associated extraversion with concrete thinking and introversion with abstract thinking (note: thinking in the layman's understanding of it). Never mind what Jung thought his types were like; you're going to claim that E/I and J/P correlate, it would be ridiculous to do so with the implication that it's relevant to MBTI types when they're a different animal (something we can agree upon). You can only talk about differences insofar as you're describing how the two different systems don't match up.


But I'm not correlating the MBTI E/I and P/J, I am correlating Jung's attitudes of adaptation (which he called Extraversion and Introversion) to the P/J. 



> Jung actually associated a desire for control and power with extraverted thinking the most, and least of all with the introverted irrational types, whom he considered the "most fruitless of men". His extraverted thinking type sought to make people conform to their agenda, and when they didn't, it was they who were in the wrong. I see a lot of Jung's extraverted thinking in Myer's characterisation of Judging. Jung also considered the extraverted intuitive to have its own idiosyncratic sense of values which, at times, may run contrary to what's conventional.


No, he is not associating the desire for control and power with TE, he only mentions that the TE type wants other people to also understand and view the world as he does and may get frustrated when that doesn't happen. It's not about his subjective need for power over others to protect his own self, which is something he describes the introvert as generally needing. But I understand how it seems that it fits the J types, and perhaps Jung was even conflating those things himself because of 1) his premise that outgoingness matters to E more than I and 2) his general lack of access to information due to the times he lived 3) how he seems to focus on S for Es and N for Is. Overall I think it's good to start with his premises and observations on E/I but take the descriptions of the types with a grain of salt. Many of the points he makes about TE is very much how TPs behave, like how they get frustrated when people don't see the principles and logic the same way, and how sometimes they will push aside potential information that reshape their conclusions because it is seen as accidental, they may not trust their perception much . But in the end, they're very adaptable and with little concern about protecting their ideas, they change their minds quite easily if the new information makes sense, which is exactly T+E. In his words, the TE type doesn't just want others to subordinate to his ideas, he subordinates himself to the object too.

He also didn't consider the introverted irrationals as fruitless men, he says it's how the extravert rationals may view them.




> Jung's introverted types sought to withdraw from objects, like you said, so that they wouldn't be overwhelmed by them. That's not what I'd call "seeking to be on top of the object".


It is, as it allows for the self to be intact from its influence. It's just less aggressive, which will vary on the person. And since he conflated outgoingness with adaptation, he was wrong that Introversion always causes withdrawal. 

Can't say I disagree much with that NE description, except that as with all his types he is being hyperbolic as he himself admits and talking about a hypothetical "pure" type. IRL those things are tempered by the other preferences. Which is another reason why his type descriptions need to be taken with a grain of salt. Overall his perceiving types seem to be more well described, however. NE type being unconventional makes a lot of sense, since the object is not just the immediate social environment, but the universe as a whole, and society is largely built on introversion, so the NE type disturbs the waters by bringing in new perspectives. I think he also mentions something like that in the general Extravert type, that it's not just the immediate. Incorporating this into understanding the E types is important, and why it may seem that Ps care for the "subjective" when instead they just don't rely on the immediate social environment.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> But I'm not correlating the MBTI E/I and P/J, I am correlating Jung's attitudes of adaptation (which he called Extraversion and Introversion) to the P/J.


Yet you use MBTI labels to make your point. See how it can be misleading?



> No, he is not associating the desire for control and power with TE, he only mentions that the TE type wants other people to also understand and view the world as he does and may get frustrated when that doesn't happen. It's not about his subjective need for power over others to protect his own self, which is something he describes the introvert as generally needing.


But power is used as a means in which to bring other people in line. That's what I was trying to say.



> But I understand how it seems that it fits the J types, and perhaps Jung was even conflating those things himself because of 1) his premise that outgoingness matters to E more than I and 2) his general lack of access to information due to the times he lived 3) how he seems to focus on S for Es and N for Is. Overall I think it's good to start with his premises and observations on E/I but take the descriptions of the types with a grain of salt. Many of the points he makes about TE is very much how TPs behave, like how they get frustrated when people don't see the principles and logic the same way, and how sometimes they will push aside potential information that reshape their conclusions because it is seen as accidental, they may not trust their perception much . But in the end, they're very adaptable and with little concern about protecting their ideas, they change their minds quite easily if the new information makes sense, which is exactly T+E. In his words, the TE type doesn't just want others to subordinate to his ideas, he subordinates himself to the object too.


Not really. TP profiles generally describe them as rejecting rules because they think they don't work, whereas STJ portraits make them out to be "by-the-book" types who enforce the letter of the law. I'd argue that extraverted thinking is almost as applicable to ISTJs as it is to ESTJs. Between Js and Ps, it'd be the Js conforming to the 'proper' way of doing things, and Ps resisting structure to explore their perceptions.

According to Jung, extraverted and introverted thinking types both would feel resentment when others don't see things their way. We see this throughout Psychological Types where Jung, as a self-identifying introverted thinking type, resents the standard mode of thinking for his day and the inability of extraverts to appreciate the viewpoints of introverts.



> He also didn't consider the introverted irrationals as fruitless men, he says it's how the extravert rationals may view them.
> 
> It is, as it allows for the self to be intact from its influence. It's just less aggressive, which will vary on the person. And since he conflated outgoingness with adaptation, he was wrong that Introversion always causes withdrawal.


My mistake, Jung did indeed say "from an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men". Framing this in light of Jung's broader views of extraversion and introversion, we see a trend of Jung, an introvert, feeling resentment towards the cultural attitude which he attributed to an extraverted mentality. That it's the extraverted rationals judging introverts - introverted irrationals especially - to be fruitless does tie in with my point about differences in power and control. To Jung, the extravert finds empowerment through influencing objects, while the introvert finds empowerment through separation from the influence of objects. A judgement is an attempt at influencing an object.

I think many of our disagreements are semantic issues. One example is our different takes on what power means, where I emphasise one's ability to influence things as an indicator of strength. Another issue is that Jung didn't communicate his ideas as clearly as he could have, meaning that reading _Psychological Types_ requires filling in the gaps to extrapolate on what he meant. I think our frameworks are incompatible. Or, to be more specific, we're taking different bits of Jung's ideas and extrapolating on them to reach opposite conclusions. Thus, I don't see much point in my continuing this discussion.



> Can't say I disagree much with that NE description, except that as with all his types he is being hyperbolic as he himself admits and talking about a hypothetical "pure" type. IRL those things are tempered by the other preferences. Which is another reason why his type descriptions need to be taken with a grain of salt. Overall his perceiving types seem to be more well described, however. NE type being unconventional makes a lot of sense, since the object is not just the immediate social environment, but the universe as a whole, and society is largely built on introversion, so the NE type disturbs the waters by bringing in new perspectives. I think he also mentions something like that in the general Extravert type, that it's not just the immediate. Incorporating this into understanding the E types is important, and why it may seem that Ps care for the "subjective" when instead they just don't rely on the immediate social environment.


I don't disagree with much of what you said here. My main disagreement is that Jung's types are "Galtonesque family portraits" because they intentionally exclude the auxiliary from descriptions. Otherwise, Jung didn't portray his types with the intention of being caricatures. Emphasis on 'intention', because his portraits are still hyperbolic.

Sure, his extraverted intuitive type wouldn't be motivated primarily by a subjective factor, but I meant that the extraverted intuitive type would be egotistical in its desire to pursue novelty. It would be a mistake to associate subjectively-based motivations with selfishness.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Yet you use MBTI labels to make your point. See how it can be misleading?


I didn't use MBTI labels, I always tie E/I to Jung when I talk about his terms and call MBTI E/I as such, to differentiate. It's the MBTI that got these terms from Jung to begin with.




> Not really. TP profiles generally describe them as rejecting rules because they think they don't work, whereas STJ portraits make them out to be "by-the-book" types who enforce the letter of the law. I'd argue that extraverted thinking is almost as applicable to ISTJs as it is to ESTJs. Between Js and Ps, it'd be the Js conforming to the 'proper' way of doing things, and Ps resisting structure to explore their perceptions.
> 
> According to Jung, extraverted and introverted thinking types both would feel resentment when others don't see things their way. We see this throughout Psychological Types where Jung, as a self-identifying introverted thinking type, resents the standard mode of thinking for his day and the inability of extraverts to appreciate the viewpoints of introverts.


They reject rules of society because many times they judge them with broader criteria, which was exactly my point. If the rules are made by people with predominant introversion, the extravert rejects, as they see them lacking, or nonsensical since they're based on the need for the introversion to protect (against) certain things, which the extravert does not relate to at all. Also most SPs are quite conforming, so there's the matter of S/N here as well.

And this is exactly one of the things in the whole typology theory that is difficult to describe, and what Jung tried to, because the gap between extraversion and introversion can be incredibly difficult to bridge. An important thing to remember is that, to understand the attitudes of adaptation we can't just look at how people behave at the social sphere but also how they relate to the world on its own, aside from other people and their immediate environment. The introvert perceiver, for example, can go so far as to believe the world is sprung from their own mind, something completely absurd to an extravert perceiver. This may be an extreme, but the underlying tendencies exist in both and create many differences we see and is also why it makes no sense for the attitude of adaptation to robotically change in the two conscious functions as they would clash incredibly. 



> To Jung, the extravert finds empowerment through influencing objects, while the introvert finds empowerment through separation from the influence of objects. A judgement is an attempt at influencing an object.


No, not at all. It's quite the opposite. Extraversion is about holding the object to the highest esteem, therefore the drive to change it does not characterise the extravert. Whereas, introversion is about protecting oneself from being influenced by the object, and as such they act on it, abstract from it what they need, and reshape it to reaffirm the self. Extraversion modifies the self, introversion modifies the object. And there are references to the Introverts' need for control in the respective section. 



Jung said:


> The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. 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.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

@Red Panda I fail to see why a Jungian introvert would be interested in setting rules for all to follow. Also, the MBTI (not Jungian) type literature even describes ITPs as being guided by their internal logic while simultaneously being spontaneous.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Soul Kitchen said:


> @Red Panda I fail to see why a Jungian introvert would be interested in setting rules for all to follow. Also, the MBTI (not Jungian) type literature even describes ITPs as being guided by their internal logic while simultaneously being spontaneous.


Because it is a great way to defend oneself from change, if all others do what affirms you, your systems or feelings, you don't have to change. It's also important to remember than introversion and extraversion both exist in a person, how strong or weak the preferred is will create a variety of behaviors.
TPs guided by internal logic is how it appears to someone with the above attitude. MBTI in general creates an arbitrary line between "internal" and "external".


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Just sharing this here.



Ocean Helm said:


> @Red Panda I still disagree with this, mainly because while you can use "adaptability" perhaps as a bridge word between the two things, it's a different kind of adaptability which each of the things shows.
> 
> *Rough oversimplifications:*
> *Introverted irrationals* - Responds to the environment ad hoc to feed subjective perception goals which don't make sense to the external world. They aren't likely to plan or schedule, doing what they want when they feel the imperative from their own perception to do it. *Verdict: Stubborn P*
> ...


----------



## Crowbo (Jul 9, 2017)

These are some really solid arguments against the functions and consistency wise with the rest of MBTI, they can be quite messy. Come to think of it, they really shouldn't be taken as the complete type gospel but so many here think they are. The primary issue I have with Socionics lies in how much their definitions of functions differ from other branches of typology, which imo only creates more confusion and overcomplicates things. Socionics descriptions of functions like Se are ones I find to be especially nonsensical and idiotic.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

The distinction between function preference is important, but the function stacks seem impossible to be correct 100% of the time. You can prefer Fe over Fi, but to say you only use one over the other 100% of the time is impossible. Don't know if I count as one of those "unhealthy" individuals spoken of, but I relate a lot more to the preference/strength of Si Fi than Si Te, although I do use Te (naturally) when I need to. I don't think we can completely write off the existence of the functions themselves though - Fe and Fi are really different, for example.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

Functions are the only reason that Jungian/MBTI typology is useful and interesting to me, the issue is all the bullshit built on top of it by self-promoted influencers creates a large amount of noise and people are treating various flavors of cognitive theory as religions with cult leaders and sources of missing identity instead of just potentially useful theory.

If I was remotely interested in a trait based categorization I'd just stick with the Big 5. But I'm not interested so much in what people do, but why. Cognitive functions are a good STARTING point for figuring that out.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

It's a solid theory, it's just that people can't leave it well alone objectively and constantly find this need to fuck with it to promote their own emo-tween needs.

Like _''I'm an INFJ......obvy! Because it's like the super coolest type evur! But I don't like the definitions of Fe much, I prefer this whole brooding broken soul associated with Fi users so...............okay here's my thing: Like, I'm probably a shadow jumper looper, which is why I have better access to Fi than Fe. Which happens when I'm really confident, like when I post here, and also when I'm really stressed which is like, super common for INFJs because we are such oppressed and misunderstood people, that's why we have better access to Fi, but I also don't want people to think I'm dumb, so let's just say whenever I need to be smart, which is like, ALL the time, then I jump into my ISTP super-ego and.......oh shit!! That makes me a Sensor now! No no no! Forget what I said, so like, THROUGH my ISTP superego, I then jump back into the intuitive realm and access judging functions inversely which then makes me INTJ. Like right now I'm being super smart because I'm in my dimension X INTJ oppressed ego, which I can turn on and off at will, but I'm still a super deep emotional brooder though, don't forget that because I'm more Fi-heavy, unlike all these fake bitches online and on Youtube who pretend to be INFJ. So yeah, that's how functions work. Also, when I'm being super silly, I like, totally cognitively transition into an ENxP because!''_


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Just pick the theory you most resonate with and help yourself.

It's not like it has any more implication of it. MBTI is all about improving yourself.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

Stevester said:


> It's a solid theory, it's just that people can't leave it well alone objectively and constantly find this need to fuck with it to promote their own emo-tween needs.
> 
> Like _''I'm an INFJ......obvy! Because it's like the super coolest type evur! But I don't like the definitions of Fe much, I prefer this whole brooding broken soul associated with Fi users so...............okay here's my thing: Like, I'm probably a shadow jumper looper, which is why I have better access to Fi than Fe. Which happens when I'm really confident, like when I post here, and also when I'm really stressed which is like, super common for INFJs because we are such oppressed and misunderstood people, that's why we have better access to Fi, but I also don't want people to think I'm dumb, so let's just say whenever I need to be smart, which is like, ALL the time, then I jump into my ISTP super-ego and.......oh shit!! That makes me a Sensor now! No no no! Forget what I said, so like, THROUGH my ISTP superego, I then jump back into the intuitive realm and access judging functions inversely which then makes me INTJ. Like right now I'm being super smart because I'm in my dimension X INTJ oppressed ego, which I can turn on and off at will, but I'm still a super deep emotional brooder though, don't forget that because I'm more Fi-heavy, unlike all these fake bitches online and on Youtube who pretend to be INFJ. So yeah, that's how functions work. Also, when I'm being super silly, I like, totally cognitively transition into an ENxP because!''_


You don't seem to care for INFJ too much eh lol... Oppressed and misunderstood I am not... All people are not the same in any given type. But I hear what you're saying a lot of wanna be special snowflakes in most of the types


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Soul Kitchen said:


> Just sharing this here.


I agree with some of them and not with others, because the issue here is that people may type one type because of the questions but the theoretical framework of what the P/J is doesn't match the result of the test, which is an issue of the MBTI or maybe not even the MBTI but all the free online tests that most people use to type themselves. And I'm focusing more on the framework when I make my Jung's E/I comparisons. For example, there are introvert irrationals who type P because they are more avoidant and not aggressive, but MBTI P is doesn't match Jung's descriptions for PI at all. In the MBTI, the NPs for example are described as objective, innovative, adaptable, flexible, consider many possibilities etc. So OceanHelm's descriptions don't match the above, but may match people online who believe are Ps because yes not every introvert type cares about organizing his books and whatnot. And the problem with this is that the groups of real types are mixed, so we have i.e. both extravert and introvert Ns typing as Ps and so on.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm not saying the J/P and Jung's I/E correlate 1:1. Rather, they measure symptoms of them indirectly, because they relate to how people adapt to the environment, but are focused on specific behaviors when testing for it, which don't relate to some people at all.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Surreal Snake said:


> You don't seem to care for INFJ too much eh lol...


No, I hate _those specific types_ I just mentioned and trust me, they're probably not even INFJ to begin with.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

I disagree with most points, here's why:



Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. They're defined differently in different systems. For the most part they are the same. But not exactly and it creates overlap. Something may be Te in one system but Se in another, like in Socionics. But even in one system there's overlap, either because some aspects of each function serve the same purpose or do similar things as another function. What's the point of this redundancy? There isn't. It also results in people being confused about their type. People interpret functions differently and many sites and people in general have taken it upon themselves to extrapolate on what the functions are and what they do.


Are you familiar with the parable of the blind men and an elephant?

"A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear." (taken from Wikipedia)



> 2. Same applies to function stacks, but worse. Because function stacks are entirely different in different systems. But somehow people use these systems as well. So there's 1 of 2 possibilities. It's the Barnum effect in action, so even if there are set function stacks we have no way of knowing. Or there just is no way that your functions need to be stacked. The logic of stacks is also flawed. An argument for Grant stacks I typically hear is "Double judging, double perceiving, double extroverted, or double introverted functions are unhealthy and dysfunctional. So it's not that way" It being unhealthy wouldn't make it untrue. Also the idea is your first 2 functions are good, your 3rd is meh, 4th is a weak spot, 5-8 get progressively weaker than that and largely are unused. Does that sound healthy to you? In reality if this were true every type should in theory have a slew of disorders. IxFPs barely have Te, and have even less Ti. They shouldn't be able to reason if that's the case. IxTJs would all have aspergers. ExFJs would be schizophrenic since they lack Te and don't have much Ti. ENxPs should need occupational therapy with such a lack of S functions, etc.


If people mix and match systems that were never meant to mix and match, does the fault lie with the systems, or with the people (mis-)using them? This isn't to say that attempts at harmonizing the different systems should be avoided. Just know what it is you're looking at.
The argument in favor of the Grant stack does not come from Harold Grant, does it? His work deserves a fair share of criticism, I agree, but at the very least we ought to critique his actual work, not what others think it means.
Oh, and I disagree with your suggestion that "in theory" we ought all ought to have a "slew of disorders" if this ordering of functions is to be true (are you still speaking of the Grant stack here, I can't tell?). A hierarchy of strength in itself does not suggest a tendency for mental disorders. Especially not when this hierarchy is based on the premise of balancing strengths and weaknesses.



> 3. It makes no sense to value some aspects of T but not others, same for the other functions. It's also not true in practice. Thinkers, Te or Ti are more logic-driven, period. Ti users use facts, Te users use reason. They don't ignore it, that's silly. If Te users really lacked Ti they wouldn't be able to make simple connections. Ti users would have no understanding of facts and just be pulling shit out of their asses.


We can value some aspects and not others. We can also employ aspects that we value, and we can employ aspects that we don't value. I don't see the problem. Perhaps we are defining "to value" here differently. In my understanding, not valuing or preferring an aspect of Thinking does not mean that we do not _use_ that aspect.

I disagree with your assertion that "Ti users use facts, Te users use reason" and I don't know from where you got this idea. It does make sense that you are uneasy about functions if this is how you interpret them. All types use both facts and reason in their approach to problems. This includes Feeling types, if you were wondering.



