# Function Stacks = Fake



## platorepublic (Dec 27, 2012)

Not only are they fake, but they are actually somewhat _contrary _to reality, and in unpredictable ways.

It is a very good case study for logical biases and fallacies though, so... it can be at least useful in that sense.


----------



## Asura (Apr 2, 2016)

@reckful

At this point we're arguing in circles. You consistently quote Reynierse, but I find little validity in his studies/journals. What he calls "Failed studies" are objective statistics. Him calling them failed is a subjective view. I can and have pointed out flaws in his reasonings. They are common among the article.

What it comes down to is you don't believe type dynamics has enough statistical evidence to support it, which I'll admit is a fair argument in itself.

On my end though, Type dynamics is widely accepted in the actual MBTI world, it shows itself in Briggs works and in professional use by practitioners and is currently considered the "Real" model.

That is my biggest argument with your views. You claim type dynamics as fake simply because dichotomies have more data, for now.

If every single major MBTI authority follows the type dynamics approach you can not validly call it not the real model. You can believe what you want but it doesn't change the tool or the theory.

I really don't have any thing else to say because to you it will always come down to the paper and not the theory itself.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Tipo said:


> Why? I am very intp-ish


 

I was just kidding around some, the Poll seemed unusual for INTP and you asked what did I think :tongue:


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

I am curious @Asura is reckful arguing that there is only 2 Functions?
What is the actual bottom line dismissal?

I am extremely confused by the Reckful Manual :confused2:


----------



## Tipo (Jan 12, 2017)

myjazz said:


> I was just kidding around some, the Poll seemed unusual for INTP and you asked what did I think :tongue:


Lol true. I usually do only polls when I haven't really taken a stance on the thread subject, otherwise I'd just state my opinion and happily argue...you got me:laughing:

controversial intp statement: we care what you think. A little.


----------



## Asura (Apr 2, 2016)

myjazz said:


> I am curious @Asura is reckful arguing that there is only 2 Functions?
> What is the actual bottom line dismissal?
> 
> I am extremely confused by the Reckful Manual :confused2:


reckful follows the idea that an I+N+T+P equals an INTP. All of these preferences are considered equal or independent, non interactive. It is known as the dichotomy only approach and not the published MBTI model or the one written about by Briggs. In his defense the dichotomy only approach has more statistical evidence because it is much easier to prove than type dynamics, which is why Briggs started with dichotomies when creating validity tests. To create a solid foundation first. This approach also focuses that function pairs are important in statistics, as an NF is likely to share more characteristics with a different function NF, like ENFJ and ENFP. Type dynamic still believes the same thing though. Where as dichotomy only approach ignores type dynamics, type dynamics does not ignore dichotomies.

Type dynamics of course puts an order to the preferences in each type. The JP dichotomy was added to Jungs original work to make it easier to discern whether a INT led with N or T. J states that the judging function is presented in the outside world and P the perceiving function in the outside world. Therefore an INTJ has their thinking function T in the outside world, Te. This makes the other function the opposite attitude, N becomes Ni. Then you match the attitude of the type, I and E, to the function with the same letter, in this case I and Ni, to find the dominant function. That is the published theory and what Briggs wrote about in her book Gifts Differing and
Introduction to Type.

While type dynamics has _less_ validity testing it is currently the widely accepted method in all major MBTI groups such as CPP, CAPT and the MBTI organization.


----------



## Tipo (Jan 12, 2017)

@Asura cool.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Asura said:


> reckful follows the idea that an I+N+T+P equals an INTP. All of these preferences are considered equal or independent, non interactive. It is known as the dichotomy only approach and not the published MBTI model or the one written about by Briggs.


Not interactive? From Carl Jung to MBTI and everything else just about disagree's. I give you props though for your continued effort upon this aberration.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Not interactive? From Carl Jung to MBTI and everything else just about disagree's. I give you props though for your continued effort upon this aberration.


If "non interactive" means there aren't aspects of personality that more than one of the preferences jointly contribute to, then my perspective certainly isn't "non interactive," and I believe Asura understands that. Reynierse calls what I call the Real MBTI Model "preference multidimensionality," and strongly emphasizes what a wealth of personality characteristics are best viewed as resulting from _preference combinations_.

And as Asura also knows, the Real MBTI Model doesn't look like this:

INFP = I + N + F + P

It looks like this:

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

And this:

INFJ = I + N + F + J + IN + IF + IJ + NF + NJ + FJ + INF + INJ + IFJ + NFJ + INFJ.

ESTJ = E + S + T + J + ES + ET + EJ + ST + SJ + TJ + EST + ESJ + ETJ + STJ + ESTJ.

So the Real MBTI Model says that INFPs and INFJs have a lot of MBTI-related personality characteristics in common, and that INFPs and ESTJs have _no_ MBTI-related personality characteristics in common.

And from the standpoint of _correspondence with reality_, it's the function-centric models that suggest it's more like the other way around that are the "aberration."

Anyone interested in what the respectable side of the MBTI looks like can find an introduction from me in this post — which I already linked to in the first post in this thread.


----------



## AlexandreDeMacedoine (Jul 10, 2015)

Despite what my label indicate (I do not know how to remove the type on my profile), I see this stuff as a personnal reflection material. I take what can help me whithout being concerned having the "right" grasp around it. 
Like Tarot cards.

Is it really truth ? I do not care, we are captains of our boats.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Well it's not accurate. XD as for myself.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

atamagasuita said:


> Well it's not accurate. XD as for myself.


That's because we can't touch your vujayjay


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

myjazz said:


> That's because we can't touch your vujayjay


Because if you do,


----------



## Doom_Knight (Apr 17, 2017)

I see function more like genes.

Take crocodiles, turtles and birds. While their phenotype is similar (crocs and turtles) their genotype is completely different. In fact crocodiles are closer related to birds then to turtles. Yet corcs and turts are both clustered as reptiles because they act similar.

You can not say genes are worthless because of this.



atamagasuita said:


> Because if you do,


Is this like hentai kamen. Because I love hentai kamen.


----------



## LePapillonDesEtoiles (Sep 5, 2020)

We have to use reality to evaluate what Jung said, not Jungian functions to evaluate reality.


----------

