# Howard Grant cognitive function stackings?



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> The pattern you mention deals with stuff like vocation and interest. This is an error (essentially a straw man) where you have decided that in order for the Grant model to be valid, then INTJs and ESFPs must share interests and vocations.


Thanks, as always, for reading my posts with such care, arkigos. I didn't say that the Grant tandems needed to influence "interests and vocations" to be valid.

What I said (in this already-linked post) was:

In the respectable districts of personality typology, the way a typology's categories get respectably established is by demonstrating _validity_ — which means demonstrating statistically significant correlations with personality characteristics and/or behaviors. And when you're correlating a pool of MBTI types with anything (call it "Personality Characteristic X"), what type patterns will show up will obviously depend on which aspects of type are the ones that come into play with respect to Personality Characteristic X.

So if you're studying something affected by E/I (for example), the eight E types (including the ESFPs) will tend to show up on one side of the correlational divide and the eight I types (including the INTJs) will tend to show up on the other. And if you're studying something affected by E/I and S/N (with I and N pulling in the same direction), you'll find the INs (again, including the INTJs) at one end of the correlational spectrum and the ESs (again, including the ESFPs) on the other. For example, here are the self-selection ratios that Myers reported for a study involving 705 Cal Tech science students:

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

And here's the thing. ... If INTJs and ESFPs share the "Fi/Te axis" and the "Ni/Se axis," and if Fi vs. Fe and Ti vs. Te and Ni vs. Ne and Si vs. Se are substantial influences on personality, then the fifty years of MBTI data pools — correlating types with everything from interests to occupations to other personality measures to you-name-it — should include _some_ significant body of pools where the _particular thing being correlated in that study_ is most strongly influenced by, e.g., Fi vs. Fe or Ti vs. Te, with the result that the INTJs and ESFPs end up on one side of the correlational divide (with the rest of the "Fi/Te types") and the "Ti/Fe types" end up on the other side.

The issue isn't whether the relevant function is any particular type's "main" function. And the issue isn't whether you'd expect the INTJs and ESFPs to be on the same side of the correlational divide in _all_ MBTI-related studies. (You certainly would not.) The issue is that, if the main MBTI-related factor influencing Personality Characteristic X is Fi vs. Fe, then you should expect to find the TJs and FPs together on one side and the FJs and TPs together on the other _in studies involving Personality Characteristic X_.

And the point is: that kind of pattern _virtually never shows up_. It doesn't matter _what_ anybody's correlating with the MBTI types: if the TJs are at one end of the spectrum, you can reliably expect to find the FPs _at the other end_. Because that, as it turns out, is the way _all_ the MBTI preference combinations play out in the real world.

And that's why it's fair to say that, after 50 years and thousands of studies, it's pretty clear that the "function axes" (or "tandems") based on the Harold Grant function stack have _no validity_.​
The fatal flaw in the Grant function stack isn't that there are various things where, if you correlate them with MBTI type, the INTJs are on one side of the spectrum and ESFPs are on the other. The fatal flaw in the Grant function stack is that 50 years of MBTI data pools strongly suggest that there are _no_ personality characteristics _of any kind_ where, if you correlate them with MBTI type, the INTJs and the ESFPs are on one side of the divide (because "Ni/Se types" and/or because "Fi/Te types") and the "Ne/Si types" and/or "Fe/Ti types" are on the other side.

And that's all explained in more detail in those linked posts. Maybe you should read them again.


----------



## Baerlieber (May 18, 2015)

Lots to respond to here, but I just wanted to throw this out there for now in response to a couple of thought-threads I'm seeing here: 

Strictly speaking, Jung did not "create" typology. There is an incredibly long history of humans trying to classify types and temperaments going back, in the West, to ancient Greeks, and in Asian cultures, to ancient medicinal traditions and philosophies. Jung himself was very interested in archetypes (obviously) which he believed there was evidence of going back to basically the beginning of time. But even if we're going to stick to modern psychology, Jung himself cites evidence of typology from William James and others. 

Actually, Keirsey (in "Please Understand Me") gives a pretty interesting, though incomplete, overview of a lot of the "typology" that led to contemporary Jungian analysis.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> Thanks, as always, for reading my posts with such care, arkigos. I didn't say that the Grant tandems needed to influence "interests and vocations" to be valid.
> 
> What I said (in this already-linked post) was:
> In the respectable districts of personality typology, the way a typology's categories get respectably established is by demonstrating _validity_ — which means demonstrating statistically significant correlations with personality characteristics and/or behaviors. And when you're correlating a pool of MBTI types with anything (call it "Personality Characteristic X"), what type patterns will show up will obviously depend on which aspects of type are the ones that come into play with respect to Personality Characteristic X.
> ...


I read it with care. I amend my point from 'vocations and interests' to 'everything from interests to occupations to other personality measures to you-name-it' and from there it stands.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> Thanks, as always, for reading my posts with such care, arkigos. I didn't say that the Grant tandems needed to influence "interests and vocations" to be valid.
> 
> What I said (in this already-linked post) was:
> In the respectable districts of personality typology, the way a typology's categories get respectably established is by demonstrating _validity_ — which means demonstrating statistically significant correlations with personality characteristics and/or behaviors. And when you're correlating a pool of MBTI types with anything (call it "Personality Characteristic X"), what type patterns will show up will obviously depend on which aspects of type are the ones that come into play with respect to Personality Characteristic X.
> ...


You're such a lovely Te! A man can always depend on you!
@arkigos: I'm sorry but what did you try to tell me? I haven't understood a word that came out of you, unfortunately. I just tune out in the presence of Ti or what would be better called an abstract logic.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Baerlieber said:


> Lots to respond to here, but I just wanted to throw this out there for now in response to a couple of thought-threads I'm seeing here:
> 
> Strictly speaking, Jung did not "create" typology. There is an incredibly long history of humans trying to classify types and temperaments going back, in the West, to ancient Greeks, and in Asian cultures, to ancient medicinal traditions and philosophies. Jung himself was very interested in archetypes (obviously) which he believed there was evidence of going back to basically the beginning of time. But even if we're going to stick to modern psychology, Jung himself cites evidence of typology from William James and others.
> 
> Actually, Keirsey (in "Please Understand Me") gives a pretty interesting, though incomplete, overview of a lot of the "typology" that led to contemporary Jungian analysis.