> 4. Function theory has weird dogmas. The function stacks are one of many. Another is this idea that you can't be 50% perceiving, and 50% judging or anything else. No reason is given. Or the idea that type can't change.


This is not an example of dogma. The function theory stands against the MBTI model of preference. In the model of preference, which relies on questionnaires, one can score a 50% "preference." I do believe that even this model suggests taking multiple tests over a period of time in the hope that, eventually, an actual preference will surface. The function theory, on the other hand, does not operate based on preference in the same way. Here, one isn't simply a "perceiver," but one's cognition might lead with one of the four perceiving functions and this is discovered through study of the model and self-study, not via a questionnaire.



> 5. It causes mistypes. People will focus on the most minute descriptions of functions and zero in on that because they're told that more than half the functions they have should be weak or not that strong. The stacks are the main problem. "My functions are Te>Ne, that's a loop, I must be unhealthy, even though I feel fine" Wouldn't it make more sense that you're just an ENTJ than "An unhealthy ESTJ in a loop"? This "i wAs uNhEaLtHy sO i tYpEd aS tHiS" is a recurring trend I'm seeing.


"Loops" are an add-on to the function theory. You can criticize the idea of "loops" and "grips" all you want, this is not reflective on whether or not the function theory has validity.



> 6. The loops, the shadow, the inferior function, etc are waaaay too specific. Especially for something not scientifically verified (that includes functions as a whole). I don't think it can be anyways because it's too subjective and people adapt and change, so why would they always cope the same way? Types would have to be robots for this to all be true. The idea that you act and react the same way cause you're the same type. Yet, this community seems to understand very well that "No two types are exactly the same" well it seems like you think they are when you enforce this super intricate idea onto people.


Something being specific has no bearing on whether it is true or false.
I don't know what you are referring to when you say "the idea that you act and react the same way cause you're the same type." Type is speaking of _patterns_ of thought and behavior. Not about a strict script that we can absolutely never deviate from.



> 7. Types looking similar, acting similar, thinking in similar ways, but having no functions in common? Fuck off. It's so convoluted it's ridiculous. Why even have 8 functions if 4 of them you barely use and they just mimick the ones you do use anyways?


I don't know what you are reacting to here, so I will not comment further.



> 8. Functions pretty much do away with the P/J dichotomy. It's tacted on for no reason. "It doesn't matter that this person is stereotypically P, he uses Fe, so he's a J" Also the fact that nothing about Fe is J (or P for that matter) unlike Te which is clearly J. As well as Se and Ne which are clearly P.


This is wrong: Fe is very much a Judging function. It seeks external control of the emotional realm. I agree that Se and Ne are Perceiving functions. The quote you used sounds made up.
Functions do not do away with the P/J dichotomy, instead this dichotomy is integrated within the functions themselves. Rather than thinking of types as being either P or J, it posits that each function is either P or J. Ne, Se, Si, and Ni are Perceiving functions, whereas Te, Fe, Fi, and Ti are Judging functions. The dichotomy is very much alive and well.

In conclusion, you criticized a great deal of claims that the function theory simply does not make. I interpret this as you reacting to what is largely a forum culture, but something that has nothing to do with the model itself. I also think that your understanding of the function theory is very flawed, and suggest undertaking a serious study of it, away from forum culture.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Daeva said:


> I disagree with your assertion that "Ti users use facts, Te users use reason" and I don't know from where you got this idea. It does make sense that you are uneasy about functions if this is how you interpret them. All types use both facts and reason in their approach to problems. This includes Feeling types, if you were wondering.


Oh, I misunderstood what I was commenting on here. Your point was that if the claim is that Ti only uses reason and not facts, and Te uses only facts and not reason, it would be wrong. In this case, I agree. However, I don't know who is claiming the initial claim that you are reacting to?


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> I agree with some of them and not with others, because the issue here is that people may type one type because of the questions but the theoretical framework of what the P/J is doesn't match the result of the test, which is an issue of the MBTI or maybe not even the MBTI but all the free online tests that most people use to type themselves. And I'm focusing more on the framework when I make my Jung's E/I comparisons. For example, there are introvert irrationals who type P because they are more avoidant and not aggressive, but MBTI P is doesn't match Jung's descriptions for PI at all. In the MBTI, the NPs for example are described as objective, innovative, adaptable, flexible, consider many possibilities etc. So OceanHelm's descriptions don't match the above, but may match people online who believe are Ps because yes not every introvert type cares about organizing his books and whatnot. And the problem with this is that the groups of real types are mixed, so we have i.e. both extravert and introvert Ns typing as Ps and so on.
> 
> In case it wasn't clear, I'm not saying the J/P and Jung's I/E correlate 1:1. Rather, they measure symptoms of them indirectly, because they relate to how people adapt to the environment, but are focused on specific behaviors when testing for it, which don't relate to some people at all.


Here's a table from _Gifts Differing_ comparing J and P.


*J**P*Live according to plans, standards, and customs not easily or lightly set aside, to which the situation of the moment must, if possible, be made to conform.Live according to the situation of the moment and adjust themselves easily to the accidental and the unexpected.
Make a very definite choice among life's possibilities, but may not appreciate or utilize unplanned, unexpected, and incidental happenings.Are frequently masterful in their handling of the unplanned, unexpected, and incidental, but may not make an effective choice among life's possibilities.Think or feel that they know what other people ought to do about almost everything, and are not averse to telling them.Know what other people are doing, and are interested to see how it comes out.Self-regimented, purposeful, and exacting.Flexible, adaptable, and tolerant.

In adapting Jung's ideas, Myers based J/P on the idea of what one's attitude was towards the object, as opposed to describing the subjective attitude. It's for that reason the J/P correlation is messier with introverts than it is with extraverts, whereas there's a clearer correlation between extraverted rational with J and extraverted irrational with P.



Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types said:


> The reasonableness that characterizes the conscious management of life in both these types, involves a conscious exclusion of the accidental and non-rational. *Reasoning judgment, in such a psychology, represents a power that coerces the untidy and accidental things of life into definite forms; such at least is its aim.* Thus, on the one hand, a definite choice is made among the possibilities of life, since only the rational choice is consciously accepted; but, on the other hand, the independence and influence of those psychic functions which perceive life's happenings are essentially restricted.





Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types said:


> To the rationally orientated mind, the real character of such people might well appear rationalistic and purposeful in the bad sense. But this judgment would be valid only for their unconscious, and, therefore, quite incorrect for their conscious psychology, which is entirely orientated by perception, and because of its irrational nature is quite unintelligible to the rational judgment. *Finally, it may even appear to a rationally orientated mind that such an assemblage of accidentals, hardly deserves the name 'psychology.' The irrational type balances this contemptuous judgment with an equally poor impression of the rational; for he sees him as something only half alive, whose only aim in life consists in fastening the fetters of reason upon everything living, and wringing his own neck with criticisms.* Naturally, these are gross extremes; but they occur.


Note that the "rationally oriented mind" Jung describes isn't restricted to introverted rationals; an extraverted rational can also dismiss the extraverted irrational as "an assemblage of accidentals". MBTI J/P items ask the taker what methods they prefer when engaging with the world; in other words, one's internal preferences to external methods. Not a single one of those items pertains to defense of an internal idea. Likewise, the J description does not have attitude towards the subject in mind.

As for me, I fit with some of Jung's characterisation of introverts in that I'm not easily receptive to external influences and question established norms. I'm comfortable with sharing and discussing facts because they have some value in finding common ground, but I can also extrapolate on the underlying significance of those facts without taking them at face value. My reluctance to accept your ideas as having validity would make me less adaptable according to your framework. I'm like this, and yet I generally prefer P responses on the MBTI inventory because I'm externally unstructured in how I engage with the world. Because J/P in the MBTI is ultimately about how you are in the external world, and I'm sometimes perceived as an aimless drifter in the same way Jung's extraverted rationals deemed introverted irrationals "the most fruitless of men". I would actually say that my lack of responsiveness to the external world is related to being an MBTI P type; I'm indecisive because I need time not just to gather all the information I can, but also because I need to chew it over before I can take action, and I still second guess my decisions based on subjective criteria. I'm not internally rigid at all because I'm constantly expanding upon my interpretations of things subjectively.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Daeva said:


> I disagree with most points, here's why:
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the parable of the blind men and an elephant?
> ...


1. What's your point? You seem to be admitting to ignorance but are insisting on a model you have no way of remotely proving anyways.

2. The systems outright contradict eachother, that's why they can't exist in harmony. Another problem is his work has no proof to back it up, so any interpretation is equally as valid as his, even if his was the original. It does if the idea is more than half of your functions are weak and underutilized. The functions are responsible for behaviors and cognition so being weak in multiple functions would be very problematic and point to disorders. Also as I've established with this hierarchical idea there can be no balance.

3. Why would you? And this doesn't even have to do with values, it has to do with how your brain works. Not "valuing" certain aspects of thinking, feeling, whatever is arbitrary and isn't backed by anything. 

My point is if you have more Ti then you use it much more than Te. There's no reason why you'd use one much more than the other. Or why you'd use a particular form of intuition, feeling, and sensing more than another form of thinking as a Ti dom. If Te is supposed to be your 5th function and Te is about facts and data then your thought process should be lacking in it.

4. It's a dogma because it is asserted for no reason whatsoever.

5. As I said before though, it's equally baseless.

6. It's probably not true if it is super specific and you have no reason to believe it. Also I was pointing out the cognitive dissonance of people who use function stacks when they say no two types are exactly the same but then talks about them as if they're all exactly the same with regards to loops and shadows.

7. I'm asking why do ISFPs and ISFJs look and act so similar if they supposedly have nothing in common?

8. Se seeks external control of the physical environment. There, I just made Se into a J function. Fe adapts to the emotional environment, there, I just made Fe into a P function.

I did for years and concluded it's a joke.

9. I made another point in the thread also.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. What's your point? You seem to be admitting to ignorance but are insisting on a model you have no way of remotely proving anyways.


My point is that just because descriptions might differ from one another, it doesn't mean that the subject being described is a different thing. "Se" doesn't just become "Te" because authors choose to emphasize different elements. On top of this, authors make mistakes, like anyone else.



> 2. The systems outright contradict eachother, that's why they can't exist in harmony. Another problem is his work has no proof to back it up, so any interpretation is equally as valid as his, even if his was the original. It does if the idea is more than half of your functions are weak and underutilized. The functions are responsible for behaviors and cognition so being weak in multiple functions would be very problematic and point to disorders. Also as I've established with this hierarchical idea there can be no balance.


"if the idea is," but the idea isn't. How you are describing function strength is a misrepresentation of the theory, and it is this misrepresentation that you are criticizing.

A hierarchy of elements with equally strong and weak elements balancing each other out is.. balance.



> 3. Why would you? And this doesn't even have to do with values, it has to do with how your brain works. Not "valuing" certain aspects of thinking, feeling, whatever is arbitrary and isn't backed by anything.


It _does _have to do with values, hence the term. Value assessment is an extremely important aspect to cognition.



> My point is if you have more Ti then you use it much more than Te. There's no reason why you'd use one much more than the other. Or why you'd use a particular form of intuition, feeling, and sensing more than another form of thinking as a Ti dom. If Te is supposed to be your 5th function and Te is about facts and data then your thought process should be lacking in it.


Which model are you referring to when you speak of the "5th function?" Regardless, I doubt that the model in question would argue that one's thought process 'should be' void of any function. Once again I suspect you are misrepresenting the facts.



> 4. It's a dogma because it is asserted for no reason whatsoever.


The theory simply doesn't operate based on percentages of preference. That's not dogma lol.



> 5. As I said before though, it's equally baseless.


But it is an irrelevant point.



> 6. It's probably not true if it is super specific and you have no reason to believe it.


You keep on bringing up the "baseless" and the "no reason" arguments. Please inform yourself better on the theory.



> Also I was pointing out the cognitive dissonance of people who use function stacks when they say no two types are exactly the same but then talks about them as if they're all exactly the same with regards to loops and shadows.


Trends, patterns, types. Are you familiar with these concepts?



> 7. I'm asking why do ISFPs and ISFJs look and act so similar if they supposedly have nothing in common?


They don't look and act all that similar to me.



> 8. Se seeks external control of the physical environment. There, I just made Se into a J function. Fe adapts to the emotional environment, there, I just made Fe into a P function.


Incorrect. Se is reactive in nature, control is secondary and comes from the Judging functions. Fe's adaptation of the emotional realm happens to establish the social order.

Please consider seriously studying the theory.



> I did for years and concluded it's a joke.


Then smile!  Have a laugh!



> 9. I made another point in the thread also.


Ok?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Daeva said:


> My point is that just because descriptions might differ from one another, it doesn't mean that the subject being described is a different thing. "Se" doesn't just become "Te" because authors choose to emphasize different elements. On top of this, authors make mistakes, like anyone else.
> 
> 
> "if the idea is," but the idea isn't. How you are describing function strength is a misrepresentation of the theory, and it is this misrepresentation that you are criticizing.
> ...


1. My point is you can't say Se is this thing that exists and then simultaneously say this other definition of what Se is that conflicts with it is also true. You might as well argue that all religions are true.

2. They're not though, the idea is your first function is strongest, and then they get progressively weaker, that's not balance, especially when you just said we value some aspects of T, S, F, and N much more than other aspects of them. No reason is ever given for this btw.

3. You're making it seem as though people consciously pick and choose what parts of the brain they value. That wouldn't even make any sense.

4. I never said void though, you keep making this straw-man, don't do it again. I'm talking about the grant stack where a Ti dom has Te 5th.

5. Umm yes it does.......you prefer certain functions over others. But it does it wrong. It is a dogma because no reason is ever given.

6. How?

7. How about give me some evidence and stop dodging? I've read up on it, what research was done that are making you believe these functions are a thing?

8. Do you? A trend is something that's not always true, whereas these function stacks are talking about people as if they're robots that are all the same.

9. They literally do and get confused for one another all the time. They both have a preference for I, S, and F. That's called a similarity.

10. Not incorrect, Fe adapts, it's group feeling. Se is correct as well, which is why they are stereotyped as being dominant. Either way I could define them anyways I want and it wont be wrong, your definitions are just as baseless as mine. I studied it. Stop with this bs of assuming people haven't studied the material because they don't agree with you.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. My point is you can't say Se is this thing that exists and then simultaneously say this other definition of what Se is that conflicts with it is also true. You might as well argue that all religions are true.


I never said that all those descriptions would be true. In fact, I emphasized that authors make mistakes, and so not every take on Se will be completely right. But people try and keep on trying, and hopefully, eventually, after much discussion and debate, we might get closer to the truth.



> 2. They're not though, the idea is your first function is strongest, and then they get progressively weaker, that's not balance, especially when you just said we value some aspects of T, S, F, and N much more than other aspects of them. No reason is ever given for this btw.


What you describe here sounds balanced to me.



> 3. You're making it seem as though people consciously pick and choose what parts of the brain they value. That wouldn't even make any sense.


No, I am not making it seem that way. You chose to read it that way. I never claimed that this valuing was by conscious choice.



> 4. I never said void though, you keep making this straw-man, don't do it again. I'm talking about the grant stack where a Ti dom has Te 5th.


This was not a straw-man.
You said: "your thought process should be lacking in it."
"To be lacking in something" is synonymous with "being void of something."



> 5. Umm yes it does.......you prefer certain functions over others. But it does it wrong. It is a dogma because no reason is ever given.


You are just repeating yourself on this. I have already given my response.



> 6. How?


Serious study outside the forum environment.



> 7. How about give me some evidence and stop dodging? I've read up on it, what research was done that are making you believe these functions are a thing?


If you did read up on it, why do you want me to provide you with research? I'm not here to act like a Google stand-in.



> 8. Do you? A trend is something that's not always true, whereas these function stacks are talking about people as if they're robots that are all the same.


The first part is partially true, the second part is false. A trend is a prevailing tendency. Type is describing patterns and trends in personality.



> 9. They literally do and get confused for one another all the time. They both have a preference for I, S, and F. That's called a similarity.


Other people's lack of ability in recognizing type is irrelevant. ISFP and ISFJ do not look or act alike.



> 10. Not incorrect, Fe adapts, it's group feeling. Se is correct as well, which is why they are stereotyped as being dominant. Either way I could define them anyways I want and it wont be wrong, your definitions are just as baseless as mine. I studied it. Stop with this bs of assuming people haven't studied the material because they don't agree with you.


You claim to have studied it and then you claim that you can define functions anyway you like and "it won't be wrong." This is why I strongly encourage you to go back to the books.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Daeva said:


> I never said that all those descriptions would be true. In fact, I emphasized that authors make mistakes, and so not every take on Se will be completely right. But people try and keep on trying, and hopefully, eventually, after much discussion and debate, we might get closer to the truth.
> 
> 
> What you describe here sounds balanced to me.
> ...


1. How about telling me why you believe the functions? And this other point I made debunks what you're saying "Another point I neglected to mention is the functions (disregarding the stacks) are unnecessary proxys. They purport to be responsible for things that we know to exist. Such as behaviors and thought-processes. Which is a trap I think people fall into and why it's hard to argue against functions in some ways. But that doesn't mean the functions literally exist. It's a lot like saying we have a sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic function because we can exhibit traits and behaviors of these things. I can't necessarily say it's unreasonable to believe in the functions, but the stacks and loops or whatever are just nonsense."

2. It's the exact opposite of balanced.

3. That's how you wrote it and if not then what are you saying?

4. Lacking doesn't necessarily mean void....

5. You didn't, no reason is ever given. It's a dogma.

6. I did.

7. Because it's your job to back up your claims, that's why. No evidence is ever given, if there was you'd post it.

8. Not when it's written like people are a Manuel, it's not just talking about trends.

9. Maybe it's your inability. They have these things in common so yes, they do. Research even shows that the types that share the most similarities to eachother on average are those that share every letter but J and P.

10. How about rather than hiding behind "eDuCatE yOuRsElF" when someone challenges you you provide actual evidence and understand what they're saying? This "You don't agree with me so you must not know what you're talking about." crap isn't going to fly, so drop it already.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. How about telling me why you believe the functions?


Because I have confirmed it for myself. The theory of functions seems to correspond well with how I have analyzed people and their behaviors.



> And this other point I made debunks what you're saying "Another point I neglected to mention is the functions (disregarding the stacks) are unnecessary proxys. They purport to be responsible for things that we know to exist. Such as behaviors and thought-processes. Which is a trap I think people fall into and why it's hard to argue against functions in some ways. But that doesn't mean the functions literally exist. It's a lot like saying we have a sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic function because we can exhibit traits and behaviors of these things. I can't necessarily say it's unreasonable to believe in the functions, but the stacks and loops or whatever are just nonsense."


Sorry, but I don't think this debunks anything at all. This argument is about semantics and language. Is "red" a "thing," does it exist? Color is a trap, how could I possibly know if your "red" is the same as mine?
I do believe that eventually we will be able to have physical mappings of the brain that demonstrate brain activity related to cognitive functions. But that is still a dream right now.



> 2. It's the exact opposite of balanced.


You haven't demonstrated this.



> 3. That's how you wrote it and if not then what are you saying?


That "how our brain works" (aka cognition) involves valuing and devaluing information. This is done via the functions. Yet, not every brain processes information with the same sets of priorities. As such, the order of functions will differ as well, creating different types.



