# INFP with a strong Ti function?



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

The INFP type seems the closest fit for me. But it doesn't entirely fit. For one thing, I have a very strong Ti function. When I treat functions separately from MBTI types, my strongest three are generally Fi, Ti and Ne. Also, my sensing functions are both at the bottom, although Si 'should' be a more comfortable function for an INFP. 

Thoughts? My response to this has been to question the wisdom of MBTI linking overall function order so strongly to dominant functions. Because I see no reason why people have to be put 'together' in these few specific ways. But I admit that I have not explored the world of MBTI to see if there may be considered reasons for linking the cognitive functions together in the specific ways laid out for each MBTI type.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Fi's aim is completely different to Ti's aim. One places importance onto factors that the other deems irrelevant. When it comes to selecting one direction over the other, one must come out on top. The functions represent psychological 'directions' and just like heading north excludes heading southwards, a Fi direction excludes Ti's direction. That's why the function orders are set in the way they are, because they oppose each other and selecting one excludes the other.


----------



## jinhong91 (Apr 29, 2014)

I have read how a combination of functions can make it seem like it is coming from a certain function.
Just like how having a left and a right speaker makes the sound seem to come from the front instead of left and right.

Maybe you are just confusing something with something else.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

What is it specifically that makes you think you use Ti in a high order? You have to remember that Ti makes _judgments_ about the world and what you ought to do, which is different from simply analyzing something in detail which everyone does. Look at the choices you make in life and try to discern if they are based on strong personal ethics or logical systems you've build up over time.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Well, you might use Ti, but you'd end up turning off your dominant functions in order to do so, and this would be an exhausting process for you. Generally, it's just when you're put into unfamiliar situations that might require it, rather than regularly. 

However-- If you feel that Ti is a strong function because you took one of those 'function tests', rather than through your own introspection: I hate to break it to you, but this isn't the way to find out about your functions.

Tests are often flawed, and people end up in a niche based upon the black-and-white ways in which questions tend to be phrased.

For example: Are you compassionate, or logical? How silly, right?

Just make sure you're doing your research and you read up on the functions extensively. I'd advise looking into Socionics as well, if you want to get more in depth and understand a bit more about the dynamics of the functions themselves.

We tend to use all 8 functions at one time or another, but we utilize 4 primarily. 

This is INFP. It may confuse you that in Socionics it's called INFj, but this is merely a letter difference among introverts in either theory. The functions stay the same.

Socionics Types: EII-INFj


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, you might use Ti, but you'd end up turning off your dominant functions in order to do so, and this would be an exhausting process for you. Generally, it's just when you're put into unfamiliar situations that might require it, rather than regularly.
> 
> However-- If you feel that Ti is a strong function because you took one of those 'function tests', rather than through your own introspection: I hate to break it to you, but this isn't the way to find out about your functions.
> 
> ...


Thanks @Word Dispenser. Perhaps I should look into Socionics. I was hoping to have a better understanding of Myers Briggs before I tackled yet another typing system, potentially confusing matters. :wink:

I am only moderately informed when it comes to MBTI. I've done a fair bit of reading, taken a bunch of tests, talked to people who were more knowledgable, and done a lot of introspection, and I'm very sure that I have highly developed and frequently used Fi and Ti functions. I identify most with INFP, and am pretty sure Fi is my (most) dominant function, but I do identify very strongly with INTP. These two functions (Fi and Ti) do feel "conflicting" at times, and I sometimes have a sense of "turning off" the one function when I'm using the other. But I am comfortable with both and instinctively turn to both before most other function attitudes. This is not really explicable within the MBTI characterization of function heirarchy as I understand it, so I'm trying to figure out what to do with that information.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

sittapygmaea said:


> Thanks @_Word Dispenser_. Perhaps I should look into Socionics. I was hoping to have a better understanding of Myers Briggs before I tackled yet another typing system, potentially confusing matters. :wink:
> 
> I am only moderately informed when it comes to MBTI. I've done a fair bit of reading, taken a bunch of tests, talked to people who were more knowledgable, and done a lot of introspection, and I'm very sure that I have highly developed and frequently used Fi and Ti functions. I identify most with INFP, and am pretty sure Fi is my (most) dominant function, but I do identify very strongly with INTP. These two functions (Fi and Ti) do feel "conflicting" at times, and I sometimes have a sense of "turning off" the one function when I'm using the other. But I am comfortable with both and instinctively turn to both before most other function attitudes. This is not really explicable within the MBTI characterization of function heirarchy as I understand it, so I'm trying to figure out what to do with that information.


Well, what you need to do then, is look at the functions linked up with Fi and Ti. Te and Fe respectively. The best way to figure that out, is to think about which one you tend to _value _more. Even if you won't be good with one of them, you'll appreciate it more than the other.

Additionally-- Look at how you react to Fi and Ti in others. Which can you appreciate more when it comes to others? 

These are all hints that will help point you to your type.


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, what you need to do then, is look at the functions linked up with Fi and Ti. Te and Fe respectively. The best way to figure that out, is to think about which one you tend to _value _more. Even if you won't be good with one of them, you'll appreciate it more than the other.
> 
> Additionally-- Look at how you react to Fi and Ti in others. Which can you appreciate more when it comes to others?
> 
> These are all hints that will help point you to your type.


I'm not sure I completely understand. What would the be the upshot of valuing Te more than Fe or vice versa? E.g., if I tended to value Fe more than Te, what would you take that to mean regarding my type?

And, similarly, what would be implied by appreciating Fi vs. Ti in others? Are you saying that I would be _more_ or _less_ inclined to value my own dominant function in others?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

sittapygmaea said:


> I'm not sure I completely understand. What would the be the upshot of valuing Te more than Fe or vice versa? E.g., if I tended to value Fe more than Te, what would you take that to mean regarding my type?
> 
> And, similarly, what would be implied by appreciating Fi vs. Ti in others? Are you saying that I would be _more_ or _less_ inclined to value my own dominant function in others?


Well, if I told you that, then it wouldn't be a surprise! :kitteh:

Haha. But, more seriously-- It wouldn't be a perfect answer. They're only hints that point in the direction of your type. Possibly.

Of course, people can idealize functions and make erroneous associations with them that have nothing to do with them, so... roud:


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

ha! thanks.



Word Dispenser said:


> Well, if I told you that, then it wouldn't be a surprise! :kitteh:
> 
> Haha. But, more seriously-- It wouldn't be a perfect answer. They're only hints that point in the direction of your type. Possibly.
> 
> Of course, people can idealize functions and make erroneous associations with them that have nothing to do with them, so... roud:


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Oh and Intuition can appear in the forms of Thinking, Feeling and Sensing, but it's still not them.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

A lot of INFPs I know keep claiming they have high Ti because they're so deeply focused on the whole feeling vs thinking aspect and, since INTPs and INFPs can appear similar due to their Ne, that seems like an obvious claim. No one can have both high Ti and Fi, I'd make an individual completely detached from reality as everything would be subjective and conflictual since Ti and Fi follow the same kind of process from two entirely different perspectives. Strong Fi with developed background inferior Te can still help you being more logical, I use lots of Fe inferior Ti and it makes my views morally understandable yet completely subjective and headache inducing as my own logic is mostly internal. I'd suggest reading more about functions and stop focusing on the letters, you might as well be something else, though I'm definitely sensing the FiTe from this thread... "I believe I use Ti and no one can convince me otherwise" -> Fi "I want to prove you that's it's possible and get objective logical validation" -> Te.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

sittapygmaea said:


> ha! thanks.


