# MBTI Shat On Jung's Functions



## Amy (Jan 15, 2015)

lilac_flowers said:


> I have no issue noticing and understanding the functions, but types are rarely clear and obvious.
> Only few people I know would stereotypically fit their type.
> 
> My love of functions comes from their precision and them allowing me to describe things about people using a new level of accuracy by adding these "function and function related terms" to my dictionary.
> ...


YOU ARE AWESOME! YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT MBTI IT'S JUST STUPID!
DO YOU KNOW WHY IT DOESN'T WORK? 

Because we think the functions says about personalities, when ACTUALLY they're saying about skills. What we "know" about the functions isn't real.

Se isn't about perceiving the world in the right know. It is a skill.
Ne isn't about brainstorming. It is a skill, an ability, not a function.
Si isn't about recalling things. It is a skill, you also can call it good memory.
Ni isn't about seeing the future. It is a skill, and it's called maturity (or observation, it's just see what happens after we do something :tongue
Fe isn't about taking care of others. It is a skill, and it's called empathy.
Te isn't about systems and organization. It is a skill or ability.
Fi isn't about just holding your values. It is a way of life, not a function.
Ti isn't about internal logic. It is called logical-mathematical intelligence.

YOU GOT THE POINT! CONGRATULATIONS!
See this site, you'll trust in MBTI again: A Little Bit of Personality: Start Here


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

This is an interesting topic. I'm going to bookmark and return to look at the merit of OP's words... no thanks to having to sift through mounds of emotional piss before I can even analyze it, though. Thanks, OP. :dry:


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> What does any of that have to do with MBTI?


It's how PROFESSIONAL typing works by all "experts" on this. Didn't you ever research them? You know, those people who set the standards for this bullshit theory? :dry:


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

lilac_flowers said:


> It's how PROFESSIONAL typing works by all "experts" on this. Didn't you ever research them? You know, those people who set the standards for this bullshit theory? :dry:


Proof? I am a certified MBTI practitioner. I tentatively disagree with your assessment until you can provide reasons or evidence.

Please tell me how I type people.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

lilac_flowers said:


> Omg, it can't be observation, lack of logical consistency of MBTI, horoscope description, lack of precision, lack of usefulness, lack of understanding of any other faucet of psychology by MBTI experts...
> Nooo, it's me developing my Ti for the first time. :crazy:
> 
> 
> ...


Lmao you still dont get it, I do get what your talking about (I tread that path long ago-Ti is thinking of the relativity of everything that is engrained in me-not an epiphany like the 3rd function-) So yes I am grasping the mythology or meaning you speak of in any data or reality-(dom & aux Ti users develop that in their teens). Your questioning this data and its relativity - dom & aux Ti users already did in their teens, ie the people that were most likely questioning all forms of data in school text books, or lectures and the existence of anything in the form of which we see it in our own realty- thats where I am emphasizing what your presenting as mythology Ti users have already developed -its still there as a lead function but it knows how to refine the data and fit it to realty, it still questions the meaning and existence of everything to how it fits and presents itself, but it is able to absolve to the realty that presents itself as well. 

That was where I touched on that I could totally see why tert Ni for example in an ISTP or ISFP looks easily liked a conspiracy theorist or paranoid schizo. I am sure tert Ni to a dom or aux user is easy to spot and makes them chuckle. 

Yeah yeah your arguing the existence of the mythology in it all in fitting into constructs and the contradictions (I see it lol I have refined the skill of accepting to absolve relativity into the current model that presents itself)-your hung up on emphasizing that I am using functions to explain this while your dismissing their existence or relevance I am explaining that in the realty that presents itself you, me, this page, this thread I am able to present why I see holes in what your saying by using the functions and explaining the holes. In a bigger picture in a realty bigger outside this yes of course they may or may not be a figment made by man to explanation or if you'd like to get real deep this entire conversation could be a figment of my own realty (ok sure we are all living in fight club or the matrix). I am offering insight into explaining that what your presenting can be explained within this realty that presents itself, this page, you & I talking about function, I properly explained how the functions are relevant in the realty that presents itself. 

Your over emphasizing something I understand quite well. Even if I am using the functions to explain while you dismiss. It is to display how what you dismiss may have relevance within the realty of you me and this page and the discussion.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

stiletto said:


> This is an interesting topic. I'm going to bookmark and return to look at the merit of OP's words... no thanks to having to sift through mounds of emotional piss before I can even analyze it, though. Thanks, OP. :dry:


Yesterday I was talking about MBTI, considering it still as valid, or not. I come to a logical, rational conclusion it's shit. I invest time and effort into putting emotional coloring into my presentation here to make it more interesting to read..._ Conclusion: I'm emotional._

You, supposed Te dominant, low Fi user take a little look, get IMMEDIATELY butthurt and write a brief EMOTIONAL, immediate spiteful remark about how I'm emotional and that bothers you to be able to read this at all, so you'll have to take time to read my emotional dribble later... All because YOU got got butthurt.
Of course ignoring observable reality of principles of advertising (your supposed Te) that clearly shows how boring and unreadable a wall of text would have been and how little people would have read it had I done it "unemotionally" as you supposedly prefer it. (Which as a human being, you don't. You're just playing into your type.)
_Conclusion: You're a rational thinker that has to put up with me._

*
Delusion + MBTI = Unsubstantiated Superiority Complex

Here people, real time presentation of what I'm talking about...*


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

lilac_flowers said:


> Yesterday I was talking about MBTI, considering it still as valid, or not. I come to a logical, rational conclusion it's shit. I invest time and effort into putting emotional coloring into my presentation here to make it more interesting to read..._ Conclusion: I'm emotional._
> 
> You, supposed Te dominant, low Fi user take a little look, get IMMEDIATELY butthurt and write a brief EMOTIONAL, immediate spiteful remark about how I'm emotional and that bothers you to be able to read this at all, so you'll have to take time to read my emotional dribble later... All because YOU got got butthurt.
> Of course ignoring observable reality of principles of advertising (your supposed Te) that clearly shows how boring and unreadable a wall of text would have been and how little people would have read it had I done it "unemotionally" as you supposedly prefer it. (Which as a human being, you don't. You're just playing into your type.)
> ...


