# New Theory: More Accurate Personality Types



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@lucasramsey

You are definitely misunderstanding the F functions, which, like how the T functions aren't logic in-and-of-themselves (whatever the hell that would mean - T types most certainly aren't automatically logical without even trying, give me a break) the F functions are not values in-and-of-themselves. They are both reasoning systems that deal with systemizing either technical logic or value-based logic - it's a no brainer that everyone has values, I don't know why you're so vexed by this - as I said before, everyone uses every function and certainly has the potential of using every function well (as in, the inferior isn't even remotely only there to screw around with you - it plays the oh so important role of helping the almighty dominant function). Values and morality don't by default go hand-in-hand either and don't have to (despite popular misunderstandings of what it means to "have values," which as I said before, is not an accurate representation of the reality of the F functions, which aren't about "having" anything - they're about reasoning as COGNITIVE functions). Use has really nothing to do with how functions work for the most part - it's mainly about conscious influence of the functions on personality, which happens to be in a totally different ballpark from "use" of functions like tools - saying that we "use" functions isn't giving any credit to their state of existence as a heuristic personality model. Functions are mainly there to represent the ego - they don't NEED to be used consciously (other than the dominant at the very least - the rest have the potential of "using" you, so the "tool" comparison doesn't accurately represent the nature of what we're talking about) to still represent a person's ego. Their influence over personality can still be observed without a person "using" them like a robot. The best way to think of the functions is that they are largely mentalities and really don't have that much to do with a person's psyche compared to the rest of what inhabits the psyche, etc. 



> My attempt is to try and find cognitive patterns that are the MOST OPPOSITE and DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER with the majority of the population. Only in this way can we find the clearest path to cognitive distinction. For example, I am testing the theory that Idealism vs Realism is the MOST OPPOSITE VARIABLE within human decision-making processes. Many people making decisions based on utility and results (realism), while others base decisions on values and ideals (idealism).


First off, Jung and Myers essentially did exactly what you did with finding cognitive patterns that are the "most opposite" and "different from each other" - that was the whole basis of Jung's theory - the yin and yang between S and N and T and F, and the natural balance this creates in a stable personality. The words "idealism" and "realism" I think are too loaded and complex - tainted by way too many connotations that have no DIRECT and straightforward correlation to F and T, respectively. Why don't you just keep it simple and stick with F and T - I mean, they sum up exactly the qualities Jung was getting at, while realism and idealism are just unnecessarily complex and involve having to make more inferences, while at the same time, they would come close to stereotyping types a lot more than "thinking" and "feeling" do, since after all, realism might just be a value behind an F person's reasoning (and will you look at that - I suppose you think thinking is more "real" than feeling - what a joke) - values aren't like the be-all, end-all of the feeling functions, btw. You pretty much abused the definition of idealism here - the F functions certainly don't have to be idealistic - this largely flies in the face of the practical applicability of Fe in a situational context, btw. Feeling is not an ideal, it's real reasoning. Calling something "good or bad" isn't idealistic, unless you're talking about something hypothetical that doesn't exist - since the F functions work with evaluating existence mainly and being useful (I mean, duh, most people don't waste their time of evaluating flighty ideals if they have their lives to get about - you're making an unsubstantiated correlation between F and idealism for some reason) - the function best equipped with dealing with ideals and ideations would probably be the N functions, since they obviously focus on "what's not apparent," even though it's silly to pigeon-hole them as idealistic either, since this isn't their fundamental nature (you can have Ns and Fs who aren't idealistic, so you can't just make fortune cookie assumptions and built "idealism" INTO the definitions of N or F, which, ironically, is largely what MBTI does with the functions).



> I am trying to avoid outside factors that will too much complicate things.


Well, you're not succeeding so far as I can tell. Sorry, but if you're trying to contend with a famous psychologist, you are certainly going to be a candidate for criticism.



> Fe has so much to do with acting according to how other people respond.


