# Best Short Descriptions of the Judging Functions



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

I've been trying to do one-liner descriptions of the Judging functions and this is what I came up with so far:

*Te:* I follow the rules and rely on hard evidence.

*Fe:* I follow traditions and rely on common values.

*Ti:* I follow what's interesting and rely on ideas.

*Fi:* I follow creative impulses and rely on what feels right.

How are those so far. Pretty accurate? Way off? Not boiled down enough? I'm trying to get at the functions' essences. Their fundamentals. The basic motivations and driving force behind them. And I'm trying to eliminate any crossing of the traits. I don't want any ENFPs out there, for example, to pick any of the first 3 if given the choice between all 4 of these.

Help me to refine them.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I think they are off. 

Te: I value what's effective.
Fe: I value group values.
Ti: I value logical consistency.
Fi: I value that my values are consistent.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Pretty off, Te and Ti are a lot more similar to each other with regards to understanding logical consistency and and observing facts. Te types understand logical inconsistency, they will note it by stating how facts suggested are absent externally whilst Ti types equivalently point out how the facts won't match perception. The notion of how Te types can easily understand the facts and present to them also applies to Ti types which is evident by the fact that their logic can be verified externally, facts are not magically created internally.

For Fi and Fe, the premises is the same with the difference that "logic" and "values" are replaced with each other.


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I think they are off.
> 
> Te: I value what's effective.
> Fe: I value group values.
> ...


But see, I value what's effective, logical consistency, and that my values are consistent. If I had to pick one, it would be a difficult choice, especially between the Te and Ti one. I want it to be an easy choice. Like if a xTxP looks at the Te, Fe, or Fi one, they will go, "Yeah, that's not me" but the Ti one will definitely fit.



Boolean11 said:


> Pretty off, Te and Ti are a lot more similar to each other with regards to understanding logical consistency and and observing facts. Te types understand logical inconsistency, they will note it by stating how facts suggested are absent externally whilst Ti types equivalently point out how the facts won't match perception. The notion of how Te types can easily understand the facts and present to them also applies to Ti types which is evident by the fact that their logic can be verified externally, facts are not magically created internally.
> 
> For Fi and Fe, the premises is the same with the difference that "logic" and "values" are replaced with each other.


Okay, but what situations can be made to exhibit this? I mean, I'm Ti, so I should have a lot in common with my ESTJ co-worker and the INTJs on this forum as far as Judgment goes, but I find that they seem more certain of their logic, like it is set in stone. Te seems like a semi-truck to me, whereas Ti is a sports car that can zip around it, but wouldn't dare run into it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> But see, I value what's effective, logical consistency, and that my values are consistent. If I had to pick one, it would be a difficult choice, especially between the Te and Ti one. I want it to be an easy choice. Like if a xTxP looks at the Te, Fe, or Fi one, they will go, "Yeah, that's not me" but the Ti one will definitely fit.
> 
> 
> Okay, but what situations can be made to exhibit this? I mean, I'm Ti, so I should have a lot in common with my ESTJ co-worker and the INTJs on this forum as far as Judgment goes, but I find that they seem more certain of their logic, like it is set in stone. Te seems like a semi-truck to me, whereas Ti is a sports car that can zip around it, but wouldn't dare run into it.


You said you wanted simple and short descriptions that hit the mark. I provided. You are too focused on behavior, not enough on how people think. Just because I think I value consistency of my values it doesn't mean I always think in a way that's consistent.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> Okay, but what situations can be made to exhibit this? I mean, I'm Ti, so I should have a lot in common with my ESTJ co-worker and *the INTJs on this forum as far as Judgment goes, but I find that they seem more certain of their logic, like it is set in stone*. Te seems like a semi-truck to me, whereas Ti is a sports car that can zip around it, but wouldn't dare run into it.


That is in perception only, its not the case in truth, Te is external therefore it makes it look like the internal world of XXTJs is equivalently as rigid. However the truth is that internally "Te" types are uncomfortably flexible so as a result they are always looking externally for structure to hold their Pi perception (the key is in introverted perception "Pi" not Te when crafting meaning). Internally Te types are open/flexible and they take that for granted and assume that everyone is the same, so externally they display the "rigidness" in search of structure. Whereas Ti types take the internal, "rigidness", structure they have for granted which is why externally they'll appear very flexible via Pe (Ne or Se).