The final and ultimate answer, as always, is this one:

The ASTROLOGY

Can't make a move without it!


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Ixim said:


> You're such a lovely Te! A man can always depend on you!
> @_arkigos_: I'm sorry but what did you try to tell me? I haven't understood a word that came out of you, unfortunately. I just tune out in the presence of Ti or what would be better called an abstract logic.


Valuing empiricism isn't necessarily Te. Te would be cognition, which naturally tends to but does not force any particular philosophy or conclusion or discipline. There are many Ti types that value and rely on empirical data and even authority. Ti types could not be serious scientists without being strongly empirical. They'd be drummed out. So, they adopt the philosophy or the discipline of it. Most Ti scientists I could list are very empirical.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@reckful - just in case there is confusion, I'll state it more simply....

MBTI does not test for or measure any function. For example, it does not test for or measure "Fi" as opposed to "Fe". "INTJ" and "ESFP" in the Grant model would still be fundamentally opposites of one another in that one is an introvert, the other an extravert; one a thinker the other a feeler; one strong with intuition, the other strong in sensation. *The only correlation intended is that when they both, say, assess in the arena of value, they both do so subjectively and abstractly. *​

So, I'll ask simply: over the last 50 years, have these MBTI assessments been testing for this sort of correlation?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> @reckful - just in case there is confusion, I'll state it more simply....
> 
> MBTI does not test for or measure any function. For example, it does not test for or measure "Fi" as opposed to "Fe". "INTJ" and "ESFP" in the Grant model would still be fundamentally opposites of one another in that one is an introvert, the other an extravert; one a thinker the other a feeler; one strong with intuition, the other strong in sensation. *The only correlation intended is that when they both, say, assess in the arena of value, they both do so subjectively and abstractly. *
> 
> So, I'll ask simply: over the last 50 years, *have these MBTI assessments been testing for this sort of correlation*?


Here's some more recycled reckful (from this fresh post) — just for you, amigo. (See the second-to-last paragraph in particular.)

And as for your suggestion that "maybe they just haven't been validated... yet"...

That Reynierse article ("The Case Against Type Dynamics") that I'm always linking to is one of a series of articles that Reynierse (and Harker) published in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is published by the official MBTI folks) and that strongly argued _against_ the Harold Grant model and scoffed at its lack of validity, as well as taking a sharp swipe or two at Naomi Quenk for her ongoing support of "type dynamics." And Quenk is about as "establishment MBTI" as you can get, having authored or co-authored lots of official MBTI materials, including the Step II Manual. Outside her "official" MBTI work, as Reynierse pointed out, she's been a pretty big cognitive functions person — although, to her credit, she's remained agnostic on the issue of the tertiary's attitude (and so isn't one of the "function axes" people) — and you'd better believe she's someone who has ready access to the vast trove of MBTI data that's been gathered over the last 50 years.

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

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

And just in case you're still stroking your chin and thinking, well, maybe there isn't any respectable body of data showing those patterns _yet_, but that's just because the vast majority of psychologists who've been gathering MBTI data have been dichotomy-oriented (which is certainly true) and so they weren't really _testing the Grant model_... be advised that MBTI test results aren't tests of any particular hypothesized patterns. They're just the subjects' MBTI types correlated against whatever's being studied, and the correlational patterns _are whatever they are_. And if the TPs and FJs are on one side and the TJs and FP are on the other, then _bingo!_ — you've got results that would support the notion (take _that_, James Reynierse!) that "Fe/Ti" and "Fi/Te" are among the relevant personality components. But as I've noted, they somehow never seem to be.

At this point, the aspect of the Harold Grant functions model that says that an INTJ has "tertiary Fi" (i.e., has MBTI-related aspects of personality that they share with INFPs, and that INFJs _don't_ share with INFPs), and that an INFP has "tertiary Si" (i.e., has MBTI-related aspects of personality that they share with ISTJs, and that ISTPs _don't_ share with ISTJs) is past the point of being able to respectably claim "_not yet proven_" status, and should really be considered _disproven_ by anyone who likes to think of themselves as reality-oriented. Because at this point I think it's pretty much safe to assume (1) that, if any respectable body of data existed in support of those "tandem" patterns, we would have heard about it, and (2) that if no such body of data exists within all those decades of studies, that means the tandems _lack validity_.​


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> Here's some more recycled reckful (from this fresh post) — just for you, amigo. (See the second-to-last paragraph in particular.)
> And as for your suggestion that "maybe they just haven't been validated... yet"...
> 
> That Reynierse article ("The Case Against Type Dynamics") that I'm always linking to is one of a series of articles that Reynierse (and Harker) published in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is published by the official MBTI folks) and that strongly argued _against_ the Harold Grant model and scoffed at its lack of validity, as well as taking a sharp swipe or two at Naomi Quenk for her ongoing support of "type dynamics." And Quenk is about as "establishment MBTI" as you can get, having authored or co-authored lots of official MBTI materials, including the Step II Manual. Outside her "official" MBTI work, as Reynierse pointed out, she's been a pretty big cognitive functions person — although, to her credit, she's remained agnostic on the issue of the tertiary's attitude (and so isn't one of the "function axes" people) — and you'd better believe she's someone who has ready access to the vast trove of MBTI data that's been gathered over the last 50 years.
> ...


Fair enough. I guess I'll either have to go through that data and find something that satisfies me as something that SHOULD reveal a correlation, and see whether it does... or, I'd have to do what seems not to have been done, and actually do such a test with JFC as the baseline. I doubt that I will find anything in MBTI data that I will accept as meaningfully testing for any particular functions, though I could be wrong. Even if I do, I will have to wonder at how well that data can be applied. Specifically, whether those TPs and FJs would coherently correlate to any function model at all. It is, as you say, a 'category mistake' altogether, and thus probably shouldn't be used. There has to be another approach that can determine any coherence or consistency in testing by functions. 

