# The entire MBTI/typing community is a mess, and you know it



## tosakski (Jan 17, 2019)

What ultimately matters? Is it your MBTI letters (dichotomy) that have the biggest influence on your behavior, or is it your functions that have the biggest influence on your behavior?

Does MBTI (and/or functions) even define your behavior to begin with? Or does it only define your cognition, aka the way you perceive and interpret the world, but not necessarily the way you choose to interact with it?

Is it possible to have 2 people with the same MBTI type, but with a different set of functions?

Can you have one type, but act as a completely different type simply because you're "unhealthy"?

Should "loops" be defined as the unhealthy "sub-type" of an otherwise existing healthy type? Or are "loops" in fact representative of a completely separate type? 

Can a person's type (and/or functions) be determined by his eye movements, or by the way his speech or text is structured?

If it's your MBTI letters that have the biggest influence on your behavior, then what's the point of having functions around at all? And given how extremely simple the entire typing system becomes once you remove functions from the equation and just stick to the MBTI letters, should something so childishly simple be taken seriously?

If we go by the theory that dichotomy is strictly locked to a particular pattern of functions, then what's the point of having MBTI letters around to begin with?

If we go by the theory that both MBTI letters and functions are (loosely or strongly) interconnected to some uncertain degree, then should for example I/E be defined by the dominant function? Or should it be defined by whether a person's dominant temperament (P or J) is focused inwardly (Pi/Ji) or outwardly (Pe/Je)? Or is extroversion/introversion entirely dependent on how open or reclusive a person is in relation to his environment? Or should it be defined based on whether the outward or inward worlds are the person's primary source of stress relief?

Is it even logically conceivable (all things considered) for a person's dominant function to be less developed than his auxiliary, without simply just warranting a different type (or hierarchy of functions) to begin with?

The questions mentioned above don't even begin to scratch the surface of the big fuzzy ball of mysteries and contradictions that the MBTI community deals with on a daily basis. However, a lot of people seem to have their very own unique answers to these questions, and many proceed to type, debate, argue while presuming their very own unique interpretation of MBTI (and/or functions) as a self-evident constant of truth.
This in turn leads to the inevitable result that even though we are all speaking English here, we in fact are speaking completely different conceptual languages, often without declaring their differences. By any sense or logic of any form of science, or even communication for that matter, the vast majority of things being said about typology and type on this forum becomes utterly useless. In fact, it kind of reminds me of the state of the international heraldic art community - which is governed by amateurs who had seen or read a few books on heraldry, and instantly assumed themselves to be experts on what should or shouldn't be allowed in the depiction of a coat of arms, which inevitability resulted in complete irreversible chaos in the perception and interpretation of this form of art world-wide.

So why are we still here? And could someone for god's sake do something about it?
I don't know, like, gather all of the "greatest minds" from all of the online MBTI forums and hold a democratic referendum on what defines dichotomy and functions, and then just create one unified website that details all of those new found rules? You can't build, define, or understand any kind of system nor science, if you don't have at least a limited amount of universal constants. And until those constants are agreed upon by the majority, there can be absolutely no talk of varying typing methods or interpretations.


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

Cliffnotes please... Or not and I save a little time ; )


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

If you've been led to believe that personality typologies pretty much just exist in some _theoretical ether_ where everybody's entitled to their own perspective, and nobody can claim that their perspective is any more valid (or, heaven forbid, "scientific") than any other, then you've been _misled_.

There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the MBTI and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category. And the MBTI can actually point to years of studies that basically put it on a par (psychometrically speaking) with the Big Five.

If you're interested, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post.

That said, tho... it must be noted that the respectable districts of the MBTI are the dichotomy-centric districts, rather than the "cognitive functions" (_aka_ "type dynamics") districts, and I've put some recycled reckful on that subject in the spoiler.


* *




Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took _Psychological Types_ and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the _science_ of personality.

And it's reasonably clear that Myers, despite quite a bit of lip service to Jung and the functions, came to understand (based on her many years of data-gathering) that the dichotomies were the essential components of Jungian/MBTI type. I agree with James Reynierse, an MBTI practitioner who has rightly (IMO) concluded — in a 2009 article ("The Case Against Type Dynamics") in the journal published by the official MBTI folks — that the eight faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" that people like Linda Berens love to talk about are best viewed as nothing more than a "category mistake."

And contrary to the notion that a function-centric perspective offers more richness and depth than a (properly framed) dichotomy-centric perspective, and as Reynierse explains in that linked article, it's actually the dichotomy-centric perspective that's richer and more flexible.

On a more specific, stack-related note, the forum-famous model that says that INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, (and ZOMG, INTJs and INTPs have _no functions in common_) is the Harold Grant function stack — and it's a model that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. More importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, that function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but _disproven_ at this point, given that the correlational patterns associated with it have stubbornly failed to show up in over 50 years of MBTI data pools.

The notion that, if you're a "Ti type," you're also an "Fe type" — and ditto for the Te/Fi, Ni/Se and Ne/Si pairs (the so-called "function axes," or "tandems") — is also a by-product of the Grant model, and it's nonsense.

If you're ever in the mood for a hefty helping of input on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, and the unbearable bogosity of the Grant function stack, you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this Typology Central post and the posts it links to.

[NOTE: The final link at the end of that linked post is no longer functional (since the owner has taken INTJforum private), but you can find a long replacement excerpt from the INTJforum post — describing the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI — in the spoiler in this post.]


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

MBTI and Cognitive functions work in parallel to put people into 16 stereotypes (boxes). If you don’t see the value in categorising things then you wont see the value. people have different values the last time I checked. The fact you can subjectively measure two separate dichotomies to arrive at the same result is where the power lies. MBTI is simple but inaccurate, however using it to pick the low hanging fruit and narrow down the possibilities allows you to use the more complex cognitive function methodology for a second round of differential analysis. As a microbiologist, differential analysis is my bread and butter, so typeing people is a fairly simple process for me, Self typing on the other hand is fraught with danger as most people are blind to bias and lack scientific training to interpret things in an objective fashion. Peoples biases or tells are a 3rd layer for type identification. I find writing styles to be highly informative. 

The basis of the 16 types appears to be a simple genetic setup, with the Ne/Si and Ni/Se alleles in one loci, and the Fe/Ti and Fi/Te alleles in another. Inheritance patterns are obvious. What determines Expression order is has yet to be determined, other than there being a F vs T preference for Females vs Males. Your Ne/Si and Ni/Se type does indeed get expressed as uncounscious eye movements, and your dominant functions shows up in brain use pattens. 

Other than being an interesting subject and a way to connect with people you have a preference for, having a working knowledge or the 16 types, 8 dominant functions, ect allows you to better understand and thus tolerated differences and therefor work better and more forgivingly with people.

Finally MBTI and Cognitive function analysis is a difined methodology, Its not something you get to vote on and change because you don’t understand it. Everyone has the option of building their own model with as few or as many boxes as you want. Just promise me you wont try to kill people for not being in your box, thats uncool.


----------



## Emancipation (Jan 24, 2019)

I think that you're taking this way too seriously lol. :witless: Most people just use MBTI in an attempt to get to know themselves better, knowing that none of the 16 personalities will fully describe who they are as human beings. It's clearly a pretty good tool since just by scrolling through the type forums you can notice how many INTJs think alike, how many ENFPs think alike etc.

Some people are too anal about it and try to make MBTI a science... "wait, I'm an INFJ but I was completely living in the moment at that party. Does that mean I'm actually an Se dominant type or did my inferior function take over??? WTF???" ...but people do stupid shit every day, every where - not sure why you're suprised that it happens in the MBTI community. :laughing:

btw, what an ENTP thread to make. we LOOOVE a good devil's advocate - a person on a site dedicated to mbti complaining about mbti :smile:


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

MBTI was a mistake.


----------



## BenjiMac (Aug 7, 2017)

I think most people accept that four spectra presented as binaries are not going to provide a complete and in-depth insight into a person - my take-away has always been to see it as something of a rule-of.thumb, ballpark guideline for corporate hiring. In that at least it seems more useful than some other hiring practices, such as in Japan where your blood group could once (and maybe still can) dictate how suitable you were considered for certain roles.

The most widespread typology tests are basically there to help make simple categorising decisions on candidates - their role suitability, potential to clash with other people, good strategies to manage them.

