# This is how the MBTI types and the real cognitive functions match



## Akhromant (Nov 26, 2019)

Hi 

This is probably going to be my one and only post here (I've registered just for this). I won't reply to comments here, either. If anyone wants to read about this, and then maybe ask/comment, you can find me at akhromant.tumblr.com (you don't need an account to send messages there), but first make sure to check the index, read the texts/links carefully (even several times), and think things over, please. This requires some time (not just a few hours) because most people are too used to the widespread misconceptions, and the needed reevaluation is not easy (also, many people make a living out of them, or have their sense of "identity" built around them, so they basically can't/won't ever admit that they have been wrong all this time). Some important posts are #01, #13, #19 and #25 (but also #24, #31, #35, #59, etc). There are also lists, tables (including the Socionics correlation), and even some memes 

This is a very brief summary of the problem: what the famous e-i-e-i/i-e-i-e "stacks" call "functions" are not what Jung discovered and described in his book. They are not functions, but behavioral traits that correspond to different pairs of letters:

Their "Te" is not the real extraverted thinking, but a mix of TJ-traits.
Their "Fe" is not the real extraverted feeling, but a mix of FJ-traits.
Their "Se" is not the real extraverted sensation, but a mix of SP-traits.
Their "Ne" is not the real extraverted intuition, but a mix of NP-traits.
Their "Ti" is not the real introverted thinking, but a mix of TP-traits.
Their "Fi" is not the real introverted feeling, but a mix of FP-traits.
Their "Si" is not the real introverted sensation, but a mix of SJ-traits.
Their "Ni" is not the real introverted intuition, but a mix of NJ-traits.

The real cognitive functions are different (for example: Fi is not about "emotions", Si is not "memory", Ni is not about "the future", etc). There is a second group of people that have a sense of what [some of] the functions are, somehow, but they use those same mistaken "stacks", so they mistype everybody (I talked about this in post #58). They should be using the correct function arrangements of the types, which are as follows:

*ESTJ is Te-Se-Ni-Fi
ENTJ is Te-Ne-Si-Fi
ESFJ is Fe-Se-Ni-Ti
ENFJ is Fe-Ne-Si-Ti
ESTP is Se-Te-Fi-Ni
ESFP is Se-Fe-Ti-Ni
ENTP is Ne-Te-Fi-Si
ENFP is Ne-Fe-Ti-Si
ISTJ is Ti-Si-Ne-Fe
INTJ is Ti-Ni-Se-Fe
ISFJ is Fi-Si-Ne-Te
INFJ is Fi-Ni-Se-Te
ISTP is Si-Ti-Fe-Ne
ISFP is Si-Fi-Te-Ne
INTP is Ni-Ti-Fe-Se
INFP is Ni-Fi-Te-Se*

Most people are going to reject this, I know, but that's how the types and the real functions match. That's how everything fits.

There is a third group of people (the smallest in number of the three, of course) that have found this, usually by themselves, after reading and thinking a lot about these things. Maybe you can be one of them


----------



## LonelySpaceEmperor (Jan 4, 2018)

This is accurate if we go by Jung's actual work and definitions of the Cognitive Functions. Although Jung never spoke of a stack.

However, the cognitive functions have never translated well into MBTI, at least when there is a certain stack involved


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Good to see someone who gets it, been trying to explain this here for months and no, most people don't wanna hear it. You've done a lot of work on ur blog I see, gg:wink:

Behaviorally, there are many similarities between MBTI J and Jung's Introversion and P->E respectively so I try to communicate it like that, though it's not a correlation that affects everyone due to the nature of MBTI mixing things a lot.


----------



## Varyafiriel (Sep 5, 2012)

Yes, according to Jung, the introverted feeler with intuition is the socionics INFj and the MB INFJ. But the MB „functions“ are defined in a different way. MB-Fi isn‘t the introverted feeler, like Jung described it. The Neo-Jungian (MBTI) Fi is just a combination of IF+FP. That‘s the reason, why INFJs see themselves as Ni-doms, because the Ni-definition is a combination of IN+NJ.


----------



## Fennel (Jan 11, 2017)

Thank goodness, someone who gets it!

I hate the format of Tumblr though... Wish you had a separate website for that.


----------



## haato (Feb 19, 2019)

This is really intriguing stuff! I've always thought of the functions in the way that most MBTI sites describe them. Never realized how inaccurate I was...

EDIT: Read through OP's Tumblr and found nothing useful on what the "true" definitions on the functions are. I only found a bunch of posts that essentially boil down to the following statement: MBTI and Socionics are wrong; my model, which is my interpretation of the original Jungian theory, is correct and that is absolute fact. Perhaps that's the way it came across to me, but feel free to read for yourself.

Don't get me wrong; I'm still open to the idea, but with no substantial evidence I'm left skeptical of the proposed "stack" in the first post.


----------



## Jaycen (Sep 27, 2013)

Seems very similar to C.S. Joseph's descriptions, based on Dr. John Beebe and Dr. Linda Beren's work.

Except he uses function stacks, but also talks about cognitive axes and introverted-extroverted flow/attractions.

So far, I don't see how what you've posted is any different, other than stating it's all wrong, but then correlating it the same way.

If I'm missing something, I'd love to hear the critique.

**EDIT**
Reading your work is like listening to Global Warming/Cooling alarmists. There's no room for debate - you're right. Everyone else is wrong.

That's not how science works, not even social science.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Jaycen said:


> Seems very similar to C.S. Joseph's descriptions, based on Dr. John Beebe and Dr. Linda Beren's work.
> 
> Except he uses function stacks, but also talks about cognitive axes and introverted-extroverted flow/attractions.
> 
> ...


afaik those people base their models on the typical alternating Grant-Brownsword stack and not Jung's premises as outlined by OP's model, so they're very different.

For example, they claim an ENP type will have their adaptability disrupted by their auxiliary being a different attitude (verbatim by Beebe in an interview), while Jung did not believe that's the case, as the attitude drives the personality and both conscious functions. These conclusions were drawn due to Myers basically changing what the attitude means for the judging functions.


----------



## Jaycen (Sep 27, 2013)

I get that he refutes the stack model. Still, assigning a priority and ranking system allows a quick stack creation, so it seems like we're just refusing the translation to an info-graphic and calling it something else.

Per my initial response, explicitly stating the functions are linked on an axis isn't wrong. It maintains OP's assertion. Displaying the alternating functions - to me - helps when considering each as more optimistic or more pesimistic. That doesn't seem to change the original as much as it's a visual and mental aid.

I didn't think Beebe's work was based on Myers' work.


----------



## haato (Feb 19, 2019)

Jaycen said:


> **EDIT**
> Reading your work is like listening to Global Warming/Cooling alarmists. There's no room for debate - you're right. Everyone else is wrong.
> 
> That's not how science works, not even social science.


That's honestly what I had thought as well, as I was looking for in-depth descriptions for the original Jungian functions (or at least the model). Instead I got multiple posts that basically addressed how MBTI and Socionics are invalid and have warped the model into a more inaccurate version. Not what I was hoping for, but still glad that OP made me consider reframing my definitions of the functions.


----------



## Jaycen (Sep 27, 2013)

Yeah, I wanted to read WHY everyone else is wrong.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

The why is because Jung's observations and premises on Extraversion and Introversion were changed by Myers and the rest. There's a thread for that in the Jungian Theory forums.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Huh interesting


----------



## Jaycen (Sep 27, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> The why is because Jung's observations and premises on Extraversion and Introversion were changed by Myers and the rest. There's a thread for that in the Jungian Theory forums.


Jungian Theory forums?


----------



## ReliK (Feb 24, 2019)

What are the function descriptions in this supposedly 'correct' model? 

Because, despite whose theory says what, it's quite obvious from real-life interactions that certain MB types use certain functions.
Every ESTJ I've known clearly uses what would be generally described or known as, Si and not anything even close, to what Ni looks like. Same with all the rest. Look at the number of posts/descriptions from INFP's looping Fi-Si (a strong focus on the past, and anxious focus on the future). 

These function combinations just doesn't match up, with what is observable all around us.. unless as you say, the descriptions are wildly different. 

Why are you not providing info on how the functions should be defined? And why is your appeal so centered around snowflake-knowledge, drawing those who wish to believe themselves part of some elite group? 

I'm open to it.... if there's any..... evidence.