But, generally-- You'll tend to get along with people cognitively that utilize your functions, in any order. At least according to certain theories that I've consulted. I'm biased.

For instance-- I get along best with those that utilize primarily Fe, Ti, Ne, Si. In no particular order. Just the way it is. It's called 'Quadras' in Socionics. 

I have Si as inferior, right? Actually, even though I'm poor at producing and making Si work for _me, _I tend to be very _drawn _to it, and loving it in other people. That, for me, was a sign right there.

And because I tend to be very, very poor with Fi, and that I tend to be repulsed by it in others, was also a sign according to Socionics.

So, if you are an INFP, you'd tend to get along best with people who utilize Te, Si, Fi, Ne. And you'd tend to have trouble with producing, but be _drawn _to, loving it in your environment, and in other people-- Te. (Fe in INTPs)

What you'd be very, very poor in, and tend to be repulsed by in others, would be Se. (But that's the same for INTP as well.)


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

sittapygmaea said:


> The INFP type seems the closest fit for me. But it doesn't entirely fit. For one thing, I have a very strong Ti function. When I treat functions separately from MBTI types, my strongest three are generally Fi, Ti and Ne. Also, my sensing functions are both at the bottom, although Si 'should' be a more comfortable function for an INFP.
> 
> Thoughts? My response to this has been to question the wisdom of MBTI linking overall function order so strongly to dominant functions. Because I see no reason why people have to be put 'together' in these few specific ways. But I admit that I have not explored the world of MBTI to see if there may be considered reasons for linking the cognitive functions together in the specific ways laid out for each MBTI type.


It's common for all four IN types to feel like they relate pretty well to typical "Ti" descriptions. I'd say the main source of your typing confusion is the fact that you're paying way too much attention to the "cognitive functions."

For more, see this post and the posts it links to.


----------



## Alomoes (Oct 5, 2014)

Ti would be being able to find words for everything you do. 

Fi is having very developed internal feelings that cannot be put to words. You can probably put them to words, but I would need to make up new words for mine. 

Fi + Ti = explosion!


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

@Word Dispenser I appreciate your very insightful responses to my questions. I feel like I have some things to go poke around in now (including Socionics-- say it's not so!:tongue.

I'm probably going to defer possible insights about the functions of those people with whom I get along the best. It's hard to be confident of other people's types/functions when I'm not even sure of my own. Though I'm moderately confident that I'm 'repulsed' by Se. And also that my husband would count as an INTJ. 

I'm fairly comfortable saying that, of the 16 types, INFP seems to be the closest overall "fit" for my cognition preferences. But I'm a bit skeptical of the MBTI insofar as it seems to contain some under-supported dogma (or theory) about how function preferences must "fit" together: (You just CAN'T have strong Fi and Ti). Though I have not yet done enough research to articulate my dissatisfaction, or be certain that I am not being overly skeptical. This was partially meant to be the thrust of my initial question, though I don't believe I stated it very well. (see below)



Word Dispenser said:


> But, generally-- You'll tend to get along with people cognitively that utilize your functions, in any order. At least according to certain theories that I've consulted. I'm biased.
> 
> For instance-- I get along best with those that utilize primarily Fe, Ti, Ne, Si. In no particular order. Just the way it is. It's called 'Quadras' in Socionics.
> 
> ...


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

Thank you to everyone for sharing your thoughts, knowledge and insight. 

I guess part of what I have not been articulating explicitly is my skepticism about the implicit/explicit claim that certain functions are “incompatible” with each other and “exclude” each other.

I understand that they are supposed to be dichotomies, but its not as though the conflicting functions implode upon contact. In my experience, dichotomies do coexist. In almost everyone. All the time. 

It would take some compelling argument to make me believe otherwise. Yet most of you seem to take it as a given. What am I missing?

E.g., 



Karma said:


> No one can have both high Ti and Fi, I'd make an individual completely detached from reality as everything would be subjective and conflictual since Ti and Fi follow the same kind of process from two entirely different perspectives.


 


Neverontime said:


> When it comes to selecting one direction over the other, one must come out on top. The functions represent psychological 'directions' and just like heading north excludes heading southwards, a Fi direction excludes Ti's direction. That's why the function orders are set in the way they are, because they oppose each other and selecting one excludes the other.


Of course you can both go “north” and also go “south.” Maybe not at the same time in the same respect, but you can go on a road trip heading from california north to montana, then south to arkansas, etc., etc. 

Moreover, if multiple simultaneous cognitive “actions” are possible, then one of them can presumably head (metaphorically) north, while another simultaneously heads (metaphorically) south. 

In my experience, I am capable of conflicting emotions. And conflicting beliefs. And being attracted to conflicting instances of practical reasoning (e.g., torn between two equally convincing reasons for taking incompatible actions). I can simultaneously recognize subjective and objective experiences and reasons. 

I love and hate my mother. God must exist yet God can’t exist. I want to have another drink and I don’t want to have another drink. I can’t decide. I decide and them change my mind. 

The same sort of claim is often made about introverted vs. extroverted (i.e.: these traits conflict and you are one or you are the other, not both). But there are plenty of ‘ambiverts’ in the borderlands, oscillating between extroversion and introversion, perhaps depending upon the exact circumstances, moods, set of people, etc.. Many of these individuals strenuously resist the notion that one of the preferences is ultimately dominant. They may feel tension and discomfort sometimes, but I’m not aware of ambivert-induced sponteous combustion. 

Why should one’s cognitive function ‘stackings’ not be capable of similarly expressing different perspectives? I don’t perceive myself to be stuck, immovably fixated on one way of processing data in perpetuity. I am filled with sometimes uncomfortable and sometimes exciting cognitive conflicts. 

So I am still left with my initial question: why couldn’t I have both highly developed Ti and highly developed Fi? I haven’t seen a convincing theoretical explanation as to why this could not be the case, and I would be skeptical of such a reason in any case since the theory, as stated, seems inconsistent with my subjective data.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

sittapygmaea said:


> I guess part of what I have not been articulating explicitly is my skepticism about the implicit/explicit claim that certain functions are “incompatible” with each other and “exclude” each other.
> 
> I understand that they are supposed to be dichotomies, but its not as though the conflicting functions implode upon contact. In my experience, dichotomies do coexist. In almost everyone. All the time.
> 
> It would take some compelling argument to make me believe otherwise. Yet most of you seem to take it as a given. What am I missing?