> 4. Lacking doesn't necessarily mean void....


This is no reason to dismiss my response.



> 5. You didn't, no reason is ever given. It's a dogma.


I gave you the reason. Disagreement is one thing, denial is another.



> 6. I did.


Then you didn't do it well. Sorry.



> 7. Because it's your job to back up your claims, that's why. No evidence is ever given, if there was you'd post it.


No, it isn't my job to provide you with any evidence. It is enough to provide counter points to your critique. Critique which, by the way, was never substantiated by resources or evidence. Do not point fingers at me, mister, it makes you a hypocrite.



> 8. Not when it's written like people are a Manuel, it's not just talking about trends.


To tie into the last response: Provide your evidence for this claim. Where is it written this way? Do you have any examples? None were ever provided by you. It is hot air.



> 9. Maybe it's your inability. They have these things in common so yes, they do. Research even shows that the types that share the most similarities to eachother on average are those that share every letter but J and P.


They have things in common, as all types do, yet they do not act or think alike. I do not mistake one for another.



> 10. How about rather than hiding behind "eDuCatE yOuRsElF" when someone challenges you you provide actual evidence and understand what they're saying? This "You don't agree with me so you must not know what you're talking about." crap isn't going to fly, so drop it already.


_You don't know what you're talking about._ :kitteh:


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Daeva said:


> Because I have confirmed it for myself. The theory of functions seems to correspond well with how I have analyzed people and their behaviors.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I don't think this debunks anything at all. This argument is about semantics and language. Is "red" a "thing," does it exist? Color is a trap, how could I possibly know if your "red" is the same as mine?
> ...


1. Barnum effect

2. That's not what I said at all, you seem not to understand much of anything at all.

3. Demonstrate that you don't understand basic word definitions? Nothing is balanced about valuing 2 functions and functions 3-8 getting progressively weaker and weaker.

4. Se is an awareness of your environment, how are people undervaluing this at all and why would they? They wouldn't, this is just more dogmas you've been indoctrinated to believe.

5. You literally gave no reason.

6. There is, you thought lacking always amounts to zero, so you misunderstood what I was saying.

7. No, you just weren't capable of understanding it.

8. Pfft is this a joke? You asserted the functions as true, I poked holes in them, I didn't even have to do that much. I could just dismiss them cause you have no proof. If you make a claim then you have a burden of proof. Rather than arguing with me than why not provide the proof and shut me up? Unless of course it doesn't exist.

9. Omfg.....you're being willfully ignorant and obtuse at this point.

10. If they have I, S, and F in common then yeah, they do, sorry, not sorry. You're wrong. Even if you want to go with this function crap (which you believe for some reason without proof) an ISTJ and an ENFP are not similar. Because an ENFP values Ne and Fi and is lacking in Si and Te. Opposite for ISTJ.

11. No, you're just not thinking for yourself.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. Barnum effect


So you are claiming that the theory is too specific to be true, yet it is also too vague (Barnum effect) to be of any value. You may want to rethink your stance.



> 2. That's not what I said at all, you seem not to understand much of anything at all.


If you wish to continue this conversation, and if you wish to get anything productive out of it, then I suggest that you explain your point in a different way so that I may understand it after all.



> 3. Demonstrate that you don't understand basic word definitions? Nothing is balanced about valuing 2 functions and functions 3-8 getting progressively weaker and weaker.


Function Strength 8/8
Function Strength 7/8
Function Strength 6/8
Function Strength 5/8
Function Strength 4/8
Function Strength 3/8
Function Strength 2/8
Function Strength 1/8

Average function strength: 4.5 out of 8.

Looks balanced to me. Where did I go wrong?



> 4. Se is an awareness of your environment, how are people undervaluing this at all and why would they? They wouldn't, this is just more dogmas you've been indoctrinated to believe.


I am not surprised that you "don't buy" in function theory if that's what you think Se is about. Se is so much more than that and you should know this. You are again critiquing a stance that function theory does not claim.

I do find it interesting how much emphasis you place on "belief."



> 5. You literally gave no reason.


I _literally_ did. Twice, in fact.
I said: "_The theory simply doesn't operate based on percentages of preference._"
and "_The function theory stands against the MBTI model of preference. In the model of preference, which relies on questionnaires, one can score a 50% "preference." I do believe that even this model suggests taking multiple tests over a period of time in the hope that, eventually, an actual preference will surface. The function theory, on the other hand, does not operate based on preference in the same way. Here, one isn't simply a "perceiver," but one's cognition might lead with one of the four perceiving functions and this is discovered through study of the model and self-study, not via a questionnaire._"
Different foundations, so different means of measuring type.



> 6. There is, you thought lacking always amounts to zero, so you misunderstood what I was saying.


Well, if you meant that Ti types still use Te, even if it is in less amounts, then you are in agreement with the theory. If your point was, and I quote, "_There's no reason why you'd use one much more than the other_," then you are once more displaying ignorance of the theory, and worse than that, ignorance of the variability in human beings.



> 7. No, you just weren't capable of understanding it.


Talk to me like I'm 5.



> 8. Pfft is this a joke? You asserted the functions as true, I poked holes in them, I didn't even have to do that much. I could just dismiss them cause you have no proof. If you make a claim then you have a burden of proof. Rather than arguing with me than why not provide the proof and shut me up? Unless of course it doesn't exist.


I can assure you that I am being serious on this.
I am not asserting that the functions are true, as much that your critique of the theory is unfounded. I happen to think that the functions are true, but that is not the topic of this conversation.



> 9. Omfg.....you're being willfully ignorant and obtuse at this point.


No, you assert that the function theory makes all these wild claims but you can't, or won't, provide any evidence for it. You want to turn this around and have me on the defensive. I get it, defending your position can be tough. But it is _you _who is making all the wild claims here and it is me who is poking holes in them. So better grease your gears and start getting that delicious evidence! If you do it well, who knows, I might end up agreeing with your stance..



> 10. If they have I, S, and F in common then yeah, they do, sorry, not sorry. You're wrong. Even if you want to go with this function crap (which you believe for some reason without proof) an ISTJ and an ENFP are not similar. Because an ENFP values Ne and Fi and is lacking in Si and Te. Opposite for ISTJ.


I never claimed that ENFP and ISTJ are similar, and neither does function theory. Yet another phantom argument.
I remain solid in saying that ISFP and ISFJ think and act differently. After all, they are different types, and I think it shows.



> 11. No, you're just not thinking for yourself.


This is your response to a joke? Ah... well... I suppose online communication _does_ have its limits.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

This is pointless as you wont listen and your arguments just consist of mental gymnastics. Let's make it simple, provide me with what you believe this "proof" of the cognitive functions are or you forfeit this discussion.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Aluminum Frost said:


> This is pointless as you wont listen and your arguments just consist of mental gymnastics. Let's make it simple, provide me with what you believe this "proof" of the cognitive functions are or you forfeit this discussion.


You didn't even tag me... how interesting. Almost as if you didn't _want _me to see this...

Anyway, I agree that this is pointless. Your critique is based on nothing but easy and obvious straw-man arguments, and I had hoped to show this to you without using the term "straw-man" so that you wouldn't get too emotionally defensive and just close off the discussion in the way you just did. Ah well.

-You say that the function theory claims X, "X" being a very simplistic yet wildly inaccurate representation of what the theory says,
-You provide zero proof or evidence for any of these claims,
-You then proceed to "destroy" these phantom claims with your critique.

You can "believe" in me "forfeiting" the discussion if that is what makes you feel better about all this. Just know that I genuinely tried, for whatever that is worth, and I do hope that one day you get to removing yourself from this type of forum nonsense and studying the theory in earnest.

In the end, you believe that you are right, I believe that I am right, and all this might have been for naught. But speaking of "belief," I don't believe in nihilism, so perhaps there is a chance that this was worth it, in the end.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Daeva said:


> You didn't even tag me... how interesting. Almost as if you didn't _want _me to see this...
> 
> Anyway, I agree that this is pointless. Your critique is based on nothing but easy and obvious straw-man arguments, and I had hoped to show this to you without using the term "straw-man" so that you wouldn't get too emotionally defensive and just close off the discussion in the way you just did. Ah well.
> 
> ...


Nothing I said was a straw-man, you just have comprehension issues.

I asked you to provide proof for the functions and you ignored it, your concession is accepted.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

MBTI is bullshit anyway, not only functions


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

The red spirit said:


> MBTI is bullshit anyway, not only functions


Which part of the MBTI? The personalities or the cognitive functions? I have a half-written essay on the origin of the cognitive functions. I wouldn't do it at all if I thought it bullshit.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BigApplePi said:


> Which part of the MBTI? The personalities or the cognitive functions?


Both equally




BigApplePi said:


> I have a half-written essay on the origin of the cognitive functions.


Condolences to you


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> Both equally
> 
> 
> 
> Condolences to you


you forgot to include the nail polish emoji


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

The red spirit said:


> Both equally


Okay. I'll pick out one cognitive function: thinking. You don't believe some people think more than others while some are "feelers"?
Doesn't that tell you the MBTI can't be bullshit right there?





> Condolences to you


I cry myself to sleep every time I think about it. Not to worry though. I collect my tears in a glass and in the morning they go into a tear bucket.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BigApplePi said:


> Okay. I'll pick out one cognitive function: thinking. You don't believe some people think more than others while some are "feelers"?
> Doesn't that tell you the MBTI can't be bullshit right there?


Well, only in superficial assessment you can have such clarity in distinction. But when you actually dig deeper and try to understand your mental processes you realize that everything is interconnected and even things that would seem like thinking have traces of feelings. The problem is that practically every single task can be understood, interpreted in many different ways. Humans have a lot of bias and it is mostly responsible for you knowing if one is "thinker" or "feeler".


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

The red spirit said:


> Well, only in superficial assessment you can have such clarity in distinction. But when you actually dig deeper and try to understand your mental processes you realize that everything is interconnected and even things that would seem like thinking have traces of feelings. The problem is that practically every single task can be understood, interpreted in many different ways. Humans have a lot of bias and it is mostly responsible for you knowing if one is "thinker" or "feeler".


What is wrong with overlap? Sure thinking can have feeling. After all who thinks without some sort of motivation?

Purity is not needed. Only centrality. I'd describe it as a characteristic with a center (like thinking or feeling) with that central theme radiating outward with diminishing intensity.

I think of India and Pakistan. These countries may fight over not having a clear border yet we still can say they are different countries. (I'm sure there are better examples.)

Name a task that can be interpreted in different ways. That may be true, but depending on how careful we are, we might come to an acceptable agreement.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BigApplePi said:


> What is wrong with overlap? Sure thinking can have feeling. After all who thinks without some sort of motivation?


What's wrong with thinking that MBTI is bullshit then? After all, it tries to expand itself from some distinctions that it only makes and those which in real life make very little sense. That's why it doesn't have ambiversion in itself yet, meanwhile in actual psychology ambiversion is the most normal state for majority of us. There's that, but then again nobody came up with a words for something in between state of rest of the axis (thinking/feeling, sensing/intuition, perceiving/judging). Not that there's only one explanation for that, but the roughest and least effort requiring conclusion is that it was completely pointless to make those distinctions, which cannot really exist. Or in other words, everyone is in it, so it's pointless to think further about them as reasonable distinctions, which can actually work as we wanted, therefore scales with current names shall not exist as they tell nothing about personality.




BigApplePi said:


> Purity is not needed. Only centrality. I'd describe it as a characteristic with a center (like thinking or feeling) with that central theme radiating outward with diminishing intensity.


And point of that is?



BigApplePi said:


> I think of India and Pakistan. These countries may fight over not having a clear border yet we still can say they are different countries. (I'm sure there are better examples.)


You know all people are pretty much the same, after all Earth only had one continent many years ago. Also there's no difference between vodka and water, they are both liquids. There's no difference between Nike and Adidas... or Audi and BMW... or 2000s and 2010s...



BigApplePi said:


> but depending on how careful we are, we might come to an acceptable agreement.


Or maybe not? There's 50% chance of it being either way, only depends on who is more determined to stay longer in a match of keyboard warriors.


----------



## Djairouks (Aug 26, 2019)

Hillarious thread in some sense, people arguing MBTI is BS but mostly not being able to understand it is a starting point and taking it as gospel which it was never meant to be, our lives influence our cognition and everyone fluctuates significantly, throughout all their lives and different interaction with different people enhance or repress different things.
So it's likely the older one gets, the further from on type one goes, well that is if they improve themselves and take life's teachings at heart !

So it is quite amusing to dismiss something as not being 100% correct, while at the same time arguing it is supposed to be by default of it's theory, which it was never meant to be.
BTW in psychology they talk of correlation and nothing is ever 100%, so this whole thread rather shows a big lack of understanding of the basic study principles.

@Daeva Have to say I enjoyed the "blind men and the elephant" parable, it is a very nice example how many people cannot grasp, their "truth" is no such thing but merely a perception that they feel or think to be their reality, just as the long exchange here.


----------



## WarmMachines (May 19, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. They're defined differently in different systems. For the most part they are the same. But not exactly and it creates overlap. Something may be Te in one system but Se in another, like in Socionics. But even in one system there's overlap, either because some aspects of each function serve the same purpose or do similar things as another function. What's the point of this redundancy? There isn't. It also results in people being confused about their type. People interpret functions differently and many sites and people in general have taken it upon themselves to extrapolate on what the functions are and what they do.
> 
> 2. Same applies to function stacks, but worse. Because function stacks are entirely different in different systems. But somehow people use these systems as well. So there's 1 of 2 possibilities. It's the Barnum effect in action, so even if there are set function stacks we have no way of knowing. Or there just is no way that your functions need to be stacked. The logic of stacks is also flawed. An argument for Grant stacks I typically hear is "Double judging, double perceiving, double extroverted, or double introverted functions are unhealthy and dysfunctional. So it's not that way" It being unhealthy wouldn't make it untrue. Also the idea is your first 2 functions are good, your 3rd is meh, 4th is a weak spot, 5-8 get progressively weaker than that and largely are unused. Does that sound healthy to you? In reality if this were true every type should in theory have a slew of disorders. IxFPs barely have Te, and have even less Ti. They shouldn't be able to reason if that's the case. IxTJs would all have aspergers. ExFJs would be schizophrenic since they lack Te and don't have much Ti. ENxPs should need occupational therapy with such a lack of S functions, etc.
> 
> ...


Genuine inquiry, trying to reach a common ground here: how would a person then go about typing themselves, then? What are you suggesting here? To see if they are Thinkers or Feelers, Sensors or Intuitives etc? I had my doubts about MBTI for the longest time, and it was the reasoning done by cognitive functions that kind of brought me back to it. And now you are presenting another viewpoint that disproves it. What is your alternative?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

WarmMachines said:


> Genuine inquiry, trying to reach a common ground here: how would a person then go about typing themselves, then? What are you suggesting here? To see if they are Thinkers or Feelers, Sensors or Intuitives etc? I had my doubts about MBTI for the longest time, and it was the reasoning done by cognitive functions that kind of brought me back to it. And now you are presenting another viewpoint that disproves it. What is your alternative?


The letters


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby (Apr 11, 2013)

Um...wow! T types sure know how to turn a general discussion into a full on verbal brawl. :shocked: (And I'm not being typist here, just noting that most of the ones arguing in this thread happen to be of a certain persuasion. )

Just wanted to put this out there. Who is a thinker? Who is a feeler? Observe _why_ they do what they do. Thinkers do feel. Feelers do think. But they *act* for different reasons.

Say I get invited to a party and my significant other doesn't like parties. I would still let him know and discuss it with him unless that in itself would irritate him. Why? Out of concern for how he feels. I would want him to know I care about him and that he is important to me. Informing him would give him the chance to say whether or not he wants to go and if it would bother him for me to go without him.

I have a feeling most thinking types wouldn't put so much concern into this type of thing. They'd probably reason, 'My SO doesn't like parties, but I've been invited; I'll just do the most logical/efficient thing.' Which would either be go without even telling SO. Not go because SO would be offended. Or drag SO along because _they_ feel the need to go and know leaving SO behind would cause problems later down the line.


----------



## Djairouks (Aug 26, 2019)

MrsAndrewJacoby said:


> Um...wow! T types sure know how to turn a general discussion into a full on verbal brawl. :shocked: (And I'm not being typist here, just noting that most of the ones arguing in this thread happen to be of a certain persuasion. )
> 
> Just wanted to put this out there. Who is a thinker? Who is a feeler? Observe _why_ they do what they do. Thinkers do feel. Feelers do think. But they *act* for different reasons.
> 
> ...


This is very caricatural, you're saying Thinkers do feel then go on this tangent, saying one will only use thinking in a specific situation... if anything irritates me as a Thinker it's just what you did here.
As long as I can remember in my life I've understood why people feel what they feel and that I'm different, I understand the motivations and what they experience, I see very subttle stuff nobody picks up because I observe and think, I'm getting better everyday to not hide my feelings and allow them to take the driver seat more, still when I recognize an emotion on people then it triggers my emotions, it's just that the assessment goes through thinking rather than feeling, so this is the way I feel people, then I either connect emotionally to them or not.

Yet it seems almost impossible for many Feelers to grasp this and then you get such stories of thinkers don't use feelings and gross misconceptions, which to be honest I am extremely tired to see or hear, imagine someone now saying to you everyday for the next 20 years, that somehow you can't summon any logic and will only use feelings to decide actions and go out, I'm sure you will feel pretty insulted and argue that you can perfectly think things through no !?

I have been in plenty of relationships with different people, honestly even with Feelers I was the more communicative of the 2, I just have no clue where this crazy idea comes, that Thinkers only think and cannot take the feelings of the people they care about in context and communicate !


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby (Apr 11, 2013)

Djairouks said:


> This is very caricatural, you're saying Thinkers do feel then go on this tangent, saying one will only use thinking in a specific situation... if anything irritates me as a Thinker it's just what you did here.
> As long as I can remember in my life I've understood why people feel what they feel and that I'm different, I understand the motivations and what they experience, I see very subttle stuff nobody picks up because I observe and think, I'm getting better everyday to not hide my feelings and allow them to take the driver seat more, still when I recognize an emotion on people then it triggers my emotions, it's just that the assessment goes through thinking rather than feeling, so this is the way I feel people, then I either connect emotionally to them or not.
> 
> Yet it seems almost impossible for many Feelers to grasp this and then you get such stories of thinkers don't use feelings and gross misconceptions, which to be honest I am extremely tired to see or hear, imagine someone now saying to you everyday for the next 20 years, that somehow you can't summon any logic and will only use feelings to decide actions and go out, I'm sure you will feel pretty insulted and argue that you can perfectly think things through no !?
> ...


Um. ^_^;;;;

I guess what I was trying to convey wasn't communicated very well via text. Darn internets....

I wasn't trying to say thinkers don't feel. Not at all. The example was probably a caricature but it was kind of supposed to be. I feel like exaggerated examples sometimes convey the point better than subtle ones (people can get distracted by the details, I've experienced). The point I was trying to make is that when I make decisions (as a feeler), my personal feelings or those of others tend to *take precedence*_. _So even if the solution isn't as "logical" or expedient or efficient, it's the choice I will make. Heck, sometimes, I will even do _illogical_ things if my feelings are stirred enough. I.E. give someone a second chance even if I KNOW the person doesn't deserve it. I have learned over time to value the "logical" thing to do and act accordingly. I.E. _not _give said person a second chance BECAUSE I know they don't deserve it.