Also, the stats I have seen have had very alarming anomalies in them, which I have already mentioned to you.

I wish there were a good repository of this information that I could get at and really crack into it. I mean ALL OF IT. Building a huge data set and pulling out all the patterns and trends would be very interesting. I suspect it would reveal fundamental issues in the MBTI, much like the anomalies I've already pointed out in our previous conversations.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Psychopomp said:


> *I wish there were a good repository of this information* that I could get at and really crack into it. I mean ALL OF IT. Building a huge data set and pulling out all the patterns and trends would be very interesting. I suspect it would reveal fundamental issues in the MBTI, much like the anomalies I've already pointed out in our previous conversations.


 It wouldn't be enough :wink:

There are 40,320 different combinations of cognitive functions, and even just the available information about 16 of them is already too massive for anybody to keep track of.


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

Simpson17866 said:


> It wouldn't be enough :wink:
> 
> There are 40,320 different combinations of cognitive functions, and even just the available information about 16 of them is already too massive for anybody to keep track of.


This...+1. As much as I like to play along with the idea of 16 types, it feels too limiting. Unfortunately, the alternative option is too big. Truth is I consider myself to just be a Ni-dom with really strong Ti, which has led to a ton of type confusion, and no certainty about the remaining functions. I've settled on the probability that I'd be an INFJ in a frequent loop if I went by the standards of the system.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I also have never heard of evidence supported MBTI.


I have read nothing but the opposite.

The fact is that despite being interesting, MBTI lacks academic support and doesn't stand up to peer review within the psychology community. You can find fringe support, but that's really about it. It takes a certain level of dishonesty to advocate the MBTI.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> I have read nothing but the opposite.
> 
> The fact is that despite being interesting, MBTI lacks academic support and doesn't stand up to peer review within the psychology community. You can find fringe support, but that's really about it. It takes a certain level of dishonesty to advocate the MBTI.


 So what?

As long as it's not being *used* objectively, it doesn't need to be scientifically objective.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Simpson17866 said:


> As long as it's not being *used* objectively, it doesn't need to be scientifically objective.


Yeah, because CCP _definitely isn't _selling it to people for that purpose.


----------



## Baerlieber (May 18, 2015)

The_Wanderer said:


> I have read nothing but the opposite.
> 
> The fact is that despite being interesting, MBTI lacks academic support and doesn't stand up to peer review within the psychology community. You can find fringe support, but that's really about it. It takes a certain level of dishonesty to advocate the MBTI.


This is true. Anybody who knows about social science research will know that this is just the truth; it's not arguable. 

There are systems such as the MMPI which are taken quite seriously by many social scientists. MBTI isn't one of them. 

This doesn't mean it lacks value. Jung was one of the most respected psychiatrists in western history. We can still use the MBTI if we find it useful but finding it useful/valuable isn't the same thing as it being scientific. We need to be honest with ourselves about what we're working with and move from there.


----------



## Baerlieber (May 18, 2015)

Simpson17866 said:


> So what?
> 
> As long as it's not being *used* objectively, it doesn't need to be scientifically objective.


I don't feel like this statement makes sense. Can you explain in detail what you mean by using a subjective system objectively?


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Baerlieber said:


> I don't feel like this statement makes sense. Can you explain in detail what you mean by using a subjective system objectively?


 Basically what you already said:


Baerlieber said:


> This doesn't mean it lacks value. Jung was one of the most respected psychiatrists in western history. We can still use the MBTI if we find it useful but finding it useful/valuable isn't the same thing as it being scientific. We need to be honest with ourselves about what we're working with and move from there.


 If people use MyersBriggs *descriptively,* then they can learn a lot about other people who would be described differently from themselves.

It's just when people try to use MyersBriggs *prescriptively* - saying that there are objective, medical/biochemical reasons why people of a certain type should do X in their life but should not try to do Y - that we run into trouble.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> It wouldn't be enough :wink:
> 
> There are 40,320 different combinations of cognitive functions, and even just the available information about 16 of them is already too massive for anybody to keep track of.


Nobody has ever entertained or put forth a theory of 16 function-attitudes in any possible combination. Most (almost all) consider that the individual will be possessed of four functions (N, S, T, F), and that each of those functions will tend toward one or another Attitude (i or e) and that this Attitude dichotomy has a quite profound effect. Also, a paired symmetry is also assumed in which a person with Fe cannot also show Te, and a person with Ne cannot also show Se... and that N and S will always be opposed in placement, for example. This is absolutely core to the theory, and dismissing it is a radical reinterpretation.

It's funny to me that I actually made your very argument against Enneagram once. I calculated the total possible number of sub-types under the 'tri-type' theory. It was an interesting exercise, but it ultimately misrepresented and missed the mark in it's implicit critique.

The best interpretation of Jung would say that there are 8 'pure' types: Ne, Se, Te, Fe, Fi, Ti, Si, Ni - but that in many cases a second function also differentiates and becomes consciously used... and that this second function will be in the same attitude but will not be the 'opposite' of the main function. Thus, if the type is an Ne... then their Sensory function will always be Si and will never be that auxiliary function that might differentiate. So, with an Ne type, it must be Te or Fe that comes into consciousness. They would thus become an NeFe type. 

So, Jung basically said that there would be 8 'pure' types, and 16 alternative types. I THINK that he said that the 16 would actually be the more common scenario. He also said that most people would be more or less undifferentiated in their functions and thus not well-represented by any particular 'type'. 