Function and dichotomy preferences represent patterns of cognitive behavior that are revealed upon examining where the ego-complex of an individual directs consciousness across a a broad spectrum of environmental factors, contexts, and events. They are categorically exclusive only as an illustrative device - in reality they co-exist in each person.

Again, dichotomies and functions (and your corresponding personality type) are preferences revealed over time and across context, nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is _static_, however everyone has _patterns_.




sittapygmaea said:


> So I am still left with my initial question: why can't I have both highly developed Ti and highly developed Fi? I haven’t seen a convincing theoretical explanation as to why this could not be the case, and I would be skeptical of such a reason in any case since the theory, as stated, seems inconsistent with my subjective data.


Because the "development" of a function is not even relevant to determining your type. There are countless explanations for why circumstance demands of an individual to develop an out-of-preference personality trait in order to cope with a given situation, and over time they begin to identify with and internalize this function as a preference, when in reality they really _don't_ prefer it, they have merely integrated it out of necessity.

Furthermore, if you find JCF theory doesn't make sense to you and that it is unagreeable, don't use it. Abandon it and stick to the dichotomies, as @reckful suggested.

It makes no sense for you to be tenacious and demand people prove something to you that you openly state you're biased against when there are perfectly effective alternative models at your disposal to work with.


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

@Abraxas This is odd. When I quote your post in this reply, it includes content not present in the original post. And also a reference to something in someone else (@reckful)'s post that is not visible to me. 



Abraxas said:


> Furthermore, if you find JCF theory doesn't make sense to you and that it is unagreeable, don't use it. Abandon it and stick to the dichotomies, as @reckful suggested.
> 
> It makes no sense for you to be tenacious and demand people prove something to you that you openly state you're biased against when there are perfectly effective alternative models at your disposal to work with.


Anyway, apropos of this new part (quoted above), I don't agree with your characterization of my behavior. Perhaps I am being obtuse. I am, however, not _attempting_ to be intransigent, argumentative or demanding. I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from and what information I'm looking for. 

Some features of MBTI/cognitive function order aren't adding up for me. But I have not studied the theory extensively and I know I could simply be overlooking or failing to understand some aspects of the theory, which is why I was asking for clarification/elaboration on some of the points I find puzzling. I don't agree that expressing skepticism about a theory which seems inconsistent with one's data entails "bias" against the theory. 

Certainly, no one is under any obligation to discuss this with me. I appreciate that many people have taken the time to do so, and I have tried to express my genuine gratitude to them. This includes you, by the way! Thank you.

Obviously, if I find the theory ultimately unconvincing and/or inconsistent I will not adopt it. But I wouldn't say I'm at any point of decision yet. In any case, I find the theory quite insightful and instructive, though some things about it are bothering me. The reason for my post is that I would like to come to a better understanding of these aspects.


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

OK; onto the heart of the matter:


Abraxas said:


> Function and dichotomy preferences represent patterns of cognitive behavior that are revealed upon examining where the ego-complex of an individual directs consciousness across a a broad spectrum of environmental factors, contexts, and events. They are categorically exclusive only as an illustrative device - in reality they co-exist in each person.
> 
> Again, dichotomies and functions (and your corresponding personality type) are preferences revealed over time and across context, nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is _static_, however everyone has _patterns_.


I have no problem with this as such. I agree that there tend to be established, predictable patterns in people's cognitive behavior. My main question is about the specific patterns that are taken to be available. I have a LOT of questions about this, but the one I was trying to get at in this post is: why are groupings outside of the 16 "official" types excluded? What is the explanation for thinking that someone could not have a patterns that manifested strongest overall preferences for, say, Introverted Feeling, Introverted thinking, and extroverted Intuition?



Abraxas said:


> Because the "development" of a function is not even relevant to determining your type. There are countless explanations for why circumstance demands of an individual to develop an out-of-preference personality trait in order to cope with a given situation, and over time they begin to identify with and internalize this function as a preference, when in reality they really _don't_ prefer it, they have merely integrated it out of necessity.


I don't fully understand the above point. I'm not seeing a clear distinction between "preferring" a function and "integrating it out of necessity," especially if integrating it out of necessity leads it to a function becoming highly developed and comfortable. This probably has to do with the developmental psychology aspect of JCF theory? Which, I suppose, could be separable in that a person could, in theory, subscribe to a different developmental psychology but agree with the characterization of possible cognitive functions and their groupings?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

sittapygmaea said:


> Obviously, if I find the theory ultimately unconvincing and/or inconsistent I will not adopt it. But I wouldn't say I'm at any point of decision yet. In any case, I find the theory quite insightful and instructive, though some things about it are bothering me. The reason for my post is that I would like to come to a better understanding of these aspects.


I would say your behavior in this thread, if it is a reliable sample of your ordinary personality and not merely a persona, shows a clear preference for introversion, and for thinking, with inferior feeling of an extraverted character.

You are quite obviously an introverted type from the way you repeatedly show that your ego is invested into forming your own conclusions, and making things meet your standards, rather than you submitting to an external standard or method. There can be no doubt that you are an introvert.

This interest you have in classifying yourself, functions, types, dichotomies, or whatever - that reflects thinking, not feeling. Thinking is the "what is this/how to I define this/how do i categorize this/what purpose does this serve" function. Feeling is the "is this good/is this ethical/is this agreeable/does this create harmony" function. You are obviously showing a preference for the former in this thread, not the latter.

I say your feeling shows an inferior and extraverted character because it comes across as really contrived, like a face you are adopting in order to seem congenial and polite for the sake of avoiding unpleasant feelings and maintaining an agreeable atmosphere conducive to a dialogue. Your feelings lack the depth and profound intensity of an introverted feeling type, they come across instead as shallow and artificial, hollow - a mask you are wearing that serves a purpose and nothing more. They don't express anything about you except that one thing - that you employ them as a device.

If I were to type you based only on this thread, I'd say you're very clearly an introverted thinker.

Whether or not you identify with the MBTI INTP type descriptions is a completely different issue, and for a wide variety of reasons, it has nothing to do with the analysis I just provided.

Again, this all is contingent upon your behavior in this thread being a reliable sample of your overall pattern of behavior across time and across context. If this is merely the way you act when immersed into a study of something, then this might merely be a persona you put on in that context and not really who you are at rest.

On the other hand, if study itself represents the ordinary context you find yourself in most often _by choice_, then that would be your general pattern, since it would represent who you choose to be under normal circumstances, and thus my analysis holds true of your ego, and not merely an adopted persona.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

sittapygmaea said:


> What is the explanation for thinking that someone could not have a patterns that manifested strongest overall preferences for, say, Introverted Feeling, Introverted thinking, and extroverted Intuition?


There isn't; someone might develop strong preferences for the traits associated with those functions. But that person would then lack a clear and distinctly Jungian type. They would not clearly fit into the Jungian model, and thus be excluded from it's utility. The Jungian model doesn't account for individuals who deviate from the contextual predictions it makes. Those individuals that deviate from the model illustrate the limitations and shortcomings of the Jungian model, but they don't invalidate the model. They are merely not represented by it, and thus would need to turn to a different model for a different explanation that works for them.





sittapygmaea said:


> I don't fully understand the above point. I'm not seeing a clear distinction between "preferring" a function and "integrating it out of necessity," especially if integrating it out of necessity leads it to a function becoming highly developed and comfortable.


