# MBTI Types are an Illusion



## Nobleheart

Jennywocky said:


> Do you read books?
> ...Just curious.
> 
> 
> The post should have been broken up into maybe 3-4 separate posts, but he included sensible headers (which were designed to replace post breaks); and it was actually one of the most easy-to-read and best-formatted online posts I've ever seen (and I've seen some real doozies to strike terror in anyone's heart). I did a double-take at the length, originally, but quickly ended up feeling impressed by how it was presented.


Thank you. I was beginning to feel as if I had utterly wasted my time typing that up.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

Nobleheart said:


> ar·gu·ment/ˈärgyəmənt/
> Noun: A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You are aware that a psychologist's opinion is irrelevant in a self assessment test, and that a self assessment test can only illustrate your self opinion?
> 
> I'd highly encourage you to take this test and confirm. It will also validate my stance if you don't come up Ne > Fi > Te > Si > Ni > Fe > Ti > Se.
> 
> Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes


I don't need you to educate me on what the meaning or argument is, again we are talking, not arguing. Or i should say i am  I thought it was obvious that i also typed myself, didn't think i needed to add the details. Just so there is no misunderstandings, i tested ENFP on my own many times before i got a professional test taken. I have nothing to prove to you ;p...so no, i won't be taking any test to validate your stance. LOL.

And yes i took that test already. I actually created a thread in the ENFP about it. If you want you can browse the ENFP forum , the cognitive test results are there somewhere , actually the thread was created not too long ago, so it shouldn't be so hard for you to find.


----------



## Jennywocky

Nobleheart said:


> Thank you. I was beginning to feel as if I had utterly wasted my time typing that up.


Not a waste at all; I think you have a real good way of presenting information; you know how to explain ideas in "normal speak" that anyone can follow. Good writing is clear and easy to read, which this was. 

Sorry to just "meta" your presentation at the moment, I'm still digesting the rest, which seems to align with my general thoughts about MBTI... which is just take it for what it is, and don't try to take it more as granular than it is. The general principles seem useful, but there's a lot of variation inherent.


----------



## Nobleheart

MuChApArAdOx said:


> And yes i took that test already. I actually created a thread in the ENFP about it. If you want you can browse the ENFP forum , the cognitive test results are there somewhere , actually the thread was created not too long ago, so it shouldn't be so hard for you to find.


Again, you are incorrect. You took Timeless' cognitive function test, not the one I linked. The test I linked was created by a team of psychologists, and is linked to a study on cerebral neural activity and mapping it as it pertains to cognitive functions.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

Nobleheart said:


> Again, you are incorrect. You took Timeless' cognitive function test, not the one I linked. The test I linked was created by a team of psychologists, and is linked to a study on cerebral neural activity an mapping it as it pertains to cognitive functions.


Yes i've taken that one too a few times. I posted here in different places. If you can find them, you will have the results , good luck.


----------



## Up and Away

Nobleheart said:


> .
> 
> 
> *I: Establishment of Setting*
> 
> First off, let’s break the paradigm.
> 
> *Personality type is an overgeneralization. *
> Every person’s mind is as unique as a fingerprint. While most fingerprints conform to certain general patterns, like Arches, Loops, and Whorls, each is distinct, and a small percentage don’t conform to the general patterns at all. The same is true of the mind. Cognitive process in the human mind is made up of elements in varying measures. These elements tend to follow general patterns, but to assume that any two minds are alike would be a mistake.
> 
> *The Forer Effect is commonly evidenced in people who change types. *
> This implies that personality type is more of an ideal that is aspired to than the reality of one’s mind. The descriptions of personality types are vague enough to cause many individuals to compare themselves to them rather than comparing the descriptions to themselves. With enough similarities to focus on, it is easy to overlook the parts of ourselves that are not mentioned in the descriptions..


I'm gonna go slow in digesting what you are saying. Can you explain what you are talking about as far as fingerprints and "whirls" go. I love philosophy, but as you know, there are like thousands of philosophers out there, and I probably haven't read what you have.

Also, please tell me a bit about the Forer Effect.

Thanks a bunch!  Eventually I'll be able to give ya a good response. I'm sure I will end up agreeing with some of your points, because I do agree in part with the premise.


----------



## Peter

Nobleheart said:


> Functionally, yes. However, there are a lot of assumptions in personality type that are not valid. That's what I was addressing.
> 
> For instance, all INTJs are not Ni > Te > Fi > Se > Ne > Ti > Fe > Se. Currently being Ni dominant and Te secondary (and therefore fit the INTJ model) does not mean you are permanently going to have those preferences.


This is an opinion. My opinion is that the preferences are preferences of the brain, not preferences of the person. The idea that the preferences of the order of the cognitive functions are a choice is completely wrong in my opinion (and I don't care what Jung said about that.)

People don't change. This is 100% true. However, people's priorities can change which can lead to different behavior, but that behavior is still guided by the same cognitive functions as before. I don't see any evidence of the contrary. Not in theory and not in practice. When people claim to change personality type, they are almost always INFP's. Why is that? Fi - Ne loop. It makes perfect sense.

The cognitive functions are hard-wired. It's very logical and if you want I can explain why, but it's a long explanation. (though not as long as your first post) Since they are hard-wired, their order can't change just like that. It requires either physical damage to the brain or severe psychological stress over a long period of time in order to bring about enough change to the brain for the preferences to change.


Your personality type is completely defined by the 2 first functions. The other 6, or at least the order of them are almost irrelevant. The logic of the MBTI makes a lot of sense, and even though someone can test with a different third function than what the MBTI determines, it doesn't have that much effect on the total behavior.

Personality = MBTI type + experiences. Even though you could add some physical properties to the equation, with this simple equation you have 99.99 % (more or less) of your personality defined. In theory that is because it is impossible to measure a persons experiences, which means it can never be proven if the theory is 100% correct. But why would that be a problem?


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

Peter said:


> This is an opinion. My opinion is that the preferences are preferences of the brain, not preferences of the person. The idea that the preferences of the order of the cognitive functions are a choice is completely wrong in my opinion (and I don't care what Jung said about that.)


 And if person=brain and the brain happens to be a chaotic system? Then what?


----------



## Peter

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> And if person=brain and the brain happens to be a chaotic system? Then what?


Person =/= brain.

and creating 2 conditions that aren't realistic and asking a question like "then what?" about it,..... has what purpose exactly?


----------



## Nobleheart

Souled In said:


> I'm gonna go slow in digesting what you are saying. Can you explain what you are talking about as far as fingerprints and "whirls" go. I love philosophy, but as you know, there are like thousands of philosophers out there, and I probably haven't read what you have.
> 
> Also, please tell me a bit about the Forer Effect.
> 
> Thanks a bunch!  Eventually I'll be able to give ya a good response. I'm sure I will end up agreeing with some of your points, because I do agree in part with the premise.


Most fingerprints conform to one of several types. 

Fingerprint Patterns

The Forer Effect is where people identify with a description and adapt their self opinion and even identity to fit it because they believe themselves to be whatever it is they are associating with. 

Forer effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

Peter said:


> Person =/= brain.
> 
> and creating 2 conditions that aren't realistic and asking a question like "then what?" about it,..... has what purpose exactly?


 I was just throwing an idea out there. I could be completely wrong. Anyway, what I was trying to say is that you _are _your brain. So preferences could simply be a result of hardwired aspects. Also, since the brain adapts and changes to different conditions, then it is flux to a certain degree. It may have constants, but not everything is constant. Perhaps that could account for some change.


----------



## LiquidLight

It does beg the question, does the Forer effect apply to Introverted Feeling types?


----------



## DarkBlue

1. The title is misleading.
2. It's completely OK to question the models, but you use 'Cognitive Test' to support your point? That's unnecessary and you are basically "attacking the straw man".
3. MBTI is widely accepted and the similarities among the people of the same type are non-negligible(not only the top two functions), so I believe there are some trends that Jung did not notice. Though it is not easy, it would be interesting if you are willing to do some experiments and IMPERSONAL observations. 

Please correct me if I have made any mistakes. Also, since English is not my native language, please don't overly focus on the wording, I mean no offense.


----------



## Zero11

@DarkBlue

Ti/Te Conflict :mellow:


----------



## Nobleheart

LiquidLight said:


> It does beg the question, does the Forer effect apply to Introverted Feeling types?


I can't see how it wouldn't affect anyone's sense of identity, regardless of the function used. Fe would adopt outside standards because it feels it _should_, trying to establish how the self fits in the whole and then adapting itself accordingly. Fi would adopt them because it feels it _is_, and takes in what it reasons personally before moving outward. Ti would use those standards as a measure to clarify and validate. Si would absorb those statements as customary and standard. Ne and Se could see how a description could apply, allowing other functions to adopt their approach.

If I had to make a blanket guess, I'd say Ni and Te were the least likely to fall victim to the Forer effect, which would explain why Te and Ni users are generally more immune to it than most types, and are often the reality check against it in their friends. Ni sees the truth in the chaos. Te sees how things relate in the big picture. It's only when their Fi or other functions get especially strong do they start to fall victim to it and develop identity based on being an INTJ or ENTJ.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> Your personality type is completely defined by the 2 first functions. The other 6, or at least the order of them are almost irrelevant. The logic of the MBTI makes a lot of sense, and even though someone can test with a different third function than what the MBTI determines, it doesn't have that much effect on the total behavior.


You can't look to behavior to type someone, since behavior is learned (type isn't). And I disagree with the irrelevancy you see in the other functions. The inferior function is often the most helpful to look out for to type someone accurately if they are difficult to type, since people can't consciously control it's use, and thus, it's often raw and out in the open (e.g. introverts who's dom functions don't readily show).


----------



## Worriedfunction

> MBTI Types are an Illusion


Or maybe they are rough guidelines which merely explain that some people may tend towards certain traits, but not necessarily that they will DEFINITELY possess those traits and also that they are not boxes into which people must be allocated.

This is a major fault of how people use the theory, not the theory itself. It was created to help others understand those around them, not to typecast people into lead caskets.

If you want to know something interesting, I myself had a theory on people, (one much simpler and underdeveloped than this one of course), about people being of a 'certain type'. I mean havn't you ever looked at groups of people, even from close up or from within the group and then thought; that person is this type, or this person is that type? In fact people do it all the time without realising when they say things like: "/He's/Shes/You're the type of person who...."



Fizz said:


> I don't think this site fairly represents all the types. I think half the people who identify as Ns are typed incorrectly because they don't have an understanding or the slightest grasp of what S vs N is. The ISFJ sub-forum is nearly empty and the INFJ is overfilled. I also find all the types when broken down in SP, SJ, NT, and NF rely and exaggerate their stereotypes.


Exactly :happy:.

You are right OP to some extent though. Often this theory does appear to be based off of conjecture and assumptions. But it can help somewhat for explaining why some people appear to possess similar traits, even if they come from completely different backgrounds and environments, or rather it's as good a theory as any for that purpose. 

Although, truth be told, im also a believer of the idea that if you were to travel the entire world from the smallest hut to the biggest megacity, you would eventually meet yourself coming the other way at some point.

Individuality can only stretch so far.

In any case the mentality that I believe best benefits someone when coming into this theory is: It's who you are as an individual first...the type should come second. Although someone may gain confidence from relating to the so called traits of a certain type and frankly I wouldn't discourage that either.

So long as the person doesn't go overboard.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> When people claim to change personality type, they are almost always INFP's. Why is that? Fi - Ne loop. It makes perfect sense.


This is a great observation! I've noticed this as well (and I find it absolutely fascinating in this regard that Vicky Jo, on her typology website, related Fi to multiple personality disorder, even though that's an all-too-obvious exaggeration of what you're getting at)!


----------



## pmj85

I haven't yet read the comments following your initial post - I'm too eager to say "Bravo!" 

What a fantastic post and, in my opinion, an absolutely valid take on the topic at hand. As it happens, I feel the same - you articulated it far more intelligently than I could, though.


----------



## Zerosum

pmj85 said:


> I haven't yet read the comments following your initial post - I'm too eager to say "Bravo!"
> 
> What a fantastic post and, in my opinion, an absolutely valid take on the topic at hand. As it happens, I feel the same - you articulated it far more intelligently than I could, though.


Second that!


----------



## Peter

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> I was just throwing an idea out there. I could be completely wrong. Anyway, what I was trying to say is that you _are _your brain. So preferences could simply be a result of hardwired aspects. Also, since the brain adapts and changes to different conditions, then it is flux to a certain degree. It may have constants, but not everything is constant. Perhaps that could account for some change.


Yes, but that change isn't in the hardware on any functional scale, it's in the knowledge contained in the brain: Your experiences.

And you are not your brain, you are less than your brain, at least on a conscious level. But even on a sub-conscious level your brain is more than you. This is because your brain does a lot of things you are totally unaware of, even on a sub-conscious level. These are basic things like signaling all the muscles in your body to walk, or just stand on your 2 feet without falling.

Any motor control that is on "auto pilot" is done by your cerebellum, the old brain in the lower back of your head. Only when you consciously take over, the frontal lobe of your brain takes over. This might happen when you walk over very uneven rocks in the mountains because the feedback from your feet is different every time which means your cerebellum can't really deal with it.

However, your brain is paying attention to the feedback from your body, even when your cerebellum is in charge of movement. The moment a feedback is different from what's expected, you become consciously aware of it. (stepping on a small stone for example.) These are processes that aren't even subconscious. These processes happen below the level of sub-consciousness.

That was just a long way to explain that your brain is much more than you are. :happy:


And to get back a little bit to why change of the preferences of the cognitive functions is not really possible, I'll use the example of N versus S.

An S remembers things differently from an N. An S focuses on details and sequences of details and is able to remember these details and sequences very well. An N remembers things totally different. An N remembers how things are related to each other and doesn't store sequences and many details. An N, when remembering something, doesn't really play back what happened, but will remember a bunch of "this happened because of this" and past experiences will help fill in the gaps.

Now imagine what happens when an N brain all the sudden becomes an S brain. All the information stored in that brain will look like a big mess to the S function. It won't make one bit of sense. If an N would really all the sudden become an S, he would become incapable of taking care of him self. This isn't possible because memory and the way information is stored in it, is actually part of the function so changing from one function to another is just impossible.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight

I find some of the INTJ posts on this thread incredibly disrespectful. Just because you disagree with what the post says doesn't mean you can make an argument against the poster (argumentum ad hominem).


Zero11 said:


> This is a Fe post and it just waisted my Time.


Can we not at least respect people? Is it that difficult?

Anyways, to the issue, I don't think the types are part of people at all. I think the test just shows "preferences", different shadings of types of personality. I think it no way represents the suggestion someone made earlier of a type of Ego. And then our personality consists of how that Ego interacted with the world. 

Hmmm to me that almost sounded Freudian... oh wait it is. Last time I checked, psychoanalysis was falling out of favor because most of it is *WRONG.*

Today, actual _scientists_ operate much more under applied behavior analysis (ABA -- a form of psychology which stresses a limitation of theoretical systems such as MBTI typology) for the reason that psychoanalysis does *NOT GIVE CONSISTENT RESULTS*. MBTI cannot even be used reliably in scientific experiments. Ever wondered why there was a dearth of scientific studies using it? MBTI has a test-retest rate of some 60%, meaning two out of every five people get different results when retaking the test.

The most commonly used test in personality studies is the *NEO PI-R*, the levels of consistency are incredibly high (N= .92, E= .89, O= .87, A= .86, C= .90; between .75-.9). Surprisingly, this test does NOT attempt to create "types". *It just shows things as they are* and does not try to predict hidden traits or create a hierarchy of cognitive functions. 

MBTI is quite obviously flawed in both testing and theory. Until it is scientifically, rigorously proven, it is no more legitimate than the left-brained right-brained theories of twenty some years ago. Please don't claim it to be so.



Some source material:
In 1991, the National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from MBTI research studies and concluded that only the I-E scale has adequate construct validity in terms of showing high correlations with comparable scales of other instruments and low correlations with instruments designed to assess different concepts. In contrast, the S-N and T-F scales show relatively weak validity. The 1991 review committee concluded at the time there was "not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs".

Studies have found that between 39% and 76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting some weeks or years later.

In one study, when people were asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned by the MBTI assessment, only half of people picked the same profile.[48] Critics also argue that the MBTI lacks falsifiability, which can cause confirmation bias in the interpretation of results.


----------



## Zero11

@_Tainted Streetlight_ 

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/84760-mbti-types-illusion-4.html#post2096058

I disagree? :crazy:

And when I would disagree it would be disrespectful to argue against it :laughing:

Nobleheart is highly capable but our thought processes differ, so it comes to divergences and to communication problems.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

Peter said:


> And you are not your brain, you are less than your brain, at least on a conscious level. But even on a sub-conscious level your brain is more than you. This is because your brain does a lot of things you are totally unaware of, even on a sub-conscious level. These are basic things like signaling all the muscles in your body to walk, or just stand on your 2 feet without falling.
> 
> Any motor control that is on "auto pilot" is done by your cerebellum, the old brain in the lower back of your head. Only when you consciously take over, the frontal lobe of your brain takes over. This might happen when you walk over very uneven rocks in the mountains because the feedback from your feet is different every time which means your cerebellum can't really deal with it.
> 
> However, your brain is paying attention to the feedback from your body, even when your cerebellum is in charge of movement. The moment a feedback is different from what's expected, you become consciously aware of it. (stepping on a small stone for example.) These are processes that aren't even subconscious. These processes happen below the level of sub-consciousness.
> 
> That was just a long way to explain that your brain is much more than you are. :happy:


 True, and I knew this. I just think that this is a little too pedantic. :laughing: However, the main point I was getting across is that the person is inseparable from processes originating from the brain, which I don't think you'll disagree with. While that's an interesting take on how cognitive functions could be hardwired, we really don't have any evidence if they _are_, and more importantly, MBTI doesn't have much scientific basis anyway. That's not to say it's an interesting way to view the self, but more research is needed and there is a lot of stuff about the brain we don't know.


----------



## Peter

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> True, and I knew this. I just think that this is a little too pedantic. :laughing: However, the main point I was getting across is that the person is inseparable from processes originating from the brain, which I don't think you'll disagree with. While that's an interesting take on how cognitive functions could be hardwired, we really don't have any evidence if they _are_, and more importantly, MBTI doesn't have much scientific basis anyway. That's not to say it's an interesting way to view the self, but more research is needed and there is a lot of stuff about the brain we don't know.


Actually we know so much about the brain that it's getting ridiculous. What has been missing for a long time was a theory on how it all works, and that theory exists. I think it was in 2003 that it was first presented. It's been developed by Jeff Hawkins. In the end of this post a 20 minute video of that theory. (I've posted that video before in another thread)

This theory is mostly about how memory works, but actually most of the brain is exactly that, memory. All parts of the neo-cortex have the exact same function. The only thing that's different is what each part is connected to. This leads me to conclude that how individual parts of the brain are connected to other parts of the brain and how the brain is connected to the outside world is what causes the preferences (something like F being the result of having relatively a lot of connections to the body. (compared to a T that is))


As to the MBTI not having much scientific basis,... we need to look at the cognitive functions of Jung. Do these have a scientific basis? Because all the MBTI is, is a way of organizing the cognitive functions. The scientific basis is in Jung's theories. And, to me, these are very logical. F, T, S, N together with I and E, can you think of anything else that isn't one of those or a combination of them?


----------



## Nobleheart

Peter said:


> This leads me to conclude that how individual parts of the brain are connected to other parts of the brain and how the brain is connected to the outside world is what causes the preferences (something like F being the result of having relatively a lot of connections to the body. (compared to a T that is))


N functions are highly active in the Cingulate System.
F functions are highly active in the Limbic System.
S functions are highly active in the various sensory compiling areas.
T functions are highly active in the Frontal Lobes.

However, since every human being uses all of these areas, it's quite obvious that we're using all 8 of the cognitive functions.



Peter said:


> As to the MBTI not having much scientific basis,... we need to look at the cognitive functions of Jung. Do these have a scientific basis? Because all the MBTI is, is a way of organizing the cognitive functions.


Unfortunately, MBTI makes assumptions in organizing the functions.



Peter said:


> The scientific basis is in Jung's theories. And, to me, these are very logical. F, T, S, N together with I and E, can you think of anything else that isn't one of those or a combination of them?


Jung however, simply breaks the entire process of cognition into divisions, and makes no assertions as to their organization... proving my point that there is no type, only individual cognitive function preferences, which is exactly what Jung stated originally.

So, are we going to hold the opinions of a psychology legend (Jung) or someone who didn't even have a degree in psychology (Meyers) in higher regard?


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

Peter said:


> Actually we know so much about the brain that it's getting ridiculous. What has been missing for a long time was a theory on how it all works, and that theory exists. I think it was in 2003 that it was first presented. It's been developed by Jeff Hawkins. In the end of this post a 20 minute video of that theory. (I've posted that video before in another thread)
> 
> This theory is mostly about how memory works, but actually most of the brain is exactly that, memory. All parts of the neo-cortex have the exact same function. The only thing that's different is what each part is connected to. This leads me to conclude that how individual parts of the brain are connected to other parts of the brain and how the brain is connected to the outside world is what causes the preferences (something like F being the result of having relatively a lot of connections to the body. (compared to a T that is))


Interesting video. However, I somehow think there is an element missing from his explanation. I can't quite put my finger on it, though. Maybe it's insight? It's one thing to observe and memorize patterns, but it's another thing to create your own pattern. There has to be some mechanism or system for reviewing past data in order to come up with novel ideas that aren't directly related to what we observe. Something that combines and recombines elements, takes known patterns and plays around with them, etc. Though maybe this is just a more advanced form of what Hawkins was talking about. 



> As to the MBTI not having much scientific basis,... we need to look at the cognitive functions of Jung. Do these have a scientific basis? Because all the MBTI is, is a way of organizing the cognitive functions. The scientific basis is in Jung's theories. And, to me, these are very logical. F, T, S, N together with I and E, can you think of anything else that isn't one of those or a combination of them?


 I'm not saying that they're illogical. What Jung did was simply make observations and create a very detailed hypothesis. It's not empirical, only speculative. (However, I find speculative ideas far more interesting than empirical data. XD)


----------



## Eric B

Nobleheart said:


> Carl Jung simply stated that every person has a leading cognitive function and that individual’s preferences for other functions are subjective, which created a situation where one function is dominant, another is auxiliary, and the rest ‘inferior’. In other words, Jung avoided creating the type model. Being profoundly intelligent and prone to clarifying deeper patterns, Jung likely did this deliberately. Jung also postulated that any cognitive functions could be dominant and auxiliary in an individual. He even self assessed as being Ti dominant and Ni auxiliary. The focus was on the fact that everyone uses all eight functions in their own degree and capacity, and the only reason that any function is dominant or auxiliary in that person is because they are the most used and preferred, not because there is any cause and effect between the eight functions’ preferences.


 Where did Jung say he was TiNi? He really, originally, at least, spoke of four functions, with the attitudes as separate. The ego has its dominant attitude, and then places its most preferred function in that realm. The others then default to the opposite realm, unless a complex reorients it (which is what happens with the tertiary).


> The function order assumptions of Myers, Beebe, Berens are simply that – assumptions. It also means that Thomson’s assumptions of right and left brain associations are also simply assumptions. Are they well thought out assumptions? Of course.
> So, if Jung never intended to create a cognitive function hierarchy model or personality type, where did it come from? The answer is simple. Isabel Myers, who misinterpreted Carl Jung. For example, she likely assumed statements like "As a consequence of this one-sided development, one or more functions are necessarily retarded. These functions may properly be called inferior " to mean that the functions had an established order, rather than understanding that everyone uses all eight functions, six of them less than the dominant and auxiliary. With her axis test creating the appearance of dichotomies, it was a simple mistake to assume that Myers’ model was valid, and from there we have extrapolations of Beebe, Berens, Thomson, etc. One assumption created an entire branch of thought in a flawed direction.
> 
> *III: Where Reality Meets the Assumption of Type*
> 
> There is only individual preference with cognitive functions. Proof of this is consistently correlating scores on tests that attempt to measure individual cognitive function preferences across a sampling of individuals who took several such tests. In nearly every instance, no one scored accurate to any of the type model assumptions, even if a margin of error is taken into account. For example, here are my scores from three tests, which if taken literally do not match any of the 16 type models. However, the correlation between them is significant.
> 
> Keys 2 Cognition
> 
> (Ni) *************************************** (41.5)
> (Fe) ************************************** (39.1)
> (Fi) ********************************* (32.5)
> (Ti) ********************************* (29.6)
> (Ne) ******************************* (29.3)
> (Se) **************************** (27.3)
> (Te) ************************ (24.7)
> (Si) ********************* (18.7)
> 
> Type Dynamics Results
> 
> Ni - 27
> Fi - 23
> Fe - 22
> Ne - 19
> Si - 16
> Ti - 13
> Te - 12
> Se - 8
> 
> View attachment 30437
> 
> 
> To again use my results as an example, I fall into the INFJ category because Ni appears to be my dominant function and either Fe or Fi appears to be my auxiliary function. I also tend to favor Ti more than Te and Se more than Si. All of these conditions most closely resemble the INFJ model, even though it does not match my preferences. However, if you take a sampling of people who’s scores are closest to the INFJ model, you will see a lot of variance in the inferior (as Jung calls them) functions. I’ve less INFJs with inferior function preferences similar to mine than not. Some INFJs have strong Si or Te stronger than their Se or Ti. Some have very weak Se and Si. Some have almost no Ne. A small number of them fit the Ni > Fe > Ti > Se model perfectly. The one thing we have in common is Ni dominance, and clearly more F development than T.
> 
> The same pattern is also true of other types. My close ENTP friends seem to share my fascination with cognitive function tests, and the four of them consistently score in a correlation regardless of the test they take. However, none of them have the same pattern beyond Ne dominance and a preference for T functions over F. Once of them fits the Ne > Ti > Fe > Si pattern perfectly almost every time (and got frustrated by the lack of clarification the one time she didn’t). One of them scores strong Te every time. Another scores weak Te, but strong Ni. The last one tends to score Ne > Ti > Fi > Te > Fe > Ni > Si > Se. Does this make only one of them a true ENTP? I suppose, if you’re being literal about type model, then yes.
> 
> Jung was a self professed Ti dominant, Ni secondary. Though he also claimed to be an Ni dominant and a Ti secondary at times, the most important part about this claim was that Jung absolutely believed that not only is it possible for an individual’s cognitive function preferences to change, he insisted that it was likely during the course of any given person’s life. If type model existed as automatic cause and effect of hierarchy and preferences, how could that be possible? If Ne dominance and Ti auxiliary automatically caused Fe > Si > Ni > Te > Fi > Se, how could any of those functions change places? But, if dominant and auxiliary cognitive function preferences were simply the top two functions in an adaptive collection of constantly changing and developing, then it is not only possible, it’s likely.


Again, all of this makes too much of the "eight places". Type is determined purely by the dominant and auxiliary. The other two "natural" (sans e/i) functions are *reflections* of those two. The "other four" are those same functions with the attitudes reversed. 

The initial order arises because whatever is preferred, it's opposite is suppressed. So the dominant is the most preferred (and thus "superior"), and the its opposite is the most suppressed, becoming "inferior". The auxilary is preferred less strongly than the dominant, so its opposite is suppressed less strongly than the inferior, and falls into a "tertiary" place. These functions then generally "develop" in order, as we become more conscious of them. Naturally, the less its suppressed, the sooner it will develop.

The four with the opposite attitudes are usually even less conscious, so they end up stacked beneath the first four, to show the parallel. Archetypes associated with them show the (usually) negative contexts in which they might erupt. While these roles are type specific, that "order" is not something that can be measured. It's just an artificial construct.

We must also distinguish between functions as [conscious] perspective, and as things that are "used" in the form of behaviors that then become the measure of so-called "strength", for this is where we are getting hung up in questions like this. Different circumstances might lead to behavior associated with a function becoming "stronger". This does not change the type preference.

The cognitive process tests are measuring "strength" by _behaviors_ that the questionnaire asks you to rate by how much you engage or identify with them. It usually gets the first two right (or at least in the combo that can denote a legitimate type), as these do tend to shape behavior the most. But the other functions beneath them have no bearing on the type. 
They can give clues, and *they often fall into the Thomson "brain hemisphere" order" with the tertiary and inferior as the weakest*, and the "other four" inbetween. Those other four, while less conscious, do tend to surface in behavior a lot, often in a reactive fashion. So they can appear to come out "stronger" than our more vulnerable tertiary and inferior.

For some, both attitudes of one or both preferred functions in particular may be strongest. (We see both examples in your results). These should not call into question the type preference. *It just means that your behavior leans toward the preferred functions in one way or another.*



JungyesMBTIno said:


> This is a great observation! I've noticed this as well (and I find it absolutely fascinating in this regard that Vicky Jo, on her typology website, related Fi to multiple personality disorder, even though that's an all-too-obvious exaggeration of what you're getting at)!


 I wouldn't go by anything she says on Fi. IMO, it's a greatly underdeveloped inferior (as much as she claims it's her "witch"—deeper in the shadow) that she projects all sorts of negative stuff like that onto (And then projects it onto people she thinks have those problems, or anyone who rubs her the wrong way).
So if someone is not an unemotional "vulcan", or a selfless "caretaker", they must be a self-involved, maybe even disorder-ridden "Fi-user".

In this vein, regarding Forer effects with Fi, as someone asked; yes, there are plenty of them, and this is what she's pushing to the hilt, resulting in much disputing of people's types, or confusion of those who buy it (when they see things still don't quite fit). She's very close to the Berens/Nardi circle, which tried to simplify function-attitude definitions with simple words or phrases, such as "knowing what you want for yourself" (which can be seen in the K2C questions). Hence, a lot of people probably are getting much higher on Fi than they really should. Anyone can know what they want for themselves. 
Fi is about paying more attention to it, and _subtracting_ ("*abstracting*"; this is what Jung said introverted functions do) from them the most relevant humane values in making rational judgments. (This is probably what they were trying to convey, but is easily misunderstood and taken too literally).

NFPs (of both stripes) may tend to change type back and forth, because they are less concerned with the technical definitions and categorization that distinguish one type from another, and more concerned with the more humane (personal) "wearing" of something they can identify with. If one doesn't quite feel "like them", they'll try another.
It has nothing to do with anything heading in the way of a disorder like that (or any ridiculous generalization connecting the function to one).


----------



## marzipan01

I'd just like to add that I truly agree with you, @Nobleheart, and thank you for your insightful thread. 
I have tried to say similar things in the past but gave up trying to explain it. For some reason this notion does not bode well. 

MBTI is only a box if you desire it to be one. That being said, there are plenty of people out there who are extremely consistent in their mannerisms and personality characteristics. A fair number of INTJ type 5's in my life are extremely predictable and in their mannerisms I take great delight and cherish them a great deal. I don't believe that all INTJs or all INTJ type 5's are necessarily so easy to pigeon hole but I digress. 

My point is, this message does not bode well for some reason. I'm still confused as to why that is.


----------



## Peter

Nobleheart said:


> So, are we going to hold the opinions of a psychology legend (Jung) or someone who didn't even have a degree in psychology (Meyers) in higher regard?


Don't come up with these kinds of statements because the background of the person is completely, totally, 100% irrelevant.

Do you seriously mean you judge the validity of a statement on the background of the person that said it?

What's important is whether or not what's said makes sense, regardless of who said it.

You´re an INFJ? Fe is your second function? Interesting how the MBTI actually does predict that you would have an opinion like that. It also predicts that I, as an INTJ, couldn't care less about the background of people.


----------



## Peter

Nobleheart said:


> N functions are highly active in the Cingulate System.
> F functions are highly active in the Limbic System.
> S functions are highly active in the various sensory compiling areas.
> T functions are highly active in the Frontal Lobes.


I liked this. Do you have a link where this is described in more detail?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> It has nothing to do with anything heading in the way of a disorder like that (or any ridiculous generalization connecting the function to one).


Ah, okay. Guess I got a bit carried away. She does diagnose Ni doms with the potential of being susceptible to catatonia on the same website, so I don't know if there's any bias in that, relative to the Fi one...



> NFPs (of both stripes) may tend to change type back and forth, because they are less concerned with the technical definitions and categorization that distinguish one type from another, and more concerned with the more humane (personal) "wearing" of something they can identify with. If one doesn't quite feel "like them", they'll try another.


This I've definitely noticed, especially in INFPs.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> You´re an INFJ? Fe is your second function? Interesting how the MBTI actually does predict that you would have an opinion like that. It also predicts that I, as an INTJ, couldn't care less about the background of people.


I'm an INTJ, and I have the same opinion as her about the backgrounds of the two people (I think this is why the MBTI is so screwed up relative to Jung's original ideas). In fact, I'm vehemently against trusting the "knowledge" of someone who has no background in psychology like Myers. So I guess MBTI failed you with that "prediction" of what types care about.


----------



## Eric B

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Ah, okay. Guess I got a bit carried away. She does diagnose Ni doms with the potential of being susceptible to catatonia on the same website, so I don't know if there's any bias in that, relative to the Fi one...


Oh, I never heard her link a disorder Ni. 
Looking up catatonia, it's "a state of neurogenic motor immobility, and behavioral abnormality manifested by stupor", which is "the lack of critical cognitive function and level of consciousness wherein a sufferer is almost entirely unresponsive and only responds to base stimuli". I get the sense that that probably connects more to the whole "mystical state" she (IIRC) and others refer to regarding Ni, which we "gain a profound realization from", rather than a real disorder. But who knows, with her. 
She once said to me that Asperger's was just "lack of Fe consciousness" (to the point of it being ruled out even in an inferior position, so the person apparently must be an FP or TJ, and all the INTP's who supposedly have it must be mistyped), but these disorders are much more complex than that, and I don't believe can be so definitely linked to function preference like that. They might affect the behavioral manifestation of the functions (we see that distinction once again), but not equate to one function or lack of another. 
Like for NT's, of both stripes, it will lead to perhaps an exaggeration of their natural preferences (iNtuition and Thinking; since both Sensation and Feeling will be weaker than normal). On the other hand, it can have opposite effects. Like the syndrome often leads to overly literal thinking, which is usually associated with S. It doesn't make them actually S, because you have to look at the context in which these behaviors manifest. IT might be an "out-of-preference" thing they can't help, and might not even feel comfortable with.
So she's probably going a bit overboard with these disorders.


> This I've definitely noticed, especially in INFPs.


 ENFP's as well. I think of someone like Little Linguist (I couldn't even remember the name last night), and a few others on TypoC.

There are also people who I think are on the T side who also do so, because of misunderstandings of the T/F definitions, in addition to possibly being in between in classic temperament (which I believe corresponds with type, so to be in between in one is to have less certain preferences in the other).


----------



## Peter

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I'm an INTJ, and I have the same opinion as her about the backgrounds of the two people (I think this is why the MBTI is so screwed up relative to Jung's original ideas). In fact, I'm vehemently against trusting the "knowledge" of someone who has no background in psychology like Myers. So I guess MBTI failed you with that "prediction" of what types care about.


No it didn't. You just made a choice. You´re against the MBTI and in favor of Jung. But I don't think you made that choice based on the background of the 2 creators of the MBTI.

I don't really understand why there is so much against the MBTI. It's just an order of cognitive functions. It helps to organize and make a practical use of the cognitive functions as described by Jung. It doesn't create anything new.

The only real difficulty with the MBTI is the testing. But even the tests itself aren't the real problem. The real problem is that people don't know how to answer the question correctly. Many people answer those questions from a certain reference frame. That can be work, personal life, life at the gym, life at school, etc. Then when you would test the same person every time in the same place (so the reference frame doesn't change) then you can still end up with different results because people often use a second reference frame, of which most aren't even aware of, which is that they look at them selves as they were in the last couple of weeks. (so if somebody had a negative experience 1 week ago, the answers to some questions can change.)

And then there is another thing that a lot of people do, consciously and/or subconsciously: When having just answered a question which the person considered to show a bit of his bad sides, in a next question which treats a similar subject, this person will be more positive than he really is.


It's not even the tests them selves that are flawed. The people that take the tests are flawed. They don't know how to analyze them selves properly. That's not their fault, but you can't use the problems with the tests to prove that the MBTI is bad.


And for those that do want to consider the lack of proof of education of the creators of the MBTI, consider also that the MBTI exists for like 70 or 80 years already, and no-one ever made a serious attempt to order the cognitive functions of Jung in another "better" way. I'm sure attempts have been made, but apparently, non managed to gain much interest.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> But I don't think you made that choice based on the background of the 2 creators of the MBTI.


Yes I did. However, how are you defining the word "background?"


----------



## Nobleheart

Eric B said:


> Where did Jung say he was TiNi?


It won't take much research to find this information. In print, Jung referred to himself as an Ni + Ti when discussing 'true types'.

There are several video interviews of him late in his life that address his theories on what he calls true types (dominant and auxiliary having both introverted or both extroverted functions), and he claims to be one. There is also a video interview where Jung is asked what he thinks his type is. He says he's always been a Thinking type and always been an Intuitive, as well as always been very introverted, again confirming his assumption of being a 'true type'.

Putting these two together, the assumption is that he believed himself to be Ti + Ni at that point. He never specifically stated this, to my knowledge, so this is a logical inference both that he considered these his primary functions and that he changed the order of them later in life (which an Ni + Ti user is likely to do due to the reflex to over clarify patterns that aren't mutually exclusive).



marzipan01 said:


> My point is, this message does not bode well for some reason. I'm still confused as to why that is.


Subjective Validation and Forer Effect combined with the ego attaching to what then seems like a logical explanation being incorporated into one's worldview. Basically, this is the same effect religion or politics have on many people. I've seen this effect with people who were deeply involved in astrology as well. Suggesting to them that astrology could be invalid caused quick emotional resistance.

When information is attached to one's self identity, it is by nature attached to the ego, reinforced by subjective validation in observation. Challenging these views then challenge that person's ego. Give it time, and eventually the ego can subside long enough for the individual to see possibilities that would otherwise be antagonistic to those views. However, initially, the ego will almost always seek to bolster itself against outside 'attacks'.



Peter said:


> You´re an INFJ? Fe is your second function? Interesting how the MBTI actually does predict that you would have an opinion like that. It also predicts that I, as an INTJ, couldn't care less about the background of people.


MBTI doesn't predict this. I stated that my dominant function is Ni and my Fe is my auxiliary function. Understanding how these functions operate predicts this perspective. MBTI is nothing more than attempt to box in cognitive function theory to a degree that makes assumptions which cannot contain the truth of it. 

I'm not saying that MBTI doesn't overlap the truth of cognitive function theory in many areas. I'm saying that MBTI theory is failing to overlap the entirety of cognitive functions, as well as making assumptions that simply are not accurate.



Peter said:


> I liked this. Do you have a link where this is described in more detail?


There are several sources that are currently attempting to correlate cognitive functions and areas of activity in the brain. These are the generalizations they've come to based on the MRI scans of subjects who scored strong correlation on several tests. I believe they're using MBTI, OCEAN, and their own cognitive function tests to correlate. 

The study at keys2cognition.com is one of these, and the first one that comes to mind off the top of my head.

These studies are one of the biggest reasons why I believe that the MBTI derived cognitive function hierarchy model is inaccurate. They're pretty clearly showing that cognitive function preferences are entirely variable to the individual. Sure, there are some tendencies, but nothing resembling rules. And also, if you averaged up all of the results of any given dominant and auxiliary pair, you'll likely see an average that looks similar to the cognitive function hierarchy models. However, that's an after effect, which means it's technically an illusion.

The assumption of cognitive function hierarchy in any type is like saying "white people have brown hair" because most white people do in fact have brown hair. However, this sort of thinking completely excludes blondes, red heads, gingers, auburns, and ravens from the "white people" group. According to this logic, because I have Ni as a dominant function and Fe as an auxiliary function, I shouldn't have such a strong Fi, Ne, or even Te. Compared to the model, these functions are disproportionately well developed in me.

However, if Jung was right, and our functions are simply our functions in the order that we as individuals prefer them, then it makes perfect sense that I have the preferences that I do. 

It also makes perfect sense that Fi users are more in tune with themselves, and are therefore more acutely aware of the distinctions and changes in themselves than people who rely on functions that insist upon logical distinctions and external models. The INFPs that are constantly changing types are likely doing so because they're seeing that they're constantly adapting their function preferences to varying degrees - just as Jung stated was the case. This sort of internal acuity is the realm of Fi. Meanwhile, Ti needs to clarify and align with logical models and prefers a definition to internal reality in many cases, and Te needs to exert logical relevance which again forms reliance on a definition in preference to internal distinctions - meaning that neither of these functions are as likely to be aware of the subtle internal distinctions that Fi is. 

In other words, everyone is correct, because everyone has a piece of the puzzle. The problem is that most people are under the impression that because they have a piece of the puzzle, they know where it goes better than the owners of the other pieces.

Does this mean that I think we should throw MBTI out the window? Of course not. 

What it means is that I think we should adjust our perspective of what each MBTI type actually is - and that's nothing more than an indication of our most frequent dominant and auxiliary functions with a set of _likely_ inferior function preferences that are by no means set in a mandatory order.

This is a subtle distinction, but t is crucial if we're going to truly understand what's actually going on in the mind, and thus advance this theory any further.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> Putting these two together, the assumption is that he believed himself to be Ti + Ni at that point. He never specifically stated this, to my knowledge, so this is a logical inference both that he considered these his primary functions and that he changed the order of them later in life (which an Ni + Ti user is likely to do due to the reflex to over clarify patterns that aren't mutually exclusive).


Interesting. I wonder if he meant to say Ni-Te...or his tert. function was just super developed. I do remember reading in his biography that the only thing he considered to be validly reflective of his life's story was his inner existence, which he spent time detailing in it, so there could be something to this...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> It also makes perfect sense that Fi users are more in tune with themselves, and are therefore more acutely aware of the distinctions and changes in themselves than people who rely on functions that insist upon logical distinctions and external models. The INFPs that are constantly changing types are likely doing so because they're seeing that they're constantly adapting their function preferences to varying degrees - just as Jung stated was the case. This sort of internal acuity is the realm of Fi. Meanwhile, Ti needs to clarify and align with logical models and prefers a definition to internal reality in many cases, and Te needs to exert logical relevance which again forms reliance on a definition in preference to internal distinctions - meaning that neither of these functions are as likely to be aware of the subtle internal distinctions that Fi is.


This is extremely true and fascinating! This point also highlighted really clearly why Ti and Fi are polar opposite functions, while Fi and Te are opposing, but complementary functions.


----------



## Nobleheart

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Interesting. I wonder if he meant to say Ni-Te...or his tert. function was just super developed. I do remember reading in his biography that the only thing he considered to be validly reflective of his life's story was his inner existence, which he spent time detailing in it, so there could be something to this...


I don't think he meant to say that, as I'm fairly certain he said exactly what he meant to. However, it is my opinion that Jung was a bit of a hybrid of the INTJ and INFJ models. I personally believe he was an Ni dom. His Ni style pattern recognition is the basis of all of his work. However, judging from what I have seen in his ideas and writing and supported by his inability to define himself as either model, I believe he had strong Ti, Te, Fe and Fi functions. With Ni > Ti > Fi > Te > Fe preferences, it would be very likely that Jung would consider himself a Ni + Ti true type (from the strong introverted preferences). Later in life as his Ti and Te grew, it would be likely that he would consider himself to have switched to a "Thinking and Intuitive", and he may have. I fully believe that Jung was correct in asserting that our hierarchy preferences adapt situationally, and if they change often enough for long enough, our base preferences can adapt in kind. 



JungyesMBTIno said:


> This is extremely true and fascinating! This point also highlighted really clearly why Ti and Fi are polar opposite functions, while Fi and Te are opposing, but complementary functions.


Thanks!

Yes indeed. The only element missing from this is how Fe differs from them. That's simple. 

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/44425-fe-explained.html


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Here's where I stand with MBTI at this point:

I fundamentally agree with parts of @Peter's premise and @Nobleheart's premise on the functions (like, I think there are 4 than maintain conscious perspective and 4 that aren't conscious, but show up as complexes or different forms of awareness, etc.). The MBTI tests are almost unnecessary imo, since people misinterpret the questions so badly, which I think can also tie into points brought up by both of the aforementioned people (self awareness and personal bias, but on a deeper level, I suspect that some of this could be influenced by the 4 unconscious perspectives of people, etc. - tons of reasons, basically - also, the questions are super vague often, people are afraid to be boxed in or not be like their personas, etc.). However, based on the results I saw in @HollyGolightly's thread on putting answers that are the opposite of you to see if the type you get is your true type in reverse (e.g. as an INTJ, I did this and appropriately got ESFP), the accuracy throughout that thread was pretty good (even those that were off weren't off by much, sometimes just off by the P/J, which has the least bearing on a person's type, unless you consider that they're only cognitive function placeholders), so I haven't totally lost faith in the tests (after all, as @LiquidLight has pointed out often in many of his posts, people are better at defending their personas with the higher functions than the lower ones, so I think there could be something to this, like, how biases are usually connected to the inferior function and whatnot). My biggest issue with MBTI is how it tries to predict behavior and whatnot, which should have no place in personality typing (behavior correlates with a person's persona more than their actual brain-type). Sometimes, I don't know why the MBTI is so shy about straightforwardly asking questions, like "Would you sacrifice logic to preserve your feelings or those of others most of the time?" and whatnot (this would obviously correspond to being a high F type -probably F dom - high T types, especially T-doms, would probably say no to this automatically). Instead, the questions get all vague and ask, like, "Do you use personal values to reason or logic to reason?" which is waaaaaaaay too vague and situational, since it is a contextual question (any type can do any of these, depending on the situation, since all types have SNTF functions and use them all on a day to day basis).


----------



## Nobleheart

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Here's where I stand with MBTI at this point:
> 
> I fundamentally agree with parts of @Peter's premise and @Nobleheart's premise on the functions (like, I think there are 4 than maintain conscious perspective and 4 that aren't conscious, but show up as complexes or different forms of awareness, etc.).


I think that all of the functions are subconscious until sufficiently developed. Early in life we develop one function, then another to use consciously. These are often tend to be the dominant and secondary functions in individuals for the most part of their lives, exempting momentary (or even long term) adaptation or the potential for permanent shifts.

However, in our adolescence, we begin to develop more functions into conscious levels. The significance of this is extremely relevant to determining how best to educate children based on their own cognitive preferences. For example, teaching methods that show great success with Si preferences are likely to have limited success with Se and Ne, and fail with Ni - and vice versa.

As individuals continue to grow and adapt, they eventually begin to use all of the cognitive functions consciously - ideally anyway. Sadly, many people elect to stop growing cognitively, which gives the appearance of the 4 and 4 model in many cases.

However, in my own development, I'm quite convinced that I use Ni, Fe, Fi, Ti, Se, and Te consciously. By my own estimation, Ne is peeking into conscious use, and my Si is still subconscious but developing slowly. I can remember names better than I used to, and have less spelling errors. I can easily see how both of these functions could end up conscious use in me if I continue the path of development I am on. 



JungyesMBTIno said:


> The MBTI tests are almost unnecessary imo, since people misinterpret the questions so badly, which I think can also tie into points brought up by both of the aforementioned people (self awareness and personal bias, but on a deeper level, I suspect that some of this could be influenced by the 4 unconscious perspectives of people, etc. - tons of reasons, basically - also, the questions are super vague often, people are afraid to be boxed in or not be like their personas, etc.). However, based on the results I saw in @HollyGolightly's thread on putting answers that are the opposite of you to see if the type you get is your true type in reverse (e.g. as an INTJ, I did this and appropriately got ESFP), the accuracy throughout that thread was pretty good (even those that were off weren't off by much, sometimes just off by the P/J, which has the least bearing on a person's type, unless you consider that they're only cognitive function placeholders), so I haven't totally lost faith in the tests (after all, as @LiquidLight has pointed out often in many of his posts, people are better at defending their personas with the higher functions than the lower ones, so I think there could be something to this, like, how biases are usually connected to the inferior function and whatnot).


This is almost the gist of the point in my OP. 

However, someone mentioned correlation earlier, and specifically the OCEAN test. There have been studies that suggest a clear correlation of roughly 75% between the MBTI and OCEAN (minus the Neuroticism for which MBTI has no corresponding measurement). The reason people are less likely to score the same results on the MBTI when retaking it is that the MBTI makes distinctions, where as the OCEAN is scaled. This is an interpretation error.

For example. On the OCEAN test, people generally score within 20% of their previous results on any scale. This is why it's considered to have an 80% retake correlation. On the OCEAN (and any self assessment test), people are more likely to score near the middle of an axis than the poles. Therefore, results between 40% and 60% are most common, and considered "moderate".

On the MBTI, people are also more likely to score near the middle of an axis than the poles. For the MBTI, the middle is the difference between distinctions. At 40% on the Introvert/Extrovert scale, you score "I". At 60%, you score Extrovert. (Or 49%/51% for that matter). This creates a strong possibility of different results, even though scores haven't changed more than 20%.

If you take raw scores into account rather than dichotomy assignments based on those scores, MBTI self assessment scores are roughly 80% retake correlation. For example, I've personally scored INFJ, ENFJ, INFP, and ENFP on the various MBTI styled tests. My N score fluctuates roughly between 50% and 70%. My F score fluctuates roughly between 30% and 50%. However, my I/E axis fluctuates between 20% Introvert and 10% Extrovert. My J/P axis fluctuates between 20% Judging and 10% Percieving. In all of these cases, there is roughly an 80% retake correlation.

Therefore, retake correlation is valid. 

The problem with this data is that it only suggests that people are proving that their self opinion is effectively 80% consistent. This could mean that their self opinion is 100% accurate and changes 20% depending on conditional factors. What it does not mean is that their self opinion is 100%, 80%, or any percent accurate with reality. That's the issue with self assessment. There's no external model with which to measure or correlate other than different self assessment techniques that can only validate whether or not someone has integrity of self opinion.

Most importantly, dichotomy tests cannot predict cognitive function preferences. Granted, there seems to be about a 67% correlation between dichotomy test results and cognitive function test results (that's a ballpark of my own observations as I don't know of any compiled correlation data between the two and would love some if it's out there), but we're still back to self assessment. Given the choice between the two, especially if they're both roughly 80% retake consistent to self opinion, I would certainly consider tests that attempt to specifically measure cognitive function preferences more accurate than dichotomy tests which _imply_ cognitive function preferences.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> My biggest issue with MBTI is how it tries to predict behavior and whatnot, which should have no place in personality typing (behavior correlates with a person's persona more than their actual brain-type). Sometimes, I don't know why the MBTI is so shy about straightforwardly asking questions, like "Would you sacrifice logic to preserve your feelings or those of others most of the time?" and whatnot (this would obviously correspond to being a high F type -probably F dom - high T types, especially T-doms, would probably say no to this automatically). Instead, the questions get all vague and ask, like, "Do you use personal values to reason or logic to reason?" which is waaaaaaaay too vague and situational, since it is a contextual question (any type can do any of these, depending on the situation, since all types have SNTF functions and use them all on a day to day basis).


Agreed. This is another problem with the MBTI approach, and its descendants. They too often attempt to measure introverted function use with extroverted function exhibitions, as extroverted functions tend to exhibit more observable behaviors because of their focus on interaction with the world around them.

This issue of assuming behavior equates to function preference is one of the reasons I'm so fond of the keys2cognition test, rather than some of the other cognitive functions specific tests. It tends to word questions in relation to the functions it's attempting to measure rather than behaviors implied by those functions.

Furthermore, it provides an attempt to measure one's individual function preferences outside the scope of type model - only to assume a type model after the specific results, but that's the software simply adding up the I, E, N, S, F, T, J and P functions and making an assumption. However, this assumption is very often strongly correlated to an individual's MBTI results, even when the cognitive functions are clearly not part of that type's model.