Sure, but this is extremely vague. The persona actually probably plays a greater role in this than a cognitive function, the latter which is closer to a state of being than a state of "acting."



> This is a VALUE that has to do with one's worldview and so it complicates clear cognitive processes.


Probably because you're wasting time not differentiating between persona and functions, like most people don't when they start out with this stuff (I was there at one point in time) - this wouldn't be your fault though, because MBTI does a craptastic job at differentiating between persona and personality type (or even reminding you that there's a distinction, for that matter - shame on MBTI).



> What are we to do with religious NTs and STs and other non "feeling" types who have been raised by their parents to treat others well and who deeply value being considerate to others?


Um...religion has like very very little to do with the true nature of any function in particular. As I've said before, the T types have an F side - you are largely misunderstanding what it means to be a T type over an F type - it has NIL to do with not HAVING functions (which are popular misunderstandings on the internet for god knows what reason - largely because MBTI doesn't even deal with peoples' natures past the superficial "surface functions" of a type, since the intent behind their theory was more practical than psychological in nature) - they have the functions plain as day, but they don't reason the same way with them as they would if they were F types most of the time. They downplay their F side over their T side, simply.

So, as you're seeing, Jung really did the best simplification job possible for this stuff (even though his writing is purposefully vague), and Dr. John Beebe has a good personality model out there also, Marie Von Franz has great insights into personality, Naomi Quenk has great info on the inferior function, Lenore Thompson has great type insights overall, etc. I suggest you abandon MBTI for now and start with one of these people if you wish. You're clearly still trapped in an MBTI perspective. It's great to question stuff, but you really need grounding if you expect to get off of the ground. Just sayin'.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

lucasramsey said:


> Thanks to all of you! Very helpful, albeit sometimes a bit bitter from some of you. Many of you are busy contrasting my system to Jung and Myers and how warped it looks in contrast. It should. My entire contention is that the Jung's functions are too complex and messy and Myers categorizes the mess. So I am not perfecting Jung but rather attempting to isolate MORE CLEAR functions which people can associate their thinking processes with.
> 
> Tango, thank you. Great insight. Let me make you aware of some of the base reasoning behind the theory. I agree with you completely that human nature (and cognitive processes) are not simple. The mind is an ocean of complexity and overlap. My attempt is to try and find cognitive patterns that are the MOST OPPOSITE and DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER with the majority of the population. Only in this way can we find the clearest path to cognitive distinction. For example, I am testing the theory that Idealism vs Realism is the MOST OPPOSITE VARIABLE within human decision-making processes. Many people making decisions based on utility and results (realism), while others base decisions on values and ideals (idealism).
> 
> ...


So what I'm getting from this is that you only want a system to explain internalized, conscious thinking as opposed to the whole of the person. That's actually a good idea, depth in that area would be very interesting.

I don't know if you subscribe to this theory(Jung, I believe), but people are in such a mess about themselves because their ego(identity) is just a small part of themselves(psyche), and is somewhat like a guy with a bunch of ropes tied around his waist being dragged one way by an elephant(unconscious), another way by a horse, another way by a t-rex, and so on. All this stuff is important and factors in to what comes to the mind and then what is externalized. And this is what makes the endeavor of explaining differing types of human behavior so difficult.

But if you just want to explain which of the animals has the slackest rope tied to the ego, sure, sounds good haha.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

(didn't really add anything, deleted)


----------



## Hola.Ola.Ting.Ting (May 24, 2012)

Z Z Z Z z z z z


----------



## lucasramsey (Oct 17, 2011)

PS - Any moron can argue. True genius lies in the ability to objectively and collaboratively discuss an issue with one common purpose= truth.


----------



## lucasramsey (Oct 17, 2011)

tangosthenes said:


> So what I'm getting from this is that you only want a system to explain internalized, conscious thinking as opposed to the whole of the person. That's actually a good idea, depth in that area would be very interesting.


