# Public Service Announcement: Five Common Functional Misconceptions



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

simulatedworld said:


> Ti has certain "moral" standards that are really just based on natural logic. e.g., I will not steal from people because it would be illogical for me to expect them not to steal from me. This looks like a moral view but is actually a logical one because it's based on impersonal reasoning.
> 
> they are neither static nor objective; in fact, if you want to think of them as "boxes", think of them as liquid boxes that constantly shift around, trade information with each other and redefine their parameters as new information and experiences are provided.
> 
> What I think about Ni today is not exactly the same as what I thought about Ni yesterday. I'm not "boxing anything in" because my categories are dynamic and subject to constant refinement.


I can relate to this, I feel like all of this information is just rushing at me at an ever increasing pace. I never think something is completely definitive, there is always room to change my conclusions. I usually operate by reading loads of information from all kinds of sources, even some that might not be completely relevant or useful at the time, and then I go into my head and have a trial and have arguments in favor and against a statement, idea, etc., strangely I do this alot while I am walking some where(like walking to the store). 

I try to get a fair and even balance for the pros and cons, it's like there is a big Ojay Simpson style trial going on in my head:laughing:. One little piece of information, no matter how small or trivial can change my entire argument, view, or perspective on an idea, concept, or issue so I try to leave no stone unturned.


----------



## TurranMC (Sep 15, 2009)

simulatedworld said:


> I wasn't saying you're appealing to authority...I was saying you were asking _me_ to appeal to authority. No offense intended.
> 
> You're saying you want good reasons without having to do any research? I'm not sure that's going to work. Either take the time to look into it yourself or just ignore my ideas. I'll be glad to answer any theoretical questions you may have. * If you don't like this interpretation then don't use it. But I believe there's a reason mods put it in the articles section. *


It's in the articles section because it looks nice. The article posted right after yours contradicts your #1. Just saying.


> Those who are clever and perceptive enough (like the multitude who have already thanked me for this thread) will read it, figure out how to apply it on their own and discover for themselves how useful it is.


Just because they agree with your post doesn't mean they understood it at all, and it certainly doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

TurranMC said:


> It's in the articles section because it looks nice. The article posted right after yours contradicts your #1. Just saying.Just because they agree with your post doesn't mean they understood it at all, and it certainly doesn't mean it's right.


Do you have any legitimate arguments or no?


----------



## TurranMC (Sep 15, 2009)

simulatedworld said:


> Do you have any legitimate arguments or no?


Haha are you mad? Haven't taken the time to go through this long ass thread. Posts are too large. Just pointing out the arguments you seem to be giving aren't very good. You also seem to be arguing from a point of arrogance which is always a bad sign. Too easy to delude oneself.


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

TurranMC said:


> Haha are you mad?


Fi ("I think I can read your emotions even though you're an Fe user and my Fi is inferior anyway, whoops")

"Haha" = "I'm going to pretend this is funny to me in order to give the impression of being the one who's REALLY in control here, watch me maintain control by manipulating your emotions, hahahaha!"

Fail. roud:




TurranMC said:


> Haven't taken the time to go through this long ass thread. Posts are too large. Just pointing out the arguments you seem to be giving aren't very good.


Te ("I'm too lazy to actually read the piece I'm complaining about before complaining about it because I have better things to do, but I want control of this thread")




TurranMC said:


> You also seem to be arguing from a point of arrogance which is always a bad sign. Too easy to delude oneself.


Ni ("If I acknowledge the possibility of self-delusion in order to accuse others of arrogance I can distract them from my own overwhelmingly unjustified arrogance and none will be the wiser!")

And of course, the implied Se: "I'm threatened by someone else who knows more than I do having control, so I'll try to piss him off by changing the subject and suggesting his motivation is emotional! That should _really_ set him off!"


So again, do you have any legitimate arguments? If I were you I'd stop trying to read NTP language in NTJ terms. Never really works out well.

If you have any specific questions about specific parts of my posts, I'd like to answer them...but if you're not going to bother reading or doing any research, then I don't really care whether or not you agree. If that's the case then you've proven yourself incapable of discussing the topic seriously anyway, so I'm not going to bother anymore.