As an aside, what I've found weird over my last two years or so of interest in personality psychology and typing is that the one system I'd consider the most hippy-bullshit pseudosciencey of them all - the enneagram, has actually proven the most detailled and reliably accurate for me. Of course, everyone's mileage may vary but genuinely, I've found enneagram the ost detailled and helpful personally and I have no idea as to why save for random chance. That said, I suppose it does take nine categories of people and view them as aspects of humanity as a whole and considers their strengths, weaknesses, roles and interactions as part of a wider system which is probably a good place to start.


----------



## tosakski (Jan 17, 2019)

@reckful @Shrodingers drink @Emancipation

That's all fine and dandy and interesting and informative. But the reality at the bottom line is, that once actually any of you get into typing someone (or yourself for that matter), you have no idea what you're doing.

I'm not questioning MBTI's/functions' standing as a science, soft science or pseudo science. I'm questioning how can you categorize something, when neither of you agree even on the very fundamental founding principles of the system?

I've seen veteran typer reckful fairly confidently typing someone as an INFJ, whilst half of the other side of the community typed the same person as an I/ENTJ. And a few very dedicated typers assuming the same person to be an ESTJ. This only means one thing - the community (including the veterans) focus on completely different criteria in their typing attempts - which in turn produces a lot of apples who assume themselves to be oranges, a lot of oranges who assume themselves to be bananas, and a lot of bananas who assume themselves to be sex toys.
And so then you have a basket filled with every fruit imaginable, claiming to be bananas, and sharing their psychological experiences and life difficulties as a banana. Well, if that's the fruit market we live in, then categorizing fruit into categories doesn't matter anymore, because every single time we'll end up with a fruit salad anyway.


----------



## BenjiMac (Aug 7, 2017)

Of course, if you are looking for something with general scientific validity, then you have the Big 5 on one level - which to my knowledge has some fairly hefty credibility among most psychologists and seems to have some reliable correlation to real world outcomes - right the way up to the specialised and lengthy testing instruments out there, but having taken one or two they are impossible to interpret as a laymen.


----------



## Emancipation (Jan 24, 2019)

tosakski said:


> @reckful @Shrodingers drink @Emancipation
> 
> That's all fine and dandy and interesting and informative. But the reality at the bottom line is, that once actually any of you get into typing someone (or yourself for that matter), you have no idea what you're doing.
> 
> I'm not questioning MBTI's/functions' standing as a science, soft science or pseudo science. I'm questioning how can you categorize something, when neither of you agree even on the very fundamental founding principles of the system?


I wish you addressed all of us specifically :crying: I agree with that though. That's why I didn't put my type up and openly confess I have no clue what it is (maybe ESFP but idk). I'm just saying it's fun anyway and that, in it's own silly way, it leads people to think more about who they really are.


----------



## tosakski (Jan 17, 2019)

BenjiMac said:


> Of course, if you are looking for something with general scientific validity, then you have the Big 5 on one level - which to my knowledge has some fairly hefty credibility among most psychologists and seems to have some reliable correlation to real world outcomes - right the way up to the specialised and lengthy testing instruments out there, but having taken one or two they are impossible to interpret as a laymen.


I'm not looking for scientific validity, I'm looking for consistency. If MBTI is a grouping/typing system, then the very first fundamental feature it needs to have is a set of at least some solid universally agreed and used criteria in order for any form of grouping/typing to be even possible. Because if you have a grouping system with no shared grouping criteria, then that's like having a plane without wings, in which case it's not a plane, and it's not a grouping/typing system either.

I know about the Big Five. But the point of my thread was to find collective methods to get MBTI sorted.


----------



## BenjiMac (Aug 7, 2017)

tosakski said:


> I'm not looking for scientific validity, I'm looking for consistency. If MBTI is a grouping/typing system, then the very first fundamental feature it needs to have is a set of at least some solid universally agreed and used criteria in order for any form of grouping/typing to be even possible. Because if you have a grouping system with no shared grouping criteria, then that's like having a plane without wings, in which case it's not a plane, and it's not a grouping/typing system either.
> 
> I know about the Big Five. But the point of my thread was to find collective methods to get MBTI sorted.


It does have criteria and definitions - the fuzziness comes from people's subjective view of their manifestation in the real world, or their attempts to view the system as far more comprehensiv than it is.

The issue is not the system, its the user.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

And all that would have been avoided if people actually went back to the original material and tried to understand the principles of it. Principles that got lost in the decades, because Myers and the rest misunderstood them and thought the attitude must change between perception and judgment, or that we must have "balance", which Jung specifically said can't happen. On top of that, Jung had issues in his work too, but it would be much more productive to solve them instead of creating more misunderstanding on top.

The function stack is utter bullshit and the MBTI dichotomies have issues with how they're confounded and defined, too. But between the two, the stack is the most horrible and unfounded that causes most of the issues in the community.


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

tosakski said:


> I'm not looking for scientific validity, I'm looking for consistency. If MBTI is a grouping/typing system, then the very first fundamental feature it needs to have is a set of at least some solid universally agreed and used criteria in order for any form of grouping/typing to be even possible. Because if you have a grouping system with no shared grouping criteria, then that's like having a plane without wings, in which case it's not a plane, and it's not a grouping/typing system either.
> 
> I know about the Big Five. But the point of my thread was to find collective methods to get MBTI sorted.


The chances of getting MBTI sorted is zero. Academics get in the way and you cant overturn peoples opinions with subjective data. Someone even stated that the Official MBTI group doesn’t recognise cognitive functions. For me the patterns of the 16 types are highly obvious, they can be tested 5 different ways and so far I have yet to find a single exception. Just because some people cant do something doesn’t mean others can’t. 

The only real question here is “Do you want to learn?”


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> And all that would have been avoided if people actually went back to the original material and tried to understand the principles of it. Principles that got lost in the decades, because Myers and the rest misunderstood them and thought the attitude must change between perception and judgment, or that we must have "balance", which Jung specifically said can't happen. On top of that, Jung had issues in his work too, but it would be much more productive to solve them instead of creating more misunderstanding on top.
> 
> The function stack is utter bullshit and the MBTI dichotomies have issues with how they're confounded and defined, too. But between the two, the stack is the most horrible and unfounded that causes most of the issues in the community.


The functional Stack is genius IMO. Its observable and conforms to genetic Inheritance. Can you explain your issues with it?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Shrodingers drink said:


> The functional Stack is genius IMO. Its observable and conforms to genetic Inheritance. Can you explain your issues with it?



Jung's Extraversion/Introversion scale was related to adaptability, and he believed adaptability is an independent developmental trait that encompasses a person's full personality, with their opposite attitude being repressed. The dominant and auxiliary functions share that attitude, because again, the attitude is not tied to the functions, it's a different trait. That's why he thought the functions are 4, not 8.

The function stack is not based on consistent principles and resulted by the decision of Myers to take Jung out of context in 1-2 sentences. One sentence in particular, in which he says the auxiliary is partially unconscious. But that was clearly out of context from the rest of his book, in which he was explaining how the repressed attitude is deeply in the unconscious and how there can be no balance between the attitudes. The switch Grant did to the tertiary was even more unfounded, because of that.

I recently found this thread here that goes in depth about it. Also this discussion is relevant.

I used to believe in the stack too, after initially being skeptical, because I thought heck they must say it for a reason, but then as the years passed I started finding more and more problems with it, since no, they didn't actually fit people's behaviors well. The problem is that when you believe it you force yourself to interpret things in that way, which is how a lot of the definitions have been twisted and discarded in order to actually fit them in types.


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

For ..sake! Have you ever read the official MBTI Manual? Any of you? The functions are CLEARLY stated there. 
If we can't beleive the MBTI manual then what we are left with? 
If someone wants to get acquianted with that book I can send it.

On one hand we have people who disregard functions, on the other there are blogs like mbti-notes which disregard dichotomies... 

I agree that MBTI community is a mess.


Books I've read so far:



_The Essentials of MBTI Assessment, 2Ed. _Quenk, N. 2009.
_Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. _Myers, I. 1995.
_Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual._ Thomson, L. 1998.
_Personality Types: Jung’s Model of Typology. _Sharp, D. 1987.
_Was that Really Me? How Everyday Stress Brings Out Our Hidden Personality._Quenk, N. 2002.
Pearman, R. _I’m Not Crazy, I’m Just Not You: The Real Meaning of the 16 Personality Types._

Berens, L. _Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the 4 Temperaments - 4.0_.
Haas, L. _Building Blocks of Personality Type: A Guide to Using the Eight-Process Model of Personality Type._


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> Jung's Extraversion/Introversion scale was related to adaptability, and he believed adaptability is an independent developmental trait that encompasses a person's full personality, with their opposite attitude being repressed. The dominant and auxiliary functions share that attitude, because again, the attitude is not tied to the functions, it's a different trait. That's why he thought the functions are 4, not 8.
> 
> The function stack is not based on consistent principles and resulted by the decision of Myers to take Jung out of context in 1-2 sentences. One sentence in particular, in which he says the auxiliary is partially unconscious. But that was clearly out of context from the rest of his book, in which he was explaining how the repressed attitude is deeply in the unconscious and how there can be no balance between the attitudes. The switch Grant did to the tertiary was even more unfounded, because of that.
> 
> ...