----------



## haato (Feb 19, 2019)

Jokers said:


> Hi Dissymetry! :laughing:
> 
> So we learn that you can not be introverted, thought-driven and use extraverted thinking or IST and extraverted sensation as a preference ...
> 
> ...


I just had to say that this truly cracked me up. True to your username, I suppose. :wink:


----------



## Jaycen (Sep 27, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> The why is because Jung's observations and premises on Extraversion and Introversion were changed by Myers and the rest. There's a thread for that in the Jungian Theory forums.


http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

Those are Jungs original writings? I've read the introduction, a good chunk of the introverted/extraverted section, and skimmed several cognitive functions.

It's funny. He calls them functions. He also describes them very similarly to how Chase does, who claims he took the descriptions from Beebe and Berens.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but so far everything Akrhomant rails about seems to be in Chase's work, which would indicate Beebe and Berens get it right. It also contradicts Akrhomant's assertion that Jung doesn't call them functions.

Maybe Myers gets it wrong. Maybe Kiersey does, too. But EVERYONE isn't getting it wrong, and his insistence that you can't represent an ordered list visually, as a stack, and that alternating i-e functions while maintaining function axes connections just seems like a lot of pretentious bunk.

But it's good to have the original data, so I appreciate this thread.👍


----------



## Jaycen (Sep 27, 2013)

ReliK said:


> What are the function descriptions in this supposedly 'correct' model?
> 
> Because, despite whose theory says what, it's quite obvious from real-life interactions that certain MB types use certain functions.
> 
> ...


Yes. Every bit of this. Akrhomant conveniently skips all of this.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Jaycen said:


> Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10
> 
> Those are Jungs original writings? I've read the introduction, a good chunk of the introverted/extraverted section, and skimmed several cognitive functions.
> 
> ...


Of course Jung called them functions, you misread the OP if you think anyone claimed that. Beebe and the rest are based on Jung but have a different understanding about his fundamental premises about Extraversion and Introversion. Also the question isn't so much about whether we have or not have a stack, but once we understand what Jung observed and named E/I it makes sense how one of those are truly dominant in the personality. The reason that all those systems seem similar to Jung is because of the J/P axis having a correlation behaviorally to Jung's I/E respectively, so we can observe similar things like the need for control and acting on the environment that Js do, but the idea that their T/F functions are Te/Fe contradicts Jung's original premises, as the E attitude is more like P.

There's actually research done on how the alternating stack has no validity whatsoever, even within its own system that claims it does, you can read it here.


----------



## Jokers (Nov 27, 2019)

Ok this guy is not the one I thought. He is worse! He just doesn't know how to synthesize functions while he speaks himself about interdependence. In addition to having huge bias about the types ... This means that the functions cancel or, on the contrary, multiply the negative or positive effect of a type. He seems totally unable of imagining it. His interpretation stack is just ridiculous because unfunctional. But he is proud to think "he killed the father". In summary his blog:










Lines and lines to say nothing, except metaphors that lead nowhere. By the way, his reference is Reckful. He thinks probably to be original... But again I never had an answer from him ... Why this official nicknames on MBTI Online...

*1.INTJ**:* CONCEPTUAL PLANNER if he doesn't use mainly *Ni*-(Te-Fi)-Se 

_People with INTJ preferences are often able to define a compelling, *long-range vision*
_

*2.INTP**:* OBJECTIVE ANALYSTE if he dosen'use mainly *Ti*-(Ne-Si)-Fe

_They typically adopt a **detached* and concise way of analyzing the world and often uncover new or innovative
_

*3.ISTJ**:* RESPONSIBLE REALIST if he dosent'use mainly *Si*-(Te-Fi)-Ne

_People ISTJ preferences are often described as dependable and *systematic*.
_

*4.ISTP** :*LOGICAL PRAGMATIST if he dosent'use mainly *Ti*-(Se-Ni)-Fe

_People with ISTP preferences like *analyzing *problems and responding to crises.
_

Here we talk about descriptions according to metrics. These two guys are just trapped, because they consider the MBTI with a scientific viability, but the functions as meaningless ...

*The "subjectivity" of Jung. But synthesized with the other functions, he becomes objective in his analyzes, since related to the physical details (Si)


----------



## Jaycen (Sep 27, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> Of course Jung called them functions, you misread the OP if you think anyone claimed that. Beebe and the rest are based on Jung but have a different understanding about his fundamental premises about Extraversion and Introversion. Also the question isn't so much about whether we have or not have a stack, but once we understand what Jung observed and named E/I it makes sense how one of those are truly dominant in the personality. The reason that all those systems seem similar to Jung is because of the J/P axis having a correlation behaviorally to Jung's I/E respectively, so we can observe similar things like the need for control and acting on the environment that Js do, but the idea that their T/F functions are Te/Fe contradicts Jung's original premises, as the E attitude is more like P.
> 
> There's actually research done on how the alternating stack has no validity whatsoever, even within its own system that claims it does, you can read it here.


I'm responding to what the OP says on his website, too. I'm aware that Beebe and Berens based their work on Jung. I just don't see the disconnect that you and the OP insist is there. Again, on his site the OP rails against the stack, a lot.

The work I'm familiar with maintains that there is a clear preference by using Jung's own archtypes for the stack positions. Perhaps this translates well for me, because I'm an abstract thinker. Saying that I have Ni in my Hero slot makes an obvious case for the fact that it's my strongest preference, and that it's a very optimistic function in my case.

I appreciate that you're trying hard to help explain the OP's position, but he does a crap job of actually differentiating his work from anyone else. To assert it as incontrovertable fact, and then to proceed to regurgitate what others say, but without the helpful matrices, doesn't support his case.

I don't find anything new or paradigm-shifting in his rants, and last night was the first time I've ever read Jung's direct words on the matter. After doing so, I feel like I read a less-focused version of what I've already learned.

I want good information (Ni, Te, Fi, yo), so I'm willing to listen to an alternative view, especially if it's logical. This might be an alternative to Kiersey and Myers, but I wouldn't know. I haven't seen much from them. I do know that the OP isn't presenting me with anything new or contradictory.

Thus, his assertion that "everyone is getting it wrong" is bullshit on it's face, and clearly, he hasn't done much research to confirm that he's the only one saying what he's saying. That's my biggest problem with the OP.


----------



## haato (Feb 19, 2019)

The paper that Red Panda has cited does hold validity under the assumption that the empirical evidence that Reynierse and Harker have gathered is valid and was obtained without bias. For anyone who doesn't want to read through 21 pages, the paper essentially says that type dynamics are invalid because they do not reflect empirical evidence. An alternate solution that was proposed is preference multidimensionality, which I interpret as a theory that arranges dichotomous preferences regardless of order. For example, you could have S > P > T > I or T > J > N > E. The preference multidimensionality theory is reportedly in line with empirical evidence and with Jungian theory. The following is a quote that may explain it better:

_As an alternative, a "preference multidimensionality" model is suggested in which a type, e.g. ENFP, is not only described by properties common to all E, N, F, or P, but also properties common only to groups such as EN, NP, or EFP – that combinations of preferences are necessary to classify some qualities of people._

The following two links are relatively old threads that discuss Reynierse and preference multidimensionality. Unfortunately I could not find a digital format for any of the papers that he has written.

https://www.personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/1086778-reynierse-again-functions-preferences-multidimensionality-extensions.html
https://www.typologycentral.com/forums/myers-briggs-and-jungian-cognitive-functions/54300-reynierses-revised-type-theory.html

This is really interesting stuff, and the paper has made assertions with empirical evidence - something that OP has not done. Of course, the next step would be to gather a counterargument promoting the usage of cognitive functions and type dynamics, or prove a fundamental error in the preference multidimensionality theory. Perhaps even, both theories are wrong and do not reflect real life. What is important is that the resulting theory that at least most people agree on is valid, useful, and can be applied to people in hopes of knowing oneself better.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Jung was very dense, hard to understand, and his theory likely not completely developed (he was even said to move away from his typology later on), yet people are taking his theory as some sort of "gospel", and always trying to dismantle the Grant stack based on it. Then, you have that mysterious one-shot Capt writer who dismisses functions altogether based largely on his own interpretation of the relevant data; like the research he appealed to wasn't even looking for "functions".
His research is used to trash Grant, and then once that is done, then the functions are brought back in, but in some other order (usually this (IIEE), based on interpretations of Jung (and the JS person on YT does this with what he calls "jumpers", along side the Grant order, presumed to be separate types), or some other definition, to justify that; i.e the aux. bearing the dominant attitude.