Since most theories follow variations on this, (the current popular theory on the forum simply swaps the assumption by Jung that the auxiliary function will be in the same attitude [and also assumes that ALL PEOPLE will be in this category]) you can see that taking this and getting 40,320 different combinations is a misreading and an unjustified interpretation.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@Psychopomp - 

How would you go about quantifying each of the eight function-attitudes in a manner conducive to empirical observation without opening up the possibility of combinations of those functions that don't match to the theoretical preconceptions? Certain differences of framing that give less possibilities than 40,320, I can understand (taking "Ni" to mean "intuition, which is primarily introverted", rather than "that part of the intuition which is introverted", for example), but other core components of the theory that are often assumed (e.g., the "paired symmetry" that prohibits Te/Fe and the like, or even the fundamental opposition between S and N) surely still need to be empirically demonstrated? (I'm sure I've come across something before demonstrating that, by and large, the four MBTI dimensions were indeed opposing pairs, but I have no idea where...)

I don't intend to make the same argument as @Simpson17866 (see the link in his signature, if you've not already, for some discussion on that), but I do think there's a good point in there, namely that we no reason to suppose that these theoretical preconceptions hold in reality - why must we assume, for example, that a person who primarily introverts their feeling also extraverts their thinking? Hence my question, of how we might go about empirically testing such things without opening up the possibility of people not fitting within the model... I would agree, though, that we can't simply extrapolate from MBTI data for conclusions on this; clearly, that data can be discounted as irrelevant simply by arguing that the MBTI J/P dimension isn't the same as the proposed J/P that would indicate a given function stack. And I concur with the sentiment that access to a repository of data on the subject could prove both interesting and informative...


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Psychopomp said:


> Nobody has ever entertained or put forth a theory of 16 function-attitudes in any possible combination. Most (almost all) consider that the individual will be possessed of four functions (N, S, T, F), and that each of those functions will tend toward one or another Attitude (i or e) and that this Attitude dichotomy has a quite profound effect. Also, a paired symmetry is also assumed in which a person with Fe cannot also show Te, and a person with Ne cannot also show Se... and that N and S will always be opposed in placement, for example. *This is absolutely core to the theory, and dismissing it is a radical reinterpretation.*


 Just like "luminiferous æther" was *absolutely core to the theory* that light was a mechanical wave, and *dismissing it* when it was proven to be incorrect *was a radical reinterpretation* from a less accurate viewpoint to a more accurate.



> It's funny to me that I actually made your very argument against Enneagram once. I calculated the total possible number of sub-types under the 'tri-type' theory. It was an interesting exercise, but it ultimately misrepresented and missed the mark in it's implicit critique.


 How so?



> The best interpretation of Jung would say that there are 8 'pure' types: Ne, Se, Te, Fe, Fi, Ti, Si, Ni - but that in many cases a second function also differentiates and becomes consciously used... and that this second function will be in the same attitude but will not be the 'opposite' of the main function. Thus, if the type is an Ne... then their Sensory function will always be Si and will never be that auxiliary function that might differentiate. So, with an Ne type, it must be Te or Fe that comes into consciousness. They would thus become an NeFe type.
> 
> So, Jung basically said that there would be 8 'pure' types, and 16 alternative types. I THINK that he said that the 16 would actually be the more common scenario. He also said that most people would be more or less undifferentiated in their functions and thus not well-represented by any particular 'type'.


 Just saying "Jung came up with an idea" does not magically make the idea correct.



> Since most theories follow variations on this, (the current popular theory on the forum simply swaps the assumption by Jung that the auxiliary function will be in the same attitude [and also assumes that ALL PEOPLE will be in this category]) you can see that taking this and getting 40,320 different combinations is a misreading and an unjustified interpretation.


 If medical science ever discovers "cognitive functions" that are biologically objective, then it would be possible to say that certain people don't use certain functions. The functions that Jung developed (Si, Se, Ni...), on the other hand, are simply descriptions about what people think about, and so it's impossible for somebody to "not use" certain thought processes.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Simpson17866 said:


> Just like "luminiferous æther" was *absolutely core to the theory* that light was a mechanical wave, and *dismissing it* when it was proven to be incorrect *was a radical reinterpretation* from a less accurate viewpoint to a more accurate.
> 
> How so?
> 
> ...


I completely agree with you. Why wouldn't an ENFP use Si or Se? Come to think of it, what is an ENFP anyhow? Now, the answer to that is...what I will leave to you NT's. But it is sexy  .


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Ixim said:


> I completely agree with you. Why wouldn't an ENFP use Si or Se? Come to think of it, what is an ENFP anyhow? Now, the answer to that is...what I will leave to you NT's. But it is sexy  .


I don't know, what does ENFP mean? It's just four letters.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I don't know, what does ENFP mean? It's just four letters.


Exactly my thoughts. I don't know why people get so attached to and attach so many meanings to four letters. Ok, I could understand for some four letter words(shorthand medieval nickname for Richard :crazy: ), but not exactly for these.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> @_Psychopomp_ -
> 
> How would you go about quantifying each of the eight function-attitudes in a manner conducive to empirical observation without opening up the possibility of combinations of those functions that don't match to the theoretical preconceptions? Certain differences of framing that give less possibilities than 40,320, I can understand (taking "Ni" to mean "intuition, which is primarily introverted", rather than "that part of the intuition which is introverted", for example), but other core components of the theory that are often assumed (e.g., the "paired symmetry" that prohibits Te/Fe and the like, or even the fundamental opposition between S and N) surely still need to be empirically demonstrated? (I'm sure I've come across something before demonstrating that, by and large, the four MBTI dimensions were indeed opposing pairs, but I have no idea where...)
> 
> I don't intend to make the same argument as @_Simpson17866_ (see the link in his signature, if you've not already, for some discussion on that), but I do think there's a good point in there, namely that we no reason to suppose that these theoretical preconceptions hold in reality - why must we assume, for example, that a person who primarily introverts their feeling also extraverts their thinking? Hence my question, of how we might go about empirically testing such things without opening up the possibility of people not fitting within the model... I would agree, though, that we can't simply extrapolate from MBTI data for conclusions on this; clearly, that data can be discounted as irrelevant simply by arguing that the MBTI J/P dimension isn't the same as the proposed J/P that would indicate a given function stack. And I concur with the sentiment that access to a repository of data on the subject could prove both interesting and informative...