So was Jung’s adaptability supposed to be nature (genetic) or nurture. If its nature then inheritance should be present, if its nurture then we may have an apples and oranges situation where mutual exclusivity does not exist. I’m assuming most of his works was pre DNA discovery? For me Grants Stacks work in practice and I haven’t found anything to doubt their presence. To me the weakness of MBTI is that each dom/aux pairing has a different I/E and P/J leaning relative to mid point that its being measured against. Thus the ability to differentiate is lost.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Shrodingers drink said:


> So was Jung’s adaptability supposed to be nature (genetic) or nurture. If its nature then inheritance should be present, if its nurture then we may have an apples and oranges situation where mutual exclusivity does not exist. I’m assuming most of his works was pre DNA discovery? For me Grants Stacks work in practice and I haven’t found anything to doubt their presence. To me the weakness of MBTI is that each dom/aux pairing has a different I/E and P/J leaning relative to mid point that its being measured against. Thus the ability to differentiate is lost.


The book was published in 1921. He was a psychologist so his work is focused on that, and biology wasn't as developed.
I've only seen him talk about the origins of the behavior in a short paragraph:



Jung said:


> The fact that often in their earliest years children display an unmistakable typical attitude forces us to assume that it cannot possibly be the struggle for existence, as it is generally understood, which constitutes the compelling factor in favour of a definite attitude. We might, however, demur, and indeed with cogency, that even the tiny infant, the very babe at the breast, has already an unconscious psychological adaptation to perform, inasmuch as the special character of the maternal influence leads to specific reactions in the child. This argument, though appealing to incontestable facts, has none the less to yield before the equally unarguable fact that two children of the same mother may at a very early age exhibit opposite types, without the smallest accompanying change in the attitude of the mother. Although nothing would induce me to underestimate the well-nigh incalculable importance of parental influence, this experience compels me to conclude that the decisive factor must be looked for in the disposition of the child. The fact that, in spite of the greatest possible similarity of external conditions, one child will assume this type while another that, must, of course, in the last resort he ascribed to individual disposition.


His work was focused on identifying the clusters of behaviors that accompany each type, but if you read the 2nd link I gave, I have some criticism and points that I think he was wrong. Jung had his own perspective that gave him a few blind spots in the work. His functions and their attitudes were only a small chapter of his book, in the rest of his work he was focusing on extraversion/introversion.

The dom/aux types in MBTI are not really corroborated AFAIK. For example, that the IPs are necessarily T/F doms, or the EPs are N/S doms. 
And to expand further, the so called "introvert feelers" and "introvert thinkers" are meant to be non adaptable, which means will defend against new information/experience/input and will be resistant in expanding their understanding, they want things decided. Yet the Ps are all adaptable and flexible according to MBTI. 

Example: According to Myers, the ENFP and the INFP share the same functions, but the latter is an F dom AND adaptive (P). Yet somehow, their F is non adaptive (FI), and INFP is even DOMINANT in it, which would result in a NON ADAPTIVE FEELER. These contradictions would be hilarious if they weren't so sadly popular. 
In reality, true NFPs (and not NFJ mistypes) are very adaptable feelers, to the point that they suffer consequences of doubting themselves too much and becoming too submissive to other people's whims, or just end up being reclusive to avoid all that.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Holy hell

I am not even getting this
No don’t repeat yourself 
I understood what you said
I don’t understand why you’re over complicating it

Breaking it down to how individuals type or separate perspective comparison doesn’t invalidate MBTI
It just confirms that it’s not a hard science and is not as simple to deduce a result as if it were an algebra equation 

It appears you’re over complicating the matter

It’s a soft science 
It’s a tool 

Of course there are noobs in the community, there are noobs everywhere in life

Even in a school or work setting there is always a person who can’t see in an elephant in front of their face at times when everyone else sees it. Just as sometimes every now and then there is someone who can see another dynamic no one else can see. Why should MBTI be any different. There is no way to make it a hardlined science you just have to research enough to get a clear understanding and use your discretion to try and have an objective honest answer with yourself on concluding interpretations.

Who gives a fuck about noobs touting. As clearly known by many, some people completely delude themselves of what they are. Smirk and chuckle and move on.

If I am not allowed to mention her I can re edit
But to me @Catwalk seems the almost poster person for INTJ
I mention that because you bring up all the other INTJs
Well shit alotta the people who were smart and feel like Sheldon type themselves as INTJ when they are probably really ISxJs

Understand it’s not a science and enough mistyped self typed people confuse some of this
Do you


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

tosakski said:


> I'm not looking for scientific validity, I'm looking for consistency.


Buuut, consistent with what I said at the start of my first post, that approach itself is _inconsistent_.

If you're willing to acknowledge that personality typology is in fact _not_ a pseudoscience, but rather a "soft science" — like much of psychology and the other social sciences — that is governed by longstanding, accepted standards that separate the respectable districts from, e.g., zodiac-based personality types, then you're in a position to expect some "consistency" among the practitioners who are working with models that have established _validity_ (from a psychometric perspective).

But if you're "not looking for scientific validity," and instead take the position that anybody's free to subscribe to any model they like, with no standards for distinguishing "grouping" models that are congruent with reality from "grouping" models that aren't, then why would you expect "consistency" to result? Consistency based on what?

To somewhat oversimplify, personality typologies like the MBTI and Big Five establish their "validity" by way of studies where the types of subjects in a suitably large sample are found to correlate significantly with various other things. As one rather dramatic example, here are the self-selection ratios that Myers reported for a study involving 705 Cal Tech science majors:

INTJ 3.88
INFJ 2.95
INTP 2.92
INFP 1.97
ENTJ 1.56
ENTP 1.42
ENFP 1.09
ENFJ 1.08
ISTJ 0.68
ISTP 0.50
ISFP 0.49
ISFJ 0.43
ESTP 0.22
ESTJ 0.12
ESFJ 0.18
ESFP 0.02

Stat spectrums that tidy are what you call a personality psychologist's dream. What they indicate (and the sample size was pretty large, at 705) is that the MBTI factor that has the greatest influence on somebody's tendency to become a Cal Tech science major is an N preference, and the MBTI factor that has the second greatest influence is introversion, with the result that the spectrum tidily lines up (from top to bottom) IN-EN-IS-ES.

Keeping in mind that twin studies indicate that the MBTI is tapping into four substantially-genetic dimensions of personality, the results of that sample suggest that there are relatively hardwired dimensions of personality that can make a person of one type (e.g., an INTJ) something like _30 times more likely_ than another type (an ESTJ) to end up as a science major at Cal Tech.

And I assume you'd agree that if someone had ascertained the zodiac signs of those same 705 Cal Tech science majors, it's very unlikely that the distribution of zodiac signs for those students would have proven to be substantially different than the distribution in the general population. And that's because the zodiac belongs in the "pseudoscience" bin, and the MBTI belongs in the "soft science" bin.

Buuut very much by contrast, and as explained in that TC post I already linked to, the notion that an INFP has _tertiary Si,_ and will therefore tend (probabilistically speaking) to have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that ISTPs tend _not_ to exhibit, is a typological assertion that — like all assertions that crosscut the dichotomies in that counterintuitive way — has no more validity than the notion that two people born at around the same time will tend to have aspects of personality in common because they're both Capricorns.

The HaroldGrantians say that INFPs and ESTJs — who have _no_ dichotometric preferences in common — nonetheless have multiple MBTI-related personality characteristics in common, because they both favor the introverted form of sensing, the extraverted form of intuition, the extraverted form of thinking, and the introverted form of feeling. The respectable districts of personality psychology say to those typologists, OK, show me some correlational studies where it turns out that there are _some_ aspects of personality — cognitive, attitudinal, behavioral, or otherwise — where INFPs and ESTJs tend to be more alike than a randomly-selected group.