We should be able to expand past "what Jung originally said/meant" (which BTW, is the Te perspective; which I've nicknamed "authority"; it's like "he said it, that settles it", along with the "empirical" demand). He was one man, who came up with an idea, and others have expanded upon it and made it more workable.

"N+P traits", for instance, means that iNtuition is the preferred perception function, and the perception function is oriented externally, which carries some common "traits" with S when oriented externally. When making inferences from data, I tend to look at the "object" and let it make its own implications, as it were, rather than deriving them from within (e.g. "hunches"). What I derive from within, is the sense of "truth" (T), learned individually (where it's seen as most "expedient"), which is why I'll follow the Grant/Beebe model, based on personal experience, and not the external "authority" of Jung or some other writer, and their "empirical research".


----------



## Jaycen (Sep 27, 2013)

haato and Eric B,

Bless both of you. Very well stated!


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Jaycen said:


> I'm responding to what the OP says on his website, too. I'm aware that Beebe and Berens based their work on Jung. I just don't see the disconnect that you and the OP insist is there. Again, on his site the OP rails against the stack, a lot.
> 
> The work I'm familiar with maintains that there is a clear preference by using Jung's own archtypes for the stack positions. Perhaps this translates well for me, because I'm an abstract thinker. Saying that I have Ni in my Hero slot makes an obvious case for the fact that it's my strongest preference, and that it's a very optimistic function in my case.
> 
> ...


I don't particularly care for the OP other than that it understands what me and others have been trying to explain here for a while, so I guess it's fair if you have those issues with it but in my experience so far it takes some personal work to understand the differences because Jung's writing was a bit difficult and because our understanding of functions is very contaminated by the popular interpretations. 

Thing is, Jung's E/I was something other than what Myers named E/I in the end, especially at the level of judgment. For judgment, it was basically reversed as a premise, to mean that 'extraverting' = 'act on the environment', when the attitude Jung described had an inward direction, to change oneself over the environment. So what we see, i.e. TJs do, is essentially introversion as Jung observed and named, and what TPs do is extraversion. 

Also, it's nothing to do with Jung as a person or authority, but rather that the two attitudes _ of adaptation_ he described are true and well observable and are not given the proper attention because of how things got mixed up over the years.

This thread explains more about that: https://www.personalitycafe.com/jun...ow-introversion-extraversion-really-work.html


----------



## Jaycen (Sep 27, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> I don't particularly care for the OP other than that it understands what me and others have been trying to explain here for a while, so I guess it's fair if you have those issues with it but in my experience so far it takes some personal work to understand the differences because Jung's writing was a bit difficult and because our understanding of functions is very contaminated by the popular interpretations.
> 
> Thing is, Jung's E/I was something other than what Myers named E/I in the end, especially at the level of judgment. For judgment, it was basically reversed as a premise, to mean that 'extraverting' = 'act on the environment', when the attitude Jung described had an inward direction, to change oneself over the environment. So what we see, i.e. TJs do, is essentially introversion as Jung observed and named, and what TPs do is extraversion.
> 
> ...


Thanks, RP. I think you've been fair in your statements and haven't made any of this personal. I also appreciate the links. I'm unfamiliar with the adaption term, but will give that a read.

To your point regarding I/E and the butchering of extraversion, I just have to give Chase another shout here, because he really does stick to that view. Extraversion seeks to 'consume' the introversion of itself in other people. It's more of a receiving function, whereas introversion is more of a source. Extraverted functions are pulling information into the user for processing, or to know how to act, whereas introverted functions know internally and are driving action.

So many people bash the guy over how he comes off rather than the quality of what he has to say. Most of my understanding of typing comes from CS Joseph, and the guy seems to be radically true to Jung, while seeking to build upon and refine the work, but staying pure to Jung's intent.

He bashes the MBTI as a flawed test, trashes Kiersey constantly, and dogs on Socionics to a degree, too. He just doesn't seem to get enough credit. /fanboi-rant

Thanks again.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Jaycen said:


> Thanks, RP. I think you've been fair in your statements and haven't made any of this personal. I also appreciate the links. I'm unfamiliar with the adaption term, but will give that a read.
> 
> To your point regarding I/E and the butchering of extraversion, I just have to give Chase another shout here, because he really does stick to that view. Extraversion seeks to 'consume' the introversion of itself in other people. It's more of a receiving function, whereas introversion is more of a source. Extraverted functions are pulling information into the user for processing, or to know how to act, whereas introverted functions know internally and are driving action.
> 
> ...


Idk, from what I've seen of CSJ he's one of the worst popular perpetuators of those misunderstandings, because despite trying to be more Jungian (compared to DSP for example) he maintains the same inconsistencies in the system, that show he doesn't really understand how the premises apply. The worst part comes when he tries to type people as he twists the observations to fit his system. But anyways, this isn't about CSJ.


----------



## noname3788 (Sep 16, 2019)

While the theory originated from Jung, it doesn't have to end with his ideas. I disagree with both the traditional function theory and these so-called "real cognitive functions", since both somewhat lack empirical support. I'm always open for new approaches, but I don't think that going down further on cognitive functions leads to any meaningful improvements over dichotomous approaches. Preference multidimensionality is a far more elegant and simple solution that doesn't run into contradictions all the time.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

noname3788 said:


> While the theory originated from Jung, it doesn't have to end with his ideas. I disagree with both the traditional function theory and these so-called "real cognitive functions", since both somewhat lack empirical support. I'm always open for new approaches, but I don't think that going down further on cognitive functions leads to any meaningful improvements over dichotomous approaches. Preference multidimensionality is a far more elegant and simple solution that doesn't run into contradictions all the time.


Well, preference multidimensionality will inevitably fall in contradictions if it uses the MBTI axes for E/I and J/P, especially the latter since its creation was based on how Myers understood, or misunderstood, Jung's adaptability observations. Multidimensionality is probably the closest of them to Jung's and reality. Adjusting it for the real E/I adaptation attitudes, would prob be the most accurate approach.


----------



## The Jokers (Nov 27, 2019)

Yes, multidimensionality, that's sound great... But we do not care. Because it's obvious. This is not the interest of typology. Obviously we use all the functions...


----------



## The Jokers (Nov 27, 2019)

Dears people... How can you take seriously a guy who claims that basejumpers or boxers are *ONLY *intuitive ... A guy who affirmed that Jung could have thought such a thing...

That's literally what his stack means... I am crazy or something? Why you don't laugh at his face!?

An INTJ is not a pur dreamer. But a pure Ni, is a dreamer! But, Nobody is pure Ni, nobody.... A big part of his posts are metaphors. And if he did not use _extraverted thinking_, he would be literally a stuck guy in his head. (This is already a bit the case in my opinion)
...

Now, for the love of logic, throw him excrement (virtual) in the face, thank you.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

The Jokers said:


> Dears people... How can you take seriously a guy who claims that basejumpers or boxers are *ONLY *intuitive ... A guy who affirmed that Jung could have thought such a thing...


Where did he say that?


----------



## Jaycen (Sep 27, 2013)

The Jokers said:


> That's literally what his stack means... I am crazy or something? Why you don't laugh at his face!?
> 
> An INTJ is not a pur dreamer. But a pure Ni, is a dreamer!
> .


I'm no dreamer. I built a 3D printer and got it to print with two different materials. I went from owning no guns to successfully building my own AR pistol in 3 months.

The only hobby I maintain that doesn't result in producing something is tabletop RPGs. I've played for 30 years, but I do have to admit that management techniques and team-building formats are subtly tried out on the guys on a regular basis, so most activity serves a useful function.


----------



## The Jocker (Nov 28, 2019)

Jaycen said:


> I'm no dreamer. I built a 3D printer and got it to print with two different materials. I went from owning no guns to successfully building my own AR pistol in 3 months.
> 
> The only hobby I maintain that doesn't result in producing something is tabletop RPGs. I've played for 30 years, but I do have to admit that management techniques and team-building formats are subtly tried out on the guys on a regular basis, so most activity serves a useful function.


As INTJ you necessarily have a clear tendency to visualize the future and make plans like an architect, at least be attracted by the idea. It's precisely the definition of Ni-Te-Se. A rational dream.

Build a weapon is not typically INTJ. Other rational types can do this...


----------



## The Jocker (Nov 28, 2019)

Convex said:


> Where did he say that?