Chill the fuck out.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

Cinnamon83 said:


> Lmao you still dont get it....


I can combine any number of functions and explain _anything_ using them. Unless I'm OBSERVING THEM EXPLICITLY and PRECISELY EXPLAINING THEM, that's pointless.

I thought of a theory, if I'm INTP, I'm such a GREAT Ti user. 
If I'm an INFJ, I have such strong Ni that I put into full force with my Ti!

Oh my, I'm so smart.

You're full of shit and you know it. The actual real argument you're making here is: "I'm older than you."



Cinnamon83 said:


> while your dismissing their existence or relevance I am explaining that in the realty that presents itself you, me, this page, this thread I am able to present why I see


I can also make up shit and call that my superiority over the person I'm describing using my shit.

I tell the fortune teller: You're full of shit!
She tells me: You're only saying that because your purple chakra is suppressed.

You can't continue to argue my reason with your shit. It doesn't work.
Also I never rejected functions, but function STACKS. (i.e. MBTI)



stiletto said:


> Chill the fuck out.


:laughing:


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

lilac_flowers said:


> Yesterday I was talking about MBTI, considering it still as valid, or not. I come to a logical, rational conclusion it's shit. I invest time and effort into putting emotional coloring into my presentation here to make it more interesting to read..._ Conclusion: I'm emotional._
> 
> You, supposed Te dominant, low Fi user take a little look, get IMMEDIATELY butthurt and write a brief EMOTIONAL, immediate spiteful remark about how I'm emotional and that bothers you to be able to read this at all, so you'll have to take time to read my emotional dribble later... All because YOU got got butthurt.
> Of course ignoring observable reality of principles of advertising (your supposed Te) that clearly shows how boring and unreadable a wall of text would have been and how little people would have read it had I done it "unemotionally" as you supposedly prefer it. (Which as a human being, you don't. You're just playing into your type.)
> ...


Are you attempting to embody an "MBTI professional expert" to prove your point? The only stereotypes I see are from what you've written here.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

lilac_flowers said:


> I can combine any number of functions and explain _anything_ using them. Unless I'm OBSERVING THEM EXPLICITLY and PRECISELY EXPLAINING THEM, that's pointless.
> 
> I thought of a theory, if I'm INTP, I'm such a GREAT Ti user.
> If I'm an INFJ, I have such strong Ni that I put into full force with my Ti!
> ...


Uh woah woah woah

I thought we were having a discussion. (This is where people can discuss things back and forth)

If you were channeling your Ti with your Fe in that you would recognize that I did not snowflake myself because I credited the fact that your having Ni refined and developed in your teens would give you insight into the challenges of tert Ni users. I did not once say I am older so there for at all. I mentioned that dom & aux functions are developed in peoples teens. (that goes both directions)

Is "your full of shit" all ya got for a proper rebuttal, and then a victimizing tangent going off on implying I snowflaked myself (when I clearly said the door swings both ways), and that I am older? Which btw I did not check your age, didnt have to, I could spot the development of tert function hence what I have been arguing.

Ok fine we are all living in the matrix nothing is real.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> In what way are MBTI types reductionist?


It's not the MBTI type but the reductionist culture that makes it so.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

lilac_flowers said:


> Yesterday I was talking about MBTI, considering it still as valid, or not. I come to a logical, rational conclusion it's shit. I invest time and effort into putting emotional coloring into my presentation here to make it more interesting to read..._ Conclusion: I'm emotional._
> 
> You, supposed Te dominant, low Fi user take a little look, get IMMEDIATELY butthurt and write a brief EMOTIONAL, immediate spiteful remark about how I'm emotional and that bothers you to be able to read this at all, so you'll have to take time to read my emotional dribble later... All because YOU got got butthurt.
> Of course ignoring observable reality of principles of advertising (your supposed Te) that clearly shows how boring and unreadable a wall of text would have been and how little people would have read it had I done it "unemotionally" as you supposedly prefer it. (Which as a human being, you don't. You're just playing into your type.)
> ...


Well I am not a Te user and I came to the conclusion your acting overly emotional. She doesnt have to snowflake herself. Real ENTJs never do they usually are able to pin point things fast with their Te/Ni. (Thats how its easy to spot the goof balls that just wish they were ENTJ) anyways that dismissive pin pointing your attacking her about is something I think makes ENTJs the shit. Nope she did not get diverted into anything she stayed totally Te/Ni. 

If you were not in this loop you would probably identify that healthy INFJs are the shit too! And many thinkers acknowledge that.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

Karla said:


> Se isn't about perceiving the world in the right know. It is a skill.