Comfort is the distinction. It would never be "comfortable" - not really. Even if the individual reported it as such, they would be lying to themselves and to the scientist taking the report (likely due to the factors of their conditioning).

And that is partly why psychology is a soft science.

But again, typology is about the clarity of function/dichotomy preferences, not development. When the term "development" gets brought up, it is in the context of how strongly a preference has developed. Not how "good at it" a person is, and not how comfortable with that preference they are. Obviously a person's _ability_ to demonstrate a preference is irrelevant as to whether or not the preference _exists_. Nobody is defining "preference" as "ability" in any way shape or form here.


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

This is getting really fun for me now! Thank you for continuing the exchange. I am grateful for your reflections because people often get a type "vibe" from someone, but are reluctant to express it for a variety of reasons. Some people react badly, I know. But I very much want to know how I am coming across to others, because I think this is one of the hardest things to see about oneself. 

I have no doubt that I am introverted. Many of the umpteen various MBTI "tests" I have taken display some numerical representation of the strength of the various preferences with their 'conclusion.' I am invariably portrayed as highly introverted and highly intuitive, but pretty equal on the the feeling-thinking dichotomy and the judging-perceiving "dichotomy."

I would say my behavior in this thread is very "typical," though typical in light of the context/content (analyzing a conceptual theory). If you were to observe me on another thread about, say, a person's failing marriage, drug addiction or some such, you would see someone more overtly empathetic. 

People in this thread aren't generally expressing their feelings; they are explaining a theory, so I feel that I don't need to worry about feelings _as much_. Although I still do actually worry about people's feelings. Even if I don't agree with what they are saying, I have no desire to make them feel bad. More that that, I would feel terrible if I did make them feel bad. Like when I read your post, I immediately thought: I pissed this person off. Maybe my last post was insensitive and judgmental. So I went back and reread it to make sure... These are the internal dichotomies that drove the thread in the first place. I have an analytical, debate-loving aspect that just wants to figure this out, feelings be damned. And an empathetic part that is aware of others' feelings and can get totally derailed if my interlocutor seems offended, upset, etc.. 

It's quite interesting to me that you say the feeling part seems contrived. That is the only part of your analysis that I think most people who know me irl would not agree with. I mean- just being honest- if I'm asking for an explanation of y and someone keeps repeating "X," I will feel frustrated and impatient. And it's hard not to let that bleed through. Especially with people I know, I can be accused of being strident, cutting, and harsh. But most people describe me as loving, kind and affectionate, maybe even too much so. 

Anyway, good analysis. I should be going to sleep but now I feel all stimulated and excited. lol



Abraxas said:


> I would say your behavior in this thread, if it is a reliable sample of your ordinary personality and not merely a persona, shows a clear preference for introversion, and for thinking, with inferior feeling of an extraverted character.
> 
> You are quite obviously an introverted type from the way you repeatedly show that your ego is invested into forming your own conclusions, and making things meet your standards, rather than you submitting to an external standard or method. There can be no doubt that you are an introvert.
> 
> ...


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> There isn't; someone might develop strong preferences for the traits associated with those functions. But that person would then lack a clear and distinctly Jungian type. They would not clearly fit into the Jungian model, and thus be excluded from it's utility. The Jungian model doesn't account for individuals who deviate from the contextual predictions it makes. Those individuals that deviate from the model illustrate the limitations and shortcomings of the Jungian model, but they don't invalidate the model. They are merely not represented by it, and thus would need to turn to a different model for a different explanation that works for them.


This is _incredibly_ helpful for me. It is exactly the sort of explanation I had been looking for and not finding. 

Surely there must be *some* explanation for why there are these specific predictions rather than others? If only the aesthetic symmetry of the model. 



Abraxas said:


> Comfort is the distinction. It would never be "comfortable" - not really. Even if the individual reported it as such, they would be lying to themselves and to the scientist taking the report (likely due to the factors of their conditioning).
> 
> And that is partly why psychology is a soft science.
> 
> But again, typology is about the clarity of function/dichotomy preferences, not development. When the term "development" gets brought up, it is in the context of how strongly a preference has developed. Not how "good at it" a person is, and not how comfortable with that preference they are. Obviously a person's _ability_ to demonstrate a preference is irrelevant as to whether or not the preference _exists_. Nobody is defining "preference" as "ability" in any way shape or form here.


OK I'm a little more skeptical about the distinctions you are drawing on here, e.g., the difference between 'demonstrating a preference' vs 'the preference actually existing.' This also seems like a difficult thing to ask people to discern about themselves, vis a vis self-typing. Just curious: are you taking yourself to explicate JCF theory or _your_ view about it in the above quote? 

I'm also curious about your background and how you came to be so interested in these matters. (If you don't mind sharing; I have no wish to pry.) My background is in philosophy. I spent a long time getting a PhD, and that discipline (in its contemporary anglo-american instantiation) is mostly geared toward the construction and analysis of arguments: internal consistency, logical fallacies, etc.. Very Ti, as I understand it. 

I studied MBTI and the Enneagram as a teenager, but it was popular with a more new-agey, intellectually unsophisticated crowd, and suffered from guilt-by-association in my mind. It was put aside for twenty years or so, until I started on a project of trying to understand the motivations of some people who were important in my life but whose behavior I was having great difficulty understanding and predicting. It didn't take me long to shift the focus to understanding the various personality type theories and understanding myself, where I am now.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

It's just simple to me.
Ti------Fe
Fi------Te
Ni------Se
Si------Ne
Each one of these is a pair. Ti always goes with Fe and you cannot have both a Te and a Ti or an Fe and an Fi within the four function stack. They are just contradictory in the ways they work. Or a least can be looked at more stringently to reduce confusions. A lot of people are against tests on simple type code because they aren't very accurate but I'm not in favor of cognitive function tests either. People don't interpret those correctly. If you get high Ti and high Fi on a test (with let's say Ne over Si as in INFPs and INTPs.) And the test sees that your Ti score is 44.4 but your Fi score is 46.2. The test will then realize that Fi is higher and say "most likely type is INFP". But it's not by a wide margin. If you get a result like that in a functions tests, it's basically the same thing as getting INxP on a standard MBTI test. So that's why I don't believe function tests are really much clearer or better.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

sittapygmaea said:


> Thank you to everyone for sharing your thoughts, knowledge and insight.
> 
> I guess part of what I have not been articulating explicitly is my skepticism about the implicit/explicit claim that certain functions are “incompatible” with each other and “exclude” each other.
> 
> ...