But the integrity-challenged HaroldGrantians have never risen to that challenge, tosakski. There isn't a single "Si" aspect of personality where SJs _and NPs_ end up on one side of the correlational spectrum and SPs and NJs end up on the other. And the same is true for the "tandem"-related groupings associated with Se, and Ni, and Ne, and Ti, and Te, and Fi, and Fe.

Not a single blessed aspect of personality — cognitive, attitudinal, behavioral, or otherwise — has ever lined up with the HaroldGrantian _function axis_ groupings. And that is what psychometricians call an _utter lack of validity_.

50 years of MBTI data pools make it clear that no matter what aspect of personality you're correlating with type, if it's one that's influenced by two of the dichotomy preferences, so that (for example) the SJs are the _most_ whatever-it-is, the NPs will reliably be the _least_ whatever-it-is. There are no personality characteristics that the S/N and J/P dichotomies jointly contribute to where the SJs and NPs are together on one side of the correlational spectrum and the SPs and NJs are on the other.

INFPs and ESTJs truly have _no_ personality characteristics in common. They're on opposite sides of the four dichotomies, yes, but also of every possible dichotomy combination. And there are no personality characteristics that are both (1) associated with MBTI type, but also (2) correlated with the types in a weirdly counterintuitive way where types that are opposites on two (or more) dichotomies somehow end up being _more like each other_ (with respect to that characteristic) than either is with the types who are only opposite on one of those two dichotomies.

The questionnaire with Si-vs.-Se items and Ni-vs.-Ne items where the SJs and the NPs are the ones who'll turn out to be the "Si/Ne types" is a questionnaire that has never existed. And unless and until it does (or that type-grouping pattern is validated by some other kind of correlational study), any typologist that wants to group INFPs and ESTJs together and claim they have personality characteristics in common should also be a typologist honest and knowledgeable enough to acknowledge that, so far at least, their speculative claim is no more deserving of our attention than zodiac-based claims.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Allana said:


> For ..sake! Have you ever read the official MBTI Manual? Any of you? The functions are CLEARLY stated there.
> If we can't beleive the MBTI manual then what we are left with?


As further explained in my linked TC post, the eight faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" that people like Linda Berens love to talk about have been rightly characterized by James Reynierse — in a series of articles in the journal published by the official MBTI folks (including "The Case Against Type Dynamics") — as a "category mistake."

As part of that article, Reynierse points out that the 1998 MBTI Manual (co-authored by Naomi Quenk, who Reynierse specifically calls out for her lack of standards) cited a grand total of _eight studies_ involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — and Reynierse summarizes them as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."


----------



## Shrodingers drink (Nov 30, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> The book was published in 1921. He was a psychologist so his work is focused on that, and biology wasn't as developed.
> I've only seen him talk about the origins of the behavior in a short paragraph:
> 
> 
> ...


I think we may be on different pages. The genetic basis lies in the inheritance factors, Ne/Si, Ni/Se and Fe/Ti & Fi/Te. The key is they are discrete, unlike MBTI and Jung that work on a sliding scale with an arbitary division that is hard to interpret. We can see the F vs T has a sex hormone experession interaction. Ne and Ni with their low expression rate require a some form of recessive or other low frequency expression to explain. MBTI/Jung dichotomies are useful but not accurate. For instance I see discrete groupings of introversion based on a person being a Dom Ni, Si, Fi, Ti, whereas a true dichotomy should not show additional groupings.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Shrodingers drink said:


> I think we may be on different pages. The genetic basis lies in the inheritance factors, Ne/Si, Ni/Se and Fe/Ti & Fi/Te. The key is they are discrete, unlike MBTI and Jung that work on a sliding scale with an arbitary division that is hard to interpret. We can see the F vs T has a sex hormone experession interaction. Ne and Ni with their low expression rate require a some form of recessive or other low frequency expression to explain. MBTI/Jung dichotomies are useful but not accurate. For instance I see discrete groupings of introversion based on a person being a Dom Ni, Si, Fi, Ti, whereas a true dichotomy should not show additional groupings.


Yea but how are you defining your terms here? Also, you are trying to direct the conversation to somewhere that wasn't something contested to begin with. It's not an issue of whether or not there's a genetic basis for that, that's obvious since it's how the brain functions. 

When you prefer an attitude and two functions, the opposite attitude and the opposite functions will become repressed. The problem is that the function stack completely disregards this, since it redefines, or rather, picks and chooses what the terms extra/introversion mean to begin with, which results in circular reasoning. Read reckful's post above on how statistics don't show correlation on how opposite types prefer to live and whatnot. One's most preferred cognitive habits will be the other person's least ones.


----------



## Shadowhuntress (Jan 25, 2019)

I think people dropping the cognitive functions for deciding whether or not they are a judger or perceiver, for instance, has caused countless mistypes. If Keirsey didn't believe in the functions then he shouldn't have used the MBTI formula for his types. Keirsey's typing method should not be grouped with MBTI and Socionics, which are both based on Jung's observations on the cognitive functions.


----------



## SigningBeast (Nov 23, 2018)

I like MBTI to learn more about myself and understand more about other people! 

Also I just like categorizing, which I don’t know if that is weird for an INFP type to do (like me!) but I also like things like the hogwarts house (I’m slytherin! Although I sound like a hufflepuff my values are slytherin like) and divergent factions (uhhhhhhhhh my friends say I’m candor! So I guess I’m candor). 

Of course, it’s not ALWAYS accurate and sometimes people can be between two or 4 types (although they are almost always leaning towards 1 type) like for instance I think I’m closer to being inbetween INFP and ISFP, but my qualities say I’m INFP and I have more INFP traits... but then again ISFP and INFP is pretty similar, so that’s probably why I got confused thinking I was ISFP but I’m INFP because I have more of the INFP differences between those two types.. gotta look at them differences they matter!

Sorry I started to ramble and go into my head space I do that. 
Anyway, the whole point for me, just to give perspective, is to understand the different types of people and understand how and why this person works differently than me. Anyway, I’m bored of typing now so I must go now 🙂 but if you don’t like it, then you don’t have to worry about it! 

Also.. I didn’t read the above comments in the thread so idk what is being said.. wow I seem extroverted, but I also just drank a whole bottle of coke in one go and I’m hyper.,. Or I could just be going insane from people exhaustion. 

Anyway, bye


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

My attitude towards MBTI is this: I read more or less "official" books and accepted their model. I don't believe that MBTI is a soft science. I think it's a pseudocience with some slight connections with reality. If I wanted to really type some person I'd prefer Big 5. 
It's like a game with its lore. I accept that there are letters, there are functions, let's play. 
Some people say: I'm Lawful Evil or I'm Neutral Good. I'm INFP. Out of 16 "classes" this is the one closest to me. 

IF you and some other veterans of this forum want to disregard the function theory and state new guidelines, rules for all newcomers then *make a post *with all "_trusted' articles and sources that we can refer to._

Until then I will prefer function theory because it has the same weight as any other pseudoscientific theory based on Jungian theory. 

Socionics is completely unproved too but people play with it. Until you try to live by MBTI or socionics recommendations, find your SO or build career or smth it's ok. It just FUN.:wink:


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Allana said:


> Until then I will prefer function theory because it has the same weight as any other pseudoscientific theory based on Jungian theory.


If you believe the function stacks correlate with letter preferences strongly, then the evidence available strongly goes against the idea that there are FPs/TJs who share "Te-Fi" in common for example. But if you are treating "function axes" as a new dichotomy and saying it isn't included in MBTI then I really wonder why you'd be using MBTI type codes for it and not just treating it like something separate. And if it did exist you would expect it to show up in factor models built up from the ground up (for example maybe you could say the "Fe-Ti axis" is high Humility in HEXACO and I've seen people treat the "Se-Ni axis" as low Neuroticism in Big 5).

So while these "axes preferences" may tap into real things/trends (factors), I'm just not seeing why they should be represented with letters which MBTI factor codes in a way which doesn't actually fit their meaning.


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

> So while these "axes preferences" may tap into real things/trends (factors), I'm just not seeing why they should be represented with letters which MBTI factor codes in a way which doesn't actually fit their meaning.


You try to take it al tool seriously and find some empirical evidence in all those functions.


----------



## aiyanah (Oct 25, 2018)

well if your interpretation of mbti is rigid instead of fluid then you'll assume that the field is messy or worthless.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Allana said:


> You try to take it al tool seriously and find some empirical evidence in all those functions.