Yes it is. If you can't observe the world in the right now, if you're not adept at interacting with it, seeing reality, exerting "force" to interact with it, you LACK SKILL. Lower attention span, lower physical capacity, lower energy level... Something about you is LACKING, so you're not as skilled at "thinking Se" as you put it.



> Ne isn't about brainstorming. It is a skill, an ability, not a function.


Ne isn't even brainstorming, it's connecting concepts into networks and generating new ones, it's not random. And intuition isn't a gradually and purposely learned skill because it's subconscious, but it's still a skill. It's subconscious processing you trigger more and more by collecting new data and thinking about it. Intuition is a "thinking leap".



> Si isn't about recalling things. It is a skill, you also can call it good memory.


It's not just about recalling, you don't know the Si definition obviously.
And YES all that pertains to Si IS a skill.



> Ni isn't about seeing the future. It is a skill, and it's called maturity.


You also don't understand Ni obviously. Ni is about seeing underlying principles behind lost of observations, tying them into a linear sequence of understanding that allows "prophet-like" expression. And yes it's a skill. Some people CAN DO IT, some people CAN'T.



> Fe isn't about taking care of others. It is a skill, and it's called empathy.


It's a skill called "social skill".



> Te isn't about systems and organization. It is a skill or ability.


Yes, it's called checking and sorting your shit.
Lazy, emotional and stupid people don't have it.



> Fi isn't about just holding your values. It is a way of life, not a function.


It's a skill of emotional introspection and tending to oneself in this manner.



> Ti isn't about internal logic. It is called logical-mathematical intelligence.


No, it's a skill I like to call "reasoning capacity".



> YOU GOT THE POINT! CONGRATULATIONS!


And all you did was use sarcasm! Congratulations!



Cinnamon83 said:


> If you were not in this loop you would probably identify that healthy INFJs are the shit too! And many thinkers acknowledge that.


Great, more delusional emotional dribble.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

mushr00m said:


> It's not the MBTI type but the reductionist culture that makes it so.


To be fair, this is a symptom of humanity. Man/Woman, Black/White, Jock/Nerd, Christian/Muslim, Gay/Straight, Young/Old etc.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> To be fair, this is a symptom of humanity. Man/Woman, Black/White, Jock/Nerd, Christian/Muslim, Gay/Straight, etc.


Yes, I agree. Some conflicts are less reasonable than others though. Some get carried away with being absolutist in the differences between types.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> To be fair, this is a symptom of humanity. Man/Woman, Black/White, Jock/Nerd, Christian/Muslim, Gay/Straight, Young/Old etc.


No...









Those concepts are applicable to MAJORITY of observable reality. If I define a woman as a human female and claim she has this and this as her characteristics, I'll find 99% of women fitting my definition, therefore my concept is VALID. Those who don't fit in it are EXCEPTIONS that prove the rule by BEING EXCEPTIONS.

If I say chair is like this and used to sit on, I am sure you can find a chair that breaks my definition. But that doesn't mean my definition is invalid, it just means there are EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. Unconventional chairs...

MBTI on the other hand uses LOOSE definitions and if specified not to sound like a horoscope, it can only cover about 1% of the human species. That makes it SHIT. Useless, NOT A THEORY WORTH ANYTHING. WRONG.


----------



## SmashingAllMyWindows (Jul 26, 2015)

I feel like you've almost completely missed the point, you know a fair bit about MBTI it seems but don't know where it's applied. Instead of contending upon ignorance, research first. MBTI claims to be able to tell you and everyone else what mode of thinking (functions) they use the most, in order. INTPs will use Ti most during their cognition, INTJs will use Ne; doesn't mean an INTP can't be an athlete, or an INTJ a counsellor, it means that their propensities dictate a lower possibility for those to eventually come into fruition. This is why when we statistically examine the averages of each type in their occupations, salaries, interests, behaviour etc, it seems to be in congruence with the MBTI theory, but it doesn't mean that* every *ENTJ is an executive of some kind, they are just more likely to seek that occupation type. 

Every scientific model is a predictive model of reality, the best models predict with higher accuracy than others, that's the way science works, no model works 100% of the time without a strict context.

Also I wonder where you're getting this "1% useful" number from, pure conjecture and bias, perhaps? Calm down on the angst a bit, and offer a reasonable argument.


----------



## NTlazerman (Nov 28, 2014)

I'm getting a horrible headache because of this functions vs dichotomies vs stereotypes war. 

The* functions *work perfectly and match the dichotomy types if you actually know how they work.

The *dichotomies* are good indicators of the actual (function-based) type, but do not determine the type by themself.

The *stereotypes* are good (or bad) indicators for both, dichotomy types and function types, but alone are really nothing.

Let's not cross the streams here.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

WTF? 

Do you realize that while whining everyone uses function hierarchy to dismiss you as emotional you have used emotional response the entire time. 

Stating a perspective is entirely different (even if snarky) then retaliating at everyone in outbursts swearing they are all full of shit. 

Get over yourself. And learn to have a proper discussion with people who did originally approach the subject just with a view even if different. 

Weh weh social hierarchy and stereotyping lordy seriously well as a dumb sensor I wouldnt have the slightest clue what you refer to. 

Your approach to combating any misconceived notions is failing miserably while you could be articulating yourself in a way to deliver your view with out emotional outbursts, instead you embrace. (That is not something btw I think is a reflection on typing or INFJs just you as an individual. So no I am not even going to listen to this typist bullshit-while you actually combat with typist behavior by dismissing thinkers to simply out to reduce feelers-your doing what you bitch about). 

