# Cognitive Functions are Incompatible with 4-Letter Codes



## Simpson17866

The fact that there are 8 components of the Cognitive Functions system (Se, Si, Ne…) means that there are 40,320 ways of organizing them from strongest to weakest in any given person’s thought process (8 possibilities for the strongest * 7 possibilities for the second strongest * 6 possibilities for the third strongest * … * 2 possibilities for the second weakest * 1 possibility for the weakest). I personally go from

Ne: 48.5
Fi: 43.2
Ti: 40.3
Ni: 33.9
Te: 32
Si: 17.8
Se: 14
Fe: 10.7

If each Myers-Briggs-styled 4-letter code (ISFJ, ISTP...) is assigned a specific order of the 8 functions (for example, INFP = [strongest] Fi, Ne, Si, Te, Fe, Ni, Se, Ti [weakest]), then there is only a 16/40,320 chance (≈0.04%) that a person’s personality type will be one of the orders with a type associated.

If, and this is more common, we say that only 4 of the cognitive functions are used by any one person (for example, INFP = [strongest] Fi – Ne – Si – Te [weakest], Fe/Ni/Se/Ti [nonexistent]), then we run into new trouble of the categories not applying to anybody. For example, if Si is defined as “comparing external stimuli to past experiences of similar stimuli” against defining Se as “experiencing external stimuli completely as they are happening,” then it’s physically impossible for a person’s brain not to do both.

If you start with a construct, declare that “ISTPs do not have Si in their function stack, they have Se” according to said construct, and test real people to see which one they are capable of, then you would find that everybody experiences present stimuli and remembers past stimuli.

This construct only works if you adjust the data (how do people think) to support the construct’s assumptions (how the functions are supposed to be ordered), which is the opposite of what can be described as scientific.

**

Now perhaps this is too extreme, perhaps instead the “function stack” is simply the strongest of each pair (Se vs. Si, etc…). In this case, ISTP would go from (strongest) Ti – Se – Ni – Fe, and then some order of Te/Si/Ne/Fi that we don’t care about because all 4 are weaker than their opposing function.

This is an extremely fair point: on the MBTI, I am not 100% INTP, rather am 93% Introverted, 92% iNtuiting, 68.5% Thinking, and 84.5% Perceiving. If others say “Myers-Briggs doesn’t work because people aren’t 100% anything” and if I’m then going to defend MBTI by pointing out that it’s a set of spectra, rather than of binary choices, then I should absolutely accept that Function stacks could work in exactly the same way. In this case, ISTP would mean:

1) Se is the strongest S, Ni is the strongest N, Ti is the strongest T, Fe is the strongest F

and 2) the strongest T (Ti) is stronger than the strongest S (Se) which is stronger than the strongest N (Ni) which is stronger than the strongest F (Fe).

We’ve now narrowed down the number of possible stacks down to 384 (8 possibilities for the first * 6 possibilities for the second * 4 possibilities for the third * 2 possibilities for the fourth), of which mine is Ne – Fi – Ti – Si. However, the main advantage for using 8 functions instead of 4 axes is supposed to be the greater depth of measurement, and “streamlining” my function stack erased the fact that Fe is my weakest function instead of Ni, Te, or Se.

Moreover, this still doesn’t change the fact that only 16/384 ≈ 4.167% of the potential function stacks work according to the system that’s been set up for assigning 4-letter codes to said stacks.

In my case, Ne and Fi being my “strongest” types would make me an ENFP, which would then follow that my Si must be stronger than my Se and that my Te must be stronger than my Ti in order for my data to fit the theory.

Even with all of the fudging that I have tried to allow for (narrowing the 40,320 possible results down to 384), I still end up with data (my stack is Ne – Fi – Ti – Si) that conflicts with the theoretical construct (“a stack starting with Ne – Fi must finish with Te – Si because functions are supposed to balance out”).

Suppose we narrow the possibilities down even further to say that only the strongest Judgment and strongest Perception matter (for example: if the strongest Perception is Se, the strongest Judgment is Fi, and the Fi comes first, then the 4-letter code is ISFP). This still leaves 4 groups of “unacceptable” combinations in addition to the 4 groups of “acceptable” options:

Pi – Je (IxxP), Pe – Ji (ExxP), Je – Pi (ExxJ), Ji – Pe (IxxJ)
Pe – Je (????), Pi – Ji (????), Ji – Pi (????), Je – Pe (????)

We started out with 40,320 combinations of functions, each reasonable and informative on their own but which were incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code in 99.96% of cases. Some creative negligence of important data later (sacrificing the original relevance), we narrowed down the possibilities to 384 families of reasonably similar combinations that can be treated as identical, but again, 96% of these groups were still incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code. Finally, after deleting almost all of the information of the original system, we arrive at 8 basic groups, and still 50% of them are incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code.

The only way for every single Cognitive Function stack to be attached to a 4-letter code under the present construct would be to take the strongest function (perhaps a Pe) and go all of the way through the list until you find the strongest opposite (in this case, whichever Ji is strongest).

For example, if somebody’s functions went from (strongest) Fe – Ne – Ti – Te – Fi – Se – Ni – Si (weakest), then Fe being strongest means that we want to know which Pi is stronger than the other. In this case, Ni is stronger than Si, and Fe – Ni gives us ENFJ.

All that was required to reach this conclusion (the 4-letter code for this person’s cognitive functions is ENFJ) to was for us to ignore all of the real world data (Ni was one of the person’s weakest functions while Ne, Te and Fi were among the strongest) which conflicted with our desire for this specific conclusion (Cognitive Function stacks are assigned 4-letter codes where N/S and T/F tell you which functions are the strongest and I/E and J/P tell you the order and direction of the strongest functions).

**

The orders of functions which provide useful information cannot be typed according to 4-letter codes (there are mathematically too many for only 16 possible 4-letter codes to reveal all of the information), and attempting to type the orders of functions with 4-letter codes destroys the most useful information (The “ENFJ” in the previous example had a far stronger Ne, Te, and Ni then the construct would suggest).

In order to be considered scientific, theories must be adapted to fit the evidence rather than the other way around. As such, it doesn’t make any sense for questions about Cognitive Functions to be answered with 4-letter codes (“I have functions Fi – Si – Te – Ne, is my type ISFP or ISFJ?”) or vice versa (“How could you possibly confuse INTP with INTJ? Their function stacks don’t have anything in common”).

Lists of cognitive functions (which is your strongest, which is your second strongest…) are useful.

4-letter codes for Myers-Briggs axes (are you mostly introverted or extraverted, are you mostly intuitive or sensory…) are useful.

4-letter codes for lists of cognitive functions (are you IxxP = Ji first & Pe second or are you …) are nonsense.


----------



## StunnedFox

The notable issue with the analysis you present is the assumption that relevant data can be obtained about relative cognitive function "strengths" - something which I'm sure most who are enamoured with functions-based theories would dispute. I think it's fair to say that without some accepted method of obtaining data, the theory is ultimately too speculative and prone to subjective biases to be meaningful, but I still think this point stands. Some of the other aspects of the analysis are questionable as a result of working from this data (a lot of the argument here rests upon every theoretical possibility attainable on purported tests being a possible configuration that a person could actually have, for instance)...

With that said, I think the point is largely a fair one. There are simply too many unjustified assumptions inbuilt into functions-based theories for them to be viable; unlike the "four-letter" approach (where dividing each of four dimensions in half justifiably results in sixteen possibilities), most functions theories require the acceptance of a number of notions without good reason to "justify" limiting the possibilities to just sixteen combinations. To the extent that these presuppositions don't stand up to scrutiny (either because objective evidence demonstrates that they're incorrect, or, more commonly with type theory, because they are wilfully presented in a manner not amenable to objective evaluation), theories incorporating those presuppositions are flawed. 

There is definitely a disconnect between the four-letter approach to type and the functions approach, _even if_, by some means, functions theories could be supported - this being particularly prominent with J/P, since it's treated as having two distinct roles (one as a dimension pertaining to preferences for structure vs. flexibility - to put it incredibly simplistically - and one to say which of two completely distinct function stacks a person supposedly has), but also present with the other three dimensions to varying degrees. So even if none of the various issues with functions theories were present, such that we could theoretically have two parallel theories of type running alongside one another, the claim that functions are incompatible with "four-letter" type would still hold to the extent that both theories, in their separate operation, come to differing conclusions (e.g., if a person could demonstrably be shown to be an ISFJ under the "letter"-based theory but an ISFP under functions-based theories).


----------



## Valtire

Why do you trust a list of ambiguous questions to correctly evaluate your cognitive functions?

You wrote all this on the blind trust of a test, rather than reading the theory, which clearly explains why there can only be 16 personalities.

The fact that you scored highly on Fi and Ti; two completely contrary functions, should have proven to you that the tests don't work.


----------



## StunnedFox

Fried Eggz said:


> Why do you trust a list of ambiguous questions to correctly evaluate your cognitive functions?
> 
> You wrote all this on the blind trust of a test, rather than reading the theory, which clearly explains why there can only be 16 personalities.
> 
> The fact that you scored highly on Fi and Ti; two completely contrary functions, should have proven to you that the tests don't work.


Surely the idea that one should discount data because of what the theory states (here, by concluding that the tests are flawed because they don't reflect the theory) is precisely the idea @Simpson17866 is railing against? As I pointed out above, the idea that data from online tests reflects function strength is open to dispute (as you've done here), but all that does is leave us without any data from which we can actually evaluate the theory's veracity at all. Again as pointed out by the OP, when meaningful definitions are actually provided for each function, there tends not to be any evident reason why a person couldn't use two functions that are supposedly contrary to each other.

I'd like to know how the theory "clearly explains" why there can only be sixteen myself - and, by that, I mean in a meaningful sense, not in the sense that it asserts a slew of unjustified restrictions on what is and isn't possible.


----------



## Simpson17866

Fried Eggz said:


> Why do you trust a list of ambiguous questions to correctly evaluate your cognitive functions?


 What's the point in learning about cognitive functions if you're _not_ going to talk about what they look like in the real world?



> You wrote all this on the blind trust of a test, rather than reading the theory, which clearly explains why there can only be 16 personalities.
> 
> The fact that you scored highly on Fi and Ti; two completely contrary functions, should have proven to you that the tests don't work.


 Kepler's original model clearly explained why the orbits of the planets around the Sun in circular orbits measured by nestled Platonic Solids. Real world observation conflicted with this construct.

Where would astronomy be today if William Herschel and Urbain Le Verrier had been told "You wrote all of this on the blind trust of observations, rather than reading the Platonic theory, which clearly explains why there can only be 6 planets"?


----------



## Cesspool

You could have just said 8!


----------



## Kynx

Functions can't be measured by tests, only indicated by them. 

Opposing functions can't exist together in consciousness. They are 'psychological aims' or 'direction'. The development of one function perspective suppresses the development of it's opposite function perspective. Our mind can't simultaneously place highest importance on two completely opposite perspectives.


----------



## Simpson17866

Neverontime said:


> Functions can't be measured by tests, only indicated by them.


 Then what's the point?



> Opposing functions can't exist together in consciousness. They are 'psychological aims' or 'direction'. The development of one function perspective suppresses the development of it's opposite function perspective. Our mind can't simultaneously place highest importance on two completely opposite perspectives.


 That's like saying that "opposing muscles can't exist together in limbs (biceps vs. triceps, quadriceps vs. hamstrings...)"


----------



## Kynx

Simpson17866 said:


> Then what's the point?


Probably to make money out of people somehow. Convince people that they can help them develop inferior functions and then sell a book or run a workshop or something. I don't know, I didn't create the test. :tongue:



> That's like saying that "opposing muscles can't exist together in limbs (biceps vs. triceps, quadriceps vs. hamstrings...)"


No, it's like saying that the biceps and triceps can't simultaneously contract.


----------



## Simpson17866

Neverontime said:


> Probably to make money out of people somehow. Convince people that they can help them develop inferior functions and then sell a book or run a workshop or something. I don't know, I didn't create the test. :tongue:


 I wasn't asking "what's the point of talking about _tests_ if you're not supposed to use them to see which functions a person uses the most strongly," I was asking "what's the point of talking about _functions_ if you're not supposed to use tests to see which ones a person uses the most strongly?"



> No, it's like saying that the biceps and triceps can't simultaneously contract.


 You mean like isometrics? I'm doing that right now.


----------



## slemo

Neverontime said:


> Functions can't be measured by tests, only indicated by them.
> 
> Opposing functions can't exist together in consciousness. They are 'psychological aims' or 'direction'. The development of one function perspective suppresses the development of it's opposite function perspective. Our mind can't simultaneously place highest importance on two completely opposite perspectives.



So you mean that
F
T
S
N
are each separate things, but expressed in different ways depending on i/e?


N is ingenuity... but inwardly pointing (Ni) or outwardly pointing (Ne).
F is feeling... but inwardly pointing (Fi) or outwardly pointing (Fe).
S is immersion into the physical world... but inwardly pointing (Si) or outwardly pointing (Se).
T is rational thought... but inwardly pointing (Ti) or outwardly pointing (Te).

e is about sharing?
i is about processing reality?

So you process, then share, process, then share?
Like that?

It is a nice theory to explain the behavior or "personality" of a person I guess. But I think it is a lot about fabricating evidence and bending the facts so that each person will fit into this box of description. It works because it is hard refute something this diffuse.
But it is derived from theory, it is theory, not reality.


----------



## Kynx

Simpson17866 said:


> I wasn't asking "what's the point of talking about _tests_ if you're not supposed to use them to see which functions a person uses the most strongly," I was asking "what's the point of talking about _functions_ if you're not supposed to use tests to see which ones a person uses the most strongly?"
> 
> You mean like isometrics? I'm doing that right now.


I don't know anything about isometrics, I'm sure that doesn't prevent you from understanding the point I was trying to make. 

Cognitive functions are a small part of a larger theory, which is why I'm interested in learning about and discussing them. I can't answer for everyone else.


----------



## Kynx

trocke said:


> So you mean that
> F
> T
> S
> N
> are each separate things, but expressed in different ways depending on i/e?
> 
> 
> N is ingenuity... but inwardly pointing (Ni) or outwardly pointing (Ne).
> F is feeling... but inwardly pointing (Fi) or outwardly pointing (Fe).
> S is immersion into the physical world... but inwardly pointing (Si) or outwardly pointing (Se).
> T is rational thought... but inwardly pointing (Ti) or outwardly pointing (Te).
> 
> e is about sharing?
> i is about processing reality?
> 
> So you process, then share, process, then share?
> Like that?
> 
> It is a nice theory to explain the behavior or "personality" of a person I guess. But I think it is a lot about fabricating evidence and bending the facts so that each person will fit into this box of description. It works because it is hard refute something this diffuse.
> But it is derived from theory, it is theory, not reality.


I'm aware it's a theory. I'm discussing the theory, I just don't continually point it out in every post. Beginning every post with 'According to theory' would get a little tiresome after the umpteenth time. So I just assume that everyone else is also aware that it's a theory, or at least they will soon figure it out. 

Functions (and i vs e attitudes) represent placing highest importance on particular aspects of perception and judgements. 

We wouldn't function effectively if our minds weren't selective with which parts of information they value most. The mind has to discriminate in order to focus. 

N is placing highest importance on the intuitive aspect of perception 

S.....
... the tangible information 

T...... Logic based criteria 

F....... Value based criteria 

e - from the 'outer world' 

i - from the 'inner world' aka archetypes/primordial images, derived from the collective unconscious or 'inherited' part of our psyche. 

According to the theory.


----------



## PaladinX

Simpson17866 said:


> Then what's the point?
> 
> That's like saying that "opposing muscles can't exist together in limbs (biceps vs. triceps, quadriceps vs. hamstrings...)"


More like a see-saw. Both sides can't be up (or down).


----------



## Simpson17866

PaladinX said:


> More like a see-saw. Both sides can't be up (or down).


 But there are 8 functions, not 2, so the low end of one see-saw could still be higher than the low end of another.


----------



## PaladinX

Simpson17866 said:


> But there are 8 functions, not 2, so the low end of one see-saw could still be higher than the low end of another.


Sure if they existed independently in a vacuum.

E/I one see-saw
S/N another see-saw
T/F another see-saw

See the attachment below containing a diagram from Psychiatrist and Jungian Analyst, Anthony Stevens:


----------



## Simpson17866

PaladinX said:


> See the attachment below containing a diagram from Psychiatrist and Jungian Analyst, Anthony Stevens:


 That's a fantastic picture of what the human mind _could_ look like (if artistic symmetry came first and real-world observation followed), and there are certainly some people (≈4%) who's real-world data would support this desired conclusion.

I myself have a fantastic picture of what the Solar System _could_ look like under the same concern for artistry over observation:


----------



## PaladinX

Simpson17866 said:


> That's a fantastic picture of what the human mind _could_ look like (if artistic symmetry came first and real-world observation followed), and there are certainly some people (≈4%) who's real-world data would support this desired conclusion.
> 
> I myself have a fantastic picture of what the Solar System _could_ look like under the same concern for artistry over observation:


I think you take things way too literally. Sigh...

Please tell me this real world data that supports the functions as you claim them to be? Regardless, people believed the world was flat too. (some still do!)


----------



## Telepathis Goosus

Simpson17866 said:


> The fact that there are 8 components of the Cognitive Functions system (Se, Si, Ne…) means that there are 40,320 ways of organizing them from strongest to weakest in any given person’s thought process (8 possibilities for the strongest * 7 possibilities for the second strongest * 6 possibilities for the third strongest * … * 2 possibilities for the second weakest * 1 possibility for the weakest). I personally go from
> 
> Ne: 48.5
> Fi: 43.2
> Ti: 40.3
> Ni: 33.9
> Te: 32
> Si: 17.8
> Se: 14
> Fe: 10.7
> 
> If each Myers-Briggs-styled 4-letter code (ISFJ, ISTP...) is assigned a specific order of the 8 functions (for example, INFP = [strongest] Fi, Ne, Si, Te, Fe, Ni, Se, Ti [weakest]), then there is only a 16/40,320 chance (≈0.04%) that a person’s personality type will be one of the orders with a type associated.
> 
> If, and this is more common, we say that only 4 of the cognitive functions are used by any one person (for example, INFP = [strongest] Fi – Ne – Si – Te [weakest], Fe/Ni/Se/Ti [nonexistent]), then we run into new trouble of the categories not applying to anybody. For example, if Si is defined as “comparing external stimuli to past experiences of similar stimuli” against defining Se as “experiencing external stimuli completely as they are happening,” then it’s physically impossible for a person’s brain not to do both.
> 
> If you start with a construct, declare that “ISTPs do not have Si in their function stack, they have Se” according to said construct, and test real people to see which one they are capable of, then you would find that everybody experiences present stimuli and remembers past stimuli.
> 
> This construct only works if you adjust the data (how do people think) to support the construct’s assumptions (how the functions are supposed to be ordered), which is the opposite of what can be described as scientific.
> 
> **
> 
> Now perhaps this is too extreme, perhaps instead the “function stack” is simply the strongest of each pair (Se vs. Si, etc…). In this case, ISTP would go from (strongest) Ti – Se – Ni – Fe, and then some order of Te/Si/Ne/Fi that we don’t care about because all 4 are weaker than their opposing function.
> 
> This is an extremely fair point: on the MBTI, I am not 100% INTP, rather am 93% Introverted, 92% iNtuiting, 68.5% Thinking, and 84.5% Perceiving. If others say “Myers-Briggs doesn’t work because people aren’t 100% anything” and if I’m then going to defend MBTI by pointing out that it’s a set of spectra, rather than of binary choices, then I should absolutely accept that Function stacks could work in exactly the same way. In this case, ISTP would mean:
> 
> 1) Se is the strongest S, Ni is the strongest N, Ti is the strongest T, Fe is the strongest F
> 
> and 2) the strongest T (Ti) is stronger than the strongest S (Se) which is stronger than the strongest N (Ni) which is stronger than the strongest F (Fe).
> 
> We’ve now narrowed down the number of possible stacks down to 384 (8 possibilities for the first * 6 possibilities for the second * 4 possibilities for the third * 2 possibilities for the fourth), of which mine is Ne – Fi – Ti – Si. However, the main advantage for using 8 functions instead of 4 axes is supposed to be the greater depth of measurement, and “streamlining” my function stack erased the fact that Fe is my weakest function instead of Ni, Te, or Se.
> 
> Moreover, this still doesn’t change the fact that only 16/384 ≈ 4.167% of the potential function stacks work according to the system that’s been set up for assigning 4-letter codes to said stacks.
> 
> In my case, Ne and Fi being my “strongest” types would make me an ENFP, which would then follow that my Si must be stronger than my Se and that my Te must be stronger than my Ti in order for my data to fit the theory.
> 
> Even with all of the fudging that I have tried to allow for (narrowing the 40,320 possible results down to 384), I still end up with data (my stack is Ne – Fi – Ti – Si) that conflicts with the theoretical construct (“a stack starting with Ne – Fi must finish with Te – Si because functions are supposed to balance out”).
> 
> Suppose we narrow the possibilities down even further to say that only the strongest Judgment and strongest Perception matter (for example: if the strongest Perception is Se, the strongest Judgment is Fi, and the Fi comes first, then the 4-letter code is ISFP). This still leaves 4 groups of “unacceptable” combinations in addition to the 4 groups of “acceptable” options:
> 
> Pi – Je (IxxP), Pe – Ji (ExxP), Je – Pi (ExxJ), Ji – Pe (IxxJ)
> Pe – Je (????), Pi – Ji (????), Ji – Pi (????), Je – Pe (????)
> 
> We started out with 40,320 combinations of functions, each reasonable and informative on their own but which were incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code in 99.96% of cases. Some creative negligence of important data later (sacrificing the original relevance), we narrowed down the possibilities to 384 families of reasonably similar combinations that can be treated as identical, but again, 96% of these groups were still incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code. Finally, after deleting almost all of the information of the original system, we arrive at 8 basic groups, and still 50% of them are incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code.
> 
> The only way for every single Cognitive Function stack to be attached to a 4-letter code under the present construct would be to take the strongest function (perhaps a Pe) and go all of the way through the list until you find the strongest opposite (in this case, whichever Ji is strongest).
> 
> For example, if somebody’s functions went from (strongest) Fe – Ne – Ti – Te – Fi – Se – Ni – Si (weakest), then Fe being strongest means that we want to know which Pi is stronger than the other. In this case, Ni is stronger than Si, and Fe – Ni gives us ENFJ.
> 
> All that was required to reach this conclusion (the 4-letter code for this person’s cognitive functions is ENFJ) to was for us to ignore all of the real world data (Ni was one of the person’s weakest functions while Ne, Te and Fi were among the strongest) which conflicted with our desire for this specific conclusion (Cognitive Function stacks are assigned 4-letter codes where N/S and T/F tell you which functions are the strongest and I/E and J/P tell you the order and direction of the strongest functions).
> 
> **
> 
> The orders of functions which provide useful information cannot be typed according to 4-letter codes (there are mathematically too many for only 16 possible 4-letter codes to reveal all of the information), and attempting to type the orders of functions with 4-letter codes destroys the most useful information (The “ENFJ” in the previous example had a far stronger Ne, Te, and Ni then the construct would suggest).
> 
> In order to be considered scientific, theories must be adapted to fit the evidence rather than the other way around. As such, it doesn’t make any sense for questions about Cognitive Functions to be answered with 4-letter codes (“I have functions Fi – Si – Te – Ne, is my type ISFP or ISFJ?”) or vice versa (“How could you possibly confuse INTP with INTJ? Their function stacks don’t have anything in common”).
> 
> Lists of cognitive functions (which is your strongest, which is your second strongest…) are useful.
> 
> 4-letter codes for Myers-Briggs axes (are you mostly introverted or extraverted, are you mostly intuitive or sensory…) are useful.
> 
> 4-letter codes for lists of cognitive functions (are you IxxP = Ji first & Pe second or are you …) are nonsense.


The tests are incompatible with the actual Jung studies, and the cognitive functions. The MBTI type indicator is literal crap. 
The simple answer to this is that you should _not place any value on the tests at all_, as they do not correlate with the rest of the study. 

And, the four letter codes have their purpose. Each letter has a useful purpose associated with the cognitive functions.

For example, you are an INTP:

I - Indicates your dominant function is introverted
N- Indicates you prefer your intuiting function over your sensing function.
T- Indicates you prefer your thinking function over your feeling function.
P - Indicates you use extroverted perceiving and introverted judging.

The 4 letter codes _do not correlate with the specific functions themselves,_ yes, and that is because they are a code. A simple way of summarizing the type. They have their place, as far as I'm concerned and they are useful.

However, I'm interested to see your argument against their use, so please elaborate.


----------



## Simpson17866

TelepathicGoose said:


> P - Indicates you use extroverted perceiving and introverted judging.


 And J is supposed to mean that I would mostly use Extraverted Judging and Introverted Perceiving.

What about somebody whose primary Judgements and Perceptions are both Extraverted? Or both Introverted?


----------



## reckful

TuesdaysChild said:


> Yes, yes, I stipulate. You both got me on that one, fair and square. I fall into traps, too


Conceding that one may have been mistaken is a behavior rarely encountered in internetforumland, and earns you a Muffin of Merit.


----------



## TuesdaysChild

reckful said:


> Conceding that one may have been mistaken is a behavior rarely encountered in internetforumland, and earns you a Muffin of Merit.


Oh, good. I thought you were going to make me read all the links and respond in kind, and here I'm on my third glass of wine AND I'm watching the Hobbit and...... oh wait, it's a muffin!! Thanks  erc3:


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove

To me the interesting part of typology has always been to figure out how much of it is actually true because it could be fascinating if it were. 