Well, look at the ISTPs in his stack (no sensorial introverted thinker can use Se). So he's talking about your brothers! Your brothers!

Look at that, It's totally inconsistent, quote:

_ESTP is Se-Te-Fi-Ni
_
BUT

_ISTP is Si-Ti-Fe-Ne
_

An INTP is Se but not the ISTP...

In front of so much incoherence, I have nightmares now! In my dreams, people walk on the ceiling and walk backwards, it's just a...


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

If you're quoting strictly from Jung, there aren't 16 types.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

IDontThinkSo said:


> The essential aspect of reality is its consistency, and yet, we don't have for function to be consistent ourselves. That's why we don't last long and all sort of intellectual disorders creep in. However, we have one that comes close and can eventually be tuned to gain in consistency : the need to avoid cognitive dissonance, either through modifications of the prognosis, or the situation.
> 
> 
> The former is extraversion and the latter, introversion. The former strategy is to withdraw our prognoses, the way we habitually react to perceived events, and the latter is to protect those habits until eventually the situation rules in their favour again.
> ...



This makes sense, but I don't see it as contradicting Myers' view of I/E, to the point that we now have to conclude the definitions were reversed for the auxiliary, or whatever the new claim is.


The problems is, the "functions", and even "extraversion" and "introversion" are being treated as some conscious entities that "do" things like "making" us vulnerable, etc. But what's being left out is the *complexes*, which are the senses of "I", starting with the ego itself. So the ego will choose a dominant attitude, and will filter all of the data through it, meaning the products of all the functions. Only one of the functions will be its dominant perspective. 


But this is *separate* from what we're calling the "auxiliary" function, which is carried by another complex, whose agenda is cognitive balance, causing it to choose both the opposite attitude, and the opposite rationality (j/p) of function. We get so much into treating the functions as "things" that we reach out there and pick up and "use", but functions are *undifferentiated* until a complex brings it into consciousness. It's the undifferentiated other functions (beside the dominant, which is the one differentiated directly by the ego), that would either follow the dominant attitude, if more conscious, or fall into he opposite attitude, if less conscious. So that's why the functions might look like "IIEE", but it's the complexes that favor a differentiated IEIE. That model has stuck for a reason; not because people are trying to spoil Jung, or whatever.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Eric B said:


> This makes sense, but I don't see it as contradicting Myers' view of I/E, to the point that we now have to conclude the definitions were reversed for the auxiliary, or whatever the new claim is.
> 
> 
> The problems is, the "functions", and even "extraversion" and "introversion" are being treated as some conscious entities that "do" things like "making" us vulnerable, etc. But what's being left out is the *complexes*, which are the senses of "I", starting with the ego itself. So the ego will choose a dominant attitude, and will filter all of the data through it, meaning the products of all the functions. Only one of the functions will be its dominant perspective.
> ...


There is no such agenda as cognitive balance until proven otherwise.

There is no reason why E/I and P/J mechanisms shouldn't be treated as functions, literally they are, like the rest and couldn't be the main or auxiliary drive, until proven otherwise.

It makes absolutely no sense that only the dominant drive would be (and always) antagonizing a specific function when others are also doing so when dominating other personalities. Until proven otherwise.

And the existence of the ego has yet to be proven as well. Too many blank surperfluous assumptions, completely disconnected from the nature of a neural system, and too little reasons to give them any credit.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

"Ego" means "I", so it's the part of us that consciously identifies itself as "I" (and the other complexes are lesser sense of this). What "proof" do you want of this? (The best that can be offered, is the physical analogy I have been using, of our immersion in spacetime dividing it into the poles of the compass directions, and past/future. Of the spatial directions, there's one we're facing in (dominant, most conscious), one we're facing completely away from (its opposite; most unconscious), and the others we're only partially conscious of. 
While there's no "absolute proof" of anything; it's a good bet this is a guiding principle of existence in the universe, so our psychic consciousness might work the same way).

It's obviously the neural system that allows us to be alive and conscious (or at least for these bodies to process the stimuli impinging on them), and while that's the physical, visible part of us, our sense of "I", or our "soul" if you will, is the non-material, invisible part, and can't be "proven" the same way material items can.
What system of psychology or whatever are you advocating? It's not like the ego is only some peculiar Jungian concept unknown to the rest of psychology. (And how is simply rearranging the stacks [like everyone seems to want to do now], any more "proven" and less "assumption" than the IEIE form?)

And E/I and P/J as functions? Those are pointer variables or "attitudes", telling us external or internal orientation, and the "irrational" (involuntary information gathering) or "rational" (willed decision making) class of the function (and in the Myers use, which one is oriented externally, so that we would know what the E or I was pointing to as the dominant.


----------



## KorpzPheiding (Apr 10, 2019)

This makes sense to me - what about life, organic matter and whatever else is so systematic that it falls within a system 100% of the time. What's difficult about multi-dimensionality is that it's essentially chaos and anyone's theory is trying to make order out of the chaos.

Should there be ranked-choice personality tests? That'd be interesting to ponder - questions having 8 different answers, at least.

I'm still of the opinion that we focus too much on singular functions, when they more than likely work in tandem with another (using conventional coding, you can't have Ne without Si; also assert that you can't Si anything without Ne'ing something. The difference with some is how much or little they Ne:Si). Because of our limited consciousness and/or self-awareness, we can't determine what's affecting us subconsciously to drive the actions we've taken physically.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@Akhromant

Were you planning to come back and defend your assertions, or just drop the bomb and run away?


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Jung did not create any cognitive stack. Jung stated his work was purely pragmatic in the sense that it is not an attempt to explain reality, but to navegate human psychological dynamics.
MBTI, and the cognitive stack we are accostumed to, has it's own dynamics and it is a "map" to help people grow. Jung stated that balancing Introversion/Extroversion is important. So it makes sense to me that the cognitive stacks of MBTI presents an introverted function as the auxiliary of the extroverts and an extroverted funtion as the auxiliary of the introverts. As far as I know, it did not became clear in Jung's work, what was the attitude of the auxiliary function. For some reason Briggs and Myers opted for this arrangment.
Engaging more and more in Extroverted functions is what would make an extrovert unhealthy. So I agree that the cognitive stack should present itself the way it is, because it stimulates people to balance the two attitudes.

On top of that, from my personal experience, I really do connect with the *Fi* of the xxFPs and they connect with mine. But I don't connect with the ExFJs *Fe*. I can see it and understand it, but I truly don't connect with it. The most commonly used cognitive stacks work incredibly fine in my world. Not just helping me to understand myself but also because I do spot the stack in other people. I find it briliant.


----------



## LonelySpaceEmperor (Jan 4, 2018)

The idea of a stack, or an "order of cognitive operations" is unbelievable to me. Look at the cognitive test results of different people with the same type; although there is somewhat of a pattern the order is usually never the same. 

I also support the notion that if you prefer to perceive (i.e. use a perception function primarily, e.g. Introverted Intuition) you are a perceiver.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

LonelySpaceEmperor said:


> The idea of a stack, or an "order of cognitive operations" is unbelievable to me. Look at the cognitive test results of different people with the same type; although there is somewhat of a pattern the order is usually never the same.


Jung actually stated something similar.



> I also support the notion that if you prefer to perceive (i.e. use a perception function primarily, e.g. Introverted Intuition) you are a perceiver.


That's Socionics, not MBTI. MBTI is based on dichotomies, not functions. MBTI + functions is an internet thing and not real MBTI.

Remember, there is no such thing as functions with MBTI. Your four letters are what matter. Bebe and Berens try to use MBTI and cram some functions with it, but it just ends up being an ungodly, useless mess of a theory. Much like Socionics' theory. The most value Socionics brings are empirical evidence that some intertype relational trends exist. However weak those relational trends are though.

Edit: When I say that relational trends do exist, I mean that trends do exist that people of one type will tend to get along better or worse with another type. For example, ENTJ and INTP relationships tend to be very productive. Same with say ESTJ and ISTJ as well as ESTP and ISTP. This is, according to Socionics completely contrary to the theory, which is why I think it's a theory that doesn't do a good job at achieving what it set out to do because evidence seems to refute that stuff like quadras are real. Evidence suggests quadras aren't. You're getting along or not getting along with the person, not the type.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

LonelySpaceEmperor said:


> The idea of a stack, or an "order of cognitive operations" is unbelievable to me. Look at the cognitive test results of different people with the same type; although there is somewhat of a pattern the order is usually never the same.