Empirical basically just means reality. If reality isn't supporting an idea, it's generally time to ditch that idea.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Allana said:


> I don't believe that MBTI is a soft science. I think it's a pseudocience with some slight connections with reality. If I wanted to really type some person I'd prefer Big 5.
> It's like a game with its lore. I accept that there are letters, there are functions, let's play. ...
> 
> IF you and some other veterans of this forum want to disregard the function theory and state new guidelines, rules for all newcomers then *make a post *with all "_trusted' articles and sources that we can refer to._
> ...


Just in case you ever decide you have an interest in the facts of the situation — yes! facts exist! who knew? — and as I noted in my first post in this thread...

If you're interested, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post.​
As one example (also cited in the linked post), here's a large-sample 2003 study that summed up the MBTI's relative standing in the personality type field this way:

In addition to research focused on the application of the MBTI to solve applied assessment problems, a number of studies of its psychometric properties have also been performed (e.g., Harvey & Murry, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Markham, 1994; Harvey, Murry, & Stamoulis, 1995; Johnson & Saunders, 1990; Sipps, Alexander, & Freidt, 1985; Thompson & Borrello, 1986, 1989; Tischler, 1994; Tzeng, Outcalt, Boyer, Ware, & Landis, 1984). Somewhat surprisingly, given the intensity of criticisms offered by its detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993), a review and meta-analysis of a large number of reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) concluded that in terms of these traditional psychometric criteria, the MBTI performed quite well, being clearly on a par with results obtained using more well-accepted personality tests.​
...and the authors went on to describe the results of their own 11,000-subject study, which they specifically noted were inconsistent with the notion that the MBTI was somehow of "lower psychometric quality" than Big Five (_aka_ FFM) tests. They said:

In sum, although the MBTI is very widely used in organizations, with literally millions of administrations being given annually (e.g., Moore, 1987; Suplee, 1991), the criticisms of it that have been offered by its vocal detractors (e.g., Pittenger, 1993) have led some psychologists to view it as being of lower psychometric quality in comparison to more recent tests based on the FFM (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987). In contrast, we find the findings reported above — especially when viewed in the context of previous confirmatory factor analytic research on the MBTI, and meta-analytic reviews of MBTI reliability and validity studies (Harvey, 1996) — to provide a very firm empirical foundation that can be used to justify the use of the MBTI as a personality assessment device in applied organizational settings.​
Going all the way back to 1990, and making reference to an older version of the MBTI than the one in use today, the leading Big Five psychologists (McCrae & Costa, creators of the NEO-PI-R), in addition to finding the MBTI psychometrically respectable, approvingly referred to the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature" (i.e., the decades of MBTI studies that already existed at that time), and suggested that their fellow Big Five typologists could benefit by reviewing MBTI studies for additional insights into the four dimensions of personality that the two typologies essentially share, as well as "valuable replications" of Big Five studies.

And very much on the other hand, and as further explained in that TC post I've already linked you to, the function model at the heart of at least half of those _trusted sources_ you listed has _no respectable empirical support at all_ — on top of being inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and on top of the fact that it's never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks (for very good reason).


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

> And very much on the other hand, and as further explained in that TC post I've already linked you to, the function model at the heart of at least half of those _trusted sources you listed has no respectable empirical support at all — on top of being inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and on top of the fact that it's never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks (for very good reason)._


 @*reckful*, ok, maybe I'l look into these links that allegedly prove some scientific model. Maybe there sare some empirical evidence for some part of mbti theory. 
BUT! 
AFAIK, Berens and Nardi and maybe other mbti practioners use the old model. 
Here, on this site there are users who continue to type real! people using functions. @*angelcat*, for example. AFAIK she has her blog where she gives advice to people. Many other mbti-blogs type by this, as you said false theory.

Don't you think that if we decide to prove MBTI as science then someone need to put a stop to that false theory? 
Starting with this forum, for example. Forbid the old fucntion model, forbid discussion of socionics, allow only trusted, "modern" articles! Let's clearly state that function theory and MBTI are completely different and we shouldn't mix them!

That's the quote from the* official MBTI site:*

"Type is more than just the sum of the four preferences. The four-letter MBTI® type formula is a shorthand way of telling you about the interaction of your four mental functions and which ones you prefer to use first. This is called type dynamics, and it is an important part of understanding your MBTI® results. Below are some basic facts about type dynamics.



One preference has the most influence on you. This is called the dominantfunction.
The next strongest preference is called the auxiliary function. It is important because it serves to support and balance the dominant.
The third strongest is the tertiary function.
One preference is the least strong. This is the fourth function, often called the inferior function.
There is one preference each person tends to show first to the outside world.
The eight function-attitudes are expressed very differently in the inner world and the outer world.
The middle two preferences are called the function pair.
Over the course of your life, different preferences may emerge and be used more often, as well as more easily. This is referred to as type development."


"Although everyone has access to and uses all four mental functions, each type prefers to use these functions in a specific order. In type theory, the order in which we prefer these functions is considered to be inborn, although certainly this order can be changed when circumstances require us to make decisions or solve problems in an alternative manner than one we prefer."

Who should I beleive if even those who study that MBTI can't agree with each other. What facts?

Until those mbti practioners present the one theory it's better to consider all this not valid.


----------



## Emancipation (Jan 24, 2019)

if somebody read a functional stack, identified with what it said and thought "Whoaaaa that's meeeee" while reading it, why would they care about anything else??? Is it illegal to subscribe to a way of typing that has been effective in helping you get to know yourself better nowadays?

why are you people so pressed about making the first thing that pops up when you look up "personality test" in the search bar perfect when it's not? just use it how you like it and let other people be bad at it if it makes them happy, it's very simple


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

Let's take another MBTI site.

https://eu.themyersbriggs.com/en/tools/MBTI/Type-Dynamics-made-easy

_At the core of each MBTI Type are the four mental processes (Sensing, iNtuition, Thinking and Feeling) which interact dynamically over the span of your life. Type Dynamics explains how and_


_pinpoints each Type’s favourite (dominant) process – critical for understanding intrinsic motivation and approaches to problem solving_
_clarifies how everyone uses extraversion or introversion and identifies which process is typically used in interacting with others, adding insight to communication issues_
_supports strategies for building resilience to stress, by looking at the role of the favourite and least preferred processes_
_gives insight into how people of superficially similar Types, e.g. ENTP and ENTJ, may experience friction because of their very different drivers_
_charts the likely order in which you will deve_lop your processes, giving valuable insight into the shifts and changes you are likely to experience over time.

They continue to use that model and teach people about type dynamics. I believe that they train new mbti practiners the same facts about eight functions, about type development and so on.
I can't and I don't want to argue with that. I take it with doubt, as the theory as a whole. But i have no academic background to say that which part of mbti is more valid that other. 

If you have it and can do it, then do smth.


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

I've read that linked post and have some questions.




> INTP = I + N + T + P + IN + IT + IP + NT + NP + TP + INT + INP + ITP + NTP + INTP.
> 
> INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ.
> 
> ESFJ = E + S + F + J + ES + EF + EJ + SF + SJ + FJ + ESF + ESJ + EFJ + SFJ + ESFJ.


I undestand what I, S, T mean but what IN/SJ/ESF mean?

Are there any definitions of ESJ/EFJ? And how can you "add' N+INT?
ESFJ=bla-bla+ESFJ What kind of equation is this? 
it's like saying that 120=1+2+3+....+120.

:uncomfortableness:
If i INFP then =I+N+F+P+IN+IF+IP+NF+NP+IP+INF+INP+IFP+INFP?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Allana said:


> Let's take another MBTI site.
> 
> https://eu.themyersbriggs.com/en/tools/MBTI/Type-Dynamics-made-easy
> 
> ...


The "type dynamics" that's part of official MBTI materials does _not_ include the Grant stack or its associated "function axes".

More importantly, official MBTI materials only give the barest lip service to the tertiary and inferior functions — on top of _not_ saying that an INFP's tert (for example) is Si — and don't really make much use of the dom/aux either.

Just as importantly, official MBTI materials are mostly about the _four functions_, not the eight functions — i.e., the two sides of the middle two dichotomies. Myers made a lot of changes to Jung's original categories and concepts, but surprise, surprise — she never gave us updated versions of Jung's _eight_ functions. And the 1985 Manual also included _no descriptions_ of the supposed _eight_ functions.

For more detail on the (suprisingly, to many forumites) dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI, see the spoiler in this post (also linked in my first post in this thread).