Boldly stating that functional stacking is true due to internal logic is among the more "yuck"-inducing things to read in here, and it saddens me when defending functions starts to be akin to religious apologetics and they are placed in the category of untestable quantities like souls and gods. 
It must be possible _at least in theory_ to test something real, (unless if something like an uncertainty principle is somehow present), or else there's no sense of claiming any reality of it.


----------



## TuesdaysChild

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> To me the interesting part of typology has always been to figure out how much of it is actually true because it could be fascinating if it were.
> 
> Boldly stating that functional stacking is true due to internal logic is among the more "yuck"-inducing things to read in here, and it saddens me when defending functions starts to be akin to religious apologetics and they are placed in the category of untestable quantities like souls and gods.
> It must be possible _at least in theory_ to test something real, (unless if something like an uncertainty principle is somehow present), or else there's no sense of claiming any reality of it.


I can agree with you on that. My limited point is merely that the MBTI letters are meant to denote a certain preference related to Jungian functions. Whether the system/functions themselves are infallible or superior/inferior to another system is debatable. But to have any semblance of a standardized measure on how to test them, the parameters have to be defined. You can't measure one system against another if one of them is a moving target. So in order to compare mbti against another personality theory, the theory of mbti first must be defined. It's no use proving a theory wrong when the baseline is already incorrect. The results would be unreliable.


----------



## Abraxas

How the MBTI dichotomies relate to Jung's conceptions of the functions has changed a great deal over time due to considerable research. To put it bluntly, Jung did not get it right on his first try. Even Einstein revised his theories over and over, and rejected quantum mechanics entirely - a field of theoretical research that now stands as one of the most empirical fields outside of the DNA theory of heredity.

Just to put this to an example, there is a lot of evidence in recent years to show that extraversion and introversion are psychological factors even in other species - even in very "simple" species in fact. Jung spent most of Psychological Types talking about E/I for a reason - there's a lot of evidence for it in nature. Without going too far into it, you can see it in the survival strategy of a species. In complicated species (such as us), you see very diverse manifestations of introverted and extraverted tendencies. You can look at E/I in a very abstract way and see it influencing practically every aspect of human behavior.

The point being, if you throw around terms like E/I - and you know what you're talking about - you're probably not far off the mark. But, these other aspects of the theory, like intution/sensation, thinking/feeling, judging/perceiving - or even if we look at other models, like the Big 5, and we start to discuss Neuroticism, or Openness, or whatever - you should always keep in the back of your mind the fact that those are marginally _less_ well-founded. They're still under review. Which isn't to say you should go around telling people they _don't exist_ either - because then you'd have to prove that they _can't_ exist, and that's often just as hard to do as proving they _must_ exist.

So imagine then how it must be for cognitive functions, which have even less to back up their existence than these other models and these other factors. It's not that they _can't exist at all_ - it's just that they can't exist _as described_. We know for a fact - or at least, we have good reason to believe - that _if_ functions really exist at all, they can't exist as described, because it would contradict evidence supporting the dichotomies. And precisely due to that fact, you will see a lot of contemporaries, in their discussions of functions, presenting a different version of the functions than what Jung originally conceived of them to be. This is because someone, somewhere, needs to go to the hard work of building a strong case for the functions that would present a _better argument_ than what we have already for the Big 5, or for something like introversion and extraversion.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove

TuesdaysChild said:


> I can agree with you on that. My limited point is merely that the MBTI letters are meant to denote a certain preference related to Jungian functions. Whether the system/functions themselves are infallible or superior/inferior to another system is debatable. But to have any semblance of a standardized measure on how to test them, the parameters have to be defined. You can't measure one system against another if one of them is a moving target. So in order to compare mbti against another personality theory, the theory of mbti first must be defined. It's no use proving a theory wrong when the baseline is already incorrect. The results would be unreliable.


You're right. The letters on an MBTI test do point to functions, and it would be wrong to say that they had little to do with each other. Sadly functions haven't really been "proven" in the same way that it is proven that people have letter preferences, and part of the reason is that you seemingly can't make a test about it in the same way that you can with the dichotomies. 

One thing to remember is that functions aren't discovered, they are ways in which Jung categorized people and has served him as a very useful tool in psychiatry.
The problem with made up categories is that they might be too rigid and thus mostly exist as convenient guidance but break down, at least in part, on thorough inspection. 
The question is how applicable, say, introverted feeling is as a concept. Is it for instance on par with art terms like expressionism and surrealism? That is, many paintings can adequately be described as expressionistic on the whole, but the lines are blurry and the details of it are even more so. This would make functions a very messy science indeed - but then perhaps they are closer to, say, animal kingdoms in terms of validity. Who knows.

Also some terms are almost impossible to define and yet so obvious that we won't let go of them, like intelligence and beauty. We might have a hard time discussing whether Newton or Einstein was the smartest, or if Brad Pitt has an edge over Eric Bana, but it's easy to see that they all beat me in those regards. 
Intelligence and beauty are notoriously hard to make a precise definition of but is rather described in terms of functionality or what it's often about.

I see the problem of functions as being that they take so much ingenuity to pin down and probably cannot be it in a simplistic way. Introverted feeling might be as meaningful a concept as beauty, but also cover as many different parts of it.


----------



## TuesdaysChild

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> or if Brad Pitt has an edge over Eric Bana


Of course Brad Pitt doesn't have an edge over Eric Bana. Eric Bana forever <3 <3 <3 :tongue:


----------



## TuesdaysChild

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> You're right. The letters on an MBTI test do point to functions, and it would be wrong to say that they had little to do with each other. Sadly functions haven't really been "proven" in the same way that it is proven that people have letter preferences, and part of the reason is that you seemingly can't make a test about it in the same way that you can with the dichotomies.
> 
> One thing to remember is that functions aren't discovered, they are ways in which Jung categorized people and has served him as a very useful tool in psychiatry.
> The problem with made up categories is that they might be too rigid and thus mostly exist as convenient guidance but break down, at least in part, on thorough inspection.
> The question is how applicable, say, introverted feeling is as a concept. Is it for instance on par with art terms like expressionism and surrealism? That is, many paintings can adequately be described as expressionistic on the whole, but the lines are blurry and the details of it are even more so. This would make functions a very messy science indeed - but then perhaps they are closer to, say, animal kingdoms in terms of validity. Who knows.
> 
> Also some terms are almost impossible to define and yet so obvious that we won't let go of them, like intelligence and beauty. We might have a hard time discussing whether Newton or Einstein was the smartest, or if Brad Pitt has an edge over Eric Bana, but it's easy to see that they all beat me in those regards.
> Intelligence and beauty are notoriously hard to make a precise definition of but is rather described in terms of functionality or what it's often about.
> 
> I see the problem of functions as being that they take so much ingenuity to pin down and probably cannot be it in a simplistic way. Introverted feeling might be as meaningful a concept as beauty, but also cover as many different parts of it.


And now for a more relevant response 

To me I think as cognitive functions go, it's more accurate to term it "mindset theory". As it is, the functions are used to indicate far more than intended, and much of it is propagated on sites like this. Oh, I don't feel. I'm a thinker. Really? Well, let's consider the inverse of that, that feelers don't think. Primary education would have been a bitch if that was the case.

TuesdaysChild, what is 9 X 8?
I don't know, but kittens make me happy!!!

So yeah, people tend to use functions to mean more than they do. It really plays a small role in our daily lives. If I say I'm an inventor, which I am, people who know me to claim myself as an INFP will say, you must not be an INFP. I bet you're an INTP. Sorry to burst your bubble. I'm INFP. That doesn't make me stupid or incapable of finding innovative solutions to common problems. Though I might be more affected reading a negative review of my product invention than an INTP would, which is also true 

To me it seems more a 50,000 foot overview of a mindset rather than specifics such as ability, intelligence, skill, etc. Which also makes it, as you said, less measurable and harder to pin down.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove

TuesdaysChild said:


> And now for a more relevant response
> 
> To me I think as cognitive functions go, it's more accurate to term it "mindset theory". As it is, the functions are used to indicate far more than intended, and much of it is propagated on sites like this. Oh, I don't feel. I'm a thinker. Really? Well, let's consider the inverse of that, that feelers don't think. Primary education would have been a bitch if that was the case.
> 
> TuesdaysChild, what is 9 X 8?
> I don't know, but kittens make me happy!!!
> 
> So yeah, people tend to use functions to mean more than they do. It really plays a small role in our daily lives. If I say I'm an inventor, which I am, people who know me to claim myself as an INFP will say, you must not be an INFP. I bet you're an INTP. Sorry to burst your bubble. I'm INFP. That doesn't make me stupid or incapable of finding innovative solutions to common problems. Though I might be more affected reading a negative review of my product invention than an INTP would, which is also true
> 
> To me it seems more a 50,000 foot overview of a mindset rather than specifics such as ability, intelligence, skill, etc. Which also makes it, as you said, less measurable and harder to pin down.


It is a dangerous byproduct of typology that it can be used erroneously to determine the skill set of someone. If I were the director of a company (don't laugh!) I would find the MBTI useful in ensuring harmony and maximal potential of the employees, but I would shoot my (and your) foot if I gave you tasks that were too based on your letters. Having only NF psychologists, SP athletes or SJ managers would be nothing short of a caste system. 

On the other hand I do see where being a specific type gives at least smaller obstacles when pursuing an "unnatural" career path (coming from an NF math student who sometimes feels like just being a poor writer instead.)

And sorry, I'm pretty bad at determining the attractiveness of men. Women have obscure minds on this point.


----------



## TuesdaysChild

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> And sorry, I'm pretty bad at determining the attractiveness of men. Women have obscure minds on this point.


That's okay. I still UnicornRainbowLove you


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove

TuesdaysChild said:


> That's okay. I still UnicornRainbowLove you


And to me you'll always be a child born on the Sabbath day 

(I gave up coming up with a pun on tuesdayschild.. clearly I'm no Ne-dom)


----------



## maust

If nothing else, I can tell you the INTP OP happily spent pages debating this, and the ENTJ (that would be me) skimmed, decided this whole thing was definitely being overthought, and then came here to comment. Te vs Ti. Seems pretty useful to me. 

On a more direct note, I test Ni/Te - Se, so my functions pretty much line up. I've also found that when I'm stuck in an emotional loop, going somewhere new and doing new things is one of the only ways to break me out of a slump- drawing "everyone hates me" from lots of tiny interactions and getting more and more withdrawn because of it. I fit this into the theory as "Ni-Fi withdrawn freakout gets broken up by Se experiences", but I could be wrong. 

And yeah, the tests are crap, but they're a good starting point. It's like a diagnostic for a class- you want to see where you're at, and if it sounds/is wrong, you go study it.


----------



## Erbse

Tests:

1. Tests are only ever as accurate as their algorithm, which may be bad.

2. Tests are only ever as accurate as the person taking it has a realistic picture of him/herself and answers in correspondence to reality and not wishful thinking.

3. Tests only sort by likelihood - Being Ti dom merely means that you're likely to use Ti the most. It does however not evaluate strength whatsoever. Being Ti dominant != being proficient at it.

4. There's a whole theory and principles behind the idea of MBTI. These principles are more or less laws and eliminate a lot of playing room.

5. MBTI is limited and should only be used and seen for what it is good at. Using a tool for something it's not meant or intended to be will never yield the desired results.


----------



## Simpson17866

alittlebear said:


> (Correct me if I'm wrong!)


 Nope, you got it.



Blue Soul said:


> I'm not really familiar with Cognitive Functions (is this another theory or what?). I was kind of hoping someone would correct/educate me. ^^
> 
> Like how sometimes I'll test as LIE (ENTj) in socionics with ILI (INTp) 97% as likely, and that makes sense because they run on the same cognitive functions. On the other hand, for instance being *Ni-Te-Fi-Se in one system and being Ne-Ti-Fe-Si *wouldn't make much sense at all though, right? To me that would be a sign of mistyping in some way, get my point?


 It's not "one order of cognitive functions in one system, a different order of functions in another" so much as "orders of cognitive functions _are_ a single system that doesn't work as well with other systems as they're given credit for."



Blue Soul said:


> I don't see why someone would want to do that though, other than making it slightly more pronouncable when talking about the different types. The dichotomies are just oversimplifications of the cognitive functions anyway.


 Simplifications, not oversimplifications :wink:

Looking at dichotomies gives me one set of information: I'm primarily self-contained (I), abstracting (N), cool-headed (T), and spontaneous (P).

Looking at orders of functions gives me a different set of information: I'm primarily interested in playing with as many ideas as possible (Ne), secondarily in developing a personal sense of values (Fi), tertiarily in making logical sense of the world around me (Ti), ... very little interest in the physical world around me or my relationships with the people in it (Fe + Se).

Trying to discount possible combinations: 

_"if you're self-contained, abstracting, cool-headed, and spontaneous (INTP), then you *must* care primarily about making sense of the world, secondarily about playing with tons of different ideas, tertiarily about cataloging information about the world around you, quaternarily about your relationships with the people around you (Ti-Ne-Si-Fe)"

"if you care primarily about playing with tons of different ideas and secondarily about developing a personal sense of values and morals (Ne-Fi), then you *must* be an outgoing, abstracting, touchy-feeley, spontaneous person (ENFP) who cares more about making the world more efficient than about making it make more sense (Ne-Fi-Te instead of Ne-Fi-Ti)"_

doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Simpson17866

maust said:


> If nothing else, I can tell you the INTP OP happily spent pages debating this, and the ENTJ (that would be me) skimmed, decided this whole thing was definitely being overthought, and then came here to comment. Te vs Ti. Seems pretty useful to me.


 That is a true statement :tongue:



> On a more direct note, I test Ni/Te - Se, so my functions pretty much line up.


 Lucky you :wink:



> And yeah, the tests are crap, but they're a good starting point. It's like a diagnostic for a class- you want to see where you're at, and if it sounds/is wrong, you go study it.


 Exactly: hypotheses _and_ data are more useful than one or the other.


----------



## Blue Soul

@Simpson17866

How do you deal with the J/P issue in MBTI then? P in an extrovert means a different thing from P in an introvert.


----------



## StunnedFox

Blue Soul said:


> @Simpson17866
> 
> How do you deal with the J/P issue in MBTI then? P in an extrovert means a different thing from P in an introvert.


Not when J/P is seen solely as a dichotomy; when that's the case, both J and P have the same meaning regardless of whether the person in question is introverted or extraverted. Even with the functions model assumed, they arguably mean the same thing (in that J and P describe which of the two preferred functions - one each of S/N and T/F - is extraverted), although obviously that's where the distinction between introverts and extraverts does come into it (for extraverts, J/P described the dominant, whilst for introverts, it's the auxiliary). But yeah, J/P viewed solely as a dichotomy (which seems to me to be how @Simpson17866 is treating it) doesn't differ in meaning relative to I/E, so I'm not sure what issue this is supposed to refer to...


----------



## Blue Soul

StunnedFox said:


> Not when J/P is seen solely as a dichotomy; when that's the case, both J and P have the same meaning regardless of whether the person in question is introverted or extraverted. Even with the functions model assumed, they arguably mean the same thing (in that J and P describe which of the two preferred functions - one each of S/N and T/F - is extraverted), although obviously that's where the distinction between introverts and extraverts does come into it (for extraverts, J/P described the dominant, whilst for introverts, it's the auxiliary). But yeah, J/P viewed solely as a dichotomy (which seems to me to be how @Simpson17866 is treating it) doesn't differ in meaning relative to I/E, so I'm not sure what issue this is supposed to refer to...


The issue I'm referring to is that J _should_ indicate dominant judging function and P _should_ indicate dominant perceiving function, this is true in extroverts, however in introverts it is not.

You could explain it like you do "whilst for introverts, it's the auxiliary", but my question to you is: is there any solid reason to do so? For instance, why not call an INTP who's a dominant judger a judger (J), and an INTJ who's a dominant perceiver a perceiver (P)?


----------



## PaladinX

Blue Soul said:


> The issue I'm referring to is that J _should_ indicate dominant judging function and P _should_ indicate dominant perceiving function, this is true in extroverts, however in introverts it is not.
> 
> You could explain it like you do "whilst for introverts, it's the auxiliary", but my question to you is: is there any solid reason to do so? For instance, why not call an INTP who's a dominant judger a judger (J), and an INTJ who's a dominant perceiver a perceiver (P)?


The problem is that it doesn't indicate what you think it _should. 
_
In MBTI, it simply indicates your approach to the external world. It is not solely meant as a pointer to a function. It has a meaning all on its own similar to that of the Conscientiousness domain of the Big Five. Your reasoning would be like saying that INTPs should score highly on the Big Five on things such as:



I am always prepared.
I get chores done right away.
I like order.
I follow a schedule.

The problem is not with the dichotomy itself. It is with type dynamics that tries to connect the dichotomy to the perceiving and judging functions.


----------



## Blue Soul

PaladinX said:


> The problem is that it doesn't indicate what you think it should.
> 
> The P/J dichotomy has a meaning all on its own similar to that of the Conscientiousness domain of the Big Five. Your reasoning would be like saying that INTPs should score highly on the Big Five on things such as:
> 
> 
> I am always prepared.
> I get chores done right away.
> I like order.
> I follow a schedule.
> 
> The problem is not with the dichotomy itself. It is with type dynamics that tries to connect the dichotomy to the perceiving and judging functions.


I thought that was why Turbulent (T) and Assertive (A) was added to MBTI, to include that fifth axis that's present in Big Five.

If they (cognitive functions and dichotomies) clearly are connected though, why is this a problem? Because someone decided to fuck up MBTI in its very initial construction. We're just now dealing with the confusing consequences of that mistake. 

People are ascribing values of J and P to the wrong things in introverts, and to the right things in extroverts. Therefore the J/P dichomtomy loses a bit of its typing credibility because it means multiple contradictory things at once.

If someone could prove why the auxiliary function would somehow be more "dominant" than the actual dominant function in introverts, I'd be much more inclined to take you guys seriously.

While I understand the value of the trunk (the dichotomies) of the tree, why you would try to separate the trunk from its roots (the cognitive functions) is beyond me. Because that tree would be a dead tree.


----------



## StunnedFox

Blue Soul said:


> The issue I'm referring to is that J _should_ indicate dominant judging function and P _should_ indicate dominant perceiving function, this is true in extroverts, however in introverts it is not.
> 
> You could explain it like you do "whilst for introverts, it's the auxiliary", but my question to you is: is there any solid reason to do so? For instance, why not call an INTP who's a dominant judger a judger (J), and an INTJ who's a dominant perceiver a perceiver (P)?


As @PaladinX indicated, there's no reason to suppose it "should" work that way. J/P is explicitly framed in terms of how people "deal with the outer world" (Introduction To Type), so it's that which J/P is intended to reflect, not dominant function. What reason is there to say it's supposed to indicate something other than it is explicitly intended to?



Blue Soul said:


> I thought that was why Turbulent (T) and Assertive (A) was added to MBTI, to include that fifth axis that's present in Big Five.
> 
> If they (cognitive functions and dichotomies) clearly are connected though, why is this a problem? Because someone decided to fuck up MBTI in its very initial construction. We're just now dealing with the confusing consequences of that mistake.
> 
> People are ascribing values of J and P to the wrong things in introverts, and to the right things in extroverts. Therefore the J/P dichomtomy loses a bit of its typing credibility because it means multiple contradictory things at once.
> 
> If someone could prove why the auxiliary function would somehow be more "dominant" than the actual dominant function in introverts, I'd be much more inclined to take you guys seriously.
> 
> While I understand the value of the trunk (the dichotomies) of the tree, why you would try to separate the trunk from its roots (the cognitive functions) is beyond me. Because that tree would be a dead tree.


Turbulent and Assertive aren't a part of the official MBTI, and as far as I know they're only used on the site 16personalities - and the Big Five axis it's attempting to capture is Neuroticism, since of all the Big Five axes, that's the only one lacking a direct MBTI analogue. Conscientiousness is already analogous to the J/P dimension (and Extraversion to I/E, Openness to Experience to S/N, and Agreeableness to T/F).

You seem to be misunderstanding the point here generally. J/P is a dimension that pertains to how a person "[deals] with the outer world" - so, amongst other things, J types "like to live in a planned, orderly way, seeking to regulate and manage their lives", wanting "to make decisions, come to closure, and move on", whilst P types "like to live in a flexible, spontaneous way, seeking to experience and understand life, rather than control it", finding decisions confining and preferring "to stay open to new information and last-minute options". Standing in isolation, there is nothing wrong with the concept that people prefer one attitude (J or P) more than the other. The problem is the attempt to link that concept with the separate concept of set function-stacks - i.e., the problem is type dynamics.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the auxiliary is more dominant in introverts than the auxiliary, and the notion of a dimension pertaining to how we deal with the outer world doesn't seem to necessitate that either: in the same way that it makes perfect sense to view both INTJs and INTPs as N-types, so it makes sense to see both INTJs and ENTJs as J-types. The claim that "people are ascribing J/P to the wrong things in introverts" only makes sense if you view J/P as attaching to the dominant function, but you have no basis for holding that viewpoint.

I don't think the trunk/roots metaphor is entirely apt here. All four MBTI dimensions can theoretically stand alone, without the additional theoretical construct of cognitive functions, so there's no need for the two to connect - but, even if there were such a need, the connection is clearly flawed here, largely because type dynamics as it stands involves highly suspect inferences (e.g., that a person who prefers I, S, F and J is S-dominant). So, in relation to your main point, J/P makes conceptual sense on its own (as, arguably, does the concept of being a dominant judger/dominant perceiver) - the problem is the attempt to infer one thing (in this case, function order and orientation) from another (standard dichotomy J/P preference) without good reason to think that link holds.


----------



## PaladinX

Blue Soul said:


> I thought that was why Turbulent (T) and Assertive (A) was added to MBTI, to include that fifth axis that's present in Big Five.
> 
> If they (cognitive functions and dichotomies) clearly are connected though, why is this a problem? Because someone decided to fuck up MBTI in its very initial construction. We're just now dealing with the confusing consequences of that mistake.
> 
> People are ascribing values of J and P to the wrong things in introverts, and to the right things in extroverts. Therefore the J/P dichomtomy loses a bit of its typing credibility because it means multiple contradictory things at once.
> 
> If someone could prove why the auxiliary function would somehow be more "dominant" than the actual dominant function in introverts, I'd be much more inclined to take you guys seriously.
> 
> While I understand the value of the trunk (the dichotomies) of the tree, why you would try to separate the trunk from its roots (the cognitive functions) is beyond me. Because that tree would be a dead tree.


1. Turbulent and Assertive have not been incorporated into MBTI. This is a third party's own version. Otherwise, the neuroticism dimension of the big five has absolutely nothing to do with the point that I was making, so I'm not sure what you are on about.

2. Ok...

3. This is a misconception. J and P are categorically distinct from the functions. Jung never even talked about it. It was Briggs and Myers that brought this to the table. The mistake is in labelling them Judging and Perceiving and tying them into the functions. Jung talked about rational and irrational types, which is what I think you are alluding to. Myers' J and P has nothing to do with this perspective.

4. This doesn't make sense. Again, because you are assuming that J/P should point to the dominant, which it doesn't. It points to the extraverted function. The dichotomy is about your approach to the external world. Again, it has nothing to do with Jung's rational/irrational type perspective.

5. Again, this analogy is based on a false assumption. J/P has nothing to do with rational/irrational types. It was added by Briggs and Myers. You can think of it as open-ended vs closure-seeking. They are two completely separate attitudes from anything that Jung talked about.


----------



## Blue Soul

@StunnedFox and @PaladinX Thank you both for your perspectives. I know I'm not exactly being clear in my knowledge of things, but that makes it so much easier to let you guys work that Ti (to be fair you do it much better anyway). 

So are you saying that S/N and T/F (perhaps E/I too to a lesser degree) are connected to the functions, but J/P aren't?


----------



## StunnedFox

Blue Soul said:


> @StunnedFox and @PaladinX Thank you both for your perspectives. I know I'm not exactly being clear in my knowledge of things, but that makes it so much easier to let you guys work that Ti (to be fair you do it much better anyway).
> 
> So are you saying that S/N and T/F (perhaps E/I too to a lesser degree) are connected to the functions, but J/P aren't?


I think it helps to separate the two theories entirely, at least initially, since the major issue (as the thread title alludes to) is their incompatibility. What I mean is, it helps to start by viewing all of the dichotomies as independent scales, not attaching to any functions model at all. Whether the concepts embodied in that part of the theory comfortably match up to the concepts as presented if you view functions models in isolation is hard to say, but there seems to me to be too much disconnect and blurring of lines for it to work for any of them - for instance, Te could match to a T preference, an E preference, an S preference (descriptions for both Te and S often emphasis an interest in "facts"), &c. So the best answer is probably that it's unclear.

(Worth noting, I guess, that S, N, T and F _are_ "functions" in the MBTI nomenclature, and I, E, J and P are "attitudes" - it depends where you look, but I've seen Se, Fi, &c., referred to as "function-attitudes", which provides some indication of what the purported link is supposed to be.)


----------



## Simpson17866

Blue Soul said:


> While I understand the value of the trunk (the dichotomies) of the tree, why you would try to separate the trunk from its roots (the cognitive functions) is beyond me. Because that tree would be a dead tree.


 Not a dead tree, just a second one.

One tree (a MyersBriggs oak) has it's roots in 4 dichotomies (I-E, N-S, T-F, P-J) which grow into a trunk with 16 branches (INTP, ENTP, ISTP, ESTP, ...)

The second tree (a Cognitive Functions weeping willow) has it's roots in 8 functions (Ni, Si, Ne, Se, Ti, Te, Fi, Fe) which grow into a truck with 384 branches (the orders of: the strongest of the two Ss, the strongest of the two Ns, the strongest of the two Ts, and the strongest of the two Fs) and 40,320 twigs (the orders of all 8 functions, not just the strongest of each pair.)

Sometimes one tree looks like what another tree is supposed to look like (ENFP oaks are supposed to look like Ne-Fi-Te-Si willows), sometimes they don't (a Te-Fe-Se-Ne willow is still a legitimate willow even if it would never be mistaken for an oak).