I think* (and I may be wrong, but this is what I have observed and been told by some thinking types) that thinking types are the inverse of this. When making decisions, the most "logical", most expedient, most efficient solutions *take precedence*. That doesn't mean a T type can't be concerned with others' feelings. That doesn't mean a T type can't take those things into account. I just don't think it's the first thing a T type thinks about. 

Like if a T type sees a sleepy driver at the wheel, your FIRST thought isn't, _'Oh, I feel sorry for that person, they better pull over or they might get hurt_'. Is it? 

Probably not. Probably, it's more like, '_That's dangerous, that person could cause an accident_' or something...? Am I right? 

I don't think that's a bad thing. I think it's a good thing that T types think the way they do. We need a variety of viewpoints for the world to work properly. It's kind of like N vs S. If everyone was focused on what's right in front of them, we'd never see the forest for the trees. I apologize if my post offended, that wasn't my intention. I have some very important T types in my life and I really appreciate them, so I'd never try to denigrate Thinkers as a whole.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Djairouks said:


> So it is quite amusing to dismiss something as not being 100% correct, while at the same time arguing it is supposed to be by default of it's theory, which it was never meant to be.


It doesn't even reach 70%, except in introversion/extraversion scale. That's why we are talking about it. Oh and the fact that no other typology with such abysmal credibility has such a big cult of believers.


----------



## Djairouks (Aug 26, 2019)

MrsAndrewJacoby said:


> Um. ^_^;;;;
> 
> I guess what I was trying to convey wasn't communicated very well via text. Darn internets....
> 
> ...


Yes Thinkers will primarily use logic over feelings as a way to assess situations and actions, but what you still don't seem to realize is that feelings aren't compartmentalised as much as you make them to be from logic. If my GF whom I really care about, is upset or in distress about something, I will want to make her feel good and to do so use the most efficient way absolutely, but the most efficient thing might just be to use my feelings or do things that will appease her feelings.
So the starter of the interaction on a Thinker side is logic, but there is nothing illogical in going for the feelings route if it is the best course of action, in a situation.
The problem most inexperienced Thinkers face, is not being really comfortable showing feelings and if they do so, being shut down for trying to play games or suddenly being "emotional", I can assure you it is very tiring it's kind of a game you can never win.

Unfortunately even if it wasn't your intention and I understand your attempt to paint a broad picture, your post made it as if there is only a certain "correct" way to feel, very compartmentalised or detached from thinking.



The red spirit said:


> It doesn't even reach 70%, except in introversion/extraversion scale. That's why we are talking about it. Oh and the fact that no other typology with such abysmal credibility has such a big cult of believers.


The percentage of people on this forum taking MBTI as gospel surely aren't a majority and then the percentage of people overall on this forum debating of such things surely is a drop of water in the entire world population, most people I meet IRL have no clue what MBTI is, so talking of a cult following, exaggerate much !?

Besides I don't really follow your point, so because it doesn't reach even 70% then it's all shit and must be thrown down the toilet ? Thinking like that one would never really try or achieve much in life if everything has to be more than 70% certain, where would humankind be with this, doesn't make much sense to me.

I see the flaws in MBTI, it still helped and other friends grow and understand the world better, seems to me you just want to dismiss everything, I say taking this as gospel or denying it totally is both misguided and equally as dumb.


----------



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

Mbti and functions are pseudoscience but it’s sure fun to discuss. Why else would we be on here . But I agree with Op I don’t buy much into it either 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Djairouks said:


> The percentage of people on this forum taking MBTI as gospel surely aren't a majority and then the percentage of people overall on this forum debating of such things surely is a drop of water in the entire world population, most people I meet IRL have no clue what MBTI is, so talking of a cult following, exaggerate much !?


I'm pretty sure that numbers of taking MBTI as gospel as higher than what you would like to think and I'm talking about perC. Even if this crowd isn't all that big, then why other typologies with similar credibility never got this level of following. Is anyone actually talking about NEO PI R, HEXACO, 16PF or something that isn't MBTI, socionics and enneagram? I don't think so. 



Djairouks said:


> Besides I don't really follow your point, so because it doesn't reach even 70% then it's all shit and must be thrown down the toilet ? Thinking like that one would never really try or achieve much in life if everything has to be more than 70% certain, where would humankind be with this, doesn't make much sense to me.


70% credibility is absolute minimum for any psychometric tool. I will repeat it again, absolute minimum. 

Click here and read a super simplified version of how validity of such tools is actually assessed:
https://www.psychometrictest.org.uk/validity/

Then advance to extended explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(statistics)

But here is how MBTI fares in each major category of validity testing:
Criterion validity - mediocre results (highly dependent on how on interprets each scale).
Predictive validity - very low results as test questions vary a lot and their quality varies from really low quality questions up to some passable quality questions.
Content validity - it is very narrow test of personality of what it really is, besides that intro/extraversion scale is decent, perceiving/judging scale is questionable, yet still sometimes agreeable. N/S and F/T scales are complete trainwreck.
Construct validity - Overall poor results with many separate things that might interfere with official scales, like levels of shyness, talkativity, cultural backgrounds, traditions, attentiveness and etc getting in a way. Some people still argue what is introversion or extraversion and even worse are discussions of what intuition is, which usually appears easy to understand, but when one tries to actually explain it, then it never goes smoothly.

Many of these flaws could be easily fixed by updating MBTI and having a strong centralized information source, but after 100 years MBTI wasn't ever truly updated and many far more advanced psychometric tools are already here, which simply are overall more robust.

Still, many scientific publications clearly state that human personality isn't yet defined well and some people even question if it can even be defined. I think, that at least using more proper tools means getting closer to that and that it as much as forum like perC could be doing. Of course advances in neuroscience at this point would be extremely useful, but that's way beyond the scope of perC.

What you said here in your quote is simply disrespectful to many advancements in psychology which already happened, but hopefully you will improve with time and fix your attitude.



Djairouks said:


> I see the flaws in MBTI, it still helped and other friends grow and understand the world better, seems to me you just want to dismiss everything, I say taking this as gospel or denying it totally is both misguided and equally as dumb.


Then good for you, appreciate your achievements more. Still, it doesn't change the fact that MBTI is a poor typology and as whole doesn't deserve all its following, especially when its development is halted.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I had to stop this AM and now see this thread has gone far ahead. So many things are being said, I'll just respond to this earlier one. The rest if and when I get time.



The red spirit said:


> What's wrong with thinking that MBTI is bullshit then? After all, it tries to expand itself from some distinctions that it only makes and those which in real life make very little sense. That's why it doesn't have ambiversion in itself yet, meanwhile in actual psychology ambiversion is the most normal state for majority of us. There's that, but then again nobody came up with a words for something in between state of rest of the axis (t*hinking/feeling, sensing/intuition, perceiving/judging*). Not that there's only one explanation for that, but the roughest and least effort requiring conclusion is that it was completely pointless to make those distinctions, which cannot really exist. Or in other words, everyone is in it, so it's pointless to think further about them as reasonable distinctions, which can actually work as we wanted, therefore scales with current names shall not exist as they tell nothing about personality.


Allow me to address those points as you've made a few. When you said "ambiversion" you didn't say which. I picked the first one in that list as thinking/feeling. To be sure we all use both, but the MBTI is expressed in a certain way. Each has an inward and outward disposition ... which we can examine for bullshit. To elaborate, it's not just what is used, but what each of us likes to use ... what we'd favor if we had a choice. Look at this very discussion. Do you favor thinking or feeling in expression? Or both? I favor thinking.

Then there is sensing/ intuition. I don't cater to those terms very well. I like specifics/ generalities instead though they are close. Most people favor specifics. Not me. I go for generalities if I'm seeking after truth. Specifics are too variable for me. Next is perceiving/ judging. I like to observe the possibilities as opposed to selecting one side. That's for me as a whole. That means I'll listen to you if you favor the bullshit side. I want to seek clarity but if it's not there, I'll go for the existence of "fuzziness." On the other hand, inside the overall personality attitude both thinking and feeling are claimed to be judging functions. Both of those say to go this way and not the other way. That is a judgment. That means the personality can go non-judging (perception like me) while my thinking/ feeling goes the other way.

The thing about ambivalence is people tend to like one way over the other. That is the theory. If one is ambivalent in personality, show me. One would have to keep a balance then. I'm left-handed but bat righty. So what?



BigApplePi said:


> Purity is not needed. Only centrality. I'd describe it as a characteristic with a center (like thinking or feeling) with that central theme radiating outward with diminishing intensity.





> And point of that is?


The point is that it is in the nature of reality that things are fuzzy. MBTI is like that. It's so (I claim) because we are organisms and organisms are complex. When something is fuzzy you still can value it provided it's not too fuzzy.





> You know all people are pretty much the same, after all Earth only had one continent many years ago. Also there's no difference between vodka and water, they are both liquids. There's no difference between Nike and Adidas... or Audi and BMW... or 2000s and 2010s...


That's right. Those things are the same. However they are also different. When we want to use them up close it is important to know what's different: drunk liquid or sober, friend or foe. BMW or pickup, Pangaea together or broken up.





> Or maybe not? There's 50% chance of it being either way, only depends on who is more determined to stay longer in a match of keyboard warriors.


I'd rather not leave it to chance. I'd also not be interested in convincing a believer. YOU are the more worthy challenge.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

The red spirit said:


> It doesn't even reach 70%, except in introversion/extraversion scale. That's why we are talking about it. Oh and the fact that no other typology with such abysmal credibility has such a big cult of believers.


Credibility or usability? I'm in NYC. Many businesses use the MBTI to value personalities. You should see. Some are way over my head. Some of those people are very skilled in judging types. Many others cannot tell their own type and jump all over the place. I'm an INTP and should I change my mind, I'll let you know.






Djairouks said:


> So it's likely the older one gets, the further from on type one goes, well that is if they improve themselves and take life's teachings at heart !


I'd put it differently. The older one gets, the more they can add abilities to their repertoire. They just add functions to their original ones. (I'm more aware of my feelings.)





> @*Daeva* Have to say I enjoyed the "blind men and the elephant" parable, it is a very nice example how many people cannot grasp, their "truth" is no such thing but merely a perception that they feel or think to be their reality, just as the long exchange here.


What is coincidence! I just posted this elsewhere on a thread not for here: Elephant thing


----------



## aloneinmusic (Mar 1, 2014)

I have always seen MBTI, functions and the like as a spectrum really. If every type had an extreme and similar way of working with their functions, i.e. always being weakest with their forgotten four or always consistently working around the tertiary function so as to avoid using it, we sure as hell would have a lot of problems. But some people are more developed in areas than others, and there are definitely people that do fall flat on some weaker functions and therefore require a lot of help for that.

The aspergers example though, I see where you're coming from, but probably not the best example as I'm sure we all know autism is from birth and will therefore vary from person to person. I'm autistic and a strong feeler, there's nothing very 'stereotypical Sheldon style autism' about me.

Besides, this is all just theory still, and just a guideline. I've always found functions helpful personally to understand maybe where my strengths and weaknesses are, and what it is I need to work on, and maybe how I've come across to others when I'm unbalanced. We should never rely too much on external information as solid truth, seeing as we are all so different and probably know ourselves better than the internet or books do. Just my thought, feel free to read and move on


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BigApplePi said:


> Allow me to address those points as you've made a few. When you said "ambiversion" you didn't say which.


There's the only one. A state in between introversion and extraversion is ambiversion. Ambivalence is another thing.



BigApplePi said:


> I picked the first one in that list as thinking/feeling. To be sure we all use both, but the MBTI is expressed in a certain way. Each has an inward and outward disposition ... which we can examine for bullshit. To elaborate, it's not just what is used, but what each of us likes to use ... what we'd favor if we had a choice. Look at this very discussion. Do you favor thinking or feeling in expression? Or both? I favor thinking.


If you believe that it's that easy and also Ti and Te aren't the same thing, then you should already have an opinion of I favor.



BigApplePi said:


> I like specifics/ generalities instead though they are close.


Makes it nearly the same as thinking and feeling.



BigApplePi said:


> Most people favor specifics. Not me. I go for generalities if I'm seeking after truth. Specifics are too variable for me.


Nobody cares about specifics, unless they have some interest in that specific stuff.You would probably only do the least amount of work to achieve a state of "I guess it works", when you don't give a shit about topic, but you may as well know every single detail about something personally interesting. 



BigApplePi said:


> Next is perceiving/ judging. I like to observe the possibilities as opposed to selecting one side.


You can judge and not be on one side.



BigApplePi said:


> That means I'll listen to you if you favor the bullshit side. I want to seek clarity but if it's not there, I'll go for the existence of "fuzziness."


There's your clarity, I don't think that MBTI is good enough. 




BigApplePi said:


> On the other hand, inside the overall personality attitude both thinking and feeling are claimed to be judging functions. Both of those say to go this way and not the other way.


There are many things that you can favor just because and yet at the same time highly avoid them everywhere else. There's more in many human judgments than this or that.




BigApplePi said:


> That is a judgment.


May as well be a perception, as long as true definition of that mental process is used "the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information, or the environment"

Or if you prefer it in video form:





It's pretty much the first data processing stage in brains (I highly recommend you to watch same course's 6th and 7th video to understand perception better)




BigApplePi said:


> The point is that it is in the nature of reality that things are fuzzy.


Only some things.




BigApplePi said:


> That's right. Those things are the same. However they are also different. When we want to use them up close it is important to know what's different: drunk liquid or sober, friend or foe. BMW or pickup, Pangaea together or broken up.


That only depends on how you bias it. You could say that they are nearly the same, yet at the same time there will be a lot of people arguing to death how those aren't the same or similar. 




BigApplePi said:


> I'd rather not leave it to chance. I'd also not be interested in convincing a believer. YOU are the more worthy challenge.


I was talking about us here, but I guess idea was too vague...


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BigApplePi said:


> Credibility or usability? I'm in NYC. Many businesses use the MBTI to value personalities. You should see. Some are way over my head. Some of those people are very skilled in judging types. Many others cannot tell their own type and jump all over the place. I'm an INTP and should I change my mind, I'll let you know.


lol at using corporations as example. Those fuckers are known to make the most inhumane things ever, but just not to piss off people enough for them to riot. Look at hotels, look at tech gadgets and other products and you will see how nearly everything is made to bleed you dry and milk your cash. 

If you are into computers then if companies were truly enthusiastic and actually did something to increase CPU power, then we would already have 10GHz CPUs. Cars could easily last 1 million kilometers and underwear would last nearly forever. But obviously nothing is done with attitude to create pretty much immortal goods, nor top quality services. Many things are simply financially not worth it and thus not done, but if you removed money from there you wouldn't even think of gimping that stuff. Companies are a joke if you use them as example of any kind of scientific or technological progress. Any person on Earth could create nearly any good but better, if he's given knowledge and power. That's why tuned Civics outdrag Dodge Demons and that's why 5GHz clock speed was already reached in 2003. This bullshit wouldn't fly if companies were truly serious about their specialties, but as long as they make money they can be as lazy as they want.


----------



## Triarii (Jan 10, 2020)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 3. It makes no sense to value some aspects of T but not others, same for the other functions. It's also not true in practice. Thinkers, Te or Ti are more logic-driven, period. Ti users use facts, Te users use reason. They don't ignore it, that's silly. If Te users really lacked Ti they wouldn't be able to make simple connections. Ti users would have no understanding of facts and just be pulling shit out of their asses.


It is true, and it is false. Both are logical, both are fact-oriented. The important thing is to correctly type according to the MBTI definitions and its metrics. Through these descriptions, it is easy to read the functions. 

MBTI: _People with ISTP preferences often analyze and respond to problems in the world around them. They like to have autonomy and may find *rules and procedures stifling or restrictive*. They love to have mental or physical challenges in their work and focus on getting accurate practical results. They often seek out careers that allow them to use their five senses. Action-oriented, technical, or practical roles tend to appeal to them, particularly in engineering or business. Their favorite careers will usually involve data, math, science, variety, and efficient systems._


ISTPs objectively disapprove detailed and systematic planning, which is largely correlated with extraverted thinking. Improvisation requires a timeless conceptualization upstream. A thought that can be adapt to any type of situation.


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby (Apr 11, 2013)

Djairouks said:


> what you still don't seem to realize is that feelings aren't compartmentalised as much as you make them to be from logic.





Djairouks said:


> the most efficient thing might just be to use my feelings or do things that will appease her feelings.


Believe me @Djairouks, I get that. :happy: But my earlier post was addressing other individuals in this thread whom I don't think get it.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

The red spirit said:


> There's the only one. A state in between introversion and extraversion is ambiversion. Ambivalence is another thing.


I don't know if this proves anything but IRL I'm an introvert and score 100 introvert on tests. On this forum I act like an extrovert. I wouldn't call myself an ambivert though.





> If you believe that it's that easy and also Ti and Te aren't the same thing, then you should already have an opinion of I favor.


I call myself an INTP, something I trust you claim must mean is bullshit. Am I right? For me, Ti and Te are vastly different. I love Ti and hate Te. I try to avoid Te but have to do if I have to.





> Makes it nearly the same as thinking and feeling.


Not exactly. Specifics/ generalities are observations; thinking/ feeling differ in that they are judgments. The former are just there. The latter are choices, sort of.







> Nobody cares about specifics, unless they have some interest in that specific stuff.You would probably only do the least amount of work to achieve a state of "I guess it works", when you don't give a shit about topic, but you may as well know every single detail about something personally interesting.


It's said 75% of people are "S" types. If you don't believe that, go out into a random world. People love to jabber specifics, about their experiences, who is who and what they do and are like. I am an "N" or intuitive type. You I'll guess are too.





> You can judge and not be on one side.


Not sure what you mean. Yes you can, but can you be on one side and not make a judgment? When I say "be" I don't mean act. I mean believe. So far you judge the MBTI as bullshit.





> There's your clarity, I don't think that MBTI is good enough.


What if the MBTI is clear about being fuzzy? Why do you need clarity for something that is not there? Good question though. Suppose you want to know if your significant other loves you or not. Must you have clarity? The MBTI pushes for 16 personality types. Must you be clear about which one? Must you be clear about what a word means? Answer: words are meant to distinguish. They don't have to be perfect about it.





> There are many things that you can favor just because and yet at the same time highly avoid them everywhere else. There's more in many human judgments than this or that.


My turn to ask for clarity. Not sure what you mean. Example(s)???





> May as well be a perception, as long as true definition of that mental process is used "the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information, or the environment"
> 
> Or if you prefer it in video form: [omitted]. It's pretty much the first data processing stage in brains (I highly recommend you to watch same course's 6th and 7th video to understand perception better)


Thank you. Interesting but not sure MBTI wants to look so closely at sensation versus perception. The MBTI is only interested in perception versus judging. Do you have links to vids 6 and 7. I don't have them.





> Only some things.[are fuzzy].


I'm also writing an essay on "Tools for Understanding." My fifth tool (of six) is "Everything has a measure of fuzziness." So I wouldn't say that.





> That only depends on how you bias it. You could say that they are nearly the same, yet at the same time there will be a lot of people arguing to death how those aren't the same or similar.


With adequate observation we should be able to determine differences and samenesses. No bias. No argument. You want to talk wholes versus parts? I can do that but would that be on topic about the MBTI?