For example, my results on one taking were roughly Ni >> Fe > Fi > Ti = Se = Ne = Te > Si. This is a pretty clear INFJ pattern. My Ni was clearly in the lead, and my Ne was way down the list. However, the software rated me as ENFP or possibly INFP. It took me a moment to realize that it was adding the I, E, N, S, F, T, J and P scores. My Extroverted functions were 121 to my Introverted functions 119, so it went with E. My Perception functions ended up with less than a 1 point spread, leaning P. The software wasn't able to deduce that I was an Ni dom, and then move to the next Je function. It was only able to add the scores of each function up, and compare the totals. In essence this is what the MBTI styled dichotomy tests are doing.

Therefore, this again illustrates the problems with dichotomy tests when attempting to measure cognitive functions, and then the ensuing assumptions the dichotomy tests suggest. There's a fair amount of pattern in dichotomy tests that seems to suggest something other than the truth, which then gets expounded upon, built upon, and eventually forms an entirely false set of parameters to validate itself.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Yeah, I agree with you in a lot of ways (Jung's ideas are rather similar as well), but I never really thought of the "unconscious" functions as major constituents of what people see as a consistent personality. I don't doubt that they play roles in everyone, but I'm not sure how much influence they have over the manifestation of one's core personality that people notice and whatnot...Like, perhaps they do, but I'm not sure if the unconscious functions themselves are really noticeable (like, when I type people, I often see tell-tale patterns pointing to a certain type, but if the "unconscious" functions got in the way of this, would a person's personality be blurred?)...


----------



## Nobleheart

If the functions were "Unconscious" then we couldn't use them in cognition. "Subconscious" means they're being used, just not in the fore front of our thoughts.

The degree to which they influence someone is in direct proportion to how well developed they are.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Ok, I'm glad you cleared that up, since Jungian theory always seems oh-so-confident about using the word "unconscious," which I can barely take seriously (I mean, this might be true of some people, but it seems like a stretch to me).


----------



## Eric B

Nobleheart said:


> It won't take much research to find this information. In print, Jung *referred to himself* as an Ni + Ti when discussing 'true types'.
> 
> There are several video interviews of him late in his life that address his theories on what he calls true types (dominant and auxiliary having both introverted or both extroverted functions), and he claims to be one. There is also a video interview where Jung is asked what he thinks his type is. He says he's always been a Thinking type and always been an Intuitive, as well as always been very introverted, again confirming his assumption of being a 'true type'.
> 
> Putting these two together, the *assumption* is that he believed himself to be Ti + Ni at that point. *He never specifically stated this*, to my knowledge, so this is a logical *inference* both that he considered these his primary functions and that he changed the order of them later in life (which an Ni + Ti user is likely to do due to the reflex to over clarify patterns that aren't mutually exclusive).


 So he didn't "refer to himself" as that, it was an _inference_.
So "a Thinking type and...an Intuitive, as well as...very introverted" could be either INTP or INTJ.
I'll have to search for these videos, and the concept of "true type" (which an immediate search just now really did not turn up anything relevant). 

But I remember him being cited elsewhere as saying if the auxiliary took on the same attitude as the dominant, it would be fighting to be dominant itself. (Have to look for that to).
But if one is really very introverted like that, then it may appear that both preferred functions are introverted (I know IxTJ's look like Ti "users"), so that was probably what he was conveying.
Or maybe the dominant attitude does color the auxiliary sometimes. Again, it's better to start off with four "natural" functions, and then figure the attitudes separately. INTJ is basically i+NTFS. The preferred attitude of N is i, and the preferred attitude of T is e, but like everything else, those are just _preferences_, not a hard set of eight fixed-attitude items.


> The study at keys2cognition.com is one of these, and the first one that comes to mind off the top of my head.
> 
> These studies are one of the biggest reasons why I believe that the MBTI derived cognitive function hierarchy model is inaccurate. They're pretty clearly showing that cognitive function preferences are entirely variable to the individual. Sure, there are some tendencies, but nothing resembling rules. And also, if you averaged up all of the results of any given dominant and auxiliary pair, you'll likely see an average that looks similar to the cognitive function hierarchy models. However, that's an after effect, which means it's technically an illusion.
> 
> The assumption of cognitive function hierarchy in any type is like saying "white people have brown hair" because most white people do in fact have brown hair. However, this sort of thinking completely excludes blondes, red heads, gingers, auburns, and ravens from the "white people" group. According to this logic, because I have Ni as a dominant function and Fe as an auxiliary function, I shouldn't have such a strong Fi, Ne, or even Te. Compared to the model, these functions are disproportionately well developed in me.
> 
> However, if Jung was right, and our functions are simply our functions in the order that we as individuals prefer them, then it makes perfect sense that I have the preferences that I do.
> 
> What it means is that I think we should adjust our perspective of what each MBTI type actually is - and that's nothing more than an indication of our most frequent dominant and auxiliary functions with a set of _likely_ inferior function preferences that are by no means set in a mandatory order.


 Correct. 
But nobody's really defining types by anything below the dom. and aux. (except, perhaps that aforementioned "expert", who actually types people by "shadow" functions, and thinks if someone "uses" a supposed shadow "too much", it must really be "preferred", and thus a lot of people out there are "mistyped"). MBTI, of course, uses the dichotomies, but is not suggesting the "other six" functions must come in any particular order. It is often claimed that the other six are not fully known. The tertiary is often left undecided as to which attitude it falls under, and the four below the inferior are not dealt with at all.

So its not really MBTI theory you're arguing against, but rather people who take the K2C test and question themselves because functions fall out of the order they expect. But again, it's not about relative strengths of all the functions.



Nobleheart said:


> This issue of assuming behavior equates to function preference is one of the reasons I'm so fond of the keys2cognition test, rather than some of the other cognitive functions specific tests. It tends to word questions in relation to the functions it's attempting to measure rather than behaviors implied by those functions.
> 
> Furthermore, it provides an attempt to measure one's individual function preferences outside the scope of type model - only to assume a type model after the specific results, but that's the software simply adding up the I, E, N, S, F, T, J and P functions and making an assumption. However, this assumption is very often strongly correlated to an individual's MBTI results, even when the cognitive functions are clearly not part of that type's model.
> 
> For example, my results on one taking were roughly Ni >> Fe > Fi > Ti = Se = Ne = Te > Si. This is a pretty clear INFJ pattern. My Ni was clearly in the lead, and my Ne was way down the list. However, the software rated me as ENFP or possibly INFP. It took me a moment to realize that it was adding the I, E, N, S, F, T, J and P scores. My Extroverted functions were 121 to my Introverted functions 119, so it went with E. My Perception functions ended up with less than a 1 point spread, leaning P. The software wasn't able to deduce that I was an Ni dom, and then move to the next Je function. It was only able to add the scores of each function up, and compare the totals. In essence this is what the MBTI styled dichotomy tests are doing.
> 
> Therefore, this again illustrates the problems with dichotomy tests when attempting to measure cognitive functions, and then the ensuing assumptions the dichotomy tests suggest. There's a fair amount of pattern in dichotomy tests that seems to suggest something other than the truth, which then gets expounded upon, built upon, and eventually forms an entirely false set of parameters to validate itself.


 That's still K2C you're referring to, right? What do you mean about it "adding up" dichotomies? It seems to measure the eight function-attitudes directly (based on questions framed in terms of "behaviors" associated with the functions). I know that if the dom. and aux. come out in a possible type order (XiYe) and you have a lot of extraverted functions right below an introverted aux., it might assume you might still be an extravert. That's adding up e/i, but how would it do this with the other dichotomies?

With your result, it would likely make the likely type INFJ first, then say "if this doesn't fit, consider: ENFP, INFP". Actually, it probably wouldn't suggest an E type, since you have so many introverted functions up front. And it would probably suggest ISFP before an NFP (or were those four separated by "=" totally _equal_ in score?)

Was this one really K2C, or was it the "Timeless" version or something else?


----------



## Peter

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yes I did. However, how are you defining the word "background?"


You did? So because these 2 did not have a document that proves they studied psychology, you just throw what ever they say in the trash? You can't agree with them because they don't have a diploma? You do not judge what they say, but you judge their background to decide if what they say is correct?

Then you should never agree with anything I say because my background isn't in psychology either.


----------



## Peter

Nobleheart said:


> MBTI doesn't predict this. I stated that my dominant function is Ni and my Fe is my auxiliary function. Understanding how these functions operate predicts this perspective. MBTI is nothing more than attempt to box in cognitive function theory to a degree that makes assumptions which cannot contain the truth of it.
> 
> I'm not saying that MBTI doesn't overlap the truth of cognitive function theory in many areas. I'm saying that MBTI theory is failing to overlap the entirety of cognitive functions, as well as making assumptions that simply are not accurate.


 
The MBTI says that you, as an INFJ, are Ni-Fe which I used to say that it make sense you have a certain opinion. You said that Ni-Fe is the reason that you have a certain opinion.

That pretty much comes down to the same thing, doesn't it? You just have a problem with the labels and some of the assumptions of the MBTI. 

In the end the MBTI is just a method to make the Jungian cognitive functions easier to understand and easier to use in a practical way. From a marketing point of view, the MBTI is one of the best strategies ever for cognitive function theory.

I really don't see why the MBTI is such an issue. In the end it's just Jung that actually has a theory. The MBTI is just organization and what really matters are the first 2 functions and to a certain degree the third function. The fourth is already pretty much irrelevant and so are the last 4. Though I have to say that the idea of the last 4 coming up when under stress, is not such a bad idea at all. (Meaning for example that an INTJ starts behaving like a badly functioning ENTP when stressed. It's not such a bad idea at all.)


----------



## Peter

JungyesMBTIno said:


> My biggest issue with MBTI is how it tries to predict behavior and whatnot, which should have no place in personality typing (behavior correlates with a person's persona more than their actual brain-type). Sometimes, I don't know why the MBTI is so shy about straightforwardly asking questions, like "Would you sacrifice logic to preserve your feelings or those of others most of the time?" and whatnot (this would obviously correspond to being a high F type -probably F dom - high T types, especially T-doms, would probably say no to this automatically). Instead, the questions get all vague and ask, like, "Do you use personal values to reason or logic to reason?" which is waaaaaaaay too vague and situational, since it is a contextual question (any type can do any of these, depending on the situation, since all types have SNTF functions and use them all on a day to day basis).


I don't consider the MBTI to be specifically created to predict behavior. I think that this prediction idea comes from people that use the MBTI. If I'm not mistaken, the original purpose of the MBTI is just to learn more about yourself.

I used an example before where I said that the MBTI predicts something, but actually I was talking about the cognitive functions, not the MBTI itself. It's pretty much impossible to say the MBTI predicts something because the moment you try to explain why, you always have to fall back to the underlying theories of Jung.


As to the testing, it really is difficult, perhaps impossible, to create questions that people will answer correctly. If you don't know the MBTI exists and you only know about Jung, what questions would you ask to determine what a person's preferred functions are?

I don't think it's even possible with just questions to really get to it. When I first did the test I got INTJ, but it didn't really mean all that much to me. The description I liked, but it seemed kind of "too good to be true" so I was skeptical. I did research and started to understand things better and with that the descriptions of the types also started to make more sense. The negative parts that do exist in the descriptions of types become more visible once you understand the MBTI and the cognitive functions a little better. Without this knowledge, you're blind to a lot of information that exists in those descriptions. (this is true for just about everything by the way. The more you know, the more information you get from what experts say/write.)


----------



## Zero11

A Cognitive Function Test as a prove that the MBTI rank of functions is false? How accurate is this test actually against the MBTI-Test?

I really don´t understand this hate against the MBTI at all.


----------



## Stelmaria

Tainted Streetlight said:


> The most commonly used test in personality studies is the *NEO PI-R*, the levels of consistency are incredibly high (N= .92, E= .89, O= .87, A= .86, C= .90; between .75-.9). .


Internal consistency and retest validity says little about how useful the test is in practise. The NEO has high internal validity because it only measures the most obvious aspects of personality and doesn't bother with building a complete model of personality.

If a test lacks internal consistency between questions it means the domains are being reduced to a smaller number of factors than necessary. This is in fact what is happening in MBTI style tests - introversion, thinking etc only make sense in terms of a whole personality and so the questions are written in a way that appeals to different 'whole' personalities that share that particular factor.

For the record though, I feel all personality testing is of low specificity when it comes to predicting and modelling real personalities. These concepts are a useful set of shared language to explore different modes of personality, but are a pale imitation of the real thing. I could write a post about how type determinism (and over emphasis on cognitive functions) is dangerous, but this thread does a good job in the mean time.



Angelic Gardevoir said:


> Interesting video. However, I somehow think there is an element missing from his explanation. I can't quite put my finger on it, though. Maybe it's insight?


What he didn't mention - but it arises naturally, is the meta aspect - self reference - sentience.


----------



## erasinglines

This is a very interesting topic with all sorts of various thoughts coming from all sorts of directions. So I wanted to start off by thanking everyone for all of the enlightenment they've shed on the topic.

Regarding the opening discussion kindly proposed by @Nobleheart, I have a few thoughts I'd like to humbly add. First, I'd like to say that I appreciate the refreshing angle from which you're looking at MBTI and Cognitive Functions. I absolutely love knocking down all the walls to look at something with unbiased eyes. If all we have is a black and white scale with which to look at things, how will we ever know if we are missing a larger or added dimension (e.g. colours)? Without breaking things down further through conceptual frameworks such as MBTI and Cognitive Functions, I feel you can indeed get closer to the whole, central nature of the essence of a person. And I also feel that the use of MBTI or Cognitive Functions cannot and will not change this holistic personality.

However, I also understand that tearing down the walls does not actually mean tearing apart conceptual frameworks as they stand. It usually just means taking off the lens and looking at the whole of reality. It is the conceptual frameworks (e.g. MBTI, Cognitive Functions, Cognitive Theory, Sociocultural Theory, Activity Theory) that allow us to classify and categorize the whole, unbroken attributes and view patterns of interaction. By using various lenses to view reality, we can come to a more in-depth understanding of what's going on. The nature of the intention of using conceptual frameworks is to objectively use categories to classify and cut out unnecessary information to get a magnifying glass view of a larger situation. As a result, the nature of conceptual frameworks is indeed weak when trying to use them as a whole picture of a single reality. Any investigation, case studies including, will need to cut out some sort of information.

Also, regarding the tools associated with the conceptual framework (e.g. MBTI test, Keys 2 Cognition, Cognitive Quiz), I would separately be cautious and question the method in which these tools are used. Under what circumstances are these tools being used? What are they designed to measure? Are they being used in a way which plays to their strengths and not their weaknesses? Are they even being used appropriately? If the results obtained by the tools used are contrary to expectations, what outlying reasons might we have for this?

I get the feeling that the misunderstanding, misuse, and misinterpretation of tools would be the first and primary suspect in such cases. And in order to back this up, I would like to bring in what @Eric B had mentioned about NFP types changing types back and forth. Personally, I've noticed that the type I tend to identify with at the time says more about what I think of myself and how I am approaching MBTI or Cognitive Functions rather than any objective type. Currently, I identify as ENFP. Previously, I have identified as (chronologically) INFP, ENFP, ENFJ, INFJ, ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, and ENFP. I have also seriously considered ESFP, ISFP, and ISFJ. (Truthfully, I've also considered a very many T types, but when I voice such things aloud, my friends tend to start laughing). What personality type category would I fit in objectively? I have no idea. Because when I take a test (if indeed I am using some sort of tool), there is a great deal of subjectivity in 1) how I understand the nature of myself, 2) how I understand the nature of the test, 3) how I understand the parameters of the questions, and 4) how I engage with the results.

Even when a tool is not used, there is still a great amount of subjectivity. How do I understand the nature of myself? How do I understand the nature of cognitive functions? How am I engaging with my understanding of both myself and cognitive functions? In my opinion, *that* is the key. These questions are the ones that often will give you the qualitative answers I feel you're looking for. Because no amount of quantitative testing and data crunching can get to the heart of the reasons and motivations subjectively employed by any single person. And who knows? Maybe I am ESFP and I've been mistaken all along. But if that's the case, that just makes for all the more interesting qualitative data. How do I engage with MBTI, why do I engage in the manner I do, and what merit do I find in such conceptual frameworks.

And this is the real reason why I have a hard time saying 'so-and-so is totally such-and-such type' because objective type isn't what interests me. It's the engagement and interaction and identification on a personal level. Conceptual frameworks are simply lenses for assessment and tests are simply tools of measurement of data. To me, they are not the sum of reality nor should they be expected to perform such a task. And so, when breaking down the walls of categories, no actual breaking ever occurs. We are merely just removing the lens from our vision to gain a different perspective. At least, as far as I understand.


----------



## Peter

erasinglines said:


> This is a very interesting topic with all sorts of various thoughts coming from all sorts of directions. So I wanted to start off by thanking everyone for all of the enlightenment they've shed on the topic.
> 
> Regarding the opening discussion kindly proposed by @Nobleheart, I have a few thoughts I'd like to humbly add. First, I'd like to say that I appreciate the refreshing angle from which you're looking at MBTI and Cognitive Functions. I absolutely love knocking down all the walls to look at something with unbiased eyes. If all we have is a black and white scale with which to look at things, how will we ever know if we are missing a larger or added dimension (e.g. colours)? Without breaking things down further through conceptual frameworks such as MBTI and Cognitive Functions, I feel you can indeed get closer to the whole, central nature of the essence of a person. And I also feel that the use of MBTI or Cognitive Functions cannot and will not change this holistic personality.
> 
> However, I also understand that tearing down the walls does not actually mean tearing apart conceptual frameworks as they stand. It usually just means taking off the lens and looking at the whole of reality. It is the conceptual frameworks (e.g. MBTI, Cognitive Functions, Cognitive Theory, Sociocultural Theory, Activity Theory) that allow us to classify and categorize the whole, unbroken attributes and view patterns of interaction. By using various lenses to view reality, we can come to a more in-depth understanding of what's going on. The nature of the intention of using conceptual frameworks is to objectively use categories to classify and cut out unnecessary information to get a magnifying glass view of a larger situation. As a result, the nature of conceptual frameworks is indeed weak when trying to use them as a whole picture of a single reality. Any investigation, case studies including, will need to cut out some sort of information.
> 
> Also, regarding the tools associated with the conceptual framework (e.g. MBTI test, Keys 2 Cognition, Cognitive Quiz), I would separately be cautious and question the method in which these tools are used. Under what circumstances are these tools being used? What are they designed to measure? Are they being used in a way which plays to their strengths and not their weaknesses? Are they even being used appropriately? If the results obtained by the tools used are contrary to expectations, what outlying reasons might we have for this?
> 
> I get the feeling that the misunderstanding, misuse, and misinterpretation of tools would be the first and primary suspect in such cases. And in order to back this up, I would like to bring in what @Eric B had mentioned about NFP types changing types back and forth. Personally, I've noticed that the type I tend to identify with at the time says more about what I think of myself and how I am approaching MBTI or Cognitive Functions rather than any objective type. Currently, I identify as ENFP. Previously, I have identified as (chronologically) INFP, ENFP, ENFJ, INFJ, ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, and ENFP. I have also seriously considered ESFP, ISFP, and ISFJ. (Truthfully, I've also considered a very many T types, but when I voice such things aloud, my friends tend to start laughing). What personality type category would I fit in objectively? I have no idea. Because when I take a test (if indeed I am using some sort of tool), there is a great deal of subjectivity in 1) how I understand the nature of myself, 2) how I understand the nature of the test, 3) how I understand the parameters of the questions, and 4) how I engage with the results.
> 
> Even when a tool is not used, there is still a great amount of subjectivity. How do I understand the nature of myself? How do I understand the nature of cognitive functions? How am I engaging with my understanding of both myself and cognitive functions? In my opinion, *that* is the key. These questions are the ones that often will give you the qualitative answers I feel you're looking for. Because no amount of quantitative testing and data crunching can get to the heart of the reasons and motivations subjectively employed by any single person. And who knows? Maybe I am ESFP and I've been mistaken all along. But if that's the case, that just makes for all the more interesting qualitative data. How do I engage with MBTI, why do I engage in the manner I do, and what merit do I find in such conceptual frameworks.
> 
> And this is the real reason why I have a hard time saying 'so-and-so is totally such-and-such type' because objective type isn't what interests me. It's the engagement and interaction and identification on a personal level. Conceptual frameworks are simply lenses for assessment and tests are simply tools of measurement of data. To me, they are not the sum of reality nor should they be expected to perform such a task. And so, when breaking down the walls of categories, no actual breaking ever occurs. We are merely just removing the lens from our vision to gain a different perspective. At least, as far as I understand.


Your post shows how important the opinions of others are when you judge something. I have noticed this in ENF's that I know irl too. Something can't be decided without knowing the opinions of others (not just any other, but those that are considered worthy of having an opinion about what needs to be decided.)

When this so very needed information can not be obtained (i.e. nobody available or exists to consult), the decision is almost always a conditional one. To me, as an INTJ, this often looks like the kind of decision that takes responsibility away from the ENF, but with the added knowledge of MBTI / Jung, I now know that it's not quite that, but more a matter of simply being unable to take that decision without knowing the opinions of others. Luckily with age, more information is available in the mind of the ENF which means the need to directly consult goes down. But in totally new situations, that need is as strong as ever.


As to typing yourself, perhaps you need to forget about the whole type and split it up into the 4 letters of the MBTI and analyze the 4 positions individually.

Are you an E or an I? (this is the easiest one.)
Are you an N or an S? (This may seem difficult to you, but just reading this one post of yours, N is obvious)
Are you an F or a T? (I'm guessing your friends know you better than you do, so an F. And besides that, just look in your post how often you feel something or get a feeling and how often you think something.)
Are you a P or a J? (This is the most difficult one to figure out, especially when observing somebody. You consider yourself a P, and I agree, but I can't really explain why.)

Your post is long, gives a lot of information, but in the end, there's no conclusion. So if you wonder why I didn't reply really directly to anything you said, then that's why.

Another approach would be the Jungian Cognitive Function approach, but that's way more difficult than using the MBTI.


----------



## Nobleheart

Zero11 said:


> I really don´t understand this hate against the MBTI at all.


It's not hate on my part. I'm simply trying to clarify that the type models with respect to cognitive function preferences are assumptions and generalities. If I hated the MBTI, I wouldn't still refer to myself as an INFJ or other people by they MBTI based type designations.

I wrote this article with the sole intention of clarifying the inaccuracies of the MBTI, not to disregard it entirely. MBTI was a great precursor to this theory and has caused a lot of interesting and valid research. Unfortunately, _some_ of it went astray from the reality it was attempting to illuminate.



Peter said:


> The MBTI says that you, as an INFJ, are Ni-Fe which I used to say that it make sense you have a certain opinion. You said that Ni-Fe is the reason that you have a certain opinion.
> 
> That pretty much comes down to the same thing, doesn't it? You just have a problem with the labels and some of the assumptions of the MBTI.
> 
> In the end the MBTI is just a method to make the Jungian cognitive functions easier to understand and easier to use in a practical way. From a marketing point of view, the MBTI is one of the best strategies ever for cognitive function theory.


Correct.

Although I am Ni > Fe, I am not also Ti > Se > Ne > Fi > Te > Si, and most importantly my preferences fluctuate conditionally and adaptively. This clarification in the theory was the entire point to the OP.



Peter said:


> I really don't see why the MBTI is such an issue. In the end it's just Jung that actually has a theory. The MBTI is just organization and what really matters are the first 2 functions and to a certain degree the third function. The fourth is already pretty much irrelevant and so are the last 4. Though I have to say that the idea of the last 4 coming up when under stress, is not such a bad idea at all. (Meaning for example that an INTJ starts behaving like a badly functioning ENTP when stressed. It's not such a bad idea at all.)


Most people do follow this pattern, but some don't, and the reason why there are exceptions is important to understand or else assumptions get made and theory starts to go down paths that are inaccurate. 

The reason there are exceptions is because our function development is unique to ourselves. It _tends_ to follow patterns, but is not required to. Therefore, the assumption that it is required to follow those patterns creates an illusion.



Eric B said:


> So he didn't "refer to himself" as that, it was an _inference_.
> So "a Thinking type and...an Intuitive, as well as...very introverted" could be either INTP or INTJ.


Correct.



Eric B said:


> But I remember him being cited elsewhere as saying if the auxiliary took on the same attitude as the dominant, it would be fighting to be dominant itself. (Have to look for that to).


Yes, and this statement is very similar to the notions of cognitive function loops, which would occur when we prefer two functions of the same attitude, whether temporarily or chronically. 



Eric B said:


> But if one is really very introverted like that, then it may appear that both preferred functions are introverted (I know IxTJ's look like Ti "users"), so that was probably what he was conveying.
> Or maybe the dominant attitude does color the auxiliary sometimes. Again, it's better to start off with four "natural" functions, and then figure the attitudes separately. INTJ is basically i+NTFS. The preferred attitude of N is i, and the preferred attitude of T is e, but like everything else, those are just _preferences_, not a hard set of eight fixed-attitude items.
> Correct.
> But nobody's really defining types by anything below the dom. and aux. (except, perhaps that aforementioned "expert", who actually types people by "shadow" functions, and thinks if someone "uses" a supposed shadow "too much", it must really be "preferred", and thus a lot of people out there are "mistyped"). MBTI, of course, uses the dichotomies, but is not suggesting the "other six" functions must come in any particular order. It is often claimed that the other six are not fully known. The tertiary is often left undecided as to which attitude it falls under, and the four below the inferior are not dealt with at all.


This seems like you're trying to force reality to fit the definition.



Eric B said:


> That's still K2C you're referring to, right?


Correct.



Eric B said:


> What do you mean about it "adding up" dichotomies? It seems to measure the eight function-attitudes directly (based on questions framed in terms of "behaviors" associated with the functions). I know that if the dom. and aux. come out in a possible type order (XiYe) and you have a lot of extraverted functions right below an introverted aux., it might assume you might still be an extravert. That's adding up e/i, but how would it do this with the other dichotomies?


I = Ni + Si + Fi + Ti
E = Ne + Se + Fe + Te
I > E = I, I < E = E

F = Fi + Fe
T = Ti + Te
T > F = T, T < F = F

S = Si + Se
N = Ni + Ne
N > S = N, N < S = S

P = Ni + Si + Ne + Se
J = Fi + Fe + Ti + Te
J > P = J, J < P = P



Eric B said:


> With your result, it would likely make the likely type INFJ first, then say "if this doesn't fit, consider: ENFP, INFP". Actually, it probably wouldn't suggest an E type, since you have so many introverted functions up front. And it would probably suggest ISFP before an NFP (or were those four separated by "=" totally _equal_ in score?)


These results are the reason I figured out the math behind the software.

My Ni + Si + Fi + Ti totaled 2 points less than the total of my Ne + Se + Fe + Te, due to my Si scores being pathetic and my extroverted functions being fairly solid. The software calculated this as E.

My Ni + Si + Ne + Se totaled less than a point less than the total of my Fi + Fe + Ti + Te, due to my Ni score being strong and my perception functions other than Si being solid. The software calculated this as P.

My Ni + Ne were clearly stronger than my Si and my Se. The software calculated this as N.

My Fi + Fe were clearly stronger than my Ti and my Te. The software calculated this as F.

This is how the software determines type, and why it misread my Ni > Fe result as ENFP.. It isn't sophisticated enough to make deductions. It isn't programmed to detect the dominant function, then look for possible auxiliary functions from the remaining list, and disregard all other functions that couldn't pair with it according to the MBTI models. Obviously, the issue that happened with these scores are going to be rare, but they prove the flaw in the model, which is assumption.

Side note: This score mix up only happened to me once, but I have also seen other people's results that were not aligned with the function scores. 

However, this process of determining dichotomy is essentially what the MBTI does (as do the other tests that are modeled after it). It asks questions that could apply to either Ni or Ne, then tallies them both as N. It asks questions that could apply to both Fi or Fe, then tallies them both as F. It asks questions that could apply to both Ti or Te then tallies them both as T. It asks questions that could apply to Si or Se then tallies them both as S. It does the same with Attitude, then Je vs Pe to create the I/E and J/P axis. This is the same assumption that caused the K2C issue, except that the MBTI is based on this approach.

This is problematic because it assumes use of shadow function according to a model that isn't accurate. In the model, it's assumed that an INFJ also has strong Ne and Fi as shadow functions, and therefore adding these functions together (Ni + Ne, Fe + Fi) will prove or disprove type. 

This assumption has led to the assumptions of cognitive function hierarchy, which have led to all manner of misinterpretation of what's actually going on in the mind with respect to cognitive function preference and use... almost to the point of mirroring astrology. "You have Virgo in Mars in your 4th House? That means this..." is almost synonymous with "Your Senex function is Fe? That means this..."

And let me state again, that I'm not opposing the MBTI. I actually think it's a good correlation tool, when used with other tests. What I'm opposing is the assumption of how cognitive functions are used, and the hierarchy of their preferences based on type - the work of Myers, Berens, Beebe, and even Thomson - based on the fact that the MBTI creates a situation where there is no proof for or against these assumptions.



Eric B said:


> Was this one really K2C, or was it the "Timeless" version or something else?


Yes, still K2C. I find timeless' version problematic.


----------



## Peter

Nobleheart said:


> Although I am Ni > Fe, I am not also Ti > Se > Ne > Fi > Te > Si, and most importantly my preferences fluctuate conditionally and adaptively. This clarification in the theory was the entire point to the OP.
> 
> Most people do follow this pattern, but some don't, and the reason why there are exceptions is important to understand or else assumptions get made and theory starts to go down paths that are inaccurate.
> 
> The reason there are exceptions is because our function development is unique to ourselves. It tends to follow patterns, but is not required to. Therefore, the assumption that it is required to follow those patterns creates an illusion.


Function development is a very interesting subject. Observing, both myself and others, this idea of function development is almost an illusion as well. What I have noticed is that when people say, for example, their F is more developed today than it was 10 years ago, that in reality isn't true. At least not from a brain function point of view. It's my impression, but I can't say this with 100% certainty, that what's really going on is the main functions mimicking other functions. Like a T that as he ages starts to consider other people's feelings more,.... That's not F that is developing, it's T learning to deal with those situations. It's still T doing all the work. But on the outside, it looks like his F is developing. If you would ask him why he is considering other people's feelings more, what you'll get is an explanation from a T point of view, not an F point of view.

This leads me to the conclusion that the preferences are pretty much fixed and they don't change over time. One merely can learn to be more of a whole person but that's experience and change in priorities doing that, not the actual functions of the brain changing.


----------



## erasinglines

Peter said:


> Your post shows how important the opinions of others are when you judge something. I have noticed this in ENF's that I know irl too. Something can't be decided without knowing the opinions of others (not just any other, but those that are considered worthy of having an opinion about what needs to be decided.)
> 
> When this so very needed information can not be obtained (i.e. nobody available or exists to consult), the decision is almost always a conditional one. To me, as an INTJ, this often looks like the kind of decision that takes responsibility away from the ENF, but with the added knowledge of MBTI / Jung, I now know that it's not quite that, but more a matter of simply being unable to take that decision without knowing the opinions of others. Luckily with age, more information is available in the mind of the ENF which means the need to directly consult goes down. But in totally new situations, that need is as strong as ever.


This is interesting! I do have to admit that I find that without being able to consult people I trust as sounding boards, I can often find myself feeling a bit lost in the chaos. But what I think I was intending to illustrate is that my personal interaction with MBTI and/or Cognitive Functions yields more interesting data about myself as an individual than it does about the test/system itself. And as a result, mistyping isn't necessarily a flaw since it can be used as an opportunity to gather all sorts of interesting qualitative data about an individual. (That is, if we could ever be 100% sure about a type to be able to decide someone was indeed mistyped...)

Likewise, if someone is insistent that another person is mistyped, this too yields all kinds of interesting information. What are they seeing in the person? What are they seeing in themselves? What are they seeing in the system itself? These are the issues I feel we're actually hitting rather than whether the system/test itself is reliable or accurate.



> As to typing yourself, perhaps you need to forget about the whole type and split it up into the 4 letters of the MBTI and analyze the 4 positions individually.
> 
> Are you an E or an I? (this is the easiest one.)
> Are you an N or an S? (This may seem difficult to you, but just reading this one post of yours, N is obvious)
> Are you an F or a T? (I'm guessing your friends know you better than you do, so an F. And besides that, just look in your post how often you feel something or get a feeling and how often you think something.)
> Are you a P or a J? (This is the most difficult one to figure out, especially when observing somebody. You consider yourself a P, and I agree, but I can't really explain why.)


More than trying to settle on a more definitive type for myself, I was actually trying to use myself as an example of how a person can interact/engage/disengage with MBTI and/or Cognitive Functions. I'm hesitant to use other people because I wouldn't want to take them out of context. I could use a hypothetical example, but I easily run the risk of overgeneralizing/oversimplifying.

That being said, I still appreciate and value your input! And certainly, the current me agrees with your assessment. :3



> Your post is long, gives a lot of information, but in the end, there's no conclusion. So if you wonder why I didn't reply really directly to anything you said, then that's why.


*sighs at self* And here I thought I'd given a wonderful conclusion in that last paragraph. But you're not the first person that's said I've shied away from making a full-on conclusion. Oh well. 

What I'd meant to conclude is that conceptual frameworks are lenses through which we view the world. Without viewing, they are nothing in and of themselves. By using them, we lose some breadth in order to gain some depth of knowledge. Likewise, tools designed for gathering data within these conceptual frameworks must be used appropriately according to the true nature of the data collection. A test cannot be asked to gather what it does not set out to measure.

Ultimately, it is our personal analysis of the data collected through tools (e.g. tests) and viewed through conceptual frameworks (e.g. MBTI, Cognitive Functions) that must be brought into question.


----------



## Nobleheart

Peter said:


> Function development is a very interesting subject. Observing, both myself and others, this idea of function development is almost an illusion as well. What I have noticed is that when people say, for example, their F is more developed today than it was 10 years ago, that in reality isn't true. At least not from a brain function point of view. It's my impression, but I can't say this with 100% certainty, that what's really going on is the main functions mimicking other functions. Like a T that as he ages starts to consider other people's feelings more,.... That's not F that is developing, it's T learning to deal with those situations. It's still T doing all the work. But on the outside, it looks like his F is developing. If you would ask him why he is considering other people's feelings more, what you'll get is an explanation from a T point of view, not an F point of view.
> 
> This leads me to the conclusion that the preferences are pretty much fixed and they don't change over time. One merely can learn to be more of a whole person but that's experience and change in priorities doing that, not the actual functions of the brain changing.


Your statement proves that all of this theory is based on conjecture. Your view, my view, other views stated in this thread are all subjective observations. This is the primary problem with MBTI. It needs more science. I'm holding the stance that the mind is far more adaptive than not, which means at best these theories are guidelines, and regardless of how much anyone attempts to leverage or squeeze the reality of the mind into any given definition, it will never hold true across the board. Therefore, the adaptive model is the more likely than a static unchanging model.


----------



## Nobleheart

erasinglines said:


> Currently, I identify as ENFP. Previously, I have identified as (chronologically) INFP, ENFP, ENFJ, INFJ, ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, and ENFP.


This sounds like evidence for what I have been suggesting in this thread about cognitive function preferences, and how some individuals do not fit the generalized pattern for type models.

Would you mind posting your results from the keys2cognition test? I'd like to analyze them in this thread, so I can reference someone's results other than my own, especially someone who might be a better example of what I've been suggesting than myself.


----------



## erasinglines

Nobleheart said:


> Your statement proves that all of this theory is based on conjecture. Your view, my view, other views stated in this thread are all subjective observations. This is the primary problem with MBTI. It needs more science. I'm holding the stance that the mind is far more adaptive than not, which means at best these theories are guidelines, and regardless of how much anyone attempts to leverage or squeeze the reality of the mind into any given definition, it will never hold true across the board. Therefore, the adaptive model is the more likely than a static unchanging model.


I suppose expanding this outward, nearly every hypothesis is in need of more science. Even the most simple explanations should be subject to questioning. Does the Earth indeed travel it's path around the Sun? And these questions lead to a progression in thought. However, the revealing of new, even contrary information does not mean that old information should be completely disregarded.

What is important is to not mistake the conceptual framework for reality itself. The nature of a framework is not to demonstrate the full-scale, whole picture of reality. It means to strip reality down to the bare bones of the issues of interest. And by examining these predetermined issues, we can see the resulting relationships.

Personally, there are times that I find MBTI or Cognitive Functions helpful, while other times I find they hinder my ability to understand the situation. It is the nature of conceptual frameworks that does this. A question asked of the world viewed through the wrong lens (conceptual framework) will probably result in skewed or inconsistent data. It is important to know which lens to use and when to use it in accordance to the nature of the question. And for this reason, I feel that one lens is no more valuable than any other lens.

For example, astrological signs may be an appropriate way of categorizing information. Perhaps an author of a book put a lot of thought into assigning astrological signs to their characters. Categorizing characters according to astrological signs and comparing resulting relationships could yield data equally as interesting as MBTI or Cognitive Functions.


----------



## erasinglines

Nobleheart said:


> This sounds like evidence for what I have been suggesting in this thread about cognitive function preferences, and how some individuals do not fit the generalized pattern for type models.
> 
> Would you mind posting your results from the keys2cognition test? I'd like to analyze them in this thread, so I can reference someone's results other than my own, especially someone who might be a better example of what I've been suggesting than myself.


Gladly. Though I will say this in advance: my change in personality type identification is due to the change with how I view myself and how I view personality types. At these different stages in my life, I viewed myself differently. I also viewed personality theory differently. Hence the difference in results. I have also used Keys2Cognition previously, and I would be willing to wager that the results were different each time.

And here is my reason for this: K2C is a questionnaire and I am the person taking it. Therefore, the results are limited to several things. 1) My understanding of myself. 2) My understanding of cognitive functions. 3) My understanding of the premise of each question. At this point in time, this is how I interact with the questions and the answers and my understanding of myself.

In other words, I have not actually changed personality type from INFP to ENFP to ENFJ to INFJ etc. I feel the results say more about how I view myself than they reflect back on Cognitive Theory itself.

Cognitive Process Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ****************************** (30.5)
good use
introverted Sensing (Si) ********* (9.1)
unused
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) **************************************************** (52.1)
excellent use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) *********************************** (35.7)
good use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ************** (14.3)
unused
introverted Thinking (Ti) ******************* (19.5)
limited use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ****************************** (30.5)
good use
introverted Feeling (Fi) ************************************************* (49.1)
excellent use


----------



## Functianalyst

Nobleheart said:


> Wow. These scores defy any sense of known type models.
> 
> According to these scores, and what you said about bias toward ISFJ, I honestly think your best fit type is INFP or ISFP.
> 
> You appear to be an Fi dom. Si comes in second, which could imply an Fi + Si preference, but that could also fit with the INFP model despite your Ne being lower in the list than even Te. However, if you take into consideration that you have a strong Fi and Si, then it's likely that you'd develop more of an Ni then Ne to support them. Ti is your lowest score, which again implies Fi dominance.
> 
> ISFP is my runner up suggestion only because you seem to be more S than N in these scores. But, your Se, Ne, and Te scores are all very similar which implies that you may have integrated these functions into a bit of a council for your extroverted processes.
> 
> I think your Fe scores simply come from your Enneagram motivations. There are several questions for Fe on that test which would ping strongly for 9's and 2's, of which you are both.
> 
> In any case, you seem to be an Fi dom, which means you are who you are, and who you are is awesome.


Okay everyone should know that the cognitive function tests being discussed cannot indicate a type or a dominant function. It can only give the user an idea of the function order they are preferring to use at the moment. As I continue to say, that order will change in a month, six months, a year, etc because function-attitudes are dynamic and fluid, not static and rigid like forced dichotomies. 

Furthermore I am not going to indicate a high use of Se when I take these sort of assessments because I prefer Ti-Ni. Nevertheless I am ISTP, because it is the only type that uses Ti-Ni in that order. No matter what happens, the dominant function-attitude should be the only thing that remains consistent unless circumstances has pulled you in a particular direction, causing you to use another function-attitude.

Finally MCRTS's current assessment can be used as a good example of how the test should be used. 

Originally Posted by MCRTS 

(Fi) *************************************** (39.5)
(Si) ************************************* (37.4)
(Fe) ************************************ (36.4)
(Ni) ******************************** (32.3)
(Te) ************************* (25.3)
(Se) ************************ (24.3)
(Ne) ************************ (24.3)
(Ti) ********************* (21.1)

The function-attitude order for ISFJ is: Si-Fe-Ti-Ne-Se-Fi-Te-Ni. Not sure how many times MCRTS has taken the assessment, but the first question would be are these results consistent? If it's the first and only time, then I would say take it again in a few weeks, months, etc to show the usage changes as your circumstances require. These results do not indicate you are not a Si dominant type, especially since it is so close to the highest score. So don't go changing your type based on these results. In fact your lack of Ne and Se use indicates you are most likely not an IFP type.

How I would interpret these results is that you are currently in either in a withdrawn state or you naturally dominate with introversion, except your Ti should also be high (Fi-Si-Ni highest scores). Another interpretation could be that if you generally get out, currently you find yourself confined in some way (low Ne and Se). Whatever is going on currently, you have no real need for the use of logic (indicative of very low thinking scores) or in a compensatory way, the high use of feeling is lowering your thinking functions. What I can't or ever imply that these results can tell you your type.


----------



## Nobleheart

MCRTS said:


> @Nobleheart
> 
> Thanks for the analysis! Gosh, my functions are a tough nut to crack. I did mention in a couple of threads that I usually would get ISFJ in the MBTI test, but sometimes, I'd get INFP/ISFP. I see why now. But the ISFJ description does fit me more than INFP or ISFP.


It seems obvious to me that you have elements of all the above, and that's just who you are. It makes you awesome. ;-)


----------



## erasinglines

Nobleheart said:


> While, I don't find this test to be especially accurate, these scores do support my theory that type models with respect to cognitive functions are simply not facts.
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask how? All I'm seeing is raw, unanylised data: the 'what' of the problem, if you will. However, a quiz such as this one _and_ the K2C (in fact, any self evaluation questionnaire) cannot show the 'how' and 'why' without proper analysis. And here we must beware of making unfounded claims by first asking ourselves what data the quizzes are actually measuring. We can break this huge question down into smaller, more manageable questions:
> 
> 1) Are there any filters between the cognitive functions themselves and the data collection tool?
> 2) If so, what sort of effect would these filters have on the data collected?
> 
> In examining the first question, we know that cognition as a whole (not to be confused with Cognitive Processes) is an internal process. Quite frequently, researchers have puzzled over ways to deal with these 'invisible' processes. Behaviourists saw these internal processes as a 'black box' which could never truly be reached and instead focused on purely observable, external reactions, namely behaviours. Cognitive researchers, on the other hand, were interested purely in these invisible, unobservable processes and their effects on various situations. So they had developed various combinations of data collection methods to try and triangulate cognitive processes. Many of these methods include various types of interviews.
> 
> The first thing that I notice with a questionnaire is that it is not an interview. There is no real time negotiation and construction of clarification and meaning. So this is one filter that hinders the data collection process: *vocabulary*. My favourite thing to say is 'different people are different.' One phrase will contain different meanings with different parameters and different connotations for different people.
> 
> This also brings in people's tendencies of answering vague or ambiguous questions. Again, different people are different. Some people may answer a question negatively when the meaning is unclear. Some people may hazard a guess based on how the phrase sounds. Others may play the safe ground and answer neutrally.
> 
> The second thing I notice is that the questionnaire is asking for self-observation of one's internal processes. This construction for the collection of valid data is entirely problematic. No matter how self aware a participant may be, cognition is inherently an internal process that occurs very quickly. Dragging this process out into the light for examination is inherently unnatural. And asking a participant to be cognizant enough to observe these rapidly occurring, invisible functions is placing too much of a workload onto the participant. The result is likely to be invalid data when concerning one's own actual Cognitive Functions.
> 
> So, in conclusion, what the questionnaire is measuring is indeed not Cognitive Functions themselves, but one's own perceptions on one's own Cognitive Functions. So really, it's measuring how one interacts and examines and evaluates ones-self. Does this make much of a distinction? Not necessarily, but quite possibly. For this very reason, I could see myself as an ENFP, but I could very possibly be an ESFP or INFP or ISFP. This is not all that surprising or disconcerting to me at all since I am not all that interested in a person's objective type. Short of measuring brain activity, I'm not sure how you'd be able to determine objective type. Rather, I'm more interested in the interaction with personality type theories. But then again, that's where the interesting data comes in... in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly want a picture of your overall function preferences, I would suggest taking each of these tests once every few months (or whatever time frame you prefer), and saving the results, then putting them in chronological order and in cognitive function groups to see trends. My prediction though, is that you'll end up with similar results on each individual test.
> 
> I did this over the course of 2008 to 2011, and the results were interesting. There were fluctuations that seemed inconsistent with individual test results, but when I compiled all of them, a clear pattern emerged. Even my function growth in Te was apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> If the quizzes indeed measured cognition rather than perception, this might indeed be a valid direction to investigate. However, since it's still a participant taking the quiz, there is a great risk for the 'practice effect.' The participant becomes used to the questions, and each subsequent quizzing becomes easier and easier. This is the reason why I feel that taking the quizzes demonstrates how I am interacting and evaluating and examining myself rather than what is actually occurring within my own cognition. Regardless of how objective I may try my best to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons for that is that the questions are too simplistic, reworded and repeated, and in many cases not well suited to measure the functions they are attempting to. I am truly not a fan of this test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's alright. We feel differently. Different people are different. And so, different researchers have different ways of viewing the same situations and tend to use different data collection tools to get different pictures of the world. It all comes down to conceptual framework.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Nobleheart

Functianalyst said:


> Furthermore I am not going to indicate a high use of Se when I take these sort of assessments because I prefer Ti-Ni. Nevertheless I am ISTP, because it is the only type that uses Ti-Ni in that order.


In Soviet Russia, type fits you. 

Actually, it is the case that type fits you, and not the other way around. You're not an ISTP. You're a Ti dom, Ni auxiliary. ISTP is your best fit type. The clarification is important because it puts you, as a unique entity, ahead of the definition. 



Functianalyst said:


> No matter what happens, the dominant function-attitude *should* be the only thing that remains consistent *unless* circumstances has pulled you in a particular direction, causing you to use another function-attitude.


In other words, there are common tendencies, but no rules with cognitive functions, and the mind is adaptive with respect to cognition. 

This has been my point in the course of this thread.



erasinglines said:


> That's alright. We feel differently. Different people are different. And so, different researchers have different ways of viewing the same situations and tend to use different data collection tools to get different pictures of the world. It all comes down to conceptual framework.


And that's the beauty of these theories. Everyone has their own way of looking at things. The study of it promotes understanding of how others see things, and acceptance of the fact that not only they see things differently, but also admiration for the advantages of those differences.

Also, while I fully admit that there are a lot of possibilities for inaccuracy in self assessment test results (which I addressed in the OP), the validation for my statement comes in the form that with so many diverse sets of function scores it is highly improbable that type models - with respect to cognitive function preference hierarchies - are correct. 

To use a specific example, type models imply that every person who best fits the ENFP set is Ne > Fi > Te > Si > Ni > Fe > Ti > Se, and that each of these placements has specific significance relative to each function in question. I am concluding with what I'd consider a fair degree of certainty from the diversity of these scores, that this assumption (with respect to all type models) is simply incorrect.


----------



## Functianalyst

Nobleheart said:


> In Soviet Russia, type fits you.
> 
> Actually, it is the case that type fits you, and not the other way around. You're not an ISTP. You're a Ti dom, Ni auxiliary. ISTP is your best fit type. The clarification is important because it puts you, as a unique entity, ahead of the definition.


No description will fit anyone 100%, because function-attitudes are not static. The degree of my use of Ti will always be different than the next person dominating with the same function-attitude. My introversion in using Ti will be different as well. I have not attempted to discern my type by using a description in over five years, because as you say correlating my Ti-Ni into a type leaves me with one choice, ISTP. I am still ISTP by definition, because I use Ti-Ni. 


Nobleheart said:


> In other words, there are common tendencies, but no rules with cognitive functions, and the mind is adaptive with respect to cognition.
> 
> This has been my point in the course of this thread.


Sure there are basic rules in using cognitive functions, that have been explained by Jung in his theory:


> Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.
> 
> For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through [p. 516] with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.
> 
> A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.


----------



## Functianalyst

Peter said:


> If what you say is true, then it shouldn't be possible to see differences between the threads in the 16 different type sub-forums. So do your observations and start comparing.
> 
> Meyers and Briggs did a pretty good job at organizing the cognitive functions into something useful. The idea that only those orders of the cognitive functions are possible may be wrong from a behavioral point of view, but if you assume (which is what I do) that the cognitive functions are functions of the brain and describe behavior of the brain, (so the behavior of the person is a result of the behavior of the brain which gives space for changed behavior, for example people going against their natural instincts) then it becomes more accurate.
> 
> I didn't read your whole post because it's way too long. Try to write a 500 word or less version of the same thing please and I'll read that one.


Peter, I pulled out my ten year old copy of “Gifts Differing” to support some of your points. But what I thought I remembered about the book and what I quickly realized is the reason that I became frustrated with Myers & Briggs’ work, therefore began studying Jung. Katherine Myers’ reference to cognitive functions remains mere forced choices. However she described the extraverted function (Te, Fe, Ne or Se), she merely reversed the description when describing the introverted counterpart. She put no real effort into it. Otherwise the whole theory is based on dichotomies, not function-attitudes. 

Something that also caught my eye and really irritated me was her descriptions. For example when describing an extraverted thinking type supported by sensing, her first sentence says, “ESTJs look at the world with sensing rather than intuition, hence they are most interested in the realities perceived by their five senses…” That sounds to me like she is implying the ESTJ uses Se to dominate with, but none the less, they are using Se not Te. She says the same thing about ENTJ types looking at the world with intuition. These are the auxiliary functions for both types. 

Her opening words about ISTP are, “ISTPs have a vested interest in practical and applied science, especially the field of mechanics. Of all the processes, sensing provides for the greatest understanding of the visible and tangible properties of matter….. People of this type are likely to be good with their hands…..” I now remember why I dropped the book as well. It was Briggs who started the rumor of physical traits being used, not cognitive processing. Myers also implies that introverting types are more noticeable with their auxiliary function as we all know. I recant any statements I have made in the past that one cannot correlate Keirsey with Myers & Briggs. Keirsey is Myers & Briggs. I just forgot how off base Myers & Briggs was from Jung's theory.


----------



## Eric B

Nobleheart said:


> Wow. These scores defy any sense of known type models.
> 
> According to these scores, and what you said about bias toward ISFJ, I honestly think your best fit type is INFP or ISFP.
> 
> You appear to be an Fi dom. Si comes in second, which could imply an Fi + Si preference, but that could also fit with the INFP model despite your Ne being lower in the list than even Te. However, if you take into consideration that you have a strong Fi and Si, then it's likely that you'd develop more of an Ni then Ne to support them. Ti is your lowest score, which again implies Fi dominance.
> 
> ISFP is my runner up suggestion only because you seem to be more S than N in these scores. But, your Se, Ne, and Te scores are all very similar which implies that you may have integrated these functions into a bit of a council for your extroverted processes.
> 
> I think your Fe scores simply come from your Enneagram motivations. There are several questions for Fe on that test which would ping strongly for 9's and 2's, of which you are both.
> 
> In any case, you seem to be an Fi dom, which means you are who you are, and who you are is awesome.


Fe will fit with Si as being preferred type functions, but for Fi to be the true preference, then Se or Ne would likely be strong as well. But they're very weak. 
This might be just a strong general Feeling preference, and coupled with, also as Functianalyst said, strong introversion (to the point that the F and i _appear_ to "bleed into each other", so to speak). 

And she says ISFJ seems to fit best, so the evidence leans towards that type. 
(This test obviously is no absolute indicator of type, as there really is no such thing, but this is the best way to weigh scores like those).

