# Type Dynamics and Cognitive Functions: Disproven?



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> I don't know if I can give you an extended answer, considering that it's 4:00 in the morning.
> 
> The brief answer is: Because it's too damn simple at every level, yet it's trying to encapsulate something complex.


Ah yes. The nature of language. Capturing complexity with one or two words! 

I'll wait for the extended answer. To rule something out because it's "too damn simple" _is_ too damn simple. I'm hoping _that _simplicity encapsulates something more complex.

:tongue:


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

I personally feel his claims are bogus and his alternative is even more idiotic, as @LostFavor and @Grandmaster Yoda suggested. He's right that MBTI is a problem; he is wrong to discard cognitive functioning.

Let's go through his points and fight them. Eh? 


Lack of data? Yeah, MBTI assessments suck (Poor test-retest reliability and arbitrary categories). And I wouldn't say no empirical data; just many different interpretations easily clouding attempts to understand it all. And hating anecdotal evidence just smells like ignorance--if you can't appreciate subjective and qualitative information, you're kind of super lame.
Okay, this is just stupid. Tert & Inf functions exists as the cognitive suppressions caused by having certain functions in a persons ego. i.e. Te dominance is the absolute repression of Fi. Ugh. Next.
Wow! The fact that everyone believes in something doesn't make it correct! What a fascinating contribution!! All sarcasm aside, I suppose this is just the--"oh hey what if there are more cognitive functions who knows??? so arbitrary!!" critic. I disagree, though; the dichotomies are built in an attempt to mimic cognitive processing in a very simple way. It does it pretty well. N/S captures perception and F/T captures judgement. Then it's either oriented outwardly or inwardly. If anything, I actually think cognitive functioning theory is solid. And even IF Jung is wrong, we need a psychology jesus to come and give us a better understanding; yet, until that happens, we need to respect what this theory can contribute.
MBTI is a problem. We know this. Let's talk about CFs please.
So this critique is that "other models are out there this is just the most popular"? Haha, ok.
You're looking at the results of the theory and not the theory itself. The product and peoples interpretations are always and often wrong.
"In short, the evidence actually contradicts itself." Chances are you didn't understand it. Dominance and auxiliary manifest in different and similar ways. And again, a detail on a budding theory.
Word association failed because: (1) people were likely mistyped (2) cant rely on word association to provide an accurate picture.
Then maybe we don't use words to summarize cognitive profiles? Details!
The order aligns from a natural attempt to order what is perceived. In anecdotal information: "hey that person has fi, and so does that person but they use it differently??? lets make them different cognitive profiles" Putting them in order along a scale, however, doesn't make sense. Just keep them as relationships that manifest in different ways.
???? what are u trying to say

tl;dr this Fe ego is really annoying and is just nitpicking something for, in my opinion, what feel like personal reasons.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Realeros said:


> Why yawn? The discussion so far is pretty interesting if you ask me


 it looks interesting, I subscribed because I was sleepy (and now I have to leave the house) >.<


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

I like it, I'm an ITJN.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> @LostFavor @Grandmaster Yoda
> 
> I disagree. But why do you think that?


If you remove the functions (which I am fine with if they are all "pretend") you are left back with a few letters. I compare it to the Big Five, and the Big Five will serve it's purpose but it will go no further. When I do a Big Five tests, I get a straightforward set of traits, but there isn't much explanation. I think functions explain the letters beyond a set of traits and help to create a holistic personality type rather than preferences being added up together. If MBTI was a bunch of letters and only returned a list of traits, I think we would not be here, there would be little to talk about. Maybe you could tie in neurology though which could be interesting or work in the manner of oddlydevelopedtypes where studies are used to make many claims. But without taking it to that extra level, I don't see much interest being held in it.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Ah yes. The nature of language. Capturing complexity with one or two words!
> 
> I'll wait for the extended answer. To rule something out because it's "too damn simple" _is_ too damn simple. I'm hoping _that _simplicity encapsulates something more complex.
> 
> :tongue:


I suppose that wasn't the most cogent answer I've ever given to a question, all things considered. 

'Specially considering that it's coming from somebody who loves to encapsulate things in the simplest terms possible. 