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

Goods boi


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BigApplePi said:


> I don't know if this proves anything but IRL I'm an introvert and score 100 introvert on tests. On this forum I act like an extrovert. I wouldn't call myself an ambivert though.


You are minority.




BigApplePi said:


> I call myself an INTP, something I trust you claim must mean is bullshit. Am I right? For me, Ti and Te are vastly different. I love Ti and hate Te. I try to avoid Te but have to do if I have to.


I sincerely believe that you are what you are, you just simply use a dodgy tool to define yourself. I have a question to you. How honest your typing is? Would you be able to describe yourself without using MBTI terms and other typological shortcuts, just with words?

Basically any deviation from what you would say could be understood as limitation of typology. Now it's pointless for you to actually do that, as you are already somewhat knowledgeable in MBTI, but this experiment would work pretty nicely with people without any prior knowledge of any typology and then they could compare their answers after learning the basics of typology. I suspect that this would inject at least some bias and could potentially make a person less honest with oneself, instead minds will try to make a framework work regardless of its quality. 



BigApplePi said:


> Not exactly. Specifics/ generalities are observations; thinking/ feeling differ in that they are judgments. The former are just there. The latter are choices, sort of.


You can easily interpret intuition as feeling or even type of thinking. Same with sensing.



BigApplePi said:


> It's said 75% of people are "S" types. If you don't believe that, go out into a random world. People love to jabber specifics, about their experiences, who is who and what they do and are like. I am an "N" or intuitive type. You I'll guess are too.


I see how in university most of auditory is in nearly a slumber state during presentations, that's quick and dirty intuition at work. Nobody cares about specifics, when they can do just something passable. But situation changes, when you see a genuinely interested student in some subject. That's S. But judging one's personality by their usual level of boredom is just silly.



BigApplePi said:


> Not sure what you mean. Yes you can, but can you be on one side and not make a judgment? When I say "be" I don't mean act. I mean believe. So far you judge the MBTI as bullshit.


I think so. Pretty how one can crave for some M&Ms and yet be very strict about avoiding them. Also certain societies in world are quite ambivalent and generally don't highly value honesty (Japan for example). Also, in this increasingly global world, many people encounter problems, when they were taught opposing values and such individuals can struggle until their deaths with having any constant or consistent preference. Also certain cultures are highly non-verbal and that could also mean that individuals of such culture rarely generalize, thus they may have difficulties with such generalized judgments that MBTI encourages.



BigApplePi said:


> What if the MBTI is clear about being fuzzy? Why do you need clarity for something that is not there? Good question though. Suppose you want to know if your significant other loves you or not. Must you have clarity? The MBTI pushes for 16 personality types. Must you be clear about which one? Must you be clear about what a word means? Answer: words are meant to distinguish. They don't have to be perfect about it.


If MBTI only has 16 types and clearly states, that one must only have one type, then clarity is unquestionable need for it to work. If MBTI lacks clarity, then it can't work.



BigApplePi said:


> My turn to ask for clarity. Not sure what you mean. Example(s)???


Pretty much any "judgment" made without thinking, which could be called a reflexive thinking. Or it could be a vague way of thinking, where you just know some data and know your goal. Seemingly just wait and do nothings, then solution pops up into your mind.



BigApplePi said:


> Thank you. Interesting but not sure MBTI wants to look so closely at sensation versus perception. The MBTI is only interested in perception versus judging.


If MBTI wants to be credible, then yes it must comply with existing definitions or at least be very clear with their own formulated descriptions.



BigApplePi said:


> Do you have links to vids 6 and 7. I don't have them.


You could you type "crash course psychology 6(7)" into YT and you will get those videos












BigApplePi said:


> I'm also writing an essay on "Tools for Understanding." My fifth tool (of six) is "Everything has a measure of fuzziness." So I wouldn't say that.


It could work, if it's for philosophy or metapsychology.



BigApplePi said:


> With adequate observation we should be able to determine differences and samenesses.


Want it or not, but that still would be rather subjective.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Well, it looks like someone's started sharing videos from the _Crash Course Psychology_ series. It's highly recommended viewing for anyone who wants to better understand the psyche. Once you have even a very basic knowledge of psychology, you will see the bogosity of the cognitive functions, and you will have a better framework to use than to rely upon them.

Playlist.

I'll just share this episode here, since its subject matter is directly relevant to the thread topic. It's a discussion of various theories used to explain and measure personality. To no one's great surprise, the Big Five is the preferred tool for measuring personality. Yes, Hank Green does (briefly) bring up the MBTI, although not exactly with the most glowing impressions of it. No, he doesn't bring up the cognitive functions at any point at all... because as far as psychologists are concerned, it's the letters which are the main event of MBTI.








7:51-8:04 said:


> These tests, like the Myers Briggs which you might've heard of, involve long questionnaires of true/false, or agree/disagree questions like "do you enjoy being the center of attention," "do you find it easy to empathize with others," or "do you value justice over mercy?"


----------



## Triarii (Jan 10, 2020)

Everyone starts with MBTI, then studies Jung. Ti and Fi users are then the most critical for different reasons.

-ITPs know they are ITPs. For logical reasons they can oppose the functions.
-IFPs think they can be all types. For emotional reasons they can oppose the functions.

Unlike Jung, the introverted intuition is precisely not their preferencial function. So it's logical.


----------



## Charus (May 31, 2017)

OP, you also forgot to mention the masters of MBTI who slap the Fi label on everything. You value this - Fi dom, you expressed an emotion - Fi dom, fuck, you farted - fuckin Fi dom


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Triarii said:


> Everyone starts with MBTI, then studies Jung. Ti and Fi users are then the most critical for different reasons.
> 
> -TPs know they are ITPs. For logical reasons they can oppose the functions.
> -FPs think they can be all types.For emotional reasons they can oppose the functions.
> ...


This assumes both that Ti and Fi are "things" that exists, and also that Ti and Fi are meaningfully opposed; let alone mutually exclusive.

-I know I'm an INTP according to the MBTI because I can discern, through reasoning not restricted by my purported type, that the indicator is the most reliable method of deriving type, if one ought to type oneself at all. I oppose the functions because I understand their limitations in scope through my analysis of them. Using functions, I could type myself as anything I want depending on what aspects of myself I focus on and ignore, as well as which definitions and frameworks I adopt, but I don't define myself using them because I consider this arbitrary. I see the lack of consistency of definitions, as well as their weak connection to their corresponding types, as a failure of type dynamics to establish a consistent framework.
- I'm probably not an INFP. More specifically, I'm not an INFP according to my MBTI results which show a 7:1 ratio of T to F. However, I don't care whether or not I'm an INTP or INFP, let alone what type I'm assigned by someone else. That's because I don't feel any validation by having a label; I see all the ways in which I'm different from others, I see all the ways in which I defy stereotypes (which aren't even an accurate method for typing others), and I decide through subjective valuation that I can define my identity without labels. I also find it absurd that people will somehow reach a more comprehensive understanding of who I am by associating me with INTP (or INFP, INTJ, or any other type), than if they simply listened to what I had to say about who I am and what's important to me.

I can detachedly analyse the logic of systems independently of forum groupthink and explain its shortcomings without bringing my values to bear, but I am compelled to explore the shortcomings of this system because I feel on a gut level that typology dehumanises individuals - and I feel this to be true without needing to justify myself to others. These processes are not exclusive at all. In fact, I consider them to often be inclusive.


----------



## Triarii (Jan 10, 2020)

Soul Kitchen said:


> This assumes both that Ti and Fi are "things" that exists, and also that Ti and Fi are meaningfully opposed; let alone mutually exclusive.


For an unknown reason this is the argument of all ITPs ... Which is absurd in psychology. In the most abstract world nothing exists, everything is subjective. This is again the big difference between Ti and Ni: the arwareness of perspective. But also between Ti and Te: the question should rather be ... "What works", "the one that works the best in the profesional world". And not "what is exist" "what is not exist". To date, the MBTI is still favored for its empirical (metrics) and theoretical data (Jung). The business world, the world of institutions have a strong preference for this system.


----------



## Djairouks (Aug 26, 2019)

The red spirit said:


> I'm pretty sure that numbers of taking MBTI as gospel as higher than what you would like to think and I'm talking about perC. Even if this crowd isn't all that big, then why other typologies with similar credibility never got this level of following. Is anyone actually talking about NEO PI R, HEXACO, 16PF or something that isn't MBTI, socionics and enneagram? I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 70% credibility is absolute minimum for any psychometric tool. I will repeat it again, absolute minimum.
> ...


Thanks for all this food for thought, I am alway interested in Learning more about this subject and evolve, the thing I think one should still recognize is even with it's flaws, MBTI is far easier to get in than other methods, without a psychology background and so it is helpfull to the masses. I mean, I absolutely hate the typical self help books, with all the mumbo jumbo dribble, but still some people benefit from such books, so it's not useless.

There was no attitude, I didn't disrespect anything it is your point of view and quite frankly I do not care much about the respect the field deserves or not, I care about Learning and improving.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Singularius said:


> OP, you also forgot to mention the masters of MBTI who slap the Fi label on everything. You value this - Fi dom, you expressed an emotion - Fi dom, fuck, you farted - fuckin Fi dom


It is wrong to slap the Fi label on everything. Fi is when you fart and you know this is a glorious thing. Fe is when you fart and are concerned about Marjorie or Gerald's reaction. 

It is poignant moment to experience in an elevator. Attitude is everything.


----------



## Triarii (Jan 10, 2020)

In fact even this topic is a pure timeless judgment. Which demonstrates a preference of the author for the introverted thinking. His perceptual analysis will now systematically follow from this conclusion. "Functions suck". Even if his judgment is strictly subjective because himself cannot demonstrate the viability of non-directional functions over more than 4 years ...

It is a bit like choosing the live after death or not. In the absence of proof, even if the NDEs datas are an interesting point, we can still refute them. It is a materialist choice.

_Onus probandi_


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Djairouks said:


> Thanks for all this food for thought, I am always interested in Learning more about this subject and evolve, the thing I think one should still recognize is even with it's flaws, MBTI is far easier to get in than other methods, without a psychology background and so it is helpful to the masses.


But it's not like that at all. You would really need to read at least one book to understand it. Meanwhile you don't need to read anything to understand 16PF for example. In fact, MBTI is one of the hardest typologies to understand. To have a good understanding of it, you would need to read several books and ain't nobody got time for that. Now that we are talking about ease of getting in, then not only 16PF is so easy, Big 5 is easy too. I would dare to call even MMPI-2 easy. MBTI isn't easy at all and gets even harder if functions are also investigated. The only harder thing than it is probably socionics, but then again it's not a typology, but rather a basket of many ideas of personality.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. They're defined differently in different systems. For the most part they are the same. But not exactly and it creates overlap. Something may be Te in one system but Se in another, like in Socionics. But even in one system there's overlap, either because some aspects of each function serve the same purpose or do similar things as another function. What's the point of this redundancy?


Maybe our vocabulary isn't quite good enough to handle these descriptions?
What makes you think that language is the ultimate way to assess our feelings and perceptions? Maybe functions are legit and you have to invent a language for that.

I think I know what "Ti" is but if I want to describe it it will surely create some overlap with another function or concept that otherwise means a different thing.
That doesn't mean that "Ti" is not legit. It means that our language is lacking.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

jetser said:


> Maybe our vocabulary isn't quite good enough to handle these descriptions?
> What makes you think that language is the ultimate way to assess our feelings and perceptions? Maybe functions are legit and you have to invent a language for that.
> 
> I think I know what "Ti" is but if I want to describe it it will surely create some overlap with another function or concept that otherwise means a different thing.
> That doesn't mean that "Ti" is not legit. It means that our language is lacking.


I don't see why that would be your premise, it's not an inability to describe it, it's the fact that it has many definitions and there's no reason to buy one definition over another.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> I don't see why that would be your premise, it's not an inability to describe it, it's the fact that it has many definitions and there's no reason to buy one definition over another.


It has many definitions because people can't describe it.
So it creates some confusion. That doesn't mean that functions are not real.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

jetser said:


> It has many definitions because people can't describe it.
> So it creates some confusion. That doesn't mean that functions are not real.


It has many definitions because people interpret it differently and on top of that extrapolate what is and isn't each function.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> It has many definitions because people interpret it differently and on top of that extrapolate what is and isn't each function.


I'm sure people couldn't describe the Sun two thousand years ago. That doesn't mean it didn't exist. It means that the language was not ready for that concept.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

We know there's no evidence of functions. 

Theoretically, if functions did exist, there would never be one consistent definition because functions are perspective bias and everyone views the perspective bias of everyone else through their own perspective bias. You see?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Kynx said:


> We know there's no evidence of functions.
> 
> Theoretically, if functions did exist, there would never be one consistent definition because functions are perspective bias and everyone views the perspective bias of everyone else through their own perspective bias. You see?


Yes, saying Se exists is like saying a sanguine function exists or a charisma function. Or anything that has to do with human behavior.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

jetser said:


> I'm sure people couldn't describe the Sun two thousand years ago. That doesn't mean it didn't exist. It means that the language was not ready for that concept.
> Same for all the things that were considered "miracle" or "witchcraft".


We could, we just didn't know enough about the specifics of how it worked. Which is different.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Kynx said:


> We know there's no evidence of functions.
> 
> Theoretically, if functions did exist, there would never be one consistent definition because functions are perspective bias and everyone views the perspective bias of everyone else through their own perspective bias. You see?


Perhaps it depends on how well those functions are defined. Define them well with an aim toward objectivity and they are brought into existence. Here is someone who I subjectively say has done a pretty good job:
https://weirdfella.tumblr.com/post/177722517044/what-functions-are-and-what-theyre-no

Take the 1st one: "*Introverted Sensing*_
What it is_: Subjective impressions of sensory data and experiences, archived away so it can be used for future references"

How well does that do the job? If it makes sense to you, you have a start on getting at personality. If it is too vague to make sense, you do not.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@The red spirit. Those Crash Courses you provided are great. I'll have to get back to you on this.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

BigApplePi said:


> Perhaps it depends on how well those functions are defined. Define them well with an aim toward objectivity and they are brought into existence. Here is someone who I subjectively say has done a pretty good job:
> https://weirdfella.tumblr.com/post/177722517044/what-functions-are-and-what-theyre-no
> 
> Take the 1st one: "*Introverted Sensing*_
> ...


Even if functions did exist it's not enough for them to be consistent, you'd have to have a way of knowing that each of the things you speak of come from Si and not something else.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BigApplePi said:


> @The red spirit. Those Crash Courses you provided are great. I'll have to get back to you on this.


Yeah, I know. I discovered them through their computer science series and soon I noticed that not only they make videos about CS, but about nearly anything. Their sources are credible, their presentation skills are superior and information you get is truly on par with actual university courses. That's really great for someone, who wants to learn something in free time and not die out of boredom. Or maybe someone, who never had means to go to university. I love that channel.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Ti-doms and their problems.


----------



## Djairouks (Aug 26, 2019)

Soul Kitchen said:


> This assumes both that Ti and Fi are "things" that exists, and also that Ti and Fi are meaningfully opposed; let alone mutually exclusive.
> 
> -I know I'm an INTP according to the MBTI because *I can discern, through reasoning not restricted by my purported type, that the indicator is the most reliable method of deriving type*, if one ought to type oneself at all. *I oppose the functions because I understand their limitations in scope through my analysis of them*. Using functions, I could type myself as anything I want depending on what aspects of myself I focus on and ignore, as well as which definitions and frameworks I adopt, but I don't define myself using them because *I consider this arbitrary*. I see the lack of consistency of definitions, as well as their weak connection to their corresponding types, as a failure of type dynamics to establish a consistent framework.
> - I'm probably not an INFP. More specifically, I'm not an INFP according to my MBTI results which show a 7:1 ratio of T to F. However, I don't care whether or not I'm an INTP or INFP, let alone what type I'm assigned by someone else. That's because I don't feel any validation by having a label; I see all the ways in which I'm different from others, I see all the ways in which I defy stereotypes (which aren't even an accurate method for typing others), and I decide through subjective valuation that I can define my identity without labels. I also find it absurd that people will somehow reach a more comprehensive understanding of who I am by associating me with INTP (or INFP, INTJ, or any other type), than if they simply listened to what I had to say about who I am and what's important to me.
> ...


I kind of follow what you mean, I've started looking at all the crash course videos and I see the problem a bit more, but look what I highlighted in your reply, you first explain how you *think* and try to apply MBTI and then you concluded that it's a *gut feeling* and that you *consider* this arbitrary making you question the system... so on one hand you assess the system and think on it, then you basically decide stuff on gut feelings and your own "prejudiced" lens, so you might want to rethink or rephrase that.

I agree after watching the videos, that it is pretty flawed and I actually didn't realise many aspects of that, but your logic here doesn't really hold water to me sorry.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Yes, saying Se exists is like saying a sanguine function exists or a charisma function. Or anything that has to do with human behavior.





BigApplePi said:


> Perhaps it depends on how well those functions are defined. Define them well with an aim toward objectivity and they are brought into existence. Here is someone who I subjectively say has done a pretty good job:
> https://weirdfella.tumblr.com/post/177722517044/what-functions-are-and-what-theyre-no
> 
> Take the 1st one: "*Introverted Sensing*_
> ...


Si in the dominant position isn't the same as Si in an aux position. So it could be defined in it's essence, but not in it's manifestions. 
Which btw, I would define Si as placing highest importance on subjective sense impressions. The sense impressions aren't exactly "archived away for future reference" either. Subjective sense impressions are archetypal, they already exist in the psyche from birth. They're triggered by experiences, not collected from experiences.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Djairouks said:


> I kind of follow what you mean, I've started looking at all the crash course videos and I see the problem a bit more, but look what I highlighted in your reply, you first explain how you *think* and try to apply MBTI and then you concluded that it's a *gut feeling* and that you *consider* this arbitrary making you question the system... so on one hand you assess the system and think on it, then you basically decide stuff on gut feelings and your own "prejudiced" lens, so you might want to rethink or rephrase that.
> 
> I agree after watching the videos, that it is pretty flawed and I actually didn't realise many aspects of that, but your logic here doesn't really hold water to me sorry.


I didn't post the Crash Course series link as a direct means of debunking the functions. I posted that link to show that there's a better way of understanding the psyche.

I don't 100% follow your comment. I think it'd help if I explained the reasoning behind my previous post from my perspective.

You've got things entirely backwards. I opened my analysis by stating what my type was according to the MBTI, and then I outlined my reasons for determing type using the official MBTI. I didn't explain how I thought until the typing was established, and even then, I explicitly stated that my reasoning is "not restricted by my purported type". Not once did I apply MBTI labels to my reasoning. Not once did I use my reasoning as an argument for my supposedly being an INTP.

I then described, using observations without reliance upon gut feelings, the trend of inconsistency in functions definitions, and noted that I could pick whichever definition I wanted to type myself however I like. To give one example, there are numerous definitions of 'Ni'. Some emphasise mind wandering at the expense of structure, while others have a sort of narrowing down, developing a "singular vision" process of Ni. If I wanted to think of myself as an Ni-dom, I could work backwards from there to determine I was by reading all the definitions of it I could find, choosing ones that fit me and ignoring ones that don't, and using those definitions as the basis for typing myself. But I don't because I see it as an arbitrary process. I mean, it is arbitrary to just decide whatever type you wanted to be according to the functions, isn't it? At least the MBTI indicator, through its forced choices format, imposes rigidity on how you type yourself.