BTW my sis is INFJ-she is very capable of rational thinking so I know not to dismiss such assertions on all INFJs for example, just because one wants to enable a stereotype. What you eat you dished. 

Well enjoy your loop, I am out! YOU (not your type) is not able to be rational.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

SmashingAllMyWindows said:


> MBTI claims to be able to tell you and everyone else what mode of thinking (functions) they use the most, in order.


-of prefference. In order of prefference. Not just in order.
If you have preference for something, you develop it and it defines you by becoming a skill, which reflects in your personality. 
MBTI claims to know that order, which it DOESN'T.

Look...
If your first function is Ti, you will reach for it more supposedly, than you will reach for your Fe which is your 4th. This means you'll be very practiced in your Ti, but as an INTP completely retarded as an Fe user having "INTP childish charm".
It's nothing but a stereotype as ORIGINALLY STATED.

Once you confront typologists with this problem and explain to them that even though you're strong in Ti, you're not a childlike emotional retard, or that maybe your "supposed shadow function Te" comes easy to you and you find it important, a typologist will backtrack and begin with the excuses:
Well you use those functions too, well you developed them you're such a big boy! Well your Fe is still your function, only it's not most important to you, etc. Just like you did now, a typologyst will fling arbitrary shit your way invariably RENDERING THEIR ORIGINAL THEORY COMPLETELY POINTLESS.

The only people who will play into this are those looking for excuses, those looking for identity, those who want to feel special and/or those who just don't think.

Anyone who is even a smidgen objective will have a hard time finding "their true type", because it doesn't exist!



> INTPs will use Ti most during their cognition, INTJs will use Ne; doesn't mean an INTP can't be an athlete, or an INTJ a counsellor, it means that their propensities dictate a lower possibility for those to eventually come into fruition.


Which is WRONG.
People don't work that way. If I test a person, they can score highest on both Ni, Ne, Ti and Te and all other functions low. That doesn't mean I now look at their low functions, say well you also use Se more than Si and blah blah, I give them a type!
THEY ARE NOT THAT TYPE. I have to backtrack, make excuses and bullshit theories that invalidate my original claim about function stacking(prefference) in order to explain the results I got on the test. It's pointless!

Their unadulterated replies WON'T play into MBTI because MBTI is theorizing out of touch with reality, only stuffed with excuses for all inconsistencies around their STEREOTYPES. Their replies will show me their functions. Tell me what they are most adept and skilled at using and that won't have anything to do with MBTI stacking. Absolutely nothing.
Any function stack I may give them is POINTLESS. It's just me giving them an excuse/identity/feel good sentiments which will lead them to avoid learning about reality in order to "improve their functions".

It's also me giving them a FALSE IDENTITY and I already explain why this is so dangerous.

If you think that some people are "just Fi dominants" and some people are "just Fe dominants", you will NEVER look into what makes a socially skilled human. You will never base any of your observations on REALITY of what is THE RIGHT WAY to go about things. You'll just say everyone is different and allow complacency.
Same thing that happened to Art...





It's lazy, pseudo-intellectual and dangerous.



> This is why when we statistically examine the averages of each type in their occupations, salaries, interests, behaviour etc, it seems to be in congruence with the MBTI theory, but it doesn't mean that* every *ENTJ is an executive of some kind, they are just more likely to seek that occupation type.


How people see themselves will influence the test. If you're an aspiring CEO, you'll be more likely to answer like an ENTJ and have functions "like an ENTJ". That however doesn't make you an ENTJ, it just makes you similar to an already established stereotype of MBTI because you're TRYING TO BE.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

Cinnamon83 said:


> WTF?
> 
> Do you realize that while whining everyone uses function hierarchy to dismiss you as emotional you have used emotional response the entire time.


No.. I have impregnated my responses with emotion to make them more palatable-readable and candid. 
I however NEVER came from emotion. I base my reasoning on reality and maintain logical consistency.

You on the other hand are the ones who are ACTUALLY being emotional and showing it trough INTELLECTUALLY DISHONESTY -> Meaning: You're pointing out my emotion in order to dismiss me, instead of BEING ON POINT like "thinkers" you claim you are.
If you were rational, logical and consistent you'd be on point right now and not whining about nonsensical, irrelevant crap.

Like I said: MBTI + delusion = unsubstantiated superiority complex
Because MBTI told you you are a thinker, you never bothered to learn to reason.





NTlazerman said:


> I'm getting a horrible headache because of this functions vs dichotomies vs stereotypes war.
> 
> The* functions *work perfectly and match the dichotomy types if you actually know how they work.


They are not dichotomies, they are skills. There are STANDARDS of excellence for everything. You either do good, or you do bad.
If you listen to MBTI, you will stay bad never finding the answers on what's right, superior and correct, only telling yourself how "special and important you are" for the rest of your life.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@lilac_flowers -

The concept of type is one of particular combinations of preference. Do you dispute that people have tendencies towards particular poles on given spectra? It seems not - your talking of distinctions between Ti and Te re: analysis/data suggest you're perfectly on board with that. So surely, it's useful to discuss those preferences - to say that someone is more inclined towards solitude, or seeking out harmonious interactions, than they are inclined towards engaging with the outside world and discerning factual truth (just as one example)? Your criticism of that seems to be born from the idea that particular ways of being are objectively wrong - hence your references to "neurotic emotionless social retards", "manipulative control freaks", &c.; you claim that difference is wrong, because instead it is a matter of skill (so difference must indicate a deficiency on the part of one or the other). Hence, also, you view one of the facets of the J/P dichotomy as being little more than "responsible adult vs. unorganised child"... 