----------



## Costello (Jan 14, 2010)

While you say that the functions are attitudes rather than activities, couldn’t it be said that they are attitudes that can be _used_, so in fact they are activities? A function is by definition an action, an activity people can make use of. An ESFJ will have a different world view to an INTP, because one prefers to _use_ Fe as a mind-set, and the other prefers to _use_ Ti as a different mind-set. Se is often incorrectly described as ‘using your senses’, but couldn’t it be said that Se is ‘_using_ a mind-set that emphasizes making use of the literal external world’. So can’t I still say I am ‘using’ a function?

I agree that it isn’t natural for people to commonly ‘use’ their shadow processes, but I’m sure Myers understood this. In _Gifts Differing_ she says:

“Some introverts pay so little conscious attention to extraverting that they achieve little or no development of their extraverted auxiliary process. Their extraversion will be largely unconscious and their shadow processes may be more apparent than their conscious personalities.”

This makes sense to me, because I feel I can ‘use’ a Ni mind-set instead of Ne. Maybe I just have some personality disorder, but wouldn’t you agree that if someone ‘uses’ a shadow function enough, it will become easier to view the world in this way after a while? Again, I don’t see anything wrong with saying that I ‘use’ a function, because it seems no different to saying that it is ‘having’ a different mind-set.

Just to make myself clear, I agree with everything you have said about ‘using’ one function for the purpose of another (e.g. ‘using’ Ti for Fi purposes) as not being legitimate function ‘use’. But you have said yourself that it is possible for someone to bend their mind to see the world differently with their shadow functions, it is just extremely difficult. If someone does it enough, couldn’t it become easier over time? Even Jung said that a person’s type changes throughout their life, so would this not mean that people _can_ permanently change their mind-sets?

I have a feeling my logic is flawed, but I'm interested in knowing why.


----------



## ENTrePenuer (Jun 12, 2010)

Costello said:


> While you say that the functions are attitudes rather than activities, couldn’t it be said that they are attitudes that can be _used_, so in fact they are activities?



No.



> A function is by definition an action, an activity people can make use of. An ESFJ will have a different world view to an INTP, because one prefers to _use_ Fe as a mind-set, and the other prefers to _use_ Ti as a different mind-set.


No.



> Se is often incorrectly described as ‘using your senses’, but couldn’t it be said that Se is ‘_using_ a mind-set that emphasizes making use of the literal external world’. So can’t I still say I am ‘using’ a function?


No.



> I agree that it isn’t natural for people to commonly ‘use’ their shadow processes, but I’m sure Myers understood this. In _Gifts Differing_ she says:


People don't use a process they are the process




> This makes sense to me, because I feel I can ‘use’ a Ni mind-set instead of Ne. Maybe I just have some personality disorder, but wouldn’t you agree that if someone ‘uses’ a shadow function enough, it will become easier to view the world in this way after a while? Again, I don’t see anything wrong with saying that I ‘use’ a function, because it seems no different to saying that it is ‘having’ a different mind-set.
> 
> Just to make myself clear, I agree with everything you have said about ‘using’ one function for the purpose of another (e.g. ‘using’ Ti for Fi purposes) as not being legitimate function ‘use’. But you have said yourself that it is possible for someone to bend their mind to see the world differently with their shadow functions, it is just extremely difficult. If someone does it enough, couldn’t it become easier over time? Even Jung said that a person’s type changes throughout their life, so would this not mean that people _can_ permanently change their mind-sets?


It's not extremely difficult, it's outside of that persons controls.
Think of it like your Kicking your PC off the desk, shooting it, pissing on it, then cleaning with ammonia, you but it up and it's a MAC.

Your shadow comes out under extreme duress and it's very much akin to descending into madness.




> I have a feeling my logic is flawed, but I'm interested in knowing why.


Cause you haven't gotten it yet.


----------



## Costello (Jan 14, 2010)

I've re-read parts of _Psychological Types_ and I believe I understand now. But I have to say, this makes me feel incredibly pessimistic about the future of humanity. What hope do people have if they are incapable of viewing things from another's perspective? I suppose I wish I had never looked into personality types.