Also, Ti being weakest along with Ne as next to weakest would almost fit the de-facto "ship model" most people's scores fall into, as I've been discussing elsewhere. The tertiary and inferior tends to come out very weak in this test.
The "ship" order for ISFJ is *SiFe*NiTeFiSe*TiNe*, and we see it pretty close to that, except for the Fi being strong, and the Ti/Ne being swapped.


----------



## HandiAce

I'm an SJ. Turtle strategy in video games for the win!!

In all seriousness, I hardly fit most written descriptions of the ISFJ. Hell, I fit INTP and INFP a whole lot better than I do ISFJ. I have been accused for being cold, oblivious to people's feelings, totally impractical! Off marching to the beat of my own drum. I always loved MBTI's attempts to put people into boxes to add some unique categorization to my life, but I'm afraid it's not as simple as I had imagined.


----------



## Nobleheart

Eric B said:


> The "ship" order for ISFJ is *SiFe*NiTeFiSe*TiNe*, and we see it pretty close to that, except for the Fi being strong, and the Ti/Ne being swapped.


This does seem to be more like the order preferences that most people seem to derive than the Beebe/Berens/Thomson models. A strong Fi wold explain the affinity for the ISFP and INFP results.

Interestingly enough, though, here are my preferences in a graph format.

View attachment 31001


Ni > Fe > Fi > Ti > Ne > Se > Te > Si seems quite jumbled as text, but visually, it does create an interesting model when I put shadow functions next to standard model functions. N > F > T > S is pretty clear in my results.

This really baits the question of whether or not they are actually shadow functions or simply function preferences, and Jung's statements about how function align might have been implying non-attitude preferences, which again supports my stance that the Beebe/Berens/Thomson models are flawed.


----------



## Eric B

Well, the ship order _is_ Thomson's model. Beebe/Berens is the more standard one where the tert. and inf. are 3/4, and the shadows are the same four with the attitudes reversed and placed as 5-8.

Nice graphic! Where did you get it from? (Made it yourself?) Yes, that is a much better way of looking at the functions, and more true to Jung. The four preferences, with the opposite attitudes as actual "_shadows_" of each one! Then, relative strengths don't really matter! (Again, even Beebe has said that his "1-8" stacking order was not to be taken literally. It's just for convenience).


----------



## Nobleheart

Eric B said:


> Well, the ship order _is_ Thomson's model. Beebe/Berens is the more standard one where the tert. and inf. are 3/4, and the shadows are the same four with the attitudes reversed and placed as 5-8.


I suppose I was misinterpreting Thomson's model then, as I've seen it represented as dominant, secondary, tertiary, and inferior. I assumed her hemisphere functions were considered shadow functions.

Jungian cognitive functions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly enough, I'm a right brained thinker, and if you switch the order of her hemisphere functions to put right brained functions ahead of left brained, my preferences would match perfectly. Interesting. I need to put that on Ni-percolate.



Eric B said:


> Nice graphic! Where did you get it from? (Made it yourself?)


I did, thanks.



Eric B said:


> Yes, that is a much better way of looking at the functions, and more true to Jung. The four preferences, with the opposite attitudes as actual "_shadows_" of each one! Then, relative strengths don't really matter! (Again, even Beebe has said that his "1-8" stacking order was not to be taken literally. It's just for convenience).


Interesting. Seems like this is much more like what I was trying to get at in the OP. Thanks.


----------



## Functianalyst

Eric B said:


> Well, the ship order _is_ Thomson's model. Beebe/Berens is the more standard one where the tert. and inf. are 3/4, and the shadows are the same four with the attitudes reversed and placed as 5-8.
> 
> Nice graphic! Where did you get it from? (Made it yourself?) Yes, that is a much better way of looking at the functions, and more true to Jung. The four preferences, with the opposite attitudes as actual "_shadows_" of each one! Then, relative strengths don't really matter! (Again, even Beebe has said that his "1-8" stacking order was not to be taken literally. It's just for convenience).


Eric, I don't even think Lenore Thomson follows her own theory, after teaming up with Berens and Nardi. Her ship theory saw, for example, the INTP as having a function-attitudes: Ti-Ne-Fi-Se-Ni-Te-Si-Fe (or something similar). Really? There is no rhyme or reason to her lasagna theory based on type theory principle. Fi and Se cannot be that high for someone using Ti and Ne because they negate one another. These are truly the opposite functions for one another. 

This theory was an ill attempt to incorporate the funciton-attitudes into Myers & Briggs' (hence the Si and Fe at the same level they would be in MBTI 4-function model). The problem that we all realized quickly is that tertiary literally means in 3rd place. So Si at 7th place blows the theory out of the water.


----------



## LiquidLight

So I tried to graph out my CF functions from several tests to see where I'd fit in with the Crow's Nest idea. 

This first test is an old K2C test from awhile back (before I knew much about MBTI or the functions so I trust its results to be less biased than a test taken today).








Lots of Ne, Fi and Ti here. Te is noticeably the weakest function leading me to believe I'm probably a Fe-type that masquerades as a Fi-type (I may in fact have something of a Fe persona). The high Ne makes things interesting here. 

The second is another old test, different scoring system (this was a self-scored test that was much more thorough than the K2C test).








Here again Ti seems very pronounced and Te is noticeably the weakest function. Fi and Fe have relative parity. Interestingly Ne is fairly strong here as well. Points basically toward ENTP (N-T-F-S).

And here is that same test, results taken today.








These results basically correlate to INFJ (with Si and Se being switched). Again Te is noticeably weak. I'm not sure how much stock I put into these most current results as the test results may be biased do to my better understanding of the functions, but it could be that I understand what the question is asking better now too. Either way the differences weren't dramatic other than Fe, Te and Ni jumping up (Ti stayed the same).


----------



## Peter

Functianalyst said:


> Peter, I pulled out my ten year old copy of “Gifts Differing” to support some of your points. But what I thought I remembered about the book and what I quickly realized is the reason that I became frustrated with Myers & Briggs’ work, therefore began studying Jung. Katherine Myers’ reference to cognitive functions remains mere forced choices. However she described the extraverted function (Te, Fe, Ne or Se), she merely reversed the description when describing the introverted counterpart. She put no real effort into it. Otherwise the whole theory is based on dichotomies, not function-attitudes.
> 
> Something that also caught my eye and really irritated me was her descriptions. For example when describing an extraverted thinking type supported by sensing, her first sentence says, “ESTJs look at the world with sensing rather than intuition, hence they are most interested in the realities perceived by their five senses…” That sounds to me like she is implying the ESTJ uses Se to dominate with, but none the less, they are using Se not Te. She says the same thing about ENTJ types looking at the world with intuition. These are the auxiliary functions for both types.
> 
> Her opening words about ISTP are, “ISTPs have a vested interest in practical and applied science, especially the field of mechanics. Of all the processes, sensing provides for the greatest understanding of the visible and tangible properties of matter….. People of this type are likely to be good with their hands…..” I now remember why I dropped the book as well. It was Briggs who started the rumor of physical traits being used, not cognitive processing. Myers also implies that introverting types are more noticeable with their auxiliary function as we all know. I recant any statements I have made in the past that one cannot correlate Keirsey with Myers & Briggs. Keirsey is Myers & Briggs. I just forgot how off base Myers & Briggs was from Jung's theory.


I think when she says Extroverted Thinking type she really means an MBTI type that has an E and T and not Te. You can complain about her descriptions but then you'll have to complain about what she is saying and not what you want her to be saying to support your opinion.


Being good at using your hands is not a physical trait. In order to be good at using your hands, you need a brain. Being good at using your hands is purely a brain thing, not a physical thing.


----------



## Eric B

Nobleheart said:


> I suppose I was misinterpreting Thomson's model then, as I've seen it represented as dominant, secondary, tertiary, and inferior. I assumed her hemisphere functions were considered shadow functions.
> 
> Jungian cognitive functions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yes, they are tertiary and inferior, but look at the order in the article. The tertiary and inferior are on bottom (7/8), while the other four (the shadows) are in the middle. So they still are shadows, but she simply stacks them differently.


> Interestingly enough, I'm a right brained thinker, and if you switch the order of her hemisphere functions to put right brained functions ahead of left brained, my preferences would match perfectly. Interesting. I need to put that on Ni-percolate.


 Well, in that theory, J's are left brained, P's are right brained. But then, there is a newer version of hemisphere theory, which might be the one studied by Nardi, and it appears to be different, so you might be right brained in that one. 



Functianalyst said:


> Eric, I don't even think Lenore Thomson follows her own theory, after teaming up with Berens and Nardi.


 You're right. I'm the one who thinks it still has merit (and works with Beebe's model, as another perspective of shadow degradation), but since she is the one who put it together, and the book is still out there, I give the credit to her.


> Her ship theory saw, for example, the INTP as having a function-attitudes: Ti-Ne-Fi-Se-Ni-Te-Si-Fe (or something similar). Really? There is no rhyme or reason to her lasagna theory based on type theory principle. Fi and Se cannot be that high for someone using Ti and Ne because they negate one another. These are truly the opposite functions for one another.
> 
> This theory was an ill attempt to incorporate the funciton-attitudes into Myers & Briggs' (hence the Si and Fe at the same level they would be in MBTI 4-function model). The problem that we all realized quickly is that tertiary literally means in 3rd place. So Si at 7th place blows the theory out of the water.


 But it is not about being "high". Again, they are not tertiary and inferior in that model. Just like Beebe said his order was not to have too much assumed about it, neither was Lenore's model a hard measure of "strength". Again, no one talked about relative strengths (beyond the first four) until people started taking Nardi's K2C.

Fi and Se are fellow right-brain functions as Ti and Ne they share the preferred "P" attitude with. In that theory, we turned to them, (likely in an unconscious rash), _when the dominant and aux. couldn't solve the problem_. So they are not "_negating_" each other; they are *filling in*, as the others are not working (at the moment). Otherwise, she does acknowledge that they "compete" with each other.

Again, the results of this test do often closely match that model. So while the shadow functions are not really as "strong" as ego-syntonic ones, still the behaviors they (likely unconsciously) produce, which is what this test is picking up, do manifest strongly.


----------



## Nobleheart

Eric B said:


> Well, in that theory, J's are left brained, P's are right brained. But then, there is a newer version of hemisphere theory, which might be the one studied by Nardi, and it appears to be different, so you might be right brained in that one.


One of the biggest reasons I had issues with Thomson's work was her assumptions of hemisphere association with various cognitive functions. Aside from the fact that the whole 'left brain' 'right brain' notions are outdated, it seemed too artificial and forced to assume the geography of the brain associated with cognitive functions.

(My other issue was her approach to Fe, but other than those two, I am actually a fan of her work... so please don't make assumptions to the contrary based on this one criticism.)

If I'm not mistaken, it's Nardi's studies that are showing the idea of hemisphere association with functions to be false. However, I didn't know that Thomson was working with the K2C group. You learn something new every day.


----------



## Functianalyst

Peter said:


> I think when she says Extroverted Thinking type she really means an MBTI type that has an E and T and not Te. You can complain about her descriptions but then you'll have to complain about what she is saying and not what you want her to be saying to support your opinion.
> 
> Being good at using your hands is not a physical trait. In order to be good at using your hands, you need a brain. Being good at using your hands is purely a brain thing, not a physical thing.


 She does not say Extroverted, she uses Jung's term extraverted and maybe you're right that she could have meant extraversion and thinking (E and T), but she used the exact terminology extraverted thinking which means Te. 

Nevertheless her description(s) whether I want to hear it or not are laced with the stereotypes that most of you can't get past when discussing type by pitting S vs N. I realize now why most can’t appreciate that not all using sensing are sensors and all using intuition or not intuitors. It’s based on her poorly written descriptions and now that I am reading again, a pretty bad theory. Why would you focus on claiming an ESTJ sees the world with sensing at the same time you acknowledge the type dominates with extraverted thinking? The same goes for the ISTP. You know the type dominates with introverted thinking, but you just discussed the type using sensing. And contrary to your assertion, working with your hands does require physical dexterity which may or may not be measured from cognition, but in this case it does not matter since Myers says exactly where it comes from which is the lesser used auxiliary function for ISTP types. 

We all know that Myers had to write her descriptions to coincide with her four-letter codes and introduction of the J/P dichotomy. But I discovered eight to nine years ago just how rudimentary her theory really is and like Noble and others, once that discovery is made you’re just annoyed at all the time lost in following the theory in the first place. Myers & Briggs has given us a symbol of type with the four-letter code , and a quasi means of determining our type. Those were her contributions. But at some point we all realize that is where it ends. The theory is not conducive in the real world. I think threads such as this is the OP’s way of saying “I got it” and the processing starts with why I was so gullible for not getting it sooner.



Eric B said:


> You're right. I'm the one who thinks it still has merit (and works with Beebe's model, as another perspective of shadow degradation), but since she is the one who put it together, and the book is still out there, I give the credit to her. But it is not about being "high". Again, they are not tertiary and inferior in that model. Just like Beebe said his order was not to have too much assumed about it, neither was Lenore's model a hard measure of "strength". Again, no one talked about relative strengths (beyond the first four) until people started taking Nardi's K2C.


See this is where we start playing on words as to whether she uses the term tertiary, fourth function or not. Which doesn’t matter since anytime you place something in an order of first through at least four, the third spot is the tertiary by default. But since you already acknowledged to Noble that:


> Yes, they are tertiary and inferior, but look at the order in the article. The tertiary and inferior are on bottom (7/8), while the other four (the shadows) are in the middle. So they still are shadows, but she simply stacks them differently.


You acknowledge she places the tertiary in the 7th place.


Eric B said:


> Fi and Se are fellow right-brain functions as Ti and Ne they share the preferred "P" attitude with. In that theory, we turned to them, (likely in an unconscious rash), _when the dominant and aux. couldn't solve the problem_. So they are not "_negating_" each other; they are *filling in*, as the others are not working (at the moment). Otherwise, she does acknowledge that they "compete" with each other.
> 
> Again, the results of this test do often closely match that model. So while the shadow functions are not really as "strong" as ego-syntonic ones, still the behaviors they (likely unconsciously) produce, which is what this test is picking up, do manifest strongly.


First of all I truly like Lenore and used to post on a forum where she frequented many years ago. I have the utmost respect for her work and theory and lauded her accomplishments. Again I believe she even abandoned the theory for exactly what you are attempting to justify. 

For her theory to work one must abandon Jung’s principles, which would be fine because I think many now realize that MB actually abandoned his principles. Thomson, Keirsey, Quenck, the Tigers, Kroeger, etc have all written books based on M&B theory. I blamed the authors in the past when I read their respective books, but now realized they were actually following M & B. Lenore’s theory is based on applying the MB theory to an 8-function model. That is why she refers to it as “lasagna” since when all else is considered the first, second, next to last and last functions will be in their respective order, and the remaining four functions will be thrown into the middle. But it satisfies the integrity of the M & B theory.


----------



## Eric B

Nobleheart said:


> One of the biggest reasons I had issues with Thomson's work was her assumptions of hemisphere association with various cognitive functions. Aside from the fact that the whole 'left brain' 'right brain' notions are outdated, it seemed too artificial and forced to assume the geography of the brain associated with cognitive functions.
> 
> (My other issue was her approach to Fe, but other than those two, I am actually a fan of her work... so please don't make assumptions to the contrary based on this one criticism.)
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, it's Nardi's studies that are showing the idea of hemisphere association with functions to be false. However, I didn't know that Thomson was working with the K2C group. You learn something new every day.


 From what I understood, this was supposed to be based on some PET scans or something. I figured it needed more empirical support. Then I heard (from Naama, IIRC, or maybe Functianalyst) that Nardi's work disproved it. That's something I've been meaning to look into. 
But again, she's moved away from that model. I'm holding onto it, because it does stil seem to explain stuff I'm seeing, both in myself, and in others, especially with these K2C results. The "right/left brain terms just stuck, especially until I see it disproven (it does sound so scientific!) I guess using "J/P alternatives" would be better, regardless of hemisphere.

I forgot to mention in the last post, that no, she has not moved toward the K2C group (Berens/Nardi), or Beebe either. She's just begun addressing Beebe's model, but she still doesn't really accept it completely. She's still pretty much "independent".


----------



## Eric B

Functianalyst said:


> Why would you focus on claiming an ESTJ sees the world with sensing at the same time you acknowledge the type dominates with extraverted thinking? The same goes for the ISTP. You know the type dominates with introverted thinking, but you just discussed the type using sensing.


 Maybe I'm misunderstanding the context, or something, but why do you think they wouldn't use both? The dominant is the ego's main perspective, but still, we need to both judge and perceive, so we "prefer" one of each.


----------



## Functianalyst

Eric B said:


> From what I understood, this was supposed to be based on some PET scans or something. I figured it needed more empirical support. Then I heard (from Naama, IIRC, or maybe Functianalyst) that Nardi's work disproved it. That's something I've been meaning to look into.
> But again, she's moved away from that model. I'm holding onto it, because it does stil seem to explain stuff I'm seeing, both in myself, and in others, especially with these K2C results. The "right/left brain terms just stuck, especially until I see it disproven (it does sound so scientific!) I guess using "J/P alternatives" would be better, regardless of hemisphere.
> 
> I forgot to mention in the last post, that no, she has not moved toward the K2C group (Berens/Nardi), or Beebe either. She's just begun addressing Beebe's model, but she still doesn't really accept it completely. She's still pretty much "independent".


This is all news to me and I have never read where Lenore had second thoughts on Beebe. I do know she was the major contributor in Dario Nardi's book "The 8 Keys to Self Leadership". 

If you want to know where she stands today on psychological type, then I would pick up with the public disagreements between Lenore and Keirsey in the late 90s early 00's. Lenore was adamant that Keirsey's work was different and inferior to MB. I think she may have realized at some point they're one and the same.


Eric B said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the context, or something, but why do you think they wouldn't use both? The dominant is the ego's main perspective, but still, we need to both judge and perceive, so we "prefer" one of each.


But they did not use both, they described the ESTJ and ISTP using the sensing function, not the thinking function.


----------



## Eric B

Functianalyst said:


> See this is where we start playing on words as to whether she uses the term tertiary, fourth function or not. Which doesn’t matter since anytime you place something in an order of first through at least four, the third spot is the tertiary by default. But since you already acknowledged to Noble that:You acknowledge she places the tertiary in the 7th place.


 "Tertiary" is an "operational definition". It stems from the original Jungian conception of *four* "natural" functions (sans e/i), SNTF. The eight function-attitude combinations are an artificial construct to show which orientation each type tends to use them in. 
So what she was doing, was stacking opposite, normally unconscious attitudes inbetween, as the alternatives of the dom. and aux. when those functions are stumped in certain situations. The tertiary is still the tertiary when seen as a "natural" attitude without the attitude.
Again, you're making too much out of the stacking order. Neither she, just like Beebe, ever intended those orders to be taken so literally (where tertiary is no longer tertiary because you've staked another function-attitude beneath the auxiliary).
Again. Noble's bar graphs are a much better way to view the functions.



> First of all I truly like Lenore and used to post on a forum where she frequented many years ago. I have the utmost respect for her work and theory and lauded her accomplishments. Again I believe she even abandoned the theory for exactly what you are attempting to justify.


 Because I've seen where it is fitting something, as even reflected by K2C results. Not exactly, but there does appear to be something to people's "7th/8th" functions coming out strongly, and the tertiary and inferior coming out weak. Again, 7th/8th and 3rd/4th are not to be taken too literally. That;s what causing all this confusion with the test results, and fitting them to a type.


Functianalyst said:


> This is all news to me and I have never read where Lenore had second thoughts on Beebe.


http://web.archive.org/web/20080704133727/http://www.greatlakesapt.org/uploads/media/beebe1.PDF (down right at the moment)
John Beebe Archetypes | Lenore Thomson Bentz


> I do know she was the major contributor in Dario Nardi's book "The 8 Keys to Self Leadership".


 That I wasn't aware of. I'll have to check if she is credited int he book.


> If you want to know where she stands today on psychological type, then I would pick up with the public disagreements between Lenore and Keirsey in the late 90s early 00's.


 I've had long e-mail conversations with her. Since they were basically private, I don't want to talk too much about all the stuff she's told me (that last link is a part of it she did publish, on that site). So yes, I know she's not a fan of Keirsey (or temperament theory, as we know it, in general. You can see some of her objections to it in the series on that site). 

So again, I'm only crediting her on the theory she originally came up with. I know she's basically moved away from it. But I still think it has some sort of merit.


> But they did not use both, they described the ESTJ and ISTP using the sensing function, not the thinking function.


 I meant why _the types_ would not use both. (Not sure of who they "they" you're referring to are. I take it, Myers and Quenk?) If "they" only described them as Sensing types, then yes, that would be wrong. To Jung, they were "Thinking types with Sensing". But they can thus still be described in terms of Sensing.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> Not exactly, but there does appear to be something to people's "7th/8th" functions coming out strongly, and the tertiary and inferior coming out weak. Again, 7th/8th and 3rd/4th are not to be taken too literally. That;s what causing all this confusion with the test results, and fitting them to a type.


Really? I kind of doubt this is really the 7th/8th functions that "come out" in most people (if that were true, I have no idea how a person would be remotely stable, since the lower unconscious functions are so ego-dystonic relative to the 3rd and 4th - I seriously don't remember a time that I've ever truly consciously used Fe, and I have no clue what that would really be like - I mean, being an Fi user, this would require completely compromising my Fi mode of feeling with Fe, which is entirely different - extracting personal values from the environment based on others, which I don't do - it would be almost schizophrenic, like, a double life of sorts). Like, sure, I know how to "fake" appealing to social norms and whatnot, but it's not genuine and *instinctive*. My INTP twin actually "gets" social norms a billion times better than I do, even if she finds them annoying and whatnot. The feelings of others she gives a crap about also become her own *amazingly easily* or others basically just influence her feelings (she doesn't operate on an internal self-directed feelings system), which *astounded* me when I finally learned what Fe is and was able to relate it to past experiences with my twin. Whenever I'm upset about something in my personal Fi way, she picks up on it and suddenly, my mood ruins her day, until it changes - then, she's suddenly rather upbeat and whatnot, which, to me, is unfathomable. My feelings (Fi) just work to independently ruin my day or make my day without the influence of the feelings of others (although, to be careful, this could vary based on the situation, etc. However, they are never *directly* influenced or manipulated by others or a situation, unlike my twin). Like, if my twin is all moody and whatnot, her feelings don't directly influence mine 90% of the time, as mine direct me very independently of others. In fact, based on conversations I've had with my INTP twin, I don't think the concept of self-directed feelings make much of any sense in her mind or she can relate at all to it - whenever she notices this about me, she's always really surprised or really finds me annoying when I go by this and disregard her feelings for my own that she has no idea about. I think most people just misinterpret the functions they use the least and think they use them more than they do, based on the fact that they barely understand them from their own experience to begin with, if they at least get the concepts. For instance, I used to think that I used Si a lot more than I really do, since I thought it had to do with "memory" and whatnot, which I have a very good one, but when I found out what the perspective was really all about, it was almost...freakishly foreign to me. All I could ask was, "WTF is that?" Just the idea of living life from the perspective of Si was pretty much unimaginable to me - it's very much the "anti-me," which fits well with the theory, being an Ni dom. It took me a long time to even know what it really entails. I think most people who think that they're using their 7th/8th functions strongly probably think of the functions as abilities, rather than mental perspectives, since the cognitive function tests test the functions as abilities rather than perspectives. Sure, everyone can obviously do things that relate to every function if they have to, but living life from the functions as perspectives is a whole different reality.


----------



## Sparky

Even if MBTI types are an illusion, learning about MBTI has helped me a lot in understanding and accepting myself, as well as others. It opened my eyes that allows me to see the world in a new light, and observe the interconnectedness among people of all ethnicities and backgrounds, for which I am forever grateful. My faith could stem from how I am using MBTI to help visually type people, which so few people seem to do on this forum, and this is extremely surprising. If people could learn to visually identify someone's type, then it opens up a new world of possibilities and connections never imagined possible, because to do so would mean understanding the motivations of people and their stories as presented on television and other media. Thank you for reading.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

I'm going to go out on a limb and now argue that if you don't have a basic background in Freudian or Jungian psychology, your understanding of this stuff is going to suffer a bit. This is what truly moves people away from behaviorist understandings to psychological understandings, which are much, much deeper and more intellectual.


----------



## Eric B

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Really? I kind of doubt this is really the 7th/8th functions that "come out" in most people (if that were true, I have no idea how a person would be remotely stable, since the lower unconscious functions are so ego-dystonic relative to the 3rd and 4th - I seriously don't remember a time that I've ever truly consciously used Fe, and I have no clue what that would really be like - I mean, being an Fi user, this would require completely compromising my Fi mode of feeling with Fe, which is entirely different - extracting personal values from the environment based on others, which I don't do - it would be almost schizophrenic, like, a double life of sorts). Like, sure, I know how to "fake" appealing to social norms and whatnot, but it's not genuine and *instinctive*. My INTP twin actually "gets" social norms a billion times better than I do, even if she finds them annoying and whatnot. The feelings of others she gives a crap about also become her own *amazingly easily* or others basically just influence her feelings (she doesn't operate on an internal self-directed feelings system), which *astounded* me when I finally learned what Fe is and was able to relate it to past experiences with my twin. Whenever I'm upset about something in my personal Fi way, she picks up on it and suddenly, my mood ruins her day, until it changes - then, she's suddenly rather upbeat and whatnot, which, to me, is unfathomable. My feelings (Fi) just work to independently ruin my day or make my day without the influence of the feelings of others (although, to be careful, this could vary based on the situation, etc. However, they are never *directly* influenced or manipulated by others or a situation, unlike my twin). Like, if my twin is all moody and whatnot, her feelings don't directly influence mine 90% of the time, as mine direct me very independently of others. In fact, based on conversations I've had with my INTP twin, I don't think the concept of self-directed feelings make much of any sense in her mind or she can relate at all to it - whenever she notices this about me, she's always really surprised or really finds me annoying when I go by this and disregard her feelings for my own that she has no idea about. I think most people just misinterpret the functions they use the least and think they use them more than they do, based on the fact that they barely understand them from their own experience to begin with, if they at least get the concepts.
> 
> I think most people who think that they're using their 7th/8th functions strongly probably *think of the functions as abilities, rather than mental perspectives, since the cognitive function tests test the functions as abilities rather than perspectives*. Sure, everyone can obviously do things that relate to every function if they have to, but living life from the functions as perspectives is a whole different reality.


 The whole premise is that the shadow functions come up in rash fashion, and not even consciously. Then, what it becomes most identifiable by, is the behaviors associated with them. Like what I find TJ's do (and growing up with, seem to be infamous for), is appealing to the feelings of others, in order to often violently strike at the person they are dealing with. Like if it's a child, to try to shake them up into considering others, or whatever they are "supposed" to do. For people they are having serious fights with, to basically "destroy" them, socially. (Turn others against them or at least "speak for" others in a way to convey the massage that everyone is against the person).

One can try to connect this to Fi/Te in some way, but they're all interconnected. Fe is the "shadow" of Fi, and the ultimate "reflection" of Te (same preferred "J" attitude). So it's not really so much about "using" a function at all. You're likely not even conscious of what you're doing.

So what I've said before, is that #7 and 8 manifest as reactive behavior, while the tertiary and inferior are what the feelings of the threat reach consciousness by. So you're not "using" or "behaving" with them in any way others might readily see, or even that you might select "exactly/mostly me" for on the Nardi test. What does surface more visibly are their shadows, which are the "clubs" we use to fend off the threat.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> The whole premise is that the shadow functions come up in rash fashion, and not even consciously. Then, what it becomes most identifiable by, is the behaviors associated with them. Like what I find TJ's do (and growing up with, seem to be infamous for), is appealing to the feelings of others, in order to often violently strike at the person they are dealing with. Like if it's a child, to try to shake them up into considering others, or whatever they are "supposed" to do. For people they are having serious fights with, to basically "destroy" them, socially. (Turn others against them or at least "speak for" others in a way to convey the massage that everyone is against the person).


Interesting. I really can't relate to this, although since this isn't conscious, I might need a hypothetical dialogue example of this. I've never seen this in any of the TJs I know either, but then again, I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at.


----------



## LiquidLight

> So what I've said before, is that #7 and 8 manifest as reactive behavior, while the tertiary and inferior are what the feelings of the threat reach consciousness by. So you're not "using" or "behaving" with them in any way others might readily see, or even that you might select "exactly/mostly me" for on the Nardi test. What does surface more visibly are their shadows, which are the "clubs" we use to fend off the threat.


So if I've gotten this right, you are saying that when threatened or under stress people will often behave in ways that are more reflections of Trickster and Demon (Se and Fi in INTP) but will consciously conceptualize the stress through Tert/Inferior (Si and Fe).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> Like what I find TJ's do (and growing up with, seem to be infamous for), is appealing to the feelings of others, in order to often violently strike at the person they are dealing with.


Ah wait, would this be like, if, a TJ got offended by a TP, for instance, so then, they try to look at the TP as if they weren't really offended, but sort of retaliate by...doing something...wow, I'm not really sure. Under those circumstances, I would resort to Te logic sometimes...wow, I just really don't know. It seems like I've seen TP types do this more than TJ types (e.g. my INTP twin will sometimes bring up incidences from my past to try to offend me that deal with how everyone was against me, even if it's sort of made up). Then again, the more action-oriented approach might reflect Te or some unconscious influence of Fe in TJs. @LiquidLight might have a point.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Ah, now I just thought of a possible example of this:

I can think of times when something upset me and then, I would defend my own feelings with sort of Fe-like retorts, such as "No one could care less about what you have to say," although, in actuality, this would be a projection of my Fi state-of-mind at the time (e.g. I really meant "I don't want to hear it")?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

In all honesty, I don't really see the importance of the 7th and 8th function in the ship theory, if people don't even know they're using them, let alone, aren't very instinctively aware of these perspectives. That just makes it all more confusing.


----------



## Eric B

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Interesting. I really can't relate to this, although since this isn't conscious, I might need a hypothetical dialogue example of this. I've never seen this in any of the TJs I know either, but then again, I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at.





JungyesMBTIno said:


> Ah wait, would this be like, if, a TJ got offended by a TP, for instance, so then, they try to look at the TP as if they weren't really offended, but sort of retaliate by...doing something...wow, I'm not really sure. Under those circumstances, I would resort to Te logic sometimes...wow, I just really don't know. It seems like I've seen TP types do this more than TJ types (e.g. my INTP twin will sometimes bring up incidences from my past to try to offend me that deal with how everyone was against me, even if it's sort of made up). Then again, the more action-oriented approach might reflect Te or some unconscious influence of Fe in TJs. @LiquidLight might have a point.





JungyesMBTIno said:


> Ah, now I just thought of a possible example of this:
> 
> I can think of times when something upset me and then, I would defend my own feelings with sort of Fe-like retorts, such as "No one could care less about what you have to say," although, in actuality, this would be a projection of my Fi state-of-mind at the time (e.g. I really meant "I don't want to hear it")?


I was looking for this in my last post. I thought I cross posted it to this forum somewhere, but couldn't find it, and was in a rush. This gives the examples of what I'm talking about (with ETJ's mostly, but it is similar for ITJ's): 
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29158&p=1596894&viewfull=1#post1596894

It is similar to your examples.
Perhaps, if you're reacting with Te and the INTP is reacting with Fe, you/they have simply not been pushed to the point of a shadow reaction. Your ego-syntonic perspectives weren't stumped enough to have to degrade to the Crow's Nests or ego-dystonic complexes.

In the link, I discuss it in light of the inferior Fi "grip", but in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs are where it has become "destructive" Fe "behavior".


LiquidLight said:


> So if I've gotten this right, you are saying that when threatened or under stress people will often behave in ways that are more reflections of Trickster and Demon (Se and Fi in INTP) but will consciously conceptualize the stress through Tert/Inferior (Si and Fe).


They will consciously feel the threats through Si and Fe. The "child" and "anima" complexes are what feel things through those functions, and they are very vulnerable.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> In all honesty, I don't really see the importance of the 7th and 8th function in the ship theory, if people don't even know they're using them, let alone, aren't very instinctively aware of these perspectives. That just makes it all more confusing.


 The whole point of the theory is being made aware of things we're not naturally aware of. Then, we can watch out for them in our dealings with others. (Especially since a lot of the unconscious stuff gets projected onto others anyway).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Ah, the typologycentral post was definitely true in my personal experiences and with other NTJs. Although I'm really not so sure that most of that can be ascribed to shadow functions at work. At least form my perspective, the overreacting secret agenda to combat an offense has more to do with Fi hypersensitivity to not living up to our own personal expectations and not being prepared from a personal perspective to deal with certain things that came up. The more I think about it though, the more I can recall at least a few times I mildly tried to pull off the Fe-ish stunt you described, but ultimately, it's a last resort Fi defense to protect our feelings, if the Fi user is having a lot of problems coping with a personal blow, which, fortunately, has been very rare in my experience. Fi is an extremely self-defensive function (basically, it operates and motivates via self-defense, which is hard for non-Fi users to understand) and it will probably be extra sensitive and self-defensive in the tert. or inferior form, so these Fi users will probably resort to every tactic in the self-defense book, so-to-speak, to protect their feelings before they cannot any longer, if their logic has already failed them pretty badly. I've dealt with some INTJs online who did what you described when I attempted to logically correct their reasoning, and they got all juvenile on me and wanted to ignore me, as if I intended to offend them, when, in fact, I was motivated by my own Fi stance to correct them that they shouldn't even be aware of, since Fi is so different and unpredictable from person to person (so I'm thinking that this is where there may be some crude, self-defensive Fe projection that was going on to defend their reasoning, since this person couldn't defend herself any further). I'm thinking that sometimes, this defense style might just result from Fi users not being able to admit to themselves that they failed themselves, so they'll go to any length to cover this up to themselves. It really doesn't have much to do with others from the Fi user perspective by bringing them into the picture out-of-nowhere.


----------



## Eric B

But again, there is really only one F function. The TJ normally introverts it, but those could be seen as negative extraversions of it.


----------



## LiquidLight

Eric B said:


> But again, there is really only one F function. The TJ normally introverts it, but those could be seen as negative extraversions of it.


Right so because there are really only four functions just expressed in one of two ways (introversion or extraversion). I think this is where the 8-function model screws people up because Fi and Fe become different functions not different function attitudes, for instance.

So I think what @Eric B is saying is that generally INTJ will express consciously Ni-Te-Fi-Se (with Fi and Se being sensitive and vulnerable areas). But they can also express the opposite function attitudes (Ne-Ti-Fe-Si aren't different functions just the opposite expressions of the same functions) but because these are unconscious (meaning they're under the influence of the shadow not the ego) they will manifest themselves negatively as perceived by the ego. Also because they are unconscious there isn't the normal conflicts here that the ego would have to contend with (Te and Ti together for instance) because using these non-preferred function attitudes would be more like an eruption of the unconscious (shadow) and not actually occurring in the conscious world (in a way it strikes me as a way of labeling or categorizing how a person might be affected by unconscious processes). 

I actually think it might do better to simply think of these processes as complexes rather than as opposing function attitude expressions (which confuses people). I think to say the Opposing Personality complex is constellated by opposition is probably more accurate than to say Shadow Te for example (in INTP), if for no other reason than it, to me, is tough to discern what a negative variant of an ego-syntonic function would look like (because even the inferior isn't explicitly negative on its own). How a person experienced a shadow function as negative would depend greatly on their ego-syntonic type I would think.


----------



## gambit

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Ah, now I just thought of a possible example of this:
> 
> I can think of times when something upset me and then, I would defend my own feelings with sort of Fe-like retorts, such as "No one could care less about what you have to say," although, in actuality, this would be a projection of my Fi state-of-mind at the time (e.g. I really meant "I don't want to hear it")?


you know...that sounds like projection of unconscious Fe. You have a desire to set a standard, rule, or dividing line in communicating. Something Fe dominants are supposed to be good at. 

Unconscious Fi as a Jungian process is usually an identification with the subject of another, something that projects through Te in sustaining/maintaining that identification; the Fe that Eric is talking about I believe is supposed to act out in defense of those identifications with others. It's supposed to be defensive as per its introverted aspect, not really a desire to set demanding boundaries with people. It's negative expression would carry a victimized ambiance to it, conceptually.

I mean even if you were to talk about superego concepts, it wouldn't really apply because that's more about acting against our instincts or acting as if we are another person because we feel we have to. It doesn't sound like your Fe description is that deep-rooted.


----------



## Eric B

LiquidLight said:


> I actually think it might do better to simply think of these processes as complexes rather than as opposing function attitude expressions (which confuses people). I think to say the Opposing Personality complex is constellated by opposition is probably more accurate than to say Shadow Te for example (in INTP), if for no other reason than it, to me, is tough to discern what a negative variant of an ego-syntonic function would look like (because even the inferior isn't explicitly negative on its own). How a person experienced a shadow function as negative would depend greatly on their ego-syntonic type I would think.


 Yes, it's better to think in terms of the complex. This helped me finally understand how this stuff works as well. When the complex is constellated, the feelings reach you by way of the associated function-attitude. We often shorthand it by addressing the function directly ("my Te erupted"), and this did make it confusing.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> you know...that sounds like projection of unconscious Fe. You have a desire to set a standard, rule, or dividing line in communicating.


No, I don't think this is any latent "desire" of mine (after all, this function is highly ego-dystonic for me, so I have no idea why I would have any desire for it, unconscious to me - if I did, it would be conscious, which it isn't). I think it's just a last-resort *defense* *mechanism* of bruised Fi - to prevent serious ego-blows. In fact, it is probably a last resort, because, otherwise, I *really* want nothing to do with it whatsoever. If you read Jung, his theories state that if the ego gets over-inflated, the "shadow complexes," (which are the shadow functions, but they don't "function" as mental perspectives, like the conscious ones - instead, they become complexes or maybe even ego-defense mechanisms to protect an unhealthy ego when it can no longer endure stress) emerge in various ways that are bizarre and out-of-character in a person. So this has nothing to do with a desire to "explore" my Fe complex whatsoever - this is a desperate attempt to maintain the conscious one (Fi) via the most similar function to it to compensate for an ego-blow, which would be Fe, since the F functions are essentially two sides of the same coin. Whenever this has ever happened to me or other NTJs, we aren't at all consciously aware of our motivations behind doing this, other than our Fi was bruised somehow, so it sort of came out of nowhere. That's the amazing thing about the unconscious - no one could know it exists until it indirectly manifests, which occurs when you do something or respond to something in a way that is extremely out-of-character and in a way that you can't even explain (like, those moments when you think, "Why did I say that? That didn't make any sense. WTF was that?"). It's not a sincere manifestation of Fe, for instance (as in, I never suddenly started sincerely caring about protecting the feelings of others - instead, this might happen via projection of my own Fi feelings onto the feelings of others to make my own feelings feel more supported, since, in actuality, they're being opposed). This is essentially the same in EXTJs and IXTJs, although it might bother EXTJs more, since their Fi is inferior, and thus, a bit more vulnerable. This kind of behavior isn't sustainable over long periods of time though. Such "eruptions" happen and only last for about a few minutes or so, then leave the person wondering - "Wow, why did I do that? I really shouldn't have done that."


----------



## Nobleheart

/popcorn


----------



## Eric B

JungyesMBTIno said:


> If you read Jung, his theories state that if the ego gets over-inflated, the "shadow complexes," (which *are* the shadow functions, but they don't "function" as mental perspectives, like the conscious ones - instead, *they become complexes* or maybe even ego-defense mechanisms to protect an unhealthy ego when it can no longer endure stress) emerge in various ways that are bizarre and out-of-character in a person. So this has nothing to do with a desire to "explore" my *Fe complex* whatsoever -


One clarification; the complex is not the function. 
The function is the perspective of a situation (tangibles, conceptuals, technicals or humanities), where a complex is an archetype that is personalized. An archetype is a model of a person or situation that lies in the collective unconscious. Or, a way of organizing human experience (a conglomeration of images, memories, and emotions) that gives it collective meaning. When it becomes personalized through our own experience, it becomes a complex. This isn't a function, but this complex generally is experienced through the associated functional perspective.
So if you're speaking of an "Fe complex", it is likely (for your type), the Trickster, which is a "bad child" (of sorts) archetype that seeks to bind someone else when the ego's feels bound (likely involving the aux. it reflects and the tertiary it shadows).


----------



## DeductiveReasoner

Scientific question: something that can be disproved.

There's nothing that "scientific" about mbti per se. I think it's less about science, and more about categorizing people. You follow? I don't think there's necessarily anything to prove or disprove: either you fall into one category, or you don't. it's like, stereotypes almost.

That's just my take on it, though.


----------



## Nobleheart

Sarah said:


> If I had to guess, I'd say:
> 
> T = upper left
> F = lower right
> P = upper right
> J = lower left


This encapsulates the findings of the study.

Dario Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality


----------



## Karen

Nobleheart said:


> This encapsulates the findings of the study.
> 
> Dario Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality



Thanks! I'll go through it later, just running out the door now. I had come across his theory, but in a primitive state and hadn't realized it could be found in more depth.


----------



## Karen

I just got back and haven't had time to do much research, but I did a first skim of the link and, though this isn't connected, found a google book of a previous Nardi book:

8 Keys of Self-Leadership: From Awareness to Action - Dario Nardi - Google Books

I'm thinking about buying the 2 Nardi books.

I've wished there was a blood test to definitively identify the Myers-Briggs type, and it looks like EEG's have the potential some day of fulfilling my wish. Now if they would only have them on street corners, kind of like Starbucks. 

Here's a YouTube of Nardi where it looks like he's discussing info from the book you linked:


----------



## mercurialmind

@Nobleheart
I'm a little puzzled with the results on Keys2Cognition. I received ENFP as my most likely match which according to you means that my extroverted functions added up to a greater value but the order of my functions was: Fi>Ne>Te>Ti>Se>Fe>Ni>Si. If type was determined by the two lead functions I think I would have matched closer to INFP. It appears to me that the test was also taking into account that Ne>Te>Si, as well as, which e/i functions came out greater?


----------



## Erbse

Well, MTBI gets more worthwhile, and perhaps accurate if you write type's function set like this (ISTP case) Ti > Se = Ni > Fe rather than Ti > Se > Ni > Fe.

This leaves plenty of room for variety within types if aux and tert become equals and interchangeable. For ISTP's two definite conclusions can be drawn when looking at the samples provided by this forum.

1. They are Ti dom. 
2. They are Fe inferior.

These two seem to be a set-in-stone frame any 'real' ISTP will move in, whether or not they like it. It's the middle functions that spice things up and provide flexibility within the type, not only due to difference of strength of any individual function, but possibly due to function order as well.

Tests are always only as accurate as people answer them; while the most used MBTI test is faulty with no doubt in my mind, I find the Key 2 Cognition ten times worse, as their weighing of answers seems to be completely off-based occasionally.

Whoever stops at any 4 letter code doesn't exactly want to be enlightened at the end of the day, though. It's out of question that all that truly matters lies secretly behind the code, the preset, however rigid it may appear at times, of functions - or further than that, Jung himself.

It's questionable whether Jung intentionally never got to speak of any order past Dom - Aux because he didn't know better, or because he wanted to allow followers of his theory to draw their own conclusions in that regard. Since it is likely he was an ISTP however, chances are he had his ideas but never specifically voiced them, for good reasons on top, as we're no folks of rigidness whatsoever.


----------



## Nobleheart

mercurialmind said:


> @Nobleheart
> I'm a little puzzled with the results on Keys2Cognition. I received ENFP as my most likely match which according to you means that my extroverted functions added up to a greater value but the order of my functions was: Fi>Ne>Te>Ti>Se>Fe>Ni>Si. If type was determined by the two lead functions I think I would have matched closer to INFP. It appears to me that the test was also taking into account that Ne>Te>Si, as well as, which e/i functions came out greater?


It would help to see the scores, but yes it is very common to get these sorts of scores on that test, and yes the e/i functions adding up is what caused the ENFP rather than INFP result. However, your pattern looks a lot like ENFP, especially if Fi wasn't too much higher than Ne.


----------



## huiwcleon

Great article to point out that cognitive functions hierarchy is indeed not from Jung. 

I've been confused by the results of the test of my cognitive functions order in this forum, Ti dom, Ni aux, then Te... 
Your Cognitive Functions:
Introverted Thinking (Ti) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 13.07
Introverted Intuition (Ni) |||||||||||||||||||||||| 11.29
Extroverted Thinking (Te) |||||||||||||||||||||||| 11.16
Introverted Sensation (Si) |||||||| 3.39
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) |||||| 2.35
Introverted Feeling (Fi) |||||| 2.02
Extroverted Sensation (Se) || -0.2
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) || -2.25


I at first couldn't understand that because I fit best as INTJ in MBTI description. I wonder why I'm not tested as Ni-Te. After reading this article, I finally realized MBTI types and even cognitive functions hierarchy are just vague illusions and great misunderstandings on the Internet. I'm sure I'll look further into separate cognitive functions instead of just those stereotypes of MBTI.

I went to the key 2 cognition, and it said this: 


Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se)*	*****************************(27.5)
average use
introverted Sensing (Si)*	*************************(23.6)
limited use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne)*	******************(16.2)
limited use
introverted Intuiting (Ni)*	***************************************************(49.7)
excellent use
extraverted Thinking (Te)*	********************************************************(55)
excellent use
introverted Thinking (Ti)*	***********************************(33.4)
good use
extraverted Feeling (Fe)*	**********(8.3)
unused
introverted Feeling (Fi)*	****************************(26.3)
average use

I wonder if these tests are reliable...


----------



## Nobleheart

huiwcleon said:


> I wonder if these tests are reliable...


They're not. At best, they can only get you in the ballpark.

I'd assume from your scores that you're either an ENTJ, or you're an INTJ who didn't resonate well with the 'mystical and spiritual' approach to the questions testing for Ni.


----------



## huiwcleon

Nobleheart said:


> They're not. At best, they can only get you in the ballpark.
> 
> I'd assume from your scores that you're either an ENTJ, or you're an INTJ who didn't resonate well with the 'mystical and spiritual' approach to the questions testing for Ni.


I didn't really understand what those words mean haha. I'm sure I'm introverted though. I seldom interact but when I speak, I often criticize and judge things.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Sarah said:


> I haven't read the entire thread yet so maybe I'm jumping the gun a little with my opinion.
> 
> Assuming brain quadrant studies have some accuracy, a person is born with a dominant brain quadrant, a secondary, third and fourth. According to what I've read, there is no direct physical link between diagonal brain quadrants the way there is between adjoining ones, so the path to the weakest brain quadrant is via one of the quadrants adjoining the dominant. So far, that would align with the theory of the first 4 functions. However, authors have tried to link the quadrants with MBTI's S, N, F and T, which I don't believe is a good fit. If I had to guess, I'd say:
> 
> T = upper left
> F = lower right
> P = upper right
> J = lower left
> 
> That leaves 3 Myers-Briggs judging and 1 perceiving, which doesn't make sense, but it also doesn't make sense to put both Si and Se in the lower left quadrant and Ni and Ne in the upper right, as many authors do in their attempts to prove MBTI is correct via brain quadrant study.
> 
> What I'm getting at in a roundabout way is that I'm not sure at this point if the function stacking is measuring what is real, and if it is, whether the methods used for teaching it are useable. This is what @_LiquidLight_ said on page 1:
> 
> "As soon as you introduce the idea of cognitive functions to most people, half of them throw their hands up and quit, the other half spend the next few years pulling their hair out trying to figure out if they use Fi or Fe. Much of this would be avoided if people started from the standpoint of the psyche as Jung defines it and then built up to MBTI (because then there would be much less attributing of functions to things other complexes might be handling) and more awareness of the implications of the other complexes especially the shadow, and persona which are just as profound as the ego and its functions.
> 
> Once you begin to recognize MBTI is an interpretation of a small part of a larger theory I think many of the misconceptions begin to diminish."
> 
> If that's true, and since Myers-Briggs is a self test with the accuracy depending on how well we understand both ourselves and Jung's theories, it simply doesn't work well because, according to some studies, 50 percent or more of people are falsifying type without a conscious understanding of doing so, and most people aren't going to study Jung in depth in order to get their function types/Myers-Briggs type correct.
> 
> There's something wrong with a method when on various forums so many posters can't figure out which type they are even after going through the official process in real life and reading books and articles on types and cognitive functions, when so many still can't clearly tell the difference between Fe/Fi and Te/Ti after dozens of posts and links trying to explain, when people complain about many even regular PerC posters mistyping themselves, and when even long-time posters will occasionally change their type. The logic of the theory is interesting if true, but doesn't have much significance beyond people studying Jung's theories in depth, if the method isn't broadly useable as both MBTI and Jung's functions are being sold.
> 
> I think the 16 types and the cognitive function stackings are models, along the lines of atoms being models, not necessarily easily found in a pure state in real life since there are too many confounding factors pushing the original into a model different enough that the original model is obscured, and may not be found without an in-depth study of Jung and possibly psychological analysis. Even so, I study Myers-Briggs and functions because some people do fit at least part of the models closely enough to identify, which helps me understand and take into account differences between people.


Well, first off, you have to understand that P/J are not functions - in fact, they really aren't anything other than determinants of the nature of your extraversion (seriously, Myers and co. literally used these this way originally as well, but pushed them too hard for reasons related to workforce placement). But otherwise, I whole-heartedly agree with absolutely everything you're saying here! You absolutely CANNOT look at the functions as literal by-and-large, which is something people get way too caught up with here - typology was meant to be a heuristic model based on OBSERVATIONS of people Jung made, but the cognitive functions are very technical and structured only because he was trying to prove that these work like elements in human personality, not because we are controlled by them like cyborgs. Jung, in my estimation, was absolutely right to call these "preferences," although the only issue I have with this is that really, who the hell actually knows they prefer say, their dominant function when they first discover this stuff (I mean, it's the one that's supposed to be so "you" that you wouldn't think twice about it just being a "preference" - it's more like, which comes most "naturally" to you imo). The most scientific this stuff gets is when applied to psychology and introversion/extraversion and judgement/perception (not the same as J/P), which was Jung's intention with it, but Myers and co. made way too big a deal out of the cognitive functions over more important principles - I mean, honest reflection can pretty easily tell you which comes most naturally between technical reasoning vs. evaluative reasoning without going into insane yearly drama on typology fora with people typing you and acting like the world is going to end if you don't find your type - people truly make this stuff a lot harder than it needs to be, largely thanks to the overcomplicated system we call MBTI - I also really don't like how MBTI acts like functions don't exist if they aren't preferred, because first off, all of the conscious functions are preferred just to be conscious (so clearly, they didn't understand Jung's idea of consciousness at all), and secondly, this is 100% untrue - it fact, I suspect most people would be more aware of their aux/tert. functions than their dominant function before being educated in this stuff by-and-large, since those are more noticeable, since they are less like just breathing (which people don't even think about), while the dominant function is compared to breathing in terms of how naturally it is a part of the person. Honestly, I consider myself really fortunate in the beginning to have not actually looked much into the internet resources on this stuff before I just thought for myself what the functions are (I was too busy with school at the time), because they are really laid out pretty atrociously for the most part (mainly the MBTI stuff). Instead, I just thought for myself what "Te" might be, etc. (I thought Te was just "thinking on the spot" and not really structuring logic, etc. in your head, since I don't do that, and truly, that's really the most basic way to break it down, since the concept is embodied by the term "extraverted (outward) thinking (duh)). Thinking of this stuff in terms of preferences works otherwise though, since it doesn't relegate "lower" functions to "non-existence," like MBTI does, but instead, you just have some that you take more seriously in your reasoning than others, even though they're all taken seriously for different reasons (but the dom. is where you are most egotistical, while the inferior is where you are least egotistical).


----------



## Eric B

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I just thought for myself what "Te" might be, etc. (I thought Te was just "thinking on the spot" and not really structuring logic, etc. in your head, since I don't do that, and truly, that's really the most basic way to break it down, since the concept is embodied by the term "extraverted (outward) thinking (duh)). Thinking of this stuff in terms of preferences works otherwise though, since it doesn't relegate "lower" functions to "non-existence," like MBTI does, but instead, you just have some that you take more seriously in your reasoning than others, even though they're all taken seriously for different reasons (but the dom. is where you are most egotistical, while the inferior is where you are least egotistical).