I just can't see what the basis is for that. Type is a matter of psychological preference - it is explicitly _not_ a matter of skill (it may happen that particular skills align with particular types as a result of particular psychological preferences, but that is not a problem with the concept of preference). "Gathering data and observing facts" is not "Te": rather, Te is a posited cognitive function that, inter alia, predisposes a person towards certain activities, one of which may be the gathering of data and observation of facts. You can fairly criticise the nebulous nature of such concepts, I think, and suggest we _ought_ to work with observed behaviours - but that is not what each function _is_. And there are plenty of other criticisms that might be levelled at the MBTI, and especially typology communities' various misinterpretations of the theory, but I'm not seeing that what you're getting at is anything especially central or relevant to the truth of the theory.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

lilac_flowers said:


> Functions differentiated and defined are gold.
> Types are not useful to anyone.
> They're fun stereotypes.
> 
> ...


Alright, to give your opinion a fair assessment, I had to remove all the ridiculous formatting, the multitudes of lazy false analogies, and delete all of your lovely gifs. Thanks for that exercise. :dry: I get that you were trying to get people to react and respond (obviously you've kind of succeeded), but you're going to be getting a great deal of defensive replies and going about getting productive conversation in the least efficient way. You'll fall into a loop of arguing, speaking condescendingly to each other, and lashing out at anyone who doesn't agree with you (can vice verse).

Anyway, onto your statements.

While I can agree to most of your points (namely that MBTI has frequently been reduced to a horoscope-esque excuse machine), I do disagree with the functions stacking being useless. The intended purpose of Isabel Myers and her daughter was to refine Jung's theories to express that all "types" are equal. It is intended to be a developmental tool. So function stacking is to be used as an INDICATOR of your likely type. It, by no means, dictates your type. 

People have been reading into cognitive functions and their stackings way too rigidly when it is meant as a base to grow from. 

Using a video game analogy: Your default character may be predisposed to INT (intelligence), so thus, your "type" is probably going to be a magic type user (whether you are a mage or a healer, that would fall under the same category). However, which stat/skill you choose to add to or train can help you attain a different goal. So, going back to the video game analogy. You can pump your skill points into AGI (agility) and become a thief class, or still be a magic user with faster reflexes. 

Jung theory talks about the innate born pre-disposition everyone has towards a particular stat (or function in our case). However, Myer-Briggs refines this theory so that it can be usable by the masses to determine their "base stats" in order to develop their other functions. 

Why is this valid? and Why is this useful? If it valid because everyone has a strength and a preference (which we cannot confuse). What functions you prefer to use, may not necessarily be your strongest. Thus, you may have a difficult time finding your base MBTI type. Finding your type is useful because it is an anchor in which you can measure your relative functions. 

What you've illustrated (quite well), is the trap many people can fall into. By using their MBTI as an excuse to be a a certain way/stereotype. I've seen it quite often, where ENTJs assume it's okay to be an asshole. 

Conversely, we can also say that these types are underdeveloped. And in which case, the exact reason why they should continue to use the MBTI typing system to grow. If they are fortunate enough to realize it (from what I can see, the MBTI community is generally able to help others reach these conclusions, although efficiency is left to be desired), they can gain quite a few benefits from using the system appropriately.

So I conclude, that your post has merit although I don't 100% agree. I see that functions and MBTI have their benefits and drawbacks, but you can't write one off without the other. What you CAN do, is criticize people's individual use of the theories and engage in dialogue with them to help them discover that. And in effect, you may gain an insight you didn't have before.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> @lilac_flowersto say that someone is more inclined towards solitude, or seeking out harmonious interactions, than they are inclined towards engaging with the outside world and discerning factual truth (just as one example)? Your criticism of that seems to be born from the idea that particular ways of being are objectively wrong - hence your references to "neurotic emotionless social retards", "manipulative control freaks", &c.; you claim that difference is wrong, because instead it is a matter of skill (so difference must indicate a deficiency on the part of one or the other). Hence, also, you view one of the facets of the J/P dichotomy as being little more than "responsible adult vs. unorganised child"...


See ladies? THIS (and one other I think) is your "thinking" you ascribed to yourselves using MBTI. 
THIS is on point, logically consistent, rational, unemotional argument. Learn from it.



> I just can't see what the basis is for that.


My studying of rest of psychology, observing of reality and noticing that standards of excellence are the only things set in stone that can describe the variations of world around us.

If you have a standard of excellence of thinking: logical consistency + accurate observation of reality, you can't call ANYONE a valuable thinker/a good thinker unless they meet that standard of excellence.

But if you focus on people who fail more in the logical consistency area calling them Te users and people who fail more at checking reality, calling them Ti users, you're not setting up a clear, dichotomy. You're standardizing two different kinds of failure that are STILL UNDER that 1 same standard of excellence!

If you have a standard of excellence for social skill: ability to process emotion, share oneself with others and respond to them, you're setting up a standard of excellence that allows good socialization.
If you call some people Fi (bad at expression) and Fe (bad at inner emotional processing) you're not setting up a usefull dichotomy, you're just describing two kinds of failure WHILE conditioning all people to HAVE TO fail in either one in order to fit your dichotomy. 
Ect... You get the point.