Unfortunately, there is no such evidence that I am aware of. It is going to be terribly complex to get it... mainly because of the fact that any arbitrary personality typing system will be internally coherent. I give the Color Test as a clean example of this. The Color Test is the most empirical of personality tests. That is because it is a complete tautology and an equivocation. You mine for objective traits, convert them into colors, and then render back the colors into descriptions based on those traits. Brilliant! 'Proving' this, empirically, will be off-handedly simple. Reds will prove quite assertive every time. It is not really falsifiable. Luckily, function theory actually is somewhat falsifiable... and that because it has some very particular organizational stipulations. Without them, we'd have a non-falsifiable and internally coherent mess of 40k (or whatever) functions. Note, too, btw, that MBTI is, like the Color Test, not actually falsifiable. 

So, you'd just have to have a reliable function-based test that was relatively agnostic to function ordering, and you'd have to see those patterns (such as paired symmetry) distinctly occur of their own free will, so to speak. 

So far, in popular function tests, I have anecdotally noted and @_reckful_ has pointed out, that where (for example) the test taker rates themselves quite high with Te, they also tend to rate quite high with Ti... and so on with all functions. T and F and S and N do indeed tend to 'repel' one another, but that does not speak for the validity of any function model.

Normally, I'd take this as quite the blow to the theory... but this assumes that the tests themselves are composed in such a way to accurately differentiate function-attitudes... and that, if they are, they do so in such a way that test-takers are not able to generally conflate them. I have no confidence that this is true. My instinct in all cases is to first question the test, before recklessly using it to validate or invalidate a theory. 

We'd need a test that we generally agree SHOULD strongly differentiate the function-attitudes... and see whether it does, and how. This would either more or less disprove the whole theory, or more or less confirm it ... and provide a hint as to which 'stack' was most accurate.

I can't think of another option. Tests are the worst, but if we want to be EMPIRICAL, they might be the only option. 




Simpson17866 said:


> Just like "luminiferous æther" was *absolutely core to the theory* that light was a mechanical wave, and *dismissing it* when it was proven to be incorrect *was a radical reinterpretation* from a less accurate viewpoint to a more accurate.
> 
> How so?
> 
> ...


Exactly. It wasn't so much a radical reinterpretation, though, as a whole new theory. But, it doesn't matter. I didn't say there could be no radical reinterpretation of Jung, nor that I wouldn't welcome it if it came. That wasn't the point at all. 

The point is that in order to set up for that 40k possible combinations, you'd have to radically reinterpret Jung. The above is true, but not relevant. 



Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I don't know, what does ENFP mean? It's just four letters.





Ixim said:


> Exactly my thoughts. I don't know why people get so attached to and attach so many meanings to four letters. Ok, I could understand for some four letter words(shorthand medieval nickname for Richard :crazy: ), but not exactly for these.


It's a shorthand. Why do people get so attached to a shorthand? *shrug* Because it is easier to use in, say, a forum post, than a description? That's the whole idea of a shorthand?

Or are you asking why are people so attached to the idea of types? Or of a particular type? In that case, it depends. There are lots of reasons people are interested or 'attached'.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Psychopomp said:


> Nobody has ever entertained or put forth a theory of 16 function-attitudes in any possible combination. Most (almost all) consider that the individual will be possessed of four functions (N, S, T, F), and that each of those functions will tend toward one or another Attitude (i or e) and that this Attitude dichotomy has a quite profound effect. Also, a paired symmetry is also assumed in which *a person with Fe cannot also show Te*, and a person with Ne cannot also show Se... and that N and S will always be opposed in placement, for example. *This is absolutely core to the theory*, and *dismissing it is a radical reinterpretation*.


...Is it really?
Check this out (a quote from Psychological Types by Jung):


Jung said:


> Everyone in the state of extraversion *thinks, feels, and acts in relation to the object*...


I wonder where your assumption came from, when you say such a thing is absolutely core to the theory.




Psychopomp said:


> and that this second function will be in the same attitude but will not be the 'opposite' of the main function. Thus, if the type is an Ne... then their Sensory function will always be Si and will never be that auxiliary function that might differentiate. So, with an Ne type, it must be Te or Fe that comes into consciousness. They would thus become an NeFe type.


I didn't get this part, really. Why would they ALWAYS have ONLY Si? and why are you bring up the inferior function when you speak of "second function?"

Also, conventional (or more accepted) Jungian theory assumes that the auxiliary function would be in a different attitude with that of the dominant.



Psychopomp said:


> T and F and S and N do indeed tend to 'repel' one another, but that does not speak for the validity of any function model.
> 
> We'd need a test that we generally agree SHOULD strongly differentiate the function-attitudes... and see whether it does, and how. This would either more or less disprove the whole theory, or more or less confirm it ... and provide a hint as to which 'stack' was most accurate.


Understanding the theory should come before deconstructing it. Disprove "what?"
What do you think a "stack" really means? Note that it does not signify "strongest to weakest."


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

goamare said:


> ...Is it really?
> Check this out (a quote from Psychological Types by Jung):
> 
> I wonder where your assumption came from, when you say such a thing is absolutely core to the theory. I didn't get this part, really. Why would they ALWAYS have ONLY Si? and why are you bring up the inferior function when you speak of "second function?"
> ...


If I understand Jung correctly, if there were a differentiated auxiliary function (brought into general conscious use) it would have to be in the same attitude of the dominant. @PaladinX can correct me on this. Actually, if I recall correctly, the idea is that a function would only be strongly UNconscious if its inverse function were strongly conscious. Thus, if someone were a strongly conscious Ne, only Si would be strongly unconscious (and it would be Si inasmuch as it were strongly unconscous, because the strongly conscious function is extraverted). Thinking and Feeling would remain neither particularly unconscious nor conscious... and, I believe, neither particularly introverted nor extraverted. Indeed, the assumption would be that a large portion of people do not have a strongly conscious primary or dominant function and thus all of their functions would be neither strongly conscious or unconscious and thus neither strongly introverted nor extraverted.