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> But see, I value what's effective, logical consistency, and that my values are consistent. If I had to pick one, it would be a difficult choice, especially between the Te and Ti one. I want it to be an easy choice. Like if a xTxP looks at the Te, Fe, or Fi one, they will go, "Yeah, that's not me" but the Ti one will definitely fit.


Te and Ti don't exist in neat dichotomies which something you'll find out when you take Nardi's cognitive functions test (along further analysis). For example INTPs and INTJs both generally score uncharacteristically high on Ti Te and Ni Ne, even though according to theory they suppress one of the two functions when they exist in the same attitude. Apparent one interpretation point to everyone having 8 functions but suppressing half of them.


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> You said you wanted simple and short descriptions that hit the mark. I provided. You are too focused on behavior, not enough on how people think. Just because I think I value consistency of my values it doesn't mean I always think in a way that's consistent.


Yes, that is what I asked and you did provide. I'm not arguing that you didn't provide short descriptions that hit the mark. But "short" and "hitting the mark" aren't the only conditions I would like them to satisfy. I'd also like them to satisfy how people of that type would report themselves. I'm Ti, so I should look at the descriptions and pick the Ti one every time without too much thought. Behaviors can be measured but don't always reveal the motive. The way we think reveals the motive, but can't always be measured. I'm trying to find a combination that satisfied both. I suppose I want to put them into Te terms.



Boolean11 said:


> That is in perception only, its not the case in truth, Te is external therefore it makes it look like the internal world of XXTJs is equivalently as rigid. However the truth is that internally "Te" types are uncomfortably flexible so as a result they are always looking externally for structure to hold their Pi perception (the key is in introverted perception not Te). Internally Te types are open/flexible and they take that for granted and assume that everyone is the same, so externally they display the "rigidness" in search of structure. Whereas Ti types take the internal, "rigidness", structure they have for granted which is why externally they'll appear very flexible via Pe (Ne or Se).


I see. But Te assumes Pi, so the behavior will be there. But you're saying that to a Te user, they don't feel rigid? They would describe themselves as as flexible as a Ti user appears? Hmm. So would the Te description be something like, "Rely on the physical world for structure"?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> Yes, that is what I asked and you did provide. I'm not arguing that you didn't provide short descriptions that hit the mark. But "short" and "hitting the mark" aren't the only conditions I would like them to satisfy. I'd also like them to satisfy how people of that type would report themselves. I'm Ti, so I should look at the descriptions and pick the Ti one every time without too much thought. Behaviors can be measured but don't always reveal the motive. The way we think reveals the motive, but can't always be measured. I'm trying to find a combination that satisfied both. I suppose I want to put them into Te terms.


You won't achieve this and expect great accuracy. People's personal perceptions of themselves will get in the way. A person will say, "I'm so logical so I must be a T". You see this happen when people take the dichotomy tests all the time. Yet, upon further examination, you see that they seem to reason more like a feeler does. 

Jung wrote an entire book about personality types. You won't get anything through simplification. There will be bias towards the combinations.


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Te and Ti don't exist in neat dichotomies which something you'll find out when you take Nardi's cognitive functions test (along further analysis). For example INTPs and INTJs both generally score uncharacteristically high on Ti Te and Ni Ne, even though according to theory they suppress one of the two functions when they exist in the same attitude. Apparent one interpretation point to everyone having 8 functions but suppressing half of them.


That just tells me that the questions for Te and Ti on those tests aren't accurate. That's what I'm trying to fix. Unless Ni makes Te seem like Ti and Ne makes Ti seem like Te. Is that what is happening?



LeaT said:


> You won't achieve this and expect great accuracy. People's personal perceptions of themselves will get in the way. A person will say, "I'm so logical so I must be a T". You see this happen when people take the dichotomy tests all the time. Yet, upon further examination, you see that they seem to reason more like a feeler does.
> 
> Jung wrote an entire book about personality types. You won't get anything through simplification. There will be bias towards the combinations.