The larger answer goes something like this:

What does a term like "thinking preference" or "feeling preference" tell us on its own? I mean, how often have we had discussions on this forum about how the terminology is confusing and misleading - that a thinker is not as simple as "someone who thinks" and a feeler is not as simple as "someone who feels." 

To make sense of such terms, we inevitably have to say, "Well, not it's as simple as _thinking_. It's something more."

So we try to explain with things like "logic vs. ethics" (I believe that's the usual Socionics explanation) or delve into complicated stuff about how thinking tends to be more impersonal and modular and feeling tends to be more interpersonal and impassioned. Or some such thing. 

Granted, saying functions are Extroverted Feeling, Introverted Feeling, and so on isn't much better as a naming system. But at least with them, there is something of a procedure or description for explaining these things. Already we have more information than the more basic "feeler/thinker" dynamic. We can see that an Extroverted Feeling disposition would be more outwardly expressed/directed, while an Introverted one would be more inwardly expressed/directed. 

IMO, this is already giving us way more information from word use alone than "feeler/thinker." But when we rely on the letters and the test preferences alone what are we actually getting? That's not a rhetorical question - I'd like to hear what you think we're getting because I don't see much value in it. 

I guess the reason I referenced simplicity last night is because the brain is complicated, personalities are complicated, and every time I hear someone talk about MBTI with only a cursory understanding, they seem to have gained very little from it. They may now have an excuse for certain behaviors (e.g. "I'm a thinker so that's why I'm so withdrawn and never show any emotion") but on the whole, they aren't really understanding _why_ other people are different - they have just been told that people are different and are accepting it at face value.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> I suppose that wasn't the most cogent answer I've ever given to a question, all things considered.
> 
> 'Specially considering that it's coming from somebody who loves to encapsulate things in the simplest terms possible.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I think that people are just as blinded by the depth as they are with a basic understanding. There are many people here who are ignorant to what the basic letters mean and treat each cognitive function as a completely separate entity. The confusion comes from a variety of attributions to these concepts by various people.

One main idea that I think people have a hard time distinguishing is what a function does and what an individual can do. What I mean by this is that they will add or remove characteristics of a function based on what they have observed an individual of that function type do. For example, let's say shyness is a characteristic of introversion. But then you'll get the counter-argument that so and so extravert is very shy so that can't be it. Let's forget what introversion means and how shyness categorically fits the definition of introversion! Lol even these in-depth explorations are filled with over-simplifications. 


I still disagree that the letters don't tell us anything. It may not have the depth of diving into the functions, but there is definitely meaningful information at that layer. Some people just prefer more depth. EDIT: I'd argue that there is also a great breadth of information that is also interesting. 

I see real value in both levels. Here is an example of E/I:



PaladinX said:


> I used to think I was an introvert, but I was so unhappy at work and at home. Changing that around has improved my quality of life and bouts of depression immensely. I have used this dichotomy to help many extraverts realize that introverts aren't stupid, anti-social, useless people; or to introverts that extraverts aren't stupid, loud-mouthed, rude people. I have used this dichotomy to help professionals and parents that deal with autism to lower their standards by not expecting people to be "social butterflies."


I've used the other letters in similar ways. I suppose it depends on what you want to do with the information. There are so many possibilities that different layers of complexity can apply to.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Surely the information gained by expanding into concepts like "Extraverted Feeling", to the extent that what this means is clarified and cogent, is offset by the arbitrary restrictions that are placed on what combinations people are said to actually be capable of having? It's hard to address any criticism to all different functions theories at once, since the claims they each make differ considerably, but most of them have particular "rules" about which function orders exist and which don't. The fact that there are sixteen types misses nothing in a straightforward "letters" approach - if you imagine the set of all people as a hypercube, all this approach does is halve it in each of its four dimensions - but when you further divide the constructs you're working with (so we get things like Introverted Sensation and the like), sixteen becomes only a subset of the possible combinations, so I would think it would be prudent for a functions-based theory to either expand the number of types (to accommodate for the increased number of possible types within the system) or to give a reasonable account of why it doesn't do precisely that. Certainly, the functions system employed within the MBTI itself fails to do either of these, choosing instead to tie it rather clumsily to J/P...