*All this time telling people it's ok to fail in one way or another because you're ignoring the one and only standard and replacing it with "we're all different" bullshit! 
It erodes people's ability to improve (because it directs them AWAY from the standard) and it gives them a false sense of higher worth they should absolutely not have!
(example: emotional ladies on this thread advertising their "cold intellect" completely unaware of the real standard for intellectual honesty)*

And if this doesn't happen and the person is a good thinker, or socially skilled, THEN as an MBTI typist, you explain it by making excuses. 

If a person is bad at both, you tell them they are more prone towards one, but it's low stacking and they are likely to believe it because everyone likes to hear they have a "good side".

ANY and I mean ANY result can be explained away with absolutely no standard, consistency, or intellectual honesty.
*It throws excellence to the wayside, makes failure the new standard and makes success "an exception". *



> Type is a matter of psychological preference - it is explicitly _not_ a matter of skill (it may happen that particular skills align with particular types as a result of particular psychological preferences, but that is not a problem with the concept of preference).


Your internal mental process is DIRECTLY related to your behavior, therefore your skill development. To say you observe human personality, but it's no issue of skill, is to disregard what personality even is!



> "Gathering data and observing facts" is not "Te": rather, Te is a posited cognitive function that, inter alia, predisposes a person towards certain activities, one of which may be the gathering of data and observation of facts.


Chopping wood is not chopping wood in and of itself, rather it's mental process of procedural memory and complex mental evaluations which manifest as action of chopping wood.

Like I said, this divorcing of functions from behavior as an excuse for MBTI's lack of application is silly.

Our skills are our brains and more skilled we become, more prone we become towards using said skills. All mental processes are skills and we either do better, or worse at them striving to that ONE STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE. 
Skill can't be divorced from "internal thinking". It's WHAT MBTI ITSELF uses to type in the first place!



> You can fairly criticise the nebulous nature of such concepts, I think, and suggest we _ought_ to work with observed behaviours - but that is not what each function _is_.


Calling it "just a mental process" doesn't make it beyond reproach by any means. Mental processes MBTI talks about are ENTIRELY OBSERVABLE, that's why we call them PERSONALITY.


----------



## SmashingAllMyWindows (Jul 26, 2015)

lilac_flowers said:


> -of prefference. In order of prefference. Not just in order.
> If you have preference for something, you develop it and it defines you by becoming a skill, which reflects in your personality.
> MBTI claims to know that order, which it DOESN'T.
> 
> ...


Well, that video gave my cancer, what horrible conservative drivel, I've seen other videos by the same people, they never cease to amaze with their intellectually inept 'academia'. Also, I don't understand the point you're making at all, if someone (as I mentioned before), gives a theory a context, it's an excuse? The problem is, you want to theory applied in a way that exactly fits someone, that cannot happen within any psychological theory, at all, including disorders. It's like saying: well Billy only has 5/7 of the criteria for schizophrenia, so he obviously doesn't have any kind of schizophrenia and anyone that says he does is intellectually lazy! And yes, of course it influences the test, that's why you need better testing measures in order to eliminate questions that specifically ask: "DO YOU LIKE BEING IN CONTROL OF PEOPLE LOL". Look up the straw man logical fallacy. I think you'll fine it interesting.

Yes, MBTI is based upon types, and which type you *best* fit under, of course they accuracy of the typing will vary with different people, and the interpretations of the theory will very too, you need to calm down try to understand this. Also learn the difference between stereotype and type. 

Okay wow, it's hard to address some of these arguments when they're surrounded with such melodrama, but I will try with this last one. If you've noticed, there tends to be a very specific way in which certain types tackle issues and problems, a great number of ENFJs will disagree with solutions that an INTJ produces because they do not have someone else's feelings in mind. And yes, MBTI is about preference for different modes of thought, whether or not MBTI is useful or not is besides the point. Though, if you want to argue that, then yes, a sense of identity is a big part of personality typology as a whole. Why do you think you're currently signed up on a website with the slogan "The Place to Discover Yourself", and why do you think you've typed yourself as an INFJ? Question yourself, then others.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

stiletto said:


> While I can agree to most of your points (namely that MBTI has frequently been reduced to a horoscope-esque excuse machine), I do disagree with the functions stacking being useless. The intended purpose of Isabel Myers and her daughter was to refine Jung's theories to express that all "types" are equal. It is intended to be a developmental tool. So *function stacking is to be used as an INDICATOR of your likely type*. It, by no means, dictates your type.


Not to take away from your overall point, but this claim is inaccurate. MBTI does not _indicate_ type based on function stack. It is based on the dichotomies.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

My responses in *blue*.



lilac_flowers said:


> Yesterday I was talking about MBTI, considering it still as valid, or not. I come to a logical, rational conclusion it's shit. I invest time and effort into putting emotional coloring into my presentation here to make it more interesting to read..._ Conclusion: I'm emotional. _*Conclusion: While it is more interesting to read, it does little to convincingly present your thoughts (which indeed do have merit) to your audience. You are essentially impeding your own purpose. You claim that you've reached a logical, rational conclusion, but that itself is subjective. So while your presentation may be logical, it wasn't necessarily rational.*
> 
> You, supposed Te dominant, low Fi user take a little look, get IMMEDIATELY butthurt and write a brief EMOTIONAL, immediate spiteful remark about how I'm emotional and that bothers you to be able to read this at all, so you'll have to take time to read my emotional dribble later... All because YOU got got butthurt.
> Of course ignoring observable reality of principles of advertising (your supposed Te) that clearly shows how boring and unreadable a wall of text would have been and how little people would have read it had I done it "unemotionally" as you supposedly prefer it. (Which as a human being, you don't. You're just playing into your type.)
> ...