I'm just saying that it's not _necessary_ to trim one person's oak and willow to look exactly the same as each other (or, worse, to insist on cutting them both down when they don't match). Just say that it's cool when it does happen (my Ne-Fi-Ti-Si willow looks a lot like what other people's ENFP oaks are supposed to, somebody else's Ti-Ne-Si-Fe willow looks exactly like what my INTP oak is supposed to) and don't worry about the times when it doesn't.



sah6635 said:


> Tell me, how in the hell would a person with higher Fi than Ti take the time to draw out this complicated and unnecessary mathematical proof designed to criticized functional stacks?


 *First, Ne:* I love that different people can be extremely different.

*Second, Fi:* I don't like it when people are told that somebody else's construct of what the person is "supposed to be like" is more important than what the first person is actually like.

_"I care more about deciphering the puzzles of the world than about making it more efficient, and I care about my own personal moral system more than my community's standards (Fi-Ti)."

"No you don't! Either you care about personal morals and an efficient world (Te-Fi) or you care about community morals and a logical world (Ti-Fe), other combinations are either unhealthy or don't exist."

"But that's not what I'm really like."

"It doesn't matter what you think: my construct says that you are either *this* or *that*, not some other thing."_

*Third, Ti:* I try to explain as clearly as possible that it doesn't make sense to say that only a few of the possible combinations are acceptable.

*Combined Ne-Fi-Ti:* I love variety, I take it personally when I feel that other people don't, and I try to disprove their standardized molds as specifically as possible with as much detail as possible.



> At some point, quick taking tests and just know that you are an INTP.


 I do, thanks :wink:


----------



## Parrot

Simpson17866 said:


> I do, thanks :wink:


You still sound like an INTP, but I'll add that you simply don't know what you're talking about as your opinions are baseless. You also have no idea how to perceive yourself if you or what the functions are, based on your explanation of Fi. May main insult, however, is I won't engage you. You're wrong.


----------



## Recede

@Simpson17866

I'm jumping into this thread from the 9th page and haven't read the rest, so apologies if what I say has already been said or isn't useful at this point.

The best advice I can give is to start with the roots and ignore everything else. Don't bother with tests or descriptions. Start with Jung's definitions:



> Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation.


With this, you now have the answer key for determining what is actually Intuition, Thinking, etc. and what is merely resembling descriptions of it. For instance, buzzwords like "possibilities", "potential", "ideas", etc. -- these are not always going to be coming from actual Intuition. 

_First, Ne: I love that different people can be extremely different._ - Not Intuition, therefore it cannot be Ne.
_
Second, Fi: I don't like it when people are told that somebody else's construct of what the person is "supposed to be like" is more important than what the first person is actually like._ - Might possibly be a value derived from Sensation. But it isn't necessarily Fi. There is no reason an Fe type can't value reality and that which is actually present. Or perhaps you simply value freedom. 

Jung's definitions of Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, and Intuition are the bridge between functions and dichotomies. So you can probably see how trying to identify functions without understanding these definitions will lead to a lot of confusion and seeming incompatibility. But if you understand both the dichotomies and functions as being necessarily rooted in these definitions, then there is no way an INTP would not prefer Thinking and Intuition functions.


----------



## reptilian

I have a similar view on how MBTi or socionics isnt quite finalized. Tbh I havent grasped the whole detailed concept yet, so my thinking could be a total waist of time but that wont stop me from trying to understand myself.

To keep it short:

I avoid Fi, I dont want to use it, I replace it with Ti's logic web. My mother INFP was an extreme Fi user, neurotic and chaotic now depressed. I used to use Fi a lot when young. I had to stop, it made me weird. Now Im repulsed by strong Fi users, cant help it. Also, I was in a chaotic environment as a child, analyzing started to develop early to battle stress.

While I think I am a strong Ni user as well as Ne, the Ni might manifests itself from the unconscious as the best "shortcut" or the most optimal choice when making a decision. Since I was young I was always looking for the quickest/shortest route, now I seek the least energy consuming, time wasting and money saving options when deciding on which option to pick. I dont want to go grocery shopping, if it is the only thing I need to do, so I wait until I have to go pay the bills or go to the pharmacy etc to make it convenient...
I use Te when talking to Fi users or someone that didnt understand my Ti logic, I try to present the facts as short and simple as possible.

I would say my functions usually stack: Ne/Ni-Ti-Fe : x-x-Si/Fi
Though I dont believe myself or understand what im talking about, there is lots of confusion.

It also depends on what kind of drugs I take or the general mood im in. I havent met a more charismatic person than myself, too bad it happens once per month, if lucky.

So many possibilities of how things interact with each other. 
MBTI is not science for a reason.


----------



## lemoncake

http*//www*oddlydevelopedtypes*com/content/cognitive-functions-and-type-dynamics-failed-theory

Replace the stars with periods, as I'm sure you will be able to figure out. This was written by an INTP.

Every single person I know who knew their type before taking a cognitive functions test has not received the dominant their type is supposed to have. Just because you already know about the cognitive functions and are trying to Pygmalion yourself into what you think your type should be does not mean that that is accurate. Also, I find this passage from the above link especially helpful:

"One study asked non-type-saavy observers to describe types that had, for example, Thinking as their dominant function, by choosing adjectives from a pool of 300 words. Researchers compared the top 10 and lowest 10 adjectives chosen to describe all types who shared Thinking as their dominant. The results? There was little overlap between the sets of adjectives, meaning that little similarity was noticed. The researchers also compared adjectives for types who shared one of the following: Auxiliary Thinking, dominant Feeling, auxiliary Feeling, dominant Intuition, and auxiliary Intuition. The same results held true for these functions--little to no overlap between the descriptive adjectives chosen. From these results we can either conclude that a.) too many adjectives were used, offering too much variety and too little chance for any overlap to appear, or b.) Nobody sees type dynamics except those who already expect to see them. The latter may indicate a simple case of observer bias on the part of psychologists. And remember, it's all anecdotal at this point, and anecdotes frequently walk hand in hand with observer bias. 
Effects which are often attributed to type dynamics can just as easily be attributed to other things, i.e. a person who is quiet, logical, and thoughtful can be described equally well as a dominant introverted Thinker with auxiliary extraverted Intuition or as an Introvert and an Intuitive and a Thinker (an INT). There is no reason why one explanation is intrinsically superior."

Just because you are _actively looking for_ cognitive functions does not mean they exist. People generally see what they want to see, no matter how open-minded they think they are being  Point me out if I'm wrong in any of this! Thanks!


----------



## Simpson17866

HrMx13 said:


> Yeah cause of course Jung's cognitive functions and MBTI are ABSOLUTELY UNRELATED.
> And what letters are hers in the *Simpson* bullshit typology ?


 While I would love to take the credit for coming up with the systems, the MBTI originally belongs to Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabella Meyers from their work during the 1910s through 1940s, while the most popular Cognitive Functions system was invented by Harold Grant in the 1960s, which means that we cannot name either system after myself.


----------



## HrMx13

Simpson17866 said:


> While I would love to take the credit for coming up with the systems, the MBTI originally belongs to Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabella Meyers from their work during the 1910s through 1940s, while the most popular Cognitive Functions system was invented by Harold Grant in the 1960s, which means that we cannot name either system after myself.


Yeah but I thought there was another one. is there ?
Thanks to you I know I'm probably an ENTP and, why not, an ESFJ, maybe in another kind of typology I could be INFJ ou ISTJ ? Could you search for another 14 ways to type, so that we could all have all types ?


----------



## HrMx13

Simpson17866 said:


> While I would love to take the credit for coming up with the systems, the MBTI originally belongs to Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabella Meyers from their work during the 1910s through 1940s, while the most popular Cognitive Functions system was invented by Harold Grant in the 1960s, which means that we cannot name either system after myself.


To be fully honest, you have your multityping theory : fine, I don't care. Maybe you're true, why not ?
What I find dumb as hell and really dishonest is to "type" people who barely discover this stuff applying em your multityping theory, and not precising that "be careful, we're only 2 in the world to work like I do".


----------



## Simpson17866

HrMx13 said:


> Yeah but I thought there was another one. is there ?
> Thanks to you I know I'm probably an ENTP and, why not, an ESFJ, maybe in another kind of typology I could be INFJ ou ISTJ ? Could you search for another 14 ways to type, so that we could all have all types ?


 I'd have to ask @reckful for the complete list, but I believe the most relevant are

Jung cognitive functions: . . . . . . didn't care about 4-letter codes
MyersBriggs cognitive functions: . ISTJ = Si-Te-Fe-Ne
Grant cognitive functions: . . . . . . ISTJ = Si-Te-Fi-Ne

MyersBriggs w/o cognitive functions: ISTJ = I, S, T, J


----------



## Simpson17866

HrMx13 said:


> To be fully honest, you have your multityping theory: fine, I don't care. Maybe you're true, why not ?
> What I find dumb as hell and really dishonest is to "type" people who barely discover this stuff applying em your multityping theory, and not precising that "be careful, we're only 2 in the world to work like I do".


 Should we also throw out DISC, OCEAN, Ennegrams, ... because "multityping" is a problem?


----------



## HrMx13

Simpson17866 said:


> Should we also throw out DISC, OCEAN, Ennegrams, ... because "multityping" is a problem?


You didn't read my post, did you ?


----------



## Simpson17866

HrMx13 said:


> You didn't read my post, did you ?


 I did read it, and I didn't know exactly which "multitypes" you would or wouldn't object to because I don't have a multityping theory. There are already multiple typing constructs - some of which are scientifically valid (MyersBriggs sans cognitive functions, DISC, OCEAN, ...) while some of which are not (Jung cognitive functions, MyersBriggs cognitive functions, Grant cognitive functions, ...) - and I didn't invent any of them.

My favorite is MyersBriggs sans cognitive functions, and if somebody asks about a different typing system that uses similar terminology (most popularly, Grant's cognitive functions), then I specify which system I am referring to with any given comment.


----------



## HrMx13

Simpson17866 said:


> I did read it, and I didn't know exactly which "multitypes" you would or wouldn't object to because I don't have a multityping theory. There are already multiple typing constructs - some of which are scientifically valid (MyersBriggs sans cognitive functions, DISC, OCEAN, ...) while some of which are not (Jung cognitive functions, MyersBriggs cognitive functions, Grant cognitive functions, ...) - and I didn't invent any of them.
> 
> My favorite is MyersBriggs sans cognitive functions, and if somebody asks about a different typing system that uses similar terminology (most popularly, Grant's cognitive functions), then I specify which system I am referring to with any given comment.


If you don't want to read it, just say it.


----------



## Simpson17866

HrMx13 said:


> If you don't want to read it, just say it.


 I did want to read it, I did read it, and I thought I understood it: people should pick one personality typing system instead of looking at several.

If I'm not understanding something, could you please clarify?


----------



## HrMx13

Simpson17866 said:


> I did want to read it, I did read it, and I thought I understood it: people should pick one personality typing system instead of looking at several.
> 
> If I'm not understanding something, could you please clarify?


Yeah of course : you're pretty much the only one here to pick the option of the "there's a MBTI with cognitive functions and a MBTI without cognitive functions". You're pretty much the only one for whom you can be both INTP and ENFP in the same time.
I'm fine with different points of views (maybe not with yours but I really don't want to waste any time discussing it, and I'm not confident enough in english to start such a debate).
But I'm not fine with people with obviously marginal points of view when people who support them come towards people who are obviously not familiar with typology and start exposing things like their point were the common one, accepted by everyone.
You have a different opinion than most of people ("you can be both INTP and ENFP") - fine.
At least, state it when you "type" people who are obviously not familiar with typing.

EDIT : want me to write it once again in another way ?


----------



## Simpson17866

HrMx13 said:


> Yeah of course : *you're pretty much the only one* here to pick the option of the "there's a MBTI with cognitive functions and a MBTI without cognitive functions". *You're pretty much the only one* for whom you can be both INTP and ENFP in the same time.


 Well, if we're going to make this about popularity (personally, I prefer science, truth, and logic, but to each his own):



linatet said:


> I read your post about the imcompatibility and I liked it a lot!





Baerlieber said:


> Okay, super interesting.





xForgottenOne said:


> I've always found the correlation between MBTI and cognitive functions weird, and I completely agree with the link in your signature. I think having both a MBTI and a cognitive functions type is a good way to solve this "problem".





alittlebear said:


> Some people consider the Myers and Briggs test different from the types based on Jungian cognitive functions.





StunnedFox said:


> Standing in isolation, there is nothing wrong with the concept that people prefer one attitude (J or P) more than the other. The problem is the attempt to link that concept with the separate concept of set function-stacks - i.e., the problem is type dynamics.


That's 2 people who definitely agree with me and 3 who I might have accidentally taken out of context but who I still think sound like they agreeing with me.

And this is just the people who think that Cognitive Functions work without being connected to MyersBriggs.

Have you seen the number of people on this site who don't think Cognitive Functions work at all (largely because they don't fit into they don't fit into the accepted combinations)? I have, I was one of those people barely even a month ago.


----------



## HrMx13

Science ? Wait, you mean actual science ? Did you find anything related to something else than empirical studies in MBTI, Jung and others ?
So, you're 3 people believing that you can type people both INTP and ENFP in the same time. You'll admit that it's not really an impressive crowd.
So, my opinion is that when you come toward people not really used to MBTI, you should have the intellectual honesty to say that the way you do is a very, very marginal one. Not to make em confused. It's also a question of respect toward them.
And for people who "don't think cognitive functions work at all" : most of people who don't use them here don't even know them.


----------



## HrMx13

Another 3 things :

1/ I strongly dislike the way you quoted my sentence in your topic with the obvious purpose to make it look popular while it's just a dumb topic from someone who obviously doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's talking about ;
2/ The way you use "MBTI without functions" is really laughable as CJ's stuff (and by the way MB's) is all about how we perceive and treat the data, it's not supposed to be a female magazine's test like "are you sociable or not ? If yes, then you're first letter is a E ! If not, it's a I !". I mean, come on. COME - ON.
3/ Then I'm done with this topic and with you. Don't like to waste my time.


----------



## StunnedFox

HrMx13 said:


> The way you use "MBTI without functions" is really laughable as CJ's stuff (and by the way MB's) is all about how we perceive and treat the data, it's not supposed to be a female magazine's test like "are you sociable or not ? If yes, then you're first letter is a E ! If not, it's a I !". I mean, come on. COME - ON.


The dimensions in the MBTI are nowhere near as simplistic as that, and they capably address the issues of "how we perceive and treat the data" without the need for recourse to type dynamics. Treating it as though all I/E means without functions behind it is "are you sociable or not?" is unreasonable, and not a fair representation of what is being claimed.



Simpson17866 said:


> That's 2 people who definitely agree with me and 3 who I might have accidentally taken out of context but who I still think sound like they agreeing with me.


So your conception of a separate cognitive functions theory is that, using some testing resource, we can determine an ordering of the eight functions as discrete concepts, and then attempt to locate the most applicable "type" (meaning here a pre-set function order, or maybe orders since you seem open to XYYY in your own Ne-Fi-Ti-Si stack)? I'm not convinced that theory has much merit to it, but it's not internally inconsistent; it's certainly _capable_ of simultaneous operation alongside a dichotomy-only take on the MBTI, if nothing else. Whether this counts as agreeing depends upon what exactly the scope of the agreement is, I guess. [What would you make of Ti>Si>(Te,Ne,Fi)>Fe>Ni>Se? My test scores end up roughly there, with the three in parentheses all roughly equal...]


----------



## Simpson17866

StunnedFox said:


> So your conception of a separate cognitive functions theory is that, using some testing resource, we can determine an ordering of the eight functions as discrete concepts, and then attempt to locate the most applicable "type" (meaning here a pre-set function order, or maybe orders since you seem open to XYYY in your own Ne-Fi-Ti-Si stack)? I'm not convinced that theory has much merit to it, but it's not internally inconsistent; it's certainly _capable_ of simultaneous operation alongside a dichotomy-only take on the MBTI, if nothing else. Whether this counts as agreeing depends upon what exactly the scope of the agreement is, I guess.


 As long as you specify whether the Cognitive Functions type works or not. If your Cognitive Functions *stack* is something like Fe-Te-Ne-Se, then the most reasonable thing to possibly say about your Cognitive Functions *type* is "other."

My stack, for example, is Ne-Fi-Ti-Si. That's not exactly like any of the 16 accepted Cognitive Functions *types,* but it's close enough to Ne-Fi-Te-Si that I don't mind saying that my Cognitive Functions type is "almost ENFP". However, whenever that comes up in conversation, I'm always quick to point out that 1) it's still not an exact match, and 2) even the closeness of that approximation is a freak accident of probability, not confirmation that the construct as a whole can be used prescriptively instead of descriptively.



> [What would you make of Ti>Si>(Te,Ne,Fi)>Fe>Ni>Se? My test scores end up roughly there, with the three in parentheses all roughly equal...]


 Looking at the strongest of each (Se vs Si, Ne vs. Ni...) gives us *Ti - Si - Ne/Fi,* which doesn't simplify to a type as well as mine does (most stacks wouldn't) but *xSTJ is (Te/Si - Ne/Fi)* does come kind of close.

If you want to identify by your functions, then just don't say that you're "Cognitive Functions type xSTJ, which equals stack Te/Si - Ne/Fi," say that you use "Cognitive Functions stack Ti - Si - Ne/Fi, which approximately equals type xSTJ."

Since starting this thread, I now have much less of a problem looking at when Cognitive Function stacks *almost* line up with accepted types, I just want people to keep in mind that the vast majority of stacks don't have *exact* types (and thus people shouldn't *force* the two to fit together). Just because some of the data works by accident (somebody's stack might be Fi-Ne-Si-Te) doesn't mean that the system as a whole is valid ("nobody's stack can be Ne-Se-Fi-Ti")


----------



## HrMx13

Simpson17866 said:


> Just because some of the data works by accident (somebody's stack might be Fi-Ne-Si-Te) doesn't mean that the system as a whole is valid ("nobody's stack can be Ne-Se-Fi-Ti")


Yes, because Fe and Ti are basically the same thing. One completes the other and you can't have one without the other, it's a whole axis or the model doesn't make any sense. If your stack includes Fe, it does include Ti too. That's all what CGJ and MB is about. If you missed that, you missed everything.
First, you need to understand what the functions actually relate to. What I've read in this topic so far shows that you obviously don't understand what functions are about.
Sorry, I said I would stop answering this stupid topic but it's never easy not to react to bullshit.


----------



## Simpson17866

HrMx13 said:


> Yes, because Fe and Ti are basically the same thing.


 Fe means that you value community standards and relationships more than personal feelings of morality, Ti means that you like thinking through specific situations without trying to optimize the system as a whole.

What about somebody like me who cares about personal morals (Fi) and situational logic (Ti) more than community expectations (Fe) or systemic efficiency (Te)?


----------



## reckful

HrMx13 said:


> Yes, because Fe and Ti are basically the same thing. One completes the other and you can't have one without the other, it's a whole axis or the model doesn't make any sense. If your stack includes Fe, it does include Ti too. That's all what CGJ and MB is about. If you missed that, you missed everything.
> First, you need to understand what the functions actually relate to. What I've read in this topic so far shows that you obviously don't understand what functions are about.
> Sorry, I said I would stop answering this stupid topic but it's never easy not to react to bullshit.


Yoiks. Your combination of arrogance and ignorance is a sight to behold.

The idea that if Fe is one of your top four functions, then Ti must also be one of your top four functions — because Fe and Ti somehow necessarily work together "in tandem" — is based on a function stack that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

"That's all what ... MB is about"? Spare me.

If you're interested in reading about the inconsistency of your "tandems" notion with Jung and Myers, not to mention why I think it should be considered essentially _disproven_ at this point, you'll find quite a lot of further discussion in this post and the first three posts it links to (one, two and three).

You _owe it to yourself_ to read those posts, HrMx13. Trust me on this.

You're free to subscribe to the Harold Grant function stack (where INFP=Fi-Ne-Si-Te) if you want to. That's a matter of _opinion_. But it's a matter of _fact_ that that function stack is neither Jungian nor Myersian — and as further explained in the linked posts, it's also a matter of fact that that function stack has no respectable body of data support behind it.


----------



## StunnedFox

HrMx13 said:


> Yes, because Fe and Ti are basically the same thing. One completes the other and you can't have one without the other, it's a whole axis or the model doesn't make any sense. If your stack includes Fe, it does include Ti too. That's all what CGJ and MB is about. If you missed that, you missed everything.
> First, you need to understand what the functions actually relate to. What I've read in this topic so far shows that you obviously don't understand what functions are about.
> Sorry, I said I would stop answering this stupid topic but it's never easy not to react to bullshit.


"That's all what CGJ and MB is about." - no, it isn't. I won't claim a huge deal of Jungian knowledge, but on what I do understand, when one function becomes differentiated/conscious (let's say Fe), then its opposite (Ti) very much _doesn't_ become conscious also. As for Myers, her stack is XYYY, so an INFJ would be Ni-Fe-Te-Se, which directly contradicts your claim (the MBTI itself would go with Ni-Fe-T-Se, which is still nowhere near an affirmation of the claim that Fe and Ti go together).
------------------------------------------ @Simpson17866 - why do you choose to accept the "rule" of listing the strongest of each pairing (Se vs. Si, &c.)? Surely, if you test for all eight discretely, then the relative prominence of the lesser in any given pairing will be relevant also (e.g., Te in my case, or Ni and Te both being stronger than both S functions in your case)? It just seems odd to accept that "rule" in particular, as it would if I were to (say) take the most prominent from each pair of Fe/Te, Fi/Ti, Si/Ni, Se/Ne - as though you've accepted that some link exists between Ti and Te, but still test for the two separately... I'm not sure, but it seems odd to me.

I definitely agree that people need to avoid trying to force the two to fit together, and that the construct should be confined to its descriptive role.


----------



## Simpson17866

StunnedFox said:


> why do you choose to accept the "rule" of listing the strongest of each pairing (Se vs. Si, &c.)? Surely, if you test for all eight discretely, then the relative prominence of the lesser in any given pairing will be relevant also (e.g., Te in my case, or Ni and Te both being stronger than both S functions in your case)?


 I don't think of that as the *best* way to simplify the stack of 8 so much as the *least worst.*



> It just seems odd to accept that "rule" in particular, as it would if I were to (say) take the most prominent from each pair of Fe/Te, Fi/Ti, Si/Ni, Se/Ne - as though you've accepted that some link exists between Ti and Te, but still test for the two separately... I'm not sure, but it seems odd to me.


 ... You know, I actually thought I had a very good explanation of why ordering S (i or e), N (i or e), T (i or e), and F (i or e) works less badly than ordering Je (F or T), Ji (F or T), Pe (S or N), and Pi (S or N), but now I can't remember what that reason could have been.

I need to go home and rethink my life.


----------



## goamare

HrMx13 said:


> Yes, because Fe and Ti are basically the same thing. One completes the other and you can't have one without the other, it's a whole axis or the model doesn't make any sense. If your stack includes Fe, it does include Ti too. That's all what CGJ and MB is about. If you missed that, you missed everything.
> First, you need to understand what the functions actually relate to. What I've read in this topic so far shows that you obviously don't understand what functions are about.
> Sorry, I said I would stop answering this stupid topic but it's never easy not to react to bullshit.


What do you mean you can't have one without the other? you mean they are inextricable, as in one has to support the other, or one is the result of the other or something?

I'm mentioning this because a lot of people tend to confuse these "dichotomous concepts" with in terms of "how they work."

-> For example, it is true that "brightness" is considered "bright" because there is "darkness" that exists on the other side.

However that doesn't mean that "brightness" has to somehow work in conjunction with "darkness" in terms of how it works. 

"Brightness" can fully function without any help from "darkness," I believe.