The second paragraph following my analysis wasn't intended to be an analysis. The second paragraph was an explanation of why I, personally, do not find value in typology, written with a "that's how I feel about it, regardless of what its faults are, so take it or leave it". It would be a mistake to take the second paragraph as a continuation of my arguments from the first.

I'll just quote this section here because it gets to the heart of your confusion: "I am compelled to explore the shortcomings of this system because I feel on a gut level that typology dehumanises individuals". Logic is a tool used to reach an understanding about something. It cannot prescribe values or motivations behind why people do what they do. Why did I decide to take functions apart? Because I am motivated to address this problem by my personal grievances with the theory. A relevant comparison would be why scientists are driven to find a cure for cancer. They're driven to find a cure because cancer claims countless lives every year, but the motive behind their search isn't a solution in itself.


----------



## Djairouks (Aug 26, 2019)

Soul Kitchen said:


> I didn't post the Crash Course series link as a direct means of debunking the functions. I posted that link to show that there's a better way of understanding the psyche.
> 
> I don't 100% follow your comment. I think it'd help if I explained the reasoning behind my previous post from my perspective.
> 
> ...


I only commented because we are talking science here that's why your gut feeling comment or anything not directly factual, coming from science and literature, made me question what you were doing, as it didn't look in line with the first part of your analysis before.
I understand I wasn't saying you have motives or anything, I enjoyed expending my knowledge on the matter, I totally get your point on this now.

Honestly slowly getting in Socionics, I realize there's something weird somewhere in MBTI, because I've always tested INTJ in MBTI and Socionics doesn't seem to agree, so I'm still thinking about all this with a what's more precise and makes more sense, not only for me but broadly speaking.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

I can't help myself so I'm going to respond to all of your points indivdually. After that I think I might have some general points on all of this. 



Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. They're defined differently in different systems. For the most part they are the same. But not exactly and it creates overlap. Something may be Te in one system but Se in another, like in Socionics. But even in one system there's overlap, either because some aspects of each function serve the same purpose or do similar things as another function. What's the point of this redundancy? There isn't. It also results in people being confused about their type. People interpret functions differently and many sites and people in general have taken it upon themselves to extrapolate on what the functions are and what they do.


It's true that different systems have different definitions and some come to different conclusions. That could in theory still fit with a system where the underlying facts are the same but the systems use different approaches to describing it. It doesn't invalidate the systems per se, but does mean that there's no unity in how they describe their stuff. 

So I agree that the current typology stuff is a swamp and a big wild-west where there's no consensus on anything. The most important take-away is that we need more research on these topics. I haven't seen any research that actually looks at the cognitive functions and tries to find anything on them. Almost all research defaults to the temperaments and ends up not finding anything on those. 

So while your point is valid and it's a reason to be critical, it doesn't invalidate anything. It just means that we don't know anything about any of this and everyone is just working with hypotheses rather than theories. 



> 2. Same applies to function stacks, but worse. Because function stacks are entirely different in different systems. But somehow people use these systems as well. So there's 1 of 2 possibilities. It's the Barnum effect in action, so even if there are set function stacks we have no way of knowing. Or there just is no way that your functions need to be stacked. The logic of stacks is also flawed. An argument for Grant stacks I typically hear is "Double judging, double perceiving, double extroverted, or double introverted functions are unhealthy and dysfunctional. So it's not that way" It being unhealthy wouldn't make it untrue. Also the idea is your first 2 functions are good, your 3rd is meh, 4th is a weak spot, 5-8 get progressively weaker than that and largely are unused. Does that sound healthy to you? In reality if this were true every type should in theory have a slew of disorders. IxFPs barely have Te, and have even less Ti. They shouldn't be able to reason if that's the case. IxTJs would all have aspergers. ExFJs would be schizophrenic since they lack Te and don't have much Ti. ENxPs should need occupational therapy with such a lack of S functions, etc.


Yep, the whole of function stacks has no scientific basis at all. There are things that feel correct and that work with personal observations. 

So you're completely correct and this is the best basis of all to be sceptical. Problem is that we don't have anyone in our midst that is capable of doing actual scientific research on this so until someone actually does the work we just don't know anything more. 



> 3. It makes no sense to value some aspects of T but not others, same for the other functions. It's also not true in practice. Thinkers, Te or Ti are more logic-driven, period. Ti users use facts, Te users use reason. They don't ignore it, that's silly. If Te users really lacked Ti they wouldn't be able to make simple connections. Ti users would have no understanding of facts and just be pulling shit out of their asses.


In online forums and websites the function descriptions are vague at best. It's possible to find good definitions for these, but most people mangle their personal experiences into things and end up confusing the image even more. In short: there's no consensus on what the functions even are, let alone what they do and don't do. 

I personally strongly disagree with the interpretations you give here, but I don't think the discussion over terms would make any difference in this particular discussion. 



> 4. Function theory has weird dogmas. The function stacks are one of many. Another is this idea that you can't be 50% perceiving, and 50% judging or anything else. No reason is given. Or the idea that type can't change.


Very true. Most of these are based on aggregated personal experiences from a number of people. Again, no scientific basis at all. 
Another great reason to be skeptical. 



> 5. It causes mistypes. People will focus on the most minute descriptions of functions and zero in on that because they're told that more than half the functions they have should be weak or not that strong. The stacks are the main problem. "My functions are Te>Ne, that's a loop, I must be unhealthy, even though I feel fine" Wouldn't it make more sense that you're just an ENTJ than "An unhealthy ESTJ in a loop"? This "i wAs uNhEaLtHy sO i tYpEd aS tHiS" is a recurring trend I'm seeing.


I agree with the observation that there's a lot of this type of stuff around, but the fact that people use the theory this way doesn't invalidate it. It's annoying though. 



> 6. The loops, the shadow, the inferior function, etc are waaaay too specific. Especially for something not scientifically verified (that includes functions as a whole). I don't think it can be anyways because it's too subjective and people adapt and change, so why would they always cope the same way? Types would have to be robots for this to all be true. The idea that you act and react the same way cause you're the same type. Yet, this community seems to understand very well that "No two types are exactly the same" well it seems like you think they are when you enforce this super intricate idea onto people.


None of this is core to the idea of cognitive functions. Loops and shadow functions are all tacked on pretty recently and the idea of an inferior, while admittedly helpful in typing, isn't part of the core ideas. 
I agree that people take it too far and I try to go out of my way to try to bring nuance to these sorts of discussions. People are complicated and cognitive functions, even if you believe they relate to something that actually exists, are tools at best. A tool can be used in different ways based on the user and the context. For example I read a lot that "INFJs are perfectionists". Whenever I read something like that I try to reduce it to the essence. It's nonsense that all INFJs would be perfectionists but it's true that there are cognitive processes at work that often lead to a perfectionistic side. Not always though because we're not computers. 



> 7. Types looking similar, acting similar, thinking in similar ways, but having no functions in common? Fuck off. It's so convoluted it's ridiculous. Why even have 8 functions if 4 of them you barely use and they just mimick the ones you do use anyways?


This one I actually disagree with strongly. You can have different processes that have a similar result. Let's look at how people do math for example. Some people use the parts of their brain that work with language to work through the math, others use the parts that work with different parts of logic. Both get the same result but use a different process. 

Just because it doesn't 'feel' right to you doesn't make it untrue. I'd say that to some extent you're falling into the same trap that you're accusing others of. 

That said: being skeptical of this is important. I mean, this whole point only makes sense once we accept that the cognitive functions actually refer to real processes going on, which is something we haven't even really established. 
I would never ask anyone to accept this part of the theory without accepting the other parts. 



> 8. Functions pretty much do away with the P/J dichotomy. It's tacted on for no reason. "It doesn't matter that this person is stereotypically P, he uses Fe, so he's a J" Also the fact that nothing about Fe is J (or P for that matter) unlike Te which is clearly J. As well as Se and Ne which are clearly P.


Honestly, the J/P dichotomy is pretty far-fetched in itself and doesn't actually refer to anything on its own but just the way certain mental processes are ordered. I personally find the idea of them referring to anything that actually exists a lot more far-fetched than the idea that the P/J dichotomy is something that actually exists. 
Then again, I've been thoroughly poisoned with the idea that the cognitive functions describe human personality better than other systems so I'm not the best person to ask. 


Overall there are some important takeaways. 

1: You're right that most of this is based on hypotheses and experienes and not on anything scientific. That's a major shortcoming and it's reasonable to live your life as if the cognitive functions don't exist until further notice. 
However, there are underlying systems that these functions and the other explanations try to describe. I think there is something real in there and we just haven't found the right words to describe and test it. I can't ask anyone to take my personal experience as if it has any weight but after a few years I do feel as if I can make testable predictions based on this theory. It's just not suitable for a controlled setting. Make of that what you will. 

2: You're conflating a lot of different things in your post and that's not actually your fault. Many of these ideas and theories are presented as equal while most exclude each other and there's no reason to pick one over the other. That does not mean that all of them are true or all of them are false. It's possible for cognitive functions to be correct and socionics to be wrong or it's possible for function stacking to be true while it having to adhere to a specific order might be false. 
It's true that there's a lot of nonsense on each of these topics and it's logical to write all of it off for the time being if that's your conclusion. Just keep in mind that it doesn't have to be black and white with these things. 

3: It's reasonable to not believe something until you've seen sufficient reason to start believing in it. To that extent I commend you on your approach to this. My biggest question though is... now what? We can agree that we don't know enough about all this to accept anything but that doesn't bring us any further into this. MBTI without cognitive functions doesn't seem to give better predictions than the cognitive function approach. We could just ignore the whole thing and wait for science to catch up, but that's a pretty passive approach to this. 

4: I could speak at length about all of the ways that I disagree with many, many assumptions you've made about many things in the above but I can't imagine that you're open to that. I just want to note though that there is some play to all of these factors and you seem to go with a lot of the approaches here that are problematic. 

Concluding... I'm not sure what to say here except that I hope you'll continue being critical of everything you read on these forums. We can at least all agree that personality exists in some way and it's reasonable to assume that it can be studied in some way. If we try to poke holes in all of the interpretations we should at some point be able to find an interpretation that can stand up to scrutiny and that maps to real things in the world. Maybe it will fit with cognitive functions, maybe it won't but we will only find the truth if we keep on working on it.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Kynx said:


> Si in the dominant position isn't the same as Si in an aux position. So it could be defined in it's essence, but not in it's manifestions.
> Which btw, I would define Si as placing highest importance on subjective sense impressions. The sense impressions aren't exactly "archived away for future reference" either. Subjective sense impressions are archetypal, they already exist in the psyche from birth. They're triggered by experiences, not collected from experiences.


It is useful to contrast Si with Se. We are aware of an immediate sensual experience by contact with something outside us, that could be called Se. If we file away such experiences or are able to draw on them from what we born with, we could call that Si.

For some people that could be their primary awareness. For others that could be in service of another more valued function.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

BigApplePi said:


> It is useful to contrast Si with Se. We are aware of an immediate sensual experience by contact with something outside us, that could be called Se. If we file away such experiences or are able to draw on them from what we born with, we could call that Si.
> 
> For some people that could be their primary awareness. For others that could be in service of another more valued function.


Hmm, I'm still not sure we're on the same page here. 

An externally given sense impression, which is experienced and then "filed away" is still an externally given sense impression. It won't become subjectively given even if it's stored away for 10 years in our brain.
Introverted functions trigger an instinctive way of looking at things, their content is shaped by archetypal forms inherent in our (unconscious) psyche. They're only "stored" in the way that instincts are "stored". This is why some Ni doms have been described as prophetic. They are sometimes able to accurately predict future events through inherited "pattern impressions" which they've never personally experienced in their lifetime. Of course, its the same principle which other introverted functions operate. It doesn't make mean Ni perspective any more accurate than any other, it's all swings and roundabouts.

Anyway, the theory differentiates dominant functions (in their purest form) and non-dominant functions (contaminated with emotions and other unconscious material) as being quite different in their manifestions


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

I'm an ESTP with Ti as my superpower then, but is an ISTP because I can be.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Kynx said:


> Hmm, I'm still not sure we're on the same page here.


I'm not sure either but can't tell. Could we take a champion tennis player as an example? The tennis player would be acutely aware of happenings on the tennis court. If he or she does it a lot and loves doing it, they would be using sensing as a primary function. Call that Se. (I don't do that at all unless prompted. I tend to ignore my physical surroundings.)





> An externally given sense impression, which is experienced and then "filed away" is still an externally given sense impression. It won't become subjectively given even if it's stored away for 10 years in our brain.


Agreed. It is filed away and possibly remembered. But how is it used? Cognitive functions by definition are supposed to be "cognitive" or conscious. The expert tennis player may be bored with what already happened and remain only interested in the present. Some may be loathe to go over past games considering them dead and gone. People who love to review such games might be using a feeling function and memory.





> Introverted functions trigger an instinctive way of looking at things, their content is shaped by archetypal forms inherent in our (unconscious) psyche. They're only "stored" in the way that instincts are "stored". This is why some Ni doms have been described as prophetic.
> 
> They are sometimes able to accurately predict future events through inherited "pattern impressions" which they've never personally experienced in their lifetime.


Human beings are special. They look at things according to their unconscious nature. Could we call that "instinct"? 

I suppose we don't know what the Ni dom person stored away, but they have an intuition about that and I guess they will use it. Then they can predict as you say. If you say their Ni takes an "instinctual form, that makes sense. But is it all instinct and not use things gleaned from experience?




> Of course, its the same principle which other introverted functions operate. It doesn't make mean Ni perspective any more accurate than any other, it's all swings and roundabouts.
> 
> Anyway, the theory differentiates dominant functions (in their purest form) and non-dominant functions (contaminated with emotions and other unconscious material) as being quite different in their manifestions


I guess we'd have to look at some people and ask if they have a dominant function and if it can be identified.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Snakes said:


> @Aluminum Frost
> 
> So thank you to confirm the Grant Stack... It was funny.
> 
> ...


I didn't, you have comprehension issues, fg.

You spammed dislikes with the accounts that you actually do speak to me with, so why would I not think that the other accounts that spammed me with dislikes are yours?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

@Kynx Can you guys ban ip addresses? This guy keeps making alts.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Aluminum Frost said:


> @Kynx Can you guys ban ip addresses? This guy keeps making alts.


Thanks
Please report posts as soon as you suspect a dupe account and we can look at it asap.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Kynx said:


> Thanks
> Please report posts as soon as you suspect a dupe account and we can look at it asap.


lol that was quick


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Soul Kitchen said:


> In adapting Jung's ideas, Myers based J/P on the idea of what one's attitude was towards the object, as opposed to describing the subjective attitude. It's for that reason the J/P correlation is messier with introverts than it is with extraverts, whereas there's a clearer correlation between extraverted rational with J and extraverted irrational with P.


A false dichotomy, since how we act on the world relates to how we generally, as an organism, prefer to adapt to it, our relationship to new stimuli. A controlling behavior towards the environment due to new stimuli that stems from a defensive attitude against change is subjectivity, in Jungian language. That's an example of how MB accidentally measure introversion with J. 




> Note that the "rationally oriented mind" Jung describes isn't restricted to introverted rationals; an extraverted rational can also dismiss the extraverted irrational as "an assemblage of accidentals". MBTI J/P items ask the taker what methods they prefer when engaging with the world; in other words, one's internal preferences to external methods. Not a single one of those items pertains to defense of an internal idea. Likewise, the J description does not have attitude towards the subject in mind.
> 
> As for me, I fit with some of Jung's characterisation of introverts in that I'm not easily receptive to external influences and question established norms. I'm comfortable with sharing and discussing facts because they have some value in finding common ground, but I can also extrapolate on the underlying significance of those facts without taking them at face value. My reluctance to accept your ideas as having validity would make me less adaptable according to your framework. I'm like this, and yet I generally prefer P responses on the MBTI inventory because I'm externally unstructured in how I engage with the world. Because J/P in the MBTI is ultimately about how you are in the external world, and I'm sometimes perceived as an aimless drifter in the same way Jung's extraverted rationals deemed introverted irrationals "the most fruitless of men". I would actually say that my lack of responsiveness to the external world is related to being an MBTI P type; I'm indecisive because I need time not just to gather all the information I can, but also because I need to chew it over before I can take action, and I still second guess my decisions based on subjective criteria. I'm not internally rigid at all because I'm constantly expanding upon my interpretations of things subjectively.


yes, Rationals need things to make sense as soon as possible, they engage in analysis fast and seek results, otherwise information tends to get dismissed. But the attitude of adaptation still produces some differing results here, with TPs being generally less attached and seek stimuli that conflict their systems, while TJs tend to seek stimuli that reinforces them. 

Our adaptability & attitude in a given situation does not necessarily paint the whole picture of what Jung called the attitudes of adaptation and something I've found very important is how people talk about their own behaviors, the words they use may be under a certain framework but can be overturned with a different perspective. For example here you mention not being very responsive to the external world yet you say you're indecisive because you need all information, is that so, or are you actually more responsive than someone who does not consider more information? you may be slower in your decision but are you really less receptive? 

Also, you say you ain't receptive to external influences yet all this interpretation of yourself you give based on M&B language, down to making a dichotomy between your internal and external rigidity, whatever that means! And in both cases you say you ain't rigid (which is natural for a P), yet many people view Ps as rigid when they are trying to type them by their "Fi" or "Ti", a nonsensical thing for anyone who's met an actual P, but they think they have to assign Ji to them, becoz muh function stacks and Ji in theory is rigid, unless one defines it backwards by how Ps are and not through the original definitions. But people do both and it all gets mixed up.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> A false dichotomy, since how we act on the world relates to how we generally, as an organism, prefer to adapt to it, our relationship to new stimuli. A controlling behavior towards the environment due to new stimuli that stems from a defensive attitude against change is subjectivity, in Jungian language. That's an example of how MB accidentally measure introversion with J.


If you want to talk about the J/P in MBTI terms, you need to talk about how it's defined according to what Myers thought it would be like, regardless of how she misinterpreted things. After all, she created it through her (admittedly flawed) interpretations of Jung's work. You can't talk about a different interpretation of it and then try and link that interpretation back to MBTI labels.



> yes, Rationals need things to make sense as soon as possible, they engage in analysis fast and seek results, otherwise information tends to get dismissed. But the attitude of adaptation still produces some differing results here, with TPs being generally less attached and seek stimuli that conflict their systems, while TJs tend to seek stimuli that reinforces them.
> 
> Our adaptability & attitude in a given situation does not necessarily paint the whole picture of what Jung called the attitudes of adaptation and something I've found very important is how people talk about their own behaviors, the words they use may be under a certain framework but can be overturned with a different perspective. For example here you mention not being very responsive to the external world yet you say you're indecisive because you need all information, is that so, or are you actually more responsive than someone who does not consider more information? you may be slower in your decision but are you really less receptive?
> 
> Also, you say you ain't receptive to external influences yet all this interpretation of yourself you give based on M&B language, down to making a dichotomy between your internal and external rigidity, whatever that means! And in both cases you say you ain't rigid (which is natural for a P), yet many people view Ps as rigid when they are trying to type them by their "Fi" or "Ti", a nonsensical thing for anyone who's met an actual P, but they think they have to assign Ji to them, becoz muh function stacks and Ji in theory is rigid, unless one defines it backwards by how Ps are and not through the original definitions. But people do both and it all gets mixed up.