I'm also particularly interested in knowing what rationale lies behind theories which present a function stack of just four - is the implication that a person only ever introverts or extraverts a particular function (in which case, how is that claim justified?), or is it that only the preferred orientation of each function is represented (in which case, what if a person introverts their feeling more than they extravert it, but their F preference is so great that these are their two most employed functions?), or something else entirely? My main point, overall, is that there is perhaps value to be had in a system based on function-attitudes, but what exactly the claims are would need to be substantiated and in some way justified - at present, I'm yet to see such a system, since all that I've seen have presented a number of restrictions on which combinations are possible on what I'd consider fairly flimsy grounds...


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

I don't think the alternative postulated in the article is of much value.

In my own case, using the dichotomy would put me back at being IxTP, which I found frustrating because neither Ti-dom type is really "me".

Second, the alternative has its own structural problems--for one thing, different tests at different times give me differing "proportions" of the strength of my dichotomy preferences. Which one do I use, the official version? Or do I just take an average over time?

Actually, the only way I figured out my type was specifically because I looked into the functions. There may not be "proof" that they exist, but observing my thought patterns, it's clear that my brain does everything associated with Ne day-in and -out, and that this is supported by Ti / Fe. Everything associated with Si particularly plagues me. In my experience of me.

As with any personality theory, none of it's scientifically proven, but that includes the MBTI itself. So the author can't simply claim that the functions have no validity when, scientifically speaking, neither does the dichotomy. Yes, you can measure it on a test but you could do the same with a cognitive functions test, too.

This seems like a step _back_, not forward.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kipposhi said:


> As with any personality theory, none of it's scientifically proven, but that includes the MBTI itself. So the author can't simply claim that the functions have no validity when, scientifically speaking, neither does the dichotomy. Yes, you can measure it on a test but you could do the same with a cognitive functions test, too.


This is incorrect. There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and unlike, say, astrology, temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.

If you're interested, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, based on thousands of studies that have been done over the past 50 years, and that continue to be done — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post and in this post (also linked to in the first linked post).

Buut... the scientifically respectable side of the MBTI is definitely the dichotomy-centric side, rather than the "cognitive functions" (_aka_ "type dynamics") side. The "cognitive functions" have barely even been studied, and James Reynierse has rightly (IMHO) referred to them — in one of the articles summarized in the OP's link — as a "category mistake." And the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists. The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, according to that Reynierse article, it cites a grand total of _eight studies_ involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — which Reynierse summarizes as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

It's worth noting, though, that the _dichotomy-centric_ version of the MBTI doesn't exclude the many aspects of personality associated with _preference combinations_ — e.g., things that NTs or SJs tend to have in common. And there's no question that descriptions of, say, "Si" can actually have validity as well as long as they don't go beyond what you might call the _piggybacked_ validity that they get from lining up with the additive effects of the two (or three, as applicable) corresponding dichotomies.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Kipposhi said:


> As with any personality theory, none of it's scientifically proven, but that includes the MBTI itself. So the author can't simply claim that the functions have no validity when, scientifically speaking, neither does the dichotomy. Yes, you can measure it on a test but you could do the same with a cognitive functions test, too.
> 
> This seems like a step _back_, not forward.


It's not solely that a test can measure the dichotomy - you're right, a test could theoretically measure anything - so much as that what the test produces can be shown to correlate strongly with a number of other things: in other words, the test result is in some scientific sense meaningful. Substantial amounts of data support drawing conclusions about the sort of things which strongly correlate with given MBTI preferences, whereas for data in relation to type dynamics, that's conspicuously not the case.

Whilst reading too much into what myersbriggs.org has to say about its own theory is hardly the most reliable source, I think it's worth noting this:


myersbriggs.org said:


> *Validity*
> Validity is the degree to which an instrument measures what it intends to measure, and the degree to which the “thing” that the instrument measures has meaning.
> 
> _Why is this important?_ If personality type is real (or rather, if it reflects the real world with accuracy), then we should be able to use MBTI type to understand and predict people's behavior to some degree. Type should help us differentiate the values, attitudes, and behaviors of different people.
> ...


The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Reliability and Validity

Type dynamics is a rather notable omission, and that's because the studies that have been done into it don't support it, whereas there is scientific support for particular aspects of the preference scales themselves.



> Second, the alternative has its own structural problems--for one thing, different tests at different times give me differing "proportions" of the strength of my dichotomy preferences. Which one do I use, the official version? Or do I just take an average over time?