I remember there being a conversation basically arriving at this conclusion, but again I'll leave it to @PaladinX to clean up my poor understanding. 



goamare said:


> Understanding the theory should come before deconstructing it. Disprove "what?"
> What do you think a "stack" really means? Note that it does not signify "strongest to weakest."


Well, the idea would be to test accurately for the function-attitudes themselves and then let the statistics fall where they may.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Psychopomp said:


> If I understand Jung correctly, if there were a differentiated auxiliary function (brought into general conscious use) it would have to be in the same attitude of the dominant. @PaladinX can correct me on this.


This has existed as part of the discussion for decade, I think. The thing is Jung did not specify the orientation of the Auxiliary.
My opinion is that Myers has got it right. And I have my own reasoning on this: here. Let me know what you think.



Psychopomp said:


> Actually, if I recall correctly, the idea is that a function would only be strongly UNconscious if its inverse function were strongly conscious. Thus, if someone were a strongly conscious Ne, only Si would be strongly unconscious (and it would be Si inasmuch as it were strongly unconscous, because the strongly conscious function is extraverted). Thinking and Feeling would remain neither particularly unconscious nor conscious... and, I believe, neither particularly introverted nor extraverted. Indeed, the assumption would be that a large portion of people do not have a strongly conscious primary or dominant function and thus all of their functions would be neither strongly conscious or unconscious and thus neither strongly introverted nor extraverted.
> 
> I remember there being a conversation basically arriving at this conclusion, but again I'll leave it to @PaladinX to clean up my poor understanding.


Jung's typology only speaks of the attitude that is most prevailing, most habitual, most preferred among many "mechanisms" that we can have.
The description of function structure (or function dynamics or function stack) is really based on this premise - it speaks of that specific mode of operation ONLY.



Jung said:


> In the narrower meaning used in this particular work, *a type is a characteristic model of a general attitude* occurring in many individual forms.
> 
> In so far as such an attitude is *habitual*, thus lending a certain stamp to the character of the individual, I speak of a psychological type.





Psychopomp said:


> Well, the idea would be to test accurately for the function-attitudes themselves and then let the statistics fall where they may.


Again, what do you think "function stack" really means? Is it simply the order of the most preferred? Here is what I think, let me know what you think too, if you don't mind:

*Dominant function(1st)* is your most preferred function.

*Auxiliary function(2nd)* is what you prefer to use IN CONJUNCTION WITH Dominant. 
-> Pi for Je-dom, Pe for Ji-dom, Ji for Pe-dom, Je for Pi-dom
(see above link for my reasoning)

*Inferior function(4th)* is the opposite of Dominant. It's the function you struggle with, since it's total opposite of your true preference. It can manifest itself in a negative way. However you inevitably learn to (or forced to) utilize this function, at least partly, and rather superficially, IN SERVICE OF the dominant function to balance out its onesidedness.

*Tertiary function(3rd)*, being the opposite of Auxiliary, you can say it's basically another inferior function to a lesser extent.

And like I said, my opinion is that the "function stack" speaks of your MOST HABITUAL attitude - your MOST PREFERRED mode of operation ONLY.

It is in a way representing a kind of "brain processing" of that attitude. Not a "character," but merely an "attitude."


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

goamare said:


> This has existed as part of the discussion for decade, I think. The thing is Jung did not specify the orientation of the Auxiliary.
> My opinion is that Myers has got it right. And I have my own reasoning on this: here. Let me know what you think.


Well, I actually rather liked that post and found myself agreeing with it. I tend to shy away from reductionist terms such as 'revise' and 'confirm'. But, I think that is actually rather proving your point. When I encounter something like that, my urge to revise it immediately triggers the perception of different aspects. It is a very elegant explanation. 

I can nitpick this or that in what you said, but I'll defer. All in all, I agree. 



goamare said:


> Jung's typology only speaks of the attitude that is most prevailing, most habitual, most preferred among many "mechanisms" that we can have.
> The description of function structure (or function dynamics or function stack) is really based on this premise - it speaks of that specific mode of operation ONLY.


I think the problem is that in Jung's model there are actually only four functions. Like, four actual singular objects. Those functions can display one or another attitude, but it is fundamentally contradictory for Ti and Te to exist as separate objects or entities or influences or whatever. There is simply Thinking, and Thinking tends to one or the other attitude. Now, I think it is within the scope of Jung to say that in a moment Thinking might be exceptionally introverted and then in another find itself more or less extraverted (though on the whole, if differentiated, leaning strongly one way or another)... so we end up in the same place. This, however, would be an essential nitpick when speaking from the perspective of Jung. One cannot have Te and Ti... they can only have Thinking, and then must consider what attitude it might take in any given moment. I know, I know, semantics.




goamare said:


> Again, what do you think "function stack" really means? Is it simply the order of the most preferred? Here is what I think, let me know what you think too, if you don't mind:
> 
> *Dominant function(1st)* is your most preferred function.
> 
> ...


The idea here being that because of the extremity of the inferior it is ultimately more preferred than the tertiary? *shrug* I don't have any issue with organizing it that way, if that is what you want to emphasize. I am ambivalent. 

You don't clarify here whether the inferior shares an attitude with the dominant or not.... same for the tertiary. You say that 

=====

As far as what I personally think is true, I am not completely certain. I tend to defend the 'Grant' model, but I am completely open to that not being the case. I kind of sit between that and (what I perceive from) Jung.

I think that most people have a noticeably differentiated dominant function, and that those people also tend to have a noticeably differentiated inferior... and I don't think that it being inferior means that it remains unused or dis-preferred.. but simply that it has inferior qualities. I definitely don't think in terms of 'preference'. I think more in terms of maturity, consciousness, strength, and how they relate to energy and stress for the person - and the freedom or 'control' that function has to run the show. To give an example of this, I'll cite Rachel Maddow, who I think is an Fe-dom. If you watch her program, it would be easy to argue her as a THINKER, because most of what she says is more or less oriented to Thinking. However, she is clearly not one. She is ruled by objective value judgments, motivated by them, and they are her strength. She is a social crusader. A number of factors require her to couch all of that in Thinking terminology, in analysis, in logical points. I doubt she revels in these at all for their own sake. The whole process of Thinking is a slave to Feeling here, and a tool to that end. Regardless of how much use she gets out of Thinking, it is still the inferior. 