 The "order" on those tests really doesn't mean much. Type is the first two functions only, and different complexes carry the rest, which can be weaker or stronger according to the person's experiences. Plus, the test, and the person's own responses to them are not perfect, so those test results must be taken with a grain of salt. They give a general idea of what functions the person might prefer.



SantaScoob said:


> MBTI is based on dichotomies, not functions. MBTI + functions is an internet thing and not real MBTI.
> 
> Remember, there is no such thing as functions with MBTI. Your four letters are what matter. Bebe and Berens try to use MBTI and cram some functions with it, but it just ends up being an ungodly, useless mess of a theory.


 The functions are in the MBTI Manual. The MBTI's first and last dichotomies were used to set the orientation of the middle two, which are the "functions" (and not just behavior "traits", like they are in dichotomy-only systems like Keirsey). 

Internet discussion and Beebe/Berens may have _highlighted_ the functions more than the MBTI did, but it's not accurate to say it's not the real MBTI. There's just one person (with an advocate on these boards) who insists the theory should be dichotomies only, but that's just one CAPT writer little is known about, who had his own interpretation on things.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Eric B said:


> The "order" on those tests really doesn't mean much. Type is the first two functions only, and different complexes carry the rest, which can be weaker or stronger according to the person's experiences. Plus, the test, and the person's own responses to them are not perfect, so those test results must be taken with a grain of salt. They give a general idea of what functions the person might prefer.
> 
> The functions are in the MBTI Manual. The MBTI's first and last dichotomies were used to set the orientation of the middle two, which are the "functions" (and not just behavior "traits", like they are in dichotomy-only systems like Keirsey).
> 
> Internet discussion and Beebe/Berens may have _highlighted_ the functions more than the MBTI did, but it's not accurate to say it's not the real MBTI. There's just one person (with an advocate on these boards) who insists the theory should be dichotomies only, but that's just one CAPT writer little is known about, who had his own interpretation on things.


Well, there's a difference between theory and practice. I haven't looked at an MBTI book in maybe 20 years and a practitioners guide in a bit less, but I recall that functions are only mentioned in the MBTI manual as an explanation but not used in practice. In practice, only a person's letters matter in explaining a persons' type. If CAPT argues that only dichotomies matter, then that organization is simply taking a practice over theory approach. Which can be beneficial if you're explaining MBTI to someone who knows absolutely nothing about MBTI and/or is pre-skeptical of its usefulness.

Talking about functions exclusively is being stuck in the educational and esoteric portion of the MBTI. Which I guess can be "fun" to do over the internet, but it isn't very useful in the end. :wink:

Take for example, the eight function model Beebe and Berens created. How is that useful in any way? In my opinion, it's not useful other than to mull over and consider. Besides, I much prefer the work of Nardi over what Beebe and Berens have been attempting to do, which to me, seems like to create a socionics-like model but with MBTI. Pointless.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

In the “practice”, meaning the administration of the MBTI, only dichotomies are used. So the functions then are like a more advanced level of nhe theory. (CAPT itself does not take a dichotomies onlx approach; I was just mentioning one writel who's ideas have been promoted on these boards, to show that it was _not_ the official position).

The functions _are_ useful, because they are perspectives, which show how we process things differently. Like it's really helped me understand misunderstandings and conflicts in commuticating with NTJ's, who have the same iNtuition and Thinking, but oriented differently, according to those other two letters.


----------



## AJoker (Dec 8, 2019)

Akhromant said:


> I won't reply to comments here, either.


The guy said he would come once, he came once, it's typically someone who is focus on his introverted feeling, and therefore his values. Fe are much more receptive and adaptable.


This disciple of Reckful, (according to his own admission), said:

_✸ 8) The official MBTI folks themselves have written against the use of the functions, for example in The Case Against Type Dynamics (“type dynamics” is an expression that refers to the “function stack”). They call them a “category mistake”, stating that the use of the functions “provides an incomplete account of type phenomena” and “*does not account for the empirical facts*”, among other reasons._

MBTI Online 

ENFP: _People with ENFP preferences tend to “inspire and enthuse those around them to want to make a difference” (Introduction to Type® and Conflict, p. 34). This can work well for them during conflict when they need to connect with how others are feeling. However, it could backfire *when they internalize the feelings of others* and don’t consider their own concerns enough._

INFJ: _People with INFJ preferences in conflict situations “harness their insights into how others operate, working toward harmony and ensuring no one is left with long-term ill effects” (Introduction to Type® and Conflict, p. 26). This can work well for them when trying to get buy-in from others during conflict. However, it could come at a cost when *they are so concerned about everyone else* that they don’t take care of their own needs._

The trouble is that the test gives these descrption. So how you can considered the MBTI with a scientific viability without its functional root... Why the official an current nickname of the INTJ is *Conceptual Planner* if there no preference for the extraverted thinking?


So guys, again, can you explain that, or are you stuck?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

AJoker said:


> The guy said he would come once, he came once, it's typically someone who is focus on his introverted feeling, and therefore his values. Fe are much more receptive and adaptable.
> 
> 
> This disciple of Reckful, (according to his own admission), said:
> ...


oh boi
I'll bother for the sake of others, as I'm really not sure you have any intention of going back to the premises and understanding this from the very foundation for several dupes now...

Internalizing the feelings of others is exactly what extraverted feeling does, based on how Jung defined extraversion. It's truly taking in the information from the environment and allowing it to change you, change & influence how you feel about things. When you live a lifetime of change like this, you learn to deal with your feelings and notice them more. 

Being concerned about everyone else is a way to protect who you are, to be resistant to the influence of the environment which is exactly what J is about and Jung's introversion. FJs typically try to create a self-affirming environment, by aligning others to themselves, how they feel or what they believe. Many times this behavior is beneficial to others because they're pro-social, but if they have issues they'll typically cultivate them in their environment as well.

It goes similarly for the Thinkers. Acting out or selecting in your environment to reaffirm your systems = TI (TJ). TE allows their systems to change based on new information because they are open to change and internalize new data.

All the above varies from person to person depending on how strong their E/I drive is. 

The MBTI has simply changed what the attitude means at the judgment level, that's something people see even when they don't go so far as to read Jung again, it is just such an obvious contradiction. Anyways, there's more about that here


----------



## Jokersonthemoon (Dec 8, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> oh boi
> Internalizing the feelings of others is exactly what *extraverted feeling does*, based on how Jung defined extraversion. It's truly taking in the information from the environment and allowing *it to change you, change & influence how you feel about things*. When you live a lifetime of change like this, you learn to deal with your feelings and notice them more.


Distortion my little panda, Read better:

_INFJ: People with INFJ preferences in conflict situations “harness their insights into how others operate, working toward harmony and ensuring no one is left with long-term ill effects” (Introduction to Type® and Conflict, p. 26). *This can work well for them when trying to get buy-in from others during conflict*. However, it could come at a cost when they are so concerned about everyone else that they don’t take care of their own needs.
_

You are in the middle of cognitive dissonance. What you say is therefore not affirmed by MBTI. And so it is useless to display four letters of which you do not share the cognitive foundation.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Jokersonthemoon said:


> Distortion my little panda, Read better:
> 
> _INFJ: People with INFJ preferences in conflict situations “harness their insights into how others operate, working toward harmony and ensuring no one is left with long-term ill effects” (Introduction to Type® and Conflict, p. 26). *This can work well for them when trying to get buy-in from others during conflict*. However, it could come at a cost when they are so concerned about everyone else that they don’t take care of their own needs.
> _
> ...


I never claimed I'm MBTI Fe so wtf u on about, you're not making any sense. Can you at least comprehend that the MBTI and Jungian systems use opposite terminology, so MBTI Fi=Jung's FE? Whatever. Fuck off with your obnoxious aggression, I never gave you permission to call me 'your little panda', and thanks for this fine display of actual introverted thinking. You're in so much cognitive dissonance yourself you have to divert attention from the actual information, arguments and premises, to make it about me. Ciao.


----------



## Jokersonthemoon (Dec 8, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> *I never claimed I'm MBTI Fe* so wtf u on about, you're not making any sense. Can you at least comprehend that the MBTI and Jungian systems use opposite terminology, *so MBTI Fi=Jung's FE*? Whatever. Fuck off with your obnoxious aggression, I never gave you permission to call me 'your little panda', and thanks for this *fine display of actual introverted thinking. You're in so much cognitive dissonance yourself you have to divert attention from the actual information, arguments and premises*, to make it about me. Ciao.