This is definitely an issue with the proposed alternative. I think the MBTI could do with greater recognition of the different degrees to which people prefer certain things, but the idea that test results establish the actual degree of it (rather than merely approximate) is hard to hold to, especially with forced-choice questions (a person could theoretically, for instance, be only mildly introverted but find that they always prefer the introverted response on every I/E question). Working out a better way to gauge the degree of a person's preferences seems to me like a worthwhile area to be explored.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

reckful said:


> This is incorrect. There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and unlike, say, astrology, temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.


From what I understand, the validity, in essence, rests on the fact that there are observable dichotomies, and that people tend to test consistently on them over time. Am I right, or is there more to it than that?

Because if so, I would test consistently on the "I" side of the spectrum, and yet have failed to see my mind reflected in any of the introverted types. And it would seem that it doesn't verify the MBTI will actually assign you a correct type, just that it will reliably measure which side of the spectrum of characteristics you're on. Which doesn't seem to be saying all that much.

And that's basically the part of it _I_ was getting at.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> It's not solely that a test can measure the dichotomy - you're right, a test could theoretically measure anything - so much as that what the test produces can be shown to correlate strongly with a number of other things: in other words, the test result is in some scientific sense meaningful. Substantial amounts of data support drawing conclusions about the sort of things which strongly correlate with given MBTI preferences, whereas for data in relation to type dynamics, that's conspicuously not the case.


Sure, because how do you measure dynamics?



> This is definitely an issue with the proposed alternative. I think the MBTI could do with greater recognition of the different degrees to which people prefer certain things, but the idea that test results establish the actual degree of it (rather than merely approximate) is hard to hold to, especially with forced-choice questions (a person could theoretically, for instance, be only mildly introverted but find that they always prefer the introverted response on every I/E question). Working out a better way to gauge the degree of a person's preferences seems to me like a worthwhile area to be explored.


That's what I think! I have nothing against the MBTI, actually, but some measures don't seem to capture the totality of the way I'd choose to respond. I'm the person who tests "I" because I generally tend to keep to myself...yet the markers of "E" I strongly identify with, and which I think are more important determiners, are given the same weight here.

I understand they haven't been too interested in re-thinking the official test itself, though.

And, I still think there will always be better (or at least many other meaningful) ways to gauge personality than to rank the order of the preferences.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kipposhi said:


> From what I understand, the validity, in essence, rests on the fact that there are observable dichotomies, and that people tend to test consistently on them over time. Am I right, or is there more to it than that?
> 
> Because if so, I would test consistently on the "I" side of the spectrum, and yet have failed to see my mind reflected in any of the introverted types. And it would seem that it doesn't verify the MBTI will actually assign you a correct type, just that it will reliably measure which side of the spectrum of characteristics you're on. Which doesn't seem to be saying all that much.
> 
> And that's basically the part of it _I_ was getting at.


In the field of personality psychology, the relevant scientific standards include judging typologies in terms of two broad criteria known as _reliability_ and _validity_. Reliability basically has to do with internal consistency (and includes the test/retest reliability you mentioned), while validity basically relates to the extent to which the theoretical constructs seem to line up with actual things out there in the real world. My post 12 included three examples of relatively dramatic correlations with the E/I and S/N preferences, and the links I already provided you with have a lot of additional discussion of the decades of studies that support both the reliability and validity of the MBTI.

Since you noted that you've "failed to see [your] mind reflected in any of the introverted types," I'll mention that Jung himself said he thought more people were _neither extraverts nor introverts_ than were either extraverts or introverts, and Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four dimensions. In my experience, being borderline on one or more of the dimensions seems to be the most common cause of typing difficulties. But it's worth noting that the MBTI has quite a lot to say about somebody who has relatively definite preferences on three dimensions, not to mention a fair amount to say about someone who can only seem to nail down two of the four.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Kipposhi said:


> Sure, because how do you measure dynamics?
> 
> 
> That's what I think! I have nothing against the MBTI, actually, but some measures don't seem to capture the totality of the way I'd choose to respond. I'm the person who tests "I" because I generally tend to keep to myself...yet the markers of "E" I strongly identify with, and which I think are more important determiners, are given the same weight here.
> ...


What are the E markers that you identify with?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Kipposhi said:


> Sure, because how do you measure dynamics?