As noted in that last linked post, the 17-page report that an ENFJ (for example) receives after taking the relatively recent MBTI _Step II_ test includes page after page of dichotomy-based analysis (including five separate subscales for each of the four dichotomies) and not a single mention of "extraverted feeling" or "introverted intuition" — other than a diagram near the end that shows that "ENFJs like Feeling best, Intuition next, Sensing third and Thinking least," and one brief note about tending to use Feeling in the "outer world" and Intuition in the "inner world." _All the rest_ of the ENFJ descriptions in the report — after the brief initial profile, which isn't broken down by components — are descriptions of N (not Ni or Ne), F (not Fi or Fe) and so on, and they're the _same descriptions_ of N and F (and the five subscales of each) that ENFPs receive in their reports (notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are purportedly Fe-Ni and ENFPs are purportedly Ne-Fi).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Allana said:


> I've read that linked post and have some questions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As previously noted, it's the four dichotomies, and not the so-called "cognitive functions," that are the real, underlying (and substantially genetic) components of your MBTI type — and despite some Jungian lip service, Myers understood that, based on her years of data-gathering and psychometric analysis. And she also understood that _dichotomy combinations_ were associated with many noteworthy aspects of personality, but that there was nothing particularly special about the combinations that are purportedly associated with the "cognitive functions." In fact, Myers thought of NF/NT/SF/ST as the most significant dichotomy combinations — and it's worth noting that that's a carve-up of the types where each group is a type foursome with (assuming you believe in the functions at all) _four different dominant functions_.

In my shorthand for what I call the Real MBTI Model — which was essentially Myers' model, and is the perspective with all the empirical support — SJ (for example) refers to aspects of personality that S and J make a joint contribution to (and are therefore more characteristic of MBTI SJs than the other 12 types).

ADDED:

So... to take your INFP example...

INFP = I + N + F + P + IN + IF + IP + NF + NP + FP + INF + INP + IFP + NFP + INFP

... means that an INFP will tend to have the personality characteristics that are typical of all introverts, and all N's, and all F's, and all P's, as well as the characteristics that are typical of INs, and IFs, and so on, and concluding with those extra-special characteristics that are more typical of INFPs than of any of the other 15 types.

And it's maybe worth noting that the 1985 MBTI Manual, which Myers co-authored, included a brief description corresponding to each of the 24 possible two-letter combinations. And a 25-page section of the latest (1998) edition of the MBTI Step I Manual devotes a section to every two-letter combination, with both a description of the personality characteristics that people with both preferences tend to exhibit, and also (in most cases) a research roundup of noteworthy statistical correlations with that combination.


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

@*reckful*
This theory of Real MBTI causes some doubts.

1)Are there any other, more recent articles regarding function stack? Have any other authors discussed these arguments? have they added their own stacks or ideas? (By recently, I mean during 2010s)

2) Your "additive" formuls meams that extraverts have ONLY extraverted facets and no signs of introversion. How come?

ENTJ f.ex are only TE and NE and EJ. But where is balance?
The traditional stack at least admits that every person has all four dichotomies: N, F, S, T.

Your formula says that ENTJs have ONLY Thinking and Intuition. It seems unbalanced.

3)


> In my shorthand for what I call the Real MBTI Model — which was essentially Myers' model


This is the quote of Gifts Differing chapter 8. 



> The effect of the interaction of the preferred processes is made apparent when the extraverted form of a particular process—thinking, feeling, sensing, or intuition—is compared with the introverted form of the same process.<..>
> The descriptions are designed to apply to each type at its best, as exemplified by normal, well-balanced, well-adjusted, happy, and effective people. *So the basic description assumes good development of both the dominant and auxiliary processes.* Actually the types come in widely different states of development. If the auxiliary process is undeveloped, the person will lack balance between judgment and perception, and also between extraversion and introversion.<..>


ALL 8 chapter is about *cognitive functions.
*And she wrote about auxillary functions too.



> ...Another serious result of ignoring the auxiliary process is the distorted descriptions of the individual introvert types.* These types depend on the auxiliary for their extraversion, that is, for their outer personalities, their communication with the world, and their means of taking action.* To portray them with no auxiliary is to portray them with no extraversion—unable to communicate, to use their insights, or to have any impact on the outer world


She also quotes Jung



> 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...never with feeling.(1923,P- 515)
> 
> 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.
> (1923, p. 515)
> ...


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

@Allana 
the issue of the attitude of the auxiliary has been discussed in the past, in fact, a few posts above I linked an older thread by @reckful which goes more in depth about it, here it is again

Myers believed in this "balance" because of her own cognitive bias, but all throughout his book, Jung mentioned many times that balancing extraversion and introversion is impossible, as one will always antagonise the other. To become more extraverted, you have to suppress introversion and vice versa. 

In that very same quote Myers has, she ignored exactly the row below, where it speaks of a pairing of perception with judging and not perception-perception or judging-judging, it did NOT refer to the attitude of the auxiliary, since that was made clear in the rest of the book that does not change.

An introverted NT type, an xNTJ, would first turn to S and F in the SAME attitude, before turning to the opposite. If they are weakly introverted it might be otherwise.
And before you ask, in this thread I explain why Js are the Jungian Introverts and Ps are the Jungian Extraverts.


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

> the issue of the attitude of the auxiliary has been discussed in the past, in fact, a few posts above I linked an older thread by @*reckful which goes more in depth about it, here it is again*


Does @*reckful* have any academic background? For now I see it at his interpretation of Jungian and Myers theories. It's like interpretating Bible or some philosophical book. One scientist considers this is about this and other contradict him. 

There are people who successfully use Myers system and they see it as helpful and useful. 
For example I don't see any Ni in me. I am *not *Fi-Ni-Se-Te. 
Maybe you can create another Jungian-based theory opposed to Myers. Ok, fine. 

But it will be *different model. 
*MBTI is like this. Dom-Aux-Tert-Inf. 

What you are doing is trying to say: MBTI is wrong, let's change it. *Why? 

*Other people created socionics and use it for their own _alternative system_. *Create your own, but don't call it REAl Life MBTI because it is NOT mbti.


*


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Allana said:


> Does @*reckful* have any academic background? For now I see it at his interpretation of Jungian and Myers theories. It's like interpretating Bible or some philosophical book. One scientist considers this is about this and other contradict him.
> 
> There are people who successfully use Myers system and they see it as helpful and useful.
> For example I don't see any Ni in me. I am *not *Fi-Ni-Se-Te.
> ...


I'm not posting this in reference to the "Real MBTI", but rather the theory itself. 

Also the attitude of the auxiliary isn't just his interpretation, but multiple people's and my own as well. I don't know if reckful has a related background, but even if he doesn't, it doesn't even matter, Myers didn't either. She was in no better position to analyse Jung, if we're gonna use this argument. But I don't care for credentials as much.

If you are INFP, according to Jung's theory, wouldn't be "Fi" either. (see post #19)


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

> If you are INFP, according to Jung's theory, wouldn't be "Fi" either.


According to socionics I'm no INFP at all; I guess.

Jung's theory is not the only one which has right to exist. Moreover, maybe Jung was wrong? He was just the creator of foundation.



> Also the attitude of the auxiliary isn't just his interpretation, but multiple people's


And multiple people consider all typology as smth akin to astrology. 

Who can say that your system is more plausible than Myers? 

Scientific community is more interested in Big 5 and related systems of typology now. MBTI is a bit outdated anyway.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Allana said:


> According to socionics I'm no INFP at all; I guess.
> 
> Jung's theory is not the only one which has right to exist. Moreover, maybe Jung was wrong? He was just the creator of foundation.
> 
> ...


That's because socionics uses the p and j differently, in a direct and literal manner, but it still mistakenly uses an alternating function stack, you'd just be considered an INFj, but you'd have the same stack.

The point is, that typological systems use Jung's _language_ to define different things or altered them, which creates confusion since the definitions end up becoming mixed AND they claim it was Jung's typology that was like that, when it's not true. So this issue you are describing goes much further back. 

Jung was definitely wrong in some things, as I explain in the thread I linked, too. 

The typology, that Jung attempted to create is not whimsical or akin to astrology, as it is tied to biological functioning and evolutionary adaptability, stuff that the Big5 doesn't even touch upon, as far as I know. All the Big5 does is categorize and cluster certain behaviors/traits, giving no theory or explanation for them, so far, while at the same time leaving a lot of other traits out.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

ITT people agree with the OP, but for wildly different reasons and mostly sidestep the wall of text. 