----------



## The Dude

Simpson17866 said:


> The fact that there are 8 components of the Cognitive Functions system (Se, Si, Ne…) means that there are 40,320 ways of organizing them from strongest to weakest in any given person’s thought process (8 possibilities for the strongest * 7 possibilities for the second strongest * 6 possibilities for the third strongest * … * 2 possibilities for the second weakest * 1 possibility for the weakest). I personally go from
> 
> Ne: 48.5
> Fi: 43.2
> Ti: 40.3
> Ni: 33.9
> Te: 32
> Si: 17.8
> Se: 14
> Fe: 10.7
> 
> If each Myers-Briggs-styled 4-letter code (ISFJ, ISTP...) is assigned a specific order of the 8 functions (for example, INFP = [strongest] Fi, Ne, Si, Te, Fe, Ni, Se, Ti [weakest]), then there is only a 16/40,320 chance (≈0.04%) that a person’s personality type will be one of the orders with a type associated.
> 
> If, and this is more common, we say that only 4 of the cognitive functions are used by any one person (for example, INFP = [strongest] Fi – Ne – Si – Te [weakest], Fe/Ni/Se/Ti [nonexistent]), then we run into new trouble of the categories not applying to anybody. For example, if Si is defined as “comparing external stimuli to past experiences of similar stimuli” against defining Se as “experiencing external stimuli completely as they are happening,” then it’s physically impossible for a person’s brain not to do both.
> 
> If you start with a construct, declare that “ISTPs do not have Si in their function stack, they have Se” according to said construct, and test real people to see which one they are capable of, then you would find that everybody experiences present stimuli and remembers past stimuli.
> 
> This construct only works if you adjust the data (how do people think) to support the construct’s assumptions (how the functions are supposed to be ordered), which is the opposite of what can be described as scientific.
> 
> **
> 
> Now perhaps this is too extreme, perhaps instead the “function stack” is simply the strongest of each pair (Se vs. Si, etc…). In this case, ISTP would go from (strongest) Ti – Se – Ni – Fe, and then some order of Te/Si/Ne/Fi that we don’t care about because all 4 are weaker than their opposing function.
> 
> This is an extremely fair point: on the MBTI, I am not 100% INTP, rather am 93% Introverted, 92% iNtuiting, 68.5% Thinking, and 84.5% Perceiving. If others say “Myers-Briggs doesn’t work because people aren’t 100% anything” and if I’m then going to defend MBTI by pointing out that it’s a set of spectra, rather than of binary choices, then I should absolutely accept that Function stacks could work in exactly the same way. In this case, ISTP would mean:
> 
> 1) Se is the strongest S, Ni is the strongest N, Ti is the strongest T, Fe is the strongest F
> 
> and 2) the strongest T (Ti) is stronger than the strongest S (Se) which is stronger than the strongest N (Ni) which is stronger than the strongest F (Fe).
> 
> We’ve now narrowed down the number of possible stacks down to 384 (8 possibilities for the first * 6 possibilities for the second * 4 possibilities for the third * 2 possibilities for the fourth), of which mine is Ne – Fi – Ti – Si. However, the main advantage for using 8 functions instead of 4 axes is supposed to be the greater depth of measurement, and “streamlining” my function stack erased the fact that Fe is my weakest function instead of Ni, Te, or Se.
> 
> Moreover, this still doesn’t change the fact that only 16/384 ≈ 4.167% of the potential function stacks work according to the system that’s been set up for assigning 4-letter codes to said stacks.
> 
> In my case, Ne and Fi being my “strongest” types would make me an ENFP, which would then follow that my Si must be stronger than my Se and that my Te must be stronger than my Ti in order for my data to fit the theory.
> 
> Even with all of the fudging that I have tried to allow for (narrowing the 40,320 possible results down to 384), I still end up with data (my stack is Ne – Fi – Ti – Si) that conflicts with the theoretical construct (“a stack starting with Ne – Fi must finish with Te – Si because functions are supposed to balance out”).
> 
> Suppose we narrow the possibilities down even further to say that only the strongest Judgment and strongest Perception matter (for example: if the strongest Perception is Se, the strongest Judgment is Fi, and the Fi comes first, then the 4-letter code is ISFP). This still leaves 4 groups of “unacceptable” combinations in addition to the 4 groups of “acceptable” options:
> 
> Pi – Je (IxxP), Pe – Ji (ExxP), Je – Pi (ExxJ), Ji – Pe (IxxJ)
> Pe – Je (????), Pi – Ji (????), Ji – Pi (????), Je – Pe (????)
> 
> We started out with 40,320 combinations of functions, each reasonable and informative on their own but which were incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code in 99.96% of cases. Some creative negligence of important data later (sacrificing the original relevance), we narrowed down the possibilities to 384 families of reasonably similar combinations that can be treated as identical, but again, 96% of these groups were still incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code. Finally, after deleting almost all of the information of the original system, we arrive at 8 basic groups, and still 50% of them are incapable of being attached to a 4-letter code.
> 
> The only way for every single Cognitive Function stack to be attached to a 4-letter code under the present construct would be to take the strongest function (perhaps a Pe) and go all of the way through the list until you find the strongest opposite (in this case, whichever Ji is strongest).
> 
> For example, if somebody’s functions went from (strongest) Fe – Ne – Ti – Te – Fi – Se – Ni – Si (weakest), then Fe being strongest means that we want to know which Pi is stronger than the other. In this case, Ni is stronger than Si, and Fe – Ni gives us ENFJ.
> 
> All that was required to reach this conclusion (the 4-letter code for this person’s cognitive functions is ENFJ) to was for us to ignore all of the real world data (Ni was one of the person’s weakest functions while Ne, Te and Fi were among the strongest) which conflicted with our desire for this specific conclusion (Cognitive Function stacks are assigned 4-letter codes where N/S and T/F tell you which functions are the strongest and I/E and J/P tell you the order and direction of the strongest functions).
> 
> **
> 
> The orders of functions which provide useful information cannot be typed according to 4-letter codes (there are mathematically too many for only 16 possible 4-letter codes to reveal all of the information), and attempting to type the orders of functions with 4-letter codes destroys the most useful information (The “ENFJ” in the previous example had a far stronger Ne, Te, and Ni then the construct would suggest).
> 
> In order to be considered scientific, theories must be adapted to fit the evidence rather than the other way around. As such, it doesn’t make any sense for questions about Cognitive Functions to be answered with 4-letter codes (“I have functions Fi – Si – Te – Ne, is my type ISFP or ISFJ?”) or vice versa (“How could you possibly confuse INTP with INTJ? Their function stacks don’t have anything in common”).
> 
> Lists of cognitive functions (which is your strongest, which is your second strongest…) are useful.
> 
> 4-letter codes for Myers-Briggs axes (are you mostly introverted or extraverted, are you mostly intuitive or sensory…) are useful.
> 
> 4-letter codes for lists of cognitive functions (are you IxxP = Ji first & Pe second or are you …) are nonsense.


From MBTI’s website: “*The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people's lives*.” They are so much non-sense that they had to be watered down for the masses to understand. It isn't a problem of the functions, but the system.The functions fit the MBTI system of 16 types (2*2*2*2)...there are only 40,320 combos if they went to my Ne wet dream system of random function order in a hierarchy within the system of Beebe/Berens, which I believe is the true form of a Jungian psychological type personality. 

The MBTI axis is a joke. MBTI states it is about preferences, and we all know those change not only with age, but by situation and mood. Everybody is in a grey zone when you go by a preference from one of the dichotomies. It is part of the reason people are confused about their type. I wouldn't be shocked if most people subconsciously pick their type based on how they view themselves (the Forer Effect) or they take one of the this or that vague absolutism test, read the functions, they don't match, and then they go on about how the functions are stupid.


----------



## VoodooDolls

wow it has been a lot since i last saw a man wasting so much time, i didn't even read that luls


----------



## StunnedFox

The Dude said:


> From MBTI’s website: “*The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people's lives*.” They are so much non-sense that they had to be watered down for the masses to understand. It isn't a problem of the functions, but the system.The functions fit the MBTI system of 16 types (2*2*2*2)...there are only 40,320 combos if they went to my Ne wet dream system of random function order in a hierarchy within the system of Beebe/Berens, which I believe is the true form of a Jungian psychological type personality.
> 
> The MBTI axis is a joke. MBTI states it is about preferences, and we all know those change not only with age, but by situation and mood. Everybody is in a grey zone when you go by a preference from one of the dichotomies. It is part of the reason people are confused about their type. I wouldn't be shocked if most people subconsciously pick their type based on how they view themselves (the Forer Effect) or they take one of the this or that vague absolutism test, read the functions, they don't match, and then they go on about how the functions are stupid.


"Everybody is in a grey zone when you go by a preference" - that only holds if you (wrongly) assume that to have a preference requires the exclusion of the opposite preference. "Preference" is not about what you consciously desire or have a taste for; the metaphor often used is handedness, and the sense in which, whilst people can and do use both of their hands, one feels comfortable and natural to use, and the other uncomfortable and awkward. Situational variance is possible - the general guideline that people should eschew their "work selves", &c., when taking the Myers-Briggs instrument seems to acknowledge this, and asks people to consider, essentially, their overarching self rather than what they are like in specific situations. So I don't see that your point re: preferences holds.

There are 40,320 possible combinations of the eight functions. To suggest that any of them are not possible requires justification, and said justification requires that we have a set idea of what exactly each function is and how they relate. Merely positing that, say, Ti-dominance requires an extraverted perceiving function to be auxiliary is not a justification, and doesn't logically follow from what little we have in terms of specific definition of functions. Indeed, the fact scholars can dispute what orientation Jung saw the auxiliary as having would suggest that such assertions lack clear foundation. Regardless of what the MBTI intends to achieve in relation to Jungian theory, the question is whether it stands as a theory in its own right - and the answer to that, as far as empirical justification goes, seems to be that the dichotomies are justified but type dynamics is not.

I don't doubt that biases can and do affect the way people approach typology, and the Forer Effect is a noted example of this. Said possibility is precisely why finding some objective grounding for the claims each theory makes is imperative; without that, and dealing wholly with individuals' subjective impressions of self, bias has far more scope to operate. 

I think it's been acknowledged in this thread that the primary issue is with type dynamics, and the link it draws between the dichotomies and the functions. I happen to also think there are significant issues with trying to get the cognitive functions to stand alone - lack of clear definition leads to a lack of clear justification for any of the strictures imposed upon type; various different models are advanced (XXYY interpretation of Jung, Myers' XYYY stack, Grant's XYXY, Beebe/Berens eight-function model, the MBTI's XY?Y stance...) with none having any greater justification than the others; lack of objective evidence to support the concepts being employed to begin with - but theoretically, a better-developed functions system could stand alongside a dichotomy-based MBTI (which is what @Simpson17866 is trying to do by using online functions tests as an objective measure, but I'm personally not convinced that affords the functions much credibility). To treat it as though arguments like the ones in this thread stem from knee-jerk responses to "vague absolutism" in tests is a misconception of the issue, and it would perhaps pay to engage with the arguments people make and show how they are flawed rather than simply asserting a contrary position.


----------



## Simpson17866

coy said:


> Not when the *data* comes from an unreliable source like an online test. Now _stop_ hijacking the thread.


 Fair enough. What do you consider to be a "reliable" source?


----------



## 66393

Simpson17866 said:


> Fair enough. What do you consider to be a "reliable" source?


If you are looking for a truly reliable source I'd go with Jung's book "Psychological Types" [1] because modern typological theory is largely based off Jung's ideas. Another honorable mention is Daryl Sharp's book "Personality Types" [2]. The same knowledge can be ascertained through web resources, but unfortunately I don't know any off the top of my head. 

Tests are desirable because they provide instant gratification--take the test, get a type. Most tests pose questions that make only general distinctions between Introversion/Extroversion, Intuition/Sensing, Thinking/Feeling, Judging/Perceiving. The reason these tests lack any credibility is because it will ask questions specific to one kind of function such as Ne or Ni, or Fe or Fi, but the answers are stored under the umbrella categories of intuition and feeling. 

Reading about the cognitive functions and seeing how they manifest depending on where they are in the function stack will take time but also provide you with a knowledge-base that will dispel most of your confusions. 

[1] http://elibrary.kiu.ac.ug:8080/jspui/bitstream/1/938/1/Carl Jung Psychological Types.pdf
[2] http://www.innercitybooks.net/pdf/books/personalitytypes.pdf


----------



## Simpson17866

coy said:


> If you are looking for a truly reliable source I'd go with Jung's book "Psychological Types" [1] because modern typological theory is largely based off Jung's ideas. Another honorable mention is Daryl Sharp's book "Personality Types" [2]. The same knowledge can be ascertained through web resources, but unfortunately I don't know any off the top of my head.
> 
> ...
> 
> Reading about the cognitive functions and seeing how they manifest depending on where they are in the function stack will take time but also provide you with a knowledge-base that will dispel most of your confusions.
> 
> [1] http://elibrary.kiu.ac.ug:8080/jspui/bitstream/1/938/1/Carl Jung Psychological Types.pdf
> [2] http://www.innercitybooks.net/pdf/books/personalitytypes.pdf


 And if I made a test based on this information, would that magically change the information from accurate to inaccurate?



> Tests are desirable because they provide instant gratification--take the test, get a type. Most tests pose questions that make only general distinctions between Introversion/Extroversion, Intuition/Sensing, Thinking/Feeling, Judging/Perceiving. The reason these tests lack any credibility is because it will ask questions specific to one kind of function such as Ne or Ni, or Fe or Fi, *but the answers are stored under the umbrella categories of intuition and feeling. *


 So the tests that you have a problem with are the ones that ask

Do you use Ni (if yes, then point for N)
Do you use Ne (if yes, then point for N)​
instead of 

Do you use Ni (if yes, then point for Ni)
Do you use Ne (if yes, then point for Ne)​
Because the test I show in my signature - and that you claim to have a problem with - is of the second type that has already addressed your complaint.


----------



## 66393

Simpson17866 said:


> So the tests that you have a problem with are the ones that askDo you use Ni (if yes, then point for N)
> Do you use Ne (if yes, then point for N)​
> instead of Do you use Ni (if yes, then point for Ni)
> Do you use Ne (if yes, then point for Ne)​
> Because the test I show in my signature - and that you claim to have a problem with - is of the second type that has already addressed your complaint.


I'll admit the cognitive function test is slightly better, but not by much. The questions are mostly nebulous and superficial. The scoring processes is equally bad (takes the two highest categories and ta-da!), and the problem with tests is that people will unconsciously answer how they want to be perceived, which isn't always parallel with their actual personality. This is why third-party opinions are essential. 

The questions pertaining to Ni are absolute hogwash. The keys2cognition tests best use would be to winnow out impertinent functions and research the types with dominant functions in the categories you scored highest in. Again, tests are fine if used as a starting point or in conjunction with other resources.


----------



## Simpson17866

coy said:


> and the problem with tests is that people will unconsciously answer how they want to be perceived, which isn't always parallel with their actual personality.


 And is guessing one's functions based on the descriptions of *without* the tests any different?


----------



## 66393

Simpson17866 said:


> And is guessing one's functions based on the descriptions of *without* the tests any different?


Which is why I noted that third-party opinions are _essential_.


----------



## Raawx

Holy fucking shit is this stupid.


----------



## reckful

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Since you are here, can you explain the Harold Grant controversy?
> Because it seems that MBTI Foundation site seems to support the idea of type dynamics, perhaps I am mistaken about the "authenticity" of this site, but you can refer me to the "scientifically respectable districts"?
> The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Understanding MBTI® Type Dynamics


Although, like Myers, the official MBTI websites continue to give a certain amount of lip service to the cognitive functions, they have never endorsed the Harold Grant function stack and its associated "tandems" — where you're either an "Ni/Se type" or an "Si/Ne" type (for example). Myers's (non-Jungian) function stack for an Fi-dom with an N-aux was Fi-Ne-Se-Te, and official MBTI sources continue (wisely) to refuse to endorse Harold Grant's notion that the tertiary function would have the same attitude as the dominant (leading to the "tandems").

Setting aside that function stack, though, the bigger issue is that, as further discussed in that collection of linked posts I pointed lilac_flowers to, official MBTI sources also continue to be _heavily_ dichotomy-centric, and to reflect the fact that virtually _all_ the respectable psychometric support for the MBTI is support for the dichotomies, and _not_ the functions.

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 Fe-Ni and ENFPs are Ne-Fi).

Here are the two official MBTI sources backing up the validity and reliability of the MBTI typology in its Step I and Step II incarnations:

Step I: MBTI Form M Manual Supplement
Step II: MBTI Step II Manual Supplement

Those sources refer (directly and indirectly) to a large number of studies providing scientific support for the MBTI, and display lots of the correlations and other relevant data. And there isn't a single mention in either of those sources of any "cognitive function."

But alas, Myers' lip service to the functions created what proved to be a significant _marketing opportunity_ for a handful of MBTI theorists who've made names for themselves in the last 20 years or so by peddling a more function-centric version of the MBTI. And for better or worse (and I think it's unfortunate), both the CAPT and the Myers-Briggs Foundation (as shown in your link) have long reflected the attitude that the MBTI "community" is basically all one big happy family, and — within certain limits — dichotomy-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be dichotomy-centric and function-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be function-centric, and everybody can sell their books and hold their seminars and it's all good.


----------



## miuliu

reckful said:


> Honest to God, lilac_flowers, you truly have no idea what you're talking about. You've obviously wandered the internet gobbling up great gobs of "cognitive functions" garbage, and now you've arrived at PerC to enlighten the benighted Dichotomy Dummies.
> 
> Buuut you're the benighted one, lilac_flowers. The scientifically respectable districts of the MBTI have always been the dichotomy-centric districts. Carl Jung was a very smart man, and he had a lot of good insights into various ways in which there can reasonably be said to be "two types of people in the world" — but as further discussed in the linked post, the current _reality-based_ take on the situation is that the so-called cognitive functions have turned out to be what James Reynierse has called a "category mistake."


The summary of this here is: "Wha, wha!"
You said NOTHING.



> Before you add too many more badly misinformed posts to your already embarrassing heap, I'd suggest that you set aside an hour or two, have a strong cup of coffee, and work your way through a generous helping of the posts linked to (directly and indirectly) in the last spoiler in this post.


No.

If you have a point to address, a point to make, to explain and then back up, go ahead. I don't owe you to waste my time going to any shit you link me because you're cornered.
If you're too stupid, uninformed, or intimidated to argue, directing me to go "educate myself" is the laziest way to say: "I can't reasonably defend my point of view." At least be upfront about it instead of acting like a pseudo-intellectual douche.


----------



## reckful

lilac_flowers said:


> If you have a point to address, a point to make, to explain and then back up, go ahead. I don't owe you to waste my time going to any shit you link me because you're cornered.
> If you're too stupid, uninformed, or intimidated to argue, directing me to go "educate myself" is the laziest way to say: "I can't reasonably defend my point of view." At least be upfront about it instead of acting like a pseudo-intellectual douche.


My "point of view" and its "defense" are in those linked posts. Can you explain to me what purpose would be served if I copied and pasted them all into this thread? Is clicking on links that hard for you?

You have nothing to lose but a metric ass ton of ignorance.


----------



## miuliu

reckful said:


> My "point of view" and its "defense" are in those linked posts. Can you explain to me what purpose would be served if I copied and pasted them all into this thread? Is clicking on links that hard for you?
> 
> You have nothing to lose but a metric ass ton of ignorance.


You are engaging me in a debate. Your job is to present arguments, mine to address them. Same goes for me. 
We need to be on point and our challenges addressed.

I don't care about your wall of text unless you wrote it to address what I am saying directly. What sane person steps on a debate stage and replies: "Well if you want me to address this, just go read my book, I'll wait."

Wtf?!

No! 

If you say some insane crap I have to be able to address it and stop it before you go on a tangent with it and turn it into a wall of text. If your wall of text is based on bullshit, there is no point in reading it, all I have to do is address your base bullshit. And that can only be done in genuine, on topic, interactive, back and forth.

If you don't want to interact, stop patting yourself on the back. You ran, you didn't win.


----------



## fuliajulia

If we separate 4-letter codes from the functions then all we have is a crappy version of the Big 5. Jungian Typology is unique and therefore, interesting because it tries to shed light on people's internal processes, so it's kind of pointless separate them from the functions. Also, function dynamics are how we understand those processes, so assuming there are no underlying/predictable patterns means there's no theory at all.


----------



## reckful

lilac_flowers said:


> You are engaging me in a debate. Your job is to present arguments, mine to address them. Same goes for me.
> We need to be on point and our challenges addressed.
> 
> I don't care about your wall of text unless you wrote it to address what I am saying directly. What sane person steps on a debate stage and replies: "Well if you want me to address this, just go read my book, I'll wait."
> 
> Wtf?!
> 
> No!
> 
> If you say some insane crap I have to be able to address it and stop it before you go on a tangent with it and turn it into a wall of text. If your wall of text is based on bullshit, there is no point in reading it, all I have to do is address your base bullshit. And that can only be done in genuine, on topic, interactive, back and forth.
> 
> If you don't want to interact, stop patting yourself on the back. You ran, you didn't win.


The points you've been making (in multiple threads) aren't specific, focused points. They're stuff like "MBTI isn't science, it's ANTI-SCIENCE"; and the "the dichotomies are just silly, superficial stereotypes, and the cognitive functions are what type is really about"; and etc.

And the refutation of those points — and especially if it's to include the degree of explanation necessary to establish that these really aren't reasonable-people-can-disagree things — involves enough text to cover several "walls." And I've already written and posted those walls — and as I said, copying and pasting them all into this thread would serve no useful purpose, even if it was a relatively easy thing to do (which it isn't, because quotes don't copy when you copy posts, and need to be manually reconstructed).

In any case, you can lead a mule to water, but at the end of the day, he's still a mule, as my Aunt Trudy used to say. If you're disinclined to read my linked posts about the bogosity of the Harold Grant function stack, the (real) relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, that's ultimately your loss, not mine.


----------



## Peter

StunnedFox said:


> Without looking at the rules of the MBTI, and taking just 8 functions, there are 40,320 possible combinations. By the introduction of a number of rules about what must go where, this figure is reduced to just 16. So the question is, _what justifies those rules?_ As I said before, the 40,320 figure could be reduced without a factual basis, as a matter of terminology - if having Si just means having one's S be more introverted than extraverted, rather than referring to the introverted part of one's sensing, for instance. But mostly, they are claims that need a factual basis - why _can't_ a person be IIEE, or EEII, why not JJPP, or IEEI? These possibilities are excluded on theoretical grounds only; what basis have we for assuming these theoretical limitations actually reflect reality in any way?
> 
> It's not so much that the functions are "incompatible" with the four-letter code (remember, too, that I'm not the OP, so his claims are not mine), so much as that the rigid connection mooted by the MBTI lacks basis. If a satisfactory justification for why, say, an XXYY stack is unfeasible cannot be adduced, then such stacks must be treated as possible ways a person can be - and, when that is accepted, the basis for saying "Ni-Fe" and "INFJ" denote the same thing is lost, because "Ni-Fi" and "Fi-Ni" both have to be incorporated as well.
> 
> Even if we _do_ presume that only 16 combinations are possible, why should we assume that the dichotomies and functions get at precisely the same thing as one another - that every person who prefers E-S-T-J also prefers Te and Si, in that order? There's an internal logic there, a set of "rules" that lead us to this conclusion ("J/P describes how we interact with the outer world", T is extraverted and a judging function, ergo an ESTx with dominant T just is a judging type") - but again, what basis have we for assuming our theoretical constraints hold true in reality? This is not to "ignore" the rules of the MBTI, merely to question them, to see if they stand up to scrutiny. As yet, I haven't good reason to believe that they do...


The assumption that you are presenting here is that the order of the functions is an order of preference from what your brain likes most to what it likes least. Perhaps the term preference is wrong or at least can confuse.

"Preference" is probably a better word to keep the theory from being too technical, but it may be easier to use the word "property". The first function is just the function that is used the most by a brain. This is a property of the brain. We say it is a preference but if you really look at the brain as a system, then property is the better term.

The second function is required to have a complete system. A brain that would just have 1 function wouldn't work, or at least you wouldn't be able to observe any behavior. The idea is that the first 2 functions form a pair where 1 perceives and the other judges and where 1 is internally focused and the other externally. The logic is that if both would be internally focused there would be no behavior. If both would be externally focused, there would be no real processing of information going on which would really be a disability.

So the first 2 functions having together E, I, P and J makes sense. Could it be that it's wrong? Sure, but if you just look at this and think this through, it does make a lot of sense. Would 2 E's and 2 P's make more sense? Something like Ne Se? It would be a brain that is acutely focused on all of its senses, just taking information in about the here and now while also foreseeing lots of possible futures of all of that sensory data..... but making no decisions. (in other words, there is no resulting behavior. A person like that would just stand there taking in information and the only thing that's really happening is that it sees many possible futures, which I assume would be in constant flux because of the constant flooding of sensory data........

What evidence is there?..... Do you know or have ever heard of someone behaving as if he has an Ne-Se brain? I mean, sane people? To debunk the theory you can do 2 things: Observation of facts that contradict the theory, or show that the logic is wrong.

As far as I can tell, the logic is fine. You can't really say that the logic of the 2 first function is wrong. Observing sane people that just sit there doing nothing but acutely aware of everything that's going on around them and having huge brain activity while they´re envisioning many possible ways the future will play out,....... have you seen any? I think in mental institutions you may find people like that,....... but except for the people that work there, there aren't any sane peope to be found in mental institutions.

Leaves us with the idea that the cognitive functions themselves are just wrong descriptions of processes that go on in the brain. They are the result of observation (by Jung) and logic. So we have type theory. This theory (scientific or not) of Jung makes a lot of sense too. But if these descriptions of functions are just not right, then,.... well, then the MBTI would be based on a faulty theory and lose all of its merit. There are always people that question the MBTI and they have every right to do so. It wouldn't be fair if they wouldn't have that right. But when one does challange something, it shoud be with either very good logical arguements or with scientificcaly obtained observations


----------



## reckful

Peter said:


> The logic is that if both would be internally focused there would be no behavior. If both would be externally focused, there would be no real processing of information going on which would really be a disability.
> ...
> Something like Ne Se? It would be a brain that is acutely focused on all of its senses, just taking information in about the here and now while also foreseeing lots of possible futures of all of that sensory data..... but making no decisions. (in other words, there is no resulting behavior. A person like that would just stand there taking in information and the only thing that's really happening is that it sees many possible futures, which I assume would be in constant flux because of the constant flooding of sensory data........
> 
> What evidence is there?..... Do you know or have ever heard of someone behaving as if he has an Ne-Se brain? I mean, sane people? To debunk the theory you can do 2 things: Observation of facts that contradict the theory, or show that the logic is wrong.
> ...
> Leaves us with the idea that the cognitive functions themselves are just wrong descriptions of processes that go on in the brain. They are the result of observation (by Jung) and logic. So we have type theory. This theory (scientific or not) of Jung makes a lot of sense too.


You suggest that if somebody's dom and aux were both introverted or both extraverted, they'd be likely to be dysfunctional, if not actually insane, and you also say that the "theory" you're describing is a "theory (scientific or not) of Jung," and was the "result of observation (by Jung)."

Well, FYI, Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars (_all but one_, she said) believed that Jung thought the auxiliary would have the _same attitude_ as the dominant, not the opposite attitude. I think the contrary view (i.e., Myers's view) is all but insupportable, and if you're interested, you can read a lot more about that in this post.