You're mistaken if you think I'm restricting myself to function stacks. Jung didn't believe that extraverts and introverts used different processes for so-called perceiving and judging processes. Rather, he believed that extraverts are oriented in all ways towards the object, and introverts are oriented in all ways towards the subject. So, it wouldn't be contradictory at all for an introverted irrational to use subjective judgements. If I am an "information gatherer", I am to the extent that everyone uses information in some way or another. Only someone who is 100% an introvert would completely disregard the external world, and that individual, to paraphrase Jung, "would be in a lunatic asylum".

When I make decisions, I make them based on a subjective set of criteria which seems arbitrary and, at times, incomprehensible, but which has its internal consistency. What I do in my mind wanderings is search for the ideal form of something, one which doesn't fit to an object, but instead one whose properties cannot be described in tangible terms. In other words, it's the Platonic ideal. If Plato would be a Jungian introvert, then Aristotle would be a Jungian extravert, since Aristotle misinterpreted the Platonic ideal into an external measuring stick. I am slow to act because I am searching for the one thing that comes closest to representing my Platonic ideal of it. Objects which don't are depreciated in some way or another. This is a lack of adaptation because I am unwilling to adjust my Platonic ideal to accommodate objects, and I am even less willing to adjust it according to external standards of worth.

I said that I'm not "internally rigid". What did I mean by that? That's because I don't have a fixed Platonic ideal, just one I'm unwilling to alter according to external standards. Sometimes, I wonder whether I really value something as much as I believed I did, and then I go off with my mind wanderings again, and the criteria changes.

Our exchange ends here. You'll most likely go to on with your interpretations of the theory, and I'll continue resisting your attempts to make me conform to what you believe to be the object. Because I would both be an introvert according to Jung and an MBTI Perceiving type, and I fail to see how this is contradictory according to my framework.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Yes you are a unique butterfly that cannot conform to anything, and a savior for resisting, a true martyr


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Convex said:


> Yes you are a unique butterfly that cannot conform to anything, and a savior for resisting, a true martyr


Glad somebody noticed!


----------



## Zidane (Sep 9, 2015)

Great post. Yes, the functions do not exist. There are only preferences. Functions are black and white and imply an actual cognition, a mechanism. No one can tell you how Fi works and where it is located in the brain. An "Ni dominant" is not constantly using an Ni form of consciousness, it simply means that this person enjoys abstract exercise more than concrete exercise. He likes to look behind the curtain, whereas a Si likes to look at the curtain. Compare functions like colours. Do you like blue or do you like its opposite, orange? If you like orange, does it mean you constantly use the orange function? 😛


----------



## Djairouks (Aug 26, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> A false dichotomy, since how we act on the world relates to how we generally, as an organism, prefer to adapt to it, our relationship to new stimuli. A controlling behavior towards the environment due to new stimuli that stems from a defensive attitude against change is subjectivity, in Jungian language. That's an example of how MB accidentally measure introversion with J.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I must say I don't get it either, to me your explanation contradicts itself, rigidity in someone to me is being unable to change your mind or ways, so how would a P be the rigid one if they generally seek things that conflict their system as you said, I don't see then how it is the J that would not be rigid seeking reinforcement of the system, it doesn't work !?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Djairouks said:


> I must say I don't get it either, to me your explanation contradicts itself, rigidity in someone to me is being unable to change your mind or ways, so how would a P be the rigid one if they generally seek things that conflict their system as you said, I don't see then how it is the J that would not be rigid seeking reinforcement of the system, it doesn't work !?


that's exactly what I'm saying tho, it doesn't make sense, yet people want to assign introverted judging to Ps, which is the opposite of their P dispositions


----------



## Djairouks (Aug 26, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> that's exactly what I'm saying tho, it doesn't make sense, yet people want to assign introverted judging to Ps, which is the opposite of their P dispositions


Ah sorry thought you said theory was backwards, I got it !


----------



## Dis Aliter Visum (Jan 16, 2020)

Soul Kitchen said:


> If you want to talk about the J/P in MBTI terms, you need to talk about how it's defined according to what Myers thought it would be like, regardless of how she misinterpreted things. After all, she created it through her (admittedly flawed) interpretations of Jung's work. You can't talk about a different interpretation of it and then try and link that interpretation back to MBTI labels.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As you do not believe in functions I can say something unsolicited: Your avatar in one of the best description of introverted intuition. And Platon was INFJ.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Ever considered looking at function-attitudes in a different way? Most theories train us to focus on the function. I am sure Myers and Keirsey had their motivations for doing so. In part the may considered Jung's type theory confusing. Besides their focus was testing. *“It’s the Attitude Stupid”* is a thread created years ago. It may shed some light into Dr. Jung the attitude or orientation more important. 

We’re led to believe the opposite of introverted thinking for example is extraverted feeling. But that is not how Dr. Jung viewed his type theory. The absolute opposite of introverted thinking is introverted feeling because two functions of the same nature cannot occupy the same space (introvert a judging function). As he states, if one is truly a particular type, sovereignty must go to one function-attitude. Another opposite would be extraverted thinking because it’s purpose runs counter to the nature of introverted thinking. In his description of the dominant introverted thinking type, Dr. Jung says


> He will follow his ideas like the extravert, but in the reverse direction: inwards and not outwards. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental respects he differs quite unmistakably from his extraverted counterpart. What distinguishes the other, namely his intense relation to objects, is almost completely lacking in him as in every introverted type.


You’re correct to say that certain types can look, act and think similarly but have no functions in common. Again, it’s because the commonality has less to do with the function and all to do with * the inward/outward focus of energy*. As Linda V. Berens says,


> Types who dominate using introverted thinking or introverted intuition often are accompanied by a sense of detachment and disconnection. With both there tends to be comfort with complexity. The difference is that when we are engaging in introverted thinking, we usually have a clear sense of the principles or models something is judged against, whereas with introverted intuition, an impressionistic image forms in the mind.


 Contrast this with someone using different functions yet with a focus to the external world. Berens describes the comparison this way:


> Extraverted sensing and extraverted thinking are often used when there is a focus on facts and an empirical approach. Keep in mind that extraverted sensing is a perceptive process and may consist of data gathering with questions, whereas extraverted thinking is a judging process in which the purpose of question is to establish logic.


The ISTP *mistypes more often than not as INTJ and INTP* due to introverted thinking making ISTPs highly cerebral.


----------



## melloi (Jul 14, 2019)

When looking at functions, using the definitions provided by OP theory helps, regardless of what you think of it.

- First of all, Ni/Se is not "2 functions" but a single coin with its heads and tails. One side is responsible for gathering information, and the opposite side is responsible for organizing gathered information. For this reason you can't be Ni/Si as that would eliminate completely your ability to gather information, and having gathered no information -> you wouldn't be able to organize it despite your excessive aptitude for organizing it.
- Similarly, you can't be Ne/Se because in that case all you're doing is gathering, with no ability of organizing it.

^ neither of the two scenarios above are possible for a relatively healthy and functioning human being.
Hence, Ni/Se and Ne/Si orientations simply determine the method information enters your consciousness and is then organized/stored within it.

- You can't have both Fe/Te because extroverted "judging" functions appeal to the "tribe". If your F appeals to the values of the "tribe", and your T at the same time appeals to the reasons of the "tribe", then you by definition have no "self", no "ego" to speak of. Hence, this again is impossible for a relatively healthy and functioning human being. There has to be a self-referential point of some sort for the consciousness to function in a balanced manner.
- Similarly, if you're Ti/Fi, this means you have no way of appealing neither to the values nor the reasons of the "tribe" and therefore are completely and entirely disconnected from it. Not possible for a relatively healthy and functioning human being.



But do the functions actually exist? Of course they don't. They are merely archetypal representations of the "alignments" and "proclivities" human behavior has, and typically tends to display to a larger degree throughout its lifetime. It is useful to use these "archetypal" vectors to identify and predict the behavior of other people, irrespective of whether these "functions" are physically present in the brain.

But I do completely agree that the amount of noise and fog created around what each function does, and whether "shadows" and "loops" exist, isn't doing anyone any good.


----------



## Djairouks (Aug 26, 2019)

Functianalyst said:


> Ever considered looking at function-attitudes in a different way? Most theories train us to focus on the function. I am sure Myers and Keirsey had their motivations for doing so. In part the may considered Jung's type theory confusing. Besides their focus was testing. *“It’s the Attitude Stupid”* is a thread created years ago. It may shed some light into Dr. Jung the attitude or orientation more important.
> 
> We’re led to believe the opposite of introverted thinking for example is extraverted feeling. But that is not how Dr. Jung viewed his type theory. The absolute opposite of introverted thinking is introverted feeling because two functions of the same nature cannot occupy the same space (introvert a judging function). As he states, if one is truly a particular type, sovereignty must go to one function-attitude. Another opposite would be extraverted thinking because it’s purpose runs counter to the nature of introverted thinking. In his description of the dominant introverted thinking type, Dr. Jung says
> 
> ...


Thanks a lot for this, it's been 2 years that I have been interested in MBTI, what every test I took resulted or every description that seemed to be me were, saying INTJ overwhelmingly, yet there are plenty of things, especially me being pretty versed in music or martial arts and more of a doing rather than theorizing individual, always left me with questions about some of the functions of an INTJ.
Last week I looked into socionics and took different approaches to functions separating them more and test I took as wel as me rethinking function with the added info, gave me ISTP now every time, then I looked into descriptions and all seemed to make much more sense, but I was still thinking if I didn't have some kind of confirmation bias.

But this short explanation in the link you gave, was the best making sense of the differences I read and I now realize I indeed seem to have mistyped myself as an INTJ, but would really be an ISTP !


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

melloi said:


> For this reason you can't be Ni/Si as that would eliminate completely your ability to gather information, and having gathered no information -> you wouldn't be able to organize it despite your excessive aptitude for organizing it.
> - Similarly, you can't be Ne/Se because in that case all you're doing is gathering, with no ability of organizing it.
> 
> ^ neither of the two scenarios above are possible for a relatively healthy and functioning human being.
> Hence, Ni/Se and Ne/Si orientations simply determine the method information enters your consciousness and is then organized/stored within it.


Get this.

If these functions enter one's consciousness, how strange it is not to mention unconsciousness as if it shouldn't be acknowledged because we are not conscious of it. If one is conscious of one process but can't be conscious of another because it would interfere with a complementary process, then than process still exists as a function even if it isn't cognitive. For example, if information is consciously gathered (as with Ne), the function of Se comes out somehow even if it is not conscious.





> - You can't have both Fe/Te because extroverted "judging" functions appeal to the "tribe". If your F appeals to the values of the "tribe", and your T at the same time appeals to the reasons of the "tribe", then you by definition have no "self", no "ego" to speak of. Hence, this again is impossible for a relatively healthy and functioning human being. There has to be a self-referential point of some sort for the consciousness to function in a balanced manner.
> - Similarly, if you're Ti/Fi, this means you have no way of appealing neither to the values nor the reasons of the "tribe" and therefore are completely and entirely disconnected from it. Not possible for a relatively healthy and functioning human being.


Similarly, if one is conscious for the values of the tribe (as with Fe), the function of Te comes out even if it is not conscious.





> But do the functions actually exist? Of course they don't. They are merely archetypal representations of the "alignments" and "proclivities" human behavior has, and typically tends to display to a larger degree throughout its lifetime. It is useful to use these "archetypal" vectors to identify and predict the behavior of other people, irrespective of whether these "functions" are physically present in the brain.


Don't agree at all because it depends on how one defines existence. For example, Fe doesn't exists as an abstraction. It depends on the existence of all the functions together (humans) even if some of them are unconscious. Do "alignments" and "proclivities" of humans exist? Yes they do if one relates them to order and predispositions.





> But I do completely agree that the amount of noise and fog created around what each function does, and whether "shadows" and "loops" exist, isn't doing anyone any good.


That something, anything, should have noise and fog surrounding it should be something to accept as it is universal!


----------



## melloi (Jul 14, 2019)

BigApplePi said:


> Get this.
> 
> If these functions enter one's consciousness,


Functions don't enter consciousness, information does. Functions determine in what format that information enters the consciousness. Functions are like filters tasked with digesting the enormous amounts of raw and chaotic data we encounter in the world. And each person filters that data differently and selectively, because the human brain is not capable of ingesting all of the information that the world has to offer.



BigApplePi said:


> how strange it is not to mention unconsciousness as if it shouldn't be acknowledged because we are not conscious of it.


The conscious and unconscious work in tandem, and how conscious a person is of the workings of a particular function depends on how strong or weak that function is. The stronger the function is in a person's stack, the less conscious he will be of its existence, because that function's behavior becomes similar to that of an autonomic activity, just as is breathing or heartbeat - we don't breathe consciously (although we could) and we do not make our heart beat consciously, because these reflexes are so paramount to our survival, it would actually significantly reduce our ability to function as living beings if we'd have to do those things consciously.



BigApplePi said:


> If one is conscious of one process but can't be conscious of another because it would interfere with a complementary process, then than process still exists as a function even if it isn't cognitive. For example, if information is consciously gathered (as with Ne), the function of Se comes out somehow even if it is not conscious.


Both Ne and Se gather information, but Ne focuses on intangible information (theories, ideas, concepts, patterns), while Se focuses on tangible information (colors, tastes, sensations, shapes).

Having strong Ne doesn't mean you don't have Se. But it means that if your brain is primarily focused on consuming intangible information, there is very little space (both logically and resource-wise) left for consuming tangible information. These 2 represent exact opposites of each other, are like night and day, therefore are mutually-exclusive.



BigApplePi said:


> Similarly, if one is conscious for the values of the tribe (as with Fe), the function of Te comes out even if it is not conscious.


Being conscious of the values of the tribe doesn't mean you're using Fe. Appealing to the values of the tribe - does.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "comes out". Comes out where?



BigApplePi said:


> Don't agree at all because it depends on how one defines existence. For example, Fe doesn't exists as an abstraction. It depends on the existence of all the functions together (humans) even if some of them are unconscious. Do "alignments" and "proclivities" of humans exist? Yes they do if one relates them to order and predispositions.


Sorry, didn't understand this paragraph at all.



BigApplePi said:


> That something, anything, should have noise and fog surrounding it should be something to accept as it is universal!


What?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@melloi. Good issues which deserve replies. Not sure when I can get to them. #117


----------



## lladcy (Mar 12, 2020)

"Ti users use facts, Te users use reason. They don't ignore it, that's silly. If Te users really lacked Ti they wouldn't be able to make simple connections."

tbh this part kinda suggests that you don't know what the functions are...

1. Ti isn't about "using facts" and Te isn't about "using reason"

Ti is about understanding things through a logical framework. How that actually works in practice is secondary

Te doesn't primarily care about logic, it cares about efficiency. Whether something makes logical sense is only important to the Te-user when it impacts the result


2. Nobody is claiming that anybody lacks any function. That's what function stackings are. MBTI isn't "you use function X but not Y", it's "using function X comes more naturally to you than Y"

3. I don't really know to explain the "If Te users really lacked Ti they wouldn't be able to make simple connections" thing because that one really just seems like you don't know what cognitive functions are

Who told you Ti was about "making simple connections"?. That's not personality, that's intelligence. And no type or function is inherently more or less intelligent than another


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

lladcy said:


> "Ti users use facts, Te users use reason. They don't ignore it, that's silly. If Te users really lacked Ti they wouldn't be able to make simple connections."
> 
> tbh this part kinda suggests that you don't know what the functions are...
> 
> ...


1. *facepalm* I'm saying Ti users use facts as well and not just logic, and Te users don't just use facts, they use logic too. Try understanding before telling people they don't know what they're talking about. 

There's also multiple definitions and interpretations of the functions so who is to say what's right or wrong? They're literally just imagined.

2. I'm aware, but function theory also says your 3rd and 4th functions are weak and the rest are even weaker. Which you just completely ignored. The stupid theory doesn't add up.

3. It seems more like you don't have an actual argument so you're gonna pretend I don't know what I'm talking about and act dismissive because you don't like using your brain.

Ti would necessitate that if you think about it for a second. That's what logic is, facts are not logic, you can't put two and two together with just facts, you need to be able to interpret the facts, to think.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Te is not logic. Te is belief and "common sense". Te users oppose logic because they see it as too arbitrary.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

jetser said:


> Te is not logic. Te is belief and "common sense". Te users oppose logic because they see it as too arbitrary.


Why is it so hard to listen? I know "Te" is responsible for facts and "Ti" for logic, I'm saying the idea that Ti users don't use facts or that Te plays a small role in their cognition is ludicrously stupid, same goes for Te and logic.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Why is it so hard to listen? I know "Te" is responsible for facts and "Ti" for logic, I'm saying the idea that Ti users don't use facts or that Te plays a small role in their cognition is ludicrously stupid, same goes for Te and logic.


Of course, I was just commenting on the functions themselves.
Everyone uses everything they just do it in a different order, or assign a different role to it.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Solve Et Coagula said:


> The goal is to confirm each of my writings?
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...


Jungian typology is not about behavior. you could have Fe as your dominant function while still behaviorally be an "introvert" in the usual understanding of the word. The introvert/extrovert definition of MBTI focuses on the behavioral understanding and which is the usual understanding of those words. Jungian typology is not about that. ALTHOUGH I know some people who will argue that they are the same but I am sticking to that they are not.

For example, look at this: https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2014/04/5-basic-facts-about-jung-and-types/ and its first 2 comments (if you scroll down to the comments section) where they were arguing about the proper definitions of Introvert/Extrovert as defined by Jung. But in a nutshell, the point is that MBTI terminologies are different from the Jungian.

Here's another example: https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/20...s-on-bill-gates-introversion-or-extroversion/


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Solve Et Coagula said:


> You tire me .... Obviously it's based on dichotomies. But you have just admitted that the typology itself is also based on the descriptions which itself includes the functions ... "Cog function", you invent terms, it's interesting ...
> *


I never said any of those things. And for the record, Keirsey invented most of the descriptions and he didn't type by the functions (which I assumed you knew so I never stressed on that). So you have been mislead.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

just because the type descriptions include the functions doesn't mean the type descriptions are based on the functions .. In fact, most supporters of the function theory will advise you NOT to pay attention much to the type descriptions and "study the cognitive functions instead" @Solve Et Coagula


----------



## Solve Et Coagula (Apr 1, 2020)

twistedblade056 said:


> It is not a lie.
> 
> Try reading the definitions of "Gifts Differing" (Myers's book) where she focuses LARGELY on the dichotomies, with just a minor touch on the functions. The functions is quite mixed with the definitions of the letters so it is not the same as Jung. For example, the functions have been kind of interpreted with "behavioral tendencies/points" but Jung is not really about that, Jung is about mental processes.
> 
> ...


Your logical inconsistencies lol... I read the chapter X, that's enough to know what are the functions. And the fact that the MBTI synthesizes them is a very good thing. Because I know that Jung's works are imperfect. Even his description of (Ni) seems highly neurotic. And for good reason ... Part of his work was carried out on patients.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Solve Et Coagula said:


> Your logical inconsistencies lol... I read the chapter X, that's enough to know what are the functions. And the fact that the MBTI synthesizes them is a very good thing. Because I know that Jung's works are imperfect. Even his description of (Ni) seems highly neurotic. And for good reason ... Part of his work was carried out on patients.


I read most of it too.