If you spend 20 years travelling North, then you will obviously be North. If you spend 10 years travelling North and then 10 years travelling South, you will be roughly where you started and therefore neither North or South. Since personality takes around 20 years to become in any way established, then developing it fully in two opposite directions is going to take a lifetime, at least. If your ego hasn't fully developed in a particular direction, then you are neither infp or intp. If you are infp then Fi is in the dominant position. It has attained the dominant position, by rejecting and suppressing the other judging function perspectives. 

Not only does it take around 20 years for the dominant function to become fully established, once established it will 'fight to the death' in order to maintain its position. It certainly won't tolerate a conflicting perspective to exist beside it in consciousness. 
When talking about the dominant function, conflicts aren't about whether you have a particular belief or not, it's about _every_ belief you have. About yourself, the world, what's important, what's irrelevant, your entire world view. Think of your most deeply held beliefs and then imagine completely disagreeing with them. Chances are you cannot imagine disagreeing with them because you believe that you're correct, they appear correct from every angle you can possibly imagine. Even if you can understand a different perspective, you can't fully agree with it without placing less value on the opposite, conflicting perspective. 
If you were to fully agree with two opposing perspectives, on every point and at every level, you would believe yourself to be crazy or you would actually be crazy. 
That would represent the mindset of a Fi dom with high Ti. You wouldn't be here asking questions and debating, you would be too busy trying get a grip on reality so you could think straight.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

sittapygmaea said:


> Surely there must be *some* explanation for why there are these specific predictions rather than others? If only the aesthetic symmetry of the model.


Jung's formulation of his psychology is pretty esoteric and to be honest I'm not confident going in-depth into it because it's very arcane (check out his Red Book for instance). However, he tends to emphasize that his inspirations came from both an inward exploration and deconstruction of his own self-image, as well as his observations of his clients, and of society in general, over decades of empirical research.

He bases a lot of his stuff upon his development of his idea of "archetypes" - so he tends to favor symmetrical and symbolic representations of reality. He tries to develop internally consistent models that are based on his abstractions. His model probably resonates with individuals who share his inspirations/see the same abstractions, and easily recognize/pick up on his subjective line of reasoning. However, I wouldn't call his formulations very empirical or scientific. They are scientific, but not strongly scientific, and certainly full of exceptions, as you seem to notice.

I try to emphasize however that this doesn't make them useless, but that their use is limited to those who can put it to use. Hence why I say, if it doesn't jump out at you as making much sense, and you're more interested in application rather than research, I'd recommend focusing on the dichotomies since they correlate strongly with the empirically valid studies that back up the more widely accepted Big 5.




sittapygmaea said:


> OK I'm a little more skeptical about the distinctions you are drawing on here, e.g., the difference between 'demonstrating a preference' vs 'the preference actually existing.' This also seems like a difficult thing to ask people to discern about themselves, vis a vis self-typing. Just curious: are you taking yourself to explicate JCF theory or _your_ view about it now?


You are right, it is very hard to ask people to have that kind of discernment. That is why I think there are serious limitations to "type-based" personality models in general. Most of the psychological community (as far as I am aware, according to my professors in college) favors so-called _trait-based_ personality models, such as the Big 5, because there are a lot of inherent problems with trying to create a taxonomy of psychology types.

I try as much as I can (as an intuitive I sometimes over-estimate my awareness of the facts) to remain true to the literal meaning of Jung and his writing, but often I am accused of deviating from his writing when someone points out some nuance I overlooked. I try to be amenable to these observations while also interpreting the _spirit_ of his work, so if you notice I am misrepresenting something he has said please quote or cite what I'm overlooking and I'll try to integrate it into my understanding.




sittapygmaea said:


> I'm also curious about your background and how you came to be so interested in these matters. (If you don't mind sharing; I have no wish to pry.) My background is in philosophy. I spent a long time getting a PhD, and that discipline (in its contemporary anglo-american instantiation) is mostly geared toward the construction and analysis of arguments: internal consistency, logical fallacies, etc.. Very Ti, as I understand it.


My background started in the research of esoteric systems, such as occult philosophy, folklore, world religion, ancient mythology, that sort of thing. Authors such as Joseph Campbell, Robert Anton Wilson, Peter J Carroll, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, and Aleister Crowley did much to inspire me as a teenager. Later I went on to study philosophy as a hobby, and self-educated myself as much as I could. I'm quite familiar with most of the major contributors and philosophers, from classic to contemporary, continental and analytical. A few of my favorite philosophers are (in no particular order): Wittgenstein, Kant, Nietzsche, and John Searle (of Berkeley Institute, California).

In the last 6 years I've started delving into Carl Jung, and his writing really clicks with the same kind of psychology and perspective coming from my other favorite authors, so naturally my bias presents itself here with Jung. Due to my own familiarity with the approach he is employing and the way his mind seems to work (much like my own and much like the authors I appreciate) I find I have an easy time understanding his psychological model and applying it, whereas other more "scientific" models (such as MBTI and Big 5), while perhaps more empirical, don't serve me as well because they don't inspire me. I have no doubt of the superiority of their utility in most concrete respects, being more reliable and scientifically valid, but they don't align with my private suspicions about the abstract world and the nature of more transcendental matters that I take great interest in, so I find them rather boring and useless to me in that regard.


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

Sorry if this is a little rambling-- it's late here and I'm going to go to bed after this post, no matter what!

Just as a disclaimer, it is difficult to discuss the extent to which "worldviews" can and cannot contain deep conflicts, because they are so complex they cannot be thoroughly or accurately represented in any shorthand manner for the purposes of discussion and debate. I agree that, if perspectives were incredibly simple, at least some of 'cognitive function' preferences might conflict in a fairly obvious, direct and 'crazy-making' ways. 

But I believe that the complexity and context-sensitive nature of most perspectives allows for a lot of conflict without these effects. This is true for global-perspective beliefs as well as specific ones. 

Take a more specific belief:


"It is wrong to hurt people's feelings." One might well believe both of the following:
Yes definitely, if the hurting is done intentionally, maliciously, gratuitously, or thoughtlessly
No; you can't possibly be responsible for divining feelings you cannot observe; hurt feelings are not ideal, but there other more important things; hurt feelings can be a catalyst for change that is more meaningful than the feelings 


Another imperfect, more global example: I can believe it is very important to be rational while also I believing it is very important to have faith. 

This is OK most of the time. These values/worldviews are going to be employed in different contexts where they don't directly and obviously conflict. 

But what happens if they do come into conflict? Some people are going to express a strong a clear, guiding preference for one or the other. So you might say such people are "core" rationalists or "core" fideists. But other people are going to be tormented. Both views have such primitive appeal. Which do I prefer? I don't know?! Maybe they toggle back and forth. Maybe they get depressed. Maybe they become skilled at just not thinking about it. Maybe they make it their life's study. Lots of options.

I see the cognitive functions operating something like this. 

Though I have to add that I am also not convinced that the opposing functions (thinking v feeling, sensing v intuiting) _conflict_ in such a direct way. In many cases the cognitive functions zero in on certain kinds of virtues (e.g., harmony, order, truth, meaning, subjective value, objective value). Yet most people regard _all_ of these things as having value. It is not the case that because I take harmony to be the most important/useful goal that I think truth is irrelevant and bad and not a value at all. It may just not be as salient for me. 