----------



## ENTrePenuer (Jun 12, 2010)

Costello said:


> I've re-read parts of _Psychological Types_ and I believe I understand now. But I have to say, this makes me feel incredibly pessimistic about the future of humanity.


Exactly!

Once you've got it you start to realize how absolutely barbaric humanity intrinsically is.


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

Costello said:


> While you say that the functions are attitudes rather than activities, couldn’t it be said that they are attitudes that can be _used_, so in fact they are activities? A function is by definition an action, an activity people can make use of. An ESFJ will have a different world view to an INTP, because one prefers to _use_ Fe as a mind-set, and the other prefers to _use_ Ti as a different mind-set. Se is often incorrectly described as ‘using your senses’, but couldn’t it be said that Se is ‘_using_ a mind-set that emphasizes making use of the literal external world’. So can’t I still say I am ‘using’ a function?


No, a function is _not_ by definition an action. The phrase "using" a function is rather misleading in the first place because it implies that function are voluntary skill sets. Se is a mindset that leads you to place the most emphasis on surface sensory impressions--this leads to a whole set of unique philosophies and outlooks. If you don't share them, you're not "using" Se.



Costello said:


> I agree that it isn’t natural for people to commonly ‘use’ their shadow processes, but I’m sure Myers understood this. In _Gifts Differing_ she says:
> 
> “Some introverts pay so little conscious attention to extraverting that they achieve little or no development of their extraverted auxiliary process. Their extraversion will be largely unconscious and their shadow processes may be more apparent than their conscious personalities.”
> 
> This makes sense to me, because I feel I can ‘use’ a Ni mind-set instead of Ne. Maybe I just have some personality disorder, but wouldn’t you agree that if someone ‘uses’ a shadow function enough, it will become easier to view the world in this way after a while? Again, I don’t see anything wrong with saying that I ‘use’ a function, because it seems no different to saying that it is ‘having’ a different mind-set.


The term "shadow" has been used to mean different things in different contexts. Some authors have used it to refer to the tertiary and inferior functions, but most these days use it to refer to the four non-preferred attitudes.

I believe in this context Myers was referring to the tertiary and inferior processes, as they tend to have a fair amount of negative unconscious influence. I'll have to go and reread that section of _GD_ to make sure.



Costello said:


> Just to make myself clear, I agree with everything you have said about ‘using’ one function for the purpose of another (e.g. ‘using’ Ti for Fi purposes) as not being legitimate function ‘use’. But you have said yourself that it is possible for someone to bend their mind to see the world differently with their shadow functions, it is just extremely difficult. If someone does it enough, couldn’t it become easier over time? Even Jung said that a person’s type changes throughout their life, so would this not mean that people _can_ permanently change their mind-sets?
> 
> I have a feeling my logic is flawed, but I'm interested in knowing why.


If someone were forced to do it enough he would probably end up developing severe personality disorders/psychological problems by having to constantly work in a mindset that's unnatural for him.

For instance, an INFP goes to war (many INFPs are intrinsically opposed to violence) and is forced to mold himself into a constant Se mindset in order to survive. That's a recipe for big time PTSD, among other problems.

This is a subject of debate, but I think our types are settled by adolescence and once they become set, they never really change. Seeing through shadow perspectives is uncomfortable and requires tremendous expenditure of energy, so being forced to use them all the time in order to survive would probably result in way too much stress for the human psyche to handle comfortably--imho it would lead to some serious psychological issues.


----------



## Fat Bozo (May 24, 2009)

simulatedworld said:


> Yes, you absolutely do, because "reason" means very different things to different functional perspectives, and it's vital to acknowledge the differences in assumptions that we all make unconsciously about the nature of reason, if we ever hope to understand each other's viewpoints.


I think I understand what you mean by that, and I was just talking about that concept with somebody the other day. How even when two people reach an understanding about a particular subject, if they have completely different viewpoints, they still aren't looking at it exactly the same way. 