I think you are correct. That's good insight. I have also been looking at FIRO-B on the behavior side. Schutz attempted to approach a pure people oriented method looking at three areas (inclusion, control, openness/affection). Some have attempted to take this and apply it to more than people orientation. Schutz however was clear that these behavior areas can and do change. I think what I am trying to do is compliment his work with a purely cognitive analysis absent of actually people interaction.


----------



## asewland (Mar 5, 2012)

> Information gathering preference:
> Sensing (gathering info from environment) vs. iNternalizing (gathering information internally)


Addition to your theory:
I think it's safe to say that Pe users would be sensing according to your theory and Pi users would be iNternalizing.


----------



## Bluelamp (May 18, 2012)

lucasramsey said:


> Second, and more importantly: I am not at ALL downplaying emotions and feeling. In fact, I believe I am aiding their use. Emotions are crucial and can be used in any of the functions at varying levels. I have intentional avoided use of language that includes emotion because emotions are not subject to brain preferences but come in tandem with brain preferences. For example, someone may who internally takes in data and makes decisions based on reality (similar to an NT) - this person may be very emotionally developed as thus excluded from a clear NT definiton. Or there may be a sensing idealist (info from environment and makes decisions based on values - similar to SF) but who is not a "feeler" or who's emotions aren't developed. Emotions and feelings are a completely DIFFERENT VARIABLE which colors each type in a different way. To INCLUDE emotion as a part of a cognitive process system is to confuse the whole thing - ergo the MBTI mis-classifies thousands of people. This is also why with this system, a male and female "internalizing realist" may look different based on their emotional difference, but their thought processes will be the same.


Keirsey and Fudjack I think handle the role of emotion well. Emotion is kind of a nurture thing related to the born-with feeling function. Keirsey mentions schools handle nurturing for the thinking areas better than for the feeling ones. Via Fudjack:



> Level-one feeling is inferior, developmentally speaking. At this level feelings are typically repressed. Individuals may even deny the very existence of 'feeling' (eg, the philosopher Gilbert Ryle). When feeling is experienced, individuals are overwhelmed by it, in sudden outburts of extreme emotion - anger, lust, jealousy, etc. When individuals with underdeveloped feeling do feel, their feelings can be comparatively crass - thus there is a tendency toward being 'sentimental', as Von Franz points out.



The idea is thus that you can develop in areas you aren't biased towards but your born-with bias still stays as an attractor. I do think your Idealist/Realist terms have some other biases besides F vs T (Idealist for Keirsey is NF and Realist for the RIASEC is a "Things" thing, Utility in Keirsey terms (NT/SP aka TP). I think of J/P as decisive/flexible, S/N as concrete/abstract, T/F as logic/values, and E/I as public/private; the general idea of introducing additional descriptors can certainly be helpful.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

In case everybody was wondering...

*Sensory Perceivers: Dominantly Gather Information from Environment*
_ Explorers_ _(Sensory input is the goal, and decisions serve to benefit the ideal senses)_
EISp – Erratic Idealistic Sensory-perceiver = *ESFP*
FISp – Focused Idealistic Sensory-perceiver *= ISFP*
_ Fixers (Info obtained from senses used in immediate contexts) _
ERSp – Erratic Realistic Sensory-perceiver *= ESTP*
FRSp – Focused Realistic Sensory-perceiver *= ISTP*

*Internal Perceivers: Dominantly Gather Information Internally*
_ Architects (Knowledge gained serves to build a possible future world)_
EINp – Erratic Idealistic Internal-perceivers *= ENFP*
FINp – Focused Idealistic Internal-perceivers *= INFP*
_ Problem Solvers (Internal logic brings solutions to current problems)_
ERNp – Erratic Realistic Internal-perceivers *= ENTP*
FRNp – Focused Realistic Internal-perceivers *= INTP*