"extraversion" according the Jung was the merging of the ego with the object. So the extraversion of Thinking would be the merging of the ego with the object in making a technical-focused judgment. That would be the most basic way to break it down.
So take Sim's old statement "We see a messy desk through the lens of Te and decide to organize it" (as opposed to "using Te" like a tool or gear). We are basically merging our ego with the desk, which results in a natural, logical course of action. With Ti, I would remain with the subject, and subtract from the object what is not relevant. I might organize it for the sake of what is convenient to me, or to fit some impersonal pattern I think is "cool", rather than something that would be efficient to others. Fe would organize it by merging with a _different_ object, namely other _people_ (hence, what I call "humane" as opposed to "technical"), who might not like a messy desk.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Eric B said:


> "extraversion" according the Jung was the merging of the ego with the object. So the extraversion of Thinking would be the merging of the ego with the object in making a technical-focused judgment. That would be the most basic way to break it down.
> So take Sim's old statement "We see a messy desk through the lens of Te and decide to organize it" (as opposed to "using Te" like a tool or gear). We are basically merging our ego with the desk, which results in a natural, logical course of action. With Ti, I would remain with the subject, and subtract from the object what is not relevant. I might organize it for the sake of what is convenient to me, or to fit some impersonal pattern I think is "cool", rather than something that would be efficient to others. Fe would organize it by merging with a _different_ object, namely other _people_ (hence, what I call "humane" as opposed to "technical"), who might not like a messy desk.


Yep, I get that now. When I first discovered this stuff, I didn't though, so I pretty much stuck with a basic interpretation of it.


----------



## mercurialmind

@_Nobleheart_
Since I haven't posted enough I can't copy and paste my results here however the numbers correlating to my cognitive preferences were: Fi(40.7)>Ne (38.7)>Te(32.5)>Ti(28.7)>Se(26.7)>Fe(26.4)>Ni(23.4)>Si(22.5). On many of the tests the Fi scores were close to the Ne score.

On PerC my results were: Ti>Ni>Ne>Te>Fe>Si>Fi>Se


If you are interested, Thompson is in the main INTJ group on FB and all you need to do is to request to be added. I might warn you that the discussion in the INTJ group isn't as intellectual as it is in this thread and Thompson doesn't post all that frequently.


----------



## itsme45

Sarah said:


> I haven't read the entire thread yet so maybe I'm jumping the gun a little with my opinion.
> 
> Assuming brain quadrant studies have some accuracy, a person is born with a dominant brain quadrant, a secondary, third and fourth. According to what I've read, there is no direct physical link between diagonal brain quadrants the way there is between adjoining ones, so the path to the weakest brain quadrant is via one of the quadrants adjoining the dominant. So far, that would align with the theory of the first 4 functions. However, authors have tried to link the quadrants with MBTI's S, N, F and T, which I don't believe is a good fit. If I had to guess, I'd say:
> 
> T = upper left
> F = lower right
> P = upper right
> J = lower left


I also haven't read it all yet, but I want to respond to this.

I really would NOT try to reify cognitive functions in this direct way. For one, the operational definitions (that is, the measurable version, in tests, or observed behaviour, etc.) of the eight functions are generic categories consisting of arbitrary collection of sub-traits with correlations between them less than 100%. This means you can recategorize differently (and lenore thompson, socionics, etc. did exactly this). This then means that there is no way to reify the categories like that.

Another thing is that the model does not at all reflect how the brain works on a neurological level. I don't even think it should be the purpose of this model. This is another reason why you shouldn't try to reify like that.




> There's something wrong with a method when on various forums so many posters can't figure out which type they are even after going through the official process in real life and reading books and articles on types and cognitive functions, when so many still can't clearly tell the difference between Fe/Fi and Te/Ti after dozens of posts and links trying to explain, when people complain about many even regular PerC posters mistyping themselves, and when even long-time posters will occasionally change their type. The logic of the theory is interesting if true, but doesn't have much significance beyond people studying Jung's theories in depth, if the method isn't broadly useable as both MBTI and Jung's functions are being sold.


Oh the only thing wrong is that the theory is at the conceptualization stage only. Ideas/opinions of objective measurement differ. Thus at this point it's all heavily reliant on natural human cognitive biases in perception.




> I think the 16 types and the cognitive function stackings are models, along the lines of atoms being models, not necessarily easily found in a pure state in real life since there are too many confounding factors pushing the original into a model different enough that the original model is obscured, and may not be found without an in-depth study of Jung and possibly psychological analysis. Even so, I study Myers-Briggs and functions because some people do fit at least part of the models closely enough to identify, which helps me understand and take into account differences between people.


Yes of course this is just a model. There is no guarantee about the degree of its fitness to reality. It's alright, it just means that at this point we'd better stick to a simple model retaining the best correlations observed so far. All the other assumptions need to be tested out before building further theory on them.


----------



## itsme45

Erbse said:


> Well, MTBI gets more worthwhile, and perhaps accurate if you write type's function set like this (ISTP case) Ti > Se = Ni > Fe rather than Ti > Se > Ni > Fe.
> 
> This leaves plenty of room for variety within types if aux and tert become equals and interchangeable. For ISTP's two definite conclusions can be drawn when looking at the samples provided by this forum.
> 
> 1. They are Ti dom.
> 2. They are Fe inferior.
> 
> These two seem to be a set-in-stone frame any 'real' ISTP will move in, whether or not they like it. It's the middle functions that spice things up and provide flexibility within the type, not only due to difference of strength of any individual function, but possibly due to function order as well.


How about those *possible* ISTP's (note this means not confirmed) who are more like: Ti = Se > Ni = Fe.  Or Ti > Se > Fe > Ni.




> Tests are always only as accurate as people answer them; while the most used MBTI test is faulty with no doubt in my mind, I find the Key 2 Cognition ten times worse, as their weighing of answers seems to be completely off-based occasionally.


Can you elaborate on what you mean by bad weighing of answers in that test?

The only thing I don't understand about that test is that I seem to never get the type based on the function that gets evaluated as having the most strength. I get Ti > Se but for type suggestion I get ESTP > ISTP.




> It's questionable whether Jung intentionally never got to speak of any order past Dom - Aux because he didn't know better, or because he wanted to allow followers of his theory to draw their own conclusions in that regard. Since it is likely he was an ISTP however, chances are he had his ideas but never specifically voiced them, for good reasons on top, as we're no folks of rigidness whatsoever.


Jung if he really was an ISTP probably just didn't see enough evidence for a more complex model. Plus I suppose he was focusing on other stuff more and saw less potential in this aspect.


----------



## Helios

All methods of testing, typing, and measurement of human personality are merely objective and largely depend on focusing more on the correlations of varying perspectives of personality and behavior. I bet that if people asked those well versed in MBTI or Jungian functions to type them, their types would be vastly different from the results they got from their self assessments. I do agree that people want to see themselves a certain way, and they really lack self awareness. But another problem is that people expect all people in a type to behave the exact same way because they look for the stereotypical behaviors of people in a type, and people who learn what type they are try to live up to those stereotypes because it's expected of them. Also the assessments themselves are quite limited. Whenever I chose an answer there's always a justification for it, but tests don't take that into account and assume the reasons for which people choose these answers and things like that. And I don't really think that typing alone determines personality, because no two people are alike and they just won't ever be. MBTI serves its purpose for catagorizing people who have similarities in some of their thinking and behavioral patterns. I think Jung's functions give more insight to how the mind works. But there is so much more to the human mind that we can't just rely on these tools to learn more about others and ourselves. The problem is that some people don't try hard enough to understand these systems, compare them to other systems, and try to see any flaws with systems and correlations with other systems.


----------



## nadjasix

Peter said:


> Your post makes it blatantly clear why I often get into trouble with people when initiating a conversation. I have no problem with noblehaert doing what he's doing, I'd do the same thing, but apparently, people like you (not specifically INFP's because I don't think it's just type related) who are supposed to be better at social interactions, get annoyed or at least don't understand why, somebody would discuss a subject with people that he should know won't be likely to agree with him.
> *
> I still don't really understand why that is a problem, but I do know, by experience, that it's one of those things that can really piss people off. *
> 
> And to be more direct on your comment: It's like joining a chess club and challenging the best strategies, trying to convince everyone of his own "better" strategy.


It's because they're not really interested in discussing the ideas or thinking about the content of the ideas critically. They're more focused on the positive feelings they get from adhering to the idea, or how the truth of this idea will add positively to their self-concept.

Many people don't think dispassionately about ideas, they tend to identify strongly on an emotional level with a set of ideas. I have my own passionate set of ideals, but I guess I just don't expect other people to share them (I enjoy debating them, in fact). I talk about them because it interests me, not because I need other people to agree with me. A lot of people see anyone whose opinion stands out against the majority opinion as being in "attack mode"... It seems that most people are more interested in coming to an agreement using convergent thinking than they are searching out new possibilities using divergent thinking. Not all, but from what I can tell, the majority of people are more convergent in their thinking.

Also: it takes years of study and practice to understand the scientific method and the limitations of modelling (even rigorous mathematical modelling). Most people who haven't studied science are content to just take models as givens.


----------



## Karen

Before I go further, I want to say that I enjoy studying MBTI. Even if it doesn't have ultimate workability, it's still an interesting system that has potential in the future to become more clear or to be tweaked so it fits more closely with reality, if it's lacking at this point.

@JungyesMBTIno, I know that J/P aren't functions, which makes my connection of brain quadrants and MBTI as silly as some of the authors'. It was as close as I could get, trying to fit MBTI with quadrants. When I have time I'll watch the Nardi video, read his book and map the 16 types to the various parts of the brain to see if there's a correlation between cognitive functions and brain quadrants or other parts of the brain, if he hasn't done so already. But of course the people in Nardi's group could have been mistyped since all authors seem to have a slightly different explanation of functions and types, so the results of his test might only be valid as a comparison of people within his group and not be as useable within the typing community as a whole. I remember reading about two experts (known in the MBTI field) trying to type someone. They both came up with a different type, so they kept calling the person back and asking more questions until they came to an agreement as to type. If only one person had been the typist, would the person have been typed wrongly, even by an expert? Might the person still be, even with two knowledgeable typists? If experts can't agree, what hope do we have of both choosing and verifying our correct type?

I have two more issues, the first being that almost all explanations of cognitive functions are conceptual. Even when someone asks for specific examples, the posts drift quickly into conceptual explanations. The conceptual descriptions can make sense on paper but unless someone is clearly using one function more than another, it can be still difficult to figure out what is being used. As an example, yesterday I caught myself thinking that I wanted to thank someone. When I tried to sort out where it was coming from, it was impossible, as are most of my thoughts. Did I want to thank them because of Fi or Fe, or something else? When I make a decision, is it based on my values or logic, when the decision could easily be either? When I say to myself, "Oh, a red apple," how many times a day can I do that and still have an Ne lens? If I don't watch my thoughts and understand where they're coming from and how often they occur, how can I sort out the lens through which I see the world and type myself with any accuracy? Conceptual descriptions are necessary, but I've wanted as many specific examples as conceptual ones. Since cognitive functions aren't behavior based and any behavior can come from any function, people need to understand how various functions manifest in the mind as much or more than how people are behaving. If there could be a running thread on every sub-forum where people with the same dominant functions talk about the exact types of thoughts they have throughout the day that indicate that function, I think it would clarify type for many people who go in circles with conceptualization, and I don't think it's just S's who are having the problem.

The other issue I have with MBTI is that I've read that once someone reaches middle age or later, it can be difficult to figure out or remember the original type since the person has had time to work on and become good at other functions. If that's true, there seems to be a window of opportunity between, say, the 20's, once someone is out from under the parents' personalities and it's more clear who they themselves are, and maybe the 40's, when there's been plenty of time to develop or get pushed into other functions. Lenses for many people seem to be subtle and, taking me as an example, after years of trying to sort out mine and being older than much of the window, ENTP is my best guess. It seems to be what I'm doing now, in a half-assed way at times, but is it something I've developed after all these years of needing to use NT, a habit of mind that isn't inherent? I don't have any way of knowing for sure and I can't remember how I used to think in childhood. When it comes to behavior-based methods, I can easily sort out what I've always done and still do instinctively. I don't know if it's too much to ask of a system based on thought, but for the system to be workable for everyone and not just a small portion of the population, there needs to be a method for arriving at everyone's inherent type, not just during the window of opportunity but for anytime in someone's life.

If a method isn't found to clarify these issues, then unless people use MBTI/Jung for getting to know themselves better rather than for finding their exact type or function, I think it has the potential for messing with people's minds by getting them more deeply into falsifying type. On the other hand, I also believe it has more potential than most systems because other than Enneagrams, it's one of the few typing methods that has a clear path of growth. I'm kind of hesitant to use it because I think I'm ENTP but could still be wrong, and I'd just be compounding the problem if I start delving into an ENTP growth path. I don't like to give up, though, since it has been a great method for understanding aspects of myself and others, and I do think understanding one's thinking as well as behavior is an important piece of personal knowledge.

Edit: @Nobleheart, your new AV picture made me lol.


----------



## Erbse

itsme45 said:


> How about those *possible* ISTP's (note this means not confirmed) who are more like: Ti = Se > Ni = Fe.  Or Ti > Se > Fe > Ni.


Such ISTP's do not exist. Jung already set in stone that your dominant function remains your dominant function. While Se *might* be capable of being more mature than Ti in an ISTP (my own opinion on the subject, not necessarily reflecting factual truth) all calls will always be made and channeled through Ti, period.

Likewise, no matter how good an ISTP is with Fe (measured by ISTP standard anyway) it is always the least preferred function to fall back on and never comes natural.

It is generally advisable to *not* interpret '>' when listing function as a hierarchy of strength and dominance / submission. The only thing that is certain when writing Ti > Se > Ni > Fe is that all functions serve *Ti* and that Fe is the *least preferred* function being used. 'Se > Ni' is no indicator of who is in charge of who, but the two complement each other and Ti calls upon them as required.

Of course maturity of the individual function comes into play as far as (in)validity of the provided information goes.



> Can you elaborate on what you mean by bad weighing of answers in that test?





> 8. Feel strongly that something is good or bad.


Yes, I do have an idea of what is good or bad, however I can't say I feel it, rather than simply, logically knowing. I don't know how the question is being weighted, but the phrasing itself is already misleading in my mind.



> 11. Achieve a metamorphosis, definitive insight, or powerful vision of change.


Sounds like a question for people taking the test on a trip.



> 22. Follow steps to ensure tasks are predictable and completed correctly.


I'd assume everyone works that way, however is still varies greatly by the individual as everyone probably uses different checkpoints on their route.



> 23. Engage life's magical moments and meaningful coincidences as they happen.


I'm a 'go with the flow' - type, thus I engage situation as they come. Meaningful, Magic? Yet again trippy stuff I wouldn't know what do with, or even what they'd be defined as. In my mind the question above is pretty much the same as:



> 37. Weave into the current dynamics of a situation aspects of other, random contexts.





> 46. Point out discrepancies between how things are and the way they have always been.


Everyone can probably do this, and at times will do it. Pointing out discrepancies however doesn't mean one disagrees with the new perspective coming into play but puts them into perspective.

So now we don't only have a bunch badly phrased statements/questions, but their weighing towards specific functions may be off as well. Include to that misconceptions and misbeliefs people have about themselves and you have a great recipe for disaster at the end of the day.



> The only thing I don't understand about that test is that I seem to never get the type based on the function that gets evaluated as having the most strength. I get Ti > Se but for type suggestion I get ESTP > ISTP.


This may be due to Ti > Se being far smaller than Fe > Ni. If your Fe is far more competent than your Ni while your Ti is only marginally higher than Se ESTP is a more likely result than ISTP.



> Jung if he really was an ISTP probably just didn't see enough evidence for a more complex model. Plus I suppose he was focusing on other stuff more and saw less potential in this aspect.


Maybe, maybe not. Whether or not he had the evidence, he's had the observational experience and I'm sure he's had plenty of ideas in the back of his head he's never shared with the public. Whether or not they'd hold true (assuming we knew them) is a different question still. Theorycrafting done by the master however would be interesting for his understanding usually is the deepest.


----------



## itsme45

Sarah said:


> Before I go further, I want to say that I enjoy studying MBTI. Even if it doesn't have ultimate workability, it's still an interesting system that has potential in the future to become more clear or to be tweaked so it fits more closely with reality, if it's lacking at this point.


Tweaking? Um... I would put the whole thing on a biological basis first, and that means approaching it in a really reductionist sense. It would be directed by the tangible, the observable, not just by current function concepts. On that level the functions would be just motivations, at best. I did see Jung stuff focusing on the biological aspect and I liked that. MBTI forgets about that altogether.




> If a method isn't found to clarify these issues, then unless people use MBTI/Jung for getting to know themselves better rather than for finding their exact type or function, I think it has the potential for messing with people's minds by getting them more deeply into falsifying type. On the other hand, I also believe it has more potential than most systems because other than Enneagrams, it's one of the few typing methods that has a clear path of growth. I'm kind of hesitant to use it because I think I'm ENTP but could still be wrong, and I'd just be compounding the problem if I start delving into an ENTP growth path. I don't like to give up, though, since it has been a great method for understanding aspects of myself and others, and I do think understanding one's thinking as well as behavior is an important piece of personal knowledge.


I'm not sure types have such specific growth paths. Where did you see them anyway, on some site? Curious.


----------



## itsme45

BeauGarcon said:


> Even if there is a correlation, I suspect it to be a very weak correlation.
> 
> The function "theory" exists independent from the MBTI "theory". It's just feel so random to me that a MBTI type has a specific order of cognitive functions. So you do a MBTI test (official, internet, whatever) or read a MBTI description and you know which functions are dominant/.../... Lol?


Yes correct, somewhat independent, actual examinations into this had the same conclusion.


----------



## Nobleheart

itsme45 said:


> Just like me then. My Ti is pretty compulsively used at times. Jung even mentions it for dominant perceiving types that their rational functions can end up in this compulsive state. But this is the good version of it, I feel like it provides a balance.


Yeah, that's ideal. When my Fe is operating more strongly than my Fi or Ti, I feel the healthiest. Now and then at social events, my Fe and Se will crank up for a while. It's draining eventually, but I can maintain it for a weekend in some cases. Unfortunately, I think my compulsive states are Ni and Ti/Fi.



itsme45 said:


> I know a guy who thought he was INFP, now he changed to INFJ. He has strong Fi and Ni. He doesn't identify with "J" though. Yea, the J/P dichotomy issues for introverts, again...


That has to be difficult for him, however very common. My assumption is that Ni is very strongly controlled by the Cingulate Gyrus, which is part of the Limbic System, which I would assume controls a lot of Fi. Therefore, it's easy for INFJs to develop Fi by association, especially since it seems that Fe is a function of the Limbic System linking the rear left and front right areas of the brain.

If you can encourage him to do so, get him moving into some Fe and Se. It will help him a great deal. 



itsme45 said:


> Socionics has a model that kind of resolves some of those issues, though. Ni dominant Fe aux types there will have a Fi that is stronger than Fe but yet unvalued in a certain sense, because it is not in the Ego but in the Id. The same for ENTP, they will have stronger Te than Ti. Of course, function definitions also differ in that model, but supposedly derived from Jung too.


That is one of the aspects of Socionics that I like... the several versions of each type model. The three letter code for types also seems to be moving in the direction of dominant function + everything else model.



itsme45 said:


> I thought he also claimed Ni developed later than Se, for him.


Jung changed his mind a lot in his never ending quest to clarify and define the patterns he was seeing. That's _very_ typical of Ni and Ti conjunction.


----------



## itsme45

Nobleheart said:


> Yeah, that's ideal.


Maybe ideal, but quite a bit of work too. After all, it's not the dominant function. But yeah, to balance it out, worth it.




> When my Fe is operating more strongly than my Fi or Ti, I feel the healthiest. Now and then at social events, my Fe and Se will crank up for a while. It's draining eventually, but I can maintain it for a weekend in some cases. Unfortunately, I think my compulsive states are Ni and Ti/Fi.


Haha, funny how we are the opposite. My Se-Fe loop never drains me. The Ti-Ni does get to be too much after a while.

Why do you call your dominant function a compulsive state?




> That has to be difficult for him, however very common. My assumption is that Ni is very strongly controlled by the Cingulate Gyrus, which is part of the Limbic System, which I would assume controls a lot of Fi. Therefore, it's easy for INFJs to develop Fi by association, especially since it seems that Fe is a function of the Limbic System linking the rear left and front right areas of the brain.


I would strongly avoid making such guesses about locating the functions like that. Especially as generalized ones as "rear left", "front right". It is quite possible that all the "functions" are actually linked to the prefrontal cortex, which is at the front (left and right)... 




> If you can encourage him to do so, get him moving into some Fe and Se. It will help him a great deal.


Mmm, how would I do that? Just spend more time with him?  I wouldn't mind knowing more about this.

He did complain about the weak-ish Fe (as compared to Fi), due to some life circumstances. I didn't ask him yet about what those circumstances were.




> That is one of the aspects of Socionics that I like... the several versions of each type model. The three letter code for types also seems to be moving in the direction of dominant function + everything else model.


Actually, no, the socionics model puts the eight functions into one specific order. I'm just saying that it happens to correspond with these observations of how the auxiliary can easily be either attitude.

The three letter code has nothing to do with the idea of "dominant function + everything else" model. They just got rid of the J/P dichotomy, instead sticking to the original jungian rational/irrational distinction, which is determined by the dominant function so no need to put it into the type letter code, thus three letters are sufficient. Actually even two letters are sufficient (if each function is denoted by only one letter), and there is an existing alternative two-letter type code but nobody uses it  




> Jung changed his mind a lot in his never ending quest to clarify and define the patterns he was seeing. That's _very_ typical of Ni and Ti conjunction.


Also typical of Ne/Ti, Ti/Ne, right? But yeah, I get what you mean.


----------



## Nobleheart

itsme45 said:


> Why do you call your dominant function a compulsive state?


I don't. I call Ni + Ti, and Ni + Fi _as sets_ compulsive for me. I'd assume that when you Se + Ti, the two are a state working in tandem. 



itsme45 said:


> The three letter code has nothing to do with the idea of "dominant function + everything else" model.


They have a 3 letter code, and several variants on each type. It's a step in the right direction. Obviously, it's not at the destination.


----------



## itsme45

Nobleheart said:


> I don't. I call Ni + Ti, and Ni + Fi _as sets_ compulsive for me. I'd assume that when you Se + Ti, the two are a state working in tandem.


Ahh, okay.




> They have a 3 letter code, and several variants on each type. It's a step in the right direction. Obviously, it's not at the destination.


No, they are not going in that direction. If anything, they are trying to make a model as detailed and concrete as they can about the ordering of functions. The variants are just subtypes. If you mean DCNH, that one looks at the functions as a different kind of elements, and one of them can be stronger, determining subtype. But the function order still remains as stated in the basic model.

Also please understand, the 3 letter code has nothing to do with it either. They just don't use the J/P dichotomy. The function order is still strict. The complete opposite of what you are thinking of.


----------



## Eric B

Nobleheart said:


> According to the findings, that seems to be more the case than the Beebe/ Barrens/Thomson models.
> 
> For example, INFJs tend to also have a strong Fi. INTJs tend to have a strong Ti. ENTPs tend to have a strong Te, etc. In some cases these functions may rival or even surpass the 'typical' auxiliary associated with the type model.


 For an apparent common phenomenon like that, I would grant Naama's "function simulation" theory. That's really Ni+ Fe looking like Fi (dominant introverted standpoint, colored with a very visible and parental Feeling; Same with Ni and Te for INTJ's; Ne + Ti looks like Te; dominant extraversion colored by parental Thinking).


----------



## Nobleheart

Eric B said:


> For an apparent common phenomenon like that, I would grant Naama's "function simulation" theory. That's really Ni+ Fe looking like Fi (dominant introverted standpoint, colored with a very visible and parental Feeling; Same with Ni and Te for INTJ's; Ne + Ti looks like Te; dominant extraversion colored by parental Thinking).


I used to agree with that theory until I saw the brain scans.


----------



## Eric B

But the brain scans don't really show specific function[-attitudes]. 

I don't normally promote that idea, as the presence of functions like those can usually be explained as "shadows". But to make a generalized claim that these types [_usually_] have "strong" shadow functions like that, makes me think it might be some "cross-talk" between functions and attitudes (which can stand alone individually anyway).


----------



## Nobleheart

Eric B said:


> But the brain scans don't really show specific function[-attitudes].
> 
> I don't normally promote that idea, as the presence of functions like those can usually be explained as "shadows". But to make a generalized claim that these types [_usually_] have "strong" shadow functions like that, makes me think it might be some "cross-talk" between functions and attitudes (which can stand alone individually anyway).


It is cross talk within the geography of the brain, especially when these areas are adjacent and related to the areas in use. Trying to force the reality of this to fit a definition that was created before it could be physically validated is in essence backward.


----------



## Karen

Regarding MBTI, if some of our functions are so unconscious that they're barely useable, how is it, for example, that ISFPs are able to score highly on IQ tests, even at a young age, and major in philosophy, math and physics at college? If their Te is 4th and Ti is 8th, they should hardly have access to T-type thinking. It might be that they don't enjoy that type of thinking, but so far I haven't seen any proof that the inferior and supposedly unconscious functions operate in a state that's barely useable until ISFPs reach their 30s or older. It seems more a choice, rather than a capability.


----------



## BeauGarcon

Sarah said:


> Regarding MBTI, if some of our functions are so unconscious that they're barely useable, how is it, for example, that ISFPs are able to score highly on IQ tests, even at a young age, and major in philosophy, math and physics at college? If their Te is 4th and Ti is 8th, they should hardly have access to T-type thinking. It might be that they don't enjoy that type of thinking, but so far I haven't seen any proof that the inferior and supposedly unconscious functions operate in a state that's barely useable until ISFPs reach their 30s or older. It seems more a choice, rather than a capability.


I've heard some rumors that ISFP's drink their dog's urine to get good grades.


----------



## Liontiger

Nobleheart said:


> *The Forer Effect is commonly evidenced in people who change types.
> This implies that personality type is more of an ideal that is aspired to than the reality of one’s mind. The descriptions of personality types are vague enough to cause many individuals to compare themselves to them rather than comparing the descriptions to themselves. With enough similarities to focus on, it is easy to overlook the parts of ourselves that are not mentioned in the descriptions. *


I really like this phrasing. I myself have changed types multiple times, and it is really all due to self-concept and what direction we wish to see ourselves go in. The post as a whole is really great too. For a long time, I have been using the MBTI as simply a tool for exploration but not a rule or standard. Instead, it grows with me. The shifts in my type have been minimal but significant, and largely due to how I've grown as a person. I think for the people who have also changed type many times, the instability of MBTI is very evident.


----------



## Karen

BeauGarcon said:


> I've heard some rumors that ISFP's drink their dog's urine to get good grades.



Yes, I've heard that urine therapy solves all sorts of problems.


----------



## Bear987

With the limited amount of thinking on Jung, Keirsey and MBTI, I have to say that the biggest problem with typing is that people are bad at typing themselves. That just goes with the territory of human existence. We have two eyes, but we need a mirror to see ourselves. My point is that your self-image might/will differ considerably from how others perceive you.

I have noticed that self-typing makes people think they have changed type from time to time. I reckon this illustrates my point - we don't know ourselves all that well. I reckon that we cannot change type, because there is biological hard-wiring involved. If we actually could change type, I figure the whole concept of personality types becomes void.

From reading some of Jung's works, I get that he is more intelligent and wise than I can even comprehend. I figure Myers Briggs and Keirsey noticed this too, and decided to simplify Jung's work to make it more accessible and useful & applicable by simplifying it. In his book _Please Understand Me_, Keirsey admits to being an SP, which explains why is approach is similar to the gospel of Mark - fast paced and focussed on observable behavior only.

What I read about Myers Briggs (maybe those are two people) is that she worked towards a standardized version of the whole idea, that could be used by employers for instance - money could be made with Jung's ideas. I also read that she came up with the J/P distinction - that is something Jung never talked about. Jung did say that others should expand on his work, but I am not sure whether Myers Briggs went in the direction that Jung was thinking about.

In any case, I like the Keirsey's way of typing, because it's a fast and loose. Most of us, here on PerC, are likely not as brilliant as Jung to make statements about (subconscious) cognitive functions - we are not able to identify them in others and especially not in ourselves. Keirsey uses only two parameters: do you habitually talk/think abstract or concrete & do you habitually do what works or do you do what is right. In it's simplicity, I say it is brilliant.

Good thread though - I value retracing our steps and being self-critical.


----------



## itsme45

Bear987 said:


> With the limited amount of thinking on Jung, Keirsey and MBTI, I have to say that the biggest problem with typing is that people are bad at typing themselves.


I'm calling BS on this, sorry. It's not productive to blame the problems in a theory and its application on the people, instead of improving on the thing itself. E.g. make it more objective.




> In his book _Please Understand Me_, Keirsey admits to being an SP, which explains why is approach is similar to the gospel of Mark - fast paced and focussed on observable behavior only.


That at least makes it objective and falsifiable. At the same time, it will be a new theory, not the same anymore as Jung.

Different theories with different definitions and models can give you different results.




> In any case, I like the Keirsey's way of typing, because it's a fast and loose. Most of us, here on PerC, are likely not as brilliant as Jung to make statements about (subconscious) cognitive functions - we are not able to identify them in others and especially not in ourselves. Keirsey uses only two parameters: do you habitually talk/think abstract or concrete & do you habitually do what works or do you do what is right. In it's simplicity, I say it is brilliant.


If I was to go just by Keirsey, I'm an NT because I deal a lot with the abstract. In JCF, not necessarily. -.- So, which theory is more brilliant?


----------



## itsme45

Sarah said:


> Regarding MBTI, if some of our functions are so unconscious that they're barely useable, how is it, for example, that ISFPs are able to score highly on IQ tests, even at a young age, and major in philosophy, math and physics at college? If their Te is 4th and Ti is 8th, they should hardly have access to T-type thinking. It might be that they don't enjoy that type of thinking, but so far I haven't seen any proof that the inferior and supposedly unconscious functions operate in a state that's barely useable until ISFPs reach their 30s or older. It seems more a choice, rather than a capability.


Some people resolve that contradiction by defining the functions not as skills but as just preferences.

I know several such ISFP's myself. They are ISFP only because they have a lot of the feeling side and they look at the world primarily through that. That obviously doesn't need to determine any of their other capabilities.

Also, IQ cannot be type related for obvious reasons. IQ is just about how well and fast you can adapt to new information/environment. It's more about the quality of your brain at a lower level than these functions.


----------



## itsme45

Eric B said:


> For an apparent common phenomenon like that, I would grant Naama's "function simulation" theory. That's really Ni+ Fe looking like Fi (dominant introverted standpoint, colored with a very visible and parental Feeling; Same with Ni and Te for INTJ's; Ne + Ti looks like Te; dominant extraversion colored by parental Thinking).


Nah, that theory is just playing with concepts without proper analysis or validating it in practice. 

How can Ne + Ti look like Te? Te is objective rational reasoning, Ti is very subjective on the other hand, Ne is not going to help to make it objective as Ne is not even rational. Rationality and irrationality are completely opposite standpoints. 

Has this theory defined what is meant by "colored with"?

This phenomenon is just fine if we assume that the auxiliary isn't as well differentiated as the dominant and that's exactly what Jung said is the case for many people.

That also allows for the case that if some INFJ does really have a differentiated Fi (whatever this Fi may be defined as, in whatever variant of the theory), then that's just how they are.


----------



## Eric B

OK, I just realized a better way I should have put it. Also, highlighted by Naama.

Ne for an ENTP is basically iNtuition (N) that starts at the object (the ego merges itself with the object, or "the non-self's objective ideal" as Sim put it on PerN), but it also then brings this to the subject ("so they attempt to make the inner self more like the outer world"), and then brings it back to the object (the final goal outcome of the process). 
So both "worlds" (inner/outer) are involved.

Ti is Thinking (T), that starts with the subject ("view the outer world in terms of the self's subjective ideal"), and then takes this to the outer world ("so they attempt to make the outer world more like the inner self"), and then brings it back to the subject (again, the final goal).

So the whole process is colored by Thinking (I think people are making a bit too much of my use of the term "coloring". What I mean, is that the primary evaluation involved is one of impersonal or "technical" connections of things). Yet there is an external element involved, both on the commission of Thinking to make the outer world look like the person's inner ideal, plus the dominant perspective (which the information is brought in through) is focused on the outside world.

So you will see a lot of extraversion, and then you will see Thinking. On the surface, it may look like Te, but they're really paired differently.

Then, you could have other factors, and particularly "shadow complexes", that I have come to believe, will "turn up the volume" on the opposite part of that "subject-object" loop for each function. So then, you _would_ have genuine Te, though likely in a more reactive context, usually. This is why I do not go along with Naama or Sim's belief that the "other four" _never_ surface. Really, "the other four" are just repressed aspects of the [solo] four functions a type will prefer in one or the other orientation; and as much as both of them point these things out (including the functions not being hard "things" we "use"), I don't see why they can't recognize/acknowledge the other four this way.


----------



## itsme45

Eric B said:


> OK, I just realized a better way I should have put it. Also, highlighted by Naama.


No worries, I understood you the first time, my reply to this theory is still the same. 

Though, of course there can be a mistake of applying a definition in practical observation so yes sure Te can be mistaken for some other function. But not because of that theory. 

I still think all that is simply because the (I/E) attitude of an auxiliary Thinking can be relative, not absolute. Tbh, that is true even of the dominant function, it still has the other attitude, it's just repressed, the more dominant the main attitude is, the more repressed the other one will be.




> Then, you could have other factors, and particularly "shadow complexes", that I have come to believe, will "turn up the volume" on the opposite part of that "subject-object" loop for each function. So then, you _would_ have genuine Te, though likely in a more reactive context, usually. This is why I do not go along with Naama or Sim's belief that the "other four" _never_ surface. Really, "the other four" are just repressed aspects of the [solo] four functions a type will prefer in one or the other orientation; and as much as both of them point these things out (including the functions not being hard "things" we "use"), I don't see why they can't recognize/acknowledge the other four this way.


Yeah, I agree with you, I don't see why not. They are there, they are just more often devalued/nonpreferred. Te for me does seem like this reactive version... it can help a lot at times. Jung himself talks about how every function will dynamically surface INTO consciousness at times, just obviously they get less often in consciousness than the dominant function.

Btw the way you put it, sounds like you've argued with sim or other people about this before.  I've also got into such debates myself but still don't understand why they don't acknowledge these four functions. Their best "arguments" seem to be the following: 

1) if you have a preference of 50.000001% of a function then by definition you don't have the other function 
2) everything is subjective, so why bother worrying if the model can be bettered

I cannot do anything with such "arguments". -.-


Overall, I noticed another thing. Some people seem to define the eight functions as independent of each other, that is, Ti is independently defined from Te. Then some, including Jung himself, defines them as two sides of the same functional coin, of which there is only four. So Ti is just scaled towards subjectivity when compared with Te. You know, this can even be taken as far as claiming that all the four functions are just scales. That is, categories without distinct boundaries. But of course if we want to build a specific model, we have to categorize more absolutely. It is still good to remember this to avoid getting stuck in too much of absolute categorizing.


----------



## Taikand

Unless the model can create predictions we can test experimentally I believe we should take MBTI as a more intelectualised version of the horoscope. Maybe fun but not exactly useful , nor scientific either.


----------



## itsme45

Taikand said:


> Unless the model can create predictions we can test experimentally I believe we should take MBTI as a more intelectualised version of the horoscope. Maybe fun but not exactly useful , nor scientific either.


There is NOTHING stopping you from doing so. The model can be made falsifiable, if anyone wishes to do so. So I don't know why nobody bothered to test out the correlations and predictions. More intellectualised version of horoscope, lol, yeah but at least it doesn't force you to identify with the horoscope linked to your birth date.


----------



## mercurialmind

I hear over and over how brilliant Jung was but if a theory can't be falsified then I tend to doubt how 'brilliant' Jung's theories were.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Sarah said:


> Regarding MBTI, if some of our functions are so unconscious that they're barely useable, how is it, for example, that ISFPs are able to score highly on IQ tests, even at a young age, and major in philosophy, math and physics at college? If their Te is 4th and Ti is 8th, they should hardly have access to T-type thinking. It might be that they don't enjoy that type of thinking, but so far I haven't seen any proof that the inferior and supposedly unconscious functions operate in a state that's barely useable until ISFPs reach their 30s or older. It seems more a choice, rather than a capability.


Okay, first off, T is not IQ by-and-large (I know a lot of stupid as hell T types IRL - some of the high T types here are pretty dumb too, lol - I don't know why it is that people equate T with results, rather than the process - you never know what results you can get if you observe the T process, but predicting that they will all be smart results is utter nonsense). Secondly, philosophy is not T (I mean, not all philosophy is heavily rooted in technical wording (the deeper meaning of philosophies goes beyond T in a lot of ways) - F reasoning can actually be pretty helpful with philosophy). Thirdly, functions aren't "unusable" - the nature of the inferior function is that it is just lacking in nuance - that's it. Fourthly, functions aren't capabilities - they are mentalities - approaches to understanding, essentially. Fifthly, yes, the functions are preferences, not robotic internal configurations that restrict understanding on any level. Sixthly, S doesn't mean unable to think (Jung "thinking" is a bit different from having incoherent thoughts out of your control on a daily basis - it rationalizes thought), nor does being oriented to S mean that you can't see anything from beyond your nose (if S types are supposed to be so skilled with this, then I have no idea why people here see them as morons in the "S department" of all things - this is implied by the not being observant stereotypes that characterizes them online, which make no sense whatsoever ) - it's a mentality focused on empirical awareness. Surely empirical awareness can be tied into some philosophy anyhow.


----------



## itsme45

mercurialmind said:


> I hear over and over how brilliant Jung was but if a theory can't be falsified then I tend to doubt how 'brilliant' Jung's theories were.


The way he put it wasn't falsifiable. He kind of had intutitions about how people's mind worked. Doesn't mean it wasn't brilliant. 

Again, you can operationalize concepts, create hypotheses, select an objective experimental method and then go on from there... I see no problem with that here either. Someone just needs to do it. (Not me, though, this kind of research doesn't fit my style enough )


----------



## itsme45

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Thirdly, functions aren't "unusable" - the nature of the inferior function is that it is just lacking in nuance - that's it. Fourthly, functions aren't capabilities - they are mentalities - approaches to understanding, essentially.


I agree with all the other stuff you said, very well put. Just those two though... if the inferior function lacks in nuance, it's not very well usable then. And that's correlatable to capability as well.

But yes, many tasks can be approached with almost any function, so your functional "config" doesn't really limit you as a person much in practice. That depends on other factors, unrelated to the MBTI stuff. Such as, IQ.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

itsme45 said:


> I agree with all the other stuff you said, very well put. Just those two though... if the inferior function lacks in nuance, it's not very well usable then. And that's correlatable to capability as well.
> 
> But yes, many tasks can be approached with almost any function, so your functional "config" doesn't really limit you as a person much in practice. That depends on other factors, unrelated to the MBTI stuff. Such as, IQ.


Nope. It's usable (why does "lacking in nuance" making it automatically "unusable?" People can use it whenever they want (and it's automatically used anyway, because you'd be dead if it weren't - it always helps the dominant). How do you even know what the concept of "lacking in nuance" entails? It is an ego syntonic function, which means it is a preferred method of functioning for people, since it works in their favor, but it's just their rougher area. That's it. And no, it's not about capability, unless you isolate it against more than it can handle at one time, due to having to take longer to work with function-respective nuance (e.g. don't throw too much attention to every precise detail happening in the moment at once to an INJ or they'll get disoriented). Functions aren't "used" - they exist and describe a person's tendencies. The functions are rarely particularly task respective either, because this is assuming they were created for such purposes, when in fact, it is humans who created the tasks, not the tasks that already existed - the functions are just personality metrics - end of story.


----------



## itsme45

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Nope. It's usable (why does "lacking in nuance" making it automatically "unusable?"


I said "not very well usable". I didn't say unusable.




> People can use it whenever they want (and it's automatically used anyway, because you'd be dead if it weren't - it always helps the dominant).


Sure, I can use my inferior function whenever I want to, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that it is sophisticated enough to bother with it that much. Tbh I wouldn't even be able to maintain it's conscious use for long, after all, it's not something that I'm comfortable with enough, as quite some mental energy is required for it...




> How do you even know what the concept of "lacking in nuance" entails? It is an ego syntonic function, which means it is a preferred method of functioning for people, since it works in their favor, but it's just their rougher area. That's it.


What's wrong with admitting our weaknesses? No need to try and rephrase things just to avoid this.




> And no, it's not about capability, unless you isolate it against more than it can handle at one time, due to having to take longer to work with function-respective nuance (e.g. don't throw too much attention to every precise detail happening in the moment at once to an INJ or they'll get disoriented).


See, we are saying the exact same thing.




> Functions aren't "used" - they exist and describe a person's tendencies.


Insofar as they are active, they are used. No need to argue over word usage.




> The functions are rarely particularly task respective either, because this is assuming they were created for such purposes, when in fact, it is humans who created the tasks, not the tasks that already existed - the functions are just personality metrics - end of story.


Nobody created functions... only their concepts. I did already say that they aren't task respective.


----------



## itsme45

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Sixthly, S doesn't mean unable to think (Jung "thinking" is a bit different from having incoherent thoughts out of your control on a daily basis - it rationalizes thought), nor does being oriented to S mean that you can't see anything from beyond your nose (if S types are supposed to be so skilled with this, then I have no idea why people here see them as morons in the "S department" of all things - this is implied by the not being observant stereotypes that characterizes them online, which make no sense whatsoever ) - it's a mentality focused on empirical awareness. Surely empirical awareness can be tied into some philosophy anyhow.


I want to respond to this too.... about philosophy. I'm typed as Se dominant, I can think and read about philosophy for a while, as long as it's relatable to reality. Philosophy of science in particular is very nicely tied to it. So it's very interesting then. But I noticed that I need to see a way to do something with the ideas/knowledge/whatever I'm reading about or I'll drop it after a while. Now that is about reading. If it comes up as a discussion topic it can stay stimulating for quite a longer time, depending on the exact topic and style of discussion.


----------



## Kevinaswell

Yup--MBTI is pretty hogwash.

Glad to see word is spreading 'round deez forumz.


----------



## Karen

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Okay, first off, T is not IQ by-and-large (I know a lot of stupid as hell T types IRL - some of the high T types here are pretty dumb too, lol - I don't know why it is that people equate T with results, rather than the process - you never know what results you can get if you observe the T process, but predicting that they will all be smart results is utter nonsense). Secondly, philosophy is not T (I mean, not all philosophy is heavily rooted in technical wording (the deeper meaning of philosophies goes beyond T in a lot of ways) - F reasoning can actually be pretty helpful with philosophy). Thirdly, functions aren't "unusable" - the nature of the inferior function is that it is just lacking in nuance - that's it. Fourthly, *functions aren't capabilities - they are mentalities - approaches to understanding, essentially*. Fifthly, yes, the functions are preferences, not robotic internal configurations that restrict understanding on any level. Sixthly, S doesn't mean unable to think (Jung "thinking" is a bit different from having incoherent thoughts out of your control on a daily basis - it rationalizes thought), nor does being oriented to S mean that you can't see anything from beyond your nose (if S types are supposed to be so skilled with this, then I have no idea why people here see them as morons in the "S department" of all things - this is implied by the not being observant stereotypes that characterizes them online, which make no sense whatsoever ) - it's a mentality focused on empirical awareness. Surely empirical awareness can be tied into some philosophy anyhow.



So functions are only a way of looking at the world, as in if an INTP looks at the world a certain way for years, they might become better at "real-world" Ti than someone with Ti as a low function and low interest, but not better as a necessity because 1) they might behave differently than the way they look at the world so don't get as much practice with their dominant function, and 2) they might have a lower IQ than someone with a low Ti function so they may not be as good at Ti thinking yet still have that viewpoint of the world? That's the only way I can see to separate mentality from capability. But it still doesn't clear up what is meant by functions being unconscious and thus not particularly useable in any kind of skillful sense. Does that mean ISFPs would have the most trouble looking at the world through a Ti lens (8th function) but can easily, in an intellectual if not emotional sense, use logic when necessary? "Function" means only mindset and not anything that's inherently real life? If that's the case, then most posters and authors who discusses Jung and MBTI bring up behavior as a strong indicator of function when they shouldn't be connected, and only world views should be discussed and compared. The former method of typing would pick up people who are behaving according to their functions, but that's obviously not the case with many people, who would fall through the cracks in a Jung typing sense.


----------



## Bear987

itsme45 said:


> I'm calling BS on this, sorry. It's not productive to blame the problems in a theory and its application on the people, instead of improving on the thing itself. E.g. make it more objective.


No need to be sorry - you're not hurting me in any way, I feel. I didn't blame the people - as a whole, I just claimed that people are not that good at typing themselves. Most people, however, are perfectly able to type others. When it comes to being objective, I reckon that the process of typing becomes more objective when others type you, instead of you typing yourself.



itsme45 said:


> That at least makes it objective and falsifiable. At the same time, it will be a new theory, not the same anymore as Jung.


Minor point: I don't think personality typing is about who gets closest to Jung, since personality theory didn't start with him. It started way, way back. Also, Jung has stated that others should expand and improve his work on personality typing. So, to sum up: personality typing not only didn't start with Jung, it also didn't end with him.



itsme45 said:


> If I was to go just by Keirsey, I'm an NT because I deal a lot with the abstract. In JCF, not necessarily. -.- So, which theory is more brilliant?


Keirsey actually uses two parameters, if you're habitually more abstract in thought and speech; you're either NT or NF. Being more pragmatic than cooperative would indeed make you an NT. Oh, and about being brilliant, what I said was that Keirsey is useful in its simplicity. It is simple because both parameters consist of observable behavior instead of psychological functions - which are way harder to detect and identify - especially by laymen such as myself. Keep in mind though that "dealing a lot" with the abstract - like you say you do - is not the same as _being_ habitually more abstract than concrete in thought and speech.

Going by what you wrote, I could take a preliminary and presumptuous Keirsy based guess (NF style) that you are _pragmatic_, because you don't need a lot of words to make your point and because you don't put a lot of effort into persuading me to agree with you (you're just telling me what is and what isn't) - and that you are _concrete_ rather than _abstract_, because you used the word "thing" to describe the subject matter at hand. I know this last part is playing it fast and loose - but that's how NFs role; we project our truth onto the world. So, based on your last post I would say you're an SP.


----------



## itsme45

Sarah said:


> But it still doesn't clear up what is meant by functions being unconscious and thus not particularly useable in any kind of skillful sense. Does that mean ISFPs would have the most trouble looking at the world through a Ti lens (8th function) but can easily, in an intellectual if not emotional sense, use logic when necessary?


I guess so. The ISFP should be able to learn specific situations very well where a lot of logic use is needed but it's not going to be the whole worldview. According to this theory anyway... I could also imagine that these ISFP's were born with especially strong logic skills that are needed in those tasks. That would be nothing to do with the MBTI function idea...

I noticed that where I need the less conscious functions, they can still give me needed input but it takes longer to get the input, the result of their processing, and the process itself is pretty unconscious. But you can learn strategies to help with them. Thompson and Nardi have books on that... I do think it's not to be overdone of course, or you'll just get stressed trying too hard developing the less preferred or preferred but less conscious functions.




> "Function" means only mindset and not anything that's inherently real life? If that's the case, then most posters and authors who discusses Jung and MBTI bring up behavior as a strong indicator of function when they shouldn't be connected, and only world views should be discussed and compared. The former method of typing would pick up people who are behaving according to their functions, but that's obviously not the case with many people, who would fall through the cracks in a Jung typing sense.


Well, if it only means mindset then you can't really test the theory to check its validity. You have to give up the wish for theoretical perfection if you want to be able to investigate the theory by experimenting. 

As for the typing methods, you again have to accept such limits. Yes, of course it's a better way of finding the strongly preferred functions if you analyse the person's thinking deeply, but this is not going to be possible by quick tests. Maybe that EEG or similar brain imaging method. 

So take all this theorizing here with a really big grain of salt...


----------



## Karen

itsme45 said:


> I guess so. The ISFP should be able to learn specific situations very well where a lot of logic use is needed but it's not going to be the whole worldview. According to this theory anyway... I could also imagine that these ISFP's were born with especially strong logic skills that are needed in those tasks. That would be nothing to do with the MBTI function idea...
> 
> I noticed that where I need the less conscious functions, they can still give me needed input but it takes longer to get the input, the result of their processing, and the process itself is pretty unconscious. But you can learn strategies to help with them. Thompson and Nardi have books on that... I do think it's not to be overdone of course, or you'll just get stressed trying too hard developing the less preferred or preferred but less conscious functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if it only means mindset then you can't really test the theory to check its validity. *You have to give up the wish for theoretical perfection if you want to be able to investigate the theory by experimenting.
> 
> As for the typing methods, you again have to accept such limits. Yes, of course it's a better way of finding the strongly preferred functions if you analyse the person's thinking deeply, but this is not going to be possible by quick tests. Maybe that EEG or similar brain imaging method. *
> So take all this theorizing here with a really big grain of salt...



That made me laugh.  Since there seems to be a huge amount of confusion about definitions and people's types, I'm trying to pin down *exactly* what a function is. My next step is to sort out *exactly* how to measure it.  lol


----------



## itsme45

Bear987 said:


> No need to be sorry - you're not hurting me in any way, I feel. I didn't blame the people - as a whole, I just claimed that people are not that good at typing themselves. Most people, however, are perfectly able to type others. When it comes to being objective, I reckon that the process of typing becomes more objective when others type you, instead of you typing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Minor point: I don't think personality typing is about who gets closest to Jung, since personality theory didn't start with him. It started way, way back. Also, Jung has stated that others should expand and improve his work on personality typing. So, to sum up: personality typing not only didn't start with Jung, it also didn't end with him.
> 
> 
> 
> Keirsey actually uses two parameters, if you're habitually more abstract in thought and speech; you're either NT or NF. Being more pragmatic than cooperative would indeed make you an NT. Oh, and about being brilliant, what I said was that Keirsey is useful in its simplicity. It is simple because both parameters consist of observable behavior instead of psychological functions - which are way harder to detect and identify - especially by laymen such as myself. Keep in mind though that "dealing a lot" with the abstract - like you say you do - is not the same as _being_ habitually more abstract than concrete in thought and speech.
> 
> Going by what you wrote, I could take a preliminary and presumptuous Keirsy based guess (NF style) that you are _pragmatic_, because you don't need a lot of words to make your point and because you don't put a lot of effort into persuading me to agree with you (you're just telling me what is and what isn't) - and that you are _concrete_ rather than _abstract_, because you used the word "thing" to describe the subject matter at hand. I know this last part is playing it fast and loose - but that's how NFs role; we project our truth onto the world. So, based on your last post I would say you're an SP.



Cool. I keep hurting people with my reasoning style, glad you are not like that. =) 

And yeah, I suppose it can be easier to type other people, there is less bias, though of course there can still be a load of bias, depending. Also the other disadvantage is that you have a LOT less information of the other person than they do of themselves.

As for Jung, that's fine, all I said, you must not forget that going that far from the original theory, it can lead to very different results in typing. 

I don't lead a typical SP-style life, so no, strictly based on Keirsey, I'm not SP. By functional analysis I am, though. 

I can put a lot of effort into trying to persuade other people in debates, it depends on my mood. 

I've been typed as NT by certain people even when I was trying hard to convince them that I was not NT... they based it on my talking style, they said it was all so abstract that I could not be S... Lol.