All this tells me is that no one has been able to figure it out yet, not that it can't be done. If a Feeler thinks they T because they are logical, then logical isn't the right word. If a Feeler thinks they are a Thinker because of any reason, then that reason isn't the one to decide. Maybe even Jung didn't know the right words to use. But if a Feeler did and thought everything a Thinker did, they'd be a Thinker. I know everyone has every function. And also that some situations everyone will use Thinking to decide and in other situations everyone will use Feeling to decide. So those situations are no good. We need situations where Thinkers will use Thinking and Feelers will use Feeling. There has to be such situations, otherwise neither Jung nor anyone else would be able to differentiate the behaviors of different types. Type theory was initiated by observing others in different situations. So let's refine those situations to their ideal natures.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> I see. But Te assumes Pi, so the behavior will be there. But you're saying that to a Te user, they don't feel rigid? They would describe themselves as as flexible as a Ti user appears? Hmm. So would the Te description be something like, "Rely on the physical world for structure"?


Te and Ti are equivalently about logic, facts, creating sound models of understanding (this makes abstraction difficult to really point out). So I'd describe Te as being open to "facts" constantly seeking the most sound facts to craft "Pi", whilst Ti as being constantly open the best "Pe" data, snap shorts from reality, to mold Ti facts around. The problem I see in the "Rely on the physical world for structure" abstraction, is that not all Te types will agree with it (even some Ti types could end up thinking they are Te types).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> That just tells me that the questions for Te and Ti on those tests aren't accurate. That's what I'm trying to fix. Unless Ni makes Te seem like Ti and Ne makes Ti seem like Te. Is that what is happening?
> 
> 
> All this tells me is that no one has been able to figure it out yet, not that it can't be done. If a Feeler thinks they T because they are logical, then logical isn't the right word. If a Feeler thinks they are a Thinker because of any reason, then that reason isn't the one to decide. Maybe even Jung didn't know the right words to use. But if a Feeler did and thought everything a Thinker did, they'd be a Thinker. I know everyone has every function. And also that some situations everyone will use Thinking to decide and in other situations everyone will use Feeling to decide. So those situations are no good. We need situations where Thinkers will use Thinking and Feelers will use Feeling. There has to be such situations, otherwise neither Jung nor anyone else would be able to differentiate the behaviors of different types. Type theory was initiated by observing others in different situations. So let's refine those situations to their ideal natures.


Sure, but what if the very system you're working with e.g. language is insufficient? As I said, to me, you can break down the functions to their absolute simplest forms like I did, but if you think that's insufficient and they require to be fleshed out and more specified you will run into problems. I've read numerous function descriptions and because of how functions interplay, it will be very hard to remove all external influence and still be able to capture the function properly without depicting it at its simplest form. 

Plus, everyone is a thinker and a feeler and people have personal preference. I still see you wanting to simply in the wrong way.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> That just tells me that the questions for Te and Ti on those tests aren't accurate. That's what I'm trying to fix. Unless Ni makes Te seem like Ti and Ne makes Ti seem like Te. Is that what is happening?


Have you gone through Jung's dichotomy instead? That more of based on thought processes looking at the subjectivity objectivity. And the big problem with the stuff, personality type theories, are that they are merely abstraction that can't honestly represent the true nature of people. They are clever and interesting but far from a level of respectable science, which why the work in seen as Junk .


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

Hmm. What about pictures? Pictures are worth a thousand words. Heh, that expression was around long before computers, but an image on the computer is really just a bunch of code a computer can understand. So they can be said to contain thousands of "words" worth of information.

Anyway, a picture can depict (haha, de-picture) a situation that maybe different Judgment types can relate to. Like this:

Which is worse? This:










or this:










Of course, this is just an example. It would have to be "run by" many different individuals of all the types.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> Hmm. What about pictures? Pictures are worth a thousand words. Heh, that expression was around long before computers, but an image on the computer is really just a bunch of code a computer can understand. So they can be said to contain thousands of "words" worth of information.
> 
> Anyway, a picture can depict (haha, de-picture) a situation that maybe different Judgment types can relate to. Like this:
> 
> ...


Both seem bad, anybody of any type could criticize both images seeing no subjective superiority of either one. Intuitors generally are messier than sensors since they place more importance on "abstract order", INXJs are very messy as usually stated on the forums. And equivalently some sensors, even SJs, actually are very messy since they don't see any point doing boring stuff.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Te and Ti don't exist in neat dichotomies which something you'll find out when you take Nardi's cognitive functions test (along further analysis). For example INTPs and INTJs both generally score uncharacteristically high on Ti Te and Ni Ne, even though according to theory they suppress one of the two functions when they exist in the same attitude. Apparent one interpretation point to everyone having 8 functions but suppressing half of them.