----------



## StunnedFox

Peter said:


> The assumption that you are presenting here is that the order of the functions is an order of preference from what your brain likes most to what it likes least. Perhaps the term preference is wrong or at least can confuse.
> 
> "Preference" is probably a better word to keep the theory from being too technical, but it may be easier to use the word "property". The first function is just the function that is used the most by a brain. This is a property of the brain. We say it is a preference but if you really look at the brain as a system, then property is the better term.
> 
> The second function is required to have a complete system. A brain that would just have 1 function wouldn't work, or at least you wouldn't be able to observe any behavior. The idea is that the first 2 functions form a pair where 1 perceives and the other judges and where 1 is internally focused and the other externally. The logic is that if both would be internally focused there would be no behavior. If both would be externally focused, there would be no real processing of information going on which would really be a disability.
> 
> So the first 2 functions having together E, I, P and J makes sense. Could it be that it's wrong? Sure, but if you just look at this and think this through, it does make a lot of sense. Would 2 E's and 2 P's make more sense? Something like Ne Se? It would be a brain that is acutely focused on all of its senses, just taking information in about the here and now while also foreseeing lots of possible futures of all of that sensory data..... but making no decisions. (in other words, there is no resulting behavior. A person like that would just stand there taking in information and the only thing that's really happening is that it sees many possible futures, which I assume would be in constant flux because of the constant flooding of sensory data........
> 
> What evidence is there?..... Do you know or have ever heard of someone behaving as if he has an Ne-Se brain? I mean, sane people? To debunk the theory you can do 2 things: Observation of facts that contradict the theory, or show that the logic is wrong.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the logic is fine. You can't really say that the logic of the 2 first function is wrong. Observing sane people that just sit there doing nothing but acutely aware of everything that's going on around them and having huge brain activity while they´re envisioning many possible ways the future will play out,....... have you seen any? I think in mental institutions you may find people like that,....... but except for the people that work there, there aren't any sane peope to be found in mental institutions.
> 
> Leaves us with the idea that the cognitive functions themselves are just wrong descriptions of processes that go on in the brain. They are the result of observation (by Jung) and logic. So we have type theory. This theory (scientific or not) of Jung makes a lot of sense too. But if these descriptions of functions are just not right, then,.... well, then the MBTI would be based on a faulty theory and lose all of its merit. There are always people that question the MBTI and they have every right to do so. It wouldn't be fair if they wouldn't have that right. But when one does challange something, it shoud be with either very good logical arguements or with scientificcaly obtained observations


When I refer to "preference", I am using it, broadly, in the sense of "property" - it is "preferred" only insofar as that is what it happens to do more than any other function. I certainly don't think anything I've written thus far is altered by framing it in that language.

What you assume is that each function is strictly confined to a single orientation - a person who is Fi-dominant only ever introverts their feeling, and thus cannot act at all, except "through" extraverted functions. You thus either assert that they completely lack extraverted feeling - that is, the property is wholly absent from the brain - or that "Fi" and "Fe" denote discrete processes that are unaffected by one another (since, if they relate to one another, surely Fi being dominant has a concomitant effect upon Fe, and thus something extraverted is already apparent without the auxiliary - which also holds with respect to Te, regardless of the relationship between Fi and Fe, so I'd like to know how you argue there is no extraversion by an I-dom without an E-aux for "balance"). The latter seems to defeat your argument; the former presents an _extremely_ rigid view of personality, one that either says people who make judgements a particular way _never_ do so in another (a claim that, properly formulated, could easily be empirically debunked - do you really believe that people are that limited?) or says that they do so "through" other functions (which takes us into the realm of the unfalsifiable, an unsatisfying means of "explaining away" inconsistencies rather than bringing the model into question - to use @Simpson17866's analogy, like introducing more and more epicycles to explain planetary motion), neither of which seems reasonable.

Arguments as to particular combinations making people "insane" don't prove that such people don't exist, though, do they? And, if the aim is - as I would contend it should be - to develop a system that correctly interprets human beings, it ought to account for every possibility. To say that "the second function is required _to have a complete system_" is not to say that everybody operates that way; setting aside other problems I have with the argument you've presented, you can't simply discard what doesn't fit your theory and label it "insane". People have treated introversion as a disorder in times past, no? Leave aside the prescriptive, and focus on the descriptive - what arguments are there for people being this way, rather than for why they supposedly ought to be?

The "logic" is an argument based on the idea that each function orients solely in one direction (that is, to have Fi is to not have Fe, &c.), that an orientation in both directions is "required" for "a complete system", that a function of each type is, again, "required" for "a complete system"... so no, as you've presented it, it isn't internally inconsistent, but it gets to that stage by making all sorts of assumptions that I don't have any reason to believe hold up in reality. I would argue that both dichotomies and functions are imperfect abstractions of the reality they seek to measure, just as I believe every label is - that alone doesn't make the theory wholly incorrect, in the same way that subsequent developments don't make classical mechanisms "lose all of its merit". And, as I've said above, much of the theory is framed in ways that make it unfalsifiable, so observations that might seem to contradict the theory can be "explained away" readily. Indeed, the OP is basically making this argument with online functions tests - not asserting that they are necessarily accurate, but that the results they present are so at odds with the purported stacks as to call them into question. Could you rebut this argument? Sure, by saying that those tests aren't truly measuring functions, or are measuring them so imprecisely as to lead to incorrect results - you'll note that it's the first thing I brought up in my first post in this thread - but, in arguing that, or in arguing against any of the arguments I've presented in the thread, it should be clear that the onus of proof is on those asserting the theory's validity, not on those challenging it (not debunking it - that would involve a positive assertion that the theory is incorrect, which I generally avoid doing, rather than simply questioning the assertion of its being correct).

Just to reiterate - I'm not really putting much of an argument as to the theory being wrong, because, firstly, that's not my intention, and secondly, I don't necessarily believe that anyway (why would I be here if I thought typology had no merit?). What I'm doing is questioning assumptions - something anyone with an interest in holding beliefs that stand up to scrutiny should, I'd argue, always be doing. If a greater theoretical basis for these assumptions than spurious notions about it being better to be a certain way can't be produced, then surely it follows that said assumptions should be discarded?


----------



## Peter

StunnedFox said:


> When I refer to "preference", I am using it, broadly, in the sense of "property" - it is "preferred" only insofar as that is what it happens to do more than any other function. I certainly don't think anything I've written thus far is altered by framing it in that language.
> 
> What you assume is that each function is strictly confined to a single orientation - a person who is Fi-dominant only ever introverts their feeling, and thus cannot act at all, except "through" extraverted functions. You thus either assert that they completely lack extraverted feeling - that is, the property is wholly absent from the brain - or that "Fi" and "Fe" denote discrete processes that are unaffected by one another (since, if they relate to one another, surely Fi being dominant has a concomitant effect upon Fe, and thus something extraverted is already apparent without the auxiliary - which also holds with respect to Te, regardless of the relationship between Fi and Fe, so I'd like to know how you argue there is no extraversion by an I-dom without an E-aux for "balance"). The latter seems to defeat your argument; the former presents an _extremely_ rigid view of personality, one that either says people who make judgements a particular way _never_ do so in another (a claim that, properly formulated, could easily be empirically debunked - do you really believe that people are that limited?) or says that they do so "through" other functions (which takes us into the realm of the unfalsifiable, an unsatisfying means of "explaining away" inconsistencies rather than bringing the model into question - to use @_Simpson17866_'s analogy, like introducing more and more epicycles to explain planetary motion), neither of which seems reasonable.
> 
> Arguments as to particular combinations making people "insane" don't prove that such people don't exist, though, do they? And, if the aim is - as I would contend it should be - to develop a system that correctly interprets human beings, it ought to account for every possibility. To say that "the second function is required _to have a complete system_" is not to say that everybody operates that way; setting aside other problems I have with the argument you've presented, you can't simply discard what doesn't fit your theory and label it "insane". People have treated introversion as a disorder in times past, no? Leave aside the prescriptive, and focus on the descriptive - what arguments are there for people being this way, rather than for why they supposedly ought to be?
> 
> The "logic" is an argument based on the idea that each function orients solely in one direction (that is, to have Fi is to not have Fe, &c.), that an orientation in both directions is "required" for "a complete system", that a function of each type is, again, "required" for "a complete system"... so no, as you've presented it, it isn't internally inconsistent, but it gets to that stage by making all sorts of assumptions that I don't have any reason to believe hold up in reality. I would argue that both dichotomies and functions are imperfect abstractions of the reality they seek to measure, just as I believe every label is - that alone doesn't make the theory wholly incorrect, in the same way that subsequent developments don't make classical mechanisms "lose all of its merit". And, as I've said above, much of the theory is framed in ways that make it unfalsifiable, so observations that might seem to contradict the theory can be "explained away" readily. Indeed, the OP is basically making this argument with online functions tests - not asserting that they are necessarily accurate, but that the results they present are so at odds with the purported stacks as to call them into question. Could you rebut this argument? Sure, by saying that those tests aren't truly measuring functions, or are measuring them so imprecisely as to lead to incorrect results - you'll note that it's the first thing I brought up in my first post in this thread - but, in arguing that, or in arguing against any of the arguments I've presented in the thread, it should be clear that the onus of proof is on those asserting the theory's validity, not on those challenging it (not debunking it - that would involve a positive assertion that the theory is incorrect, which I generally avoid doing, rather than simply questioning the assertion of its being correct).
> 
> Just to reiterate - I'm not really putting much of an argument as to the theory being wrong, because, firstly, that's not my intention, and secondly, I don't necessarily believe that anyway (why would I be here if I thought typology had no merit?). What I'm doing is questioning assumptions - something anyone with an interest in holding beliefs that stand up to scrutiny should, I'd argue, always be doing. If a greater theoretical basis for these assumptions than spurious notions about it being better to be a certain way can't be produced, then surely it follows that said assumptions should be discarded?


Let me try to make some bullet points of what you are saying:



You think that I'm saying that each function is strictly confined to a single orientation.
The theory should be able to describe every single person on earth, including mentally ill people.
The rule of the MBTI of orientations having to be either eiei or ieie is wrong.

Ok,.. here we go:

*You think that I'm saying that each function is strictly confined to a single orientation.

*I don't think this is the case. At least not in the way you´re suggesting it. However, it fails to make sense that a brain could have for example a 50% preference to Ne and a 50% preference to Ni. Like half the time it will operate in Ni mode and half the time it will operate in Ne mode. These 2 being active at the same time is not possible, so it will have to be some alternating form of activity.

The MBTI suggest that the non prefered orientation of a function becomes active in times of stress. Like a stressed INTJ having tons of things that could go wrong pop up in his head. This makes sense. But you can still argue that even when people are not stressed, the opposite orientation may still be used every now and then..... Sure, theoretically that's possible, but one of the things that often happens is that people report for example Ne being active because they were able to come up with 30 different ways a certain situation may play out...... But that's a conscious thinking process where multiple functions are active. That's not Ne where all at the same time a dozen different possible sequences of events may pop up in a brain.

This idea that stress can cause the opposite orientation to show up makes a lot of sense.


*The theory should be able to describe every single person on earth, including mentally ill people.*

I don't agree with this idea at all. Why is this necessary? It's a theory about how a certain system works. When this system is broken, the theory won't apply anymore. If you want a theory about a certain system that descibes not only the normal operation of the system, but also every way it could be broken,.... then you'll never be able to come up with a theory. (I think it's interesting by the way that you as an INTP (Ne being your second function) finds this aspect very important. It makes sense that you believe this is important, just like it makes sense that I, as an INTJ, prefer to describe a certain version (the normally functioning version). Our discussion isn't the result of having a different opinion, but the result of placing different priorities on certain aspects, and the reasn we have these 2 very different preferences on what is important are directly related to the functions our brains prefer.


*The rule of the MBTI of orientations having to be either eiei or ieie is wrong.

*I can't agree with this, but let's try to look at those 4 letters in a way that they´re not in a sequence. A healthy brain has 4 functions that operate, N, S, F and T. One of those seems to be the most used and it has an orientation. We, as humans, are limited to 2D thinking when we try to describe something. That means parallel or simultaneous processes will end up on paper in a sequence, even though that's not actually how they operate.

So eiei, ieie, eeii, iiee, eiie, ieei are all pretty much the same thing.

The only thing you can question then is why should it be 2 of each? Why not eeee or eeie or iiie or iiii, or etc.?

That is a good question. In my opinion the idea of balance in a healthy brain makes sense so 2 of each makes sense. Is it impossible to be a mentally healthy person being for example iiii or eeei? I have tried to invent a way to make those "unbalanced" work together in a way that would be practical in the sense of a mentally healthy person...... I can't do it.



So the MBTI seems to be a well developed tool which seems to describe personality traits really well. Maybe it's too detailed. Darwin's evolution theory is so much more simple and explains how the most complex forms of life came into being. 2 simple factors, random mutations and natural selection describe 100% of all living things. The MBTI most certainly is more complex than that. But it still does a really well job at describing personality traits.


----------



## StunnedFox

Peter said:


> *You think that I'm saying that each function is strictly confined to a single orientation.
> 
> *I don't think this is the case. At least not in the way you´re suggesting it. However, it fails to make sense that a brain could have for example a 50% preference to Ne and a 50% preference to Ni. Like half the time it will operate in Ni mode and half the time it will operate in Ne mode. These 2 being active at the same time is not possible, so it will have to be some alternating form of activity.
> 
> The MBTI suggest that the non prefered orientation of a function becomes active in times of stress. Like a stressed INTJ having tons of things that could go wrong pop up in his head. This makes sense. But you can still argue that even when people are not stressed, the opposite orientation may still be used every now and then..... Sure, theoretically that's possible, but one of the things that often happens is that people report for example Ne being active because they were able to come up with 30 different ways a certain situation may play out...... But that's a conscious thinking process where multiple functions are active. That's not Ne where all at the same time a dozen different possible sequences of events may pop up in a brain.
> 
> This idea that stress can cause the opposite orientation to show up makes a lot of sense.


"The logic is that if both would be internally focused there would be no behavior. If both would be externally focused, there would be no real processing of information going on which would really be a disability."

The suggestion that a person with dom-aux sharing an attitude would be incapable of either reflection or external behaviour (evident in the quote of you above and in the myersbriggs.org links you provided to begin with) is what leads me to conclude that you must either hold that a function has a set attitude to the complete exclusion of the other. But even allowing for your revised claim, I don't see what precludes there being a "balance" within a function's attitude - why _can't_ a person "trust flashes from the unconscious", some of which involve an "internal framework" and are "hard for others to understand", and some of which "can then be shared with others", those being possibilities "in the external world"? Nothing about that sounds to me inherently unbalanced, insane, or anything like that... 

I'd be interested to know where in the MBTI theory it's claimed that the opposite attitude of the same function shows up in time of stress - most stress-related information I've seen has been about the inferior function, some about excessive reliance on the dominant, and nothing of the ilk of what you're suggesting. It makes no more or less sense than any other stress-related MBTI claim I've seen; what about the opposing attitude showing up "makes a lot of sense"? Whether people "report Ne being active" or not doesn't seem to me particularly relevant, since we know people can mischaracterise their personalities with respect to the theory; you've acknowledged it's at least theoretically possible, so why does the theory so strongly present as though it isn't?



> *The theory should be able to describe every single person on earth, including mentally ill people.*
> 
> I don't agree with this idea at all. Why is this necessary? It's a theory about how a certain system works. When this system is broken, the theory won't apply anymore. If you want a theory about a certain system that descibes not only the normal operation of the system, but also every way it could be broken,.... then you'll never be able to come up with a theory. (I think it's interesting by the way that you as an INTP (Ne being your second function) finds this aspect very important. It makes sense that you believe this is important, just like it makes sense that I, as an INTJ, prefer to describe a certain version (the normally functioning version). Our discussion isn't the result of having a different opinion, but the result of placing different priorities on certain aspects, and the reasn we have these 2 very different preferences on what is important are directly related to the functions our brains prefer.


It's a theory about how people are, how they work, seeking to describe the realities of human personality. Excluding people on the grounds that they're not sane makes no sense - they still have personalities, don't they, so why can't they, too, be described? Besides, once you change the theory from applying to everyone to applying only to "sane" people, then you have a convenient get-out clause for any inconvenient facts you want to dismiss - simply change your claim from descriptive to normative, and claim that perfectly open possibilities deviating from the theory lead to "insanity", on no greater grounds than that you can make it sound good. If a theory that claims to describe the ways in which people's personalities differ can't be bothered applying itself to people whose personalities society deems different enough to warrant a label of insanity, then it simply isn't doing what it is there to do - to categorise and describe how human beings work, and how they differ. As I mentioned, introversion was once seen as a mental illness - would a personality theory that treated everyone as extraverts, excluding those they deemed "mentally ill", accurately describe the reality of human personality? The point of view you're espousing is simply baffling to me.

I think it's interesting that you assume the type label under my name represents the same thing as that type label does in the system as you understand it - we clearly approach typology quite differently, so why assume as much? Unless, of course, you've separately come to a conclusion about my type... though, as it happens, my typing is intended to be within the MBTI system as it presents itself, where INTP is the best-fitting type profile (that covering the written description, the Ti-Ne-S-Fe function stack, the I-N-T-P dichotomies...), so here, any assumption that was made probably holds. Yes, you could probably extrapolate a number of differences between us from our interaction here that may well be type-related, and are at least personality-related (outside of any given system)...



> *The rule of the MBTI of orientations having to be either eiei or ieie is wrong.
> 
> *I can't agree with this, but let's try to look at those 4 letters in a way that they´re not in a sequence. A healthy brain has 4 functions that operate, N, S, F and T. One of those seems to be the most used and it has an orientation. We, as humans, are limited to 2D thinking when we try to describe something. That means parallel or simultaneous processes will end up on paper in a sequence, even though that's not actually how they operate.
> 
> So eiei, ieie, eeii, iiee, eiie, ieei are all pretty much the same thing.
> 
> The only thing you can question then is why should it be 2 of each? Why not eeee or eeie or iiie or iiii, or etc.?
> 
> That is a good question. In my opinion the idea of balance in a healthy brain makes sense so 2 of each makes sense. Is it impossible to be a mentally healthy person being for example iiii or eeei? I have tried to invent a way to make those "unbalanced" work together in a way that would be practical in the sense of a mentally healthy person...... I can't do it.


I don't think I've actually asserted that the rule is "wrong" anywhere, have I? Perhaps this is precisely the kind of difference you're getting at when you talk of INTJ/INTP differences between us - what I see as questioning, criticising, scrutinising, you view as denying and arguing against, an assertion that it is incorrect, which is not my intention. I'm not asserting that the rule is wrong, just that it's not sufficiently substantiated as to justify its being treated as a true statement about how all people - or even all "sane" people - operate.

I definitely don't agree that any combination involving two introverted and two extraverted functions are all "pretty much the same thing" - the order of preference is basically the core tenet of typology, that some people have different personality preferences, not only different cognitive properties but different combinations of the same cognitive properties. When the MBTI fails to refer to the possibility of XXYY stacks, it is missing out something meaningfully different to the standard XYXY stack (that it, technically, doesn't assert - XY?Y is what is given in _Introduction to Type_, for example, and a study from 2012 that failed to find any support for the cognitive functions worked with an XYYY model). If order weren't relevant - irrelevant enough to be dismissed in the context of this discourse - then what would be the difference between introverts and extraverts?

The only reason you're concluding that given stacks would be "unbalanced" is through a highly rigid view of how a given function operates - that a person can only act externally through an extraverted function, can only reflect internally through an introverted function, &c. If "the idea of balance in a healthy brain" makes so much sense to you, how is it that you accept the differences personality theory points to as anything other than fundamentally unbalancing factors - isn't the very fact that someone prefers, say, N over S, or Fe over Fi, an imbalance? Isn't the mere fact of being an extravert fundamentally not a balance? 

Why such a rigid view of the theory, anyway? You've accepted above that people _can_ theoretically operate opposite to their ordinary orientation, so that suggests there's a matter of degree of preference involves here - why can't a person prefer a particular attitude only slightly more than its opposite? This is the main issue I have with the arguments you're presenting - none of them can satisfactorily explain why all of these things that make conceptual sense aren't accurate, in a way that the limitations it imposes on personality somehow are. Again, you may be right to point to a matter of type-related perspective, but the basic idea of starting with every possibility and working out why all the excluded forms aren't possible seems obvious to me.



> So the MBTI seems to be a well developed tool which seems to describe personality traits really well. Maybe it's too detailed. Darwin's evolution theory is so much more simple and explains how the most complex forms of life came into being. 2 simple factors, random mutations and natural selection describe 100% of all living things. The MBTI most certainly is more complex than that. But it still does a really well job at describing personality traits.


"Maybe it's too detailed"? On the contrary - it's a highly simplistic framework for describing the incredibly complex reality it seeks to capture, and the degree to which it truly "works" is hard to gauge because the assertions it makes are rarely framed in a way amenable to proper examination. It does seem to get at some underlying truths about personality, hence why allowing tenuous assertions to potentially obscure access to that truth is undesirable.


----------



## Peter

StunnedFox said:


> "The logic is that if both would be internally focused there would be no behavior. If both would be externally focused, there would be no real processing of information going on which would really be a disability."
> 
> The suggestion that a person with dom-aux sharing an attitude would be incapable of either reflection or external behaviour (evident in the quote of you above and in the myersbriggs.org links you provided to begin with) is what leads me to conclude that you must either hold that a function has a set attitude to the complete exclusion of the other. But even allowing for your revised claim, I don't see what precludes there being a "balance" within a function's attitude - why _can't_ a person "trust flashes from the unconscious", some of which involve an "internal framework" and are "hard for others to understand", and some of which "can then be shared with others", those being possibilities "in the external world"? Nothing about that sounds to me inherently unbalanced, insane, or anything like that...
> 
> I'd be interested to know where in the MBTI theory it's claimed that the opposite attitude of the same function shows up in time of stress - most stress-related information I've seen has been about the inferior function, some about excessive reliance on the dominant, and nothing of the ilk of what you're suggesting. It makes no more or less sense than any other stress-related MBTI claim I've seen; what about the opposing attitude showing up "makes a lot of sense"? Whether people "report Ne being active" or not doesn't seem to me particularly relevant, since we know people can mischaracterise their personalities with respect to the theory; you've acknowledged it's at least theoretically possible, so why does the theory so strongly present as though it isn't?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a theory about how people are, how they work, seeking to describe the realities of human personality. Excluding people on the grounds that they're not sane makes no sense - they still have personalities, don't they, so why can't they, too, be described? Besides, once you change the theory from applying to everyone to applying only to "sane" people, then you have a convenient get-out clause for any inconvenient facts you want to dismiss - simply change your claim from descriptive to normative, and claim that perfectly open possibilities deviating from the theory lead to "insanity", on no greater grounds than that you can make it sound good. If a theory that claims to describe the ways in which people's personalities differ can't be bothered applying itself to people whose personalities society deems different enough to warrant a label of insanity, then it simply isn't doing what it is there to do - to categorise and describe how human beings work, and how they differ. As I mentioned, introversion was once seen as a mental illness - would a personality theory that treated everyone as extraverts, excluding those they deemed "mentally ill", accurately describe the reality of human personality? The point of view you're espousing is simply baffling to me.
> 
> I think it's interesting that you assume the type label under my name represents the same thing as that type label does in the system as you understand it - we clearly approach typology quite differently, so why assume as much? Unless, of course, you've separately come to a conclusion about my type... though, as it happens, my typing is intended to be within the MBTI system as it presents itself, where INTP is the best-fitting type profile (that covering the written description, the Ti-Ne-S-Fe function stack, the I-N-T-P dichotomies...), so here, any assumption that was made probably holds. Yes, you could probably extrapolate a number of differences between us from our interaction here that may well be type-related, and are at least personality-related (outside of any given system)...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've actually asserted that the rule is "wrong" anywhere, have I? Perhaps this is precisely the kind of difference you're getting at when you talk of INTJ/INTP differences between us - what I see as questioning, criticising, scrutinising, you view as denying and arguing against, an assertion that it is incorrect, which is not my intention. I'm not asserting that the rule is wrong, just that it's not sufficiently substantiated as to justify its being treated as a true statement about how all people - or even all "sane" people - operate.
> 
> I definitely don't agree that any combination involving two introverted and two extraverted functions are all "pretty much the same thing" - the order of preference is basically the core tenet of typology, that some people have different personality preferences, not only different cognitive properties but different combinations of the same cognitive properties. When the MBTI fails to refer to the possibility of XXYY stacks, it is missing out something meaningfully different to the standard XYXY stack (that it, technically, doesn't assert - XY?Y is what is given in _Introduction to Type_, for example, and a study from 2012 that failed to find any support for the cognitive functions worked with an XYYY model). If order weren't relevant - irrelevant enough to be dismissed in the context of this discourse - then what would be the difference between introverts and extraverts?
> 
> The only reason you're concluding that given stacks would be "unbalanced" is through a highly rigid view of how a given function operates - that a person can only act externally through an extraverted function, can only reflect internally through an introverted function, &c. If "the idea of balance in a healthy brain" makes so much sense to you, how is it that you accept the differences personality theory points to as anything other than fundamentally unbalancing factors - isn't the very fact that someone prefers, say, N over S, or Fe over Fi, an imbalance? Isn't the mere fact of being an extravert fundamentally not a balance?
> 
> Why such a rigid view of the theory, anyway? You've accepted above that people _can_ theoretically operate opposite to their ordinary orientation, so that suggests there's a matter of degree of preference involves here - why can't a person prefer a particular attitude only slightly more than its opposite? This is the main issue I have with the arguments you're presenting - none of them can satisfactorily explain why all of these things that make conceptual sense aren't accurate, in a way that the limitations it imposes on personality somehow are. Again, you may be right to point to a matter of type-related perspective, but the basic idea of starting with every possibility and working out why all the excluded forms aren't possible seems obvious to me.
> 
> 
> 
> "Maybe it's too detailed"? On the contrary - it's a highly simplistic framework for describing the incredibly complex reality it seeks to capture, and the degree to which it truly "works" is hard to gauge because the assertions it makes are rarely framed in a way amenable to proper examination. It does seem to get at some underlying truths about personality, hence why allowing tenuous assertions to potentially obscure access to that truth is undesirable.