Also, note, you have the advantage of seeing the ESTP in my profile so you already have a bias about typing me. Those people did not have such an advantage.

Btw, the "thing", it was just a quick easy way to put it. How would an NT have phrased it?


----------



## itsme45

Sarah said:


> That made me laugh.  Since there seems to be an extreme amount of confusion about people's types, I'm trying to pin down *exactly* what a function is. My next step is *exactly* how to measure it.  lol


Nice aspirations, but to actually realize them, you need to get into proper researching. Maybe contact Nardi or some other researcher to team up with them. Don't just wonder in your head sitting on a chair, typing stuff on a forum etc. etc.

If you are not interested enough to be willing to take such steps, forget about trying to pin it down like that. I'm curious anyway, are you planning to do anything like that above? (That would need a lot of determination and devotion to this topic, obviously.)


----------



## LiquidLight

Jung was smart enough not to correlate behavior too closely with his types, simply because that wasn't what we has interested in, nor was that the impetus for him writing PT in the first place. He was attempting to come up with a way of figuring out people who had mental pathologies. 

The problem with the MBTI is that it uses Jung's language to do something completely different. At its best (as the Jungians are quick to point out) Jung's types are a way of looking at things. A way of seeing people for their similarities and differences. The MBTI, in my opinion, takes that much too far in trying to nail people down into categories that they may not belong, and insist on motivations. Where Jung says "I propose that a person who is oriented to perceiving the world primarily through their five senses can be described as a Sensation type," (which in many ways seems to be a no-brainer), MBTI tries to take that to the next level and say "and they will be impulsive and won't like things decided" and all this other stuff that quite honestly may or not be true for a given individual. That's why no one can figure out their type definitively because the metrics are too narrow and the rules too strict. An ESTP has to have Ti as an auxiliary function, but can we really definitively point to all people with an Extraverted Sensation preference and say they will always have a Ji first auxiliary? MBTI says yes, but I don't think real life agrees (and if the Reynierse research is correct, MBTI is way, way off in their assumptions and leading people to believe something that is at best only a half truth). 

One can actually forgive Kiersey, his only problem is that he screwed up and used the MBTI type codes as descriptors which just created a mess of confusion. But Kiersey in a way is more like Jung in intent, in simply trying to describe people as he observed them. Had Kiersey created his own categories as say Helen Thomas did, he'd probably not be as scrutinized as he is (by both type enthusiasts and by type practitioners). But by trying to tie his own ideas to MBTI (whose ideas are on shaky ground to begin with) it just creates an endless spiral of misinformation, conflicting information and general confusion. Most people take an MBTI test (even the official one), get typed and then go to read up about the type and the first place they end up is Kiersey.com so from the get-go they're already going down the wrong path because their ideas of type, from the very beginning are informed by someone whose theory is based on something else completely.


----------



## itsme45

LiquidLight said:


> Jung was smart enough not to correlate behavior too closely with his types, simply because that wasn't what we has interested in, nor was that the impetus for him writing PT in the first place. He was attempting to come up with a way of figuring out people who had mental pathologies.


No, Jung wasn't careful enough to make it clear in his psych. types book that the concrete examples of the types were not to be taken too seriously..  Apparently, people did exactly just that after reading him, and he was not happy about it. If you read the book, you can see why.




> Where Jung says "I propose that a person who is oriented to perceiving the world primarily through their five senses can be described as a Sensation type," (which in many ways seems to be a no-brainer), MBTI tries to take that to the next level and say "and they will be impulsive and won't like things decided" and all this other stuff that quite honestly may or not be true for a given individual. That's why no one can figure out their type definitively because the metrics are too narrow and the rules too strict.


Don't blame it on "too narrow" metrics. That's just the nature of objective measurement at this point in such psychology topics. Maybe in future we'll have better methods...


----------



## Karen

itsme45 said:


> Nice aspirations, but to actually realize them, you need to get into proper researching. Maybe contact Nardi or some other researcher to team up with them. Don't just wonder in your head sitting on a chair, typing stuff on a forum etc. etc.
> 
> If you are not interested enough to be willing to take such steps, forget about trying to pin it down like that. I'm curious anyway, are you planning to do anything like that above? (That would need a lot of determination and devotion to this topic, obviously.)



I'm trying to decide whether to major in psychology or botany and my confusion as to which would be the most fulfilling and wouldn't send me off in a frustrating direction is part of what led me into the study of personality typing. It's since taken on a life of its own. :O


I have two Nardi books on the way and I just received Functions of Type, by Gary and Margaret Hartzler, which I tacked onto the end of the Nardi order. According to that book, I'm clearly an S.  So many people are spending a lot of time trying to type themselves -- including me -- that I'm trying to narrow down what's most important to pay attention to. If you go by books, and I just about have them all, I can easily type myself as ENTP, ESTP, ENFP and ESFP, depending on which description I want to choose in what book. So there needs to be an upstream method of deciding on type, which I'm trying to pin down. Not that even that will necessarily help, since it can also be difficult to sort out after people have spent years pushing themselves into various functions in order to survive at home or work, and those new functions can become interesting to use or habits of mind.


----------



## itsme45

Sarah said:


> I'm trying to decide whether to major in psychology or botany and my confusion as to which would be the most fulfilling and wouldn't send me off in a frustrating direction is part of what led me into the study of personality typing. It's since taken on a life of its own. :O


Lol, nice. Life on its own... I can relate to that a bit... Well, anyway. I'm into cognitive psychology, I may become a researcher, but I need to see how well it works out for me. I'm dabbling in the research stuff right now at university.




> I have two Nardi books on the way and I just received Functions of Type, by Gary and Margaret Hartzler, which I tacked onto the end of the Nardi order. According to that book, I'm clearly an S.  So many people are spending a lot of time trying to type themselves -- including me -- that I'm trying to narrow down what's most important to pay attention to. If you go by books, and I just about have them all, I can easily type myself as ENTP, ESTP, ENFP and ESFP, depending on which description I want to choose in what book. So there needs to be an upstream method of deciding on type, which I'm trying to pin down. Not that even that will necessarily help, since it can also be difficult to sort out after people have spent years pushing themselves into various functions in order to survive at home or work, and those new functions can become interesting to use or habits of mind.


Aaaha, hehe. I totally relate to your issue. I can still see myself as ENTP at times. It really depends on the definition too. According to Nardi, I totally prefer Se, not much of a Ne... -.- According to Jung, I'm almost Ne dominant, so close that if I go by his concrete examples I'm Ne dominant and not Se. And I could go on about the various different theories. Duh. If you want, check out my typeme thread on this.  I've typed a lot there about my wonderings on this topic of Ne vs Se. I see you had a thread on the Ne vs Se yourself... I'm going to read that 

At least the Ti is clear for me though... You have the advantage of being more balanced on T/F maybe, haha. 

Anyway, method to decide on... it will have to depend on the definition as I said.


----------



## Bear987

itsme45 said:


> Cool. I keep hurting people with my reasoning style, glad you are not like that. =)


As an NF, pragmatic reasoning used to bug me, because I couldn't deal with it. I took things (way too) personally too. Now that I learned about the differences in people, I realize that even though pragmatic people will get tough with me when it comes to what I am saying (or doing), doesn't mean that they dislike me as a person; which is important to an NF.



itsme45 said:


> And yeah, I suppose it can be easier to type other people, there is less bias, though of course there can still be a load of bias, depending. Also the other disadvantage is that you have a LOT less information of the other person than they do of themselves.


I should have added that others _who know you very well_ are less biased when it comes to typing yourself. Still, I agree, there will always be some level of bias involved. 



itsme45 said:


> As for Jung, that's fine, all I said, you must not forget that going that far from the original theory, it can lead to very different results in typing.


Point taken.



itsme45 said:


> I don't lead a typical SP-style life, so no, strictly based on Keirsey, I'm not SP. By functional analysis I am, though.


Of course, I don't exactly know how you would describe a typical SP lifestyle, but I don't suppose a particular predisposition (type) always leads to the same or even similar end result (lifestyle). Take, for instance, Keirsey himself. He writes he's an SP, and still he devoted a lot of his time to helping people understand each other better - which in itself is a pretty idealistic (NF) endeavor.



itsme45 said:


> I can put a lot of effort into trying to persuade other people in debates, it depends on my mood.


I bet that, as an SP, you're pretty good at it too!



itsme45 said:


> Also, note, you have the advantage of seeing the ESTP in my profile so you already have a bias about typing me. Those people did not have such an advantage.


Point taken, and so.... (see beneath)



itsme45 said:


> Btw, the "thing", it was just a quick easy way to put it. How would an NT have phrased it?


.... you got me there. Sort of. Going on my understanding of personality types, I would say that (i) you going for "just a quick and easy way" should not be taken lightly, because quick and easy is precisely how SPs roll and (ii) NTs long for power and acknowledgement and would therefore use a word (phrasing) that would get them there. Using the word "thing" for something would make an NT feel (!) uncomfortable, because it makes it seem that they do not master the subject at hand well enough to use the actual word for it - whatever "it" is.

I enjoyed our talk/discussion so far - thanks!


----------



## Gravitas

Sarah said:


> Who is to say what will ultimately benefit humanity? Maybe working out the flaws in Jung/MBTI will bring world peace and happiness for all.  There's a place for everyone, those who sit in ivory towers and work out the logic of issues and those who take what has been discovered and use it to help in some way.


Hmm.. I guess I thought that we'd already established that Jung's cognitive functions are legitimate, based on many things including the latest neuroscience research, and MBTI is not. So.. it doesnt seem like working out flaws.. it seems like kicking a dead horse. 

i'm all for the Ivory tower (I do that for a living, most of the time ... in expanding on Jung's theory. That's exactly what I'm talking about actually.. trying to discover if anyone knows if legimitate observable behavioral evidence of the preferences has been created? And if not.. does anyone have ideas for what that might be?


----------



## itsme45

Gravitas said:


> Hmm.. I guess I thought that we'd already established that Jung's cognitive functions are legitimate, based on many things including the latest neuroscience research


Have you got some link to that?


----------



## Gravitas

itsme45 said:


> Have you got some link to that?



The OP and this:


Nobleheart said:


> Radiance House


I'm paraphrasing, but most people dont show any preference for a 3rd or fourth function, and often the attitude of the auxiliary isnt differentiated. That makes Jung right, MBTI wrong



Nobleheart said:


> According to the findings, that seems to be more the case than the Beebe/ Barrens/Thomson models.
> 
> For example, INFJs tend to also have a strong Fi. INTJs tend to have a strong Ti. ENTPs tend to have a strong Te, etc. In some cases these functions may rival or even surpass the 'typical' auxiliary associated with the type model.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if there is anything directly written up on it, but there is a lot indirectly written on the subject when you look at his work.
> 
> 
> 
> Jung said that the dominant and auxiliary functions needn't be of opposed attitude. He called the combination of same attitude "Pure Types". He also claimed to be one. Depending on where he was in his life, he claimed to be Ni + Ti or Ti + Ni.


----------



## Karen

Nobleheart said:


> Is it important to know where we started from (other than for curiosity's sake), if we can realize what we are now and have become ...which is the collection of cognitive functions we've come to develop?
> 
> We're bigger than a type model. This means we've taken steps toward developing all of our functions. I don't want to go back. I want to continue to grow, especially considering how much it cost me to get here.



Those are all issues I've been struggling with since I found MBTI, and in fact even before, though I didn't have specific words to put to it.

My siblings and I had a very suppressive upbringing and in order to survive, we hardly talked at all and spent 18 years hiding in our rooms. We all turned out to be extroverts, lol. But how can I look back on my childhood and pick up my inherent type? I didn't seem to naturally look at possibilities or use much imagination other than occasionally playing with stuffed animals, and all my books had to be about something "real," such as dogs or horses, rather than fantasy, and I was passionate about animals, both wild and domestic.

The year I left home, I became sick and spent the next 10+ years dividing my time between the alternative community (major Ne, into all sorts of possibilities) and the Se community (constant physical activity). I didn't entirely fit with either, and still don't. Everything I read about Se says their beliefs and trust focus on senses and after all my studying, talking and personal experiences, my beliefs extend far beyond that -- they've had to. So I don't sound like an Se at all, but is having "Ne-type" beliefs and possibilities from my experiences enough to say I'm an Ne? Until recently, I thought the fact that I believed in all sorts of odd and unusual things that are far beyond sensing would be enough to make me an N, but now I'm beginning to see that they are only my beliefs that I've picked up from others. I'm not creative, I'm present oriented, and though I'm very idea oriented because of my experiences, all the high points of my life revolve around horseback riding, skiing, etc. I don't think of possibilities on a daily basis but instead have what I've learned as an important and constant backdrop to my life. I've learned to look beyond what can be seen by the senses, but does that make me N, by itself?

Like you said, I read in a brain quadrant book that as we grow into other quadrants, we leave behind the attitudes and sometimes friends of our world when it was narrower. In keeping with the movie theme, kind of like Good Will Hunting. lol *bag on head* So am I an Ne who expanded into S and love living there or an Se who had to expand during early life in order to encompass Ni? That's my question, and I haven't been able to find an answer that gives me an insight that holds long enough that I feel satisfied with it enough to stop looking. I thought I'd understood that I'm an Ne who was pushing myself into S because I needed the variety, and it was the best variety I've been able to find, but then I remembered my ESTP boyfriend. When he got sick and was potentially going to die, every time he went to the mountains he was awestruck, and it became a mystical experience for him. That's how I am and how it came about for me -- I'm awestruck over clouds and flowers and mountains and interesting shapes of buildings, so that it feels mystical and F, with the strong emotional connection. And I do believe in spirituality beyond the physical, because of my experiences.

I have all these parts to myself and don't know how to put them together enough to sort out between S and N, T and F, and judging by people on personality typing forums, I'm far from the only person who doesn't even know their dominant. So I want to understand MBTI as a system to see if it's workable, and I tend to critique in order to understand, and I want the information to help understand myself.

Edit: @Gravitas, I watched that video this week and when he talked about Se's brains lighting up when they looked out the window, I totally identified -- I can feel my brain light up, lol. When he discussed the experiment of asking Ne's (ENFPs) to picture a dog and cat where their brains lit up with so many possibilities, I didn't identify. I can't brainstorm easily -- it's very stressful. So I seem to be a Nardi Se, though I'll hopefully know more once his books arrive.

@itsme45: Sorry I haven't answered yet, will be back later tonight.


----------



## Nobleheart

Gravitas said:


> I'm paraphrasing, but most people dont show any preference for a 3rd or fourth function, and often the attitude of the auxiliary isnt differentiated. That makes Jung right, MBTI wrong


Actually, it makes Jung right, and the MBTI a fairly good *ballpark* gateway to Jung's cognitive function theories.


----------



## Gravitas

Nobleheart said:


> Actually, it makes Jung right, and the MBTI a fairly good *ballpark* gateway to Jung's cognitive function theories.


That's stretching it considering the vast majority of the time MBTI mistypes a persons auxiliary and assigns arbitrary 3rd and 4th..

I'll give you this.. though the THEORY is completely flawed, in practice people have developed "mbti" tests that often accurately measure a person's primary/attitude and auxiliary

As in:

Most Ne, Ts get an ENTP result
Ne, F = ENFP 
Ni, F = INFJ
etc..


----------



## Gravitas

I feel like I'm kicking the dead horse here, but if you need another data point..

consider the results of six INFPs on this thread. They're all Fi's.. most of them have an N Aux, but it goes completely random from there:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...s-your-subtype-based-cognitive-functions.html

Fi,Ne,Ti,Si,Fe,Te,Ni,Se
Fi, Ti, Ne, Ni, Si
Fi – Ni – Ne – Ti – Te – Fe – Se – Si 
Fi Ne Si Fe Ni Ti Se Te
Fi, Ne, Ni, Ti, Te, Fe, Se, Si
fi,fe,ne,ni,si,ti,se,te


----------



## Nobleheart

Gravitas said:


> I feel like I'm kicking the dead horse here, but if you need another data point..


Kicking a dead horse: aka Ne and Ti spiraling into insistence upon over clarification while generating possibilities on how to clarify further. At this point, you're claiming that the consensus is wrong because it isn't correct *enough*.

So, let me clarify the definition of ballpark (which I even put in bold to emphasize).

ball·park/ˈbôlˌpärk/
Noun: A baseball stadium or field.
*Adjective: Approximate; rough:* "the ballpark figure is $400".

I understand how much difficulty Ti can have with approximation, but the MBTI usually gets 3 of the type letters correct, and almost always at least 2 of the letters correct. That's *ballpark* accuracy. From there, an individual has a starting point to explore and find their actual type. Self assessment questionnaire tests will never be 100% reliable for a multitude of reasons. There will never be a 100% accurate test. The MBTI serves as a good gateway to the theory. Even the people at the MBTI foundation (or whatever it is) insist upon follow ups with people trained in type assessment to validate the test results because they know that it's only ballpark accurate.

If it wasn't for the MBTI, how many of us would be here?

Let's not bash it unduly, but instead accept it for what it really is: a ballpark accurate introduction to this fascinating theory.


----------



## itsme45

Sarah said:


> My siblings and I had a very suppressive upbringing and in order to survive, we hardly talked at all and spent 18 years hiding in our rooms. We all turned out to be extroverts, lol. But how can I look back on my childhood and pick up my inherent type? I didn't seem to naturally look at possibilities or use much imagination other than occasionally playing with stuffed animals, and all my books had to be about something "real," such as dogs or horses, rather than fantasy, and I was passionate about animals, both wild and domestic.


Mhm, I liked fantasy books and I had a lot of imagination making up stories. They were mostly adventure stories. I still do the stories thing sometimes, but no longer about just adventures, more complex now. I don't know if that's type related  But it's important to me, I can't really go long without making a story, I'll get into writing real books perhaps.




> Until recently, I thought the fact that I believed in all sorts of odd and unusual things that are far beyond sensing would be enough to make me an N, but now I'm beginning to see that they are only my beliefs that I've picked up from others.


Could be inferior Ni too...? OK, it's not as simple as that for sure. Ni for me would have to be inferior and I don't believe in any odd weird things. I don't take any of that seriously.




> I'm not creative, I'm present oriented, and though I'm very idea oriented because of my experiences, all the high points of my life revolve around horseback riding, skiing, etc.


Funny you'd say that. I love sports but I would not say it's the high point of my life. The high point is more intellectual achievements. Again not that much type/function related....




> So am I an Ne who expanded into S and love living there or an Se who had to expand during early life in order to encompass Ni? That's my question, and I haven't been able to find an answer that gives me an insight that holds long enough that I feel satisfied with it enough to stop looking.


Or the theory on there being a dominant function plain sucks. I've considered this too 




> I thought I'd understood that I'm an Ne who was pushing myself into S because I needed the variety, and it was the best variety I've been able to find, but then I remembered my ESTP boyfriend. When he got sick and was potentially going to die, every time he went to the mountains he was awestruck, and it became a mystical experience for him. That's how I am and how it came about for me -- I'm awestruck over clouds and flowers and mountains and interesting shapes of buildings, so that it feels mystical and F, with the strong emotional connection. And I do believe in spirituality beyond the physical, because of my experiences.


Ha, interesting. I don't find anything mystical/amazing about sensory experiences. They just are as they are. I don't want to attach any meaning to them, that would just upset me. That is, for me the abstract and the concrete are very clearly delineated. Something is either tangible and concrete or intangible and abstract. If they were to be mixed up, I'd get annoyed. The only exception is if it is about feelings. I don't mind attaching meaning to feely stuff, I actually like doing so, but even that's hard to do by default, because I'm just this terribly skeptical person.

Hm, one exception to this avoidance of attaching meaning to physical experience... when I don't know yet where I am going, I like to find some sort of meaning in that. (This "going" can actually be either on the literal or the abstract level.)




> I have all these parts to myself and don't know how to put them together enough to sort out between S and N, T and F, and judging by people on personality typing forums, I'm far from the only person who doesn't even know their dominant. So I want to understand MBTI as a system to see if it's workable, and I tend to critique in order to understand, and I want the information to help understand myself.


Mhm. You come off as F a lot of the time. Just to confuse you further. Hahaha. But it does seem to be Fi rather than any kind of Fe.

And then a load of N but dunno... here's the thing, are the S things the ones you take seriously, or are they more like amusement?




> I watched that video this week and when he talked about Se's brains lighting up when they looked out the window, I totally identified -- I can feel my brain light up, lol. When he discussed the experiment of asking Ne's (ENFPs) to picture a dog and cat where their brains lit up with so many possibilities, I didn't identify. I can't brainstorm easily -- it's very stressful. So I seem to be a Nardi Se, though I'll hopefully know more once his books arrive.


I'm the same with the Nardi stuff. Btw, the brainstorming though does work to a degree if it is about abstract concepts. I even enjoy it then, though I don't think I conjure up so many associations even then. The cat thing, it would just stress me out like you. Oh and the looking out the window thing, yes I can feel my brain light up lol. Especially if the window is high up. My apartment is on the top floor for exactly this reason (I chose it because I like to be high up so I can look outside from high up and see the world).




> @_itsme45_: Sorry I haven't answered yet, will be back later tonight.


OK, thanks.  You can also do the replying in the new Ne/Se thread I created. Most of what I said above feels to me off topic, sorry to anyone for that. Though maybe it's good to show an example that Se dominants can have things that are usually associated with N types....


----------



## Karen

Thanks, @itsme45, I was also wanting to take this to another thread and was going to bring it up. A lot has come up to deal with in real life tonight, so it will likely be tomorrow before I do a long post. I'll copy and respond to both your posts in the new thread then, as this is important to me.


----------



## reckful

Tainted Streetlight said:


> MBTI has a test-retest rate of some 60%, meaning two out of every five people get different results when retaking the test.
> 
> The most commonly used test in personality studies is the *NEO PI-R*, the levels of consistency are incredibly high (N= .92, E= .89, O= .87, A= .86, C= .90; between .75-.9).


That 60% MBTI statistic relates to a retest standard that says you got a different result if _any one_ of the four dimensions is different. That corresponds to an average test-retest rate of 88% for the individual dimensions.

If you apply the same test-retest standard to those Big 5 statistics you gave us, you get .92 * .89 * .87 * .86 * .90 = a 55% test-retest rate (or 60% if you leave out Neuroticism).

Also: I think the better view is that the MBTI is tapping into four of the Big 5 dimensions. A typical MBTI theorist and a typical Big 5 theorist may characterize the essence of, e.g., introversion in somewhat different ways, but there are also differences among Big 5 theorists, and among MBTI theorists. Personality types is a soft science, and a relatively young science. I think it's crazy to think there are two different real underlying human temperament dimensions: MBTI introversion and Big 5 introversion. And the same with the other three dimensions that correlate substantially.

In any case, and more to the point for purposes of your test-retest issue: As I understand it, the data suggests that most, if not all, of the MBTI dimensions exhibit something like a normal distribution, with a large percentage of people falling not far from the borderline. (As you may know, Jung himself said that more people were in the middle on I/E than were significantly introverted or extraverted.) Assuming that's true, and given the magnitude of human error involved in a self-assessment personality test, it's hardly surprising that it would be fairly common for someone with a close-to-the-middle preference on one or more of the dimensions (especially) to retest as a different type.

Given all that, I'd be dubious if, at this point, any personality typology claimed test-retest rates much better than 88% per dimension.


----------



## LiquidLight

reckful said:


> That 60% MBTI statistic relates to a retest standard that says you got a different result if _any one_ of the four dimensions is different. That corresponds to an average test-retest rate of 88% for the individual dimensions.
> 
> If you apply the same test-retest standard to those Big 5 statistics you gave us, you get .92 * .89 * .87 * .86 * .90 = a 55% test-retest rate (or 60% if you leave out Neuroticism).
> 
> Also: I think the better view is that the MBTI is tapping into four of the Big 5 dimensions. A typical MBTI theorist and a typical Big 5 theorist may characterize the essence of, e.g., introversion in somewhat different ways, but there are also differences among Big 5 theorists, and among MBTI theorists. Personality types is a soft science, and a relatively young science. I think it's crazy to think there are two different real underlying human temperament dimensions: MBTI introversion and Big 5 introversion. And the same with the other three dimensions that correlate substantially.
> 
> In any case, and more to the point for purposes of your test-retest issue: As I understand it, the data suggests that most, if not all, of the MBTI dimensions exhibit something like a normal distribution, with a large percentage of people falling not far from the borderline. (As you may know, Jung himself said that more people were in the middle on I/E than were significantly introverted or extraverted.) Assuming that's true, and given the magnitude of human error involved in a self-assessment personality test, it's hardly surprising that it would be fairly common for someone with a close-to-the-middle preference on one or more of the dimensions (especially) to retest as a different type.
> 
> Given all that, I'd be dubious if, at this point, any personality typology claimed test-retest rates much better than 88% per dimension.


And your point about the data distribution, I think would have more salience if MBTI was actually just measuring its metrics individually like the Big 5 does. But the problem is that MBTI is doing something else. Their's is a sum-of-all-parts approach where XXXX-type means more than simply a metric of where you score on the scale. I sort of went over this a page or so back, but MBTI is also trying to force Jung's 'rules' and number of their own, to create specific types of people rather than to just measure them against N-S-T-F-I-E-J-P which is what the FFM does. All that distribution data first relies on accepting MBTI's premises. The FFM isn't trying to create type categories. So J-P, for example, isn't just a metric of say 'likes things decided/likes left open' but rather a pointer variable to extraversion. The assumption is that a high P score indicates high Extraverted Perception (Ne or Se dom/aux) and a high J score indicates high Extraverted Judgment (Te or Fe dom/aux). This is where things get dicey and why when some of the other researchers like Harker and Reynierse did their control studies, like I pointed out, they found that people often really did not conform to these 'rules,' and often were the opposite.


----------



## reckful

Nobleheart said:


> Jung said that the dominant and auxiliary functions needn't be of opposed attitude. He called the combination of same attitude "Pure Types". He also claimed to be one. Depending on where he was in his life, he claimed to be Ni + Ti or Ti + Ni.





Eric B said:


> Where did Jung say he was TiNi?





Nobleheart said:


> It won't take much research to find this information. In print, Jung referred to himself as an Ni + Ti when discussing 'true types'.
> 
> There are several video interviews of him late in his life that address his theories on what he calls true types (dominant and auxiliary having both introverted or both extroverted functions), and he claims to be one. There is also a video interview where Jung is asked what he thinks his type is. He says he's always been a Thinking type and always been an Intuitive, as well as always been very introverted, again confirming his assumption of being a 'true type'.


Was it "pure types" or "true types" — or was that another one of those things Jung couldn't make up his mind about?

You say it "won't take much research to find this information" but I searched the internet using "pure type" and "true type" both and couldn't find anything, darn it — not counting your post, which showed up at the top of the "true type" hit list. I found a Dinkelaker/Fudjack article on the Enneagram and the MBTI where they claim Jung was a "pure type," but they don't say anything about Jung claiming to be one (or claiming to be Ni/Ti or Ti/Ni).

I've also read quite a few internet discussions about Jung's type over the past few years, and it seems like none of the participants in any of those discussions knows anything about those easy-to-find sources of yours.

Any chance you could provide some further assistance?


----------



## LiquidLight

reckful said:


> Was it "pure types" or "true types" — or was that another one of those things Jung couldn't make up his mind about?
> 
> You say it "won't take much research to find this information" but I searched the internet using "pure type" and "true type" both and couldn't find anything, darn it — not counting your post, which showed up at the top of the "true type" hit list. I found a Dinkelaker/Fudjack article on the Enneagram and the MBTI where they claim Jung was a "pure type," but they don't say anything about Jung claiming to be one (or claiming to be Ni/Ti or Ti/Ni).
> 
> I've also read quite a few internet discussions about Jung's type over the past few years, and it seems like none of the participants in any of those discussions knows anything about those easy-to-find sources of yours.
> 
> Any chance you could provide some further assistance?


The only thing I've heard definitively on this is from another message board


> "As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me and intuition and feeling were in the unconscious and contaminated by the collective unconscious."
> -Carl Jung
> 
> from: Analytical Psychology (Amazon.com: Analytical Psychology (9780691019185): C. G. Jung, William McGuire: Books)


Obviously in a number of places he talks about his own preference for Introverted Thinking including _Psychological Types_. Marie Von Franz speaks of him primarily through the lens of his Ti and Intuition in Lectures on Jung's Typology.


----------



## Nobleheart

reckful said:


> Any chance you could provide some further assistance?


A few years ago, it was on the wiki. It seems the article has changed. I'm not sure if it was 'pure types' or 'true types'. Si fail on my part.


----------



## Spinkltini

"Every person’s mind is as unique as a fingerprint. While most fingerprints conform to certain general patterns, like Arches, Loops, and Whorls, each is distinct, and a small percentage don’t conform to the general patterns at all. The same is true of the mind. Cognitive process in the human mind is made up of elements in varying measures. These elements tend to follow general patterns, but to assume that any two minds are alike would be a mistake."


Yes, I have found this statement to be very true! It is pretty much impossible to pin a person's personality down with a description that can be used for multiple people. I am an ENFP; one of the descriptions is that we don't really pay attention to detail, but I have a great eye for details and can frequently be picky about them. There are some other things that are different, but for the most part the ENFP type fits me very well.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

I think people most definitely do show a preference for a third function. I mean, there has to be some stable part of the personality, or otherwise, maturity of the more preferred aspects would be impossible, because a person has the potential of falling apart in every direction via the inferior. Think about it: the dom. and aux. are capable of dynamic maturity in a person's reasoning and outlook - they need this both in the introverted and extraverted direction, since the aux. function is what helps to establish what the dominant's seeking and if it can't change at the whims of the dominant, the dominant would fail to convey itself in a way that represents the full extent it wants to be conveyed. The aux. function is the outlet for the dominant. However, the tertiary is the stable side of a person that's always there for a person no matter what pushing the dominant to make progress so that the tert. function doesn't have to change the way it works, because the tert. function is what is guarding the ego against the inferior function, which lacks the sophistication to carry a person's ego - I think it makes sense that a person should have something of a near alter-ego in the orientation of the dominant that supports it from a different angle of perception or judgement. Since the inferior is the compatible counter-reaction to the dominant, then the tert. must be the way to basically control that counter-reaction and support the dominant as the dominant, rather than let the inferior take the reigns - the reliable areas of personality should be their to support dominant and inferior as well (so, it doesn't mature much, but this way, it can always be expected to carry the weight of pushing for change in all of the areas that require it). After all, I seem to notice that a lot of the eternal hobbies and interests of people tend to revolve around the low egotism of the tert. function. I think a low-egotism alternative to the dominant function (that's still under its control, of course), has to be the tert. function, since the inferior function is the part of the person that people can easily get egotistical about, since it runs counter to the ego in most ways. I can say more here, but I think I'll address this in another thread, since this is a bit of a big topic to me (introvert/extravert support). I just can't see how the dominant function can survive without a cheerleader for it that sort of proves the greatness of the dominant to the individual in their respective orientation (I/E). After all, no one can be very egotistical at all times either, so this kind of "alter ego" of the same orientation seems like a necessity to me just to allow a person to kind of "be themselves." (you're not always maturing, so obviously, the dominant function isn't really the outlet for this - there's always a fundamental you that you can trust to be there, and not a new you every few days from constant maturation). And going from an I ego to an E alter-ego is impossible - you'd have schizophrenic agendas - one concerning the subjective and one concerning the objective, and you can't be both an introvert or extravert at once.


----------



## Gravitas

reckful said:


> Was it "pure types" or "true types" — or was that another one of those things Jung couldn't make up his mind about?
> 
> You say it "won't take much research to find this information" but I searched the internet using "pure type" and "true type" both and couldn't find anything, darn it — not counting your post, which showed up at the top of the "true type" hit list. I found a Dinkelaker/Fudjack article on the Enneagram and the MBTI where they claim Jung was a "pure type," but they don't say anything about Jung claiming to be one (or claiming to be Ni/Ti or Ti/Ni).
> 
> I've also read quite a few internet discussions about Jung's type over the past few years, and it seems like none of the participants in any of those discussions knows anything about those easy-to-find sources of yours.
> 
> Any chance you could provide some further assistance?


I found this without too much trouble - Jung "never made clear that the attitude type of the two functions in this two function model of consciousness would alternate between function # 1 and function #2":



Gravitas said:


> Thanks for the link - I'm excited to see that I can buy 10 for the bargain price of $224
> 
> On a related note, Beebe summarizes Jung's stance on dominant and auxiliary functions having alternating I/E
> "Despite Isabel Briggs Myers’s later reading of a single sentence in Jung’s long and often contradictory book (Myers &Myers 1980:19; Jung 1921/1971:406, para 668), he never made clear that the attitude type of the two functions in this two function model of consciousness would alternate between​function # 1 and function #2."
> http://www.jungatlanta.com/articles/winter08-evolving-the-eight-function-model.pdf


----------



## Gravitas

@reckful @Tainted Streetlight

Have you guys seen anything on the Test-retest rates for cognitive function tests?


----------



## reckful

Gravitas said:


> I found this without too much trouble - Jung "never made clear that the attitude type of the two functions in this two function model of consciousness would alternate between function # 1 and function #2":


I'm well aware that there are plenty of sources that take the position that the better reading of Psychological Types is that the dominant and auxiliary functions would have the same attitude (or that it's unclear). Myers acknowledged, in Gifts Differing, that that was the majority view.

I was asking about the sources Nobleheart referred to where _Jung himself_, in one or more post-PT articles or interviews, purportedly described himself as a "pure type" (or maybe "true type") whose top two functions were Ti and Ni.


----------



## Gravitas

Nobleheart said:


> Kicking a dead horse: aka Ne and Ti spiraling into insistence upon over clarification while generating possibilities on how to clarify further. At this point, you're claiming that the consensus is wrong because it isn't correct *enough*.
> 
> So, let me clarify the definition of ballpark (which I even put in bold to emphasize).
> 
> ball·park/ˈbôlˌpärk/
> Noun: A baseball stadium or field.
> *Adjective: Approximate; rough:* "the ballpark figure is $400".
> 
> I understand how much difficulty Ti can have with approximation, but the MBTI usually gets 3 of the type letters correct, and almost always at least 2 of the letters correct. That's *ballpark* accuracy. From there, an individual has a starting point to explore and find their actual type. Self assessment questionnaire tests will never be 100% reliable for a multitude of reasons. There will never be a 100% accurate test. The MBTI serves as a good gateway to the theory. Even the people at the MBTI foundation (or whatever it is) insist upon follow ups with people trained in type assessment to validate the test results because they know that it's only ballpark accurate.
> 
> If it wasn't for the MBTI, how many of us would be here?
> 
> Let's not bash it unduly, but instead accept it for what it really is: a ballpark accurate introduction to this fascinating theory.



uh oh.. trying to dig into my working mind? Welcome to Las Vegas 

It's interesting that you put it that way, as if my dom and aux are working toward opposite purposes.. however, I'm Te aux, so.. you'll notice that I have a tendency to want to organize and marshall my external environment logically - thus the attempt to organize all the great minds on this thread toward a more useful pursuit - "How do we best apply Jungian theory in the real world, to the betterment of humanity". My Ne is anxious to ideate in this new territory.. and so, belaboring the point that Myers-Briggs *theory* is incorrect is.. annoying my Ne.However, it's apparent to my Te that others are not making the paradigm shift as easily (even those who say that MBTI types are an illusion  and my Ne has just come up with a little epiphany: We're not talking about the same thing here. 

Maybe it would help to consider that 'myers-briggs' is composed of two parts:

1. a personality theory
2. a personality test

Is the personality theory accurate?
No, their only additions to Jung's 8 cognitive preferences were that a person's 8 preferences vary in degree from highest to lowest and that the attitude of those preferences will be opposite from one to the next - I/E/I/E etc.. 
We've established both assertions are baseless.

Is the personality test accurate?
*ballpark*, yes 
IF you throw out the mbti theory and assume that the test is measuring a person's dominant and auxiliary cognitive function, then yes.. it appears to be quite accurate for the dom and its attitude, and.. fairly accurate for the aux.

So what? 
why not just take the personality test and work to improve it to more accurately measure dom, aux, tert? why not continue to share the perspective that MBTI theory is baseless to prevent people from forming further incorrect assumptions about the mbti 'types'?


----------



## itsme45

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think people most definitely do show a preference for a third function. (...) And going from an I ego to an E alter-ego is impossible - you'd have schizophrenic agendas - one concerning the subjective and one concerning the objective, and you can't be both an introvert or extravert at once.


Very interesting analysis. Anyway, yeah, I think I prefer Fe (tertiary) stronger over Fi than Ti (auxiliary) over Te (but I do still prefer Ti over Te). 

The schizo stuff has nothing to do with functions.


----------



## itsme45

Gravitas said:


> So what?
> why not just take the personality test and work to improve it to more accurately measure dom, aux, tert? why not continue to share the perspective that MBTI theory is baseless to prevent people from forming further incorrect assumptions about the mbti 'types'?


I've seen a custom test that first tested for the dominant function and then tested between the two possible auxiliaries... If the dominant was e.g. Ne, then it tested between T and F. The actual implementation has issues (e.g. mixing up different definitions from different theories and testing for stuff based on ENFP vs ENTP stereotypes instead of simply testing between T and F) but the idea itself is pretty good.


----------



## Nobleheart

itsme45 said:


> I've seen a custom test that first tested for the dominant function and then tested between the two possible auxiliaries... If the dominant was e.g. Ne, then it tested between T and F. The actual implementation has issues (e.g. mixing up different definitions from different theories and testing for stuff based on ENFP vs ENTP stereotypes instead of simply testing between T and F) but the idea itself is pretty good.


Seems like it would be more accurate to test for N, S, T, or F preference, then determine introverted or extroverted attitude, followed by discerning auxiliary sets and their attitudes. Yourself for an example... As an ESTP, you'd likely show a much stronger lean toward S over N vs. the amount of lean toward T over F. From there, we determine if it's Se or Si. Once it is determined that it is Se, we litmus Ti/Fe vs. Fi/Te. 3 step approach with likely more accuracy than the MBTI. If nothing else, it provides a good correlation test for use in conjunction with the MBTI, Cognitive Functions, and OCEAN.


----------



## itsme45

Nobleheart said:


> Seems like it would be more accurate to test for N, S, T, or F preference, then determine introverted or extroverted attitude, followed by discerning auxiliary sets and their attitudes. Yourself for an example... As an ESTP, you'd likely show a much stronger lean toward S over N vs. the amount of lean toward T over F. From there, we determine if it's Se or Si. Once it is determined that it is Se, we litmus Ti/Fe vs. Fi/Te. 3 step approach with likely more accuracy than the MBTI. If nothing else, it provides a good correlation test for use in conjunction with the MBTI, Cognitive Functions, and OCEAN.


That doesn't sound like a bad idea, but you do not need to test the auxiliary's attitude at all. After we got the dominant function e.g. Se, we just need to determine if the auxiliary is T or F. Anything more is overcomplicating it.

I am not sure I would show a stronger lean toward S over N. The T over F is always more clear in my mind. Maybe because of the inferior function's pull. 

The original test asked 32 questions where you needed to select between two dominant functions for each question (of course the third option was select neither). Then they changed it to a version where the first step is determining I/E. I got stuck on that step, hehe. (The I/E questions weren't great at all.) I liked the original version more.

Btw I was tested as ENTP but that would be because the questions used were not the best. Actually, it was Ne > Se mostly because it never asked anything about intuiting many possibilities.  (It was Ne over Se only by 1 point, otherwise.)

What is OCEAN?


----------



## Eric B

OCEAN is the Big Five or Five Factor Model (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism).


----------



## Nobleheart

itsme45 said:


> What is OCEAN?





Eric B said:


> OCEAN is the Big Five or Five Factor Model (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism).


There is another test that is almost identical to OCEAN called SLOAN. 

Both SLOAN and OCEAN tend to have fairly good correlation to MBTI, so therefore they tend to make fairly good 'proofs' for each other. Add in cognitive functions, and the correlation between the three can help to narrow things down and dispel inaccuracies, or at least point out where a person should be looking to determine the reality of how their mind works.


----------



## LiquidLight

Yea I really think that MBTI would've been better to just test for functions outright N-F-T-S-J-P and then try to deduce whether it was introverted or extraverted based on say an interview or best fit. Because I think where people may get screwed up is the secondary measure of I-E which looks for outer cues. That's an apples and oranges category mistake though because I-E as outward cues doesn't point to I-E in the cognitive sense. 

So a person would show up as say

80% N
54% F
66% T
20% S
40% P
60% J

on its own this sounds sort of like what MBTI is doing, except MBTI is taking this another step further to try and create specific types based on this data like INFP or ESTJ when the real preferences of people may not fit into these categories that neatly as we see on CF tests. To figure out I-E we would then do, say an interview, because from this data we still might know if this person was Introverted Intuitive or Extraverted Intuitive, but the second step should narrow this down to a better best-fit, and leaves open the possibility that the person may not fit a given typology. We simply just observe like FFM models a person's preferences not try to hold them to specific rules of how those preferences should interact with one another. (What should happen then, if Jung was right, is that over a large pattern we should see some general tendencies like T opposing F, or S opposing N, rather than to try to force that pattern from the get-go and basically ignore people who don't fit it).


----------



## itsme45

Nobleheart said:


> There is another test that is almost identical to OCEAN called SLOAN.
> 
> Both SLOAN and OCEAN tend to have fairly good correlation to MBTI, so therefore they tend to make fairly good 'proofs' for each other. Add in cognitive functions, and the correlation between the three can help to narrow things down and dispel inaccuracies, or at least point out where a person should be looking to determine the reality of how their mind works.


Well I am SCUEI in the SLOAN..... (Explicitly tested as SCUEI.) Se/Si in MBTI should be correlated with Non-curious, but no way that I am "non-curious"!!! -.- Yet my SCUEI result correlates with ENTP, not ESTP.

I guess it does mention that this correlation is pretty weak-ish anyway.

I've copied the correlation table here for reference:



Global 5Global 5 Sloan NotationJung/MBTI/KierseyStrength of correlationExtroversion*S*ocial/*R*eserved*I*ntrovert/*E*xtrovertHighEmotional Stability*L*imbic/*C*alm*F*eeling/*T*hinkingVery LowOrderliness*O*rganized/*U*nstructured*J*udging/*P*ercievingHighAccommodation*A*ccommodating/*E*cocentric*F*eeling/*T*hinkingMediumIntellect*N*on-curious/*I*nquisitive*S*ensing/I*n*tuitionMedium-High


...I would like to know the exact numbers.


----------



## itsme45

LiquidLight said:


> Yea I really think that MBTI would've been better to just test for functions outright N-F-T-S-J-P and then try to deduce whether it was introverted or extraverted based on say an interview or best fit. Because I think where people may get screwed up is the secondary measure of I-E which looks for outer cues. That's an apples and oranges category mistake though because I-E as outward cues doesn't point to I-E in the cognitive sense.
> 
> So a person would show up as say
> 
> 80% N
> 54% F
> 66% T
> 20% S
> 40% P
> 60% J
> 
> on its own this sounds sort of like what MBTI is doing, except MBTI is taking this another step further to try and create specific types based on this data like INFP or ESTJ when the real preferences of people may not fit into these categories that neatly as we see on CF tests. To figure out I-E we would then do, say an interview, because from this data we still might know if this person was Introverted Intuitive or Extraverted Intuitive, but the second step should narrow this down to a better best-fit, and leaves open the possibility that the person may not fit a given typology. We simply just observe like FFM models a person's preferences not try to hold them to specific rules of how those preferences should interact with one another. (What should happen then, if Jung was right, is that over a large pattern we should see some general tendencies like T opposing F, or S opposing N, rather than to try to force that pattern from the get-go and basically ignore people who don't fit it).


Why would you bother with testing for J/P? 

Also, are you sure that the dominant function will get the highest percentage here? I would not be so sure.

Outward cues - would you not be testing the functions based on those? Why is I/E the exception here?

Finally, what is the goal? Building an explanatory theory or just a description of general tendencies from a longitudinal study? If the former, and we find the MBTI model really doesn't fit reality well, then the functions need to be explained by other background factors, which obviously needs different research.


----------



## Eric B

itsme45 said:


> Global 5Global 5 Sloan NotationJung/MBTI/KierseyStrength of correlationExtroversion*S*ocial/*R*eserved*I*ntrovert/*E*xtrovertHighEmotional Stability*L*imbic/*C*alm*F*eeling/*T*hinkingVery LowOrderliness*O*rganized/*U*nstructured*J*udging/*P*ercievingHighAccommodation*A*ccommodating/*E*cocentric*F*eeling/*T*hinkingMediumIntellect*N*on-curious/*I*nquisitive*S*ensing/I*n*tuitionMedium-High
> 
> 
> ...I would like to know the exact numbers.


 A factor called *Comfort-Discomfort* was intended to cover Calm/Limbic, in a specialized version of MBTI. Accomodation might correlate better with Informing/Directing (Interaction Styles) or structure/motive (Berens version of the Keirsey temperaments) than with dichotomies. I don't think these things have ever been correlated with those factors.


----------



## itsme45

Eric B said:


> A factor called *Comfort-Discomfort* was intended to cover Calm/Limbic, in a specialized version of MBTI. Accomodation might correlate better with Informing/Directing (Interaction Styles) or structure/motive (Berens version of the Keirsey temperaments) than with dichotomies. I don't think these things have ever been correlated with those factors.


Er what specialized version of MBTI? What is this factor defined as?


----------



## Eric B

Type Differentiation Indicator. From what I heard, it is used mostly in mental institutions.

From Wikipedia:
This factor's [sub]scales indicate a sense of overall comfort and confidence versus discomfort and anxiety. They also load onto one of the four type dimensions: guarded-optimistic (also T/F), defiant-compliant (also T/F), carefree-worried (also T/F), decisive-ambivalent (also J/P), intrepid-inhibited (Also E/I), leader-follower (Also E/I), and proactive-distractible (also J/P)


----------



## LiquidLight

itsme45 said:


> Why would you bother with testing for J/P?
> 
> Also, are you sure that the dominant function will get the highest percentage here? I would not be so sure.
> 
> Outward cues - would you not be testing the functions based on those? Why is I/E the exception here?
> 
> Finally, what is the goal? Building an explanatory theory or just a description of general tendencies from a longitudinal study? If the former, and we find the MBTI model really doesn't fit reality well, then the functions need to be explained by other background factors, which obviously needs different research.


Because J-P in MBTI points to structure (their word) liking things decided/liking things left open (also their terms). This is an independent variable from the functions that would need to be tested separately. Actually its one of the current problems with the MBTI methodology is that they do currently test for J-P as a separate variable, but then attach it to functions which is a categorical error. You're either measuring the strength of someone's Fe or Te (in the case of J) or you're measuring their tendency toward structure which is something else completely. It's sort of like tying to how neat someone's handwriting is to which hand they write with. Two different things going on that may only be tangentially related. 

Testing for i/E independently as the current model does also creates problems because as we know, I/E only (theoretically) refers to cognitive preference. Which way the person's psychic energy tends to flow. So what we really should be testing for is not I/E as independent variables (because what would we actually base this on other than the person's outer behavior?) but rather the strength of the functions themselves. If we base I/E on outer cues like how do I respond to people or whatever, we have another categorical error: tying outward presentation to direction of psychic energy (which then makes the assumption that a person who directs their energy outward will always manifest behaviors that correspond to this). What we should really be testing for to me would be more like a CF test where we are trying to determine Ti or Te, for example, not I/E independently and then T/F independently. Because you open up the possibility that someone might be for example really a Te-dom who scores low on the I/E scale and gets mistyped as an introvert when their thought processes generally flow outward. 

If we just tested for the 8 function attitudes outright, a simple best-fit analysis or interview afterward would probably pretty quickly distinguish whether or not the person's preference was say for Ti over Te or Si over Se since these functions aren't all that alike. The test gets us in the ballpark by saying "ok you prefer Thinking" (if say the person scores high on both Ti and Te), the proctor can then do a followup to ascertain whether or not its really Ti or Te. No test would have the intuition to know this so there's always a human element that has to be involved here. 

Also I agree that it is not a foregone conclusion that the dominant function will get the highest percentage, which the control studies indicated only happened, in reality, in a very low percentage of cases (and a number of cases where what should've been someone's aux was higher than their dominant). Which means potentially that you can't actually test for dominant function this empirical kind of way, or we have to accept that the rules of type dynamics (or even Jung's rules) about how the functions interact are incorrect or at very least cannot be universalized. 

The MBTI's current goal is just simply identification (based on their rules). My contention is that right now we have no way of knowing if their rules are correct. I'm just saying lets remove the subjectivity from it, if we want to play that game, test the individual parameters outright and then over a period of time see where the cards fall. Maybe we find out that in a longitudinal study, that for example, Introverted Thinking types do not always have to be Ti+Extraverted Perception in that order. Maybe there are people out there who are Ti+Ni or Ti+Si or something else. Right now 'the rules' don't allow for that and I'm not sure it effectively captures real people. It just bothers me that so many people seem to be the exception to the rule (and I understand that few of them have been typed correctly by the actual instruments so there's just a lot of bad info out there and errors of proper definition and misinformation) but, I guess I Just have a hard time accepting that there are only two categories of Extraverted Thinking type for instance. One that supports Te with Si and another with Ni. The real world, to me, just seems to be tougher to nail down with that level of rigidity and accuracy.

The other thing is that we have no way to see if Jung was right. The assumption is that an INTP will have low Fe (in MBTI model) but what about all those INTPs out there claiming to have high Fe? We sort of just dismiss them as being wrong, but how do we really know? Jung only says that the Introverted Thinking type will have issues with Fe not that it will be their weakest preference, only most unconscious preference. But by the current model, we should be able to test the assumption that all Ti-doms score low in Fe. Right now we can't and there are a number of people who fall very close on the scale maybe 60/40 T over F, who, if we apply 'the rules' shouldn't really be INTPs with a score that close, if F is really their weakest preference. So without testing for these things outright and individually and then seeing if the rules hold up, but rather starting with the rules and seeing if the people hold up, I think this produces more mess than anything else and a lot of confusion. 

I think @_Eric B_'s stuff about the blending of temperaments is a good example of how real people are often a blending of different things. While perhaps Sanguine and Choleric might be 'pure' incarnations, for instance, many people are some blending of SanChol or what have you. And I'm not sure why this can't be the case with the Myers Briggs types especially with its placing of such heavy emphasis on outer presentation (through the emphasis of J/P and Extraverted functions). It just seems to me that 16 is at best a starting point.


----------



## itsme45

LiquidLight said:


> Because J-P in MBTI points to structure (their word) liking things decided/liking things left open (also their terms). This is an independent variable from the functions that would need to be tested separately.
> 
> (...)
> 
> I think @_Eric B_'s stuff about the blending of temperaments is a good example of how real people are often a blending of different things. While perhaps Sanguine and Choleric might be 'pure' incarnations, for instance, many people are some blending of SanChol or what have you. And I'm not sure why this can't be the case with the Myers Briggs types especially with its placing of such heavy emphasis on outer presentation (through the emphasis of J/P and Extraverted functions). It just seems to me that 16 is at best a starting point.


Oh the rules are probably not "correct". It's all just a model. As soon as you allow for falsification, this one is quickly falsified, IMO.

The thing about blending is... there should be underlying principles, if this model is no good, then you'd need another model in place, just accepting the statement that "people are blends of things" is not a model.

As for the J/P variable in MBTI tests, I assume it's there because they for some reason avoid testing for functions directly. Why is this avoidance there in MBTI tests? Do you know the reason?

The followup after the test by the person, how does the person determine things? They must be using a certain method(s) for this. Why can that not be automated removing the human factor?


----------



## Nobleheart

itsme45 said:


> ...I would like to know the exact numbers.


The high correlations are between 70-75%, and the low correlations are around 40-45%. The Emotional Stability seems to have no correlation to any of the MBTI dichotomies, though some citation implies a link to the F/T axis. 