This makes sense considering I always score INTJ, yet somehow when I take Nardi's test my TI and TE and NI/NE are almost equal.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Te and Ti don't exist in neat dichotomies which something you'll find out when you take Nardi's cognitive functions test (along further analysis). For example INTPs and INTJs both generally score uncharacteristically high on Ti Te and Ni Ne, even though according to theory they suppress one of the two functions when they exist in the same attitude. Apparent one interpretation point to everyone having 8 functions but suppressing half of them.


It makes some sense considering I always fall into the Te "trap;" I score high on Ti, Te, and Ni, so the test thinks I'm an INTP, INTJ, or even ENTJ, although I'm clearly not and score low on Ne. Good to know I'm not the only one out there!


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

kasthu said:


> It makes some sense considering I always fall into the Te "trap;" I score high on Ti, Te, and Ni, so the test thinks I'm an INTP, INTJ, or even ENTJ, although I'm clearly not and score low on Ne. Good to know I'm not the only one out there!


There are multiple ways to forming your type, have you tried the method of looking at the Jung's version internally looking at whether you subject or object thinking sensing feeling or intuition?


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Both seem bad, anybody of any type could criticize both images seeing no subjective superiority of either one. Intuitors generally are messier than sensors since they place more importance on "abstract order", INXJs are very messy as usually stated on the forums. And equivalently some sensors, even SJs, actually are very messy since they don't see any point doing boring stuff.


Hmm. I find nothing wrong with the first one. It looks pretty normal to me. I tried to find one that wasn't exclusively messy, but also wasn't super tidy and clean. Even if I don't particularly like it, the second one just makes me cringe. But my ESTJ co-worker comes in and can't stand how messy my office is when I don't think it's very messy. My ISFJ wife is of the same mind. But my co-worker likes such "check out" sheets, but my wife doesn't.

So do you find the idea of using pictures as ineffective, or just the specific ones I picked?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> Hmm. I find nothing wrong with the first one. It looks pretty normal to me. I tried to find one that wasn't exclusively messy, but also wasn't super tidy and clean. Even if I don't particularly like it, the second one just makes me cringe. But my ESTJ co-worker comes in and can't stand how messy my office is when I don't think it's very messy. My ISFJ wife is of the same mind. But my co-worker likes such "check out" sheets, but my wife doesn't.
> 
> So do you find the idea of using pictures as ineffective, or just the specific ones I picked?


I forgot to mention that SP types can display a need for external order too, though with them the order is guided internally through observed Se, which deals with tangible reality.


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

myjazz said:


> Seems as if we need to start from scratch.
> What do you think Te is , and why there is not traits?
> I already stated that Fe nor Fi traits is not about being concerned with other people, or are you just adding onto what I said?


I think Te is related to impersonal predictable "cause and effect" relationships in the physical world. This manifests in categorizing things, having things in alphabetical order, and trying to control their surroundings (people included) so they know what to expect. I don't understand what you mean by "why there is not traits?". Regarding the F ones, I was just adding on.



myjazz said:


> You do realize that the MBTI test is just that a test a way to help narrow down what type you have or able to tell you what type. It is just a test, this is why it is called MBTI..the I means Indicator. This test is just that an indicator not meant to be concrete, majority of the time all this is to do is indicate what type you you are...yes sometimes maybe a lot of times this can tell someones type right away.
> As far as all the junk test everyone seems to be making, well .....


Right, the test indicates which type you are, or is supposed to. And it seems to do okay. I have a problem with it and all other tests because they are abstract. Sometimes it is okay, but others I can't figure out how it applies to me. I'm hoping to make a better test. I'll probably fail miserably or give up before I'm even 1/4 of the way there, but right now this is what I'm set on.



myjazz said:


> How did this get spun into this conversation anyway based by the OP that is?
> I would have to agree with the others about your one liners about Carl Jung's work that they do not fit. It is kinda difficult to put in different short word phrases that people so desire to do. Even though I studied my Ni my whole it is difficult for me to really express it in such a short way, lately I like the description content within content or like the world within worlds idea.
> It like you description
> *Fe: I follow traditions and rely on common values.**
> ...