Overall, though, I think you're full of it, and probably Jung too, because I simply don't think it's possible to "intuit" as much as you think you do. But I think it's cool you're fired up about it though, because I respect passion, even if it's directed towards stuff I think is bullshit. :wink:


----------



## FiNe SiTe (Dec 11, 2009)

Hmmm maybe shouldn't of really said this.........


----------



## ENTrePenuer (Jun 12, 2010)

FiNe SiTe said:


> I already know most of this the from reading 'Gifts Differing', 'Was that really me?' and 'Building blocks of MBTI'.
> I also agree with you about some people not fully understanding MBTI/Jungian Functions......


Can you expound?


----------



## FiNe SiTe (Dec 11, 2009)

ENTrePenuer said:


> Can you expound?


I don't particularly want to......this thread is good enough explanation for anyone.


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

Fat Bozo said:


> I think I understand what you mean by that, and I was just talking about that concept with somebody the other day. How even when two people reach an understanding about a particular subject, if they have completely different viewpoints, they still aren't looking at it exactly the same way.
> 
> Overall, though, I think you're full of it, and probably Jung too, because I simply don't think it's possible to "intuit" as much as you think you do. But I think it's cool you're fired up about it though, because I respect passion, even if it's directed towards stuff I think is bullshit. :wink:


Out of curiosity, why are you on a forum dedicated to something you think is total bullshit?


----------



## ENTrePenuer (Jun 12, 2010)

simulatedworld said:


> Out of curiosity, why are you on a forum dedicated to something you think is total bullshit?


Why are you asking questions you already know the answer to?























































the lulz!

hA!


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

Rhetorical question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Fat Bozo (May 24, 2009)

simulatedworld said:


> Out of curiosity, why are you on a forum dedicated to something you think is total bullshit?


I'm not. The forum is not called Jungian Function Cafe. :wink:


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

Fat Bozo said:


> I'm not. The forum is not called Jungian Function Cafe. :wink:


ah crap I'm in the wrong place!


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

*What do you think of this load of crap? I guess I am really an INFP according to this .*


I have a friend which by internet standards could pass easily as INTP, he by the way, when first presented with the MBTI theory was a self declared INTP because of a internet test he took and because of the few profiles I send him describing INTPs.

Well, I knew he was not a INTP in the first place, and so I did let him reach his conlussion basically knowing that he'd say he was an INTP just to prove something I had hypotesized long before he reached his conclussion.

INFPs like to think they are INTPs.

At least those ones who have intelligence stablished as a high value quality in a person.

The reason is simple, and I'll be using him as an example.

There's a major difference between the 2 of us that simply wouldn't pass scrutiny under anyone decent user of Ti. He's big on arts, while I'm big on sciences. And when I said big, I'm talking about our biggest motivators in life, the part which can be considered the path we will be taking in life and that thing which dominated profusely on our minds almost all the time.

*^Einstien himself said if he didn't become a scientist he would be a musician, he said music was his life, here is a quote from him : *

*He once said that had he not been a scientist, he would have been a musician. “Life without playing music is inconceivable for me,” he declared. *
*“I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music…I get most joy in life out of music.”*​

*art and science aren't mutually exclusive, in fact, they often go hand in hand, many scientist see beauty in their craft and appreciate art, such simplistic thinking does not show a logical, rational mind.*

Art is a subjective topic, basically it means there's no logical reason in it, it is ultimately always, without fail, every time, in all topics which concern arts, a matter of personal value. 

And there is no place like that for a thing as Ti to thrive because Ti is not only the most impresonal of all the functions, but the most anti-personal of all as it will try to get rid of all that cannot be considerated universal and absolute as logic ultimately is.

*^Ironic that this person is commiting a logical fallacy(either or) and claims to be a logical thinker, does this person even know what he's talking about?*

Arts is the domain of Fi, as Fi is the most personal of all the functions, it deals with one's value system, that human or abstract qualities which we can define as best or right for us. Creativity, orginality as examples of those.