1. There is progress :laughing:

2. Emotional manipulation is an objective attitude. It corresponds to rally others with observable data. You would know if you used it... 

3. Introverted thinking is supposed to be an insult or something? Definitely, you do not use it. I am observant and deductive about you, yes. And I note you mention the functions when it suits you ...


There is no objective aggression from me, just a very subjective feeling from you... But obviously you can't realize it... In conclusion you are only demonstrating the reality of cognitive foundation of the MBTI my little panda...


----------



## Jokersonthemoon (Dec 8, 2019)

The more we seek the precision, the less the precision is obvious. So logically the cognitive separation is a less pratical detection than 4 letters. In this sense the MBTI is obviously more judicious. 

But the fact is that a person who has a preference for thought and judgment is more focused on long range plan and the creative synthesis than the precise and original theorical analysis. These are empirical data. Just as an extraverted thinking is logically more likely to seek any kind of mistake in external systems before the _short _conclusion than develop a intemporal concept. It is practically only that. It's a J attitude. The one that some people think often unpleasant or arrogant...


----------



## Jokersonthemoon (Dec 8, 2019)

Akhromant doesn't validates an other functions stack, and he actually concludes the opposite: "forget the functions". But as you have not read his blog, you validated his first post or he falsely presents "the real stack of Jung" ...

Extraverted thinking is not flexible, it is rigid and anti-conceptual fonction. It collects the information and then sets the plan. I know too much about ESTJ to know how much they lack flexibility. The MBTI _Perception_ is synonym of _improvisation_. What determines the perception is the balance between Ti and Se-Ne. There is no rigidity with Ti except in the concept. But the concept is itself adaptable because timeless. Ti is a judgment that closes before the action-analysis, that's say, during the creation of the concept, not during the use.

The judgment functions have not the same "weight" for the establishment of the last letter. And Jung never formulated a clear opposition with the MBTI. Simply because the MBTI draws its operation from Jung's texts.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> Internalizing the feelings of others is exactly what extraverted feeling does, based on how Jung defined extraversion. It's truly taking in the information from the environment and allowing it to change you, change & influence how you feel about things. When you live a lifetime of change like this, you learn to deal with your feelings and notice them more.
> 
> Being concerned about everyone else is a way to protect who you are, to be resistant to the influence of the environment which is exactly what J is about and Jung's introversion. FJs typically try to create a self-affirming environment, by aligning others to themselves, how they feel or what they believe. Many times this behavior is beneficial to others because they're pro-social, but if they have issues they'll typically cultivate them in their environment as well.
> 
> ...


First part, true.

Though the rest (as well as the discussion in that other thread, especially the part about judgment vs perception) I think needs to recognize the difference between differentiation and undifferentiation. All of our processing is technically “internal”, and so we all try to protect ourselves, and then defensively worry about others. We all at every moment both perceive and judge. It's the complexes (starting with the ego itself) that either confirm the subject perspective, or instead merge with the object.

I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions of “J” as “being resistant to the environment”, and that TJ is “Acting out or selecting in your environment to reaffirm your systems”. That to me looks like the redefinition, and if it's based on solething Jung said, it shows how confusing he is. To the J, “their” sytems are the external ones the've internalized, as you pointed out.

Suffice it to say, with differentiated functions, judgment is “informed“ by perception, and so that's where the J's (using Je) turn within for the information they are “open” to.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> First part, true.
> 
> Though the rest (as well as the discussion in that other thread, especially the part about judgment vs perception) I think needs to recognize the difference between differentiation and undifferentiation. All of our processing is technically “internal”, and so we all try to protect ourselves, and then defensively worry about others. We all at every moment both perceive and judge.
> 
> ...


Well, I don't think our processes being internal = we all try to protect ourselves per se. They're two different things, the first is obvious since we're an organism, there can be no such thing as external processing. I'm getting the sense here you're equating introversion=internal and extraversion=external when that's a false dichotomy imo. E and I are about how we relate to the object, to the information of our environment and how we process it.

Js having these traits is basic MBTI information, from how it's tested for you to score J, to the descriptions about them. Js prefer to have their environments planned and for things to be predictable far more than Ps do, they need to have control over their environment in ways that keep them protected from change. Those traits exist for some reasons, which is what Jung observed and named E/I, the different adaptation attitudes. The need for control arises from the 'negative' relation to the environment, the preference to be on the defensive as a 'default', as the preferred drive. Due to the nature of MBTI testing, it's not a 1:1 correlation tho, there are people who'd score J or P and not fit I or E exactly.

I don't agree that J systems are internalized exactly, they are generated from the way they relate to the environment, it's more like a system of logic that produces specific results based on that relation to the object, same as Ps have their own. Of course everyone as a kid learns and internalizes things about the world we live in, it's just that Ps often see there's more than that and accept its influence, while Js feel safe in that system and don't want to risk their positions, as a general rule. That doesn't make them extraverts, imo.

To put it simply, if you are introverted at perception, the judgments you can form have to follow that attitude, you can't just suddenly become malleable. A typical thing Js do is to set the parameters that will allow the environment to influence them, for example to see enough proof of something, before they even begin to consider. This way they can "rig" the environment to work for them and change for them. People think this is extraversion but it's not, it's exactly what Jung described as introversion = controlling the object so that it doesn't overwhelm you.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> Well, I don't think our processes being internal = we all try to protect ourselves per se. They're two different things, the first is obvious since we're an organism, there can be no such thing as external processing. I'm getting the sense here you're equating introversion=internal and extraversion=external when that's a false dichotomy imo. E and I are about how we relate to the object, to the information of our environment and how we process it.


 OK, I was responding to what I thought might be a false equation of I/E with internal/external. 


> Js having these traits is basic MBTI information, from how it's tested for you to score J, to the descriptions about them. Js prefer to *have their environments planned and for things to be predictable* far more than Ps do, they need to have control over their environment in ways that keep them protected from change. Those traits exist for some reasons, which is what Jung observed and named E/I, the different adaptation attitudes. The need for control arises from the 'negative' relation to the environment, the preference to be on the defensive as a 'default', as the preferred drive.


That way of putting it is more familiar to me. I had probably never heard it termed as “*resistance*” to the environment.

So you're equating “J” with Ji rather than Je based on “resistance to the environment”. 
Again, I think it's on the _perception_ level where this “resistance“ occurs for J's, and so their response then is for their judgment function complex to merge with the environment, to order it according to the subjective perception. If both preferred functions were the same attitude, you wouldn't have this balance. Like this supposed PiJi “J“ type would have no desire to order the environment; they would just shut out the environment completely and both observe and order only their inner thoughts and feelings.



> I don't agree that J systems are internalized exactly, they are generated from the way they relate to the environment, it's more like a system of logic that produces specific results based on that relation to the object, same as Ps have their own. Of course everyone as a kid learns and internalizes things about the world we live in, it's just that Ps often see there's more than that and accept its influence, while Js feel safe in that system and don't want to risk their positions, as a general rule. That doesn't make them extraverts, imo.
> 
> To put it simply, if you are introverted at perception, the judgments you can form have to follow that attitude, you can't just suddenly become malleable. A typical thing Js do is to set the parameters that will allow the environment to influence them, for example to see enough proof of something, before they even begin to consider. This way they can "rig" the environment to work for them and change for them. People think this is extraversion but it's not, it's exactly what Jung described as introversion = controlling the object so that it doesn't overwhelm you.


 I can identify with some of that, as a P. Some of this “control” issue I believe is from the “structure vs motive” dimension of the Keirsey temperaments. Both NT and SJ are “structure” focused, which carries a low tolerance of being controlled. NTP's are the anomaly, as the only structure focused P's. Otherwise, that factor will pretty much follow J/P. (with the other exception, of the NFJ's being the only motive focused J's).

Otherwise, I still say it's the different complexes working together, particularly the ones carrying the dom. and aux. functions. These will work together, and for J's, the one carrying the introverted perpective will “resist” the environment like that, and the one carrying the extraveted one will then move to “control it before it controls you”.


----------



## Joker On The Moon (Dec 9, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> To put it simply, if you are introverted at perception, the judgments you can form have to follow that attitude, you can't just suddenly become malleable.


Yes that why (Ni) types are J...