It ain't the tool but how you use it. See sig.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> That's because socionics uses the p and j differently, in a direct and literal manner


Little p/j refer to the orientation of the base (dominant) function, but unlike in MBTI it's not tied to an assumption in introverts that it will predominate less in the external world than another function. So the p/j in Socionics is similar to the P/J in MBTI, only it's symbolized in function-attitudes/IMs differently. 



> but it still mistakenly uses an alternating function stack,


In writing it is "alternating" but it means a much different thing. And in dimensionality both INFps and INFjs have Ni and Fi that are a higher dimension than anything extraverted.


> you'd just be considered an INFj, but you'd have the same stack.


No not at all. The "Fi-Ne INFP" represents something way different in substance than having a "Fi-Ne" ego block.


> The point is, that typological systems use Jung's _language_ to define different things or altered them, which creates confusion since the definitions end up becoming mixed AND they claim it was Jung's typology that was like that, when it's not true. So this issue you are describing goes much further back.


Yes! x 1000


> Jung was definitely wrong in some things, as I explain in the thread I linked, too.


Yeah there's some narratives floating around that imply that things that are Jungian are truer as if Jung is some kind of eternal truth arbiter.


> The typology, that Jung attempted to create is not whimsical or akin to astrology, as it is tied to biological functioning and evolutionary adaptability, stuff that the Big5 doesn't even touch upon, as far as I know. All the Big5 does is categorize and cluster certain behaviors/traits, giving no theory or explanation for them, so far, while at the same time leaving a lot of other traits out.


Big 5 allows for examining the same sort of things through the factors and what they signify. It's just that the core of the Big 5 is the factors and not extrapolations. I don't see too much value in reading Jung at this point when it comes to these things, given all the progress we have made outside of the typology bubble since he wrote his stuff. Sure he touched on a lot of the same kinds of things and for his time brought up stuff that others weren't focusing on that maybe they should've.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Allana said:


> @*reckful*
> This theory of Real MBTI causes some doubts.
> 
> 1)Are there any other, more recent articles regarding function stack? Have any other authors discussed these arguments? have they added their own stacks or ideas? (By recently, I mean during 2010s)
> ...


Maybe someday when you have some time on your hands, have a cup of coffee and actually read my linked posts with some care. Until then, I'd appreciate it if you don't pretend you've read them with any thoughtfulness, while straw-manning the parts of them you have read.

"ENTJs have ONLY Thinking and Intuition"—??

I've never said anything of the kind.

Personality type is about variation in human personality — substantially genetic, as both Jung and Myers thought, and as decades of twin studies have now confirmed — that gives people somewhat hardwired tugs in particular directions along certain dimensions. It's not about anybody _not having_ anything, or _never doing_ anything.

And it certainly sounds like you can't have read this post on the (suprisingly, to many forumites) dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI, which I linked in my first post in this thread, and then linked again in at least one of my replies to you.

It addresses your issues on Myers talking about the functions, and Chapter 8 of Gifts Differing.

As for the attitude of the auxiliary... When Myers declared that the auxiliary function's attitude would be the opposite of the dominant's, she acknowledged that that interpretation put her in a very small minority among Jung scholars. I agree with the majority of Jung scholars — and I really think it's the only fair reading of Psychological Types as a whole — that Jung believed that a person's second function, to the extent that it was differentiated and put to service as the auxiliary function, would have the same attitude as the dominant (which Jung referred to as the person's "conscious attitude").

If you're interested, you can find a long explanation (with Jung quotes!) of why Myers' view is all-but-insupportable in this post.

But don't miss the spoiler at the end of that post, which explains why nothing I say should be construed to mean that I'm _endorsing_ Jung's function model. As you know by this point (I hope), I don't endorse anyone's "function stack."

And as that first linked post explains, Myers and the official MBTI are much less about function stacks than many forumites are led to believe.


----------



## tosakski (Jan 17, 2019)

Nell said:


> ITT people agree with the OP, but for wildly different reasons


Which further reinforces my view of MBTI community being a mess.
It's not just that people agree or disagree on particular types for particular people based on wildly different reasons, or for types as concepts themselves being this or that for wildly different reasons, but they also disagree/agree on MBTI being a mess also for wildly different reasons.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

tosakski said:


> Which further reinforces my view of MBTI community being a mess.
> It's not just that people agree or disagree on particular types for particular people based on wildly different reasons, or for types as concepts themselves being this or that for wildly different reasons, but they also disagree/agree on MBTI being a mess also for wildly different reasons.


That's when you check out of the clusterfuck and go for tacos


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Ocean Helm said:


> No not at all. The "Fi-Ne INFP" represents something way different in substance than having a "Fi-Ne" ego block.


How do they really differ then?



> Big 5 allows for examining the same sort of things through the factors and what they signify. It's just that the core of the Big 5 is the factors and not extrapolations. I don't see too much value in reading Jung at this point when it comes to these things, given all the progress we have made outside of the typology bubble since he wrote his stuff. Sure he touched on a lot of the same kinds of things and for his time brought up stuff that others weren't focusing on that maybe they should've.


I think the merit of Jung is that he tried to unify the traits into functions and types in a way that actually made more sense (from a biological/evolutionary perspective), despite the faults in details, which the Big5 is not doing. But like I said, I'm not that familiar with Big 5, these are more of initial observations. Also the criticism paragraph on wikipedia has some of that as well.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> How do they really differ then?


MBTI puts the focus on the auxiliary while Socionics doesn't, to the degree where the theoretical meaning of MBTI tests is only focused on the auxiliary for introverts. Myers is like "Te, Fe, Se, or Ne?" and that's what the test tests for. Socionics (for introverts) is like "Ti, Fi, Si, or Ni?" and the Socionics tests that exist out there generally test for overall irrationality vs rationality, assuming that if one is an introvert rational or irrational, then that will show up in their base function. So the general idea is that the p/j of one's base Socionics function will be expected to prevail everywhere, while MBTI is focused on the P/J of the top Xe function-attitude.

Not surprisingly the actual descriptions of the information elements are much different in lead function role from how MBTI describes "dominant" functions for introverts, to the point where Ixxj descriptions read more like IxxJ descriptions and Ixxp descriptions read more like IxxP descriptions. For instance, the MBTI Ti is more like ad hoc problem solving while the Socionics Ti is about "systematic logic" which as a lead function results in people being essentially "J" in MBTI terms, while MBTI attributes the same kind of things to the aux-Te in the case of introverts.

Gulenko on LSI (ISTj):


> Is distinguished by thoroughness, precision, and concreteness in professional matters. Carefully plans events, thoroughly examines and works out all the specifics. Puts work matters above sentiments. Takes all regulations into account. Keeps his personal things in order. He can always be relied on. Stoically endures life's hardships.
> 
> LSI is a person of strong will, diligent and enduring. He/she is insistent and demanding in execution and verification of tasks. Takes care of those who are confused and uncertain, explains to them how they can do their work. In his assessments - a sober realist, who does not tolerate infertile, unrealistic fantasies. Proves his point and supports his case citing numerous facts that he has collected.


Filatova about the Ti in LSIs:


> Logically sensible and elegant system – this is the foundation for everything. LSI attempts to find such logical system, to become incorporated into it, to follow it and to perfect it. He analyzes and thinks over everything that surrounds him. From this information, he creates classifications and designations, creates hierarchies, derives maxims. All of this must be clearly stated and presented in various directions and instructions that aid in understanding and organizing life.


Obviously, to say that this is describing MBTI "ISTP" is silly, and so too the mainly ill-informed people are being who try to make that comparison.



> I think the merit of Jung is that he tried to unify the traits into functions and types in a way that actually made more sense (from a biological/evolutionary perspective), despite the faults in details, which the Big5 is not doing. But like I said, I'm not that familiar with Big 5, these are more of initial observations. Also the criticism paragraph on wikipedia has some of that as well.


What I'm saying is why go based on "what Jung said" about topics like biology and evolution when Big 5 allows for empirical research like this (link). Jung probably would've supported this approach anyway and just didn't have the means to carry out such research. So what we're left with is more of one man's reasoning with a ton of guessing, which I think pales in comparison to what is now possible with Big 5.


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

I've read Socionics books in Russian... it's such pseudoscientific pile of...
Maybe in translation in English they sound better but they are impossible to read in original.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Allana said:


> I've read Socionics books in Russian... it's such pseudoscientific pile of...
> Maybe in translation in English they sound better but they are impossible to read in original.


And "MBTI" based around Grant-Brownsword stacks isn't? Well I guess it may not be that pseduoscientific, as it barely even attempts to fake its scientific nature. Although people do cling to a few charlatans like Nardi.