Most people recognize some kind of 'conflict' between subjective and objective goods, but they still recognize both as "goods." E.g., Most people would say that is good for the group has more weight than what is good for an individual. Yet most people would not approve of moral reasoning that gives no weight to what has value for the individual. 

And most people appreciate that logical considerations and emotional considerations are both relevant to decision making. One might be more important to you than the other. But it also seems perfectly possible to me that you see both as equally good and have no strong preference. 

Saying logical and emotional considerations are both important does not suggest the same kind of deep conflict as: 

logical considerations are important & Logical considerations are not important.




Neverontime said:


> If you spend 20 years travelling North, then you will obviously be North. If you spend 10 years travelling North and then 10 years travelling South, you will be roughly where you started and therefore neither North or South. Since personality takes around 20 years to become in any way established, then developing it fully in two opposite directions is going to take a lifetime, at least. If your ego hasn't fully developed in a particular direction, then you are neither infp or intp. If you are infp then Fi is in the dominant position. It has attained the dominant position, by rejecting and suppressing the other judging function perspectives.
> 
> Not only does it take around 20 years for the dominant function to become fully established, once established it will 'fight to the death' in order to maintain its position. It certainly won't tolerate a conflicting perspective to exist beside it in consciousness.
> When talking about the dominant function, conflicts aren't about whether you have a particular belief or not, it's about _every_ belief you have. About yourself, the world, what's important, what's irrelevant, your entire world view. Think of your most deeply held beliefs and then imagine completely disagreeing with them. Chances are you cannot imagine disagreeing with them because you believe that you're correct, they appear correct from every angle you can possibly imagine. Even if you can understand a different perspective, you can't fully agree with it without placing less value on the opposite, conflicting perspective.
> ...


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_sittapygmaea_,

That's why I say any given personality typological model only applies to certain individuals in which preferences can be differentiated. If an individual lacks the differentiation in their personality to have a distinct type, then the model isn't going to be as useful. That there are people who lack clear preferences does nothing to invalidate the theory, it only shows that there are limitations to whom the theory applies to.

I don't understand why it's hard to accept that people have distinguishable preferences _however infinitesimal that preference may be_. Indeed, a person's preferences can be _so subtle and inscrutable as to be impossible to distinguish by any modern personality instrument.

_But would we then say that a person _lacks a personality?_ Would we also jump to the extreme skepticism that the theory of personality itself was merely contrived? No, both of these beliefs would be absurd. Rather, all this shows is the limitation of the precision of the instrument (and indeed, the limitations of the soft science approach). However, there are still _mountains_ of empirical studies showing that most people have observable characteristics to their cognitive style, and clear preferences that distinguish them categorically.


I suggest you look up the methodology of what is called "factor analysis."

Factor analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This may assist you in understanding how specific personality traits are derived through empirical investigation, and can be shown with objective evidence and statistical studies to be distinct from each other.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

sittapygmaea said:


> Sorry if this is a little rambling-- it's late here and I'm going to go to bed after this post, no matter what!
> 
> Just as a disclaimer, it is difficult to discuss the extent to which "worldviews" can and cannot contain deep conflicts, because they are so complex they cannot be thoroughly or accurately represented in any shorthand manner for the purposes of discussion and debate. I agree that, if perspectives were incredibly simple, at least some of 'cognitive function' preferences might conflict in a fairly obvious, direct and 'crazy-making' ways.
> 
> ...


Or, maybe you're an inxj and you really don't place highest importance on either logic or values.


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

@Abraxas The following response is probably more auto-biographical than you would prefer, but I am trying to explain where I am (and am not) coming from because I seem to have done a poor job of this when I stick to the conceptual content of the discussion. So I'd like to engage in an explicit meta-discussion of the thread, from my point of view.

Perhaps the manner in which I am pressing my case suggests that I take a more strongly skeptical position on these matters than I do. You seem to be reading me as saying something like: "Ugh. MBTI. JCF theory. What a load of ill-founded bunk. This is an airy-fairy, empirically unsupported bundle of crap with a bunch of obvious logical flaws. I'm going to march in here and show these people how wrong they all are." (This would be Te, no?) 

As a point of fact, I find the theories about cognitive functions and MBTI types to be insightful, useful, fascinating and (based on my observation of myself and others, not having looked into any research data) empirically grounded. I have spent countless hours over the past few months reading and thinking about them, and applying them to myself and other people with whom I regularly interact. I have found it both helpful and illuminating and most of all, _interesting_. (That is one of the highest virtues for me.) 

From an empirical-conceptual perspective, I would definitely _not_ say that the theories in question are "merely contrived." Quite the opposite. Yet there is a yawning chasm between regarding a theory as "merely contrived" and regarding it as unquestionably true and unproblematically applicable to all situations. And it is within this chasm that I am happiest and most stimulated (both in this particular case and more generally). I enjoy seeing how far I can push things, where they break down, why they break down, if any little or big tweaks could avert the breakdown, etc. etc.. With MBTI and JCF theory, I am now happily ensconced in the chasm, exploring, examining, mapping. I love it here. It's a fun and exciting place to play. 


As a psycho-biographical note, some of the initial responses to my OP took the form of : "No; the set of preferences you described just can't be. The theory clearly excludes this. Moreover, if we consider what such a person would look like, it is clear that be a stark-raving bundle of mute incoherence." This _kind_ of claim does get under my skin. And moreover this specific claim just seems wrong to me. So I was and am trying to argue against it. Hence a tone that may come across as stubborn intransigence.

Moreover, a lot of the initial responses weren't speaking to the particular issues I was hoping to discuss. So I'll admit that I was feeling a little frustrated, though I was still appreciative of the time and energy people took to engage with me. (Maybe the intellectual frustration I was trying not to express for fear of hurting someone's feelings is why my expression of appreciation came off as Fe? Not sure.) 

You @Abraxas) came onto the thread at that point, kind of confrontational and prickly (or such was my perception), but going right to the heart of what I was interested in talking about. Although I was a little put off my the tone of your initial post, it drew me in. I felt very _engaged_. And still moreso once we kept discussing. 

I don't know that we have so far changed each others' minds on any conceptual or factual points, but it's not particularly important to me that I convince anyone of anything, or be convinced. I don't take this kind of conversation to be a boxing contest with a winner and a loser. I just want to come to a better understanding of the theories, their explanatory profiles, their points of greatest insights, their strengths and weaknesses, etc. _for myself and in my own conceptual framework_. I appreciate that what is most insightful and illuminating and helpful to me may not be what is most illuminating or helpful for you. To the extent that this is so, I think we could have an appearance of strong disagreement when we are not actually disagreeing at all. Except insofar as one of us takes the usefulness and insightfulness we find to be some kind of objective USEFULNESS AND INSIGHTFULNESS that applies equally to everyone regardless of their worldview.