It seems true that *those* short descriptions aren't any good. But that doesn't mean that *no* descriptions will be. Before someone ever poured oil into water, there was no way to know they would separate like that. People would probably think you were crazy for thinking something like that before it was well known. Unless I can read somewhere that all methods to accurately determine type have been tried, I won't believe that it can't be done. Maybe I am a Sensor after all.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Meadow said:


> @_Elaminopy_, throughout your posts you've been articulating my issues also. There's something lacking with Jung function descriptions when there have been seemingly hundreds of posters who are still unsure of their type after study, or are making a best guess and possibly falsifying type. If it remains so nebulous for so many people, why shouldn't the functions be clarified? To get to the basics of each dominant function in order to entirely separate each from the other seems like a necessary first step. It wouldn't guarantee the correct type for everyone, but it might pull the field further away from the chaos it seems to be in now, with every author and poster using somewhat different function definitions.


Or maybe Jung actually did it on purpose because he realized he couldn't clarify it further than that without pushing the theory into waters he didn't want to chart out? There's a reason he didn't clarify his types further either such as Myers and Briggs did. Jung obviously wanted some things left unexplored on purpose, one of those reasons being that he disliked qualitative science. 

That's essentially what you are doing here too - you want to "qualititatize" Jung's work but realize this - Jung's work is based on qualitative science. It's all theoretical and non-tangible. Once you start to quantitatize something qualitative you will lose out meaning and depth. You will get something generalized that might convey some meanings better at first glance but for others they will miss the mark entirely. Also mull on this: there are more similarities between two different people than two same people and two same people are more different to each other than two different people. Realize the true implications of this and then go back and think about how this relates to the MBTI and you will realize why your endeavor is futile. 

The tools you are working with are insufficient and people are too prone to project and re-interpret. Also realize that every person is a sensor and an intuitive and feeler and thinker, and realize that what we exhibit may sometimes vary between the days and our moods. We have access to and use every function and perspective every day in various degrees and at different levels. Everyone can use the functions at a basic level regardless of our preferences. 

What you're doing is no better than the MBTI assessment tool and even certified MBTI typists realize that the tool is flawed and you need to have an in-depth interview of the person you are typing in order to get to the bigger picture. This is because reality is again not as simple as you try to make it out to be here. You are too focused on your idea instead of reality as it actually is.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@Elaminopy To begin with, you would need to look at the obstacles you're up against it's not just about clear definitions. 

-16 definite personality types = at least 16 ways of perceiving and judging, therefore, many possible ways for interpreting and understanding the same information. 

- Individual life experiences. A Feeler with a slight Feeling preference, surrounded by Feeling types with strong Feeling preferences, is more likely to type themselves as a Thinker. Each person measures themselves in comparison to those around them which means there are no standard measures. 

-Feelers and Thinkers learn both logical and value judgements. 

For instance, one good example of value judgements that almost everyone learns early is using manners. To use the words "Can you pass the salt?" when you require salt, would be logical. You need something, you communicate your request by stating what it is. There's no logical reason to add the word 'please'. That's a value judgement, it communicates values to the person that you're talking to, showing that you're both respecting and considering their feelings. Yet, many Thinkers will use the word 'please' as often as Feelers do, because almost everyone's been taught to do so. But obviously, that doesn't make them Feeling types. 

- Multiple theories results in multiple interpretations of how we use the functions. It's impossible to define functions when one person is going by Jung's theory and basing definitions on predominantly using the two top preferred functions, and the other person is going by the one with the shopping trip(?) where they switch through different functions when choosing an apple. 

-Some people simply don't want to see themselves in a true light. 

- What we do all see as truth is mostly subjective anyway.


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Or maybe Jung actually did it on purpose because he realized he couldn't clarify it further than that without pushing the theory into waters he didn't want to chart out? There's a reason he didn't clarify his types further either such as Myers and Briggs did. Jung obviously wanted some things left unexplored on purpose, one of those reasons being that he disliked qualitative science.


Well, I don't really care about what Jung did or didn't want to do or did or didn't like. The world progresses and people expand on previous achievements. And I'm less interested in Jung and the theory behind it and more in the MBTI types and which people actually belong to each type. If it turns out that, once a super accurate method for determining MBTI type is achieved, and people know their actual type, they will find that they might have less in common with people of their own type than people of other ones. But that doesn't matter. It's a method to make the system work better according to its rules. I'm not trying to understand people better with this method. I'm trying to more accurately fit them into MBTI types as defined by MBTI.