*^Ha, wrong.*

So there you can actually put Fi and Ti as opposites of one another, one tries to get rid of all personal, relative and subjective values to only leave the absolute and universal while the other tries to put those values in and get rid of that that is absolute and universal, like trying to put flavor in pristine water.

*^Both Ti and Fi are subjective, they both can have universal values too.*

Of course this doesn't mean that INFPs try to put subjetivity and personal values in everything, but just in those areas which can allow it. As INFPs will have a different value system for science, prising those things as rationality and intelligence, and ruthless absolute universal truths too, as those are considered to be "good qualities" to have in science.

The Fi as I said has a value system, which will put different values based on the area ones is talking about, while for the INTP, the logic, is all that matters, in just everything there is. If an area of knowledge is from its nature subjective and personal, we just will not make an effort to contribute in it.

*This whole statement about artistic INTPs being a contradiction is a complete joke,* *really! Everybody has a value system, the INTPs he is talking in this statement don't exist. Thanks for setting up a false dichotomy. Only retarded or immature INTPs BELIEVES logic is ALL that matters, I mean, what do they base their basic axioms on? ALL MOTIVATION STARTS WITH EMOTION, YOU CAN'T REMOVE IT, INTPs enjoy their interest because they bring a positive emotional response just like everyone else, look how personal that is! And music is a complex system to begin with, INTPs are called "the architect" for christs sake, they'd be one of the MAIN types interested in music(esp. music theory), they can apply their systems thinking to any highly theoretical system, be it law, physics, road design, computer software design, or music.*


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

Robopop said:


> INFPs like to think they are INTPs.


I have seen some INFPs describe themselves as "highly logical" because to them, Fi is clearly "the logical way" to see things.

But I dunno if I'd go so far as to suggest a significant pattern of INFPs wanting to be INTP. That may just be due to MBTI's poor choice of words--when people first hear about this it's easy to presume that being a Feeler means you're a totally illogical person, which is simply not the case.

By the way dude, the INTP elitism thing...it's kind of played out. Go check out INTP central.


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

simulatedworld said:


> I have seen some INFPs describe themselves as "highly logical" because to them, Fi is clearly "the logical way" to see things.
> 
> But I dunno if I'd go so far as to suggest a significant pattern of INFPs wanting to be INTP. That may just be due to MBTI's poor choice of words--when people first hear about this it's easy to presume that being a Feeler means you're a totally illogical person, which is simply not the case.
> 
> By the way dude, the INTP elitism thing...it's kind of played out. Go check out INTP central.


 
I was respoding to a INTP who made a thread about "the contradiction of a artistic INTP". I knew he was wrong because he set up a false dichotomy from the start. And yes, that is total INTP elitism he displayed. I read a couple of his other threads and he seems to get off on the idea that INTPs are inherently intelligent. He made another thread about using Ti requires intelligence. How silly is that, any cognitive function requires intelligence to some degree, I guess he was implying that Ti users can't be unintelligent.


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

Robopop said:


> I was respoding to a INTP who made a thread about "the contradiction of a artistic INTP". I knew he was wrong because he set up a false dichotomy from the start. And yes, that is total INTP elitism he displayed. I read a couple of his other threads and he seems to get off on the idea that INTPs are inherently intelligent. He made another thread about using Ti requires intelligence. How silly is that, any cognitive function requires intelligence to some degree, I guess he was implying that Ti users can't be unintelligent.


Well yeah claiming that NTs can't be artistic is pretty clearly retarded.

It's also stupid to imply that any type can't be unintelligent. He probably assumes this because he doesn't understand that there are different types of intelligence, so since his definition of intelligence is simply, "strong in Ti", he thinks Ti doms must be intelligent by definition.

I've seen a lot of INTJs do this too. It's pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

simulatedworld said:


> He probably assumes this because he doesn't understand that there are different types of intelligence, so since his definition of intelligence is simply, "strong in Ti", he thinks Ti doms must be intelligent by definition.


Hell, he doesn't even show high intelligence when it comes to Ti especially with his sloppy ass reasoning.


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

Robopop said:


> Hell, he doesn't even show high intelligence when it comes to Ti especially with his sloppy ass reasoning.