As a point of interest regarding the theories under discussion, I think probably the fact that you are an INTJ is not irrelevant to the fact that I feel engaged by your posts. Whatever explains it (and I have no real understanding of this, though I would like to) I have a tendency to feel stimulated by INTJs. I have a lot of fun talking to them, and feel that we are _communicating_. (I often feel like conversations lack genuine communication, and I find that very frustrating.) 

I'm pretty sure my husband is an INTJ. Sometimes we can really go at each other discussing something (debate-style, not personal attacks) and others sometimes seem to feel deeply _uncomfortable_ in our presence, like they are witnessing some unseemly venting of pent-up interpersonal hostility. There is emotion in our discussion, but it is directed at the ideas, not at the person. (Maybe some perspectives just have difficulty at getting inside the degree of emotion we can have for the ideas? I don't know.) In any case, _we_ really enjoy these kinds of debates and find them super exciting. We both have this sense that we are really communicating. That we can have these kinds of discussions is part of what attracted us to each other in the first place, and still does 23 years on. 

By way of conclusion: I have very much enjoyed your posts in this thread. They are thought-provoking and they directly speak to the issues I was most hoping to discuss. So thank you. Sorry if my appreciation comes off as all impersonal Fe. You, Mr. INTJ, probably don't particularly care, but I, with my strong Fi, still want you to know that that is not the place I'm coming from. :wink:




Abraxas said:


> I don't understand why it's hard to accept that people have distinguishable preferences _however infinitesimal that preference may be_. Indeed, a person's preferences can be _so subtle and inscrutable as to be impossible to distinguish by any modern personality instrument.
> 
> _But would we then say that a person _lacks a personality?_ Would we also jump to the extreme skepticism that the theory of personality itself was merely contrived? No, both of these beliefs would be absurd. Rather, all this shows is the limitation of the precision of the instrument (and indeed, the limitations of the soft science approach). However, there are still _mountains_ of empirical studies showing that most people have observable characteristics to their cognitive style, and clear preferences that distinguish them categorically.
> 
> ...


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> I suggest you look up the methodology of what is called "factor analysis."
> 
> Factor analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This may assist you in understanding how specific personality traits are derived through empirical investigation, and can be shown with objective evidence and statistical studies to be distinct from each other.


PS. Thanks for the reference; I am not familiar with this and will look into it. Though, admittedly, not at the moment because I've gotten too distracted and have to go do some other things for a little while.


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

One more point, returning to the content of your last post. I'm honestly not sure how much we are disagreeing, if at all, but I will expand a bit on the issue at which I was trying to gesture. You wrote: 



Abraxas said:


> I don't understand why it's hard to accept that people have distinguishable preferences _however infinitesimal that preference may be_. Indeed, a person's preferences can be so subtle and inscrutable as to be impossible to distinguish by any modern personality instrument.
> 
> .... all this shows is the limitation of the precision of the instrument


I don't have any problem with the claim that people generally have distinguishable preferences. Obviously, they do. Moreover, I find examining these cognitive preferences through the lens of MBTI both interesting and useful. 

However, in spite of most people displaying marked _preferences_, there is a great deal of 'middle ground' between the extremes the cognitive functions juxtapose. I was focusing, in my examples, on the outlier cases (of people really straddling the border between, for example, T and F) _not_ in order to argue that most people don't have measurable preferences, but in order to argue that focusing so much on the distinction/juxtaposition/contrast between the two preferences seems to leave out something important about our cognition. This thing-that-is-left-out seems most _striking_ in the case of persons who are really deep in the borderlands between two opposed preferences. 

One possible response to the existence of borderline cases- a response that you seem to be advocating in this post- is to seek a more precise measuring instrument. I don't have a problem with this approach as such, but as far as I can tell it doesn't fundamentally address the issue that concerns me.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that-in theory- it might be possible to create an incredibly precise measuring instrument such that everyone who ever has or ever will exist falls on one side of the border or the other, even if slightly (e.g., 49.9% T, and 50.01%F). I don't see that the creation of such an instrument would speak against the possibility of a "perfectly" split case, though. 

Another way to put the issue is: if the opposing preferences are *so starkly opposed*, why is there any middle ground at all? Why doesn't everyone test as 100%x and 0%y? This is what one would expect if the cognitive preferences are as diametrically, profoundly contradictory as is sometimes claimed. Borderline cases make the existence of the "middle ground" seem more salient, but the middle ground seems to be present in every case where a person feels "torn," however minutely, between 'conflicting' cognitive functions. 

To continue with the metaphor that some posters have used, if the difference between thinking vs. feeling is analagous to the difference between traveling North vs. South (at the same time, in the same dimension, etc.) then no one should ever test as 38% t and 62%f or even 99%t and 1% f. People should only test as 100% one and 0% the other. The existence of so much 'middle ground' suggests to me that whatever is being left out by understanding the cognitive preferences in terms of stark dichotomies, it is something likely to be interesting and relevant to most people, although perhaps _most_ interesting and relevant to people like myself who find themselves "torn" between two or more MBTI types that are supposedly in deep cognitive conflict. 

Again, I'm not so much interested in validating or "invalidating" the theory. I'm more interested in: where does it break down? And why? And what is interesting or subtle or important in these cases that the MBTI is failing to capture? Or is more of a problem with the methodological or explanatory aspects of the meta-theory about what kinds of cognitive functions exist? Or an issue of how to best understand the _apparent_ _contrast_ between certain cognitive functions? 

In terms of the meta-theory, I honestly feel like I don't have any particular grasp of _why_ Jung settled on these specific cognitive functions, or _why_ Myers and Myers-Briggs settled on these specific 16 "categories." These explanatory motivations strike me as relevant to thinking about what might be left out and whether it would be best to construe a discussion of such omissions as potentially a revision/expansion of the original theories, or a fundamental break with those theories, or just orthogonal to those original theories. This is not my fundamental issue, though.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

sittapygmaea said:


> To continue with the metaphor that some posters have used, if the difference between thinking vs. feeling is analagous to the difference between traveling North vs. South (at the same time, in the same dimension, etc.) then no one should ever test as 38% t and 62%f or even 99%t and 1% f. People should only test as 100% one and 0% the other.


If you switch from a verb mindset to a noun mindset, then it would be a matter of how far north or south somebody was, or whether they were at or near the equator, not whether they were _moving_ north or south. But I think there's a better mindset than either of those, and that's the "tug" mindset. Here's some recycled reckful for you:



reckful said:


> Jung himself said he thought more people were in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and he also stressed that people of the same type varied considerably in terms of the strength (or, as he often characterized it, "one-sidedness") of their preferences. Far from thinking that such a person would have some kind of strange _dual personality_, Jung referred to the ambivert ("influenced as much from within as from without") as the "normal man."
> 
> Myers likewise distinguished between people with mild and strong preferences, and allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions.
> 
> ...