A simple reading of the def of the functions highly implies that these are not about behaviors.

And to add further, I'll just copy paste some of the comments from this link https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2014/04/5-basic-facts-about-jung-and-types/ :

A commenter said:

You say: “A Jungian extrovert may be extremely shy, bookish, pensive, and reticent. To arrive at the correct orientation of E and I, intellectual analysis of the person’s cognition is necessary. Watching for reticence and expressiveness to determine E/I is a behaviorist approach. It is not Jungian typology.”

Jung said: “[Extraverts and introverts] are so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them.”

the IDRLabs said:

Hi Jungster,
We’ve missed you and your high-quality comments on the site. We’d also love to get an article or essay from you if possible one day. We can discuss your fee via email.

As for Jung, the start of the same paragraph you quote from runs:

“The attitude-types, as I have repeatedly emphasized in the preceding chapters, are distinguished by their attitude to the object. The introvert’s attitude is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always intent on withdrawing libido from the object, as though he had to prevent the object from gaining power over him. The extravert, on the contrary, has a positive relation to the object. He affirms its importance to such an extent that his subjective attitude is constantly related to and oriented by the object.”

I.e. first he gives us the defining principle (psychic attitude towards the object). Then he gives us the typical outcome of the distinction that follows from the defining principle (introverts are shy, extroverts are jovial). This principle holds good most of the time. But once in a while you get a person whose behavior is introverted but whose psychic attitude towards the object is a positive one (e.g. Bill Gates). In those cases, we posit that one should give priority to the defining principle, as mentioned above.

As corollary evidence, we would mention three tidbits:

(1) Jung also stressed elsewhere that his typology was a theory of consciousness, not behavior.

(2) Is the proof in the pudding? Look at the reasons Jung gives for typing Rousseau, Luther, Freud et al. as extroverts in Psychological Types. None of these reasons are behavioral, but all concern their “attitude towards the object.” In The Jung Letters, Jung even writes somewhere that Freud “had a genuine introverted lifestyle” but that Jung still considered Freud an extrovert because of Freud’s theory.

(3) We have collected some further quotes on Jung, Jung’s typology, and the role that behavior plays in it here: https://www.idrlabs.com/articles/2013/06/8-common-typing-mistakes/


Trust me, most people who got deep into this know that jung is different from MBTI.


----------



## Solve Et Coagula (Apr 1, 2020)

twistedblade056 said:


> just because the type descriptions include the functions doesn't mean the type descriptions are based on the functions .. In fact, most supporters of the function theory will advise you NOT to pay attention much to the type descriptions and "study the cognitive functions instead" @Solve Et Coagula


You twist the facts as you can, but the result is there: the MBTI is intrinsically linked to functions. And say the contrary is a lie. I post an official link that considers the functions as an additional tool, but you also put your own link that confirms mine. The rest is negation.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Solve Et Coagula said:


> You twist the facts as you can, but the result is there: the MBTI is intrinsically linked to functions. An say the contrary is a lie. I post an official link that considers the functions as an additional tool while prior to the MBTI, but you also put your own link that confirms mine. The rest is negation.


Your argument is MBTI is "associated with the functions", not that they are the same.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Solve Et Coagula said:


> You twist the facts as you can, but the result is there: the MBTI is intrinsically linked to functions. And say the contrary is a lie. I post an official link that considers the functions as an additional tool, but you also put your own link that confirms mine. The rest is negation.


additional tool......not that they are the same......


----------



## Solve Et Coagula (Apr 1, 2020)

twistedblade056 said:


> Trust me, most people who got deep into this know that jung is different from MBTI.


I think you have a serious difficulty to understanding the "synthesis" term ... Hence your condescension and your inability to be comfortable with functions and MBTI. The synthesis is the capacity to see the whole, the non-discontinuity in the theoretical evolution while remaining consistent with the empirical data. It's the ability to sort then to retain the most useful, the most reliable, even if it means modifying the original substance.



twistedblade056 said:


> additional tool......not that they are the same......


You are dishonest because the manual determines the tool. The MBTI is not just a set of questions. It's also a type description based on functions and statistics. It's over.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Solve Et Coagula said:


> You tire me .... Obviously it's based on dichotomies. But you have just admitted that the typology itself is also based on the descriptions which itself includes the functions ... "Cog function", you invent terms, it's interesting ...
> *


Ok, let's ask a simple question, which system are you following and why? Because you seem to believe there's 8 functions, Jung is the one who came up with function theory and in his system there's 4. Every other interpretation seems to say 8. Keirsey is the one that created the type profiles and in Keirsey's work there are no functions. You seem to be taking what you like from multiple different systems and acting as if it all belongs to the same system.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Solve Et Coagula said:


> I think you have a serious difficulty to understanding the "synthesis" term ... Hence your condescension and your inability to be comfortable with functions and MBTI. The synthesis is the capacity to see the whole, the non-discontinuity in the theoretical evolution while remaining consistent with the empirical data. It's the ability to sort then to retain the most useful, the most reliable, even if it means modifying the original substance.
> 
> 
> 
> You are dishonest because the manual determines the tool. The MBTI is not just a set of questions. It's also a type description based on functions and statistics. It's over.


You're psychoanalyzing people again....


----------



## Solve Et Coagula (Apr 1, 2020)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Ok, let's ask a simple question, which system are you following and why? Because you seem to believe there's 8 functions, Jung is the one who came up with function theory and in his system there's 4. Every other interpretation seems to say 8. Keirsey is the one that created the type profiles and in Keirsey's work there are no functions. You seem to be taking what you like from multiple different systems and acting as if it all belongs to the same system.



I type with the official MBTI descriptions, quite intuitively. I have an immediate image (or not) from the external attitude, the manner of speaking, of moving, of thinking, of joking, of dressing, to be sad, to be happy, to be angry, the features of face, the profession, the artistic style etc ... But sometimes I must concentrate on each letter . I work more on general trends. But it must be understood that some trends have been thought from functions. It was my point.

So if I perceive a developed emotional intelligence, I know it's EFJ before I even have an idea of the degrees of organization or the speed of decision-making. Just as differentiating a hyperactive INTP from an INTJ is not easy. The first has a quick judgment, yet he's not a planner. This INTP is also likely to be interested in drugs or in important sensory stimulation until of being confused with an ISTP. The functions are an additional indication.



Aluminum Frost said:


> You're psychoanalyzing people again....


Yet I haven't asked about your respective moms...


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

twistedblade056 said:


> Most MBTI literature focuses on the letters, not the functions. The link that you cited was an additional bonus and not the central focus of the dichotomy, within the official MBTI context.
> 
> At post #35 in this link https://www.personalitycafe.com/cog...eory-versus-keirsey-temperament-theory-4.html, the answer to the question if an MBTI practitioner focused on the functions or the letters, the answer was: "It starts with the dichotomies, then focuses on the type descriptions in the Introduction to Type booklet for determining best fit type. While the general focus is more on the dichotomies, the functions are built into the type descriptions in plain language."


Exactly. This means that @Aluminum Frost is wrong in stating that "the MBTI is the letters, that's it." Thank you for confirming.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Daeva said:


> Exactly. This means that @Aluminum Frost is wrong in stating that "the MBTI is the letters, that's it." Thank you for confirming.


No, the functions are just being tacked on due to their popularity.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Solve Et Coagula said:


> I type with the official MBTI descriptions, quite intuitively. I have an immediate image (or not) from the external attitude, the manner of speaking, of moving, of thinking, of joking, of dressing, to be sad, to be happy, to be angry, the features of face, the profession, the artistic style etc ... But sometimes I must concentrate on each letter . I work more on general trends. But it must be understood that some trends have been thought from functions. It was my point.
> 
> So if I perceive a developed emotional intelligence, I know it's EFJ before I even have an idea of the degrees of organization or the speed of decision-making. Just as differentiating a hyperactive INTP from an INTJ is not easy. The first has a quick judgment, yet he's not a planner. This INTP is also likely to be interested in drugs or in important sensory stimulation until of being confused with an ISTP. The functions are an additional indication.
> 
> ...


You're not addressing anything I said, again, you ducked the question and you're appealing to your personal anecdotes as if this qualifies as evidence.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> No, the functions are just being tacked on due to their popularity.


They wouldn't be popular if they didn't make any sense.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Aluminum Frost said:


> No, the functions are just being tacked on due to their popularity.


Lol what nonsense. You're just making shit up now.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ab Infinitum said:


> Simple question, simple answer: I use the official descriptions of the MBTI because it's 100% accurate.
> 
> lol, you wanna play donkey. If you want to file a complaint, you already know the address. MBTI Compagny, MBTI Online.


Getting tired of your ignorance and your alts, fg. You're a complete fool


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

jetser said:


> They wouldn't be popular if they didn't make any sense.


An appeal to popularity fallacy, really?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Daeva said:


> Lol what nonsense. You're just making shit up now.


No, and what do you care? The functions are completely made-up, there's no evidence backing them up whatsoever.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

and lol, there is only one measly page that describes the "eight functions" in myers briggs dot org. Sure, there is an entire page that says "Understanding Myers-Briggs Type Dynamics" but this is about the last link and this discusses the function-stack, not even the functions.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

twistedblade056 said:


> If the functions are really central to the MBTI then they will advertise the functions as much as, if not more than, the letters. Or they will put a very prominent disclaimer to the page of the letters to not focus on them, for example. Alas, this is not the case.


Why are you so stuck on advertisement? It's no proof of anything.



> The descriptions are very different from the functions. Many people who support the function theory advise you to not look at the over-all description as they are "stereotyping" and that you should instead focus on mastering the meaning of the cognitive functions. So they are not the same just because you see some hint of the functions here and there in the descriptions doesn't mean the official MBTI terminology is the same as the functions terminology.


This to me says more about those people than about the MBTI, as I explained in my previous post. There is such a thing as "bad advice."...

I'm also not claiming (at all) that the MBTI descriptions = function theory. What I'm saying is that the functions are integral to the MBTI descriptions and that, because of this, they are more than a mere add-on. They are vital to the internal (under-the-hood) structure of the type descriptions.



> but those are not even the "true" function definitions because MBTI itself modified these jungian concepts. So now, we have two schools of thought: those people who stick by the original and those people like you who think that the official MBTI has the real function definitions. Do you see the problem with this?


No, I don't see the problem. I'm talking about the MBTI. Different schools of thought is a common thing in psychology and sociology.

And just to be clear, I don't think that the official MBTI's function descriptions are all that great. But I think that saying that the MBTI only uses the functions as an add-on is a bad criticism. There is much to be critical of, with the MBTI, the problem of using these kinds of tests to determine a type is a big one, for example (- the reliability and testing consistency over time sucks). But the OP's descriptions of the functions are a badly put together mish mash of random opinions that don't add up - no wonder the inconsistencies become too much to bear if you don't critically think through the information you have collected, - AND they do not represent the actual MBTI's descriptions of the functions NOR do they represent any source for function theory that I have encountered. In short, the premise of this thread is built upon bad info, and even the MBTI itself is more consistent with itself than this.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

twistedblade056 said:


> @*Daeva* the letters are part of "MBTI basics" in the myers briggs dot org but the functions aren't even mentioned. Take note this is the page that mentions "MBTI basics"
> 
> seems like everybody forgot about the functions. Hardly for something that wants to make it as their central theory





twistedblade056 said:


> and lol, there is only one measly page that describes the "eight functions" in myers briggs dot org. Sure, there is an entire page that says "Understanding Myers-Briggs Type Dynamics" but this is about the last link and this discusses the function-stack, not even the functions.


On top of the fact that the official MBTI website has an entire page dedicated to the functions, you have an MBTI person tell you that "... the functions are built into the type descriptions..."

I don't know what you're arguing anymore?


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Daeva said:


> Why are you so stuck on advertisement? It's no proof of anything.


What I am trying to tell you is that MBTI is different from the Original Jungian that is why official MBTI is *focused* on advertising things like the letters which doesn't necessarily correspond well to the original jungian concepts.

You make it seem like I am focused on something meaningless as "advertising" when my point is that if you look at any official MBTI sources, *it's very clear that they talk more about the letters than the functions*.

You use the "it's just advertising" card when I don't mean it as superficial as like that.



Daeva said:


> I'm also not claiming (at all) that the MBTI descriptions = function theory. What I'm saying is that the functions are integral to the MBTI descriptions and that, because of this, they are more than a mere add-on. They are vital to the internal (under-the-hood) structure of the type descriptions.


you should reread what you just wrote. you just basically agreed with me that they are not the same or that they two different camps but whatever.

First, Myers & Keirsey weren't thinking of the "functions" when they were creating these profiles. Like I said, Myers focused more on the letters (her invention) and that she simplified or "inserted" the functions into the dichotomy/letters. So the "functions" aren't integral to the descriptions whatsoever because much of them were already lost in translation when they entered MBTI territory.

Keirsey expanded on Myers's descriptions and his version is what's popular today.



Daeva said:


> No, I don't see the problem. I'm talking about the MBTI. Different schools of thought is a common thing in psychology and sociology.
> 
> And just to be clear, I don't think that the official MBTI's function descriptions are all that great. But I think that saying that the MBTI only uses the functions as an add-on is a bad criticism. There is much to be critical of, with the MBTI, the problem of using these kinds of tests to determine a type is a big one, for example (- the reliability and testing consistency over time sucks). But the OP's descriptions of the functions are a badly put together mish mash of random opinions that don't add up - no wonder the inconsistencies become to much to bear if you don't critically think through the information you have collected, - AND they do not represent the actual MBTI's descriptions of the functions NOR do they represent any source for function theory that I have encountered. In short, the premise of this thread is built upon bad info, and even the MBTI itself is more consistent with itself than this.


But I think the point there is that the functions model is very abstract to the point that it could become meaningless.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

twistedblade056 said:


> What I am trying to tell you is that MBTI is different from the Original Jungian that is why official MBTI is *focused* on advertising things like the letters which doesn't necessarily correspond well to the original jungian concepts.
> 
> You make it seem like I am focused on something meaningless as "advertising" when my point is that if you look at any official MBTI sources, *it's very clear that they talk more about the letters than the functions*.
> 
> You use the "it's just advertising" card when I don't mean it as superficial as like that.


I'm not using any card but the one you gave me. You really stressed the advertising thing multiple times, and now this has become about Jungian purity? I was never commenting on the original Jungian concepts... Where does it end?

And so what if they emphasize the letters more than the functions? That doesn't take anything away from my argument.



> you should reread what you just wrote. you just basically agreed with me that they are not the same or that they two different camps but whatever.


Is it problematic that we can agree on a point? 



> First, Myers & Keirsey weren't thinking of the "functions" when they were creating these profiles. Like I said, Myers focused more on the letters (her invention) and that she simplified or "inserted" the functions into the dichotomy/letters. So the "functions" aren't integral to the descriptions whatsoever because much of them were already lost in translation when they entered MBTI territory.
> 
> Keirsey expanded on Myers's descriptions and his version is what's popular today.


So the functions are integrated into the dichotomies AND into the type descriptions AND they are listed on the official MBTI website...
But sure, they were only added because of "popularity." I wonder who made them popular...



> But I think the point there is that the functions model is very abstract to the point that it could become meaningless.


I'm not exactly sure what the point of the OP is because the info was straight up false. The descriptions of the functions were very, very wrong and misleading. So any conclusion made based on that becomes void.

To then say that things can become too abstract.. Well, first things first: start with good info.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Daeva said:


> I'm not using any card but the one you gave me. You really stressed the advertising thing multiple times, and now this has become about Jungian purity? I was never commenting on the original Jungian concepts... Where does it end?
> 
> And so what if they emphasize the letters more than the functions? That doesn't take anything away from my argument.


I said the advertising thing to make it a point that they emphasize the letters more than the functions.

But what is your argument exactly?


I thought it was clear I was saying that jung is different from MBTI that's why I was saying that MBTI is not about jung but it is a modification of jung hence the emphasis on the letters more than the functions. 



Daeva said:


> So the functions are integrated into the dichotomies AND into the type descriptions AND they are listed on the official MBTI website...
> But sure, they were only added because of "popularity." I wonder who made them popular...


but what i am saying is that MBTI is not the same as jung



Daeva said:


> I'm not exactly sure what the point of the OP is because the info was straight up false. The descriptions of the functions were very, very wrong and misleading. So any conclusion made based on that becomes void.
> 
> To then say that things can become too abstract.. Well, first things first: start with good info.


I think she was saying that the functions are invalid because there is no way to prove it whatsoever compared to the other models. I agreed with her and then added (just now) that the function model is indeed very abstract that people can make up whatever theory/definition they like about it.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

twistedblade056 said:


> I said the advertising thing to make it a point that they emphasize the letters more than the functions.
> 
> But what is your argument exactly?


The following:


Daeva said:


> ... that @Aluminum Frost is wrong in stating that "the MBTI is the letters, that's it." ...


^ You claim that the functions are a mere bonus to the MBTI. I argue that the functions are more central to the MBTI than that. Semantics, really.

But the more important point is the one centered around this very thread: Note that the OP claims that the MBTI has nothing intrinsically to do with the functions, which your argument strongly refutes (examples: the functions are integrated into the dichotomies, the functions are integrated into the type descriptions).



> I thought it was clear I was saying that jung is different from MBTI that's why I was saying that MBTI is not about jung but it is a modification of jung hence the emphasis on the letters more than the functions.
> 
> but what i am saying is that MBTI is not the same as jung


Of course MBTI is not the same as Jung. I never argued otherwise.



> I think she was saying that the functions are invalid because there is no way to prove it whatsoever compared to the other models. I agreed with her and then added (just now) that the function model is indeed very abstract that people can make up whatever theory/definition they like about it.


The OP made that conclusion on proven-to-be-false information about the functions. If you agree with the OP's conclusion, do you agree with their descriptions of the functions? If so, there's a much larger issue going on here than merely the degree of abstraction (which, in itself, is no evidence of its veracity - or lack thereof: something can be very abstract and still be true).
I do think that the OP themselves MADE UP their own definitions of the functions, and based on that, dismissed the whole idea.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Daeva said:


> The OP made that conclusion on proven-to-be-false information about the functions. If you agree with the OP's conclusion, do you agree with their descriptions of the functions? If so, there's a much larger issue going on here than merely the degree of abstraction (which, in itself, is no evidence of its veracity - or lack thereof: something can be very abstract and still be true).
> I do think that the OP themselves MADE UP their own definitions of the functions, and based on that, dismissed the whole idea.


I only focused on her first post and I don't remember her providing own definitions of the functions. I never read much of the rest of the thread.

Anyway, I am not sure if my point and her point are different- I thought we were both talking about the fact that the MBTI focuses more on the letters than the functions.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

*We would like to remind members to please refrain from engaging with dupes and simply report them instead. Thanks*


----------



## Thunal33 (Oct 22, 2018)

I agree with most of the OP's points. I think that the 8 cognitive functions are actual mental processes that exist, but I don't think there's a specific function stack like the Grant stack. I also don't think that someone's type with dichotomies matches exactly with their function type. I think someone could be ENTP using letters and Ne dominant but someone else could be ENTP using letters and be Ti dominant.


----------



## Thunal33 (Oct 22, 2018)

Also I don't really care about what the official MBTI or any other source says about function definitions or possible ordering, right now how the functions work is anybody's guess because there hasn't been solid scientific evidence that they work in a certain way.


----------