If it classified people by height instead of cognitive functions, but people said the tests weren't accurate and lots of people were having trouble figuring out what height type they were, I would be trying to find a better way to measure people's heights. Perhaps some people slouch and won't stand tall. Some people on their tippy-toes. Some have tall hair. And all of the tape measures were made by hand and none had inches or centimeters the same size. I'd opt to use something other than the tape measures and instead something like marks on the wall. Or maybe have people lay down so slouching wouldn't matter. I'd find an accurate way to measure people's heights to find out what height type they fit into. It's irrelevant that height is a poor indicator of anything.



> That's essentially what you are doing here too - you want to "qualititatize" Jung's work but realize this - Jung's work is based on qualitative science. It's all theoretical and non-tangible. Once you start to quantitatize something qualitative you will lose out meaning and depth. You will get something generalized that might convey some meanings better at first glance but for others they will miss the mark entirely.


I'm going on Myers' and Briggs' work, not Jung's. I know theirs is based on Jung's, but I'm only trying to find people's type based on what Myers and Briggs determined.



> Also mull on this: there are more similarities between two different people than two same people and two same people are more different to each other than two different people. Realize the true implications of this and then go back and think about how this relates to the MBTI and you will realize why your endeavor is futile.


"Same people" and "different people" are determined by the number of similarities, so I don't get how you can say that. How are you determining "different people" and "same people"?



> The tools you are working with are insufficient and people are too prone to project and re-interpret. Also realize that every person is a sensor and an intuitive and feeler and thinker, and realize that what we exhibit may sometimes vary between the days and our moods. We have access to and use every function and perspective every day in various degrees and at different levels. Everyone can use the functions at a basic level regardless of our preferences.


Okay, but I'm never like my co-worker. And I'm never like my wife. Never. There are differences that are always different. So regardless of the functions or theory, in reality, I exhibit a pattern, as does my co-worker, and my wife. There is a good degree of consistency in people's actions. I'm trying to find a way to bypass any projecting or interpreting on the person's part. I want to ask them 2 seemingly random questions that don't appear to have any meaning whatsoever, but ironically point to one type or another. Something stupid, like "do you put your right or left shoe on first?" I don't even need to know why they indicate one type or another. I just need to know that they do.



> What you're doing is no better than the MBTI assessment tool and even certified MBTI typists realize that the tool is flawed and you need to have an in-depth interview of the person you are typing in order to get to the bigger picture. This is because reality is again not as simple as you try to make it out to be here. You are too focused on your idea instead of reality as it actually is.


I'm more interested in the idea and the MBTI than reality as it actually is right now.

EDIT: And now I'm starting to become disinterested in the whole idea. Not just my idea of typing people more accurately, but of the whole personality types concept. Maybe because of this conversation, I don't know.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

*@Elaminopy, *again you misunderstand the argument. You are trying to apply a quantitative way of measuring type on something that's inherently qualitative. If you want to quantitiatize, you need to look at Nardi's works, not Myers' and Brigg's.


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> *@Elaminopy, *again you misunderstand the argument. You are trying to apply a quantitative way of measuring type on something that's inherently qualitative. If you want to quantitiatize, you need to look at Nardi's works, not Myers' and Brigg's.


That's because qualities begat quantifiable data and quantifiable data is the only thing you can really measure. If having A leads to having 1 and having C also leads to having 1, then having 1 could mean you have A or C. We need to find numbers can only be led to by one letter. And you'll say I won't be able to and I'll say that I'll try anyway.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> That's essentially what you are doing here too - you want to "qualititatize" Jung's work but realize this - Jung's work is based on qualitative science. It's all theoretical and non-tangible. Once you start to quantitatize something qualitative you will lose out meaning and depth. You will get something generalized that might convey some meanings better at first glance but for others they will miss the mark entirely. Also mull on this: there are more similarities between two different people than two same people and two same people are more different to each other than two different people. Realize the true implications of this and then go back and think about how this relates to the MBTI and you will realize why your endeavor is futile.