From what I understand, these figures have something to do with more than just direct correlation per axis. I think it somehow attempts to measure how many people matched all of them or something. If it were direct correlation on dichotomies, 50% would actually be no correlation at all.

Looks like you fell into that band with 3 out of 4 correlation matches.

I usually score the ENFJ equivalent on SLOAN. I think it's SLOAI. 

To my knowledge, I've never seen a correlation study between OCEAN/SLOAN and Cognitive Function preferences. 

However, I think the fact that depending on the test people score different types is indicative of the fact that each of us is more than any given type. I also believe we overlap type models. The reason the phrase 'best fit type' is often used in the professional typing services is because of this effect. Most people could be compared to many types, but if only one had to be chosen, that person would have the most in common with that model. It doesn't mean the person fits the model perfectly, nor does it mean the type model is the extent of the person's cognitive function capacity / preferences. 

Each of us is more than the sum of our individual parts.


----------



## Eric B

itsme45 said:


> The thing about blending is... there should be underlying principles, if this model is no good, then you'd need another model in place, just accepting the statement that "people are blends of things" is not a model.


"Blending" as far as temperament goes is based on two different models that happened to be built into type. The "affective", or Interaction Styles, and the "conative" or Keirsey's groups. People do reference both, trying the other when one doesn't seem to fit.
When I talk about "temperament blendings" within type, both of those groups consist of the ancient four temperaments (though usually renamed), so each type shares one of each group. ESTP= Choleric-EST + Sanguine-SP, and ENTP is Sanguine-ENP + Choleric-NT (The affective temperaments are based on different dichotomies for S's and N's).
The underlying principles of the temperaments are expressiveness and responsiveness (i.e. people vs task). These come through the factors of I/E, cooperative/pragmatic, directing/informing and structure/motive.


> As for the J/P variable in MBTI tests, I assume it's there because they for some reason avoid testing for functions directly. Why is this avoidance there in MBTI tests? Do you know the reason?


 Myers and Briggs treated the functions as wholes not necessarily differentiated in attitude (there's an ongoing debate as to whether Jung did or not, and there are statements of his that can go either way). So they measured S/N and T/F as "dichotomies", and then used E/I and J/P to determine the likely "attitude" and position. It's a very convoluted-looking system to try to learn, but Briggs actually started out developing a temperament system, and while it was not the same as what Keirsey and Berens later came up with (her four were basically what we would call I's, F's, T's and S/N's), when she read Jung, then she reshaped it using J/P into what we have today. 
J/P basically covers outward behavior (through whichever function we extravert), thus making it similar to a temperament concept, and thus coming handy for developing the Keirsey temperament and Berens Interaction style models.


----------



## Nobleheart

Eric B said:


> "Blending" as far as temperament goes is based on two different models that happened to be built into type. The "affective", or Interaction Styles, and the "conative" or Keirsey's groups. People do reference both, trying the other when one doesn't seem to fit.


Agreed. This can cause some confusion, especially when other similar systems like Socionics (alpha, beta, gamma, delta) or the more recent return to dominant function approaches (8 base type groups) are added to the mix.



Eric B said:


> When I talk about "temperament blendings" within type, both of those groups consist of the ancient four temperaments (though usually renamed), so each type shares one of each group. ESTP= Choleric-EST + Sanguine-SP, and ENTP is Sanguine-ENP + Choleric-NT (The affective temperaments are based on different dichotomies for S's and N's).


Now this is interesting. I'd always assumed the humors system to simply be subjective validation for type groups. Can I diva for a moment? I usually score INFJ (most often) or ENFJ (about a third of the time), sometimes INFP (usually when I'm depressed), INTJ (pretty sure this is my withdrawn and callous Ni + Ti mode - my Te is growing but clearly weaker than my Ti), or ENFP (when I'm in fun and silly mode). I've also always felt a strong connection to the ISTP description and my ISTP friends. When I've taken tests about the humors system, I usually score balanced on all 4, but depending on the description I would assume I'm Meloncholic-Sanguine. Any ideas on how the humors + MBTI would apply to me?



Eric B said:


> The underlying principles of the temperaments are expressiveness and responsiveness (i.e. people vs task). These come through the factors of I/E, cooperative/pragmatic, directing/informing and structure/motive.


Interesting. Though, wouldn't temperament begin to step into the realm of Enneagram motivations, or is the assumption that the ego is so strongly tied to the dominant and auxiliary functions that it creates temperament?



Eric B said:


> Myers and Briggs treated the functions as wholes not necessarily differentiated in attitude (there's an ongoing debate as to whether Jung did or not, and there are statements of his that can go either way). So they measured S/N and T/F as "dichotomies", and then used E/I and J/P to determine the likely "attitude" and position. It's a very convoluted-looking system to try to learn, but Briggs actually started out developing a temperament system, and while it was not the same as what Keirsey and Berens later came up with (her four were basically what we would call I's, F's, T's and S/N's), when she read Jung, then she reshaped it using J/P into what we have today.
> J/P basically covers outward behavior (through whichever function we extravert), thus making it similar to a temperament concept, and thus coming handy for developing the Keirsey temperament and Berens Interaction style models.


This is a bit of information that a lot of people who are into this theory are either not aware of or often forget. This is also why I still insist that the MBTI is a good gateway to determine ballpark guesstimate of how one's mind is configured - and to start the self discovery process.


----------



## Eric B

Nobleheart said:


> Now this is interesting. I'd always assumed the humors system to simply be subjective validation for type groups. Can I diva for a moment? I usually score INFJ (most often) or ENFJ (about a third of the time), sometimes INFP (usually when I'm depressed), INTJ (pretty sure this is my withdrawn and callous Ni + Ti mode - my Te is growing but clearly weaker than my Ti), or ENFP (when I'm in fun and silly mode). I've also always felt a strong connection to the ISTP description and my ISTP friends. When I've taken tests about the humors system, I usually score balanced on all 4, but depending on the description I would assume I'm Meloncholic-Sanguine. Any ideas on how the humors + MBTI would apply to me?


Melancholic-Sanguine would go with ISTP, but then those types of tests, where you pick traits out of a chart and then it lists the 4 by % preference, are not very reliable. But even though, we did use those (over on TypoC, and a lot of results did come out matching the Interaction Style + Keirsey type combo, or close).

You say you're balanced, so it could go any way, but of course, in the stacking, one will have to come out first, and another second and so on.

As for the different types you come out as, any test could be thrown off by some mood you are in at a particular time, or perhaps, mixing the functions and attitudes up. That's why it's good to look at the functions, and then determine which roles (archetypes) they usually fall into.

If you're INFJ, that would be Melancholic-Phlegmatic, or Melancholic-Supine, and Supine is not recognized by most of those tests, so that could make it come out as Sanguine, since the two temperaments share some things in common.

So there are a lot of reasons things may not always match up.

See if you match these:

Melancholy in Inclusion (Interaction Style)

Temperament: Phlegmatic Supine In Affection (conative temperament)
(If not this last one, then try "Supine Phlegmatic", or "Phlegmatic")



> Interesting. Though, wouldn't temperament begin to step into the realm of Enneagram motivations,


 Temperament and Enneagram do seem very similar (including the motivations, from what I remember), though I haven't yet looked into the whole tri-type system, to see if that matches anything in classic temperament theory. I kind of backed off of it for now, because I believed it would match better if we were allowed to stack different types along the Instinctual Variants. Then, they would likely match directly the Inclusion/Control/Affection areas.


> or is the assumption that the ego is so strongly tied to the dominant and auxiliary functions that it creates temperament?


 Expressed Inclusion would be I or E, and that is formed by the ego's dominant attitude. So that's part of temperament that becomes evident. J/P are supposedly the next letters to develop, and that will figure in responsiveness (people vs task) in one of the areas. The first function, if T or F, will then complete people/task in the other area, or if S/N develops first, it will complete either the Interaction Style (Inclusion) if N, or the conative temperament (Control) if S. In either case, the auxiliary would then complete all of both areas.

So yes, in this theory where the dominant and auxiliary make a whole type, and type is a temperament combination, then it will be tied to the preferred functions.


----------



## Nobleheart

Eric B said:


> If you're INFJ, that would be Melancholic-Phlegmatic, or Melancholic-Supine, and Supine is not recognized by most of those tests, so that could make it come out as Sanguine, since the two temperaments share some things in common.
> 
> So there are a lot of reasons things may not always match up.
> 
> See if you match these:
> 
> Melancholy in Inclusion (Interaction Style)
> 
> Temperament: Phlegmatic Supine In Affection (conative temperament)
> (If not this last one, then try "Supine Phlegmatic", or "Phlegmatic")


Huh. I'd never heard of Supine before, but it seems more accurate than Melancholic for me in some ways... or at least clears up areas that didn't mesh if combined. I certainly have the artist's mind, and am prone to depression but really only if my relationships sour, which seems to also be a Supine motivation. The rest of the Melancholic traits I have seem to overlap with Supine. They both have a lot of merit though. Then again, maybe I'm over identifying with Supine because it's the new thing and I'm projecting more than I'm seeing it for what it is. 

However, after looking at the links, I clearly have elements of most of the temperaments in varying measures. This would be consistent with the intention of the OP of this thread. We're all varying measures of many elements. The most prominent elements are usually what end up being called 'type', but this creates a false sensibility that the other elements don't exist, or at least minimizes them.

I'd have to say that I'm some manner of Melancholic-Sanguine-Supine hybrid.

What MBTI type(s) do Melancholic-Supine, Sanguine-Melancholic, Sanguine-Supine and Supine-Sanguine relate to?


----------



## Eric B

Nobleheart said:


> Huh. I'd never heard of Supine before, but it seems more accurate than Melancholic for me in some ways... or at least clears up areas that didn't mesh if combined. I certainly have the artist's mind, and am prone to depression but really only if my relationships sour, which seems to also be a Supine motivation. The rest of the Melancholic traits I have seem to overlap with Supine. They both have a lot of merit though. Then again, maybe I'm over identifying with Supine because it's the new thing and I'm projecting more than I'm seeing it for what it is.
> 
> However, after looking at the links, I clearly have elements of most of the temperaments in varying measures. This would be consistent with the intention of the OP of this thread. We're all varying measures of many elements. The most prominent elements are usually what end up being called 'type', but this creates a false sensibility that the other elements don't exist, or at least minimizes them.
> 
> I'd have to say that I'm some manner of Melancholic-Sanguine-Supine hybrid.
> 
> What MBTI type(s) do Melancholic-Supine, Sanguine-Melancholic, Sanguine-Supine and Supine-Sanguine relate to?


Oh, you've never heard me mention Supine before?

Remember, the temperaments lie in different areas, so between the Melancholy and Supine in those links, it's not one OR the other. They would sit side by side covering the two areas. Melancholy would be social skills or Interaction Style, which is the INJ part of the type, and Supine would be leadership skills and correspond to NF. So the INFJ is both. (ISFJ is also both, but in reverse fashion. Supine in Inclusion: ISF Interaction Style, plus Melancholy in Control: SJ).
The two temperaments do influence each other, so you won't seem like a pure Melancholy. You will have a bit more of a people-focus, from the leadership area, so it will influence the social area.

So Melancholy-Supine is INFJ, and a lot of them do come out as that, or Melancholy-Phlegmatic.
Sanguine-Melancholy is ESFJ (ESF + SJ); Supine-Sanguine is ISFP (ISF + SP) and Sanguine-Supine is ENFP (ENP + NF).

If you have Sanguine, that could also be the third area, Affection:
Temperament: Sanguine in Affection

That doesn't usually figure in the type correlation, but again, since temperaments influence each other, it will add variation to the type. Someone who is Melancholy in Inclusion and Sanguine in Affection is called an "Affectionate Homebody", meaning they will be more open and wanting of interaction (from close loved ones) than a normal Melancholy, but will otherwise still be very introverted.


----------



## Karen

LiquidLight said:


> Testing for i/E independently as the current model does also creates problems because as we know, I/E only (theoretically) refers to cognitive preference. Which way the person's psychic energy tends to flow. ...



A little off topic, but here are other problems with the MBTI test. This is from Gifts Differing, page 7:

“The introvert’s main interests are in the inner world of concepts and ideas.”

“The extrovert is more involved with the outer world of people and things.”

On the official MBTI test I took, out of the 21 I/E questions, 17 exclusively concerned relationships with people, 1 with fashion, 1 with things, and 2 weren’t oriented in any particular direction. Extroversion wasn't reallty tested with regard to things, leaving out half the definition.

Here's one I/E question: “When you are with a group of people, would you usually rather a) join in the talk of the group, or b) talk with one person at a time?” That might imply I or E but doesn't quarantee it. When I had a choice, I pretty much went out 7 days a week after work and never liked to be by myself, and I know I prefer the outer world to the inner. Yet the fact that I prefer to talk one-on-one (though I also enjoy group talk) put me in the introvert category, as did other questions which shouldn't have, and gave me a score of Introversion.

There were problems with questions measuring the other dichotomies as well. I took the test in the 90s so maybe the problems have been cleared up by now. There might have been a quite a few people who, until that time, had been given a valid type according to MBTI, since people placed themselves in the correct descriptive category if the test didn't score their personality accurately, but I'm sure many, like myself, accepted what they were given even though wrong since it seemed at the time as close a description as any other.


----------



## reckful

Sarah said:


> A little off topic, but here are other problems with the MBTI test. This is from Gifts Differing, page 7:
> 
> “The introvert’s main interests are in the inner world of concepts and ideas.”
> 
> “The extrovert is more involved with the outer world of people and things.”
> 
> On the official MBTI test I took, out of the 21 I/E questions, 17 exclusively concerned relationships with people, 1 with fashion, 1 with things, and 2 weren’t oriented in any particular direction. Extroversion wasn't reallty tested with regard to things, leaving out half the definition.


The relationship of the MBTI dichotomies to _"ideas" vs. "things"_ is complicated. An extravert, all other things being equal, has a greater drive than an introvert to have an impact (or otherwise actively interact with) the external world ("things" as well as people). But if you're using "ideas" and "things" to refer to what I tend to call the abstract/concrete dichotomy (facts vs. theories, etc.), that dichotomy is more an N/S thing than an I/E thing, and the MBTI's questions reflect that.

Jung largely viewed abstract vs. concrete as a facet of introversion/extraversion. Describing introverts and extraverts, he wrote: "The man who is oriented to the idea [— i.e., the introvert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of the idea. But the man who is oriented to the object [— i.e., the extravert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of sensation. For him the abstract is of secondary importance, since what must be thought about things seems to him relatively inessential, while for the former it is just the reverse." One of the many adjustments Myers made to Jung in creating her typology was moving the heart of the abstract/concrete dichotomy from I/E to N/S, and the majority of MBTI theorists (including cognitive-function-centric theorists like Thomson and Berens) have followed Myers' lead in that regard.

As a final note on test questions: One of the reasons so many people who first take an MBTI test (official or unofficial) end up having an OMFG reaction when they read their type description is that they feel like the description tells them a lot more about themselves than they told the test. The test items on most MBTI tests (including the official MBTI) are not intended to provide a particularly rich or complete portrait of the tested preferences (much less characteristics that result more from preference combinations). As I understand it, the primary criteria for which items get included and excluded in the official MBTI tests has been the extent to which the item factor-correlates with the other items in a statistically robust way, and I believe the MBTI is not essentially different from the Big 5 and most other respectable personality typologies in that regard.


----------



## Karen

I was judging the MBTI test by the definition of introversion and extroversion in Gifts Differing, supposedly the same concepts that were being tested for. Here's what the Free Online Dictionary says:

Introvert: 1. To turn or direct inward. 2. Psychology To concentrate (one's interests) upon oneself.

Extrovert: (Psychology) A person concerned more with external reality than inner feelings.

So the first question would be, would talking one-on-one with someone be extroversion, since the focus is outward in explaining ideas and listening to someone else's ideas, or equally introversion and extroversion because talking about your own ideas would be concentrating on "inner feelings" or in Gifts Differing, "inner world of concepts and ideas"? Of course that's assuming in the one-on-one conversation that ideas are being talked about rather than a long discussion of where someone has been rock climbing and the technical aspects involved. If a one-one-one conversation is about other than ideas, how can it guarantee introversion? I'm trying to sort out individual questions that would allow people to slip through the cracks, rather than the test being statistically robust overall, because statistical robustness is at least partly based on the questions, unless the questions can be tossed and the descriptions used by themselves for a better result.

The second question would be, are the definitions in Gifts Differing wrong and I/E should be based entirely upon being introverted and extroverted when it comes to people? It sounds as if the answer might be yes, so I would possibly have to put myself into introversion, though I have a high need for being around people (not always talking but always watching and engaged, or talking one-on-one) and a very low need to be by myself, and in spite of the fact that per the list on page 56 of Gifts Differing, I'm a very strong extrovert. And what about animals, or talking to and having a connection to plants? Which is beside the point but I've always wondered where they'd fit in and isn't addressed in Myers-Briggs.

I didn't realize Meyers changed part of N/S to I/E. I'm in the middle of a long post to someone else so I'm not going to research now, but it does bring up the question of function definition. When Jung describes extroversion, it sounds as if he's also describing his version of sensors elsewhere in the book.


----------



## reckful

Sarah said:


> So the first question would be, would talking one-on-one with someone be extroversion, since the focus is outward in explaining ideas and listening to someone else's ideas, or equally introversion and extroversion because talking about your own ideas would be concentrating on inner feelings? Of course that's assuming ideas are being talked about rather than a long discussion of where someone has been rock climbing and the technical aspects involved.


Temperament is not behavior, and it's generally a mistake to focus on any particular behavioral instance and ask, for example, whether it's a case of introversion or extraversion without understanding the entire context — not to mention what non-temperamental external/circumstantial influences may be coming into play. Jung explained that, if you observed someone paying close attention to various concrete/factual aspects of the external world, that wouldn't tell you whether they were an extravert or an introvert. Instead, you'd have to know what their ultimate purpose was in gathering those particular facts. As he put it (this is from his extraverted thinking description): "In judging whether a particular thinking is extraverted or not we must first ask: by what criterion does it judge — does it come from outside, or is its origin subjective? A further criterion is the direction the thinking takes in drawing conclusions — whether it is principally directed outwards or not. It is no proof of its extraverted nature that it is preoccupied with concrete objects, since my thinking may be preoccupied with a concrete object either because I am abstracting my thought from it or because I am concretizing my thought through it. Even when my thinking is preoccupied with concrete things and could be described as extraverted to that extent, the direction it will take still remains an essential characteristic and an open question."



Sarah said:


> The second question would be, are the definitions in Gifts Differing wrong and I/E should be based entirely upon being introverted and extroverted when it comes to people? It sounds as if the answer is yes, so I would possibly have to put myself into introversion, though I have a high need for being around people (not always talking but always watching and engaged, or talking one-on-one) and a very low need to be by myself, and in spite of the fact that per the list on page 56 of Gifts Differing, I'm a very strong extrovert. And what about animals, or talking to and having a connection to plants, which is beside the point but I've always wondered where they'd fit in.


Introversion/extraversion is arguably the dimension of human temperament that's been studied the most, over many years now, by psychologists with various theoretical constructs for it. I don't think there's any question that it's a multifaceted dimension, and that it can't be reduced to what you might call its _social_ aspects — "being introverted and extroverted when it comes to people," as you put it. And, as I said in my first post, there _are_ aspects of what you might view as an ideas/things dichotomy (although I think "inner world" and "outer world" are better terms) that go beyond people-relations and that Myers and most MBTI theorists have viewed as being part of introversion/extraversion.

Finally, as you undoubtedly know, T/F is another important contributor when it comes to people-orientation. All other things being equal, for example, a typical IF will tend to demonstrate a greater people/relationship orientation (including the "need for being around people" you described) than a typical IT, while simultaneously favoring less people-interaction in their life than a typical EF.


----------



## Karen

Just a quick response, since I'm heading out the door. I hope I'm answering correctly, since I read through your post quickly. I'm not arguing that temperament is or is not behavior, or any other issues other than in terms of how MBTI seems to look at these issues via the test I took and what was stated in Gifts Differing.

As to T/F contributing to people orientation, I'm not sure if that's true or not and have been trying to sort it out for a couple years. If someone's values extend more to dogs, for example, and they treat dogs as they normally would people in that they care for them, talk to them, and in general have a life that revolves around dogs (I've known people like this), would they be T? Would they of necessity be I? It doesn't seem so, yet F in terms of values, for example, without exception in tests I've come across implies only people, not animals or even plants. MBTI test questions imply F and E/I both refer to people. If E/I and T/F are truly measuring people and nothing else, it should be made clear. Most people who take the test are not going to take the time to sort it out for themselves, as we do here. Okay, end of rant, lol.


----------



## itsme45

Eric B said:


> "Blending" as far as temperament goes is based on two different models that happened to be built into type. The "affective", or Interaction Styles, and the "conative" or Keirsey's groups. People do reference both, trying the other when one doesn't seem to fit.
> 
> When I talk about "temperament blendings" within type, both of those groups consist of the ancient four temperaments (though usually renamed), so each type shares one of each group. ESTP= Choleric-EST + Sanguine-SP, and ENTP is Sanguine-ENP + Choleric-NT (The affective temperaments are based on different dichotomies for S's and N's).
> The underlying principles of the temperaments are expressiveness and responsiveness (i.e. people vs task). These come through the factors of I/E, cooperative/pragmatic, directing/informing and structure/motive.


Ah I was talking about "blending" in a different sense. The one where someone doesn't replace a falsified theory with anything but just says something along the lines "ok people are different in this and that way, everyone is just a mix of whatever". 

This is interesting though about the temperaments. I'm sanguine-choleric (like, 51% san, 49% chol, very close to equal), I suppose I happen to fit the trend with that and the ESTP typing.

Is this temperament system the one you referred to as Interaction Styles? EDIT: Nvm, I see this Interaction Styles is something else. Do you have a link for it?




> Myers and Briggs treated the functions as wholes not necessarily differentiated in attitude (there's an ongoing debate as to whether Jung did or not, and there are statements of his that can go either way). So they measured S/N and T/F as "dichotomies", and then used E/I and J/P to determine the likely "attitude" and position. It's a very convoluted-looking system to try to learn, but Briggs actually started out developing a temperament system, and while it was not the same as what Keirsey and Berens later came up with (her four were basically what we would call I's, F's, T's and S/N's), when she read Jung, then she reshaped it using J/P into what we have today.
> J/P basically covers outward behavior (through whichever function we extravert), thus making it similar to a temperament concept, and thus coming handy for developing the Keirsey temperament and Berens Interaction style models.


Ah, thanks for explaining that. It does make some sense avoiding the assumption that the functions are all differentiated. (Maybe and then maybe not.) But in place, that J/P thing doesn't work out well... the alternative test I mentioned here testing for the dominant function could work better.


----------



## itsme45

reckful said:


> The relationship of the MBTI dichotomies to _"ideas" vs. "things"_ is complicated. An extravert, all other things being equal, has a greater drive than an introvert to have an impact (or otherwise actively interact with) the external world ("things" as well as people). But if you're using "ideas" and "things" to refer to what I tend to call the abstract/concrete dichotomy (facts vs. theories, etc.), that dichotomy is more an N/S thing than an I/E thing, and the MBTI's questions reflect that.
> 
> Jung largely viewed abstract vs. concrete as a facet of introversion/extraversion. Describing introverts and extraverts, he wrote: "The man who is oriented to the idea [— i.e., the introvert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of the idea. But the man who is oriented to the object [— i.e., the extravert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of sensation. For him the abstract is of secondary importance, since what must be thought about things seems to him relatively inessential, while for the former it is just the reverse." One of the many adjustments Myers made to Jung in creating her typology was moving the heart of the abstract/concrete dichotomy from I/E to N/S, and the majority of MBTI theorists (including cognitive-function-centric theorists like Thomson and Berens) have followed Myers' lead in that regard.


Hm, why did Myers move it to N/S?

How about someone who gains energy by interacting with the world and especially by impacting it, yet often more abstract than concrete? Would that make Myers correct over Jung?

We may want to simply conclude that the correlation between the two (preference of interaction vs preference for the abstract) is not nearly 100%. That is, nothing guarantees that they must go/happen together for everyone. -.-




reckful said:


> It is no proof of its extraverted nature that it is preoccupied with concrete objects, since my thinking may be preoccupied with a concrete object either because I am abstracting my thought from it or because I am concretizing my thought through it. Even when my thinking is preoccupied with concrete things and could be described as extraverted to that extent, the direction it will take still remains an essential characteristic and an open question."


Just a quick question: does abstracting thought from the concrete object mean introversion here?


----------



## itsme45

Peter said:


> An S remembers things differently from an N. An S focuses on details and sequences of details and is able to remember these details and sequences very well. An N remembers things totally different. An N remembers how things are related to each other and doesn't store sequences and many details. An N, when remembering something, doesn't really play back what happened, but will remember a bunch of "this happened because of this" and past experiences will help fill in the gaps.
> 
> Now imagine what happens when an N brain all the sudden becomes an S brain. All the information stored in that brain will look like a big mess to the S function. It won't make one bit of sense. If an N would really all the sudden become an S, he would become incapable of taking care of him self. This isn't possible because memory and the way information is stored in it, is actually part of the function so changing from one function to another is just impossible.



Ah, I happened to see this and I'm going to say one thing. I don't remember details well, I remember the general essence and relations better and I don't play back very well what exactly happened, instead I'll remember the causal relationships instead. So now what. Again another thing where this N/S dichotomy is ambiguous (assuming I'm really Se-dom). -.-

PS: I don't think the thought experiment of "N brain" becoming an "S brain" makes any sense. Unless you meant it would happen by some lesion, the brain should be able to access and process its own stored information even if these preferences change. I can elaborate on why I disagree, if you want, but basically it is because the functions are just generic concepts, not directly denoting anything on the physical level and especially not memory or the ways of encoding that information is stored in.


----------



## reckful

itsme45 said:


> Hm, why did Myers move it to N/S?


Jung was a neurotic (in the temperament sense) IN whose idea of what his "introversion" entailed involved significant doses of both his I and his N (as conceptualized by today's MBTI theorists, including the ones whose central focus is the cognitive functions), not to mention his neuroticism. He explains in the Introduction to Psychological Types that he'd previously thought that (and written that) T was also part of introversion (and F part of extraversion), but that he'd recently figured out that T/F was a separate dimension.

As far as why Myers moved much of what I'd call abstract/concrete to N/S, I'd say the answer is that her own observations, testing, etc. led her to the conclusion that there were abstract introverts and concrete introverts and abstract extraverts and concrete extraverts (just like Jung had belatedly come to realize there were introverted thinkers, extraverted thinkers, etc.), and that abstract/concrete really fit better in Jung's N/S slot.

(Jung, as you may know, viewed N more in terms of a special ability to perceive — albeit through a glass, darkly — the contents of the collective unconscious, while viewing abstraction as arguably the core defining characteristic of introversion.)



itsme45 said:


> How about someone who gains energy by interacting with the world and especially by impacting it, yet often more abstract than concrete? Would that make Myers correct over Jung?


Someone who gained energy by interacting with the world but was more abstract than concrete would be an EN in Myers' terms. In Jung's terms, you'd arguably have an inconsistency on your hands, because that would be an extraverted/introverted combination. But it's important to keep in mind that Jung said his type descriptions would tend to apply to people with what he called "comparatively well-differentiated personalities," and he said more people were effectively in the middle on I/E than were significantly introverted or extraverted. So you could reasonably speculate that Jung might have said that a person who seemed to be oriented more to the outer world than his inner world but also seemed to be more abstract than concrete was likely someone in the large middle group who could quite possibly choose to be more inner-oriented and/or concrete if he liked, since his hard-wired temperament really didn't tug him significantly in either direction.



itsme45 said:


> Just a quick question: does abstracting thought from the concrete object mean introversion here?


Yes. In that passage, Jung is using abstract vs. concrete in relation to introverted vs. extraverted thinking.


----------



## Eric B

itsme45 said:


> This is interesting though about the temperaments. I'm sanguine-choleric (like, 51% san, 49% chol, very close to equal), I suppose I happen to fit the trend with that and the ESTP typing.


 Usually, the order is reversed, so that it's Interaction Style + Keirsey temperament. So that would be Choleric Sanguine (EST + SP). The percentage order of those tests doesn't matter, so it fits!


> Is this temperament system the one you referred to as Interaction Styles? EDIT: Nvm, I see this Interaction Styles is something else. Do you have a link for it?


 That's the "social temperament" system Linda BErens factored out of the 16 types. Its site is here: Understanding Berens' Interaction Styles 
What I've been discussing is based on FIRO, with the temperaments mapped to that system, and the area I have linked to the Interaction Styles is called "Inclusion": Temperament Reports for the Aspect of Inclusion (Where Keirsey's temperaments would be another area, called "Control"


> Ah, thanks for explaining that. It does make some sense avoiding the assumption that the functions are all differentiated. (Maybe and then maybe not.) But in place, that J/P thing doesn't work out well... the alternative test I mentioned here testing for the dominant function could work better.


 Like I've said, J/P is more suited for the temperament model. It just turns out that judgment or perception functions turned outward figures in temperament.


----------



## itsme45

reckful said:


> (...) So you could reasonably speculate that Jung might have said that a person who seemed to be oriented more to the outer world than his inner world but also seemed to be more abstract than concrete was likely someone in the large middle group who could quite possibly choose to be more inner-oriented and/or concrete if he liked, since his hard-wired temperament really didn't tug him significantly in either direction.


Thanks, this all makes sense (incl. what I didn't quote). 

Yea I suppose I would be somewhere near the middle. But then of course we have to start to wonder if the principle of function and attitude opposition really exists in the way it's supposed to. My view on that is that they may very well oppose each other at every given moment but there is no known biological basis whatsoever to guarantee that this must be a fixed trend, cannot change from moment to moment, from situation to situation. So then we'll end up with a lot of people near the middle. And even when preferences can be discernible, it may not be a direct consequence of such a principle. It may be simply the way the person is wired genetically (e.g. certain structures in the brain being more developed relative to others, where there is no law excluding less one-sided development) and/or adapted to environment.

I would like to hear other people's opinions on this. Did no one here consider that this fixed opposition is an assumption that is not guaranteed in any known way to be correct? Rather the opposite, as observations can show evidence against it.

Another assumption I've yet to see as verifiable is, when someone is wired or otherwise made to be the way of having a strong dominant function and/or attitude, is that really an identification or fixation with the ego? Also, I readily question the assumption that this one-sidedness can reach an unhealthy degree and thus have a causal relationship with mental health issues. My alternative view on this is that it all depends on how you adapt to your environment; if you adapt in a very one-sided way to your environment but it fits the environment well, it is thus not unhealthy and there is no reason to conclude anything else (such as mental health issues) from this fact, unless you can find a direct causal link. Which Jung did not seem to have.


----------



## reckful

itsme45 said:


> My view on that is that they may very well oppose each other at every given moment but there is no known biological basis whatsoever to guarantee that this must be a fixed trend, cannot change from moment to moment, from situation to situation. So then we'll end up with a lot of people near the middle. And even when preferences can be discernible, it may not be a direct consequence of such a principle. It may be simply the way the person is wired genetically (e.g. certain structures in the brain being more developed relative to others, where there is no law excluding less one-sided development) and/or adapted to environment. ...
> 
> Also, I readily question the assumption that this one-sidedness can reach an unhealthy degree and thus have a causal relationship with mental health issues. My alternative view on this is that it all depends on how you adapt to your environment; if you adapt in a very one-sided way to your environment but it fits the environment well, it is thus not unhealthy and there is no reason to conclude anything else (such as mental health issues) from this fact, unless you can find a direct causal link. Which Jung did not seem to have.


Decades of twin studies have demonstrated a pretty strong genetic component to the handful of robust temperament traits measured by things like the MBTI and Big 5 typologies. And, interestingly, identical twins who are separated at birth and raised in separate households are no less alike than identical twins raised in the same household — while both pairs are substantially more alike than ordinary siblings.

So there's a good case to be made at this point that your MBTI type is significantly hard-wired, and that how your parents raise you — and other childhood-environment stuff that twins raised in the same household would tend to have in common — has little to do with it.

On the issue of pschological disorders being caused by, in effect, extreme MBTI preferences, here's a recent study that suggests that OCPD (obsessive-compulsive personality disorder) may "represent a maladaptive variant of normal range conscientiousness" — conscientiousness being the Big 5 version of a J preference. If you look at the Wikipedia article on OCPD and you're a strong J (like me), you might find that you can at least kinda relate to some of it. And meanwhile, the Wikipedia article on Conscientiousness notes: "When taken to an extreme, they may also be ... compulsive in their behavior."

Food for thought, maybe.


----------



## itsme45

reckful said:


> Decades of twin studies have demonstrated a pretty strong genetic component to the handful of robust temperament traits measured by things like the MBTI and Big 5 typologies. And, interestingly, identical twins who are separated at birth and raised in separate households are no less alike than identical twins raised in the same household — while both pairs are substantially more alike than ordinary siblings.
> 
> So there's a good case to be made at this point that your MBTI type is significantly hard-wired, and that how your parents raise you — and other childhood-environment stuff that twins raised in the same household would tend to have in common — has little to do with it.


Ah, good to know this has been investigated before. So what do you think about this function and attitude opposition principle?




> On the issue of pschological disorders being caused by, in effect, extreme MBTI preferences, here's a recent study that suggests that OCPD (obsessive-compulsive personality disorder) may "represent a maladaptive variant of normal range conscientiousness" — conscientiousness being the Big 5 version of a J preference. If you look at the Wikipedia article on OCPD and you're a strong J (like me), you might find that you can at least kinda relate to some of it. And meanwhile, the Wikipedia article on Conscientiousness notes: "When taken to an extreme, they may also be ... compulsive in their behavior."
> 
> Food for thought, maybe.


Here's more food for thought. I have a P preference (and low-ish on conscientiousness in big 5), but I can get compulsive with certain things, which I think is related to stress. (I don't have OCPD though.) Again this would be supporting my view on how disorders are not causally linked with any overarching preference or dominant function. If there is correlation, it's still more likely that something else in the background is what is needed for a disorder to develop. Btw, I checked out your link about that study, it doesn't investigate the factors that would cause maladaptive conscientiousness or OCPD so it doesn't offer an explanation for anything, it simply correlates scales where it would have been surprising if they did not correlate.


----------



## reckful

itsme45 said:


> Ah, good to know this has been investigated before. So what do you think about this function and attitude opposition principle?


I'm not entirely sure I know what you're asking, but my perspective is that I think the four MBTI dichotomies are tapping into four real underlying dimensions of human temperament that are significantly hardwired and tend to be relatively stable through life, and that they're the same underlying dimensions that four of the Big 5 factors are tapping into — which is not to say that either the MBTI or the Big 5 is yet doing anything like a great job of understanding the essence/scope/etc. of what those dimensions involve. In particular, I think the T/F dimension is kind of a tangled mess, partly (but maybe only partly) because of the way it seems to overlap with typical sex differences.

But, as I understand it, there's quite a bit of evidence suggesting that most, if not all, of the MBTI dimensions exhibit something like a normal distribution, with many people falling on or not far from the borderline on one or more of the dimensions. It's my sense that, in cases where someone seems to be hard to type (e.g., someone on an internet forum who's having trouble deciding what type they are), the most common cause is that they're in or near the middle on one or more dimensions. I've spent a lot of time at INTJForum, and T/F and J/P are the most common _undecided_ preferences there by a significant margin, and that may just be because most of us who live on the internet (and especially those mostly likely to end up at INTJforum) tend to be reasonably well-defined INs, but I'm also open to the possibility that, as a factual matter, middleness might turn out to be more common on some dimensions than others.

For someone with a reasonably strong preference on any dimension, I'd say neither Jung nor Myers nor any respectable MBTI theorist has ever said that that means the person can't choose to act (or be influenced by non-temperamental factors to act) in a way that corresponds more to the opposite side of that dimension, but I do think that, the stronger your preference (and both Jung and Myers believed in varying strengths of the preferences), the stronger a _temperamental tug_ you're likely to experience in the direction of the things that correspond with your preference, and the more it's likely to be a struggle for you to, in effect, try to be more like someone with the opposite preference.

Did that answer your question?


----------



## Enkidu

Nobleheart said:


> .
> *Personality type is an overgeneralization. *
> Every person’s mind is as unique as a fingerprint. While most fingerprints conform to certain general patterns, like Arches, Loops, and Whorls, each is distinct, and a small percentage don’t conform to the general patterns at all. The same is true of the mind. Cognitive process in the human mind is made up of elements in varying measures. These elements tend to *follow general patterns*, but to assume that any two minds are alike would be a mistake.


Common systems have much in common. The common is nonetheless highlighted despite uniqueness in that system. Individualized personalities are like a running prediction*: we lag behind memory i.e. the formation of selfhood or consciousness. 
*Memory-prediction framework (_On Intelligence_, Jeff Hawkins)


Nobleheart said:


> .*The Forer Effect is commonly evidenced in people who change types. *
> This implies that personality type is *more of an ideal that is aspired to than the reality of one’s mind*. The descriptions of personality types are vague enough to cause many individuals to compare themselves to them rather than comparing the descriptions to themselves. With enough similarities to focus on, it is easy to overlook the parts of ourselves that are not mentioned in the descriptions.


My feelings exactly. Much of Jung's ideas are deeply Neo-Agnostic in nature, often citing Greek, Roman, and Indian mythology - the Christian faith terms this as divination. Sure "...all is as illusion." The Myers-Briggs Test and Keirsey-Bates Sorter both emphasize that Personality is a continuation of an evolutionary-spiritual progression of the human unconscious:


> "The mind of man is prefigured by evolution. Thus, the individual is linked with his past, not only with the past of his infancy but more importantly with the past of the species and before that with the long stretch of organic evolution. This placing of the psyche within the evolutionary process was Jung's preeminent achievement."
> A Primer of Jungian Psychology by Calvin S. Hall and Vernon J. Nordby, Meridian, 1999, p. 39





Nobleheart said:


> .*There is no hard science to back any of this up.*
> The vast majority of the theory behind all of this is based on conjecture and consensus agreement. The closest thing to hard science we have to support these theories are correlations with other forms of self assessment tests. However, this merely validates that *most people are consistent in their self opinion*. To make matters more clouded, most if not all of the development of these theories are based on previous theories that also suffered from these flaws. Making assumptions about assumptions will rarely lead to accuracy.


What about the ideas of neuroplasticity? Also, while I'm not a hard-nosed proponent of American fix-it psychology, there is a decent correlation between Myers-Briggs and the DSM IV. (No citation needed!) Many of the types - the one I identify with, included- are over-generalizations to the degree of psychosis. 

It may be a tool for learning and self-actualization sure, but it annoys me that it is irrefutable - like a monument to another dead-end.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

reckful said:


> Decades of twin studies have demonstrated a pretty strong genetic component to the handful of robust temperament traits measured by things like the MBTI and Big 5 typologies. And, interestingly, identical twins who are separated at birth and raised in separate households are no less alike than identical twins raised in the same household — while both pairs are substantially more alike than ordinary siblings.
> 
> So there's a good case to be made at this point that your MBTI type is significantly hard-wired, and that how your parents raise you — and other childhood-environment stuff that twins raised in the same household would tend to have in common — has little to do with it.
> 
> On the issue of pschological disorders being caused by, in effect, extreme MBTI preferences, here's a recent study that suggests that OCPD (obsessive-compulsive personality disorder) may "represent a maladaptive variant of normal range conscientiousness" — conscientiousness being the Big 5 version of a J preference. If you look at the Wikipedia article on OCPD and you're a strong J (like me), you might find that you can at least kinda relate to some of it. And meanwhile, the Wikipedia article on Conscientiousness notes: "When taken to an extreme, they may also be ... compulsive in their behavior."
> 
> Food for thought, maybe.


Actually, if you want to be more specific, it probably represents a Te disorder (there's nothing particularly "J" about Fe - in fact, Fi and Ti can be pretty picky as well in the dominant form) - actually, it would more accurately represent anal-retentiveness issues, which are common around the inferior function.


----------



## reckful

Nobleheart said:


> If we take all of this into context, the MBTI types are effectively associated illusions.
> 
> According to Jung's work, cognition is comprised of cognitive function use, which is fluid and dynamic. There are no clear axis within the mind. Our cognitive functions fluctuate as needed, in proportion to our own ability to shift gears. The only true indication of personality type is the long term measure of which cognitive function configuration we use most often, especially when at mental 'rest' when we don't have to push ourselves to overcome a cognitive challenge (problem solving, etc.).
> 
> The MBTI attempts to discern what that 'most common' state is with an axis based self assessment test, and then assign it a static set of terms which are easily assumed to mean that is somehow an intrinsic and immutable mental state that always goes through A then B then C then D cognitive function.
> 
> That is an illusion.


Yeah, darn those MBTI _stereotypers_. If only they'd read Jung more carefully, like you have, they'd realize that Jung believed that "cognition is comprised of cognitive function use, which is fluid and dynamic. There are no clear axis within the mind. Our cognitive functions fluctuate as needed."

Well... I dunno, Nobleheart. I like to think I've read Jung with some care, and here he is talking about extraverts (emphasis mine):



Jung said:


> [The extravert] *never* expects to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the *only ones he knows* are outside himself. Like Epimetheus, his inner life is subordinated to external necessity, though not without a struggle; but it is *always* the objective determinant that wins in the end. His *whole consciousness* looks outward, because the essential and decisive determination *always* comes from outside. But it comes from outside only because that is where he expects it to come from. *All the peculiarities* of his psychology, except those that depend on the primacy of one particular psychological function or on idiosyncrasies of character, follow from this basic attitude. His interest and attention are directed to objective happenings, particularly those in his immediate environment. Not only people but things seize and rivet his attention. Accordingly, they also determine his actions, which are *fully explicable on those grounds*. The actions of the extravert are recognizably related to external conditions. In so far as they are not merely reactive to environmental stimuli, they have a character that is *always* adapted to the actual circumstances, and they find sufficient play within the limits of the objective situation. *No serious effort is made* to transcend these bounds. It is the same with his interest: objective happenings have an almost inexhaustible fascination for him, so that *ordinarily he never looks for anything else*.


There's certainly no "clear axis within the mind" in that description, is there?

And how about function-types? "[T]here are many people who *restrict themselves to the simple perception of concrete reality*, without thinking about it or taking feeling values into account," Jung explained. "They bother just as little about the possibilities hidden in a situation. I describe such people as sensation types."

Well, OK, but, you know, those S's... what are you gonna do? What did he say about T-doms? "Others are *exclusively oriented* by what they think, and *simply cannot adapt* to a situation which they are unable to understand intellectually. I call such people thinking types."

F-doms? "[Some people] are *guided in everything entirely by feeling*," said Jung. "They merely ask themselves whether a thing is pleasant or unpleasant, and orient themselves by their feeling impressions. These are the feeling types."

N-doms? "[T]he intuitives," Jung explained, "concern themselves neither with ideas nor with feeling reactions, nor yet with the reality of things, but *surrender themselves wholly* to the lure of possibilities, and abandon every situation in which no further possibilities can be scented."

Yes, sir, it makes my blood boil every time I focus on the fact that that ignoramus Myers took Jung's subtle/fluid/fluctuating type perspective and dumbed it down into "a static set of terms" and "immutable mental states."

Anyway, sorry to interrupt. Carry on.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

@_reckful_

I'm sorry about your heavily emotional attachment to MBTI, but really, that's no excuse for you to act like a jerk. No one is saying that Myers was an ignoramus, nor that she was even wrong about anything - just that she doesn't capture the whole picture of typology well enough to prevent misunderstandings. I think @_Nobleheart_'s observations were intelligent ones because that is a huge problem with peoples' understanding concerning this stuff that causes discomfort with this stuff. Who hasn't had this problem with this stuff would be my next question...maybe you, but just explore the fora more and you'll see what I mean. Myers perpetuates a lot of misconceptions about the tert. and inferior functions' roles in personality, let alone, their existence.


----------



## Nobleheart

Here's documentation of what I've been saying about the MBTI from the company that uses it.

Decoding MBTI®



> Isabel Myers’ sole purpose in creating an assessment was to help people gain access to Jung’s theory of psychological types. She wanted people to begin to explore what their type *might be.*


----------



## itsme45

reckful said:


> I'm not entirely sure I know what you're asking, but my perspective is that I think the four MBTI dichotomies are tapping into four real underlying dimensions of human temperament that are significantly hardwired and tend to be relatively stable through life, and that they're the same underlying dimensions that four of the Big 5 factors are tapping into — which is not to say that either the MBTI or the Big 5 is yet doing anything like a great job of understanding the essence/scope/etc. of what those dimensions involve. In particular, I think the T/F dimension is kind of a tangled mess, partly (but maybe only partly) because of the way it seems to overlap with typical sex differences.
> 
> But, as I understand it, there's quite a bit of evidence suggesting that most, if not all, of the MBTI dimensions exhibit something like a normal distribution, with many people falling on or not far from the borderline on one or more of the dimensions. It's my sense that, in cases where someone seems to be hard to type (e.g., someone on an internet forum who's having trouble deciding what type they are), the most common cause is that they're in or near the middle on one or more dimensions. I've spent a lot of time at INTJForum, and T/F and J/P are the most common _undecided_ preferences there by a significant margin, and that may just be because most of us who live on the internet (and especially those mostly likely to end up at INTJforum) tend to be reasonably well-defined INs, but I'm also open to the possibility that, as a factual matter, middleness might turn out to be more common on some dimensions than others.
> 
> For someone with a reasonably strong preference on any dimension, I'd say neither Jung nor Myers nor any respectable MBTI theorist has ever said that that means the person can't choose to act (or be influenced by non-temperamental factors to act) in a way that corresponds more to the opposite side of that dimension, but I do think that, the stronger your preference (and both Jung and Myers believed in varying strengths of the preferences), the stronger a _temperamental tug_ you're likely to experience in the direction of the things that correspond with your preference, and the more it's likely to be a struggle for you to, in effect, try to be more like someone with the opposite preference.
> 
> Did that answer your question?



No it didn't answer it, because you still talk about this being overarching preferences. What is to stop your brain to respond completely differently in completely different situations, without feeling any kind of temperamental tug? Though of course, when you try to respond differently from an already established adaptation to a situation, that would definitely make you feel a tug.


Another thing, how can you be sure these are actual dimensions and not something else, e.g. simple observed facts reflecting the way the brain is organized? (Thus, stronger correlation between certain traits than others, thus getting the Big 5 factors out of it.) What I'm getting at is, this organization does not have to be a clear-cut dimensional one. Though yes, it could be really basic general traits of certain mechanisms. But then, it could just as well be traits that do not have to happen together in a causal way, just happen to be close to each other in some way.


PS: for me the T/F and J/P have been the easiest to decide. S/N and E/I was much harder to decide on at first sight.


----------



## itsme45

reckful said:


> Yeah, darn those MBTI _stereotypers_. If only they'd read Jung more carefully, like you have, they'd realize that Jung believed that "cognition is comprised of cognitive function use, which is fluid and dynamic. There are no clear axis within the mind. Our cognitive functions fluctuate as needed."
> 
> Well... I dunno, Nobleheart. I like to think I've read Jung with some care, and here he is talking about extraverts (emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> There's certainly no "clear axis within the mind" in that description, is there?
> 
> And how about function-types? "[T]here are many people who *restrict themselves to the simple perception of concrete reality*, without thinking about it or taking feeling values into account," Jung explained. "They bother just as little about the possibilities hidden in a situation. I describe such people as sensation types."
> 
> Well, OK, but, you know, those S's... what are you gonna do? What did he say about T-doms? "Others are *exclusively oriented* by what they think, and *simply cannot adapt* to a situation which they are unable to understand intellectually. I call such people thinking types."
> 
> F-doms? "[Some people] are *guided in everything entirely by feeling*," said Jung. "They merely ask themselves whether a thing is pleasant or unpleasant, and orient themselves by their feeling impressions. These are the feeling types."
> 
> N-doms? "[T]he intuitives," Jung explained, "concern themselves neither with ideas nor with feeling reactions, nor yet with the reality of things, but *surrender themselves wholly* to the lure of possibilities, and abandon every situation in which no further possibilities can be scented."
> 
> Yes, sir, it makes my blood boil every time I focus on the fact that that ignoramus Myers took Jung's subtle/fluid/fluctuating type perspective and dumbed it down into "a static set of terms" and "immutable mental states."
> 
> Anyway, sorry to interrupt. Carry on.



Hahaha, well put!!!!

See I'm especially annoyed by the Se description of his. It's so not me in many respects. ;P

Though I will have to give this to him: he perfectly well understood how confining it can be to *fully* restrict yourself within the limits of the simple concrete perception of reality.

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I always felt that confinement when I was younger, it just didn't get conscious most of the time. Now I don't feel that much anymore, because I learned about the abstract too. Thus now I also have goals pointing far past the usual simple situations.


----------



## itsme45

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Actually, if you want to be more specific, it probably represents a Te disorder (there's nothing particularly "J" about Fe - in fact, Fi and Ti can be pretty picky as well in the dominant form) - actually, it would more accurately represent anal-retentiveness issues, which are common around the inferior function.


Great example of un-falsifiableness of the theory. INFP's are P, right, yet can have this issue, but you can explain that contradiction because "oh wait they are inferior Te"...

When you can't make predictions in a theory without avoiding the falsification issue (because it would so quickly be falsified if allowed), then do not use predictions derived from the theory, simple as that.




Enki said:


> Common systems have much in common. The common is nonetheless highlighted despite uniqueness in that system. Individualized personalities are like a running prediction*: we lag behind memory i.e. the formation of selfhood or consciousness.
> *Memory-prediction framework (_On Intelligence_, Jeff Hawkins)
> 
> My feelings exactly. Much of Jung's ideas are deeply Neo-Agnostic in nature, often citing Greek, Roman, and Indian mythology - the Christian faith terms this as divination. Sure "...all is as illusion." The Myers-Briggs Test and Keirsey-Bates Sorter both emphasize that Personality is a continuation of an evolutionary-spiritual progression of the human unconscious:
> 
> 
> What about the ideas of neuroplasticity? Also, while I'm not a hard-nosed proponent of American fix-it psychology, there is a decent correlation between Myers-Briggs and the DSM IV. (No citation needed!) Many of the types - the one I identify with, included- are over-generalizations to the degree of psychosis.
> 
> It may be a tool for learning and self-actualization sure, but it annoys me that it is irrefutable - like a monument to another dead-end.


What were you trying to get at with mentioning neuroplasticity?

Glad it annoys you. ;P

But yes it's a nice vehicle for self analysis, learning, etc.

What did you mean by: "Personality is a continuation of an evolutionary-spiritual progression of the human unconscious"?


----------



## itsme45

JungyesMBTIno said:


> just that she doesn't capture the whole picture of typology well enough to prevent misunderstandings.



But Jung was also misunderstood just as much as Myers.


----------



## Enkidu

itsme45 said:


> What were you trying to get at with mentioning neuroplasticity?
> 
> Glad it annoys you. ;P
> 
> But yes it's a nice vehicle for self analysis, learning, etc.
> 
> What did you mean by: "Personality is a continuation of an evolutionary-spiritual progression of the human unconscious"?


I was hoping to show a divergent perspective is all. Neuroplasticity, or in this specific case, neural plasticity, challenges the Jung & Freudian hypothesis of the existence of an unconscious psyche. The brain and its constant, almost fluid growth is way beyond anything Jung or Freud could have accounted for simply by analyzing verbal accounts of their patient's subconscious. Side by side, it would be like racing a Ford Model T versus a Porsche Carrera GT. Also, the mind changes in dynamic ways throughout life, especially for a healthy, proactive person. What annoys me the most is that instead of launching off of Jung's framework and embracing new sciences, The Myers-Briggs Foundation has entrenched itself, flooded its moat, and erected a wall of dogma. 

Thanks!  Yes, I agree. That's why we're all here arguing topics we wish we all knew more about...