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Not to take away from your overall point, but this claim is inaccurate. MBTI does not _indicate_ type based on function stack. It is based on the dichotomies.


I stand corrected. I would be referring to the usage of the stacking of cognitive functions (function strength) that maybe used to point to a likely MBTI type (function preference).


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

Look at me, talking to an INFJ about tact. If that's not out of stereotyping I dunno what is. :laughing:


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

lilac_flowers said:


> No.. I have impregnated my responses with emotion to make them more palatable-readable and candid.
> I however NEVER came from emotion. I base my reasoning on reality and maintain logical consistency.
> 
> You on the other hand are the ones who are ACTUALLY being emotional and showing it trough INTELLECTUALLY DISHONESTY -> Meaning: You're pointing out my emotion in order to dismiss me, instead of BEING ON POINT like "thinkers" you claim you are.
> ...


How? Regardless who ever referred to them as skills? Where did you hear that? Bs anyway but at least knock down the right thing.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

stiletto said:


> People have been reading into cognitive functions and their stackings way too rigidly when it is meant as a base to grow from.


Because it's not a base to grow from. It's a theory that claims itself to be able to observe the core of your personality.



> Using a video game analogy: Your default character may be predisposed to INT (intelligence)...However...


Which is an excuse whenever reality renders the MBTI model useless. "Oh you're just developed, but you're still what I say you are."
Bullshit.



> Why is this valid? and Why is this useful? If it valid because everyone has a strength and a preference (which we cannot confuse).


Which I agree with, but that doesn't validate MBTI function stacking whatsoever.



> Finding your type is useful because it is an anchor in which you can measure your relative functions.


Which is: make excuses, disregard standards of excellence, build identity, feel unique...
Nothing practical is born from "measuring your relative functions".



> What you've illustrated (quite well), is the trap many people can fall into. By using their MBTI as an excuse to be a a certain way/stereotype. I've seen it quite often, where ENTJs assume it's okay to be an asshole.


You demonstrated it two pages ago by complaining about my emotional and colorful post as if you'd be happier with a boring wall of text, all to play into your "intellectual" type.



> Conversely, we can also say that these types are underdeveloped. And in which case, the exact reason why they should continue to use the MBTI typing system to grow.


Which WON'T happen. Once they build an identity and community around this bullshit, they will forgo standards of excellence, observation of which is the ONLY thing that can actually help them "improve".

You won't improve if I call you an introverted feeler. (i.e. I am allowing you to be different)
You will improve if I call you a neurotic, repressed, basement-dwelling loser. (i.e. I am informing you you are FAILING)



> If they are fortunate enough to realize it (from what I can see, the MBTI community is generally able to help others reach these conclusions, although efficiency is left to be desired), they can gain quite a few benefits from using the system appropriately.


That's how Muslim apologists sound whenever someone mentions terrorists. Or Christian apologists when you bring up killings in the first testament.

A shit theory produces shit results. Nothing more to it.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

lilac_flowers said:


> Because it's not a base to grow from. It's a theory that claims itself to be able to observe the core of your personality.


This claim is false. MBTI type theory makes no such assertion.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

SmashingAllMyWindows said:


> Well, that video gave my cancer, what horrible conservative drivel, I've seen other videos by the same people, they never cease to amaze with their intellectually inept 'academia'.


So you're an intellectually dishonest person who immediately dismisses new information because of a preconceived bias about the authors of said information.



> Also, I don't understand the point you're making at all, if someone (as I mentioned before), gives a theory a context, it's an excuse?


I'm just an introverted thinker. -> Feel-good, we're all different, kumbaya EXCUSE.
You're a tinfoil hat out of touch with reality. -> DESCRIPTION of failure to meet ONE standard of intellectual excellence.

I'm just an introverted feeler. -> Feel-good, we're all different, kumbaya EXCUSE.
You're a neurotic, repressed, socially incompetent loser. -> DESCRIPTION of failure to meet ONE standard of social excellence.

I'm just an extroverted sensor. -> Feel-good, we're all different, kumbaya EXCUSE.
You're an aggressive, tacktless, impulsive cunt no one want around. -> DESCRIPTION of failure to meet ONE standard of physical and social excellence.

That how it's an excuse.
By forgoing the one standard of excellence of what is good and virtuous and replaying it with "I'm different", you don't realize when you're FAILING. You're NOT "different", you just suck at something and knowing it is the FIRST AND ONLY(out of the two) thing that will help you reach virtue and higher skill.



> The problem is, you want to theory applied in a way that exactly fits someone, that cannot happen within any psychological theory, at all, including disorders. It's like saying: well Billy only has 5/7 of the criteria for schizophrenia, so he obviously doesn't have any kind of schizophrenia and anyone that says he does is intellectually lazy!


Lots of psychology is pseudointellectual bullshit. But this is MBTI as a topic here.
Though I don't mean schizophrenia, symptoms for that are very accurate, observable and valid measures of a disorder.



> And yes, of course it influences the test, that's why you need better testing measures in order to eliminate questions that specifically ask: "DO YOU LIKE BEING IN CONTROL OF PEOPLE LOL". Look up the straw man logical fallacy. I think you'll fine it interesting.