I'll try to stay out of the details as much as possible because I don't look at the cognitive functions as an attempt to exactly describe a single person's complete personality. It's called personality *type* for a reason. The 16 types are 16 labels and each lable is a broad description of large group of people with similar traits. No 2 people with the same type have exactly the same personality. If the goal is to find a theory that describes every individual's personality to the last detail, then Jung's cognitive functions and the MBTI are not the way to go. I also don't see that goal even being possible.

Darwin's evolution theory explains how species evolve from one to the next, but in absolutely no way can it explain how the T-Rex came into being or how humans came into being. It merely describes how the process works. Not what all the factors involved were that together with the evolution theory created the T-Rex and us. It also isn't trying to do that. Just the process, that's all.

The same goes for trying to explain people's behavior using the cognitive functions. The theory explains why some people seem to be more interested in interaction with others than other people are. It explains why some people are very focused on feelings while others seem to be just pragmatic and don't experience m(any) feelings while they process information. It explains why some people easily remember many details while others really suck at that. It explains why some people prefer to lead while others prefer to follow. It explains why some people are more focused on fairness while others focus more on being nice..... etc. etc. etc.

Does it explain this in a lot of detail for a single individual? No it doesn't. It also doesn't try to do that.

When you can't explain someone's behavior with the cognitive functions and the MBTI type, it does not mean it's a bad theory. It just means it's a theory that isn't trying to explain a single's person behavior in every detail. Keep in mind that someone's personality isn't the only thing that determines behavior. Experiences are a big thing too.

Also, one's personality isn't constant, it changes over time. It's dynamic and therefore you can't even come up with a description of a single person. Once you figured it out, it will have changed a little bit.


----------



## StunnedFox

Peter said:


> I'll try to stay out of the details as much as possible because I don't look at the cognitive functions as an attempt to exactly describe a single person's complete personality. It's called personality *type* for a reason. The 16 types are 16 labels and each lable is a broad description of large group of people with similar traits. No 2 people with the same type have exactly the same personality. If the goal is to find a theory that describes every individual's personality to the last detail, then Jung's cognitive functions and the MBTI are not the way to go. I also don't see that goal even being possible.
> 
> Darwin's evolution theory explains how species evolve from one to the next, but in absolutely no way can it explain how the T-Rex came into being or how humans came into being. It merely describes how the process works. Not what all the factors involved were that together with the evolution theory created the T-Rex and us. It also isn't trying to do that. Just the process, that's all.
> 
> The same goes for trying to explain people's behavior using the cognitive functions. The theory explains why some people seem to be more interested in interaction with others than other people are. It explains why some people are very focused on feelings while others seem to be just pragmatic and don't experience m(any) feelings while they process information. It explains why some people easily remember many details while others really suck at that. It explains why some people prefer to lead while others prefer to follow. It explains why some people are more focused on fairness while others focus more on being nice..... etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Does it explain this in a lot of detail for a single individual? No it doesn't. It also doesn't try to do that.
> 
> When you can't explain someone's behavior with the cognitive functions and the MBTI type, it does not mean it's a bad theory. It just means it's a theory that isn't trying to explain a single's person behavior in every detail. Keep in mind that someone's personality isn't the only thing that determines behavior. Experiences are a big thing too.
> 
> Also, one's personality isn't constant, it changes over time. It's dynamic and therefore you can't even come up with a description of a single person. Once you figured it out, it will have changed a little bit.


I don't see that this is true. The value of any theory about reality must be judged on how well the claims of the theory match up to the nature of reality; that much seems obvious. This doesn't mean I see the MBTI as trying to describe "a person's complete personality", but there's a significant difference between being merely imprecise (which a notionally accurate model of the MBTI would be) and being manifestly inaccurate, and at present, without justifications for its claims, why should I assume the former - that what the theory says is correct, there's just more to personality that what it states - rather than the latter - that what the theory says is simply incorrect? I see little basis to favour one or the other here; claims are framed unfalsifiably, so I can't assert that they're wrong, but they're also without adequate justification, so I can't assert that they're right either. To the extent that either stance is asserted, there must be good reason to do so - that reason is what I'm after here.

Just to make that clear: the notion of "type", as you rightly point out, means we are not characterising people precisely, but that doesn't excuse the sorting at that level being inaccurate. When the theory can't explain something outside of its domain, that is because the theory isn't sufficiently precise - that's still a deficiency, just not a fatal one. When the theory can't explain something within its domain, that is because the theory is inaccurate - and that _does_ make it a bad theory. 

The important distinction here is one of necessity vs. contingency. The theory makes a whole host of assertions about the kind of behaviours you're likely to see a given type present with, but these are contingent truths, things that tend to be the case for people within a type category but don't necessarily have to be true for a person to be of that type. Those aren't what I'm talking about here; I am questioning the claims of _necessary truths_ that the theory makes. Any theory must make some necessary claims if it is to make a categorisation at all - e.g., _every_ ENFJ prefers extraversion to introversion, intuition to sensing, &c., and you are not an ENFJ if you prefer perceiving to judging, or thinking to feeling. What the theory also does is claims that _every_ person with E, N, F and J preferences prefers F more than N, and that _every_ person with E, F and J preferences extraverts their feeling and introverts their intuition. On what basis is a claim of necessity justified here? This is the key point being gotten at here - when you say "a person with a dominant introverted function _must_ have an extraverted auxiliary", that is not a contingent claim about what most introverted people tend to do, it's a claim of necessity, "every introvert does this". You've now admitted that there is no theoretical reason why a person couldn't have both dominant and auxiliary be introverted, so you're not making that a necessity any more: but you don't have a place in your theory for the theoretical combination you've accepted is possible, so now your theory is manifestly deficient.

Any theory could claim to explain the things you say that the MBTI "explains" by positing a common psychological property is behind given traits/sets of behaviour. The reason why the MBTI has merit is because such behaviours do tend to cluster together, suggesting there is at least some common link between them - but tossing aside objections because we can construct flimsy excuses to keep the theory in its current form is simply not a sufficiently truth-oriented stance to take up; this being an inquiry into how human beings are, every occasion in which the theory makes a claim that is not perfectly true to reality, _it is deficient to the extent of the untruth_. Hiding from this by rephrasing everything so that it is impervious to direct criticism - "you can't say it's wrong when it doesn't claim to explain everything", &c. - is a position in opposition to that truth-seeking imperative. It doesn't need to explain everything - but what it does claim to explain, it must explain clearly and accurately. 

At present, how would a person even go about showing the theory to be wrong? If I presented a person with behaviour far different to what the theory predicted, that would not be sufficient, because "personality isn't the only thing that determines behaviour; experiences are a big thing too". If I presented a person with clear preferences on all four scales who couldn't relate to that description, that would not be sufficient, because they may not know themselves sufficiently, and maybe the test is deficient. This is my point - everything is obfuscated by a cloud of unfalsifiability, behind which all sorts of very specific claims are made, both about how people are and about how they ought to be. The onus is on the theory to give me a reason to think the claims that it makes truly reflect the reality they seek to capture - what reason have I to believe a claim it makes is true, otherwise?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I'm just going to drop this here (I only read the first page of the thread, as 20 pages is a bit much for me, so forgive me if this is now moot)

A Little Bit of Personality: The Cognition Process in Stick Figures


----------



## Peter

StunnedFox said:


> At present, how would a person even go about showing the theory to be wrong? If I presented a person with behaviour far different to what the theory predicted, that would not be sufficient, because "personality isn't the only thing that determines behaviour; experiences are a big thing too". If I presented a person with clear preferences on all four scales who couldn't relate to that description, that would not be sufficient, because they may not know themselves sufficiently, and maybe the test is deficient. This is my point - everything is obfuscated by a cloud of unfalsifiability, behind which all sorts of very specific claims are made, both about how people are and about how they ought to be. The onus is on the theory to give me a reason to think the claims that it makes truly reflect the reality they seek to capture - what reason have I to believe a claim it makes is true, otherwise?


I look at the logic of the theory, not at the reports of people. I know that doesn't guarantee anything, but I don't consider "whitnesses" to be accurate sources of information (both ways by the way. Someone telling me that the MBTI is right because they fit a type perfectly is as useless as proof as someone telling me that they don't fit any type.) Since we´re not dealing with something physical here that can be measured by a machine, the only thing to go with really is the logic of the theory.

Now, it is possible that something that is logically correct does not correctly describe reality. So I get it, even if the MBTI makes perfect sense, it still doesn't prove that it is 100% correct.

Perhaps it is true that there are more types than the 16 of the MBTI. Maybe we should simply add a 17th type that gets the label: "None of the above" and allow for the possibility that not every single person on earth fits in one of the 16 MBTI categories.


You asked how one would go about showing the theory wrong.

I'm not sure if I mentioned this before but I dont consider the MBTI a theory. The only thing that's a theory are the cognitive functions that Jung came up with. The MBTI is a tool to figure out what someone's preferred functions are. It does do one thing which you can call a theory and that is to assume that there are only 16 possible combinations.

The idea that there are more combinations isn't bad by it self. But then we would have to figure out a way to explain that other combinations could make sense too. IIIE for example. Could be Ni-Ti-Fi-Se, or... Ti-Fi-Si-Se,... be possible? Or worse, if one argues that all possible combinations are an option: Ni-Ne-Se-Si...

Those combinations don't fit within the logic of the MBTI, but let's suppose they do exist, what would a brain like that be doing? Would it even be possible to do anything at all? Would different combinations make it possible for a brain to function at all? Perhaps some combinations are indeed possible. I wouldn't consider that right a way proof of the MBTI being wrong, but it would prove that the MBTI is too strict and should allow for more types.


I'm willing to be convinced, but what ever you come up with, needs to be explainable and making sense.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Blue Soul said:


> I did the function stack test at Jungian Cognitive Functions Test



*Te (Extroverted Thinking)* (55%) 

*Ti (Introverted Thinking)* (30%) 

*Ne (Extroverted Intuition)* (55%) 

*Ni (Introverted Intuition)* (15%) 

*Se (Extroverted Sensing)* (80%) 

*Si (Introverted Sensing)* (30%) 

*Fe (Extroverted Feeling)* (35%) 

*Fi (Introverted Feeling)* (90%) 

Hmmmmm


----------



## StunnedFox

Peter said:


> I look at the logic of the theory, not at the reports of people. I know that doesn't guarantee anything, but I don't consider "whitnesses" to be accurate sources of information (both ways by the way. Someone telling me that the MBTI is right because they fit a type perfectly is as useless as proof as someone telling me that they don't fit any type.) Since we´re not dealing with something physical here that can be measured by a machine, the only thing to go with really is the logic of the theory.
> 
> Now, it is possible that something that is logically correct does not correctly describe reality. So I get it, even if the MBTI makes perfect sense, it still doesn't prove that it is 100% correct.
> 
> Perhaps it is true that there are more types than the 16 of the MBTI. Maybe we should simply add a 17th type that gets the label: "None of the above" and allow for the possibility that not every single person on earth fits in one of the 16 MBTI categories.


It was never my suggestion that "witnesses" were necessarily accurate, but this is a theory intended to describe some truth about how people actually are - a failure of that theory to hold up in reality is therefore a relevant thing to consider as far as the veracity of the theory is concerned, even if reasonable alternative explanations can be advanced (such as issues with the method of ascertaining type, or linking behaviours directly to preferences, or whatever). This is a theory that purports to accurately describe reality, so, ipso facto, that reality forms part of the theory, and its correctness must be assessed in relation to that reality, not only in relation to its own internal logic. It could not be said to make "perfect sense" unless it conformed to that reality. 

Even if that qualm is set aside, and we only assess the internal logic, I don't think the theory is framed in a fashion properly amenable to logical evaluation - some things are simply not clear. For example: what, if anything, is _necessarily_ true of a person with a given preference/function, and untrue of someone without it? What does it explicitly _mean_ for a function to be higher in the stack than another? As I've said, any potential fault can be hand-waved away precisely because of this lack of clarity: no different to plenty of religions, setting something up beyond the realm of scrutiny, evading direct disproof by never being amenable to proof in the first place.



> You asked how one would go about showing the theory wrong.
> 
> I'm not sure if I mentioned this before but I dont consider the MBTI a theory. The only thing that's a theory are the cognitive functions that Jung came up with. The MBTI is a tool to figure out what someone's preferred functions are. It does do one thing which you can call a theory and that is to assume that there are only 16 possible combinations.
> 
> The idea that there are more combinations isn't bad by it self. But then we would have to figure out a way to explain that other combinations could make sense too. IIIE for example. Could be Ni-Ti-Fi-Se, or... Ti-Fi-Si-Se,... be possible? Or worse, if one argues that all possible combinations are an option: Ni-Ne-Se-Si...
> 
> Those combinations don't fit within the logic of the MBTI, but let's suppose they do exist, what would a brain like that be doing? Would it even be possible to do anything at all? Would different combinations make it possible for a brain to function at all? Perhaps some combinations are indeed possible. I wouldn't consider that right a way proof of the MBTI being wrong, but it would prove that the MBTI is too strict and should allow for more types.
> 
> I'm willing to be convinced, but what ever you come up with, needs to be explainable and making sense.


In what sense is the only theoretical assumption in the MBTI that there are just sixteen combinations? It seems to me there are plenty of theoretical aspects - the notion of dimensions of personality (I/E, S/N, T/F, J/P) that have a direct correlation to particular function combinations, for one.

The whole point of this discussion, this entire thread, is that the "justifications" given for limiting type to just those sixteen possibilities are insufficient to support that limitation being placed. It is my position that the arguments advanced in support of excluding alternative possible combinations either require such a flawed understanding of personality for them to even make sense as limitations, such that they diminish the veracity of the theory (e.g., the idea that each function operates exclusively with one attitude), or alternatively, do not actually justify the limitation at all. Whether those possibilities you list (Ni-Ti-Fi-Se, Ti-Fi-Si-Se, Ni-Ne-Se-Si) make sense or not depends upon the precise characterisation of the functions (e.g., are "Si" and "Se" wholly discrete functions?), but it is not we who must "figure out a way to explain that other combinations could make sense too", because it is the theory's failure to adequately justify these possibilities' exclusion that is the primary issue here. 

I apologise if this post is a little muddied - I can't seem to articulate my thoughts correctly at the moment, they're a bit muddy...


----------



## Peter

I think the best way to go is to use the site The Myers & Briggs Foundation

And then this page: The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Understanding MBTI® Type Dynamics

Which explains the logic and includes links to describe specifics.


You will have to go with that information and find out if there are problems in the logic.

For example you seem stuck in the idea that the MBTI claims that if you have Se, then you can't have Si. To me, in practicle terms, that is sort of true, but the MBTI itself doesn't make this claim I think.

One of the things that the MBTI does it makes statements where it says that you (the whole person) has preferences. This is something I don't agree with. I think these are preferences of the brain, not of the person. What I mean here is that these preferences aren't a choice. Nobody can choose to be a certain type or change it. Functions can develop over time though.

Now if you read those links above you will see that there is logic to how it all works. When you find something that is logically incorrect please tell me.

Let's start from there.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Each person has T, F, S, and N. The question is which direction you orient it by preference, and how important a feature of your personality it is. The idea that you have all 8 seems a bit flawed, when MBTI doesn't ever claim that a person who uses Ne for example is incapable of introverting their intuition. MBTI is a measurement of functional preferences.

What I question the reason for is the rules for the system, such as always alternating Introverted to Extroverted in sequence within your stack. I want to know where those rules come from.


----------



## reckful

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> What I question the reason for is the rules for the system, such as always alternating Introverted to Extroverted in sequence within your stack. I want to know where those rules come from.


They came from Harold Grant!

More here.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

@reckful

Thank you, that addresses some of my concerns.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Why not just say each person has each of the four functions, and the functional strengths of the e or i versions determines what your default is? Then each person has the 4 functions, and whether a given function is introverted or not just describes what they are likely to be, and only the functional order really matters to describe type. Then you can just look at the two strongest functions and determine type based on that. That gives you 8 types. Then you determine the Extroversion or Introversion dominance of the given individual based on all their strengths cumulatively, and assign the type that way. Sure, such a system wouldn't give us all the lovely stereotypes, but since those are pretty off based anyway....

A better system I think would simply do what the similarminds cognitive function test does, but condense it to just the 4. Simply take the results and straight convert the values into what they likely are most of the time. For accuracy, repeat the test several times to get a better sense of their average state. I feel like I can explain better with an example.

Say Billy has the following strength values for his functions:

Te 50%
Ti 70%
Fe 40%
Fi 90%
Ne 70%
Ni 40%
Se 35%
Si 60%

With this, I could condense it into: Fi 50%, Ne 30%, Ti 20%, Si 25%. Such a person has 195 extroversion preference, and 260% introversion preference. So we wind up with an Introverted FNTS. Use THAT to describe the type.

Just....IFNTS. The expanded type entry for that type would just be Fi-Ne-Ti-Si. That tells you a great deal about the way this person thinks, and I bet you could guess at his behaviors fairly reliably. Thoughts?


----------



## StunnedFox

Peter said:


> I think the best way to go is to use the site The Myers & Briggs Foundation
> 
> And then this page: The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Understanding MBTI® Type Dynamics
> 
> Which explains the logic and includes links to describe specifics.
> 
> You will have to go with that information and find out if there are problems in the logic.
> 
> For example you seem stuck in the idea that the MBTI claims that if you have Se, then you can't have Si. To me, in practicle terms, that is sort of true, but the MBTI itself doesn't make this claim I think.
> 
> One of the things that the MBTI does it makes statements where it says that you (the whole person) has preferences. This is something I don't agree with. I think these are preferences of the brain, not of the person. What I mean here is that these preferences aren't a choice. Nobody can choose to be a certain type or change it. Functions can develop over time though.
> 
> Now if you read those links above you will see that there is logic to how it all works. When you find something that is logically incorrect please tell me.
> 
> Let's start from there.


Firstly, the MBTI doesn't claim that a person has a choice in type - the way the word "preference" is used throughout the theory makes it plain that we are talking about something like handedness, a natural inclination towards favouring one over the other; there is no suggestion that this is voluntary, and I'm not sure where you've derived the idea that this is what the theory claims. What you call "preferences of the brain" are exactly what the theory has always meant by "preference".

I have read those links, and they proved rather useless, on the whole. Here's a run-down of just a couple of points from the various pages:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*There are four "mental functions"; the order of a person's preferences is considered inborn, but can change "when circumstances require" a different order than what is naturally preferred.* (source)
This page seems rather confused - it suggests that our order of _preference_ changes in making decisions, which (by their own favoured metaphor) would be like claiming that I become left-handed when circumstances require me to use my left hand. That doesn't accord with anything I've come across elsewhere in the theory at all. Apart from that, not much worthy of remark on this page.

*Early in life, we develop reliance on our naturally preferred first function; the "use" of this function "strengthens" it and "differentiates" it.* (source)
It's unclear here what is meant by "using" a function, and "strengthen" and "differentiate" are not clarified further either. Based on the definitions on this page, I presume that to "use" sensing is to "pay attention to details and current realities", but "strengthen" makes little sense here: to attend to something, or to make a choice, can only be "strengthened" if you posit a right way to do such things... "differentiate" presumably means what it does in Jungian literature, which seems to involve taking on the predominant attitude of the psyche; if that's what is meant here, then we suggest that a person becomes an introvert or extravert _in line with the development of their dominant function_ - so we should expect that children trend towards the outer poles of the I/E spectrum as they approach age 7, then drift back inwards as they approach 20 (based on the ages listed here)? That's a bafflingly specific thing to think, yet it seems the natural conclusion...

Furthermore, *moving on to the auxiliary function*, which we've already discussed (source)... the claim here is that use of only the dominant function makes an individual one-sided, only ever making decisions or taking in information. Yet it is asserted that this does not develop until "adolescence and early adulthood" - so are all children only taking in information or making decisions? That doesn't seem accurate to me at all. Beyond that, all that is presented here are unsubstantiated claims about a need for balance, which I've already pointed out are spurious at best, and based on the idea that I/E must be balanced out, but not, for some reason, within a single function, where differentiation is apparently preferable. 

*The tertiary and inferior are less relied upon, and develop later in life* (source1 source2), though the inferior often unconsciously, leading to being (and feeling) "in the grip". Not much to remark upon here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And no, I don't "see that there is logic to how it all works". The above is simply asserted, with no rational argument advanced as to why this is supposedly the case, or on what basis these conclusions have been reached - which, you might note, has been one of my criticisms all along. It has inconsistencies between pages as to what is meant (see, e.g., the page that claims - bizarrely - that the order of _preference_ changes when in circumstances requiring the use of less-developed functions), and does not clearly articulate a number of the things I've raised as being unclear in this thread (such as what the relationship is between attitudes of a function, and whether a person "having" a given function-attitude involves the exclusion of the opposing attitude or not, or indeed, what that would mean). "Balance" and "differentiation" - concepts seemingly at odds with one another - are both spruiked as being desirable things. The whole thing is, by and large, a garbled mess. Now, if you can "see that there is logic to how it all works", perhaps you can explain that logic? The pages themselves do nothing to alter the arguments I've presented thus far - indeed, they make even more spurious claims than I've given them "credit" for!

So, the argument stands - what here _justifies_ the exclusion of plausible type combinations? Saying that the auxiliary is a "balance" is nowhere near sufficient, because there is no justification advanced for this claim - what little is presented requires a view of the theory that simply cannot withstand scrutiny.


----------



## Peter

StunnedFox said:


> Firstly, the MBTI doesn't claim that a person has a choice in type - the way the word "preference" is used throughout the theory makes it plain that we are talking about something like handedness, a natural inclination towards favouring one over the other; there is no suggestion that this is voluntary, and I'm not sure where you've derived the idea that this is what the theory claims. What you call "preferences of the brain" are exactly what the theory has always meant by "preference".
> 
> I have read those links, and they proved rather useless, on the whole. Here's a run-down of just a couple of points from the various pages:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *There are four "mental functions"; the order of a person's preferences is considered inborn, but can change "when circumstances require" a different order than what is naturally preferred.* (source)
> This page seems rather confused - it suggests that our order of _preference_ changes in making decisions, which (by their own favoured metaphor) would be like claiming that I become left-handed when circumstances require me to use my left hand. That doesn't accord with anything I've come across elsewhere in the theory at all. Apart from that, not much worthy of remark on this page.
> 
> *Early in life, we develop reliance on our naturally preferred first function; the "use" of this function "strengthens" it and "differentiates" it.* (source)
> It's unclear here what is meant by "using" a function, and "strengthen" and "differentiate" are not clarified further either. Based on the definitions on this page, I presume that to "use" sensing is to "pay attention to details and current realities", but "strengthen" makes little sense here: to attend to something, or to make a choice, can only be "strengthened" if you posit a right way to do such things... "differentiate" presumably means what it does in Jungian literature, which seems to involve taking on the predominant attitude of the psyche; if that's what is meant here, then we suggest that a person becomes an introvert or extravert _in line with the development of their dominant function_ - so we should expect that children trend towards the outer poles of the I/E spectrum as they approach age 7, then drift back inwards as they approach 20 (based on the ages listed here)? That's a bafflingly specific thing to think, yet it seems the natural conclusion...
> 
> Furthermore, *moving on to the auxiliary function*, which we've already discussed (source)... the claim here is that use of only the dominant function makes an individual one-sided, only ever making decisions or taking in information. Yet it is asserted that this does not develop until "adolescence and early adulthood" - so are all children only taking in information or making decisions? That doesn't seem accurate to me at all. Beyond that, all that is presented here are unsubstantiated claims about a need for balance, which I've already pointed out are spurious at best, and based on the idea that I/E must be balanced out, but not, for some reason, within a single function, where differentiation is apparently preferable.
> 
> *The tertiary and inferior are less relied upon, and develop later in life* (source1 source2), though the inferior often unconsciously, leading to being (and feeling) "in the grip". Not much to remark upon here.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> And no, I don't "see that there is logic to how it all works". The above is simply asserted, with no rational argument advanced as to why this is supposedly the case, or on what basis these conclusions have been reached - which, you might note, has been one of my criticisms all along. It has inconsistencies between pages as to what is meant (see, e.g., the page that claims - bizarrely - that the order of _preference_ changes when in circumstances requiring the use of less-developed functions), and does not clearly articulate a number of the things I've raised as being unclear in this thread (such as what the relationship is between attitudes of a function, and whether a person "having" a given function-attitude involves the exclusion of the opposing attitude or not, or indeed, what that would mean). "Balance" and "differentiation" - concepts seemingly at odds with one another - are both spruiked as being desirable things. The whole thing is, by and large, a garbled mess. Now, if you can "see that there is logic to how it all works", perhaps you can explain that logic? The pages themselves do nothing to alter the arguments I've presented thus far - indeed, they make even more spurious claims than I've given them "credit" for!
> 
> So, the argument stands - what here _justifies_ the exclusion of plausible type combinations? Saying that the auxiliary is a "balance" is nowhere near sufficient, because there is no justification advanced for this claim - what little is presented requires a view of the theory that simply cannot withstand scrutiny.


If you view things that way, there's no use to continue this discussion. You probably don't agree with any theory of the weather either. No theory about the weather can exactly predict what the weather will be at a certain time and place in the future, nor can any theory explain the exact current weather in your place either.

The weather works based on simple principles which can be used to explain the weather. They can be used to describe different types of climate. The cognitive functions are the basic principles of the MBTI. They can be used to describe different types of personalities. Do these 16 types cover all people in the world? In my opinion, yes. Does that mean you always will behave type specific? No..... Does hail fall in tropical areas? Not usually, but it does happen from time to time. Does that mean that tropical climates therefore are a bad description?.... well, I wonder what you would reply to that.