If the claims being made can't be measured, tested or objectively evaluated, then how can we ascertain whether they're correct or not? Seeing whether you find the theory to fit for you personally lacks any of the meaningful objectivity that a broad-ranging personality theory ought to have, and also fails the need to avoid confirmation bias. 

For instance, you said:


> Actually, the only way I figured out my type was specifically because I looked into the functions. There may not be "proof" that they exist, but observing my thought patterns, it's clear that my brain does everything associated with Ne day-in and -out, and that this is supported by Ti / Fe. Everything associated with Si particularly plagues me. In my experience of me.


On what grounds do you find that the specific order ought to be Ne-Ti-Fe-Si? Why not Ne-Fe-Ti-Si? What of the other four functions (Se, Te, Fi and Ni), what is your relationship with those, and how does that fit with the model? How do you actually ascertain that the things your brain is doing are particularly Ne-like?

Even if I were to assume that your reading of your own mental processes is completely accurate (and, whether I do that or not, I can't claim to have better access to your mind than you do), how can you universalise that theory? For instance, if I said I relate to Ti and Si most (which, eschewing most of the nuance from the discussion, is largely true for me), then the XYXY model can't account for that - and it would be rather egocentric for anyone to say "this model fits me, so therefore it must fit everyone". Hence my point about the need for something objective, because the subjectivity of "I looked into my mind and saw that, in my experience of me, it seems to accord with this personality theory" can't be universalised.



> In my own case, using the dichotomy would put me back at being IxTP, which I found frustrating because neither Ti-dom type is really "me".


This, again from your first post, is a different problem, namely that there's some degree of disconnect between the dichotomies and the functions which they're said to imply. Strip away the assumptions that type dynamics imposes, and there's no remaining reason to suppose that, by virtue of being an IxTP, you must be T-dominant. 



> That's what I think! I have nothing against the MBTI, actually, but some measures don't seem to capture the totality of the way I'd choose to respond. I'm the person who tests "I" because I generally tend to keep to myself...yet the markers of "E" I strongly identify with, and which I think are more important determiners, are given the same weight here.
> 
> I understand they haven't been too interested in re-thinking the official test itself, though.
> 
> And, I still think there will always be better (or at least many other meaningful) ways to gauge personality than to rank the order of the preferences.


I should think discarding a substantial aspect of the theory would prompt at least some test reform...

What do you mean by "given the same weight here"? As in, extraversion indicators you think bear more relevance to your personality are treated only as equivalent to introversion indicators that you see as less personally relevant? That, I can see as a potential issue with the testing process - in fact, I'd be interested to know whether information exists as to which questions on the test are the most reliable indicators of type (both reported and verified), and which are the least... it's an issue with forced-choice questionnaires in general, that they don't look in any great depth at why you choose particular answers, and that's part of the reason why I'm wary of the Reynierse model that proposes elevating preference scores to such a substantial role without explanation of how it could account for resultant problems such as this one. But I don't think that really justifies clinging to the type dynamics model in any way...


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Sorry if this is turning into a total hijack guys, but I feel like everyone at least deserves a fair response.



reckful said:


> In the field of personality psychology, the relevant scientific standards include judging typologies in terms of two broad criteria known as _reliability_ and _validity_. Reliability basically has to do with internal consistency (and includes the test/retest reliability you mentioned), while validity basically relates to the extent to which the theoretical constructs seem to line up with actual things out there in the real world. My post 12 included three examples of relatively dramatic correlations with the E/I and S/N preferences, and the links I already provided you with have a lot of additional discussion of the decades of studies that support both the reliability and validity of the MBTI.


OK but I hardly have the time to wade through all that, honestly. I want to thank you for taking the time to post it there, though, and link me over, because I know that can be a pain. I may take a look at it when I'm not juggling things.



> Since you noted that you've "failed to see [your] mind reflected in any of the introverted types," I'll mention that Jung himself said he thought more people were _neither extraverts nor introverts_ than were either extraverts or introverts, and Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four dimensions.


Lol, I was talking about the descriptions assigned to Ixxx results on the MBTI. ENTP did strike a chord in me, though.



> In my experience, being borderline on one or more of the dimensions seems to be the most common cause of typing difficulties. But it's worth noting that the MBTI has quite a lot to say about somebody who has relatively definite preferences on three dimensions, not to mention a fair amount to say about someone who can only seem to nail down two of the four.