I agree with your last posts. INTP's can't be artists=false. Ti implies superintelligence = an arrogant position (and just a proof of lack of intelligence, by incapacity of "seeing beyond").
It seems to me that all NT rationals are tempted with this vision of being more intelligent than the rest. NTJ are high in this, but after thinking deeply now I see that we INTP's are not the superobjective people we claim to be. We only tend to be objective by our own definition of objectivity, which is also subjective.

But I don't see the need of charging your argumentation with disqualifications. I tend to think that when someone is doing this, maybe he/she is trying to convince himself/herself more than convince others. Or maybe he/she is falling in the same fault that is being appointed. If you adquire a new perspective of an issue, this does not imply that now you're seeing all of the picture and everyone who doesn't see your new perspective is wrong.

I'm not trying to offend you, I apologize if it seems so. I'm only suggesting that it's a good idea not falling in the same fault we are pointing. I recognize that sometimes I also do this. I'll try to correct myself.


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

MensSuperMateriam said:


> I agree with your last posts. INTP's can't be artists=false. Ti implies superintelligence = an arrogant position (and just a proof of lack of intelligence, by incapacity of "seeing beyond").
> It seems to me that all NT rationals are tempted with this vision of being more intelligent than the rest. NTJ are high in this, but after thinking deeply now I see that we INTP's are not the superobjective people we claim to be. We only tend to be objective by our own definition of objectivity, which is also subjective.
> 
> But I don't see the need of charging your argumentation with disqualifications. I tend to think that when someone is doing this, maybe he/she is trying to convince himself/herself more than convince others. Or maybe he/she is falling in the same fault that is being appointed. If you adquire a new perspective of an issue, this does not imply that now you're seeing all of the picture and everyone who doesn't see your new perspective is wrong.
> ...


*a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject.*

^According to this definition, everything we as conscious beings perceive exist in our minds apart from how it exist independent of our mind. Immanuel Kant divided these by categories, the noumenonal and phenomenonal world. He said we couldn't even possibly have any knowledge of the noumenonal world except that it has an existence. So by our very nature we can't be objective according to Kant.


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

I would like to make my little contribution to this thread.

First of all, thanks for creating it, @simulatedword. Again, an excellent exposition about your knowledge of typology world that other users can find useful.

What I would like to comment is your explanation about the evidences/lack of evidences of this Ti system. I agree with you, but it seems to me that many users are going to keep having problems with this (for example, Te doms).

Your example about music is excellent, but allow to me to offer some similar example and develop it in an attempt to make it easier for being understood.

Does it need evidences? No. Why? Because *a definition does not need proofs*. As you say, this is just labels added to a perceived cognitive processes. We're defining which process will, more or less, fall into one definition. As we choose which process is being associated with which label, there is no need of proof. Well, I'm explaining this in a Ti thinking way. An easy example could clarify this: *colors*.

What's color? A perception of a physical magnitude: frecuency in the visible range of EM spectrum.
It's a continuum, and we choose to label a concrete perception of this as a concrete color. Example: show to a start-speaking child (I do not know how to say this in english) a example of green color and say to him: "this is green color". A proof here is absurd. *You define the color as green*, so this sentence is always true (a proof for an absolute truth?). The same happens to labels used in this system for cognitive processes.

Well, some people could still say: "I can prove colors, I can measure frequency". Of course, but you have to set the exact range of frecuencies for each color. But again, as you're defining each color, you don't need proofs, because this is always true. Green from f (frecuency)=X to f=Y. Every measured EM radiation that fall in this range is green, always!

I hope this example could help some people to understand the issue. If not, I'm sorry, I did my best :tongue:


----------



## walkawaysun09 (Mar 13, 2010)

This is an interesting article...but I would like to concur with the multiple thesis things...

I am me, no Jung/MBTI/Ennegram will ever describe every bit of who I am...and nothing will. Because I am me, but this was still a good article. Thanks.


----------



## yesiknowbut (Oct 25, 2009)

This is a comment on the original post and overall discussion rather than what is immediately before.