I was going to mention some about this as well. Now with your view and another one also uuhh combo(insert street fighter codes)
Jung I don't believe was set out to dissect every detail ,if any, of human personality. After all he did not only bring forth the idea of Psychological Types but Individuality as well. As Carl Jung stated in Psychological Types "It is my hope that this insight may is prove a clarifying contribution to a dilemma which, not in analytical psychology alone but also in other provinces of science, and especially in the personal relations of human beings one to another, has led and still continues to lead to misunderstanding and division."
Jung noticed in his professional work that there is typical distinctions among the people, thus lead to his research. What a lot of people do is try to put everyone into a category after category. In some long futile attempt to label everyone's personality into constant categorizing....With MBTI Myers and Briggs set out to further Carl Jung's research, to try to form a generalized behavior possibilities and a way to indicate to the them. Unlike Carl Jung, where he wanted a better way to bridge the gap between people's differences. Myers and Briggs took this a step farther and tried to create some more possible distinct differences among people who use these cognitive functions. In no way was neither of Jung's or Myers and Briggs research was meant to be set in stone concrete personalities.
Which leads to the mass hysteria of people (including psychologist and such) as LeaT pointed out that wants to quantitative human personalities and behavior. Just look at these forums someone will be like oh I am "such and such" type because I eat the cream of the Oreo's before I eat the cookie part, even though they do not have preference to the cognitive functions for that type. Yes I am waiting for the add-on for personalities of how people prefer to eat Oreo's >.<
People look at Jung's research as flawed because they look at his research for different reasons of his research......


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@Elaminopy 
If you want to do this research of yours go for it, Don't let anyone discourage you of that.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Or maybe Jung actually did it on purpose because he realized he couldn't clarify it further than that without pushing the theory into waters he didn't want to chart out? There's a reason he didn't clarify his types further either such as Myers and Briggs did. Jung obviously wanted some things left unexplored on purpose, one of those reasons being that he disliked qualitative science.
> 
> That's essentially what you are doing here too - you want to "qualititatize" Jung's work but realize this - Jung's work is based on qualitative science. It's all theoretical and non-tangible. Once you start to quantitatize something qualitative you will lose out meaning and depth. You will get something generalized that might convey some meanings better at first glance but for others they will miss the mark entirely. Also mull on this: there are more similarities between two different people than two same people and two same people are more different to each other than two different people. Realize the true implications of this and then go back and think about how this relates to the MBTI and you will realize why your endeavor is futile.
> 
> ...


If Jung created 8 categories it seems to imply there are distinct differences between those categories, otherwise why create and try to explain them? Because he wasn't able to or didn't want to clarify the differences doesn't mean there aren't any solid foundations that could be discovered within each function or that someone can't come up with a system that is close to and easier to use than Jung's.

I understand the issues of projection, misunderstanding, and losing meaning and depth if personality is simplified too much, but if Jung truly didn't mean to have discrete categories that are clearly useable but instead meant the functions to be used only as a starting point for understanding ourselves, then why are forum posters selling the functions as if people should be able to categorize themselves, attempting throughout dozens if not hundreds of threads to guess/try to explain what Jung meant by his function categories so we know what type we are? Which do we want, to quantify and simplify so the most number of people can see which dominant function they're using so they have a better understanding of their strengths, or to use functions as a starting point for seeing more deeply into various aspects of our personality, less personality typing and more psychology, gaining a greater general understanding of ourselves and others? Maybe the latter is the best direction to go if functions can't be explained more clearly and would end the year-after-year angst of people trying to categorize themselves without clear definitions to make the task more doable.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Meadow said:


> If Jung created 8 categories it seems to imply there are distinct differences between those categories, otherwise why create and try to explain them? Because he wasn't able to or didn't want to clarify the differences doesn't mean there aren't any solid foundations that could be discovered within each function or that someone can't come up with a system that is close to and easier to use than Jung's.
> 
> I understand the issues of projection, misunderstanding, and losing meaning and depth if personality is simplified too much, but if Jung truly didn't mean to have discrete categories that are clearly useable but instead meant the functions to be used only as a starting point for understanding ourselves, then why are forum posters selling the functions as if people should be able to categorize themselves, attempting throughout dozens if not hundreds of threads to guess/try to explain what Jung meant by his function categories so we know what type we are? Which do we want, to quantify and simplify so the most number of people can see which dominant function they're using so they have a better understanding of their strengths, or to use functions as a starting point for seeing more deeply into various aspects of our personality, less personality typing and more psychology, gaining a greater general understanding of ourselves and others? Maybe the latter is the best direction to go if functions can't be explained more clearly and would end the year-after-year angst of people trying to categorize themselves without clear definitions to make the task more doable.


The question is useable for what and why and how? As I said, I think Jung left some things deliberately open on purpose because I knew what would happen if he described it in too much detail, and maybe it was that he also felt it was impossible to describe it in more detail than that. He noted on general trends and tendencies but they are just that, general. The more specific you make them the less general they become and the less they actually apply across the board.


----------