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Eric B said:


> So you're equating “J” with Ji rather than Je based on “resistance to the environment”.
> Again, I think it's on the _perception_ level where this “resistance“ occurs for J's, and so their response then is for *their judgment function complex to merge with the environment, to order it according to the subjective perception.* If both preferred functions were the same attitude, you wouldn't have this balance. Like this supposed PiJi “J“ type would have no desire to order the environment; they would just shut out the environment completely and both observe and order only their inner thoughts and feelings.


For the bolded: yes they do exactly that, but it's not extraversion, because the movement flows subject->object. You're not describing a balance, you are simply changing what the attitude means at the level of judgment, which is exactly the inconsistency of MB stack and all that based on that. 
What you say here about inner thoughts and feelings kinda seems to me like you're applying that false equivalency and not realizing it, despite telling me you think it's false previously. Because it's not about inner vs outer... anyone, realistically, by the principle of being an organism interact with their environment and have to adapt. An example of a very introverted person, something that Jung also brought as example of SI but I think it applies to NI as well, is that they believe the world is generated by their minds, as in, an extension of themselves and they can control all of it through their thoughts and things like that. The Law of Attraction is a milder example of this.



> I can identify with some of that, as a P. Some of this “control” Issue I believe tis to the “structure vs motive” dimension of the Keirsey temperaments. Both NT and SJ are “structure” focus, which carries a low tolerance of being controlled. NTP's ase the anomaly, as the only structure focused P's. Otherwise, that factor will pretty much follow J/P. (with the other exception, of the NFJ's being the only motive focused J's).
> 
> Otherwise, I still sax it's the different complexes working together, particularly the ones carrxing the dom. and aux. functions. These will work together, and for J's, the one carrying the introverted perpective will “resist” the environment like that, and the one carrying the extraveted one will then move to “control it before it controls you”.



No one is 100% either, the point is what's more habitual, more preferred. I can't say about you, but ime, it may seem that NTPs do this when really they consider a lot more variables in their parameters, they're not rigging it the same way Js do, meaning if unexpected information comes they accept it a lot more readily and are even looking for it, many times. The key here is not to confuse Rationals with Js, T/F doms have a drive for things to make sense according to their rationale so they will get into analysis faster and more often. 

In the end you are using opposite definitions for the attitude again, it doesn't follow the premise of E/I for the E to want to control the environment, it's the opposite.


----------



## Joker On The Moon (Dec 9, 2019)

Hooo come on


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

skyboy said:


> Well I think get the argument of the OP. In brief :
> 
> The correct stacks are e e i i or i i e e , not e i e i or i e i e
> Why people can't see the second function of ENTP (for example) is Te and not Ti as they think ? Because they falsely define Te as traits of TJ. Thus, anything a person could say about a Te first (ENTJ, ESTJ) and would like to test about Te second would be an illusion because their observation of Te would just be an observation of TJ
> ...


I respect your different opinion. IMO, it is natural and good to have various explanations coexisting at the same time.

*When it comes to personality typology, there are only more convincing and less convincing systems and explanations.* *There is no single right or wrong answer. *This is not a field of knowledge where one can claim that one possesses absolute truth. Actually, no field of knowledge has one theory that is absolutely right while all the others are wrong. Anyone who thinks that their view holds the truth and thus rejects alternative explanations tends to be delusional.

My view is, this OP offers a valid alternative explanation of personality types. Their major contribution lies in the close alignment between their typing system and Jung's. I agree or strongly agree with the OP on many aspects. At the same time, I also disagree or strongly disagree with them on other aspects.

While OP's theory is currently followed by a small minority, it does have further potential. It does not mean, however, only they have the correct understanding of types.

My take is, as a Ti dom, I prefer to understand and figure out everything by myself. This means I don't follow any particular branch or group or individual. I critically assess their views. What they believe is ultimately their idea, not yours. At the end of the day, you've got to have your own original ideas and your own explanation of all these, and that means, taking anything with a grain of salt. And, more importantly, think for yourself.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

skyboy said:


> Well I think get the argument of the OP. In brief :
> 
> The correct stacks are e e i i or i i e e , not e i e i or i e i e
> Why people can't see the second function of ENTP (for example) is Te and not Ti as they think ? Because they falsely define Te as traits of TJ. Thus, anything a person could say about a Te first (ENTJ, ESTJ) and would like to test about Te second would be an illusion because their observation of Te would just be an observation of TJ
> ...


Perhaps one thing that's missing here to help you understand why there's such a difference in this typology is that the E and I aren't just attitudes for the functions, they are attitudes of a person as a whole. So there's no such thing as Te and Ti, there is T and E/I. So by preference an ENTP is an extravert and intuitive and thinker and prefers perception over judgment, the idea that their attitude will just change when they use their judgment just doesn't compute because it will directly contradict and conflict with everything else they're doing. Like, if you are open to external info changing, & updating your ideas (E) and you observe information (N) to then create a system/framework of rationale for it (T) all those elements work together to form your understanding and ideas about the world. Introversion is focused on building upon something the person is attached to but E+N does the opposite of that, it continually challenges those perspectives and tries to see them from different angles. So the attitude is as the name suggests is an all-encompassing trait. That doesn't mean one won't ever express their opposite attitude but it doesn't happen with just one function.


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

Yes, I think I understand this typology better. I've been thinking a lot lately about it and it came to me brutally that a function is fundamentally independent of the E/I attitude. I just understood it about T that I know best. One of the key questions I asked myself was : when N is primary and T is auxiliary, what does it mean that N and T have different attitudes (I/E), since the attitude is the one of the individual rather than the one of the function ?

Somehow this theory can be explained by saying there is a primary and auxiliary function, and then the attitude is about the person, not the functions. For example you will write:

N,T - Extraverted --> ENTP where P simply means N is before T.
N,T - Introverted --> INTP where P simply means N is before T. (This type is closer to MBTI's INTJ than MBTI's INTP)

(correct me if I'm wrong to this point).

The hypothesis to test (to choose between the two theories) is : considering an ENTP person (more precisely a person with N first, T auxiliary and extraverted), does it make sense to say T is attached to introversion or not especially.

For the moment, I tend to see a sort of... fundamental opposition in the behaviour of primary and auxiliary, like if they constantly go in opposite directions. I am T first, N auxiliary and massively introverted. T seems to be mine, my own tool independent to the world. I can use it with disregard of other's logics and explain my reasoning without being much affected, while N seems to be pushing me towards the concepts and insights of others in an irresistible way. Whenever I see someone suggesting the presence of something invisible, intangible, a potentiality, a larger or better concept... (N), it tends to override my own previous insight and push me towards a change in order to adapt. And this seems to be happening simultaneously, like if the brain was split in two. I tend to see something a bit similar for other types.

That's why I believe in MBTI more (for the moment), but I am actually open to this theory a lot and keep an eye on it. It's not the kind of possibility you can explore over the WE...

Anyway, thanks again for your explanation !


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Red Panda said:


> E and I aren't just attitudes for the functions, they are attitudes of a person as a whole.


Agree. Take a holistic approach. Jung, as the inventor of these concepts (extroversion and introversion), has explained them very well. 



Red Panda said:


> So there's no such thing as Te and Ti, there is T and E/I.


True. As I said earlier, in another discussion, the artificial distinction between Ti and Te can be misleading. Ti and Te are not fundamentally different. They are _not _about induction v. deduction, theory v. application, accuracy v. efficiency, etc. None of those things. 



Red Panda said:


> Introversion is focused on building upon something the person is attached to but E+N does the opposite of that, it continually challenges those perspectives and tries to see them from different angles.


Are you suggesting that introverts tend to take a somewhat defensive and more personal position vis-a-vis the world? How so? 
An introvert can also continually challenge different perspectives from the outside, this is not something just Es would do. Same also applies to different angles. Also, being open-minded and attentive to new ideas is not necessarily E but Introverts can be that way as well. 

To cross-reference, in the Big Five, Introversion-Extroversion and Openness to Experience are two separate categories. One can be an I and still highly open-minded. 

Introversion does not automatically mean one is defensive, fearful, close-minded, or timid. An unhealthy one might be.



Red Panda said:


> So the attitude is as the name suggests is an all-encompassing trait. That doesn't mean one won't ever express their opposite attitude but it doesn't happen with just one function.


Agree with this as well. 

So far, to understand E/I theoretically, Jung is the best source to turn to.