----------



## Allana (Apr 19, 2018)

> And "MBTI" based around Grant-Brownsword stacks isn't?


At least MBTI doesn't try to describe APPEARANCE of types! Color of eyes, shape of nose, height.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Allana said:


> At least MBTI doesn't try to describe APPEARANCE of types! Color of eyes, shape of nose, height.


Some people do.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

From what I've observed over the last 7 or so years on this forum, the problem that crops up over and over again is that people look to MBTI for depth when it is more of a "horizontal" theory. MBTI was not built to help people navigate their psychological states, and it lacks a truly psychodynamic grounding. At its fringe, the MBTI tells you how you process information, and what other people who process it the same way as you do might look like, and some of the things they may experience as a given type. It doesn't tell you what to do with that knowledge, how it comes to be, or _why_ it is true - because the knowledge itself doesn't do anything but describe you statically. 

I think the MBTI types and functions are consistent, if all you want to do is know what type you are. It's when people try to make the tool more Objective than it can be that they start realizing the limits. Usually, people hit the limit shortly after they learn about the Cognitive Functions, and start trying to trace their behaviors to specific Functions. I really believe at this point, if you are doing this, you are close to hitting the fringe/limit of the theory's ability to explain, at least as the theory exists today. So no matter how solidly you understand the Functions, no matter how clear a Function description is, you will feel a sense of anticlimax at this point. Even people who know their type is right and know what each function does usually end up seeing MBTI/functions as an interesting theory and not knowing what to actually_ do _with it in their lives. 

Not at all trying to dissuade people from studying the MBTI and the Cognitive Functions, or bash the theories. They can be pretty powerful alongside knowledge of other psychological tools in formal research, and even less formal spiritual/self-work ones like the Enneagram. But in of themselves, I think they are too limited to meet the demands and expectations of many people who come here.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

reckful said:


> As further explained in my linked TC post, the eight faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" that people like Linda Berens love to talk about have been rightly characterized by James Reynierse — in a series of articles in the journal published by the official MBTI folks (including "The Case Against Type Dynamics") — as a "category mistake." As part of that article, Reynierse points out that the 1998 MBTI Manual (co-authored by Naomi Quenk, who Reynierse specifically calls out for her lack of standards) cited a grand total of _eight studies_ involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — and Reynierse summarizes them as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."


 You know what? Rather than linking to a 21-page paper and ambiguously calling the cognitive functions a "category mistake" and linking to yourself calling it a "category mistake" again and again, can you just tell us, once and for all, what problem you have with cognitive functions? Why you think they are wrong/not useful/whatever you are actually saying? 

What does it mean that they are a "category mistake"? Give us at least a brief something to motivate us to read that 21-page paper. What does it matter that the functions model is covered in only 8 studies? Number of studies doesn't determine how legitimate a theory is; it only tells us they few people have published studies on it. And the legitimacy of the cognitive functions model is what you are talking about here, is it not?


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> And all that would have been avoided if people actually went back to the original material and tried to understand the principles of it. Principles that got lost in the decades, because Myers and the rest misunderstood them and thought the attitude must change between perception and judgment, or that we must have "balance", which Jung specifically said can't happen.


 My understanding is that Myers created her own theory, albeit one that is based on (but not intended to be identical to) Jung's theory. So Jung's work is not the original theory: his theory and Myers' theory are two different (albeit similar) theories. What makes you think that Myers' misunderstood Jung rather than deliberately crafting a somewhat different theory?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Hello Clitty said:


> You know what? Rather than linking to a 21-page paper and ambiguously calling the cognitive functions a "category mistake" and linking to yourself calling it a "category mistake" again and again, can you just tell us, once and for all, what problem you have with cognitive functions? Why you think they are wrong/not useful/whatever you are actually saying?
> 
> What does it mean that they are a "category mistake"? Give us at least a brief something to motivate us to read that 21-page paper. What does it matter that the functions model is covered in only 8 studies? Number of studies doesn't determine how legitimate a theory is; it only tells us they few people have published studies on it. And the legitimacy of the cognitive functions model is what you are talking about here, is it not?


I don't really recommend reading the full Reynierse paper to anyone but the true MBTI theory wonks. (Not that there aren't quite a few of those around these parts.)

That linked TC post and the two posts it links to are my summary of what I call the Real MBTI Model, and of why the only validity the functions have ever had is the piggybacked validity they get from the dichotomy combinations they correspond to (and only at the dom/aux level), and of why the tertiary and inferior half of the Grant stack have no validity at all.

[NOTE: The final link at the end of that linked TC post is no longer functional (since the owner has taken INTJforum private), but you can find a long replacement excerpt from the INTJforum post — describing the dichotomy-centric history of the MBTI — in the spoiler in this post.]


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

Yeah MBTI isn't formally accepted in the psychiatric/psychology profession. What you're saying is basically why. On the other hand, they do use Big Five, and I don't particularly like Big Five even though it rates me as very "open" (and therefore intelligent, curious or creative) I think pretty much everything else about my description is faintly negatory. I decided about five years ago that all Big Five does is set an unrealistic standard where the ideal person is a stable ENFJ. 

I got really into the ideas behind MBTI for a while, I even met Keirsey Jr. when I lived in LA, and all he had to say to me is that people who think they are SFPs usually are. He did buy myself and my friend dinner and drinks in Santa Monica, though.

MBTI forums appeal to people who are interested in themselves and other people. They're also a bit more civil than some Internet hellholes, and have a wider variety of people than limited interest forums (like vegan forums, Catholic forums, moms forums, etc).


----------



## Roddr2 (Dec 20, 2018)

Exactly! Recently I had asked someone about typing me. But, the approach he used was just over the top stereotypical. I have tested as an ENTx on 16personalities. And I just wanted somewhat more elaboration on J vs P. But, the guy was so bent upon typing me ISFP. He just doesn't understand that people have their own way of communicating, it doesn't really matter if I use emoji or not.He literally said that I am an SF women because I used just one emoji in a huge text. Gave me a headache!


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Hello Clitty said:


> My understanding is that Myers created her own theory, albeit one that is based on (but not intended to be identical to) Jung's theory. So Jung's work is not the original theory: his theory and Myers' theory are two different (albeit similar) theories. What makes you think that Myers' misunderstood Jung rather than deliberately crafting a somewhat different theory?





https://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/isabel-myers.htm?bhcp=1 said:


> Katharine Briggs concluded that her prospective son-in-law was an admirable young man, but not at all like others in their family. Katharine embarked on a project of reading biographies and developed her own typology based on patterns she found. She identified meditative types, spontaneous types, executive types, and sociable types (later identified as Is, EPs, ETJs and EFJs). When Katharine Briggs discovered C. G. Jung's book, Psychological Types, she reported to her daughter, 'This is it!' and proceeded to study the book intensely. Mother and daughter became avid 'type watchers' over the next twenty years.


That's all I've seen mentioned in the history as their own theory. 

All the language and codes the MBTI uses comes from Jung. Myers wanted to believe the auxiliary function was the one that brought balance in the type, something which Jung was very much against and even didn't want to meet her or have anything to do with the MBTI. He believed balance is brought a 5th function, which he called Transcendent, that it sort of bridges conscious and unconscious in situations like dreams, which ends up revealing repressed needs and whatnot, to the person.

It's easy to see she misunderstood Jung when you read the book, as many times he makes it clear he believes the E/I attitude encompasses the conscious/unconscious and the dom-aux work together in the conscious personality.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

I agree that the MBTI community is a mess. The problem is that there's not really a lot of fundamental research going on on the subject right now. It's relagated to funny tests and correlations based on nothing. 

Until there's some actual fundamental research on MBTI, there's no way we'll ever get real consensus. 

For now, I've seen theories that are so vague that they can be interpreted any way people like and I've seen theories that are very specific, but don't stand up to even trying to type a single person. 
I don't know if the answer is neurological research, integration into mainstream psychology or someone stepping up and rebuilding the entire thing from the ground up, but for now there's no single authority that is a good reference for MBTI-esque personality theory.


----------



## melloi (Jul 14, 2019)

tosakski said:


> which in turn produces a lot of apples who assume themselves to be oranges, a lot of oranges who assume themselves to be bananas, and a lot of bananas who assume themselves to be sex toys.
> And so then you have a basket filled with every fruit imaginable, claiming to be bananas, and sharing their psychological experiences and life difficulties as a banana. Well, if that's the fruit market we live in, then categorizing fruit into categories doesn't matter anymore, because every single time we'll end up with a fruit salad anyway.


----------