You might see something similar from other strong Fe types, like MLK. He was no slouch in discussing philosophy, but it was never for it's own sake... never the master. Always it was subjugated to the will of Fe. Ti was tasked with logically justifying those objective value judgments, and did so faithfully... but was never able to be an agent to itself to break out of that Pi subjective vision, or subvert those Fe values that had been 'confirmed'.

This is the sort of way I tend to think about the 'stack'.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Psychopomp said:


> Well, I actually rather liked that post and found myself agreeing with it. I tend to shy away from reductionist terms such as 'revise' and 'confirm'. But, I think that is actually rather proving your point. When I encounter something like that, my urge to revise it immediately triggers the perception of different aspects. It is a very elegant explanation.
> 
> I can nitpick this or that in what you said, but I'll defer. All in all, I agree.


Yup, good to hear that you liked it. After all, I was only trying to provide a new perspective there. I'm focusing more on the big picture with that post, and also aware that there are little things to nitpick, but little things are little things. Btw, as a Ti-user, I still want to "revise" my theory in order to evolve from here, and will have my idea open for discussion. Thanks.




Psychopomp said:


> I think the problem is that in Jung's model there are actually only four functions. Like, four actual singular objects. Those functions can display one or another attitude, but it is fundamentally contradictory for Ti and Te to exist as separate objects or entities or influences or whatever. There is simply Thinking, and Thinking tends to one or the other attitude. Now, I think it is within the scope of Jung to say that in a moment Thinking might be exceptionally introverted and then in another find itself more or less extraverted (though on the whole, if differentiated, leaning strongly one way or another)... so we end up in the same place. This, however, would be an essential nitpick when speaking from the perspective of Jung. One cannot have Te and Ti... they can only have Thinking, and then must consider what attitude it might take in any given moment. I know, I know, semantics.



Right, Jung didn't seem to treat Xe and Xi as a separate entity.

However, I think what we fundamentally differ is the way we look at the Inferior function.
When we see INTP's inferior function is Fe for example, you seem to say INTP "has" Fe.

"Has" is a positive term. What I am trying to say with my description is the opposite.
My opinion is that INTP does not "have" Fe - as if INTP's feeling function will be extraverted.

Rather, Inferior function means "being repressed" or "being removed" (in an extreme sense). The whole term is "negative."

I think it'd be a one-dimensional approach if an INTP simply asks "So is my F extraverted or introverted?"
The whole question here is asking if he "has" Fe or Fi. It is a question of "positive." This is invalid with the definition of "Inferior."
My answer is that the "function stack" does not answer to that question, even with the designation of inferior function. Again, Inferior function mean "what is repressed," not "what you have." Then because it's so negative, you get bothered, and you struggle with it.

This has something to do with what I'm trying to say ultimately. Ti+Ne(+Si+Fe) is limited to showing only the most habitual "attitude" of INTP, among many attitudes that an INTP can interchange between. The Fe here is ONLY VALID as being "subordinate." It does not explain how INTP uses F in a "genuine" way - independently and away from Ti.

Like, if I had to make a graph of Ti, Ne, Si, Fe, in terms of the amount of the psychic activity, then Fe and Si would be drawn in the opposite direction, with a different color. (I'm not sure if you'll understand this part..it's hard to put it in words..Phew)



Psychopomp said:


> The idea here being that because of the extremity of the inferior it is ultimately more preferred than the tertiary? *shrug* I don't have any issue with organizing it that way, if that is what you want to emphasize. I am ambivalent.


Nah, I just placed the tertiary after inferior because I was explaining tertiary in relation to inferior, and to do that I had to bring up the inferior first.



Psychopomp said:


> As far as what I personally think is true, I am not completely certain. I tend to defend the 'Grant' model, but I am completely open to that not being the case. I kind of sit between that and (what I perceive from) Jung.
> 
> I think that most people have a noticeably differentiated dominant function, and that those people also tend to have a noticeably differentiated inferior... and I don't think that it being inferior means that it remains unused or dis-preferred.. but simply that it has inferior qualities. I definitely don't think in terms of 'preference'. I think more in terms of maturity, consciousness, strength, and how they relate to energy and stress for the person - and the freedom or 'control' that function has to run the show. To give an example of this, I'll cite Rachel Maddow, who I think is an Fe-dom. If you watch her program, it would be easy to argue her as a THINKER, because most of what she says is more or less oriented to Thinking. However, she is clearly not one. She is ruled by objective value judgments, motivated by them, and they are her strength. She is a social crusader. A number of factors require her to couch all of that in Thinking terminology, in analysis, in logical points. I doubt she revels in these at all for their own sake. The whole process of Thinking is a slave to Feeling here, and a tool to that end. Regardless of how much use she gets out of Thinking, it is still the inferior.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your idea.
The reason I asked the question is how you think of the definition of the "stack" will make a difference on what you want to prove/disprove.

Here: I have an idea to validate BOTH Myers-Briggs stack(Ti-Ne-Se-Fe) and Harold Grant Stack(Ti-Ne-Si-Fe), under this assumption:
*-Harold Grant Stack presumes that the Tertiary function is basically another Inferior function.
-Myers-Briggs Stack presumes that the Tertiary function is basically another Auxiliary function.*

*-Harold Grant Stack focuses on Dominant+Auxiliary (Ti+Ne), a SINGLE attitude.
-Myers-Briggs Stack focuses on Dominant function only (Ti), which can either pair with Ne OR Se, thus multiple attitudes. It seems to talk about rather general "character" than the "single most habitual attitude."*

This is only my assumption, but under such an assumption, both stacks are "correct" (or at least I think so).