The "evolutionary-spiritual progression" bit is a quick summary of Jung's idea of collective unconscious. I'll quote two more paragraphs to draw out what Jung meant:


> Man inherits these images from his ancestral past, a past that includes all of his human ancestors as well as his prehuman or animal ancestors. These racial images are not inherited in the sense that a person consciously remembers or has images that his ancestors had. Rather they are predispositions or potentialities for experiencing and responding to the world in the same ways that his ancestors did.


and


> The evolution of a collective unconscious can be accounted for in the same way that the evolution of the body is explained. Because the brain is the principal organ of the mind, the collective unconscious depends directly upon the evolution of the brain.


This is a very thinly veiled reuse of _gnosis_. And further:


> ...it was the text of the Golden Flower that first put me on the right track. For in medieval alchemy we have the long-sought connecting link between Gnosis (i.e. of the Gnostics) and the processes of the collective unconscious that can be observed in modern man...


This is ancient stuff with a Victorian-Calvinist twist to it. But I digress...:mellow: It's still a helpful tool - people should just be wary and take it less seriously.


----------



## itsme45

Enki said:


> I was hoping to show a divergent perspective is all. Neuroplasticity, or in this specific case, neural plasticity, challenges the Jung & Freudian hypothesis of the existence of an unconscious psyche. The brain and its constant, almost fluid growth is way beyond anything Jung or Freud could have accounted for simply by analyzing verbal accounts of their patient's subconscious. Side by side, it would be like racing a Ford Model T versus a Porsche Carrera GT. Also, the mind changes in dynamic ways throughout life, especially for a healthy, proactive person. What annoys me the most is that instead of launching off of Jung's framework and embracing new sciences, The Myers-Briggs Foundation has entrenched itself, flooded its moat, and erected a wall of dogma.
> 
> Thanks!  Yes, I agree. That's why we're all here arguing topics we wish we all knew more about...
> 
> The "evolutionary-spiritual progression" bit is a quick summary of Jung's idea of collective unconscious. I'll quote two more paragraphs to draw out what Jung meant:
> 
> and
> 
> This is a very thinly veiled reuse of _gnosis_. And further:
> 
> This is ancient stuff with a Victorian-Calvinist twist to it. But I digress...:mellow: It's still a helpful tool - people should just be wary and take it less seriously.


I like your idea of showing an alternative viewpoint. 

Well I never believed in "unconscious psyche". I don't even believe in a distinct boundary between conscious and unconscious processes. In terms of MBTI, what Jung said about non-dominant functions dipping into the conscious dynamically, is my stance is about it. With the extension that even my dominant function can get unconscious, it seems. Btw Jung didn't exclude type change either, just said it would be a slow process.

As for the neural plasticity... it might be what accounts for my changes a while ago. In MBTI terms, my auxiliary got stronger, my dominant weaker to the point that only in the most basic ways it is still dominant over my auxiliary. Also, my auxiliary may have gained a capability to draw on the inferior as sometimes my introversion is not just about logic at all.

Agh, collective unconscious, archetypes, whatever... I only liked it when Jung said in a book that it's not to be taken literally, it's just our abilities inherited via the genes with a biological basis. Something to that effect, I can't recall this well as I only had a quick glimpse in that book in a book shop. He did explicitly say on that book page that people shouldn't take his concepts as something mystical, it all is actually more connected to natural science.

So based on that I thought the concept of collective unconscious was not meant to be that spiritual at all. More like meme theory, maybe.  Actually what you quoted about the ancestral past is also like what I read in that book. Nothing spiritual there.

Maybe I misunderstand your word usage of "gnosis" though?

That golden flower quote, OK now that's mystical, I don't even understand it. I'm completely incapable of properly processing such mystical stuff.  (Doh, one Jungian prediction about Se-doms happens to come true for me.)

Overall the way I see Jung's ideas is this, it's just a high level theory framework for how the brain really works, without the tools to directly investigate, thus it's an analogy, nothing more. Though these theory analogies often do seem to line up well with the actual biological mechanisms on a superficial level, even though the conclusions can easily be incorrect - correct conclusions are not guaranteed, because it's just analogies, not direct descriptions/explanations of the actual mechanisms. Mainly, about Jung, I just like his style of writing and some of his insights that seem to match mine. Of course, the stuff can also be very thought provoking. But yes I agree about staying wary.


----------



## reckful

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @_reckful_
> 
> I'm sorry about your heavily emotional attachment to MBTI, but really, that's no excuse for you to act like a jerk. No one is saying that Myers was an ignoramus, nor that she was even wrong about anything - just that she doesn't capture the whole picture of typology well enough to prevent misunderstandings. I think @_Nobleheart_'s observations were intelligent ones because that is a huge problem with peoples' understanding concerning this stuff that causes discomfort with this stuff. Who hasn't had this problem with this stuff would be my next question...maybe you, but just explore the fora more and you'll see what I mean. Myers perpetuates a lot of misconceptions about the tert. and inferior functions' roles in personality, let alone, their existence.


I wouldn't describe myself as _heavily emotionally attached_ to either Jung or Myers, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for both, and I think the MBTI typology — built on Jung's work but with substantial alterations and improvements by Briggs and Myers — is currently the best source for anyone interested in understanding themselves and others with respect to the kinds of temperament dimensions addressed by typologies like the MBTI and Big Five.

That said, I wouldn't disagree that it tends to _annoy_ me when I visit internet forums and find people purporting to be a lot more knowledgeable than they are and spreading cartoonish distortions or other misinformation about Jung, Myers, Keirsey or any other MBTI-related source.

Nobleheart's characterization of Psychological Types as describing a kind of mental toolbox of eight functions that an individual makes flexible/fluid use of, with the dominant function just being the one that, if you do a tally, they happen to use the most (and maybe just _this month_) — and "no clear axis in the mind" — is a gross misrepresentation of Jung. Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about introverts and extraverts than he spent talking about all eight functions put together. Jung's entire model of the psyche is based on a huge axis in the mind, with the all-important conscious/unconscious division paralleling introversion/extraversion (for introverts) and extraversion/introversion (for extraverts) — and there's no comparably dramatic "axis" in Myers. And Jung could be equally dramatic — in terms of an effective "axis in the mind" — in his descriptions of the functions (as shown in the quotations in my post), partly because he believed it was typical for _every function other than the dominant and (partly) auxiliary functions_ to be mostly or entirely buried in a person's unconscious, fused together with the other unconscious functions in a "primitive" state.

And similarly, as between Jung's view of the psyche and Myers' view, if either one can fairly be said to reflect more fluidity/flexibility in terms of the expectation that a relatively typical individual would be able to balance/temper their natural preferences and develop their less-favored functions/preferences and so on, it was Myers. But it's also worth emphasizing that _both_ Jung and the MBTI allow for lots of flexibility when it comes to varying strengths of preferences and the possibility of being essentially in the middle on one or more.

So characterizing Jung's view of the psyche as fluid/flexible and axis-free and therefore radically different (in that respect) from a Myersian model involving "static" axes and "immutable mental states" amounts to a major mischaracterization of both.

Probably needless to say, neither Jung nor Myers got everything right — although Myers, not surprisingly, given her advantages of standing on Jung's shoulders and having years of MBTI data to draw upon, ended up with a typology that represents a substantial advance beyond Psychological Types in many ways. Personality psychology is a soft science, and a relatively young science, and there's no current typology without plenty of room for improvement. But I find it kind of grotesque when posters like you and Nobleheart accuse Myers of "perpetuating a lot of misconceptions" (your words) or characterize the MBTI as an "illusion," when it's your posts that are riddled with misconceptions. The Jung summary in Nobleheart's opening post is one mischaracterization after another. I'd go through it sentence by sentence but, I'm sorry, life is too short and it's not my job.

But I expect to be stepping in on a selective basis from time to time to take issue with misstatements and try to set the record straight. And I reserve the right to sometimes word my posts in an indignant, annoyed or otherwise smackdowny way in cases where I think the target has earned it, partly because I happen to think that the occasional smackdowny post makes for a livelier forum. If you think that makes me a jerk, so be it. At the risk of facing stereotyping charges, I'm more inclined to say it's part of what makes me an INTJ. :tongue:


----------



## Kormoran

It's fun, I guess. A bit like knowing that an illusion is an unreal vision, as opposed to a delusion, which is a false belief.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

itsme45 said:


> But Jung was also misunderstood just as much as Myers.


Jung - misunderstood? For totally different reasons (largely because his writing is just complex, and he wasn't a very good self-promoter of his ideas). Myers is misunderstood because she is vague - too vague for people to quite figure out what she's getting at (instead, she used J/P to simplify her ideas, which was an even more vague thing to do). J/P is falsifiable, because it is essentially mixed up with psychological complexes and behavior, rather than psychology.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

reckful said:


> I wouldn't describe myself as _heavily emotionally attached_ to either Jung or Myers, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for both, and I think the MBTI typology — built on Jung's work but with substantial alterations and improvements by Briggs and Myers — is currently the best source for anyone interested in understanding themselves and others with respect to the kinds of temperament dimensions addressed by typologies like the MBTI and Big Five.
> 
> That said, I wouldn't disagree that it tends to _annoy_ me when I visit internet forums and find people purporting to be a lot more knowledgeable than they are and spreading cartoonish distortions or other misinformation about Jung, Myers, Keirsey or any other MBTI-related source.
> 
> Nobleheart's characterization of Psychological Types as describing a kind of mental toolbox of eight functions that an individual makes flexible/fluid use of, with the dominant function just being the one that, if you do a tally, they happen to use the most (and maybe just _this month_) — and "no clear axis in the mind" — is a gross misrepresentation of Jung. Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about introverts and extraverts than he spent talking about all eight functions put together. Jung's entire model of the psyche is based on a huge axis in the mind, with the all-important conscious/unconscious division paralleling introversion/extraversion (for introverts) and extraversion/introversion (for extraverts) — and there's no comparably dramatic "axis" in Myers. And Jung could be equally dramatic — in terms of an effective "axis in the mind" — in his descriptions of the functions (as shown in the quotations in my post), partly because he believed it was typical for _every function other than the dominant and (partly) auxiliary functions_ to be mostly or entirely buried in a person's unconscious, fused together with the other unconscious functions in a "primitive" state.
> 
> And similarly, as between Jung's view of the psyche and Myers' view, if either one can fairly be said to reflect more fluidity/flexibility in terms of the expectation that a relatively typical individual would be able to balance/temper their natural preferences and develop their less-favored functions/preferences and so on, it was Myers. But it's also worth emphasizing that _both_ Jung and the MBTI allow for lots of flexibility when it comes to varying strengths of preferences and the possibility of being essentially in the middle on one or more.
> 
> So characterizing Jung's view of the psyche as fluid/flexible and axis-free and therefore radically different (in that respect) from a Myersian model involving "static" axes and "immutable mental states" amounts to a major mischaracterization of both.
> 
> Probably needless to say, neither Jung nor Myers got everything right — although Myers, not surprisingly, given her advantages of standing on Jung's shoulders and having years of MBTI data to draw upon, ended up with a typology that represents a substantial advance beyond Psychological Types in many ways. Personality psychology is a soft science, and a relatively young science, and there's no current typology without plenty of room for improvement. But I find it kind of grotesque when posters like you and Nobleheart accuse Myers of "perpetuating a lot of misconceptions" (your words) or characterize the MBTI as an "illusion," when it's your posts that are riddled with misconceptions. The Jung summary in Nobleheart's opening post is one mischaracterization after another. I'd go through it sentence by sentence but, I'm sorry, life is too short and it's not my job.
> 
> But I expect to be stepping in on a selective basis from time to time to take issue with misstatements and try to set the record straight. And I reserve the right to sometimes word my posts in an indignant, annoyed or otherwise smackdowny way in cases where I think the target has earned it, partly because I happen to think that the occasional smackdowny post makes for a livelier forum. If you think that makes me a jerk, so be it. At the risk of facing stereotyping charges, I'm more inclined to say it's part of what makes me an INTJ. :tongue:


Ok, calm down first before you start falsely accusing me of thinking you're a jerk for having an opinion (I said you were being a jerk to @Nobleheart - should've been clearer). Secondly, I see the merit in your viewpoint - I mean, a great deal of people thinking Myers is so static tend to just have their own perceptual issues with this stuff or haven't done enough research, because no where is their any proof that this is actually the case. But the fact that Myers sets up the functions to pretty much take over the psyche is where some of this distortion comes from. So there ends up being a lot of overlap between, say, morality, values, and F, etc. since they don't do a good job of isolating the functions, so it's just not very effective, as you get so many people questioning "I have morality, so I must be an F type" or what have you. Their function system isn't bad down to their systemizing of T/F/S/N, but it's almost so practical, that it loses any sense of internal consistency (e.g. so many people don't know what to make of the inferior function, since Myers and co. act as if it barely exists or influences the personality, but why shouldn't they go into it more?). Also, they're not much less anecdotal than Jung with their info on "function development" and such (I mean, where's their any evidence that the dom. develops 1st, then the aux. , etc.). Jung was the trained psychologist/they weren't, so there has to be something to be said for this, very generally speaking. Jung and MBTI just aren't very definitionally compatible down to principles, because Jung focuses on the functions as rationalization systems of the psyche, while MBTI focuses on them from a behavioral/temperamental perspective (e.g. certain types may look more sensitive than others, so then, they go into this stuff about Fs being more sensitive than Ts, as if #1 - Ts lack an F side, #2 - they don't clarify why behind saying that Fs are sensitive creatures while lower F wouldn't be, they totally ignore beyond just stating that consciousness has an impact on functions (but how? that's a damn important question), etc.).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

@reckful

I think this is exactly what @Nobleheart was trying to say, from http://www.mbtitoday.org/downloads/Whole-Type.pdf



> Recent developments have been ofgreat importance and have contributed to
> the richness and depth of understanding
> of type, type dynamics, and type development.
> However, if we narrowly focus
> on these newly understood eight mental
> processes, we run the same danger of
> portraying type as having separate and
> disconnected parts as we would if we
> were to present the type code as separate
> and detached letters. Rather, type is
> a dynamic system of the interacting flow
> of psychic energy from preference to
> preference and from our conscious to our
> unconscious mind. As Angelo Spoto has
> said, “…this [examination of the attitude
> and function types] is to some degree setting
> up an artificial split of the material
> for the purposes of understanding typological
> theory. Eventually, the intention
> would be to put the attitudes and functions
> back together to generate a fuller
> and more dynamic picture of different
> psychological types as they manifest in everyday
> reality” (1989/1995, pp. 28-29). It is
> Myers’ four-letter type codes that lead us
> to this understanding.


----------



## reckful

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @reckful
> 
> I think this is exactly what @Nobleheart was trying to say, from http://www.mbtitoday.org/downloads/Whole-Type.pdf


Did you read that article? The author praises both Jung and Myers, but also explains (including in the last sentence that you quoted) that Myers' perspective, properly understood, leads to a _better_ and more "holistic" understanding of the types than a too-exclusive focus on Jung's eight functions. There's absolutely _nothing_ in that article to the effect that Jung's perspective somehow offered more flexibility or that Myers' perspective was comparatively static or rigid. The article doesn't offer _any support at all_ for that claim of Nobleheart — much less say "exactly what Nobleheart was trying to say." Give me a break.


----------



## itsme45

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Jung - misunderstood? For totally different reasons (largely because his writing is just complex, and he wasn't a very good self-promoter of his ideas). Myers is misunderstood because she is vague - too vague for people to quite figure out what she's getting at (instead, she used J/P to simplify her ideas, which was an even more vague thing to do). J/P is falsifiable, because it is essentially mixed up with psychological complexes and behavior, rather than psychology.


Jung is more vague than Myers. Perhaps it appears only so to me though, ya know I must be this stupid Se dom that Jung says can't grasp the abstract.......

...yeah I don't like the way Jung made stuff (about Se, etc.) black and white in his writings. It was only a joke otherwise; I like Jung's style for some reason. But yes, I find he expressed stuff in more vague and roundabout ways than Myers.


----------



## Nobleheart

The points that are being debated here are not mutually exclusive. These paradigms overlap. The end result is defined abstract elements that create a fluid dynamic whole.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

reckful said:


> Did you read that article? The author praises both Jung and Myers, but also explains (including in the last sentence that you quoted) that Myers' perspective, properly understood, leads to a _better_ and more "holistic" understanding of the types than a too-exclusive focus on Jung's eight functions. There's absolutely _nothing_ in that article to the effect that Jung's perspective somehow offered more flexibility or that Myers' perspective was comparatively static or rigid. The article doesn't offer _any support at all_ for that claim of Nobleheart — much less say "exactly what Nobleheart was trying to say." Give me a break.


Um, @_Nobleheart_ thanked me, so...and that last sentence implied that Myers's system leads people to what @_Nobleheart_ was talking about as far as I can tell. Myers is the one who created the 4-letter type code. Jung's writing is mainly description and not highly systemized.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

I'm starting to think of MBTI vs. Jung this way: MBTI is the artistic representation, while Jung is the scientific representation.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

itsme45 said:


> Jung is more vague than Myers. Perhaps it appears only so to me though, ya know I must be this stupid Se dom that Jung says can't grasp the abstract.......
> 
> ...yeah I don't like the way Jung made stuff (about Se, etc.) black and white in his writings. It was only a joke otherwise; I like Jung's style for some reason. But yes, I find he expressed stuff in more vague and roundabout ways than Myers.


Yeah, you're right about Jung. I think he's less vague conceptually than Myers, while he's more vague in getting his points across and making this stuff more real than Myers.


----------



## Figure

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I'm starting to think of MBTI vs. Jung this way: MBTI is the artistic representation, while Jung is the scientific representation.


By "artistic" do you mean to suggest that MBTI is more strongly-concerned with functional demonstration, while Jung is more concerned with functional origin? I would buy that, under the condition that an understanding of one system alone cannot be depended upon to mediate the development of "wholeness." 

See, I believe a significant problem with typology in general to involve the fact that each system describes preference, and the _same preferences _described by each system are used to choose which ones are preferable to others. Did you notice that the author of that pdf was an ENFJ? This is of course not to degrade the value of the piece - or any out there - but rather to highlight the fact that we often gravitate towards what we "like," with the least effort. Ultimately, we're dealing with models as possible derivatives of reality here, not reality itself. Both systems are separated from actuality as we perceive it, and we would be chauvinist to claim the sufficiency of one system as it stands alone - and, I think, silly to try and locate the bounds of "individuation." Jung himself said that such a process is _infinite_.

Basically, just agreeing with you


----------



## Gravitas

Enki said:


> What about the ideas of neuroplasticity? Also, while I'm not a hard-nosed proponent of American fix-it psychology, there is a decent correlation between Myers-Briggs and the DSM IV. (No citation needed!) Many of the types - the one I identify with, included- are over-generalizations to the degree of psychosis.


And what about Dr. Nardi’s research? 
He monitored brain activity via EEG for 60 people over 2 hours performing a wide variety of tasks. 

For people whose best fit type is the same– people who have the same Jungian dom and aux cognitive function preferences:


3% had identical brain activity (almost exactly the same ‘fluid, dynamic’ movement of information throughout the brain) .
50% had mostly the same brain activity- about 80% the same.
35% had similar brain activity- about 50% the same.
12% only had some similarities
 
For the entire test group:


Only showed, on average, 5%-33% of the same brain activity
 

Specifically:


Extraverted Sensing (Se)

Se types: 
Show a "tennis hop" brain pattern.
Easily go "in the zone" in a crisis situation.
Quickly integrate body and sensory information.
Easily bored and need external stimulation.
Focus on literal or common interpretations.
Favor details that are dramatic or in motion.


The "tennis hop" brain pattern is one in which all regions of neocortex out low amplitude and out of sync. This is an effective state that requires little energy while the shifting frequencies allow the brain to quickly direct whichever regions are needed for a surprise, incoming task.


Introverted Sensing (Si)

Si types: 


Brain activity reflects their background, training, and job expertise.
Get "in the zone" when reviewing past events.
Tend towards rote memorization, repetition, and in-depth reviews of daily events—all habits that help them burn new neural pathways.
Good at recalling information without a context and recalling kinship data.
Favor T5, which processes social feedback and T6, that helps us consider the future.

So Si seems to lead to reinforcement and specialization over time. ISTJs and ISFJs are both visual (favor O1 and/or O2). ISxJs favor Fp2 over Fp1, while ESxJs do the opposite.


Extraverted Intuiting (Ne)

Ne types: 


Often show a "Christmas Tree" pattern.
Often experience creative highs.
Provide fast, creative responses (sometimes too creative)
Find it difficult to get "in the zone," and can do so only after practicing and internalizing an activity over weeks, months, or years.
Use regions that support imagination.

A "Christmas Tree" pattern is one in which the neocortex is active all over, each region is of high amplitude and out-of-sync with others. This pattern indicates cross-contextual thinking. This pattern is also very energy intensive, and may produce distractions and contradictions.


Introverted Intuiting (Ni)

Ni Types: 


Show a whole brain, zen-like pattern
Show this pattern when they attack an unfamiliar, novel pattern.
Their zen state works best when focusing on a single question, without distraction.
Enter the zen state when ask to envision the future.
Usually benefit from a sensory focus

Their whole-brain, zen-like pattern occurs when all regions of the neocortex are in sync and dominated by brain waves that are medium-low frequency and very high-amplitude. Other types only show this pattern when they engage in their specific area of expertise, unlike Ni-ers, who also show it when tackling a new problem.

ENxJs usually benefit from a physical or sensory focus. NJs tend to be generalists compared to their SJs cousins.


Extraverted Thinking (Te)

Te types: 


Show most efficient use of mental energy as they rely on evidence-based decision-making.
Rely on T3, O1, C3 and Fp1. Tend to use other areas very little, even on tasks that would normally invoke them.
Rely on measurably sensory information
Focus on goals and stimulated by task completion and error correction.
Tend to move to action before accurate or what-if processing, so quick efficiency can become a pitfall.
Show high activity in F8, which handles deeply felt personal values, often expressed negatively.
Female Te types show more diverse brain activity and are more responsive to social feedback.

IXTJs are more visual, attentive to tone of voice, and focus on implementation detail over quick decision-making. ESTJS attend more to details, are more open to brainstorming, and listen intently to authority figures. ENTJs can enter a creative mode similar to INTJs.


Introverted Thinking (Ti)

Ti types: 


Show high use of four regions that afford complex logical reasoning: F3, F4, P3, P4
Use F3 to linearly derive solutions. (highest for ESTPs followed by INTPs)
Use F4 to categorize and define concepts. (highest for INTPs, followed by ESTPs)
Use P3 to integrate visual-kinesthetic data. (highest for ISTPs then ENTPs)
Use P4 to holistically weigh numerous pros and cons of many uncertain or risky factors. (highest for ENTPs followed by ISTPs)
Above regions are located away from direct sensory contact, so have a "deep" or "detached" quality.
Tend to enter a dissociated state when arguing or meeting someone new. In this state, their neocortex shuts out raw emotions in order to enjoy objectivity.
Least interested in listening.
Engage the above regions + Fp1 and Fp2 when examining a topic from multiple angles and integrating the angles into a coherent way.

INTPs are likely to quickly stop listening as they assess the relevance of what others are saying.


Extraverted Feeling (Fe)

Fe types:


Focus on social responsibility.
Stimulated by communicating their explanations and decisions.
Use Fp1 to suppress emotional impulses from deep in the brain in favor of sophisticated cognitive responses.
Use Fp2 less, so may sometimes suddenly switch from highly composed to very angry.
Use F5 a lot, which helps them adjust to social feedback.

ExFJs show high activity in T3, but least activity in visual regions O1 and O2. ESFJs are more left-brained, high in C3 and F7. ENFJs are might right-brained, showing high activity in F4 and T4.


Introverted Feeling

Fi types: 


Are consummate listeners who listen in a holistic way.
INFPs can deeply listen for up to 10 minutes at a time, ISFPs listen briefly and then move to action.
Show high activity in T3 and T4, which handle language.
Carefully compose their own speech, attending to both content and delivery.
Show high activity in F8, and are stimulated by rankings of importance.
Show the least activity in interior regions that aid logic.
Rely on left-brained (Fp1) decision making.

INFPs may get to the core of a person's psychology by listening for so long. INFPs are less likely to defend their own views or take action, though when they stop listening, region Fp1 becomes very active as they make a strong (and perhaps final) decision.

ISFPs are attentive when others withhold information (like social feedback).


----------



## itsme45

Gravitas said:


> And what about Dr. Nardi’s research?
> He monitored brain activity via EEG for 60 people over 2 hours performing a wide variety of tasks.


I would love to be part of such an experiment.  -.-

Btw,



Enki said:


> there is a decent correlation between Myers-Briggs and the DSM IV. (No citation needed!) Many of the types - the one I identify with, included- are over-generalizations to the degree of psychosis.


Is ESTP the sociopath? -.-


----------



## Enkidu

Gravitas said:


> And what about Dr. Nardi’s research?
> He monitored brain activity via EEG for 60 people over 2 hours performing a wide variety of tasks.


This is a novel approach and I hope it will receive more funding so Nardi can eventually increase it's sample size - 60 is a good start, though!

Here's the image to match (for those of us that are more visual):





Occam's razor! This is exactly what I meant: Nardi is inventive and well-intentioned but trudging through the same mess as Myers. What will it serve to classify personalities to certain regions of the brain? Neuroscientists are finding that most people use their entire brain in complex combinations...this is just reinforcing the Western European & American idea that people think with two separate hemispheres. Not at once, mind you  , but off and on - as if were a matter of dexterity or favoritism! 

I've posted this video in a different context, but it should do the trick here now that I'm all fired up. One of my favorite neurologists (besides Oliver Sacks, _An Anthropologist on Mars _- look him up!) is Iain McGilChrist who's featured in this great little RSA Animate. 








itsme45 said:


> Is ESTP the sociopath? -.-


For the curious and patient, here's a more in-depth look at his _The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World_:

* *




​


----------



## Gravitas

Enki said:


> This is a novel approach and I hope it will receive more funding so Nardi can eventually increase it's sample size - 60 is a good start, though!
> Occam's razor! This is exactly what I meant: Nardi is inventive and well-intentioned but trudging through the same mess as Myers. What will it serve to classify personalities to certain regions of the brain? Neuroscientists are finding that most people use their entire brain in complex combinations...this is just reinforcing the Western European & American idea that people think with two separate hemispheres. Not at once, mind you  , but off and on - as if were a matter of dexterity or favoritism!​




I'm confused. Your comments seem contradictory. You hope that Nardi will continue his research, but dont think it will serve any good purpose?

What led you to believe that his findings reinforce the "Western European & American idea that people think with two separate hemispheres"? His primary hypothesis is that everyone's brain processes information in a unique way, but that most people do fall into one of several groups based on their brains' preferred information "super highways" if you will.. Nothing to do with hemispheres though. Quite the contrary. 

Your McGilChrist, however, seems to postulate that each hemisphere does serve a separate function, but not the functions that neuroscientists originally thought in the 60s and 70s. And that they work together, toward processing things like "emotion" and "imagination".

The two actually seem to support eachothers' stance.. If anything, Nardi sees the brain as more unique to an individual than McGilChrist.


​


----------



## Enkidu

Gravitas said:


> I'm confused. Your comments seem contradictory. You hope that Nardi will continue his research, but dont think it will serve any good purpose?
> 
> What led you to believe that his findings reinforce the "Western European & American idea that people think with two separate hemispheres"? His primary hypothesis is that everyone's brain processes information in a unique way, but that most people do fall into one of several groups based on their brains' preferred information "super highways" if you will.. Nothing to do with hemispheres though. Quite the contrary.


I'm sorry about that, I was basing my comments on an earlier post of mine, hence the lack of context. The last thing I want to do is bash Nardi (or McGilChrist), my only beef with his EEC research is that the sample size is very small. When it comes to the hazy science of measuring personalities, Nardi won't really reach any categorical statistic without at least 1500 participants across many demographics. TypologyCentral has more on Nardi's research; personally, I'm not buying it. That's why I called Occam's razor on it...


Gravitas said:


> Your McGilChrist, however, seems to postulate that each hemisphere does serve a separate function, but not the functions that neuroscientists originally thought in the 60s and 70s. And that they work together, toward processing things like "emotion" and "imagination".
> 
> The two actually seem to support eachothers' stance.. If anything, Nardi sees the brain as more unique to an individual than McGilChrist.


McGilChrist argues that people are very similar to one another i.e. same species, similar brains and the lack of mental harmony is due to mental illness and the detrimental effect of a certain type of civilization. If anything, 16 types of personalities don't match up with our organic reality, it is imposed and illusory. Nardi's research only strengthens the Myers-Briggs framework of a mechanical brain with set, predictable functions assigned to each section. How is this holistic? This kind of science is so busy trying to determine every minuscule difference between people, instead of teaching, raising, and encouraging the development of all of the brain, equally. Think of this in a humanistic way, polymathically. That is why I termed a set personality as psychosis; like a caricature.


----------



## Gravitas

Enki said:


> I'm sorry about that, I was basing my comments on an earlier post of mine, hence the lack of context. The last thing I want to do is bash Nardi (or McGilChrist), my only beef with his EEC research is that the sample size is very small. When it comes to the hazy science of measuring personalities, Nardi won't really reach any categorical statistic without at least 1500 participants across many demographics. TypologyCentral has more on Nardi's research; personally, I'm not buying it. That's why I called Occam's razor on it....


Ok.. I do agree that Nardi's sample is small, and that increasing the participants would lead to more exact data. Still, 1500 seems fairly arbitrary, and even the small sample showed trends that directly aligned with contemporary thoughts on personality 'types'. As far as occam's razor goes.. the existence of types seems highly probable for a variety of reasons, so I dont see how that applies?



Enki said:


> McGilChrist argues that people are very similar to one another i.e. same species, similar brains and the lack of mental harmony is due to mental illness and the detrimental effect of a certain type of civilization. If anything, 16 types of personalities don't match up with our organic reality, it is imposed and illusory. Nardi's research only strengthens the Myers-Briggs framework of a mechanical brain with set, predictable functions assigned to each section. How is this holistic? This kind of science is so busy trying to determine every minuscule difference between people, instead of teaching, raising, and encouraging the development of all of the brain, equally. Think of this in a humanistic way, polymathically. That is why I termed a set personality as psychosis; like a caricature.


This is an.. interesting perspective  That we would all be exactly the same if it werent for mental illness or the detrimental effect of some civilization. It seems to be making a large implicit assumption that differences are bad. I have to Occam's razor on that - have you never seen studies on the huge value that diversity of thought provides? Havent you experienced this in your own life? I would say that perspective is the opposite of holistic and humanistic


----------



## nakkinaama

Do the functions really have an impact on our _personalities_? 
Because honestly I dont think they have. Atleast that much. And whats with all these threads being all like: 
*BULLYING: Personality type with a tendency to bully others? Type of the victims?*

Seriously? AND IT WAS A CLOSED THREAD! All the g-damn VIP members of this forum were there all stereotyping the types and stuff. That is dangerous, and usually what lazy people do. Stereotypes suck, man! Im really dissapointed in these people! But I believe my opinion doesnt affect on any way to anything. But Ill post this reply anyway.

And wth is up with all the new members being almost every one of them INTJs and INTPs and INFPs and INFJs? 

Also, I am extremely sorry for the language of this post, and I understand if you are bothered by it. Btw, you have a great conversation going on, so I wont be bothering you with anything anymore.


----------



## reckful

perkele said:


> And wth is up with all the new members being almost every one of them INTJs and INTPs and INFPs and INFJs?


Well, I hate to answer you using those awful _stereotypes_, but it's my understanding that the subgroup of people who could fairly be described as tending to live on the internet is disproportionately made up of INs, and likewise the subgroup of people who make significant use of internet forums, and likewise the subgroup of people who are most interested in personality typologies.

So I'd say you shouldn't be too surprised if the overall population of MBTI-related internet forum members seems to be somewhat IN-dominated.


----------



## Enkidu

Gravitas said:


> Ok.. I do agree that Nardi's sample is small, and that increasing the participants would lead to more exact data. Still, 1500 seems fairly arbitrary, and even the small sample showed trends that directly aligned with contemporary thoughts on personality 'types'. As far as occam's razor goes.. the existence of types seems highly probable for a variety of reasons, so I dont see how that applies?


The 1500 was a bit arbitrary , but using a form of stratified sampling the number needs to be higher to account for all sorts of subgroups in a population. I called Occam's razor (I don't think I've written this so many times before) on Nardi's application of EEC results on Myers-Briggs typology...not on personalities. Why do you feel they are highly probable?



Gravitas said:


> This is an.. interesting perspective  That we would all be exactly the same if it werent for mental illness or the detrimental effect of some civilization. It seems to be making a large implicit assumption that differences are bad. I have to Occam's razor on that - have you never seen studies on the huge value that diversity of thought provides? Havent you experienced this in your own life? I would say that perspective is the opposite of holistic and humanistic


You couldn't be more correct about diversity. You Occam razor-ed me? (haha)  Differences are essential, there's no question about that - it's just in this particular case. If a theory of personalities needs to exist, it should focus on how different personalities intermesh, complement one another, reinforce each other's nature - not splayed on a range of extreme characteristics. Not necessarily all alike, it's potentiality. Call it nature & nurture, genetics, _tabula rasa_, or existential behaviorism. Just because culture assigns a role, a self-perception, or in this case, an archetype, that does not make it your own. It's like a mask that molds to your face: as Joseph Campbell put it, “If the path before you is clear, you're probably on someone else's.”


----------



## nakkinaama

reckful said:


> Well, I hate to answer you using those awful _stereotypes_, but it's my understanding that the subgroup of people who could fairly be described as tending to live on the internet is disproportionately made up of INs, and likewise the subgroup of people who make significant use of internet forums, and likewise the subgroup of people who are most interested in personality typologies.
> 
> So I'd say you shouldn't be too surprised if the overall population of MBTI-related internet forum members seems to be somewhat IN-dominated.


Yeah I get that now too... Bit strange, I dont know why though. Cause its like when they are here its like you wouldnt believe it. Lol, I make no sense.


----------



## Grunfur

> *Personality type is an overgeneralization.
> *Every person’s mind is as unique as a fingerprint. While most fingerprints conform to certain general patterns, like Arches, Loops, and Whorls, each is distinct, and a small percentage don’t conform to the general patterns at all. The same is true of the mind. Cognitive process in the human mind is made up of elements in varying measures. These elements tend to follow general patterns, but to assume that any two minds are alike would be a mistake.


The mind is individualistic yes, but that doesn't mean personality is. The mind is comprised of many elements. Some of them are unconscious and some conscious. Much of the mind is unconscious, which would mean that things like preferences, which are conscious would not be different. Or a lot of things unique to us like mental ability simply change our intelligence rather than personality. Our unconscious elements and personal experiences are unique to us. But this doesn't mean personality isn't. Some personality types can be shared among others simply because we consciously use our preferences and function similarily even though mental capacity or other factors may not. It doesn't have to be an exact same mind to be the same personality. Personality doesn't operate on every level of the mind.




> *The Forer Effect is commonly evidenced in people who change types.
> *This implies that personality type is more of an ideal that is aspired to than the reality of one’s mind. The descriptions of personality types are vague enough to cause many individuals to compare themselves to them rather than comparing the descriptions to themselves. With enough similarities to focus on, it is easy to overlook the parts of ourselves that are not mentioned in the descriptions.


This is why description is nowhere near the best method of determining your type. Description can get confusing, but when a personality type is actually based upon the cognitive functions, we can notice drastic similarities in personality type. Of course there is not one best way of typing, but that's simply because we don't have an outstanding enough system for typing at the moment. Reading through a description may not be even accurate enough, but explaining the cognitive functions and how they operate upon each other and then correlating them to the type will.




> *Self assessment is at best only accurate in indicating who we think we are. *
> The instruments we use to determine type can only rate our own self opinion, assuming there is no cultural bias, misunderstanding of the questions, or other issues that could cause inaccuracies. Therefore, if someone’s self opinion is flawed, they would get a false reading even if the instrument was perfectly accurate.


We must be very careful when we attempt to assess our types. Even considering other people's views may be beneficial. But it isn't completely true that we only base our behaviour off of pre-conceived notions. Personally, I've noticed many trends in both my past and present behaviour, both on how it operates on a societal level and an individual. One trend common within my behaviour is introversion. That is almost objectively determined. I've consistently been reserved and friends with a few people throughout all stages of my life. That is something that I've measured over the years and objectively add up. For the record, I had never suspected I was introverted from the start.




> *There is no hard science to back any of this up.*
> The vast majority of the theory behind all of this is based on conjecture and consensus agreement. The closest thing to hard science we have to support these theories are correlations with other forms of self assessment tests. However, this merely validates that most people are consistent in their self opinion. To make matters more clouded, most if not all of the development of these theories are based on previous theories that also suffered from these flaws. Making assumptions about assumptions will rarely lead to accuracy.


I'd rephrase that to there *currently *isn't hard science to back *some *of this up. We do know that feeling, thinking, intuition and sensing all exist. This is exactly what the conscious mind has. If you consider mental illness, drugs, memory or nearly any psychological focus it can all be tied back to the four functions. And there actually is some evidence to support preferences. Its true that F and T are dichotomous, in that when we unconsciously use feelings, our thoughts are lessen. There was a study I posted on one of my threads for this. 



> It means that all of the cognitive function models are suspect until proven otherwise. The function order assumptions of Myers, Beebe, Berens are simply that – assumptions. It also means that Thomson’s assumptions of right and left brain associations are also simply assumptions. Are they well thought out assumptions? Of course. But, this also means that we can never lose sight of the fact that these theories are assumptions until they are proven or disproven. Most importantly, we can’t accept these assumptions as facts because it would cause us to stop asking questions that could lead to deeper truth.


Of course they're assumptions. This doesn't mean that we should go the complete opposite direction, because they're hypothesized. But we can't truly acccept them as truth either. It has reason for us to believe much of it is right, so we may as well accept some of it rather than reject it completely. I think for the most part we should investigate more into the cognitive functions at the very least through testing and research. We have to accept some of it, because some of it is true and some of it is reasonable. Not everything true has empirical evidence attached to it, but there is plenty of logical reasoning for some of it. Perhaps Jung was right in some areas and wrong in others. But he was not completely wrong.



> Carl Jung simply stated that every person has a leading cognitive function and that individual’s preferences for other functions are subjective, which created a situation where one function is dominant, another is auxiliary, and the rest ‘inferior’. In other words, Jung avoided creating the type model. Being profoundly intelligent and prone to clarifying deeper patterns, Jung likely did this deliberately. Jung also postulated that any cognitive functions could be dominant and auxiliary in an individual. He even self assessed as being Ti dominant and Ni auxiliary. The focus was on the fact that everyone uses all eight functions in their own degree and capacity, and the only reason that any function is dominant or auxiliary in that person is because they are the most used and preferred, not because there is any cause and effect between the eight functions’ preferences.


The thing Jung did not consider however was how the functions operate. The functions are dichotomous, and as proven above with feeling and thinking this is shown. If we use Ti mostly, we have already fulfilled our source of understanding, deeming Fe less required. If we then are using our understanding first and foremost, we use our auxiliary and tertiary functions secondary from our dominant. If we are already using Ti to fulfill the understanding, we need our secondary function to fulfill perception externally. If we were to use it internally, we'd have little way of "fueling" the primary function. They go hand-in-hand, which is why psychologically it is significant to have a second function external for introverts and vise versa for extroverts. Overall, there is a certain frame in which people prefer to use these functions. By default, we use our functions in a certain order, because these functions are all available psychologically but our preferences dictate how we'd use it.

The rest I tldr'd.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

reckful said:


> Well, I hate to answer you using those awful _stereotypes_, but it's my understanding that the subgroup of people who could fairly be described as tending to live on the internet is disproportionately made up of INs, and likewise the subgroup of people who make significant use of internet forums, and likewise the subgroup of people who are most interested in personality typologies.
> 
> So I'd say you shouldn't be too surprised if the overall population of MBTI-related internet forum members seems to be somewhat IN-dominated.


There's actually no way of knowing this. I think most people mistype because those are the most over-glorified types online. I've seen it enough in the "Type Me" section where ESFJs mistype as INFPs, even though they are clearly Fe types.


----------



## itsme45

Grunfur said:


> The mind is individualistic yes, but that doesn't mean personality is. The mind is comprised of many elements. Some of them are unconscious and some conscious. Much of the mind is unconscious, which would mean that things like preferences, which are conscious would not be different.


Can you elaborate on your last sentence in this quote? How does the conclusion follow from the fact that much of the mind is unconscious?




> Personally, I've noticed many trends in both my past and present behaviour, both on how it operates on a societal level and an individual. One trend common within my behaviour is introversion. That is almost objectively determined. I've consistently been reserved and friends with a few people throughout all stages of my life. That is something that I've measured over the years and objectively add up. For the record, I had never suspected I was introverted from the start.


Nice that you actually found one common trend in your life. I've yet to find one in mine. 

I like that wording too... "almost objectively", lol.




> I'd rephrase that to there *currently *isn't hard science to back *some *of this up. We do know that feeling, thinking, intuition and sensing all exist. This is exactly what the conscious mind has. If you consider mental illness, drugs, memory or nearly any psychological focus it can all be tied back to the four functions. And there actually is some evidence to support preferences. Its true that F and T are dichotomous, in that when we unconsciously use feelings, our thoughts are lessen. There was a study I posted on one of my threads for this.


I am sorry but you are making a lot of assumptions here. How do you know this four things is exactly what the concious mind has? Can you tie mental issues to the four functions while still allowing room for falsification of these explanations? Because if not, then it is meaningless speculation. And okay, F/T can work against each other, so yes either F is preferred over T or T over F, but you're not the first person who forgets that this can change between two different situations. (Or if it can't, it has to be shown how/why it can't.)




> I think for the most part we should investigate more into the cognitive functions at the very least through testing and research. We have to accept some of it, because some of it is true and some of it is reasonable.


Which "some of it"? But yes I agree research is still lacking in this area.




> Not everything true has empirical evidence attached to it, but there is plenty of logical reasoning for some of it. Perhaps Jung was right in some areas and wrong in others. But he was not completely wrong.


Logical reasoning is not evidence. This is a very important distinction, or we'll end up at things like reasoning for solipsism in a logical way.




> The thing Jung did not consider however was how the functions operate. The functions are dichotomous, and as proven above with feeling and thinking this is shown. If we use Ti mostly, we have already fulfilled our source of understanding, deeming Fe less required.


Fe is not for understanding impersonal things, but Ti is also not for feeling empathy for people, so it is not true that if we use Ti mostly, Fe is no longer really needed. Of course if you create situations for yourself where only Ti is needed then that's different, Fe obviously won't be needed then.




> If we then are using our understanding first and foremost, we use our auxiliary and tertiary functions secondary from our dominant. If we are already using Ti to fulfill the understanding, we need our secondary function to fulfill perception externally. If we were to use it internally, we'd have little way of "fueling" the primary function. They go hand-in-hand, which is why psychologically it is significant to have a second function external for introverts and vise versa for extroverts. Overall, there is a certain frame in which people prefer to use these functions. By default, we use our functions in a certain order, because these functions are all available psychologically but our preferences dictate how we'd use it.


These assumptions can be picked apart too, even by just using logic... So, with dominant Ti, you can still have the secondary function introverted because your brain may have enough capacity to share time between both. We can't just assume without checking it out that it doesn't. Of course, I could also ask how it would help with the time sharing if the secondary function is extraverted - you still can't use the two at the same time, you can't be I and E at the same time. So what is the advantage of it being extraverted? Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of the word "fueling" here. Let me know. Anyway, your last sentence is circular logic. You use the assumption of preferences to support the idea of a certain order but the preference concept itself includes this idea of order. You need something else to give some support/basis to the idea of this.


----------



## itsme45

JungyesMBTIno said:


> There's actually no way of knowing this. I think most people mistype because those are the most over-glorified types online. I've seen it enough in the "Type Me" section where ESFJs mistype as INFPs, even though they are clearly Fe types.


Haha makes sense. I feel the draw towards INTJ because it's labeled "mastermind"  Ok, this one was a joke. Though, some of the descriptions fit (mostly the way of how they analyse but only to a point because they want to implement stuff in practice); but there is no way I'd be categorized as Ni-Te.


----------



## Nackle1

.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro

Nackle1 said:


> lol honestly Peter this doesn't even really involve you so.....gtfo. It's between me and noble heart. Apparently people like YOU like to jump in other peoples arguments just so you can let off a little bit of rage on an unsuspecting perC member. Well congratulations. You did it, douchebag.
> 
> Furthermore, I love how you stopped responding after I apologized because you realized you couldn't keep up your arrogant INTJ facade any longer.


lf this person is still here...and even manages to recall this thread without reading through all of it...l will be utterly fascinated if you two manage to keep this debate going. 

Or, l'll simply forget and lose interest.


----------



## Nackle1

OMG WTF BRO said:


> lf this person is still here...and even manages to recall this thread without reading through all of it...l will be utterly fascinated if you two manage to keep this debate going.
> 
> Or, l'll simply forget and lose interest.


Just ignore it. I randomly got pissed.


----------



## Peter

Originally Posted by *Nackle1* _lol honestly Peter this doesn't even really involve you so.....gtfo. It's between me and noble heart. Apparently people like YOU like to jump in other peoples arguments just so you can let off a little bit of rage on an unsuspecting perC member. Well congratulations. You did it, douchebag.

_
_Furthermore, I love how you stopped responding after I apologized because you realized you couldn't keep up your arrogant INTJ facade any longer._



> Just ignore it. I randomly got pissed.




Then you´re randomly excused!


----------



## Spades

Wow, just stumbling across this now. Once I read the whole thing and not just the headings, I won't have to answer "why did you drop MBTI?" anymore and just link this article. From what I read, it seems we share some views.


----------



## Pyromaniac

"There is no hard science to back any of this up"

What would you say of Dario Nardi's work?

"The function order assumptions of Myers, Beebe, Berens are simply that - assumptions"

Are they not theoretically sound? Take an INFJ with Ni Fe Ti Se. This conforms to Beebe's x.y.x.y system which posits that a balanced psyche is almost equally introverted and extroverted, with any overlap manifesting as behavioural intro/extraversion, and that Je gathers information through Pi and Pe gather information through Ji. Therefore JiPe or PeJi translates as a 'P' in MBTI terms as both functions work to perceive and interpret information, as opposed to using it (Je), which would explain why types with their Je as inferior (INTP - TiNeSiFe) are not as directive and sometimes even lazy.
Dominant-Tertiary loops, where the auxiliary function (of a different orientation) are repressed or underdeveloped (INFJ - NiTi with repressed Fe), ars often found to translate to personality disorders or unhealthy behaviours.
So, although the models are entirely theoretical, there is some correlative basis for them.


----------



## Nobleheart

Coeur deLion said:


> "There is no hard science to back any of this up"
> 
> What would you say of Dario Nardi's work?


Between the time that I wrote this, and now, I've been fortunate enough to have gotten involved in his study, albeit peripherally. We now have some science to back this up. However, it appears to me that Dario's work is proving Jung more correct than any of those who expanded upon his work. The dominant function is extremely evident, while the auxiliary function is less evident. Evidence of other functions is 'faint' at best, and likely the result of the other two functions adapting and using regions of the brain associated with those other functions. Therefore Jung's theory on 'inferior functions' appears very sound. The guy was a genius. 

Jung also considered some people to be 'pure types' who used both introverted or both extroverted functions as their dominant and auxiliary. This would explain the "dominant auxiliary loop" assumptions in some people. x.x.y.y. appears to be a valid assumption. Combine this with people who's dominant process appears to be some manner of hybrid coherence and regions, or auxiliary function seems to be a mix of regions associated with any given function, this could cause mistyping with the 16 model system in those individuals. This is why the phrase 'best fit type' exists. All of the factors that make up what we would refer to type are spectra and unique to the individual, despite commonly following patterns.

So yes, while Myers, Beebe, Berens, etc. seem to be based on the most commonly occurring side effects of dominant and auxiliary functions, I think the x.y.x.y - a.b.a.b models are the most likely manifestations of how dominant and auxiliary functions operate - and not by any means rules. 

For example, Ni can appear like Se when it is operating at high capacity, despite not being Se. Ni is moderate activity across the brain, while Se is high activity in either the left or right hemisphere. When Ni goes higher, it has strong activity in both hemispheres, and behaves like Se momentarily. This doesn't mean that Se is the animus function for Ni dominants. It means that Ni tends to mimic Se at high levels of cerebral activity. 

To assume these models are accurate and apply to one's self and others is a form of Forer Effect. What is actually going on in the brain is simpler, more organic, and adaptive than that. It's also more unique to the individual. This doesn't mean we can't classify these configurations into groups, but it is very important to acknowledge the parts along with the wholes.


----------



## gracElizabeth

Did anyone else read this and think "duh"
Yeah we all know (or should) that MBTI isn't the savior of personality typing. I don't treat it that way, and it didn't require an essay to make those who do discontinue that way of thinking.


----------



## reckful

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I'm more than a year late for this thread and have not kept p on it; how would this weaken her point that these are indeed illusions?


I wasn't addressing Nobleheart's point that anything is or isn't an illusion. I was addressing her claim that Jung stated that he was Ti-Ni (and/or Ni-Ti) and that that made him a "pure type."


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

reckful said:


> I wasn't addressing Nobleheart's point that anything is or isn't an illusion. I was addressing her claim that Jung stated that he was Ti-Ni (and/or Ni-Ti) and that that made him a "pure type."


Oh, okay.

1) I've heard some users here use that. One typer here claimed I was Ni-Ti, which is a double introvert or something. They claimed it was feasible, as per Jung. Does he state such exist? 
2)What do you think of the stance in the OP? It's actually pretty much my stance, though excellently worded and filled in with actual biopsychology knowledge that I don't have.


----------



## bearotter

I don't know what was officially claimed in the literature, but I'd label a "pure type" as something like Si-dom with inferior functions of Te, Fe, Ne personally like @PaladinX. In the sense that they're not just pure introverts or extroverts but also pure irrational types.

This isn't to say it isn't reasonable to also speak of people with auxiliaries, like Se>Te as "pure" in a way. 

But honestly my take-away is mostly that if this matter is this vague, careful observation and analysis is the only way to decide type in any specific case, without assuming things that aren't stated as very clear, relatively rigid rule of thumb, and the main point of the OP that I think it's worth taking away is that perhaps there's a reason it's so hard to find rigid guidelines for some of these things --- i.e. maybe the creator didn't want it to be rigidified beyond certain basic rules of thumb.


----------



## reckful

FlightsOfFancy said:


> 1) I've heard some users here use that. One typer here claimed I was Ni-Ti, which is a double introvert or something. They claimed it was feasible, as per Jung. Does he state such exist?


Not that I know of, as further explained here.



FlightsOfFancy said:


> 2)What do you think of the stance in the OP? It's actually pretty much my stance, though excellently worded and filled in with actual biopsychology knowledge that I don't have.


My perspectives on Jung and Myers and the MBTI differ from Nobleheart's in many respects. If you want a long (but _worthwhile_, if I do say so myself :tongue explanation for why I'm a "dichotomies guy," you'll find it in this INTJforum post.

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in that post:

McCrae & Costa article
Reynierse article​


----------



## Nobleheart

carteblanche said:


> Yes! Every time I attempt to fit myself into a single type category, I begin to suspect a multiple-personality disorder. ;P


Thanks for adding some validation to the assumptions being debated here. 

My guess from these scores, your manner of presentation, and approach is that you're an Ne + Ti / Enneargram 2. Your Enneagram type is elevating your responses to the questions that attempt to measure Fe (caring about others, serving in order to be loved, becoming what others need you to be, hence the social chameleon effect). The end result is an Ne + Fe loop, which is causing you to respond more favorably to Fi questions as well. (Note that test also has an inherent Fi bias due to the wording, effectively asking if you have emotions in several instances.)

http://personalitycafe.com/articles/25205-dominant-tertiary-loops-common-personality-disorders.html 

To explain this in a neuroscience perspective, you're likely displaying an Ne dominant coherence pattern, but leaning more on the right hemisphere and interpersonal regions of the cerebral cortex.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

Interesting, thank you! I need some time to read and think this over. 