I can't tell if you're being deliberately condescending here.



PaladinX said:


> What are the E markers that you identify with?


Fair question.

I get energized when interacting--especially with people, but also with "things" in general. I have a need to process my thoughts externally. I start getting really restless without stimulation and can't really focus on any one thing too long. (I also have a really high threshold for environmental noise and chaos, though that's not generally part of the MBTI tests.) 

Those are the sorts of questions I tend to say "yes" to. But the problem is, a higher proportion of questions seem to revolve around my outgoingness and social life, my number of friends, and my general level of amiability. I know I'm not the only extravert to take issue to this.



StunnedFox said:


> If the claims being made can't be measured, tested or objectively evaluated, then how can we ascertain whether they're correct or not? Seeing whether you find the theory to fit for you personally lacks any of the meaningful objectivity that a broad-ranging personality theory ought to have, and also fails the need to avoid confirmation bias.
> 
> For instance, you said:
> 
> ...


Wait! I was agreeing with you! I swear!

I was basically thinking what you're saying right there, actually (or intended to). How do you measure type dynamics? I meant there isn't really an objective way to measure that, other than the individual in question agreeing with it (this in turn can obviously raise cries of "Forer Effect", or as you point out, is entirely subjective). 

I can (and do) offer my personal experience, that I actually do identify with the type and have observed the processes going on in my mind again and again. That's not intended to be "objective", it's simply a way of saying that it makes sense based on what I know of both myself and the theory of the functions. Can't say it's the same of anyone else, of course.

Anyway, I feel like the MBTI is here to help people realize their strengths and weaknesses, and as long as they feel their understanding of the system / types / theory / whatever is beneficial, it has served its purpose.



> This, again from your first post, is a different problem, namely that there's some degree of disconnect between the dichotomies and the functions which they're said to imply. Strip away the assumptions that type dynamics imposes, and there's no remaining reason to suppose that, by virtue of being an IxTP, you must be T-dominant.


But if there isn't some sort of process to distinguish them, what separates an INTP, say, from an ESFJ? I'm curious, what do _you_ think there could be instead of the usual assumption of dynamics?



> *What do you mean by "given the same weight here"? As in, extraversion indicators you think bear more relevance to your personality are treated only as equivalent to introversion indicators that you see as less personally relevant?* That, I can see as a potential issue with the testing process - in fact, I'd be interested to know whether information exists as to which questions on the test are the most reliable indicators of type (both reported and verified), and which are the least... it's an issue with forced-choice questionnaires in general, that they don't look in any great depth at why you choose particular answers, and that's part of the reason why I'm wary of the Reynierse model that proposes elevating preference scores to such a substantial role without explanation of how it could account for resultant problems such as this one. But I don't think that really justifies clinging to the type dynamics model in any way...


In a word, yes.

As to the bolded question, basically the same as I wrote to PaladinX above. Those are things I was under the impression were key to extraversion, and incidentally, the parts I _do_ identify with. Some of the other stuff seems to be about how "social" you are. I realize they are trying to measure how likely you are to have that cognitive preference based on your habits, but it leaves something to be desired in my opinion.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kipposhi said:


> I can't tell if you're being deliberately condescending here.


Not at all. I was just throwing out the idea that one possible explanation for your E/I doubts could be that you're close to the E/I borderline, and noting that (1) that situation, _if_ it was the case, wouldn't really be inconsistent with the theory (if you're talking about Jung or Myers, at least), and (2) that the dichotomy-centric MBTI (especially) can still have a lot of interesting/useful things to say about somebody notwithstanding an assumed middleness on one or two dimensions.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

reckful said:


> Not at all. I was just throwing out the idea that one possible explanation for your E/I doubts could be that you're close to the E/I borderline, and noting that (1) that situation, _if_ it was the case, wouldn't really be inconsistent with the theory (if you're talking about Jung or Myers, at least), and (2) that the dichotomy-centric MBTI (especially) can still have a lot of interesting/useful things to say about somebody notwithstanding an assumed middleness on one or two dimensions.