When I say "test" I mean THE ENTIRE TYPING PROCESS. Not just the written test alone.



> Okay wow, it's hard to address some of these arguments when they're surrounded with such melodrama, but I will try with this last one.


More bitching to make yourself sound superior before actually addressing an argument. What were you again? INTP?



> If you've noticed, there tends to be a very specific way in which certain types tackle issues and problems, a great number of ENFJs will disagree with solutions that an INTJ produces because they do not have someone else's feelings in mind.


I don't dispute people have different views on how to handle reality and react to it. I'm disputing MBTI can tell you anything valuable about it. 



> And yes, MBTI is about preference for different modes of thought, whether or not MBTI is useful or not is besides the point.


That IS the point. It's not only useless, it's HARMFUL!



> Though, if you want to argue that, then yes, a sense of identity is a big part of personality typology as a whole. Why do you think you're currently signed up on a website with the slogan "The Place to Discover Yourself", and why do you think you've typed yourself as an INFJ? Question yourself, then others.


I did both, that's why I'm able to speak competently in order to support my claims.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

My responses in *blue*.



lilac_flowers said:


> Because it's not a base to grow from. It's a theory that claims itself to be able to observe the core of your personality.
> 
> *Not quite. That's how science works. You make a theory, make observations and note any patterns and consistencies. If there are inconsistencies, you note them and adjust accordingly. If something has displayed consistency, you can then use that as a basis for growth.
> 
> ...


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

stiletto said:


> Look at me, talking to an INFJ about tact. If that's not out of stereotyping I dunno what is. :laughing:


You're fueling this, you should start acting like a purported ESFJ, that's the only way to throw this off course.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> You're fueling this, you should start acting like a purported ESFJ, that's the only way to throw this off course.


I don't know how ESFJs act. :laughing:


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

stiletto said:


> My responses in *blue*.


I don't care, it's too dumb to address. It will come down to, yes it is, not it isn't "debate". My life is finite, I can't waste so much time.

So no it's isn't btw. 

Also learn to quote.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

stiletto said:


> I don't know how ESFJs act. :laughing:


Get some bible quotes and say evolution isn't science. 


> Logical examples
> Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage and the staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation. Moreover, some non-creationists claim that beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, that is, beauty is a human concept. This is not true because many animals, such as elephants, have been seen to respect beauty (albeit in their own way).
> Evolution predicts that human intelligence should increase over time, when in fact all evidence is that it is decreasing: declining SAT scores, shortening attention spans, and increasing mental problems.
> The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Maybe it might just be because of global warming. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely. Also, if global warming is man made, then the earth should've supposedly been cooler millions of ago. Cold enough that animals could not have survived. Therefore, either evolution or global warming must be false (or both, which is the most logical scenario).
> ...


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

lilac_flowers said:


> I don't care, it's too dumb to address. It will come down to, yes it is, not it isn't "debate". My life is finite, I can't waste so much time.
> 
> So no it's isn't btw.
> 
> ...


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Get some bible quotes and say evolution isn't science.


I. Can't. Do. That. :angry:


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> What experts? "Experts" would only mildly take time to analyze the merit of the dichotomy tests. They would not bother with the functions because they are unfalsifible abstractions based not on research, but on a single man's ambiguous writings.


Look around the typing community. Functions and descriptions are first. Letters last. I won't sit here posting hunders of links because all you do is get butthurt, sit there and go: "oh that's wrong, that too"... 

Look for yourself!

When you said if I explained "skill" to you you'll stop seeing this as intellectually dishonest, you didn't mean it. You just thought you had this great argument that would catch me off guard and destroy foundation of my claims. When I backed up my stuff and explained it so it CONSISTENTLY fit into all I am saying because I knew from the get go what I'm talking about...
Instead of being able to accept it and concede the accuracy of my definition, and then act according to you promise, you immediately went onto dismissing, circling around "my definition", all because you had no intention to look from any other perspective in the first place.

Seriously, you're the epitome of an intellectual dishonest LIAR.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

lilac_flowers said:


> Look around the typing community. Functions and descriptions are first. Letters last. I won't sit here posting hunders of links because all you do is get butthurt, sit there and go: "oh that's wrong, that too"...
> 
> Look for yourself!
> 
> ...


That would really hurt me if I wasn't responding to dishonesty with dishonesty. Lawl
So you forgot the real part where you align your views of what MBTI is with what MBTI is.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> That would really hurt me if I wasn't responding to dishonesty with dishonesty. Lawl
> So you forgot the real part where you align your views of what MBTI is with what *I want MBTI to be because it makes me feel important*.


Fixed.


----------



## Deejaz (Feb 19, 2014)

you're really coming out as quite erratic. I wonder what's behind all the passion.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

Deejaz said:


> you're really coming out as quite erratic. I wonder what's behind all the passion.


Reason and reality.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

lilac_flowers said:


> Fixed.


I feel you, I don't have the courage to be openly narcissistic in claimed territory. Well that's that, we had our fun but now I must find another woman to eat dinner with.


----------



## Deejaz (Feb 19, 2014)

lilac_flowers said:


> Reason and reality.


I know this has already been asked, but what do you hope to achieve? If it is that you want to raise awareness.. I think that you have done it, you've made your point. There is some sense in what you write, and it's others choice if they want to take it or leave it.. and I think it's best to leave it at that. Don't you?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Thread closed.

Too many personal attacks.


----------