*Realist Deciders: Dominantly Make Decisions based on Current Situational Effectiveness*
_ Administrators (Immediate decision making based on immediate sensory environment)_
ESRd – Erratic Sensing Realist-decider *= ESTJ*
FSRd – Focused Sensing Realist-decider *=ISTJ*
_ Leaders (Decisions to produce effective results based on logical formulation)_
ENRd – Erratic Internalizing Realist-decider *= ENTJ*
FNRd – Focused Internalizing Realist-decider *= INTJ*

*Idealist Deciders: Dominantly Make Decisions based on Values and/or Possibilities*
_ Traditionalists (Decide based on values acquired from Sensory input – past traditions)_
ESId – Erratic Sensing Idealist-decider *= ESFJ*
FSId – Focused Sensing Idealist-decider *= ISFJ*
_ Revolutionists (Decide based on possibilities acquired from internalization – what can be)_ 
ENId – Erratic Internalizing Idealist-decider *= ENFJ*
FNId – Focused Internalizing Idealist-decider *= INFJ*

This theory is basically in line with MBTI/Jung.

Sensory perceivers all share Se(sensory perception), Internal perceivers all share Ne(internal perception? Perhaps with reflection, but then your sorting becomes unrealistic and messy), Realist deciders all share Te (Realistic decision making), Idealist deciders all share Fe(Value-based decision making). The assortment is converse to Kiersey slightly, by creating four different groupings (SP, NP, TJ, FJ).

However, I must disagree with erratic (extravert) as requiring multiple stimuli necessarily and introversion as being more prone to "being focused". Erratic alludes to irrational which is commonly known by Jungian literature as a primary Sensing or Intuition function -- coming to grips with a conclusion without a necessary path of reason. A sort of "gut" instinct. If humans are to be labelled as being social creatures, erratic behavior could not be an appropriate label for extraversion. You might want to relabel this part.


----------



## TrailMix (Apr 27, 2011)

I quite like this, actually. It's pretty well thought out. Kudos, sir.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Jung was dealing with cognitive functions according to the science he had available.


Actually, this statement is misguided. Jung applied some very universal scientific principles to his theory which still obviously stand today concerning equilibrium and other aspects of physics, laws of nature, etc. to his reasoning. You're theory doesn't even reference any particular scientific principles (other than some that characterize the original personality types theory), nor does it properly adhere to any (e.g. like at the end with how you say that personality preferences actually change - no they don't - they're rooted in the psyche for life, unless you can find some natural principle to back this up, you've got nothing going for you here - you can't just say something without backing and expect it to pass, especially when we're talking about something as static as personality, which is not beliefs, persona, values, etc. It's psychological and observational - marked by trends, but you can't stereotype behavior to figure them out (e.g. like most of the misguided typing advice you hear from people in the "Type Me" thread about "You act like you have ADD, so you must be an Ne dominant," etc. for instance). And the burden of proof is on you for "Js" having "singular attention" *whatever the hell that means - please explain in *dumbed-down* terminology* and "Ps" have "erratic brain patterns" (which typology specialist Dario Nardi already pretty much proved with oh so scientific brain scans isn't remotely the case - after all, everyone has a P and J function in their type makeup, so why should this even matter - I mean, where's there any logic or proof that having a certain P or J function "lower" in your cognitive function make-up is going to alter how "erratic" the function may be? You have a shitton of questions to deal with regarding the original theory before you can make a new one (lacking in the modern scientific nature that you seem to love so much, ironically - no offense, but I'm having a ton of trouble finding where there's anything admirably more scientific about your theory than the original one - I mean, after all, you pretty much admitted that the feeling function doesn't even exist, just because it doesn't fit your idea of scientific, even though you can easily call it a form of reasoning that is rooted in human values-based logic rather than conceptual logic - you didn't even address how Jung and co. define the feeling functions, which is, very ironically, not a very scientific thing to do to just ignore what exists, create something to replace it, and call your theory "more accurate" - honestly, that's totally foolish).


----------



## LePapillonDesEtoiles (Sep 5, 2020)

Introversion and extroversion is the most important part of personality theories. it is what is most visible in human behavior.


----------