To see if you are E/I, I recommend the Big Five. If you consistently test as an I (like, in my case, ~90% Introversion in all the tests), then you are an introvert, most likely.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

lww23 said:


> Are you suggesting that introverts tend to take a somewhat defensive and more personal position vis-a-vis the world? How so?
> An introvert can also continually challenge different perspectives from the outside, this is not something just Es would do. Same also applies to different angles. Also, being open-minded and attentive to new ideas is not necessarily E but Introverts can be that way as well.


By definition, that's what introversion is, a defensive adaptation attitude towards the world - introversion prefers to build a world as they see fit and reinforce against, or avoid/withdraw from external influences they don't want for whatever reason.
I was talking about challenging ones OWN ideas, introversion will make one stop when they reach a point that threatens whatever else is connected to an idea they are not willing to take down, and they generally prefer to seek validation for theirs (aka reinforcement).

I'm not saying they are closed minded, in fact this is a term that is hard to apply to typology, because it tends to be vague and relative to the observer so I prefer to avoid it. Generally speaking I often see NIs being more open minded (if by that we mean open to new ideas) than say, extravert judgers because I think the rational attitude is what can make people closed minded due to its conclusion seeking and rationalizations but if a NI is extremely introverted they will be unable to contend with information that goes against their understanding eventually and will find ways to filter it out or reshape it to their advantage. So it's not a term I strongly tie with specific preference because I think it characterizes whole persons better and an individual isn't driven by 1 thing. 

I think prob the most valuable thing I got from Jung is this, how difficult the E-I divide can be in human relations, coz I've experienced it first hand enough times, then adding other differences on top of that makes it even worse.



> Introversion does not automatically mean one is defensive, fearful, close-minded, or timid. An unhealthy one might be.


Yea Jung thought introverts are like that but I think he missed the mark prob because he relied on psychiatric patients which created a selection bias. Introverts that are confident, self-assured etc don't necessarily experience those emotions but perhaps are more on the domineering side so they confidently move through things and people doing what they want, i.e. building social networks to support them, navigating around or bulldozing through any opposition or just filtering out what they don't care for with finesse.



> To cross-reference, in the Big Five, Introversion-Extroversion and Openness to Experience are two separate categories. One can be an I and still highly open-minded.


Big5 E/I is about experiencing positive emotions and being social & gregarious no? It's not really the same as what we're talking about here to begin with, tho they might perhaps overlap at some point.


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

Just writing a few final criticisms and I'll leave it to that. 

The point we already discussed is a perfectly meaningful question and is the main scientific disagreement between this theory and the MBTI. But there are a few peculiarities in the way this theory is presented, at least by the OP.

Not the same convention for the four letters

Since the sequence of four letters do not mean the same as in MBTI, there is no reason to expect this theory will describe the type with the same four letters. For extraverts, it's very close but for introverts, we have MBTI's INTP = TiNe (a thinker) and this theory's INTP = NiTi (an intuitive). They do not correspond to the same Jung's type.

Logically, we would expect descriptions of INTP (usual character traits, overview, global picture, temperament...) by writers involved in MBTI's culture to describe people they see as TiNe. How could these character traits suddenly be true for NiTi ? In other words, how could somebody typed as INTP in the MBTI's culture suddenly decide his type would be best explained by this theory's INTP since, logically, the closest match in this theory is INTJ = TiNi ?

This is quite confusing and not clearly stated in the OP's post.

Si vs "SJ traits"
(same for other functions)

Talking about Si is describing the S function with an introverted attitude (great post here btw : Another Discussion about Si (Introverted Sensation)).

In my understanding, SJ traits is focussing on other elements that are consequences of being Si assuming MBTI's assumptions. Anyone with Si would :

have inferior N
have judging function associated to the extraverted attitude
From this, we can deduce SJ are quite openly attached to tradition (tradition is a shortcut for the rules and values or their environment), maybe not so much because of S itself but because of absence of N (that would dig, expand and reinvent its meaning...), being more into immediate experience and expressing judgments outwardly.

The MBTI manual indeed does not contain advanced descriptions of the functions, neither of Jungian types (function + attitude). Instead enthusiasts can find them in Jung. But it seems to imply that writers being faithful to MBTI's theory would not pay attention to functions or even understand them. This sounds false in general. Jung's writing about it can be seen as a bit of a pioneering work, and the work people did to actualize the understanding of the functions sounds valuable to me.

What is unfair is reducing MBTI to short overviews of each type like :
*ISTJ : *_Quiet, serious, earn success by thoroughness and dependability. Practical, matter-of-fact, realistic, and responsible. Decide logically what should be done and work toward it steadily, regardless of distractions. Take pleasure in making everything orderly and organized - their work, their home, their life. Value traditions and loyalty._

This is just a consequence of being "popular". To be popular you stick to simple synthetic ideas for beginners to get it. Actually these descriptions tend to work rather well when describing "standard" people. They indeed can diverge immensely from reality anytime some peculiar elements gets into play. For example, an Si with ADHD will certainly not do things "_regardless of distractions". _

Calling these types "Jungian" types

These types were not defined by Jung. And saying these types would be a direct inheritance from Jung (more than Myers or other writer's work) is abusive.

But I of course I do like the idea to focus on the functions and attitudes and get further in their understanding, that *surface *MBTI culture tends of put aside.


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Edited.
It does not make much sense, upon further thought. Wishful thinking I would say. 

I still disagree with the OP in how they treated the types. INTP in MBTI is not even close to ISTJ in OP's theory (TiSiNeFe). This is not just about flipping the functions. 

If the popular term "loops" is considered, then you may make an argument that the INTP in the MBTI in a "loop" acts like a Jungian ISTJ. 

To successfully convert each MBTI type into the Jungian system as specified by the OP here, types must be clearly understood in order to find their counterparts or rough equivalents. 

To claim that the INTP in MBTI equals ENTJ in Jung would be ridiculous. Does not make logical sense to me. 

INTP (my type) in the MBTI is TiNsf, so to find the equivalent in the Jungian system, that has to be another TiNsf, which is, the Jungian INTJ (TiNiSeFe).


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

lww23 said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


J and P in Myers/Briggs MBTI is not Ji or Pe…

The J and P are looked upon in the same sense as E and I—an attitude.



> Sometimes people feel they have both. That is true. The J or P preference only tells which preference the person extraverts. One person may feel very orderly/structured (J) on the inside, yet their outer life looks spontaneous and adaptable (P). Another person may feel very curious and open-ended (P) in their inner world, yet their outer life looks more structured or decided (J).


 The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Judging or Perceiving


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Dalien said:


> J and P in Myers/Briggs MBTI is not Ji or Pe…
> 
> The J and P are looked upon in the same sense as E and I—an attitude.


Right. MBTI is a separate system that has its own rationale. It borrowed some concepts from Jung. But upon applying them to MBTI, the very meanings of those concepts, such as E/I, have changed. 

MBTI measures behavioral traits and externalizes personalities. Therefore it features specific behaviors and sees them as type-specific. The original intent of MBTI was to help people solve practical issues in life, such as finding jobs. Therefore, anything related to personality has to be externalized. By doing so, however, personalities become reduced to concrete behaviors and habits, which goes against Jung's intent for types to be about cognition.

Although MBTI has deviated from Jung, does not mean it is wrong. MBTI is a modern system that is separate from Jung's types.
Jungian types, on the other hand, are about cognition - how one treats information and makes decisions. Cognitive patterns are invisible and may not be evident in behaviors. 

Tired of seeing those with what I would call "the Messiah syndrome", who claim to hold the only truth and are eager to preach and correct others. There is no right or wrong about types. Approaches to types can vary, so you have different systems of typology. It is about the perspective everyone adopts, and each one has pros and cons.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

lww23 said:


> Right. MBTI is a separate system that has its own rationale. It borrowed some concepts from Jung. But upon applying them to MBTI, the very meanings of those concepts, such as E/I, have changed.
> 
> MBTI measures behavioral traits and externalizes personalities. Therefore it features specific behaviors and sees them as type-specific. The original intent of MBTI was to help people solve practical issues in life, such as finding jobs. Therefore, anything related to personality has to be externalized. By doing so, however, personalities become reduced to concrete behaviors and habits, which goes against Jung's intent for types to be about cognition.
> 
> ...


Was it Grant/Broward who introduced J and P with e or i?


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Dalien said:


> Was it Grant/Broward who introduced J and P with e or i?


Not quite sure. It's been used everywhere now. The first time I heard about the terms Pe/Pi and Je/Ji was from the vultology people. They use the Grant EIEI or IEIE model as well. I don't believe in visual typing though.


----------