So the fact that somebody has an N preference doesn't mean they're always _traveling in the N direction_, and it also doesn't mean their personality represents some fixed-latitude position in the N direction. It means that, in situations where somebody's S/N preference is likely to have a contributory influence, they've got a tug in the N direction — but it may well be just one of a number of factors (internal and external both) that influence them in that situation. And if they've got a _strong_ N preference, that just means that their N-ward tug will tend to be a stronger influence, relatively speaking, than it would be for someone with a weaker preference.

And none of that cuts against the idea that the things involved in the N and S tugs may indeed be, at least to some extent, polar opposites.


----------



## sittapygmaea (Aug 24, 2014)

reckful said:


> So the fact that somebody has an N preference doesn't mean they're always _traveling in the N direction_, and it also doesn't mean their personality represents some fixed-latitude position in the N direction. It means that, in situations where somebody's S/N preference is likely to have a contributory influence, they've got a tug in the N direction — but it may well be just one of a number of factors (internal and external both) that influence them in that situation. And if they've got a _strong_ N preference, that just means that their N-ward tug will tend to be a stronger influence, relatively speaking, than it would be for someone with a weaker preference.
> 
> And none of that cuts against the idea that the things involved in the N and S tugs may indeed be, at least to some extent, polar opposites.


Thanks @reckful. Recycled or no, this is speaking directly to the issues I have in mind. 

I find it interesting that the "new, step 2 MBTI" is more fine-grained in identifying the preferences. I am immediately curious about what kinds of qualities/situations the sub-scales are measuring. Is it different domains in which one might, say, express a T vs. F preference (personal vs. professional, e.g.)? Or different cognitive circumstances in which one might express such preferences (e.g., very F when dealing with the five senses, but very T when dealing with concepts.) Or different, for lack of a better term, 'moods' in which one might express a T or F preference (T when stressed, F when relaxed)? 

In any case, such distinctions seem potentially illuminating for explaining the diversity of preferences within a given MBTI type, though I understand a pull against it insofar as it undermines the accessibility of the system as a whole. Because of course the heuristic power of an explanatory system will be somewhat undercut by having extremely fine-grained distinctions (Here's a helpful system of personality types that divides people neatly in 72,342 categories! Start taking the test now and you're sure to get a result by next year!)

Running with the "tug" characterization of cognitive temperaments (which is appealing because it is not so bimodal; it helps make conceptual room for a more realistic sense of how many factors="tugs" are possibly influencing how one sees things and how one acts at any given time)... I'm a little uncomfortable with the possible suggestion that ambiversion (on any of the opposed qualities) might occupy a kind of fundamentally cognitively "neutral" middle ground. That sounds a little too much like "objectivity" or "cognitive perfection" and I would be suspicious of casting the 'middle' in such a way. 

Leaving that issue aside, however, I think this way of looking at cognitive dichotomies brings out something extremely important. There are two different ways that a 'perfect balance' might be achieved amidst an available group of forces pulling in opposite directions. Balance might occur either through a _lack_ of strongly competing tugs, or through the _presence_ of strongly competing tugs. 

Picture a parent holding the hand of two children on either side. The parent might lean towards one side or the other if one child is pulling harder at his hand. But the parent might lean towards neither side _either_ because 

a) neither child is pulling at all OR
b) both children are pulling equally hard

One could characterize an ambivert as someone with no strong preference (say, for being alone vs. being in a group), and thus as a person who is likely to be satisfied either way. But one can also imagine a person who has _both_ preferences: a preference to be alone and a preference to be in a group. This person is likely to be unsatisfied in either circumstance, and is also likely to experience a fair bit of cognitive dissonance and/or ambivalence in making decisions or undertaking actions. 

I don't know how much the enneagram interests you, but I can't help thinking here of some recent discussions I've had with other sp/sx 4w5s. This is my own type, and it is apparently very common for 4w5 to be both highly introverted and also have a strong sx "instinct" (either sx/sp or sp/sx). For a strong introvert, the sp instinct will generally strongly motivate a person to seek solitude. The sx instinct is, in some sense, incompatible with an introverted impulse, at least insofar as the one cannot connect with another person in complete solitude. So 4w5s tend to have a sense of deep tension, of being subject to fundamentally competing impulses. It's not that sp/sx 4w5s are stark raving crazies because they have these competing impulses. But there is an interesting, and very common, sense of ambivalence, conflict, the impossibility of having all of one's psychological needs met simultaneously.

Do you think the infrastructure exists within MBTI for expressing similar internal "conflicts?" Because the dichotomy-neutral cognitive equilibrium state you mention above (absence of tug) seems to suggest a very different explanation for neutrality of preference on the various spectrum pairs (t v f or p v j or n v s). But I'm not sure if this is coming for you or the theory. 

I hope this is adequately clear. I am not always the most lucid explicator. If I was a better communicator I suspect this whole thread would be much much shorter :wink:

PS The thread you linked to on the first page is still sitting here in an open tab on my computer! I got a little diverted by the scavenger hunt quality (links within links within links!). It was fracturing my attention beyond my limit, but it's still open because I want to go back.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_sittapygmaea_,

The mods stickied a thread I posted in which I typed up material sourced directly from the MBTI Step II Manual, in case you'd like to read about the Step II facets in your free time.

The thread can be found here:

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/222794-descriptions-mbti-step-ii-facets.html


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Essentially, Ti is the most directly opposing of an INFP's dominant function. Either you're reading results from a test that is wrong, or you're mistaking your Ji functions.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

reckful said:


> If you switch from a verb mindset to a noun mindset, then it would be a matter of how far north or south somebody was, or whether they were at or near the equator, not whether they were _moving_ north or south. But I think there's a better mindset than either of those, and that's the "tug" mindset. Here's some recycled reckful for you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So are you saying that an infp can have 'strong' Ti or not? 

(Just to cut through the fluff and get to the question which was originally posted by the op)


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> But, generally-- You'll tend to get along with people cognitively that utilize your functions, in any order. At least according to certain theories that I've consulted. I'm biased.
> 
> For instance-- I get along best with those that utilize primarily Fe, Ti, Ne, Si. In no particular order. Just the way it is. It's called 'Quadras' in Socionics.
> 
> ...


Aswell as repulsion, i've experienced complete admiration, curiosity towards unconscious functions. 

I like what @OrangeAppled has said before about one's attitude towards their own inferior function that is dominant in others and their attitude towards their demonic function in that the demonic function cannot touch the perspective of that person's dominant function and therefore just accept it for what it is. Ti to me is refreshing to hear sometimes depending on the context and this comes from an Fi dom. Perhaps the Ne in me appreciates the new insights it can make. :kitteh:


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@mushr00m,

I think it's actually very insightful.

Both Jung and Marie-Louise Von Franz talk extensively about how the inferior function represents a kind of love-fear attraction in the individual. While on the one hand the person finds it draining and has a hard time with it, nevertheless it holds a kind of fascination, because we're always fascinated by our weaknesses. Which is why we tend to partner up with someone who's dominant is our inferior - we simply admire their ability to champion the thing that we ourselves are vulnerable to. It becomes a compensatory relationship (although, not necessarily a complimentary one).


----------