This interpretation (or whatever word you choose, I know f&ck all about MBTI and all that, here to learn) has made a lot of sense to me. It combines some of the discussions we've already had on this site about function order elsewhere (questionnaires are flawed, and whatever a questionnaire might give you back as your function order is immaterial, once you have correctly divined your dominant mind-set a certain group of functions is likely to be present, and in a certain order because that gives an overall definition of type); about some apparently arbitrary stuff about finding your way about the world, and which functions do you use? answer, different personalities will use different combinations of functions to achieve the same objective or use different strategies to achieve the same things if you like; and a discussion on how function combinations can "stand in" for functions normally missing or in the minority in one's personality type.

Probably it helps that I have not spent huge amounts of time studying this and have no vested interest in any sort of belief about it, but this more holistic approach (digression; can we be "more holistic"? doubt it) makes a lot of sense to me, and thank you for posting it. Will look forward to more.

I note that it makes sense to me possibly because I think I use Ti, and I like it because it seems to be internally consistent. Would just like to say I'd be a bit miffed if someone came along at this point and told me I was really an ISFP, and would have to start disbelieving the whole damn thing, which would be tiresome indeed......

:happy::happy:


----------



## pro at filing (Jul 29, 2010)

First of all, thanks simulatedworld for this excellent map through the Jung-le :wink: of typology.
Suffice to say I like the model better now. I always liked focusing on motivations more than on actions. This also answered a few questions for me, like what's with Se ("doesn't everyone use it all the time?") and what to make of it when Ni doms engage in things like sports.

A few questions:

While functions themselves are not best thought of as skill sets, it's safe to say that they _give rise_ to skill sets, right? Like if someone believes that the immediate physical world at hand is the most important thing (Se dom), then that person will become good at being aware of said physical world in all its fullness.
So one might say that certain skill sets are (loosely) _associated_ with functions, in that you will be more likely to have them developed if the corresponding function is an important part of your attitude. Then the function order profiles that people post could be interpreted as skill profiles, a measurement of how well an individual has developed the skills associated with the individual functions.


A question on function order. I was a bit surprised when you said that OrangeAppled, an INFP, was delivering a Te critique of your article. I can see where you are coming from with that statement (sorry OrangeAppled, I don't think your corresponding question made sense in the context delimited by sim; although it may make sense in a different context, maybe the one I tried to explore above). I also understand that it's most useful to think of Fi/Te as a single axis. But how does function order influence that axis? Shouldn't an INFP deliver, if anything, a heavily Fi critique? With Te not being directly expressed, but rather to be found in the undertones more than anything? Isn't Te supposed to be largely unconscious in the INFP?
Maybe this question warrants a seperate article on function order, but I'm not going to press for that, since I'll probably at some point read the books you recommended anyway.




simulatedworld said:


> "Completely categorized" is a rather misleading phrase. You're correct that ultimately no one individual is precisely the same as any other individual, but there are enough common, repeated patterns that we can pretty easily create any number of categories by which to index them. There will always be variations between individuals within each type, but the sources from which people derive their overall worldviews are remarkably predictable.





simulatedworld said:


> Since this is all just an arbitrary labeling system in the first place, asking for "proof" of your Jungian type is like asking for "proof" that Led Zeppelin was a rock band.


So I guess in your experience all people exhibit some of the patterns you described in your functions article relatively clearly?
I mean, taking the music categories analogy further, it's thinkable to me that there could be people who don't really fit any of the categories well enough to be labeled in Jungian terms, even if one is in the habit of shifting and redefining the categories - something analogous to "That band sounds good, what are they playing?" "Oh noone really knows, it's some crazy ska-fusion-hiphop mix", as in not fitting any of the existing categories, but being too special(ized) to warrant a category of its own.
Of course, the analogy ends at some point, because the Jungian model is dichotomous, while music categories aren't, so for example if you use logic, you'll either use Ti or Te because that's the only 2 ways to use logic, and since everyone has to use logic to some degree, everyone fits in the model (same for ethics and abstract/concrete information).
I still just wanted to see if you had anything more to say on that point.
Obviously, I don't have as much experience in typewatching as I'd like to.