We need to have a clearer definition of "function stack." Then we can talk about what's correct and what's not. That's why I asked.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Psychopomp said:


> If I understand Jung correctly, if there were a differentiated auxiliary function (brought into general conscious use) it would have to be in the same attitude of the dominant. @_PaladinX_ can correct me on this. Actually, if I recall correctly, the idea is that a function would only be strongly UNconscious if its inverse function were strongly conscious. Thus, if someone were a strongly conscious Ne, only Si would be strongly unconscious (and it would be Si inasmuch as it were strongly unconscous, because the strongly conscious function is extraverted). Thinking and Feeling would remain neither particularly unconscious nor conscious... and, I believe, neither particularly introverted nor extraverted. Indeed, the assumption would be that a large portion of people do not have a strongly conscious primary or dominant function and thus all of their functions would be neither strongly conscious or unconscious and thus neither strongly introverted nor extraverted.
> 
> I remember there being a conversation basically arriving at this conclusion, but again I'll leave it to @_PaladinX_ to clean up my poor understanding.


In essence, this is correct. Though I wouldn't say that it is necessarily so structurally rigid. It is possible to be Ti-Ne-Se-Fe, Ti-Ni-Se-Fe, or Ti-Ni-Si-Fe. It depends on general focus and level of differentiation. Personally I would think of it more in terms of

{Conscious attitude} I ---|--- E {Unconscious attitude}

and where the functions (S/N/T/F) lie along that spectrum.


NOTE: I've attached Jung's diagram which pretty much conveys what you've described.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

goamare said:


> This has existed as part of the discussion for decade, I think. The thing is Jung did not specify the orientation of the Auxiliary.
> My opinion is that Myers has got it right. And I have my own reasoning on this: here. Let me know what you think.


Actually Jung did make passing references to the orientation of the auxiliaries and is in part Myers' reasoning behind her Ne-Ti-Fi-Si ENTP (as an example) "stack:"



Jung on The Introverted Thinking Type said:


> The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character. (1923, p. 489)





Jung on the Unconscious Attitude of the Extraverted Type said:


> When the mechanism of extraversion predominates... the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion. (1923, p. 426)


The idea that the auxiliary is the same attitude of the dominant is based upon the inference that if the auxiliary is present in consciousness that it stands to reason that it is in line with the attitude of consciousness.



Jung on the Principal and Auxiliary Functions said:


> ... besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.





Jung on the Extraverted Type said:


> In our description of this and the following types it is necessary, for the sake of clarity, to distinguish between the psychology of consciousness and the psychology of the unconscious. We shall first describe the phenomena of consciousness. [he then goes on to explain the general attitude of consciousness for the extraverted type]





> Jung's typology only speaks of the attitude that is most prevailing, most habitual, most preferred among many "mechanisms" that we can have.
> The description of function structure (or function dynamics or function stack) is really based on this premise - it speaks of that specific mode of operation ONLY.


I agree with the habitual attitude part. One problem I have with the idea of the stack in general is that the functions are treated the same, often regardless of where they are in the stack. Is Ne the same thing for a Ne-dom as it is Ne-aux?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

goamare said:


> However, I think what we fundamentally differ is the way we look at the Inferior function.
> When we see INTP's inferior function is Fe for example, you seem to say INTP "has" Fe.
> 
> "Has" is a positive term. What I am trying to say with my description is the opposite.
> ...


Yes!!! ^^^


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> NOTE: I've attached Jung's diagram which pretty much conveys what you've described.


 That's a diagram of a description, not a description of a diagram.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Simpson17866 said:


> That's a diagram of a description, not a description of a diagram.


Thank you captain obvious. What's your point?


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Thank you captain obvious. What's your point?


 That the idea of 4 functions on a single axis like that was invented from thin air, so the fact that you can show a diagram of that idea does not prove that the idea is correct.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Simpson17866 said:


> That the idea of 4 functions on a single axis like that was invented from thin air, so the fact that you can show a diagram of that idea does not prove that the idea is correct.


If you have a specific question to ask, then please ask it. Otherwise, your assumption is not congruent with my intention. 

EDIT:

To clarify, I provided the diagram to show that arkigos wasn't off base and his description was in line with what Jung thought. I was not submitting it as proof to my interpretation.

If you are interested in seeing the description that goes with the diagram, check out the first spoiler here:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/427258-diagrams-jung.html


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> In essence, this is correct. Though I wouldn't say that it is necessarily so structurally rigid. It is possible to be Ti-Ne-Se-Fe, Ti-Ni-Se-Fe, or Ti-Ni-Si-Fe. It depends on general focus and level of differentiation. Personally I would think of it more in terms of
> 
> {Conscious attitude} I ---|--- E {Unconscious attitude}
> 
> ...


I agree with this. The only TRULY important thing is that the first and the last function are:

-> gravitationally paired(Se-Ni, Fi-Te etc)

This by itself has plenty of eh, consenquences. As I'm sure you're aware. The middle two functions are the functions that are most often the " X " functions(meaning that a person has a hard time discerning them) because they are...they are only two satellites orbiting around IMPORTANT things. If I asked a person to name 3 moons of Neptune...I'm not that optimistic tbh. But to name the "Blue Planet"(excluding Earth)...I think that most people with at least middle school would know the answer. See where I am going with this?


----------



## Cmart (Oct 17, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> If you are interested in seeing the description that goes with the diagram, check out the first spoiler here:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/427258-diagrams-jung.html


I mean we all know that Jung didn't think of cognitive functions as the be all end all of personality types, he did talk about them a little, but (assuming he made this diagram/it was made based off of his research and concurrent research), I think we should focus on dichotomies of the attitudes more than things like Ti vs Te, Fi vs Fe, etc. Maybe we should start doing it in the way that that diagram shows it, with a sliding scale for the different scales of T and F, like T being in the conscious, with Ti75%-Te25%. F being in the unconscious but the same sliding scale between extroverted-introverted. I guess that would be a little too confusing for the layperson though, too many numbers and variations. I just like this alternative because the order of cognitive functions is fairly disputed, and this could clear it up.


----------