----------



## StunnedFox

Peter said:


> If you view things that way, there's no use to continue this discussion. You probably don't agree with any theory of the weather either. No theory about the weather can exactly predict what the weather will be at a certain time and place in the future, nor can any theory explain the exact current weather in your place either.
> 
> The weather works based on simple principles which can be used to explain the weather. They can be used to describe different types of climate. The cognitive functions are the basic principles of the MBTI. They can be used to describe different types of personalities. Do these 16 types cover all people in the world? In my opinion, yes. Does that mean you always will behave type specific? No..... Does hail fall in tropical areas? Not usually, but it does happen from time to time. Does that mean that tropical climates therefore are a bad description?.... well, I wonder what you would reply to that.


I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding my argument. I am not saying a theory must be exactly and precisely correct before it can have meaningful application - but I _am_ saying it should not make manifestly unsubstantiated claims. If it were claimed that rain and snow in the southern hemisphere necessarily had to be accompanied by sun and hot temperatures in the northern hemisphere for the Earth to be balanced... "well, I wonder what you would reply to that." Simple principles are fine, if they hold true; we have plenty of evidence that our understandings of the weather are at least broadly correct, but you have yet to adduce any comparable evidence in favour of the MBTI. Hail falling in tropical climates doesn't invalidate the definition of "tropical climates", because it's a general statement about what is typical for the region - much like "introvert" might be, under most definitions. *I am not arguing about imprecision here*: my argument is that there is a failure to properly substantiate and justify central tenets of the type dynamics side of the theory. The analogy I drew above (about needing to "balance" the weather of the Earth's hemispheres) is far more comparable to the type of arguments I'm questioning here than your analogy is.


----------



## Simpson17866

Peter said:


> If you view things that way, there's no use to continue this discussion. You probably don't agree with any theory of the weather either. No theory about the weather can exactly predict what the weather will be at a certain time and place in the future, nor can any theory explain the exact current weather in your place either.
> 
> The weather works based on simple principles which can be used to explain the weather. They can be used to describe different types of climate. The cognitive functions are the basic principles of the MBTI. They can be used to describe different types of personalities. Do these 16 types cover all people in the world? In my opinion, yes. Does that mean you always will behave type specific? No..... Does hail fall in tropical areas? Not usually, but it does happen from time to time. Does that mean that tropical climates therefore are a bad description?.... well, I wonder what you would reply to that.


 That's not exactly a rebuttal to mine and @StunnedFox 's point so much as it is 100% precisely our point.

If somebody came up with a theory hypothesis of weather that objectively didn't work, then you would want a different theory that worked better. Harold Grant's hypothesis is the one that claims that metaphorical tropics *never* get hail *ever,* and some of us are trying to point out that sometimes there are circumstances in the real world (hail in tropical areas, "unbalanced" cognitive functions) that contradict the claims of Grant's construct because the real world is more complicated and not as tidy.



StunnedFox said:


> I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding my argument. I am not saying a theory must be exactly and precisely correct before it can have meaningful application - but I _am_ saying it should not make manifestly unsubstantiated claims. *If it were claimed that rain and snow in the southern hemisphere necessarily had to be accompanied by sun and hot temperatures in the northern hemisphere for the Earth to be balanced...* "well, I wonder what you would reply to that."


 Exactly. Saying "when it's winter in one hemisphere, it's summer in the other" is one thing because 1) we have scientific explanations for *why* the Earth works that way (unlike Harold Grant's cognitive function stacks) and 2) it is an extremely general statement that does not preclude specific exceptions (warm winters and cool summers in some areas, hot summers and cold winters in others).


----------



## Peter

StunnedFox said:


> I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding my argument. I am not saying a theory must be exactly and precisely correct before it can have meaningful application - but I _am_ saying it should not make manifestly unsubstantiated claims. If it were claimed that rain and snow in the southern hemisphere necessarily had to be accompanied by sun and hot temperatures in the northern hemisphere for the Earth to be balanced... "well, I wonder what you would reply to that." Simple principles are fine, if they hold true; we have plenty of evidence that our understandings of the weather are at least broadly correct, but you have yet to adduce any comparable evidence in favour of the MBTI. Hail falling in tropical climates doesn't invalidate the definition of "tropical climates", because it's a general statement about what is typical for the region - much like "introvert" might be, under most definitions. *I am not arguing about imprecision here*: my argument is that there is a failure to properly substantiate and justify central tenets of the type dynamics side of the theory. The analogy I drew above (about needing to "balance" the weather of the Earth's hemispheres) is far more comparable to the type of arguments I'm questioning here than your analogy is.


The MBTI isn't a theory. I think I mentioned this before. But it does make assumption which you don't seem to agree with. I can't understand what the problem is with having 2 main functions of which one is internally oriented and the other externally oriented. We need to deal with both our internal world and the external world. This isn't a choice, this is how things are. Jung gave us 4 functions of which each one there exists an external looking version and an internal looking version. That's the theoretical part of the whole thing. I think Jung too reasoned that we need to deal with both the internal and the external world. Besides that, we do need to perceive and judge. These both are required to be able to deal with things. You can't just do only one of them. If you believe that it is possible to be a normal human being by just judging or just perceiving, then please explain how that would work.

So the idea that we prefer 2 functions, one perceving, the other judging, of which one is Introverted and the other is extroverted makes a whole lot of sense. Not only is this reasoning logical, I can't think of any other way that would make it possible to be practical. Unless of course you move towards "rain man",.... autism perhaps is a case were dealing with the outside world is not prefered. But then we´re talking about an anomoly, not a normally functioning brain.

But please do break this logic down. But not by asking for proof for this logic, but by showing why this logic is faulty. You can question the logic used for a theory, but you can't question logic it self. If the wrong logic is used, then explain what's wrong with it and suggest what would be correct or at least better logic. Don't ask for proof,... there are 7 billion people in this world and most of them do fit an MBTI profile. Those that tend to question the logic tend to be Ti or Fi dominant and are able to see and willing to consider many other options (second function Ne,... so INFP's and INTP's), which is interesting because those are exactly the types that hold their internal reasoning system as their most important reference source.


----------



## StunnedFox

Peter said:


> The MBTI isn't a theory. I think I mentioned this before. But it does make assumption which you don't seem to agree with. I can't understand what the problem is with having 2 main functions of which one is internally oriented and the other externally oriented. We need to deal with both our internal world and the external world. This isn't a choice, this is how things are. Jung gave us 4 functions of which each one there exists an external looking version and an internal looking version. That's the theoretical part of the whole thing. I think Jung too reasoned that we need to deal with both the internal and the external world. Besides that, we do need to perceive and judge. These both are required to be able to deal with things. You can't just do only one of them. If you believe that it is possible to be a normal human being by just judging or just perceiving, then please explain how that would work.
> 
> So the idea that we prefer 2 functions, one perceving, the other judging, of which one is Introverted and the other is extroverted makes a whole lot of sense. Not only is this reasoning logical, I can't think of any other way that would make it possible to be practical. Unless of course you move towards "rain man",.... autism perhaps is a case were dealing with the outside world is not prefered. But then we´re talking about an anomoly, not a normally functioning brain.
> 
> But please do break this logic down. But not by asking for proof for this logic, but by showing why this logic is faulty. You can question the logic used for a theory, but you can't question logic it self. If the wrong logic is used, then explain what's wrong with it and suggest what would be correct or at least better logic. Don't ask for proof,... there are 7 billion people in this world and most of them do fit an MBTI profile. Those that tend to question the logic tend to be Ti or Fi dominant and are able to see and willing to consider many other options (second function Ne,... so INFP's and INTP's), which is interesting because those are exactly the types that hold their internal reasoning system as their most important reference source.


What, to you, constitutes a "theory"? For mine, the word connotes something intended to explain or set out how something works - which, obviously, the MBTI does. On what grounds do you not view the MBTI as a theory?

The "logic" you're presenting is this:

P1) a person _must_, by necessity, deal with both the inner world and the outer world (barring potential anomalies, who - let's say - are deemed outside the scope of categorisation).
P2) a person _must_, by necessity, both perceive and judge.
C) From (P1) and (P2), it follows that a person's two preferred functions must include one introverted, one extraverted, one perceiving and one judging function.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises, for the following reasons:

The conclusion assumes, absent any justification in the premises, that each of the four functions _must_ take on only one attitude, to the complete exclusion of the other (it must be assuming this, else the "need" to deal with both the inner and outer world could be met by just a single function).
The conclusion assumes, absent any justification in the premises, that only the dominant and auxiliary function are relevant when it comes to determining what a person does. It must be assuming this, otherwise there would be no issue in the premises unless _every_ function were introverted/extraverted/judging/perceiving. This also appears to be contrary to the MBTI pages you linked me to (which talked about developing the tertiary during adulthood, and of the inferior manifesting involuntarily at times, leaving people "in the grip").

Assumptions on their own aren't necessarily problematic, provided there is reason to accept them. I cannot see, however, what reason there is to accept that functions are incapable of orienting variably towards both the inner and outer world, or to accept that only the dominant and auxiliary function have any relevance to what a person does. Accepting the premise that we need to both perceive and judge does not require that we prefer to do both, so why require that a form of each is present in the dom/aux? Similarly with the premise that we must engage with both the inner and outer world: this does not require that we must prefer to do both, so why must the less preferred position be present as the auxiliary? What you have presented are some very broad premises, followed by a quite narrow conclusion that requires a few tacit, and less reasonable, premises to be accepted. What you have presented is flawed logic: the conclusion simply does not flow from the premises.

Just to make this especially clear: the reasoning in the OP argued that 40,320 combinations were available. All 40,320 featured both introverted and extraverted functions (so the person has a way to deal with both the inner and outer world), and all 40,320 featured both perceiving and judging functions (so the person can both perceive and judge). So the two premises you've provided, far from reducing the realm of possible combinations to 16, fails to dismiss _even one_ of the 40,320 possibilities presented - to do that, you have to accept the tacit premises I've outlined above, which are far less reasonable to assume than the ones you've explicitly presented.


----------



## reckful

Peter said:


> We need to deal with both our internal world and the external world. This isn't a choice, this is how things are. Jung gave us 4 functions of which each one there exists an external looking version and an internal looking version. That's the theoretical part of the whole thing. I think Jung too reasoned that we need to deal with both the internal and the external world. ...
> 
> So the idea that we prefer 2 functions, one perceving, the other judging, of which one is Introverted and the other is extroverted makes a whole lot of sense. Not only is this reasoning logical, I can't think of any other way that would make it possible to be practical. Unless of course you move towards "rain man",.... autism perhaps is a case were dealing with the outside world is not prefered. But then we´re talking about an anomoly, not a normally functioning brain.


It's been nine days now since I linked you to a long post that explains why the vast majority of Jung scholars agree (and they're correct) that it was Jung's position that the dominant and auxiliary functions would have the _same attitude_.

StunnedFox has been incredibly patient with you, but maybe it's time for you to stop taking such undeserved advantage of his good nature. Before you waste any more of his time, why don't you give that post of mine a read? Toward the end there's a four-paragraph passage from a 1925 article that Jung later added to the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types — and as you'll see if you read it with your brain reasonably engaged, there's really _no way_ to reconcile those paragraphs with the notion that Jung thought that someone would either be extraverted in their conscious judgments and introverted in their conscious perceptions or _vice versa_.

But maybe I'm underestimating you. If you think you can come up with a way to reconcile those four paragraphs with your claim that Jung — like any fool (as you see it) — understood that the dom and aux had to have _opposite_ attitudes for anybody to have a "normally functioning brain" (your words), then by all means let's hear it.


----------



## Peter

reckful said:


> It's been nine days now since I linked you to a long post that explains why the vast majority of Jung scholars agree (and they're correct) that it was Jung's position that the dominant and auxiliary functions would have the _same attitude_.
> 
> StunnedFox has been incredibly patient with you, but maybe it's time for you to stop taking such undeserved advantage of his good nature. Before you waste any more of his time, why don't you give that post of mine a read? Toward the end there's a four-paragraph passage from a 1925 article that Jung later added to the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types — and as you'll see if you read it with your brain reasonably engaged, there's really _no way_ to reconcile those paragraphs with the notion that Jung thought that someone would either be extraverted in their conscious judgments and introverted in their conscious perceptions or _vice versa_.
> 
> But maybe I'm underestimating you. If you think you can come up with a way to reconcile those four paragraphs with your claim that Jung — like any fool (as you see it) — understood that the dom and aux had to have _opposite_ attitudes for anybody to have a "normally functioning brain" (your words), then by all means let's hear it.


I really don't understand why you feel sorry for stunnedfox. I'm not trying to kill him. I'm not saying he's a bad person. I'm having a discussion with him. I respect his opinion and I think we´re both intelligent people that don't get our feelings hurt because of someone else not agreeing with us. So cut the crap with lines like "being patient with me". It's childish.

As to your link to a thread of yourself,... I'm aware of the differences of opinion between the MBTI and Jung himself. But first of all, just because Jung has a certain opinion, doesn't mean he's right. This whole thing of order of the functions is, as I mentioned before, isn't an ideal way of describing how it works and it results in terms like "fused" functions.

First of all, the 4 functions with their attitudes are very specific descriptions of specific processes. But the brain doesn't do 1 function at the time, nor does it have specific areas that specialize in 1 function. There is one process and depending on the content of the information being processed we can give a name to what is going on. The idea of functions being independed processes is wrong. So I don't specifically agree with either side of this discussion. But when we look at perceiving and judging, we constantly do both these things. But this is not an issue in our discussion as far as I can tell. In your long post that you linked to, you maintain the idea that the dominant and auxiliary are either J-P or P-J. Actually, all 4 of them are either J-P-P-J or P-J-J-P. Also doesn't seem to be a point of disagreement.

Do the dominant and auxiliary functions have to have opposite orientation is the main question.

I think that the third function is crucial here. I think this function is often thought of much less important, but it seems to have quite a big impact on everything we do. In many ways it is almost as important as the auxiliary function. You are an INTJ and you got upset with me because you think I'm not treating stunnedfox fairly. That's Fi and when something is processed that doesn't fit in the categories of the first 2 functions, it's as strong as the auxiliary function. This makes sense because your Te couldn't care less about what's fair or not. But you are expressing it through Te because that's the only externally oriented function you have to comunicate outwards. Basically what I'm trying to say here is that Ni-Te-Fi-Se and Ni-Fi-Te-Se are pretty much the same thing. However, within the MBTI we talk about preferences and in general INTJ's aren't all that interested in the feelings aspects of things so you can say that Te is stronger than Fi and thus say that Te is more prefered than Fi and thus the order Ni-Te-Fi-Se is the better description. But in no way is Te more important to an INTJ than Fi is.


So I agree with the MBTI because within the reasoning they use, it makes sense. If you read what MB writes in this page: The Myers & Briggs Foundation - The Tertiary Function you'll find it says: "The third-preferred, or tertiary, function tends to be less interesting to individuals". That's all what differentiates it from the auxiliary function. It's less interesting!

It's less interesting except in some specific cases where specifically the third function is called upon, and then it takes over the whole brain.


----------



## reckful

Peter said:


> I really don't understand why you feel sorry for stunnedfox. I'm not trying to kill him. I'm not saying he's a bad person. I'm having a discussion with him. I respect his opinion and I think we´re both intelligent people that don't get our feelings hurt because of someone else not agreeing with us. So cut the crap with lines like "being patient with me". It's childish.
> 
> As to your link to a thread of yourself,... I'm aware of the differences of opinion between the MBTI and Jung himself. But first of all, just because Jung has a certain opinion, doesn't mean he's right. This whole thing of order of the functions is, as I mentioned before, isn't an ideal way of describing how it works and it results in terms like "fused" functions.
> 
> First of all, the 4 functions with their attitudes are very specific descriptions of specific processes. But the brain doesn't do 1 function at the time, nor does it have specific areas that specialize in 1 function. There is one process and depending on the content of the information being processed we can give a name to what is going on. The idea of functions being independed processes is wrong. So I don't specifically agree with either side of this discussion. But when we look at perceiving and judging, we constantly do both these things. But this is not an issue in our discussion as far as I can tell. In your long post that you linked to, you maintain the idea that the dominant and auxiliary are either J-P or P-J. Actually, all 4 of them are either J-P-P-J or P-J-J-P. Also doesn't seem to be a point of disagreement.
> 
> Do the dominant and auxiliary functions have to have opposite orientation is the main question.
> 
> I think that the third function is crucial here. I think this function is often thought of much less important, but it seems to have quite a big impact on everything we do. In many ways it is almost as important as the auxiliary function. You are an INTJ and you got upset with me because you think I'm not treating stunnedfox fairly. That's Fi and when something is processed that doesn't fit in the categories of the first 2 functions, it's as strong as the auxiliary function. This makes sense because your Te couldn't care less about what's fair or not. But you are expressing it through Te because that's the only externally oriented function you have to comunicate outwards. Basically what I'm trying to say here is that Ni-Te-Fi-Se and Ni-Fi-Te-Se are pretty much the same thing. However, within the MBTI we talk about preferences and in general INTJ's aren't all that interested in the feelings aspects of things so you can say that Te is stronger than Fi and thus say that Te is more prefered than Fi and thus the order Ni-Te-Fi-Se is the better description. But in no way is Te more important to an INTJ than Fi is.
> 
> 
> So I agree with the MBTI because within the reasoning they use, it makes sense. If you read what MB writes in this page: The Myers & Briggs Foundation - The Tertiary Function you'll find it says: "The third-preferred, or tertiary, function tends to be less interesting to individuals". That's all what differentiates it from the auxiliary function. It's less interesting!
> 
> It's less interesting except in some specific cases where specifically the third function is called upon, and then it takes over the whole brain.


Your latest post represents a dramatic about face, and yet it's written as if you're oblivious to that. Are you really oblivious to that?

Your previous position was that the idea that the dom and aux had opposite attitudes was Jung's theory, and was (as you explained) "the result of observation (by Jung) and logic."

And you've reiterated that "logic" thang in several follow-up posts, pooh-poohing StunnedFox's suggestion that there's no particularly respectable support for the particular function stack you subscribe to (the Harold Grant stack) on the grounds that, jeez, it's _only logical_ that somebody's two main functions would have to involve an E/I balance cuz holy moly, otherwise somebody'd probably end up (as you explained) in a "mental institution."

But now you seem to be OK with the idea that not only could a reasonably logical person take the position that the dom and aux had the same attitude, but you're also OK with the idea that that may have been Jung's position.

And I suspect StunnedFox will be happy to hear that, because I think that goes a long way toward bringing you in line with what he's been trying to tell you about there really being no strong reason to think that your favorite function stack is better-supported than various other theoretical possibilities.

In my opinion, the Harold Grant function stack — and its associated "tandems" — should really be considered all but _disproven_ at this point, and if you're interested, you can read more about that in this post and the posts it links to.

As a final note, and as further discussed in those linked posts, the official MBTI folks have _never_ endorsed Harold Grant's idea (inconsistent with both Jung and Myers) that the tertiary function has the same attitude as the dominant, so you certainly can't point to them in support of your notion that INTJs have "tertiary Fi" _at all_, much less a "tertiary Fi" that's pretty much equal in importance to their auxiliary function.


----------



## StunnedFox

@Peter -

Much of your argument hinges on the idea that the dominant and auxiliary are the two functions principally relevant to considerations of "balance": that there must be one introverted, one extraverted, one perceiving, one judging there. Yet you also assert, now, that the tertiary is almost as important as the auxiliary, and that Ni-Te-Fi-Se and Ni-Fi-Te-Se are practically the same thing, and the only difference is the individual's being more interested in the auxiliary than the tertiary. This is especially odd given that you hold the tertiary to share an attitude with the dominant (which, as reckful points out, is not the MBTI position), which - if the tertiary is no less "important" - seems to completely upset the I/E and J/P balance you've been emphasising the necessity of throughout this discussion. (The tertiary is also said to develop later in life, be less comfortable than the auxiliary, &c., so I'm not sure that the claim of interest being the only thing separating the two is accurate, either.) These two positions - the significance of dom/aux to balance considerations, and the relative equality of aux/tert - are difficult to reconcile...


----------



## Peter

I didn't change my opinion. I'm just trying to describe how I see things in a way that makes sense to you 2. I don't think I have achieved that goal, but perhaps got a bit closer.

You seem to think I am now more in agreement with the MBTI being wrong,... but that's not the case. When I mention that Ni-Te-Fi-Se and Ni-Fi-Te-Se being practically the same I meant that in the context that I wrote it. Not in the context of the MBTI nor in the context that you 2 are looking for.

I look at the functions in a different way. I have tried to explain this but anything I say that goes outside the MBTI logic and the logic you are looking for,..... gets ignored or interpreted as if within one of these 2 systems. I realize I'm not very good at explaining this though I think you 2 are very stuck within these 2 systems and have difficulties thinking outside these 2 boxes.

That doesn't mean that I am right though. I coulld be wrong, but the more I understand about the functions the clearer it becomes that any kind of reasoning that sees the functions as individual processes is limited. The MBTI does this as much as any other system that's based on the cognitive functions as described by Jung. Though Jung seemed to have thought of "fusing" functions, which is kind of a way of describing how I see the functions. "Fused" functions,.... that sounds like 1 cognitive process doing what 2 (or more) functions together do. As far as I'm concerned all functions are fused. It's one brain process and all we´re trying to do is understand it.

The way you (and most people too) look at it is linear. Like a programmed system that performs tasks in a temporal way (meaning one task at a time, one after the other). But that's not how the brain works. Perceiving and judging are constantly happening at the same time. Looking inward and looking outward are constantly happening too, non stop, at the same time. When you try to decribe a process like this in terms of functions and order them, you´re automatically causing a situation where no type will describe all posible ways of behavior. But they don't have to. The only thing left then is to create rules and assumptions on which you order the functions. Within the rules and assumptions of the MBTI the 16 types are all that is possible and most people will fit one of these 16 types.

Does that mean a type like Ni-Ti-.... can't exist? I think so, because Ni and Ti aren't very compatible, espcially when you´re young and don't have much experience yet. Ni allows any likely outcome. Ti want's to categorize and if an outcome of Ni doesn't fit any of Ti's categories, stress is the only outcome. But add 20 to 30 years of experience (as an adult so roughly speaking, when you´re 40 to 50 years old) and Ti will have an internal organization that is big enough for Ni to rarely come into conflict with Ti. So it does take that long before Ti becomes more comfortable for example in an INFJ.


Breaking down a very complex system like our brains, into smaller understandable parts will always cause simplifications and limit how much we can describe, but it does make it possible to get some understanding.


----------



## StunnedFox

@Peter - 

How is it we that are having difficulty thinking outside of the box here? You have continually denied plenty of plausible possibilities using only the spurious grounds that the MBTI advances for its claims ("balance", &c.), and insisted that the "logic" of the MBTI holds, despite all of the arguments I've made to the contrary that you've yet to refute. This whole thread is based on the notion that the boxes presented are limited without reasonable grounds for said limitation - what about that is confined "within the box"? 

The notion that everything is intertwined, or "fused" as you put it, makes a fair degree of sense - of course the reality of brain activity is more complex than the simple personality systems we work with, and the notion that all the elements of the mind are wholly discrete, individual and separable is highly unlikely to hold up. I don't see that I've ever argued that the mind is linear... It seems to me that you are drawing an artificial line between the auxiliary and the tertiary, and making all sorts of assumptions on that basis: how can you claim that the only difference between the two is interest, yet simultaneously claim that the auxiliary must have the opposite attitude to the dominant for the sake of "balance"? Your paragraph about why you don't see Ni-Ti as viable is confined to an analysis of the dom-aux as well, despite the notion of everything being intertwined and the notion of the tertiary's importance running contrary to the applicability of such an analysis.



> Breaking down a very complex system like our brains, into smaller understandable parts will always cause simplifications and limit how much we can describe, but it does make it possible to get some understanding.


This statement, I concur with completely. It is _precisely_ because of this that I find the blinkered assertions as to why particular possibilities are impossible so problematic - because how can understanding be achieved if we cling to limitations we cannot justify, assumptions we cannot substantiate? When seemingly arbitrary boundaries are accepted, and possibilities discarded on the basis of those arbitrary boundaries, understanding is diminished; simplification may be inherently imprecise, but that shouldn't be seen as excusing its being potentially inaccurate.


----------



## Peter

StunnedFox said:


> This statement, I concur with completely. It is _precisely_ because of this that I find the blinkered assertions as to why particular possibilities are impossible so problematic - *because how can understanding be achieved if we cling to limitations* we cannot justify, assumptions we cannot substantiate? When seemingly arbitrary boundaries are accepted, and possibilities discarded on the basis of those arbitrary boundaries, understanding is diminished; simplification may be inherently imprecise, but that shouldn't be seen as excusing its being potentially inaccurate.


The limitations are no problem as long as they are acknowledged as limitations. This is pretty much my whole point during this discussion: Within the logic (*limitations*) of the MBTI, the MBTI makes sense.

We get understanding and this understanding is greater when we are aware of these limitations. I just don't agree with saying that the MBTI is wrong because of these limitations. If you want a "better" model of personality, then you can build one, even based on the cognitive functions of Jung, but then you have to come up with different rules and limitations.

I don't have a problem with IIEE or EEII, as long as you come up with assumptions and rules that make that order make sense.

Creating a model without any limitations however doesn't seem very useful because it means building a model that isn't really a model, but just a copy of reality, which means you have to be able to account for every single human being on this planet, including ones that still have to be born. That's not possible and not even a theory anymore. The whole purpose of a model is that it is a "simplified version of reality". And that's all we really need to be able to understand something. In fact, without simplification, it's impossible to understand things. Laws of nature are a simplification too. We know what's going on inside a star for example because we can apply the laws of nature, without having to figure out what is happening with every single particle inside the star.