Phew, at last I got that post off. On this one, I took it upon myself to read the whole thread before posting.


----------



## napkineater (Mar 26, 2013)

6 years later and people still holding on tightly to these misconceptions. 

People who think they're above being afraid of change and think they are open and willing to learn and challenge themselves _observe_


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

napkineater said:


> 6 years later and people still holding on tightly to these misconceptions.
> 
> People who think they're above being afraid of change and think they are open and willing to learn and challenge themselves _observe_


Six years later and somebody thinks it makes sense to revive this simulatedworld horseshit.

Sad.

Are you "willing to learn and challenge yourself," napkineater? Are you willing to leave the faux-MBTI districts that have all the validity of the zodiac behind and move into the respectable districts of the personality psychology field?

Allow me to respectfully suggest that you could do worse than to start with this post and the posts it links to.

simulatedworld says the MBTI is just an "arbitrary labeling system" with no "empirical evidence" behind it — and that's certainly true of large chunks of _his_ MBTI. But it's not true of my MBTI, and it doesn't have to be true of yours, either.

Are you willing to stop "holding on tightly" to your "misconceptions"?


----------



## napkineater (Mar 26, 2013)

reckful said:


> Six years later and somebody thinks it makes sense to revive this simulatedworld horseshit.
> 
> Sad.
> 
> ...


It's pretty obvious you haven't read/understood this article if this is what you think it's about.

Will never, ever understand the insane amount of aggression and controversy around this topic.

I already _have_ challenged myself on this and came a long way from reading shitty online sources.


----------



## Yu Narukami (Jan 14, 2016)

simulatedworld said:


> Since this is all just an arbitrary labeling system in the first place, asking for "proof" of your Jungian type is like asking for "proof" that Led Zeppelin was a rock band


I found this hilarious but I can't figure out why. It's slightly bothersome


----------



## Morn (Apr 13, 2010)

reckful said:


> simulatedworld says the MBTI is just an "arbitrary labeling system" with no "empirical evidence" behind it — and that's certainly true of large chunks of _his_ MBTI. But it's not true of my MBTI, and it doesn't have to be true of yours, either.
> 
> Are you willing to stop "holding on tightly" to your "misconceptions"?



Which is an absurd point of view. MBTI is not just a labelling system. It is also a model for consciousness based around the cognitive function theory of Jung. Without this conceptual model the labelling does not make any sense. As an example to follow simulatedworld's own metaphor. You first need a concept and theory of music to be able to label Led Zeppelin as a rock band. It is not entirely arbitrary. No labelling system is of any use without an underlying conceptual model. Cognitive functions also as a model do have some verified evidence behind them. Dario Nardi has performed some ECG brain scans which show a strong correlation between brain activity/structure and type. As he discusses in the video below. 







We have also identified in such scans which areas of the brain are associated with the functions. And the J / P divide actually appears to be a left/right brain divide. 









http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type2.html








However we are still overlooking one of the original posters main points. Which is that cognitive functions are a preference and attitude to perception. You can not judge them merely by looking at a persons behaviour. It is extremely difficult to determine a persons thinking and motives simply by observing their external behaviour.


----------



## napkineater (Mar 26, 2013)

Morn said:


> Which is an absurd point of view. MBTI is not just a labelling system. It is also a model for consciousness based around the cognitive function theory of Jung. Without this conceptual model the labelling does not make any sense. As an example to follow simulatedworld's own metaphor. You first need a concept and theory of music to be able to label Led Zeppelin as a rock band. It is not entirely arbitrary. No labelling system is of any use without an underlying conceptual model. Cognitive functions also as a model do have some verified evidence behind them. Dario Nardi has performed some ECG brain scans which show a strong correlation between brain activity/structure and type. As he discusses in the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He's suggesting Carl Jung's theories (or JCF -- Jungian Cognitive Functions) in place of MBTI, which is a quiz. He's criticising the quiz, not MBTI. I've read the MBTI manual and see a lot of value in it. But the way people treat it like a career test or pop psychology devolves the information that came from one of those most important psychologists of all time.


----------