I see; thank you. I don't disagree, actually, though I do find that the dichotomy didn't actually help me to discover the type I feel best describes me. If anything, it led me away from it. However, I did certainly appreciate its description of "Perceiver", which I am to a stereotypical degree. It was very good learning that I don't just have some incorrigible character flaw.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Kipposhi said:


> Wait! I was agreeing with you! I swear!
> 
> I was basically thinking what you're saying right there, actually (or intended to). How do you measure type dynamics? I meant there isn't really an objective way to measure that, other than the individual in question agreeing with it (this in turn can obviously raise cries of "Forer Effect", or as you point out, is entirely subjective).
> 
> ...


Fair enough: it may simply be the case that we're each inclined to prioritise different things in a personality theory. To me, the view that the system serves its purpose if people see it as beneficial is like saying a drug works because of the placebo effect: the principal purpose of a personality theory, in my view, is to make accurate and meaningful claims about the difference between people, which is not to say that I don't think the self-understanding people gain isn't important, but simply that said gain should be rooted in something more than the simply subjective for it to be a theory with greater significance than any number of pulp self-help books printed over the years.



> But if there isn't some sort of process to distinguish them, what separates an INTP, say, from an ESFJ? I'm curious, what do _you_ think there could be instead of the usual assumption of dynamics?


I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. The assumptions that are removed by taking type dynamics away are the ones that, without justification, say that the combination of an I, T and P result means that T will necessarily be preferred over both S and N - the fact that T is preferred over F remains, and has clear personality significance. It may well be true that a given IxTP prefers T to either S or N (I, for one), but it equally may well be true that a given IxTP prefers one of S or N more than they do T: the issue with the link between dichotomies and type dynamics is in removing that second possibility without good reason for doing so. The distinctions between I/E, S/N, T/F and J/P remain; theoretically, you could have someone with I, N, T and P preferences who is so close to the borderline on each that they don't differ significantly from an analogously-close-to-borderline ESFJ, but that would be an extreme case (and in such a case, the knowledge that such people are close to the middle on any dimension - or, here, all four - may be more informative than the fact of which side of the dimension they happen to be on: perhaps such people are better seen as xxxx types...).

So my main point here is, rather than the assumptions type dynamics unreasonably makes about every member of a given type, we should actually determine what is true for each individual; rather than presuppose every person with I-N-F-J preferences also prefers N to F, we should be cognisant of the fact that there's no good reason for that limitation to be present, and that some INFJs may prefer F to N.



> In a word, yes.
> 
> As to the bolded question, basically the same as I wrote to PaladinX above. Those are things I was under the impression were key to extraversion, and incidentally, the parts I _do_ identify with. Some of the other stuff seems to be about how "social" you are. I realize they are trying to measure how likely you are to have that cognitive preference based on your habits, but it leaves something to be desired in my opinion.


Well, I don't think either section is strictly "key" to extraversion: I think the reality is that both factor into the E preference in some way, and that some E types will be more typified by how outgoing/social they are, whilst other E types will be more typified by their need for external stimulation and the energy gain they obtain through interaction. It's entirely possible - and, as you said above, you know you're not the only extravert who's encountered this problem - that some tests too greatly focus on the social aspect of the E preference, to the detriment of other aspects, but the social aspect does nonetheless pertain to the E preference.

I note, from your signature, that you type as SLUEI on the SLOAN test. Did you find the corresponding Social/Reserved dimension similarly troublesome? I'm curious, since you say you tend to keep to yourself and that's why you tend to score as an introvert on MBTI tests, as to the fact you type as Social there...


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> other stuff


OK thanks for the responses.



> I note, from your signature, that you type as SLUEI on the SLOAN test. Did you find the corresponding Social/Reserved dimension similarly troublesome? I'm curious, since you say you tend to keep to yourself and that's why you tend to score as an introvert on MBTI tests, as to the fact you type as Social there...


I did score as R. I always always do, and will. For the same reasons I get "I"--childhood trauma, peer rejection, and painful lessons learned. Being insular has become so second nature to me it doesn't occur to me there's any other way to be.

Figuring out I was an E actually helped with the SLOAN (which I've yet to really get into). I feel that's probably my innate orientation after asking myself under what conditions I actually have thrived in the past and other such things (I am not happy with how I've lived, in my self-imposed isolation). And it did actually have useful things to say about me. So that's that story.

Thanks for noticing my signature, btw.


----------