I definitely turn into Enneagram 2 when with people, but when alone -- type 9. The two seem complementary (balance + harmony inside/outside). While 7 and a 4 are also quite relatable. I've got a temper though, if I explode -- I explode, not sure if that could be interpreted as a manifestation of Fi. 

To further sabotage any hopes of finding clarity, my 3d PSYCHE test results (sorry, not allowed to post links yet) consistently (3 times on different days) claim that I am an ENFJ... (which would actually be consistent with the Enneagram 2) Go figure...

Below is what the PSYCHE results said (all 3 times!)

Cordial State.
Also called Congenial—The best concept to define the focus of this state is congeniality.It is the state of relationship and communion. It represents a psyche that is emotionally tense, but physically and rationally flexible. We are in this state when we look for values to be reflected in our social environment. We are attentive to the things that exalt or threaten ideal views, but rather than the attitude of a fighter or guardian, this state provides that of a critic, teammate and supporter. It is social, alert of what is going around, and will be curious about it.

By definition, this is the state of sensation, conception and valuation. Its main characteristic is sensing the surroundings looking for existential connections, pondering about harmony and aesthetics, or bringing value to objectivity. This defines our ability to look for bonds and emotional connections with our social medium.


It has one tendency towards introversion:
• Valuation cultivates particular interests and sensibility, causing self-absorption.
Topographic Map location: Community Center
MBTI approximation: ENFJ
Archetype: Diplomats


Hosts, Philanthropists… People who have a constant tendency to this state focus on their feelings and environment. They have a strong sense of responsibility and emotional commitment, and teach this to others. They make sure that what is done carries their values. They are the perfect hosts, celebrate the efforts and intentions of others, put attention to special anniversaries, and assist friends and relatives when needed. They are social and gregarious, but tend to revolve around their community or group. They value responsive and resourceful people, appreciating actions and results, because they value facts more than mere feelings or ideas. Their desire is to seek wellbeing may drive them to constantly focus on drama or causes to alleviate or solve.


People that are strongly cordial tend to have a clear vision of what they understand to be right and wrong, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, desired and repulsive. They are open to debate ideas and to explore activities, places or cultures; but, they have a clear identity with a family, social group, culture or set of values, and the interaction might be restricted around this basis. They tend to have a clear idea of who is an ally or threat, and to be sensitive to public opinion.


Consider this archetype a static stereotype. In reality, we tend to frequent several states, and become multidimensional, wholesome, colorful.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

reckful said:


> Not that I know of, as further explained here.
> 
> 
> 
> My perspectives on Jung and Myers and the MBTI differ from Nobleheart's in many respects. If you want a long (but _worthwhile_, if I do say so myself :tongue explanation for why I'm a "dichotomies guy," you'll find it in this INTJforum post.
> 
> Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in that post:
> McCrae & Costa article
> Reynierse article​


Sorry, 25 pages is TLDR for me right now, but I did read your post. 

It seems you believe that there are dichotomies that are definable, observable, and most importantly--statistically significant, as is evidenced by the relation to the Big 5 (which has shown to be the most highly predictive models). 

However, these dichotomies--in your model--are not subject to further delineation (e.g. N is N not Ne or Ni). 

Wouldn't this be quite similar or a natural consequence of what the OP posits? If someone is an R(I)L(F/T)O(J)E(T)I(N) and were thus an INTJ, then what would the point of the MBTI be? Would it not then just be a superfluous description?

The orientation of functions is important, no? That seems to be one of the axioms of Jungarian personality theory. Where would the disagreement between this and the OP arise?


----------



## reckful

FlightsOfFancy said:


> The orientation of functions is important, no? That seems to be one of the axioms of Jungarian personality theory. Where would the disagreement between this and the OP arise?


If you're asking me if the "orientation of functions is important," I don't see how you can have read that linked INTJforum post. I think Reynierse is probably right to call the functions a "category mistake," and that's why I call myself a "dichotomies guy." Myers gave the functions a fair amount of lip service but essentially (and rightly, IMHO) abandoned them, and that's all further described in the linked post.

Maybe give it another try in the morning after some coffee. Or not.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

reckful said:


> If you're asking me if the "orientation of functions is important," I don't see how you can have read that linked INTJforum post. I think Reynierse is probably right to call the functions a "category mistake," and that's why I call myself a "dichotomies guy." Myers gave the functions a fair amount of lip service but essentially (and rightly, IMHO) abandoned them, and that's all further described in the linked post.
> 
> Maybe give it another try in the morning after some coffee. Or not.


skimmed; is there an abridged version? If you had to write a 1 paragraph abstract on that wall of unsegmented text, what would it say?


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist

@Enkidu Thank you for posting the Divided Brain video. It's entertaining and thought-provoking.


----------



## Killionaire

I don't have time to read 47 pages and go in depth into thinking about whether MBTI is an illusion or not. Offhand I think you're wrong. But it doesn't matter much to me. I'm spending my time on studying things that will increase my income. I don't have time for this shit.


----------



## Number Six

Killionaire said:


> I don't have time to read 47 pages and go in depth into thinking about whether MBTI is an illusion or not. Offhand I think you're wrong. But it doesn't matter much to me. I'm spending my time on studying things that will increase my income. I don't have time for this shit.


Want to discuss the net return of posting redundancies on ze interwebz, or have you calculified that already and determined that this was a worth while investment?

I myself believe it to be something you ought to eschew in the futurez.

zzzz cuz z's are cool todayz


----------



## itsme45

reckful said:


> She posted that Jung said it "needn't be" the case that the dom & aux had opposite attitudes because certain people (like himself) were "pure types." And if "pure types" are the proverbial _exception to the rule_, then what's the rule?


That idea to me sounds too vaguely implied. Doesn't say anything about the rule so it's too vague to me to derive any conclusions from what she actually thought in her mind.




> In any case, though, although I noted that I'd understood her posts to imply that Jung's statement was that the "pure type" was the exception, I would have considered my request for a source reasonably addressed if it turned out Jung had said anything about some people being "pure types" and some people being the other way, regardless of which group he said was the majority.Are you under the impression that Nobleheart could have pointed us to a source if only I'd limited my request a bit and she simply refused because she thought I was being greedy? :tongue:


Guess now we know what pure types are (from later posts in this thread). 

No, I'm not under that impression. Again, I dislike assuming things about intentions and other mind states when there's too much ambiguity about it. I'm not even following the part about you being greedy.




Nobleheart said:


> I'm sure won't surprise anyone that I can't remember how Dario and I first linked up. It was via internet interaction. We ended up being friends on facebook, and from there I have been doing graphics and such for his website and reports, as well as helping him make templates for the massive amounts of numerical data he wants to visually represent.


Hahaha the sarcasm in the first sentence. Anyway, that's cool.




> I was referring to the elusive x.x or y.y configuration that I currently can't document.


Er, elaborate on this more?




> Se looks like a Tennis Hop, with the mind shifting from a lot of right hemisphere activity to left and vice versa, with activity levels in proportion to the demands at hand, but otherwise staying at a low amount of activity in either hemisphere in what seems to be an anticipation mode. Picture a tennis player staying light on their feet, ready to react to the ball in any direction. That's what the Se dominant EEG map looks like. It *reacts* as needed.In an INFJ (or INTJ) Ni looks like a sort of low to moderate level of synchronization in the whole EEG map. As energy levels increase, it starts to appear like the Se tennis hop, but it's not as responsive, nor does it have the Se neutral stance as a base.


Alright, that makes a lot of sense. I do recall Dario Nardi mentioning tennis hop somewhere but it was never explained much in the docs I downloaded. What you say about it, it does match my subjective experience  (I don't mean direct experience of brainwaves of course, lol)




> You don't have to question the idea. It simply isn't the case. No one has a function that is always on. What people have are cerebral patterns that are most common. ALL cognitive functions are situational. What makes the difference in their use is which ones are used for what. For example, INFJ and INTJ use the Ni pattern a lot, while ENFJs generally only use the Ni pattern when thinking about other people.


Alright just a lot of people tend to state that. I do still question though that everyone would have such an ordering to functions (e.g. Fe>Ni in the ENFJ example of yours).

I like the thought on functions being situational though, I've always talked about that myself.




> There isn't. The common ground is the Ni pattern being prevalent, and often activated when encountering something new or problem solving - combined with a leaning toward Right Hemisphere activity. _Everything_ else is individual development. There tends to be a lot of similarities in individual development as the configuration seems to lend itself to similar conclusions and preferences, but those things are still peripheral to what is actually causing "INFJ".


Okay, well put.




> I'm not tech savvy enough to know.


Okay well which wiki was it and on which page of it?




> The coherence models don't seem to indicate that. However, everyone uses a lot of patterns. As I mentioned above, each pattern is specific to the tasks associated with that type, but each person uses these patterns situationally. What makes type isn't a static dominant > auxiliary > tertiary > inferior order of operations, but instead what triggers which patterns and how often. Therefore, at times, those patterns can switch roles depending on what someone was doing. For example, an ESTP could drop into an Ni mode when doing something physically engaging like windsurfing that pushed them into using their whole mind. While this would be momentary and less common, Ni would be temporarily in charge of cerebral operations.


What models don't indicate what? Do you mean that there was never anyone found with such an EEG pattern showing two functions being able to be the dominant - meaning, pretty often independently working, not serving some other function? Though it wouldn't have to exclude situations where one is serving the other or the other way around.

Sorry I'm not quite following the last part. Why would Ni be relevant to windsurfing? I'm honestly curious. Why can't Se be about using the whole mind e.g. when someone's being in "flow" responding to everything immediately and effectively within the framework of a complex task? Or is that supposed to be Ni?I also recall a note from one of the Dario Nardi docs that says everyone's using their whole brain or something like that when doing a task they're well experienced with. I don't recall that being linked to Ni but maybe it was then? Why should that however be Ni? Again, that doesn't make sense to me.




PaladinX said:


> I am using the former quote as an example of what Jung means by 'pure type' outlined in the latter quote. So it would appear that, if x represents the conscious attitude and y represents the unconscious attitude, then a pure type would look like A[SUB]x[/SUB]B[SUB]y[/SUB]C[SUB]y[/SUB]D[SUB]y[/SUB]; or for a pure Ti type, as in the example above would be T[SUB]i[/SUB] / S[SUB]e[/SUB]N[SUB]e[/SUB]F[SUB]e[/SUB].Personally, I think it's more appropriate to look at it as XA / Y[SUB]bcd[/SUB]. When the secondary function is differentiated it looks like XA[SUB]b[/SUB] / Y[SUB]cd. [/SUB]Or something like that. Maths isn't my forte.


Yes however it should also be possible that the secondary function isn't the same orientation as the dominant. 




carteblanche said:


> Yes! Every time I attempt to fit myself into a single type category, I begin to suspect a multiple-personality disorder. ;PTo illustrate my point: functions that resulted from taking the test linked by NobleHeart were as follows


That's not terrible at all. You're not that uncommon either, I also sometimes feel like the only pattern is TP for me.




FlightsOfFancy said:


> Oh, okay.1) I've heard some users here use that. One typer here claimed I was Ni-Ti, which is a double introvert or something. They claimed it was feasible, as per Jung. Does he state such exist?


Yes possibly. See below for more, though. 




reckful said:


> Not that I know of, as further explained here.


I've seen some figure somewhere taken from some Jung book that was showing the example of an extraverted person having two extraverted functions in conscious and two introverted ones in unconscious. I didn't see any text going with that so you could still say it's a matter of interpretation... 

No, I don't remember where it was. I can try finding it if this isn't familiar to you.




Nobleheart said:


> Thanks for adding some validation to the assumptions being debated here. My guess from these scores, your manner of presentation, and approach is that you're an Ne + Ti / Enneargram 2. Your Enneagram type is elevating your responses to the questions that attempt to measure Fe (caring about others, serving in order to be loved, becoming what others need you to be, hence the social chameleon effect). The end result is an Ne + Fe loop, which is causing you to respond more favorably to Fi questions as well. (Note that test also has an inherent Fi bias due to the wording, effectively asking if you have emotions in several instances.)http://personalitycafe.com/articles/25205-dominant-tertiary-loops-common-personality-disorders.htmlTo explain this in a neuroscience perspective, you're likely displaying an Ne dominant coherence pattern, but leaning more on the right hemisphere and interpersonal regions of the cerebral cortex.


What, are you the same person who said types are an illusion? I'm not trying to personally attack you but this baffles me.

Why can't @_carteblanche_ be some NeFe type in the Jungian sense or not even that but NeFeFi and that's it? The Ti was pretty weak in the test. Though sure it's just one test.

You could also argue that she can be ENFP with strong Fe shadow in the background or in socionics ENFp with demonstrative Fe. etcetera.

A quick note, I do notice people scoring high on Fi in this test but I myself don't because I interpret the questions as intended, I guess. Or maybe I'm just crazy enough :/


----------



## Nobleheart

itsme45 said:


> Hahaha the sarcasm in the first sentence. Anyway, that's cool.


There was no sarcasm. I was being literal, and owning my near constant state of Si fail.



itsme45 said:


> Er, elaborate on this more?


Ji + Pi, Pi + Ji, Je + Pe, or Pe + Je, etc. The double oriented dominant auxiliary function set.



itsme45 said:


> Alright just a lot of people tend to state that. I do still question though that everyone would have such an ordering to functions (e.g. Fe>Ni in the ENFJ example of yours).


The example is the 'typical' ENFJ model. I'm not saying that the individual is fitting the model. I'm saying that the model is based on the commonality of the individuals who self assess as ENFJ. Most of the subjects that self assessed as ENFJ have an interesting bracket of similarities. One of those similarities is the Ni state being primarily active when thinking about or interacting with others in almost all of the people who self assess as ENFJ. These subjects still enter this state normally when performing a well practiced skill, but the anomaly is interesting and seems to be fairly isolated in this set.



itsme45 said:


> I like the thought on functions being situational though, I've always talked about that myself.


They are. It's just a simple fact of the EEG data.



itsme45 said:


> What models don't indicate what? Do you mean that there was never anyone found with such an EEG pattern showing two functions being able to be the dominant - meaning, pretty often independently working, not serving some other function? Though it wouldn't have to exclude situations where one is serving the other or the other way around.


Nardi's tests haven't found evidence of this that I am aware of, but he generally only works with 'average' people who are already fairly certain of their type. The students in his original study went through months of self determination before being scanned, and the private test subjects are paying several hundred dollars to be scanned... so he's not seeing a whole lot of 'atypical' minds, nor people who have no understanding of this theory. 

If you compare Nardi's findings to similar approaches to scanning people with various conditions, especially the Autistic Spectrum, it is highly possible that this will be the case. The EEG scans of Asperger's subjects appears a lot like an overlap of Ni and Si trying to operate at the same time.



itsme45 said:


> Sorry I'm not quite following the last part. Why would Ni be relevant to windsurfing? I'm honestly curious. Why can't Se be about using the whole mind e.g. when someone's being in "flow" responding to everything immediately and effectively within the framework of a complex task? Or is that supposed to be Ni?I also recall a note from one of the Dario Nardi docs that says everyone's using their whole brain or something like that when doing a task they're well experienced with. I don't recall that being linked to Ni but maybe it was then? Why should that however be Ni? Again, that doesn't make sense to me.


Yes, the flow state is very common in Ni dominants. I'm not saying that the flow state *IS* Ni. I'm saying it's associated with Ni because Ni dominants enter into it the most frequently, and with the least amount of 'push'. 

In the case of Se, it's associated most with the tennis hop, so using both hemispheres simultaneously is sort of the inverse of that. When an Se user is improvising physically, this pattern tends to emerge, even if the particular skill isn't well developed. This might be validation for Se and Ni being paired, as Ni dominants tend to end up doing something like Se when at a high energy of activity. This is my current assumption. 



itsme45 said:


> Yes however it should also be possible that the secondary function isn't the same orientation as the dominant.


Auxiliary, and yes.



itsme45 said:


> What, are you the same person who said types are an illusion? I'm not trying to personally attack you but this baffles me.


I'm saying that the definition and the reality are a plurality. Everyone is unique, and there are no hard rules to any of this. That said, there are enough tendencies that we can bracket those patterns into groups. 

Think of it like colors. There are a whole lot of different shades of blue, green, purple, etc, but most of them are pretty easily grouped as one of them. Now and then a blue comes along that might actually be green, or maybe one that's so close to purple people argue over which it actually is. There really isn't a blue, green, or purple. There are only frequencies of light, which we perceive, then label as those things. That doesn't make the labels any less valid, nor change the specific colors from being exactly what they are. 

My point to this was that the labels don't change the reality of the subjects. For some reason, that is easy to forget in all of this personality type business.



itsme45 said:


> Why can't @_carteblanche_ be some NeFe type in the Jungian sense or not even that but NeFeFi and that's it? The Ti was pretty weak in the test. Though sure it's just one test.


It is possible that her dominant function could be Ne and her auxiliary function could be Fe. If that's the case, then the 'type' that is _closest _would be ENTP.

It is much less likely that she is NeFeFi than NeFeTi due to the way these functions seem to tend to pair. It has to do with the coherence of the executive centers (Fp1 and Fp2). One of those two regions will be 'dominant' over the other, and this will create a polarity of sorts that seems to be causing the pairing of functions. 

Think of the dominant function like an operating system that coordinates the regions of the cerebral cortex. Which regions are used most often will indicate the auxiliary function if it is a J function - and the interaction pattern will indicate the auxiliary function if it is a P function. Everything else is really just the dominant and auxiliary functions using the remaining regions via the executive centers. 

This often causes a self assessment assumption. For example, someone who is very Fe will likely also identify with the wording of the Fi questions. It's very rare that someone takes the cognitive function test and doesn't have strong scores in the two functions that shadow their dominant and auxiliary in some way. For example, as an ESTP, you might also score high in Ne or Si, as well as Te or Fi. Both of these cases would likely just be association with the wording of the questions, as your dominant and auxiliary functions have developed the capacity to perform those roles.


----------



## WMDistraction

For what it's worth, MBTI has been used to explain personality differences and advantages in second language acquisition research. Personality traits that have been traditionally ascribed to the Intuitive aspect of MBTI have also correlated with successful language learning in the classroom and in native-speaking countries. These are not _strong _correlates, but MBTI is used in adult language acquisition research with favorable results.

tl;dr: MBTI makes SLA research easier to explain.


----------



## PaladinX

itsme45 said:


> Yes however it should also be possible that the secondary function isn't the same orientation as the dominant.


If x represents the conscious attitude and y represents the unconscious attitude, how would it be possible to have two conscious functions of opposing attitudes?


----------



## Deretree

I'm here to read about MBTI, and to lurk, and only recently to post. I think this thread is one of the most interesting on the forum.


----------



## bearotter

@_PaladinX_: I think the answer to that is consciousness =/= introversion/extraversion as a black box perhaps, because there are people roughly as influenced by the inside as outside. 

Also, even if one doesn't consider this, I think a relatively unconscious secondary function might mostly carry the opposite attitude in the case say of the "pure types" you mentioned (one could argue they _don't have an auxiliary _but I don't think that's how it would normally happen in such types, I think there would still be an auxiliary function, i.e. judging function that's primary for the Pi-dom for instance even if they're still quite at odds with it).



To your question, I pose another one: if consciousness is given by the attitude of say, _rationality_, how can it be possible for two functions of opposite orientation (rationality/irrationality) to be conscious? Do rationality and irrationality oppose each other less somehow than do introversion/extraversion?


----------



## bearotter

Basically in the portraits that we know and love, the types are essentially something like consciousness = introversion, irrational, + a subtype of irrational given by which kind of irrationality. However, these things go out the window as we start examining real examples, but the ideas remain enlightening.


----------



## PaladinX

bearotter said:


> @_PaladinX_: I think the answer to that is consciousness =/= introversion/extraversion as a black box perhaps, because there are people roughly as influenced by the inside as outside.
> 
> Also, even if one doesn't consider this, I think a relatively unconscious secondary function might mostly carry the opposite attitude in the case say of the "pure types" you mentioned (one could argue they _don't have an auxiliary _but I don't think that's how it would normally happen in such types, I think there would still be an auxiliary function, i.e. judging function that's primary for the Pi-dom for instance even if they're still quite at odds with it).


I thought of that before. I brought it up here once. I found @reckful's two subsequent responses convincing. I can still see it from three sides: TiSeNiFe - TiSiNeFe - Ti+S, N+Fe. Since most people will go with the first ISTP configuration, I choose to play devil's advocate and argue from the second perspective.

I think that it is ridiculous to try and type people based on the logic of type dynamics. For example, when people try to type comedian Russell Brand as an ENTP because he apparently displays great Fe. If his primary function is Ne and his second most used function is value-based rather than logic-based, that makes him an ENFP, regardless of Fi or Fe. Just like all the INFJs that are self-typed as such because they believe they possess a strong Ni and Ti, therefore INFJ is the closest configuration. Or even typing Jung as an INFJ for this reasoning, even though he has stated in an interview that he used Thinking and Intuition.

Personally, I think the third option is more likely, where the ISTP's sensing function hovers between the two orientations. This is also what makes the dichotomies approach really appealing. If you ignore the logic of type dynamics, it doesn't matter if an ISTP is a TiSe or TiSi or TiS.



> To your question, I pose another one: if consciousness is given by the attitude of say, _rationality_, how can it be possible for two functions of opposite orientation (rationality/irrationality) to be conscious? Do rationality and irrationality oppose each other less somehow than do introversion/extraversion?


I'm inclined to agree with Jung's comment on the matter:



Jung said:


> The differentiation into rational and irrational types is another point of view, and has nothing to do with introversion and extraversion.


I think this opposition can be looked at within the realm of consciousness or unconsciousness, rather than the psyche as a whole.


----------



## reckful

bearotter said:


> The reason I ask this at all is that I think those questions would perhaps have a somewhat *closer meaning to the terms thinking, feeling, sensing, intuiting did originally* than do the dichotomy dimensions of the official MBTI.
> 
> I think it would be for instance instructive to use this sort of dual typing approach to clear up this whole silly debate of "DO PEOPLE MISTYPE AS N's" because well, it depends what you mean, right?
> 
> Like "I'm a *keys2cognition ST* but an official MBTI NT" and "I'm an IP for sure".


My attitude, as I think you know, is that the reason the modern MBTI dichotomies differ in many respects from Jung's original conceptions is that Jung got a lot wrong and many worthy improvements have been made in the years since.

So I don't see any respectable reason for designing a test instrument that leaves any of that progress behind.

And I'd also note that, if you're talking about using the keys2cognition test (or just about any modern cognitive functions test, for that matter), you're not really talking about either Jung's original conceptions of the functions (or Jung's functions model) in any case.


----------



## bearotter

@_reckful_ ok, though that's why I'd suggest having both rather than just one. In what respect for instance do you believe that someone who would prefer retrieving information as conveyed by the senses to information as conveyed by intuition, but whose thinking is inclined to conceptual deductions about the data they obtain, should be classified an N over an S to the point where it would be leaving progress behind to designate them as anything else (as they very well might score on the official MBTI)? Let's assume said individual prefers theory courses to fact courses, somewhat prefers abstract to concrete (but you gotta choose one on the test). Let's assume they prefer ideas. But that they, say, don't prefer possibilities to certainties. Seems like this would be a typical way someone might score N over S. 

Regarding the last bit: yes like I've said keys2cognition can use a lot of improvement in representing functions clearly. I certainly meant "using it" more as a paradigm, using the rules of thumb of ignoring its ability to test for attitudes of functions for one thing.


----------



## bearotter

I know you believe ol' J got a lot wrong, but you also seem to think he got a lot right, or am I wrong in saying that? If you're calling Myers' work building on his stuff then I'd assume you do think he got something right worth to build on.


----------



## reckful

bearotter said:


> I know you believe ol' J got a lot wrong, but you also seem to think he got a lot right, or am I wrong in saying that? If you're calling Myers' work building on his stuff then I'd assume you do think he got something right worth to build on.


If you want the long version of why I value Psychological Types, see the first spoiler in this post.

More briefly, Jung wrote the book when he was in his 40s, at which point he'd spent many years being struck by the spectacular variety of respects in which it seemed to him that there were _two kinds of people in the world_. And many of those personality characteristics are ones that are now recognized to be part of the relatively hardwired clusters that make up the MBTI dichotomies and Big Five factors.

And as an added bonus, Jung had what you might call a novelist's gift for bringing those aspects of personality to vivid life.

Buut... in slotting those personality characteristics into an overly-schematic system of two "perceiving functions" and two "judging functions," each of which could manifest in either an introverted or extraverted form and so on, Jung did a lot of mis-categorization. As one example, he included a large part of what we now think of as the MBTI S/N dimension in his broad notion of what extraversion and introversion involved. He viewed abstract thinking as one of the core aspects of introversion, and said that extraverts — ES's and EN's both — tended to be relatively poor abstract thinkers because their extraversion kept them too thoroughly immersed in the "concretistic" world of physical facts. And I'd say the misplaced S/N stuff didn't even make up the majority of the personality characteristics that Jung wrongly bundled into his overinclusive descriptions of extraversion and introversion.

Nonetheless, it's my understanding that Mr. Jung, in doing the best job (and by a long shot, as far as I know) that anybody up until 1921 had ever done in gathering together, and vividly describing, many of those hard-wired personality characteristics, gave the world a very valuable book, notwithstanding his many mistakes. Briggs and Myers later did an admirable job of (mostly) separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff, and they had quite a few insights that went beyond Jung, and they did a much better job than Jung (based on statistical analysis of thousands of MBTI tests) of grouping the characteristics in the right clusters. But, although I think Myers was somewhat disingenuously modest about the extent to which her typology improved on Jung, I don't think there's any good reason to doubt that the MBTI as we know it today would either never have existed or been a much more limited typology if Jung hadn't written Psychological Types.


----------



## bearotter

@_reckful_: food for thought, I think one big place for "improvement"/ a source of lack of clarity is it's hard to tell what version of the original types would manifest when auxiliaries are present. 
For instance, I daresay a thinking type with a strong auxiliary sensation will look markedly different in many ways from the thinking type portrayed with relatively inferior sensing and intuiting and feeling function. 

Basically the heart of the matter is, as you and others have stated, seems like none of us knows what the original ol' J _really_ thought about the "16" types (with auxiliaries) with full definiteness, or how they'd really look, or if he was even interested in categorizing this. I mean sure, there's mention of an "artistic intuition" and all that but that's nothing as we all know to really go off of. 

I cannot however call the new typology an improvement because I remain very convinced there are significant differences in content, not all of which are strict improvements given to me an improvement would have to imply not discarding what I'd call conceptually clear ideas whilst recategorizing and adding things to create proper dimensions. 

And I'd say the S-N vs sensation-intuition as function is one case where I think a clear idea has been kind of done away with, albeit to a statistically perhaps sound outcome. 
As for I-E, I certainly think the dichotomies have thrown out some content key to the cognitive type version, content that I don't think is meaningless (even if conflated, I'd say it should have been properly designated elsewhere if I were to call the new version strictly an improvement).


----------



## bearotter

That said, it's of course up to you whether any aspect of the stuff that's sort of been done away with was worth keeping. I think it's safe to say though that there wasn't just reorganizing but that the contents have also changed.


----------



## PaladinX

reckful said:


> Jung did a lot of mis-categorization. As one example, he included a large part of what we now think of as the MBTI S/N dimension in his broad notion of what extraversion and introversion involved. He viewed abstract thinking as one of the core aspects of introversion, and said that extraverts — ES's and EN's both — tended to be relatively poor abstract thinkers because their extraversion kept them too thoroughly immersed in the "concretistic" world of physical facts. And I'd say the misplaced S/N stuff didn't even make up the majority of the personality characteristics that Jung wrongly bundled into his overinclusive descriptions of extraversion and introversion.


I could be wrong, but I don't think Jung ever said that Introverts were necessarily abstract thinkers. He said that Introversion and any function in service to Introversion was an abstraction. Si, Ni, Ti, Fi are abstract but are not necessarily synonymous with abstract thinking (except maybe Ti).


----------



## reckful

PaladinX said:


> I could be wrong, but I don't think Jung ever said that Introverts were necessarily abstract thinkers. He said that Introversion and any function in service to Introversion was an abstraction. Si, Ni, Ti, Fi are abstract but are not necessarily synonymous with abstract thinking (except maybe Ti).


Jung spent more of Psychological Types describing — and purporting to explain — introversion and extraversion than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. For Jung, the core inner dynamic that caused introversion in the first place involved a projection of negative unconscious contents by the introvert onto the people and things of the external world, which in turn caused the introvert to falsely perceive that those people and things were charged with negative energy (libido), which in turn caused the introvert to feel threatened by those people and things, and fear them, and mount a defense which took the form of, among other things, (1) avoidance, and (2) a process of "abstraction" by which the introvert reduced people and things to their abstract qualities, thereby (as Jung saw it) "withdrawing libido from the object ... to prevent the object from gaining power over him."

In the first chapter, describing the ways in which several of the bitterest doctrinal controversies in the early Christian church reflected the E/I divide, Jung wrote that beneath those controversies "lies the great psychological schism. The one position attaches supreme value and importance to the sensuously perceptible, whose subject, though it may not always be human and personal, is nevertheless always a projected human sensation; the other maintains that the chief value lies with the abstract and extra-human, whose subject is the function; in other words, with the objective process of nature, that runs its course determined by impersonal law, beyond human sensation, of which it is the actual foundation."

"The man who is oriented to the idea [— i.e., the introvert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of the idea," Jung explained. "But the man who is oriented to the object [— i.e., the extravert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of sensation. For him the abstract is of secondary importance, since what must be thought about things seems to him relatively inessential, while for the former it is just the reverse."

As you noted, the same abstract/concrete dichotomy is _also_ reflected in Jung's conceptions of the introverted and extraverted forms of each function, with the introverted form being oriented toward the inner world of abstract ideas, values, etc. and the extraverted form being oriented toward the physical world. For example: As further discussed in this post, Jung described a Te-dom's thinking as "concretistic," and hence overly tied down by the "facts" and "objective data" at the expense of abstract "interpretation" of the facts. And conversely, and as further described in this post, Jung described Ti-doms as being highly abstract thinkers who, as a result, were prone to be overly dismissive of the facts.

And, as I said, we now know that Jung was wrong to associate introversion and an abstract orientation, on the one hand, and extraversion and a concrete orientation, on the other hand. There are abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and no significant statistical correlation between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N.

If you're interested, you'll find a lot more on all this in two back-and-forths I had with Naama. The first just includes this post and this post; and the second involves more posts (and many Jung quotes) and starts here.


----------



## PaladinX

@reckful

There is a contextual difference in the way that Jung and Myers are using the term 'abstract.' The difference is that Jung is focused on the internal process itself and Myers is focused on the perception of the external behaviour.

N is about abstract possibilities, because it is concerned with perceptions beyond the facts of the here and now. Jung makes the distinction that Ne is still tied to the actuality of things, making it concrete in nature, as where Ni is about ideational associations, which is abstract in nature.

S is about concrete reality, because it is only concerned with the here and now. Jung makes the distinction that Si is abstract in that it is focused on the aesthetic impression of the here and now; whereas Se is focused on the objective experience of the here and now, making it more concrete it nature.

In my opinion, the categorical distinctions are not wrong from either standpoint. Just different. Myers' distinction, however, will fall in line with what the common person would agree with and is thus more relevant considering the subjective nature of the instrument.

The S/N distinction is independent of one's abstract thinking ability. Thinking is an act of reasoning, not perception. And again, I don't think Jung ever specifically stated that Introverts were necessarily abstract thinkers.


----------



## reckful

PaladinX said:


> The S/N distinction is independent of one's abstract thinking ability. Thinking is an act of reasoning, not perception. And again, I don't think Jung ever specifically stated that Introverts were necessarily abstract thinkers.


Here, again, is Jung describing what he viewed as a fundamental difference — arguably, for him, _the_ fundamental difference — between extraverts and introverts:



Jung said:


> The man who is oriented to the idea [— i.e., the introvert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of the idea. But the man who is oriented to the object [— i.e., the extravert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of sensation. *For him the abstract is of secondary importance, since what must be thought about things seems to him relatively inessential, while for the former it is just the reverse.*"


Jung here equates "the abstract" with "the idea" and "what must be *thought* about things," and says that, for introverts, that's their essential orientation toward the world — compared to which the actual world of people and things is "relatively inessential."

There's no question that this is Jung using "thought" in the more general sense, rather than tying it specifically to the Thinking function. And that's how I was using it, obviously, when I noted that Jung "viewed abstract thinking as one of the core aspects of introversion" for _all_ the introverted types. So if, in saying that Jung didn't consider introverts "abstract thinkers," you're using "thinker" in the sense of Jung's Thinking function — and therefore saying that, in that sense, Jung only really associated "abstract thinking" with Ti — then you and I are just talking past each other in that respect.

Again, though, my main point was that, whether you call the mental "abstracting" that Jung said introverts did "thinking" or not, the distinction Jung made between the people for whom "sensation" (the actual, non-abstracted world of people and things) was their "essential" orientation and the people for whom "the abstract" (and "the idea" and "what must be thought about things") was their essential orientation is a distinction that Myers found did _not_ correlate with extraversion/introversion and moved to the MBTI S/N dichotomy.

I mostly agree with your characterizations of Jung's view of Ni, Ne, Si and Se, except that you say, "S is ... only concerned with the here and now. Jung makes the distinction that Si is abstract in that it is focused on the aesthetic impression of the here and now." Actually, Jung viewed Se as focused on the here and now, but viewed Si as focused largely on the _past and future._ Here's how he described it:



Jung said:


> Introverted sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, of the primordial images which, in their totality, constitute a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, _sub specie aeternitatis_, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them. ... We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it *the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn*. The bare sense impression develops in depth, *reaching into the past and future, while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day*.


----------



## PaladinX

reckful said:


> There's no question that this is Jung using "thought" in the more general sense, rather than tying it specifically to the Thinking function. And that's how I was using it, obviously, when I noted that Jung "viewed abstract thinking as one of the core aspects of introversion" for _all_ the introverted types. So if, in saying that Jung didn't consider introverts "abstract thinkers," you're using "thinker" in the sense of Jung's Thinking function — and therefore saying that, in that sense, Jung only really associated "abstract thinking" with Ti — then you and I are just talking past each other in that respect.



Touché! Who is making the contextual errors now... :blushed:


----------



## PaladinX

@reckful



> Introverted sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, of the primordial images which, in their totality, constitute a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them. ... We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn. *The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future, *while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day.


What do you suppose he means by reaching into the past and future? Is this the same as relating previous experience to predict future outcomes? Well not necessarily predict the future, but along the lines of "history is doomed to repeat itself" kind of way? I don't mean in a reasoning way, but in a perceptual way (if that makes any sense).


----------



## reckful

PaladinX said:


> @reckful
> 
> What do you suppose he means by reaching into the past and future? Is this the same as relating previous experience to predict future outcomes? Well not necessarily predict the future, but along the lines of "history is doomed to repeat itself" kind of way? I don't mean in a reasoning way, but in a perceptual way (if that makes any sense).


I dunno. Jung called Si-doms (together with Ni-doms) "the most useless of men" from the perspective of actual real-world accomplishments, and I've long thought of Jung's Si descriptions as the "most useless" of his eight function descriptions. :tongue:

I'd say Jung's Ni-dom description is more of a positive/negative mix, and it's Ni-doms, not Si-doms, who Jung mainly credits with having an ability to have prophetic visions of the future — although he also says the Ni-dom is relatively likely to just be an unheeded "voice crying in the wilderness" because he'll fail to sufficiently "adapt" his vision to "present-day reality," with the result that he "remains uncomprehended."

Don't forget that, although Jung said Si-dom's "primordial images" somehow reflected "age-old" experience, he didn't think they bore much resemblance (or useful resemblance, anyway) to present reality. On the contrary: Jung referred to "the reality-alienating subjectivity of this type," said that an Si-dom "has an illusory conception of reality," and said that the relation between the actual physical world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it is "unpredictable and arbitrary." And as for whether Jung thought a typical Si-dom might be capable of visions of _future events_ that were somehow less "illusory" or "arbitrary" — you're free to speculate but, as I said, I suspect time spent pondering Jung's Si descriptions may fail to qualify as time well spent.


----------



## Eric B

PaladinX said:


> @_reckful_
> 
> There is a contextual difference in the way that Jung and Myers are using the term 'abstract.' The difference is that Jung is focused on the internal process itself and Myers is focused on the perception of the external behaviour.
> 
> N is about abstract possibilities, because it is concerned with perceptions beyond the facts of the here and now. Jung makes the distinction that Ne is still tied to the actuality of things, making it concrete in nature, as where Ni is about ideational associations, which is abstract in nature.
> 
> S is about concrete reality, because it is only concerned with the here and now. Jung makes the distinction that Si is abstract in that it is focused on the aesthetic impression of the here and now; whereas Se is focused on the objective experience of the here and now, making it more concrete it nature.
> 
> In my opinion, the categorical distinctions are not wrong from either standpoint. Just different. Myers' distinction, however, will fall in line with what the common person would agree with and is thus more relevant considering the subjective nature of the instrument.
> 
> The S/N distinction is independent of one's abstract thinking ability. Thinking is an act of reasoning, not perception. And again, I don't think Jung ever specifically stated that Introverts were necessarily abstract thinkers.





reckful said:


> Here, again, is Jung describing what he viewed as a fundamental difference — arguably, for him, _the_ fundamental difference — between extraverts and introverts:
> 
> 
> 
> Jung here equates "the abstract" with "the idea" and "what must be *thought* about things," and says that, for introverts, that's their essential orientation toward the world — compared to which the actual world of people and things is "relatively inessential."
> 
> There's no question that this is Jung using "thought" in the more general sense, rather than tying it specifically to the Thinking function. And that's how I was using it, obviously, when I noted that Jung "viewed abstract thinking as one of the core aspects of introversion" for _all_ the introverted types. So if, in saying that Jung didn't consider introverts "abstract thinkers," you're using "thinker" in the sense of Jung's Thinking function — and therefore saying that, in that sense, Jung only really associated "abstract thinking" with Ti — then you and I are just talking past each other in that respect.
> 
> Again, though, my main point was that, whether you call the mental "abstracting" that Jung said introverts did "thinking" or not, the distinction Jung made between the people for whom "sensation" (the actual, non-abstracted world of people and things) was their "essential" orientation and the people for whom "the abstract" (and "the idea" and "what must be thought about things") was their essential orientation is a distinction that Myers found did _not_ correlate with extraversion/introversion and moved to the MBTI S/N dichotomy.
> 
> I mostly agree with your characterizations of Jung's view of Ni, Ne, Si and Se, except that you say, "S is ... only concerned with the here and now. Jung makes the distinction that Si is abstract in that it is focused on the aesthetic impression of the here and now." Actually, Jung viewed Se as focused on the here and now, but viewed Si as focused largely on the _past and future._ Here's how he described it:


"Concrete" and "abstract" are very ambiguous terms that have multiple "levels" of meaning in this context.

"Concrete" means "all grown together". "Abstract" means separating out something or "abolishing distinctions" among things in order to focus on what they share in common, which can then be treated as an idea. 
So you have a bunch of stuff together, and you separate out of it. The original body is "concrete", and the processed product is "abstract".

Concrete initially means any function not differentiated, or very loosely, what we would call "undeveloped". It remains mixed in with the limbic system and is felt emotionally and imaginally or otherwise tied up with sensations. This is not the distinct S "_function_" at this point, but it is all mixed together.
When the function differentiates, it begins separating out the data it specializes in, whether tangible or conceptual [I use these instead of concrete/abstract for S/N], or technical or humane ["impersonal" for T is good, but "personal" is also too ambiguous to use for F]. So then, we say the function is "abstract". It's abstracting out the data what objects share in common: whether tangible, conceptual, technical or humane, and making "ideas" out of them. 

People and inanimate objects alike are physical things. So "physical" is an _idea_ of "tangibility" shared in common.
People will fall into various roles in the civilizations they make up. Each role is an _idea_ of a "concept" people share in common. 
People and inanimate objects alike have chemical properties. The chemical makeup is an _idea_ of technicality shared in common. 
People and inanimate objects all can have an affect on human well being. These affects are _ideas_ of human value shared in common.

Next, a function can turn outward to reference or even merge with the subject, or it can turn inward to an internal blueprint with which to "separate out" of the object that which is not relevant to the internal model. 
So now, we've _further_ abstracted from the data. The opposite of this in Jung's definitions, is not "concrete", but rather "empathetic", which is where the subject turns outward to add itself to the object, as he put it.

Finally, among the information gathering functions, we can focus on tangible things, which are "at hand" (even if now taken into the "internal storehouse"), or look for larger meanings (concepts) not at hand, but only inferred (whether from the internal storehouse, or directly from the external object itself). 
Hence, the familiar definitions of concrete/abstract as the S/N functions.

So it's not that one of these definitions is wrong; they just have to be kept clarified as to which "level" it's referring to.


----------



## reckful

Eric B said:


> Next, a function can turn outward to reference or even merge with the subject, or it can turn inward to an internal blueprint with which to "separate out" of the object that which is not relevant to the internal model.
> 
> So now, we've _further_ abstracted from the data. The opposite of this in Jung's definitions, is not "concrete", but rather "empathetic", which is where the subject turns outward to add itself to the object, as he put it.


As you've noted, Jung used abstract in two different ways (at least) in Psychological Types but, as I pointed out to you in this July post, _concrete_ was very much on the other side in both cases.

Setting aside Jung's use of abstract/concrete in connection with differentiated/undifferentiated functions and focusing on his association of abstract/concrete with introversion/extraversion: Jung's conceptions of the introverted and extraverted forms of each function involved the introverted form being oriented toward the inner world of abstract ideas, values, etc. and the extraverted form being oriented toward the physical ("concrete") world. For example: As further discussed in this post, Jung described a Te-dom's thinking as "concretistic," and hence overly tied down by the "facts" and "objective data" at the expense of abstract "interpretation" of the facts. And conversely, and as further described in this post, Jung described Ti-doms as being highly abstract thinkers who, as a result, were prone to be overly dismissive of the facts.

If you're interested, and as noted in the July post I linked to in the first paragraph, you can find quite a bit more on this issue (with lots of Jung quotes) in two back-and-forths I had with Naama.


----------



## bearotter

It would appear though that a lot of the kinds of issues you're taking with the old-fashioned introversion/extroversion including abstract/concrete are not that different from the issues I'm taking with placing abstract/concrete at the heart of the S/N dimension, because a preference for perception based on the senses doesn't exclude a penchant for the abstract and one may note that there's almost a laundry list of counter-examples, not just an isolated one. This becomes a prolific problem because actually, the abstract/concrete thing carries over to questions like "is always coming up with new ideas/has both feet on the ground" and "facts/ideas". 

There are "possibilities/certainties" also in the S/N dimension and other things which seem more directly to the function of intuition, which certainly in the old-fashioned sense was associated with allowing for a certain number of possibilities which the strong sensing preference may exclude. 

It seems hard to argue to me that the S/N MBTI dimension doesn't contain remnants of the old sensing/intuition _functions_ and yet it associates a whole host of things that have nothing in my mind to do with those old functions (nor did Jung think so....of course you may argue if you wish that he wrongly attributed these to introversion/extroversion which is a complicated matter to me given how much writing there was on that topic...but certainly this issue doesn't seem to be fixed by attributing these qualities to preference for sensing vs intuition).

I am happy to hear clarification as always.


----------



## Eric B

I think it's possible to be confusing the "extraverted" definition with the "undifferentiation" version. After all, there _is_ a *parallel*, in that the external world is concrete and perceived by the senses.


_"concretistic" thinking, by which he meant ideas that are very closely tied to external physical* facts*_
_"not abstract, not segregated, not thought 'in itself,' but ... still embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception."_

Did Jung actually say "facts"? In any case, this sounds like the definition for an undifferentiated function.

_Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education. _

That to me looks like it's making a distinction between the "extraversion" of the function, and something else that makes it "concretistic". It's possible for it to not be concretistic. 
If the function is undifferentiated, then it will be concretistic and remain solely tied to the senses, but if it is differentiated, it will be _abstracting_ those ideas borrowed from the outside. It will still take in the data through the senses, but then separate out the technical (impersonal "cause and effect", or "logical") aspects into a rational _idea_ beyond the pure senses. The education or traditions will have elements things share in common, used to make a rational decision on something.
It will *not* however, _further_ abstract according to an internal blueprint of rational order. It will remain focused on those external standards. This will be the difference between the extraverted and introverted orientations of the function.

It's also possible Jung simply wasn't consistent in his definitions. OR maybe he changed up on that one. In any case, "empathy" is still the most precise Jungian extraverted opposite of "abstract" for an introverted function.


----------



## bearotter

@_Eric B_: edit hah, I was going to say "well put" referring to a "last" line, dubious whether I was referring to the right thing.
But anyway very clearly put in totality.


----------



## reckful

Eric B said:


> I think it's possible to be confusing the "extraverted" definition with the "undifferentiation" version. After all, there _is_ a *parallel*, in that the external world is concrete and perceived by the senses.
> 
> 
> _"concretistic" thinking, by which he meant ideas that are very closely tied to external physical* facts*_
> _"not abstract, not segregated, not thought 'in itself,' but ... still embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception."_
> 
> Did Jung actually say "facts"? In any case, this sounds like the definition for an undifferentiated function.
> 
> _Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education. _
> 
> That to me looks like it's making a distinction between the "extraversion" of the function, and something else that makes it "concretistic". It's possible for it to not be concretistic.
> If the function is undifferentiated, then it will be concretistic and remain solely tied to the senses, but if it is differentiated, it will be _abstracting_ those ideas borrowed from the outside. It will still take in the data through the senses, but then separate out the technical (impersonal "cause and effect", or "logical") aspects into a rational _idea_ beyond the pure senses. The education or traditions will have elements things share in common, used to make a rational decision on something.
> It will *not* however, _further_ abstract according to an internal blueprint of rational order. It will remain focused on those external standards. This will be the difference between the extraverted and introverted orientations of the function.
> 
> It's also possible Jung simply wasn't consistent in his definitions. OR maybe he changed up on that one. In any case, "empathy" is still the most precise Jungian extraverted opposite of "abstract" for an introverted function.


As I explained to Naama _ad nauseum_ in the posts you apparently can't be bothered to read, Jung's "concretistic thinking" descriptions involve _Te-doms_. For Te-doms, extraverted thinking is not an "undifferentiated" function.

A Te-dom's thinking is "concretistic" because it's extraverted, not because it's undifferentiated.

This is not one of those issues on which reasonable readers of Jung can disagree.

As for the part about extraverted thinking "not necessarily" being "purely concretistic," I explained that to Naama as well. Jung explains that a Te-dom's thinking needn't be purely concretistic because he can "borrow" more abstract ideas from _other people_. So that sentence simply _reinforces_ Jung's point that a Te-dom's own thinking processes are sufficiently "concretistic" — and his abstracting capabilities accordingly crippled — that he isn't very likely to come up with truly "ideal thinking" on his own.

I really think you ought to read those posts of mine in Naama's thread (which have lots of Jung quotes) before you do any more posting yourself on this issue. Better yet, you might consider reading _all of_ Psychological Types — not just Chapter X — since quite a lot of the extraversion/introversion concrete/abstract stuff is outside Chapter X.


----------



## Eric B

I know they involved Te doms in those quotes, but the functions can be undifferentiated for a Te dom. Undifferentiated doesn't necessarily mean "unpreferred", if that's what you're thinking. An example is a young child, where the dominant hasn't "developed" yet. I'm sure there are other cases Jung could be discussing, such as "primitive" people, as an example of the "primitive" functions (see below).

Yes, I can read Jung more, but he is easy to misunderstand and misinterpret, so that may not solve the disagreement with your position. Like again, it looks like "borrowing ideas from other people" is simply describing [_differentiated_] Te's external (objective) standard, in which case it is "ideal" rather than "concretistic"; in which state it wouldn't even be able to do that much. 

You cite "abstracting capabilities accordingly crippled". Does that mean Te in itself is entirely "mixed together"? Then you couldn't even really identify its products as "Thinking". They would be all "mixed up together" with everything else. I remember Naama giving you this quote from Jung:




> "There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities ... Abstract feeling does the same with ... its feeling-values. ... I put abstract feelings on the same level as abstract thoughts. ... Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition."



The opposite of this (from Chapter XI: Psychological Types - Wikisocion)


> ConcretismBy this term I understand a definite peculiarity of _thought_ and _feeling_ which represents the antithesis to abstraction. The actual meaning of concrete is 'grown together'. A concretely-thought concept is one that has *grown together or coalesced with other concepts*. Such a concept is not abstract, not isolated, and independently thought, but always impure and related. It is not a differentiated concept, but is still embedded in the sense-conveyed material of perception. Concretistic thinking moves among exclusively concrete concepts and views; it is *constantly related to sensation*. Similarly concretistic feeling is *never free from sensuous relatedness*.
> *Primitive *thinking and feeling are exclusively concretistic; they are always related to sensation. The thought of the primitive has no detached independence, but clings to the material phenomenon. The most he can do is to raise it to the level of _analogy_. Primitive feeling is always equally related to the material phenomenon. His thought and feeling depend upon sensation and are only faintly differentiated from it Concretism, therefore, is an archaism (j.v.). The magical influence of the fetish is not experienced as a subjective state of feeling, but sensed as a magical effect. This is the concretism of feeling. The primitive does not experience the idea of divinity as a subjective content, but the sacred tree is the habitat—nay, even the deity' himself. This is concretism of thinking. With civilized man, concretism of thought consists in the inability to conceive of anything which differs from the immediately obvious external facts, or in the inability to discriminate subjective feeling from the sense-given object.
> Concretism is a concept which falls under the more general concept of "participation mystique" (q.v.). Just as "participation mystique" represents a fusion of the individual with outer objects, so concretism represents a *mixing-up of thought and feeling with sensation*. It is a state of concretism when the *object of thinking and feeling is at the same time also an object of sensation*. This coalescence prevents a differentiation of thought and feeling, anchoring both functions within the sphere of sensation, i.e. *sensuous relatedness*; accordingly they can *never be developed into pure functions*, but must always remain the mere retainers of sensation. The result of this is a predominance of the factor of sensation in the psychological orientation. (Concerning the importance of the factor of sensation v. Sensation; Types).
> The disadvantage of concretism is the subjection of function to sensation. Because sensation is the perception of physiological stimuli, concretism either rivets the function to the sphere of sense or constantly leads it back there. The effect of this is a sensual subjection of the psychological functions, favouring the influence of external facts *at the expense of individual psychic autonomy*. From the standpoint of the recognition of facts, this orientation is, of course, valuable, but from the standpoint of the interpretation of facts and their relation to the individual it is definitely prejudicial. Concretism produces a state where facts gain the paramount importance, thereby suppressing the individuality and its freedom in favour of the objective process. But since the individual is not only determined by physiological stimuli, but also by factors which may even be opposed to the external fact, concretism effects a projection of these inner factors into the outer fact, thus provoking an almost superstitious overvaluation of mere facts, as is precisely the case with the primitive. A good example of this is seen in Nietzsche, whose concretism of feeling resulted in an excessive valuation of diet; the materialism of Moleschott is a similar instance ("Man is what he eats"). An example of the superstitious overvaluation of facts is also provided by the hypostasizing of the concept of energy in the monism of Ostwald.


 That is not simply an "extraverted" attitude of the functions. Though extraversion may share the "objective" aspect of this, this clearly is describing something beyond that; what he calls a "primitive" [that's the key word] function. The "concretism" of Neitzsche's Feeling produced an *excessive* valuation; not a _normal_ "extraverted" valuation.


----------