----------



## Simpson17866

Peter said:


> The limitations are no problem as long as they are acknowledged as limitations. This is pretty much my whole point during this discussion: Within the logic (*limitations*) of the MBTI, the MBTI makes sense.


 MBTI was invented in the 1930s. The cognitive function stacks that everybody goes to were invented in the 1950s.



> We get understanding and this understanding is greater when we are aware of these limitations. I just don't agree with saying that the MBTI is wrong because of these limitations. If you want a "better" model of personality, then you can build one, even based on the cognitive functions of Jung, but then you have to come up with different rules and limitations.


 That's been my intention for this thread from the beginning: looking at Jung's cognitive functions *without* the limitations that Harold Grant imposed so as to combine them with MBTI.



> I don't have a problem with IIEE or EEII, as long as you come up with assumptions and rules that make that order make sense.


 If the rules is "describe the people that exist in the real world," then you're already done: the assumptions/rules make sense without having to say that some combinations are real and others are not.



> Creating a model without any limitations however doesn't seem very useful because it means building a model that isn't really a model, but just a copy of reality, *which means you have to be able to account for every single human being on this planet*, including ones that still have to be born. That's not possible and not even a theory anymore. The whole purpose of a model is that it is a "simplified version of reality". And that's all we really need to be able to understand something. In fact, without simplification, it's impossible to understand things.


 Actually, that is the point of coming up with a model: describing how people work. *Everybody* uses all 8 cognitive functions in some order of preference (I use a lot of Ne, Fi, and Ti, but little to no Se or Fe), so saying "that model is useless because it explains how everybody works, we need to come up with a more restrictive system for which some/most people cannot be explained" is exactly the opposite of what we should come up with models for.



> Laws of nature are a simplification too. We know what's going on inside a star for example because we can apply the laws of nature, without having to figure out what is happening with every single particle inside the star.


 If a theory predicted that it would be physically impossible for a particle to do something, *but that particle were then observed doing exactly that*, then you would get a different theory.


----------



## StunnedFox

Peter said:


> The limitations are no problem as long as they are acknowledged as limitations. This is pretty much my whole point during this discussion: Within the logic (*limitations*) of the MBTI, the MBTI makes sense.
> 
> We get understanding and this understanding is greater when we are aware of these limitations. I just don't agree with saying that the MBTI is wrong because of these limitations. If you want a "better" model of personality, then you can build one, even based on the cognitive functions of Jung, but then you have to come up with different rules and limitations.
> 
> I don't have a problem with IIEE or EEII, as long as you come up with assumptions and rules that make that order make sense.
> 
> Creating a model without any limitations however doesn't seem very useful because it means building a model that isn't really a model, but just a copy of reality, which means you have to be able to account for every single human being on this planet, including ones that still have to be born. That's not possible and not even a theory anymore. The whole purpose of a model is that it is a "simplified version of reality". And that's all we really need to be able to understand something. In fact, without simplification, it's impossible to understand things. Laws of nature are a simplification too. We know what's going on inside a star for example because we can apply the laws of nature, without having to figure out what is happening with every single particle inside the star.


We are seeking to understand the reality of human personality. That is the aim, not to construct a model that happens to vaguely fit some people if you squint to avoid seeing the obvious flaws. What you seem to be saying is that it's fine for a theory to make all sorts of unfounded assertions about how reality works, and we should hold to that theory (despite the lack of a basis for believing it reflects reality) because they were able to come up with some pseudo-explanatory guff to "justify" their claims. I could just as easily come up with some comparable nonsense to justify the XXYY stack as being the "only" possible stack:


> *Introduction to the new XXYY MBTI*
> _1st edition, 2015; published by StunnedFox Syndicates_
> 
> The MBTI is based upon the concept of preference. Everyone uses both poles of each personality spectrum at different times, but we all have a natural *preference* for one pole over the other, and perform better when operating within our natural preferences. It is for this reason that the sixteen personality types are the only possible combinations. Because everyone has a preference on S/N, only one of those two can be dominant or auxiliary; likewise with T/F. Since we perform better within our natural preferences, to be a "normal functioning human being" requires that the dominant and auxiliary functions share the same attitude (either introversion or extraversion); if a person had one I and one E function as dom/aux, they would be uncomfortable with their auxiliary function, and thus only comfortable with their dominant, which means they would only be comfortable either perceiving or judging, and not both, yet both are needed for a person's normal, everyday development of personality.


These orders makes sense because there is no justified theoretical basis for their _not_ making sense. Arguments about "balance", or everyone needing to both introvert and extravert, are not justifications, they are "explanations" - but explanations without a basis in reality, without a basis for believing they are accurate. Why should I have to devise pseudo-explanatory "rules" about something, when it is nothing but pseudo-explanation that leads to being limited to sixteen types in the first place? I have yet to see good reason why these "rules" should be seen as having any basis in reality.

There's a difference between "limitations" in the sense of imprecision, and "limitations" in the sense of excluding possibilities on spurious grounds, and its the latter to which I was referring when I spoke of clinging to limitations we can't justify. For limitations that result in imprecision, you're correct - understanding is enhanced by an awareness of the limitations of the model - but that's not what I was getting at; the point of the theory is to simplify the complex reality of human personality, not to make arbitrary assertions then retrospectively justify them with further unfounded claims. Any worthwhile theory is aiming to be a "copy of reality", just in simplified terms; what you seem to be suggesting is that we shouldn't even aim to base our theory on how reality works at all, which is baffling. Laws of nature are not a reasonable comparison; they are flawed only through being imprecise, not through unjustified claims about how gravity requiring a balance between the ground and bodies or suchlike.

Put it this way: the MBTI "dichotomies" are inherently justified, because they involve a continuum, so there is no conceivable way a person can be that isn't in some way represented on those spectra. That alone doesn't make them a useful description - I could create four rather useless dimensions and it would still be justified in asserting what it does, namely that everyone sits somewhere on each of the dimensions - but subsequent testing has shown that, by and large, the four dimensions (I/E, S/N, T/F, J/P) _do_ tap into something true about human personality. So their value is derived both from a proven connection to reality, and from the fact that the model _by definition_ covers everyone (it could still be criticised for not focusing on strength of preference - indeed, not providing a reliable method of determining such - but that is an imprecision, not an incorrectness). None of this can be said for the type dynamics side of the theory.

There is a vast difference between a "simplified version of reality" and a claim about reality that is not justified. Simplification is inherent in any categorisation; lack of justification is not.


----------



## Peter

@StunnedFox

Let's give it a try and start at the basic level of just the cognitive functions: Ni,Ne,Si,Se,Ti,Te,Fi and Fe. Would you say that these are correct and that these 8 are enough to have a basis to be able to describe a personality,....... I guess here we run into trouble already. Considering that there are 40 something thousand possible combinations and 7 Billion people,... that's like on average a 167 thousand peope per combination,.... not detailed enough I assume.

Also, would there be more functions? I can think of some functions that are not covered by these 8 that, I think, have a profound effect on one's personality. For example:



Motor skills
Visual processing
Auditory processing
Touch sensitivity
IQ
EQ

All these points (and I"m sure there are more) are determining factors in our personality. I just saw a program on tv where they explained why the best tenis players in the world are the best. It's not because they are better at hitting a ball with a tenis racket. Many amatures can do that just as good as the pro's. The difference is that the best players are able to wait like 50 miliseconds longer before they decide what to do. That extra time gives them more information to make a decision and thus their decisions are better and thus they win more often.

This is just an example. The point is that it's all about the brain.


Just the 4 functions + their orientations aren't enough to find the detail that you are looking for. But then,.. How much detail do you need?


----------



## Peter

Simpson17866 said:


> If a theory predicted that it would be physically impossible for a particle to do something, *but that particle were then observed doing exactly that*, then you would get a different theory.


So where is the alternative for the MBTI? Maybe you already shown it to me and I haven't seen the link. If so, please show me again.


----------



## StunnedFox

Peter said:


> @StunnedFox
> 
> Let's give it a try and start at the basic level of just the cognitive functions: Ni,Ne,Si,Se,Ti,Te,Fi and Fe. Would you say that these are correct and that these 8 are enough to have a basis to be able to describe a personality,....... I guess here we run into trouble already. Considering that there are 40 something thousand possible combinations and 7 Billion people,... that's like on average a 167 thousand peope per combination,.... not detailed enough I assume.
> 
> Also, would there be more functions? I can think of some functions that are not covered by these 8 that, I think, have a profound effect on one's personality. For example:
> 
> 
> Motor skills
> Visual processing
> Auditory processing
> Touch sensitivity
> IQ
> EQ
> 
> All these points (and I"m sure there are more) are determining factors in our personality. I just saw a program on tv where they explained why the best tenis players in the world are the best. It's not because they are better at hitting a ball with a tenis racket. Many amatures can do that just as good as the pro's. The difference is that the best players are able to wait like 50 miliseconds longer before they decide what to do. That extra time gives them more information to make a decision and thus their decisions are better and thus they win more often.
> 
> This is just an example. The point is that it's all about the brain.
> 
> Just the 4 functions + their orientations aren't enough to find the detail that you are looking for. But then,.. How much detail do you need?


What? The main point of my last post was that lack of detail was unfortunate, but not fatal, whereas unfounded assertions were far more detrimental to theoretical models and should be excised. Any theory that can be shown to be correct in what it asserts has value - that value is limited to the degree of correctness it can give, so more detail is preferable to less detail because it makes us _more_ correct, but a limited-yet-correct model is still correct.

Whether the "cognitive functions" are an accurate description of human functioning is hard to correctly assess, particularly given they are not quantifiable things, but instead are notional constructs that connect various behaviours. Let's suppose they _are_ a workable representation of how human personality works: you suggest that I would have a problem with that because, since each combination would still contain ~167,000 people, they wouldn't be precise enough, which is _not my argument_. These systems are mechanisms of _categorising_: this is the _sort_ of personality you have, the _*type*_ of personality. We know that there are greater nuances capable of being had, and the set-up of the model is inherently an acknowledgement of that - all of the factors you reference, along with plenty of others, do have an impact (sometimes quite a significant one) on personality, and _nothing about the theory refutes that_. Further detail could augment the theory, but it is not required for the theory to be accurate, correct in what it claims. The problem I have been relentlessly pointing to is not the lack of further detail, but the lack of a basis for the "detail" currently claimed; your argument doesn't really make much sense in light of that.


----------



## StunnedFox

Fried Eggz said:


> It is true. I have been observing it for a long time, as have many others. You can observe it too. It's literally right here in this thread. It's quite easy to type a Te user by how naively trusting they are. I've known several Fe-doms criticise Te-doms for it. I frequently have that difficulty with Te-doms too. Ti, on the other hand, has the risk of confirmation bias.
> 
> Strength complicates things. A Te-dom is far more capable of evading it's weaknesses than a Te-inferior. Hence why the PhD who created cognitive functions tests doesn't take it at face value, despite being a Ni-Te, but the average Te-inferior does take it at face value.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Yes, and both strong Te and strong Ti do this in different ways. Strong Ti questions everything and clings to nothing; freely dropping a model at will and testing it against other models. Strong Te avoids it by the sheer bulk of facts, citations and statistics incorporated into their opinions.


To observe such a phenomenon, you'd have to first classify those people as Ti or Te types via some other metric - so what method is used in order to make these observations? Without that matter being sorted, there is - in line, I guess, with what you say about Ti - substantial risk of confirmation bias: obviously some people are more inclined to favour models than data and vice versa, but in what sense can I observe in this thread that the former group are Ti types and the latter Te types? I've made numerous posts here: do I evince such a clear preference (for either attitude)?

Sure, people of various personality predilections can overcome the issue of clinging to constructs by various means - but it's just as true, I would say, that anyone can fall into the trap of shielding some aspect of a matter from scrutiny. As I said, there ought to be reasonable grounds for believing any given claim...


----------



## Tharwen

so, if i scored Ni Ne as the strongest..

what would you call my Ni-Ne type? nnnnNN!!! nnnNNNNNnnNNNnNN!!!!111 or NNNN?


----------



## Valtire

StunnedFox said:


> To observe such a phenomenon, you'd have to first classify those people as Ti or Te types via some other metric - so what method is used in order to make these observations?


Jung's criteria were used. The idea came from observing Jungian typology by professional psychologists. I mean, heck, it's not my personal theory; I just happen to agree with it because it matches my observations.



StunnedFox said:


> Without that matter being sorted, there is - in line, I guess, with whatyou say about Ti - substantial risk of confirmation bias: obviously some people are more inclined to favour models than data and vice versa, but in what sense can I observe in this thread that the former group are Ti types and the latter Te types? I've made numerous posts here: do I evince such a clear preference (for either attitude)?


I can't type you based on such little interaction, and I'm sure you're aware of this. I would just be jumping to conclusions, but here's your hint of Ti, "clinging to constructs rather than questioning them." Questioning facts and analysing them to understand why they work and why they exist, is a part of what Ti does to create models of understanding. As I said before, Te questions facts/statistics/etc based on bulk; are they inconsistent with other facts.



StunnedFox said:


> Sure, people of various personality predilections can overcome the issue of clinging to constructs by various means - but it's just as true, I would say, that anyone can fall into the trap of shielding some aspect of a matter from scrutiny. As I said, there ought to be reasonable grounds for believing any given claim...


I have plenty of reasons over an extended time period. I use a bulk of criteria to type people, and I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in trying to list them all.


----------



## StunnedFox

Fried Eggz said:


> Jung's criteria were used. The idea came from observing Jungian typology by professional psychologists. I mean, heck, it's not my personal theory; I just happen to agree with it because it matches my observations.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I can't type you based on such little interaction, and I'm sure you're aware of this. I would just be jumping to conclusions, but here's your hint of Ti, "clinging to constructs rather than questioning them." Questioning facts and analysing them to understand why they work and why they exist, is a part of what Ti does to create models of understanding. As I said before, Te questions facts/statistics/etc based on bulk; are they inconsistent with other facts.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I have plenty of reasons over an extended time period. I use a bulk of criteria to type people, and I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in trying to list them all.


You claimed, in reference to the notion that relative trust in models vs. facts/statistics aligns with Ti/Te, that "[you] can observe it too", "[it's] literally right here in this thread" (post #240). To be capable of observing this (here and elsewhere), you must not only see the phenomenon of people differing in which they favour, but also that said difference aligns with type; doing so necessitates, then, some method of determining peoples' types. How do you reconcile your (perfectly reasonable) claim not to be able to type a person based on limited interaction, and that doing so would "just be jumping to conclusions", with your argument that the phenomenon is evident in this thread (a stance contingent upon your having typed posters in this thread)? The two positions are rather incongruent...

I'm not inquiring as to the specific factors you use to discern peoples' types, so much as what reasonable basis you have for believing that you do so accurately (or, given the suggestion that your observations match those of professional psychologists, their justification for believing as much, and why you do or do not concur). As I said before, it's obvious that some people favour models over data and vice versa, and I've not contended otherwise - what I'm interested in is how the link between that preference and the preferred thinking attitude is drawn, and how one would go about "observing" the latter preference.


----------



## Valtire

StunnedFox said:


> You claimed, in reference to the notion that relative trust in models vs. facts/statistics aligns with Ti/Te, that "[you] can observe it too", "[it's] literally right here in this thread" (post #240). To be capable of observing this (here and elsewhere), you must not only see the phenomenon of people differing in which they favour, but also that said difference aligns with type; doing so necessitates, then, some method of determining peoples' types. How do you reconcile your (perfectly reasonable) claim not to be able to type a person based on limited interaction, and that doing so would "just be jumping to conclusions", with your argument that the phenomenon is evident in this thread (a stance contingent upon your having typed posters in this thread)? The two positions are rather incongruent...


The principle of models vs data preference is visible in this thread. The Ti vs Te is something I refer to as synonymous with it, because of experience.



StunnedFox said:


> I'm not inquiring as to the specific factors you use to discern peoples' types, so much as what reasonable basis you have for believing that you do so accurately (or, given the suggestion that your observations match those of professional psychologists, their justification for believing as much, and why you do or do not concur).


How would you expect me to do that without giving specifics?

My reasons are thus:
1) Consensus with others. I came across the idea, temporarily adopted it to test it's validity, and kept it because it worked. The Psychologists observed it in a study AFAIK.
2) Consistency with Jung's definitions of thinking and extroversion. E.G. To create a model is to abandon objective data into subjective reasoning.
3) I have never come across someone who defies Jung's Te definition who prefers models or the Ti definition who prefers data.
4) If it weren't related to functions, then we would need to create a new form of typology, because it clearly works.


----------



## PaladinX

Fried Eggz said:


> The principle of models vs data preference is visible in this thread. The Ti vs Te is something I refer to as synonymous with it, because of experience.
> 
> 
> How would you expect me to do that without giving specifics?
> 
> My reasons are thus:
> 1) Consensus with others. I came across the idea, temporarily adopted it to test it's validity, and kept it because it worked. The Psychologists observed it in a study AFAIK.
> 2) Consistency with Jung's definitions of thinking and extroversion. E.G. To create a model is to abandon objective data into subjective reasoning.
> 3) I have never come across someone who defies Jung's Te definition who prefers models or the Ti definition who prefers data.
> 4) If it weren't related to functions, then we would need to create a new form of typology, because it clearly works.


Is there a difference between model and formula?



Jung on Te type said:


> In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim—in so far, of course, as he is a pure type—is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. *This type of man gives the deciding voice—not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage—either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula.* By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. *Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula*, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong—he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. *Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection*, an accidental misfire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.


----------



## Valtire

PaladinX said:


> Is there a difference between model and formula?


Yes. An objective formula is objective. A subjective model is subjective.

You don't really seem to understand that I'm not using the word model in absolute terms. I would use a better word, if there were one.


----------



## reckful

@Fried Eggz —

You've referred to "Jung's criteria" and said you "don't agree with Harold Grant."

So... when you say you've convincingly observed that Te types "prefer data" and Ti types "prefer models," which of the 16 MBTI types are you slotting in the "Te types" category, and which are you slotting in the "Ti types" category?


----------



## PaladinX

Fried Eggz said:


> Yes. An objective formula is objective. A subjective model is subjective.
> 
> You don't really seem to understand that I'm not using the word model in absolute terms. I would use a better word, if there were one.


Considering that I do not live in your subjective mind, I would have to agree with that statement. 

Can you elaborate on your intended meaning of 'model?' What about the difference between subjective formula vs subjective model or objective formula vs objective model?


----------



## Valtire

PaladinX said:


> Considering that I do not live in your subjective mind, I would have to agree with that statement.
> 
> Can you elaborate on your intended meaning of 'model?' What about the difference between subjective formula vs subjective model or objective formula vs objective model?


I'm gonna go full blown cheeky here. From the dictionary:

Subjective
-existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought
-pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
-placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
-Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
-relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

Objective
-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
-intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
-being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
-of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Ti's 'models' are all those things listed under subjective, except for, mostly, the emotional part. Te's 'formulas' are all those things listed under objective. Both approach the same area; Ti abandons facts into subjectivity. Te treats all facts equally.



reckful said:


> So... when you say you've convincingly observed that Te types "prefer data" and Ti types "prefer models," which of the 16 MBTI types are you slotting in the "Te types" category, and which are you slotting in the "Ti types" category?


I don't use MBTI, outside of for humours purposes. I mostly use Jung's basic function layout; Dom-Aux-Inferior; followed by Aushra Augusta's function model.


----------



## PaladinX

*nevermind* I see your edit.


----------



## reckful

Fried Eggz said:


> I don't use MBTI, outside of for humours purposes. I mostly use Jung's basic function layout; Dom-Aux-Inferior; followed by Aushra Augusta's function model.


In your supposedly Jungian "function layout," are there any Te types who are introverts?


----------



## PaladinX

Fried Eggz said:


> I don't use MBTI, outside of for humours purposes. I mostly use Jung's basic function layout; Dom-Aux-Inferior; followed by Aushra Augusta's function model.


To be clear, Jung's basic function layout included Dom-Aux-Aux-Inferior.



> If we think of the psychological functions as arranged in a circle, then the most differentiated function is usually the carrier of the ego and equally regularly, has an auxiliary function attached to it.The "inferior" function, on the other hand is unconscious and for that reason is projected into a non-ego. It too has an auxiliary function.


----------



## Valtire

reckful said:


> In your supposedly Jungian "function layout," are there any Te types who are introverts?


"Supposedly"? Jung was somewhat ambiguous about his idea of auxiliary, but dom and it's inferior counterpart were very clear. If you wish to argue on my terms, try reading up on Aushra Augusta's function model. It's an 8-function model ordered by consciousness, rather than strength or usage.



PaladinX said:


> To be clear, Jung's basic function layout included Dom-Aux-Aux-Inferior.


He was kinda weird for that. He used the word inferior sometimes just to mean the weakest function, at times IIRC two functions, and other times to encompass everything below the dominant. Sometimes he says the aux is one function, other times it's two functions. At times, Jung called himself sensing and logical, at other times he said you can't be that. He wasn't exactly consistent.


----------



## reckful

Fried Eggz said:


> "Supposedly"? Jung was somewhat ambiguous about his idea of auxiliary, but dom and it's inferior counterpart were very clear. If you wish to argue on my terms, try reading up on Aushra Augusta's function model. It's an 8-function model ordered by consciousness, rather than strength or usage.


I asked you a very simple question. In whatever model you're using, are there any Te types who are introverts?


----------



## PaladinX

Fried Eggz said:


> He was kinda weird for that. He used the word inferior sometimes just to mean the weakest function, at times IIRC two functions, and other times to encompass everything below the dominant. Sometimes he says the aux is one function, other times it's two functions. At times, Jung called himself sensing and logical, at other times he said you can't be that. He wasn't exactly consistent.


I think you are misrepresenting Jung here. I think this is called a strawman? Subjective model indeed.  Otherwise, I call bullshit. Please cite where Jung claims there is only one auxiliary.

I will give you that he once typed himself as a sensing+thinking type and this later changed to intuition+thinking. Though I don't think it's enough evidence to support your implied assertion.

Regardless, he was consistent on the four functions thing throughout his books and over the course of his life.

More here:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ceptions-tertiary-function-3.html#post8839554


----------



## Valtire

reckful said:


> I asked you a very simple question. In whatever model you're using, are there any Te types who are introverts?


Yes. 



> *The Introverted Feeling Type*
> So long as the ego feels itself housed, as it were, beneath the heights of the unconscious subject, and feeling reveals something higher and mightier than the ego, the type is normal. The unconscious thinking is certainly archaic, yet its reductions may prove extremely helpful in compensating the occasional inclinations to exalt the ego into the subject. But, whenever this does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking-products, the unconscious *thinking goes over into opposition and becomes projected into objects.*


-Carl Jung



PaladinX said:


> I think you are misrepresenting Jung here. I think this is called a strawman?


Not a straw man. A hypothetical straw man would be for me to change your opinion so that it's easier to argue against. If either of us were to start bashing the Harold Grant model to try and disprove each other, that would be a straw man.



PaladinX said:


> Subjective model indeed.  Otherwise, I call bullshit. Please cite where Jung claims there is only one auxiliary.
> 
> I will give you that he once typed himself as a sensing+thinking type and this later changed to intuition+thinking. Though I don't think it's enough evidence to support your implied assertion.


Sensing+Thinking or Intuitive+Thinking proves that he considers a thinking type to have a sensing or intuition preference, which conflicts with the idea that people have two equal auxiliary functions. In addition, the section titled "The Principal and Auxiliary Functions" in Chapter 10 continuously refers to the auxiliary in singular, not plural.



PaladinX said:


> Regardless, he was consistent on the four functions thing throughout his books and over the course of his life.
> 
> More here:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ceptions-tertiary-function-3.html#post8839554


I'm fully aware, and I don't disagree at all. I kinda blur the difference between 4 and 8 functions. I don't see Se and Si as separate functions at all, but I do treat them as such.


----------



## PaladinX

Fried Eggz said:


> Sensing+Thinking or Intuitive+Thinking proves that he considers a thinking type to have a sensing or intuition preference, which conflicts with the idea that people have two equal auxiliary functions.


This doesn't make sense. Can you please elaborate? Are you actually reading the quotes that I cite or are you making leaps from the picture?



> In addition, the section titled "The Principal and Auxiliary Functions" in Chapter 10 continuously refers to the auxiliary in singular, not plural.


Please look at the first spoiler in the link I provided.


----------



## reckful

Fried Eggz said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Jung said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Introverted Feeling Type*
> So long as the ego feels itself housed, as it were, beneath the heights of the unconscious subject, and feeling reveals something higher and mightier than the ego, the type is normal. The unconscious thinking is certainly archaic, yet its reductions may prove extremely helpful in compensating the occasional inclinations to exalt the ego into the subject. But, whenever this does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking-products, *the unconscious thinking goes over into opposition and becomes projected into objects*.
> 
> 
> 
> -Carl Jung
Click to expand...

The dynamics involved in the quote you've provided wouldn't apply to any introvert with a T-aux, since their thinking would be predominantly conscious rather than unconscious.

So... in your function model, are Ni-doms with T-auxes and Si-doms with T-auxes Ti types?


----------



## Valtire

PaladinX said:


> This doesn't make sense. Can you please elaborate? Are you actually reading the quotes that I cite or are you making leaps from the picture?


Sorry, I probably skimmed it and missed the point.



reckful said:


> The dynamics involved in the quote you've provided wouldn't apply to any introvert with a T-aux, since their thinking would be predominantly conscious rather than unconscious.
> 
> So... in your function model, are Ni-doms with T-auxes and Si-doms with T-auxes Ti types?


It would be so much easier just to outline the model than answer all these questions...

Aushra Augusta's model of one type:

Conscious, Competent, Favoured
Ti with Ne

Conscious, Incompetent, Disfavoured
Fi with Se

Unconscious, Incompetent, Favoured
Fe with Si

Unconscious, Competent, Disfavoured
Te with Ni


----------

