# Ne-Si and Ni-Se



## Jmm124567 (May 20, 2014)

I have read that where there is Ne there has to be Si and where there is Ni there has to be Se. Can somebody explain to me why this is.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Whatever your Dom function is, your inferior will be the opposite.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

You can't have two extroverted perception functions, or two introverted perception functions.
You need an introverted one *and* an extroverted one to operate.

So there are two possibilities : Ne/Si and Ni/Se


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

westlose said:


> You can't have two extroverted perception functions, or two introverted perception functions.
> You need an introverted one *and* an extroverted one to operate.
> 
> So there are two possibilities : Ne/Si and Ni/Se


Not only that, but the mixture makes sense...

You perceive the external world concretely, but the connections between things abstractly, or you perceive the external world abstractly, but the connections between things concretely.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

westlose said:


> You can't have two extroverted perception functions, or two introverted perception functions.
> You need an introverted one *and* an extroverted one to operate.
> 
> So there are two possibilities : Ne/Si and Ni/Se





ferroequinologist said:


> Not only that, but the mixture makes sense...
> 
> You perceive the external world concretely, but the connections between things abstractly, or you perceive the external world abstractly, but the connections between things concretely.


What..no. How?


----------



## Jmm124567 (May 20, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> Not only that, but the mixture makes sense...
> 
> You perceive the external world concretely, but the connections between things abstractly, or you perceive the external world abstractly, but the connections between things concretely.


So do Ne and Si work together?


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

WT_Neptune said:


> Whatever your Dom function is, your inferior will be the opposite.


So what happens when your function stack "fails" to align with your type's "model" stack? For example, I claim Fi-Ne-Ti-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se (and I test as Fi-Ti-Ne-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se hno: ) which puts my dom-inferior pair as Fi-Si ...or does it?

I suspect some would answer that this makes me an unhealthy INFP. I suspect I was in fact unhealthy when I was younger, when a Fi-Ti loop (or would that be some sort of "supergrip"?) seems to have been likely. But these days, Fi-Ne-Ti get along swimmingly, and -Si-Te can tag along too if they play nice. :tongue:

Of course, all eight are "there," and I'm not worried. But I would be interested in the conclusions, however preliminary, of anyone who subscribes to both the archtypes and the validity of "atypical" stacks, and has studied both areas in an attempt to reconcile them.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Jmm124567 said:


> So do Ne and Si work together?


Thatwas the second one--seeing the concrete world abstractly (Ne) but connections concretely (Si).


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Verity3 said:


> So what happens when your function stack "fails" to align with your type's "model" stack? For example, I claim Fi-Ne-Ti-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se (and I test as Fi-Ti-Ne-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se hno: ) which puts my dom-inferior pair as Fi-Si ...or does it?
> 
> I suspect some would answer that this makes me an unhealthy INFP. I suspect I was in fact unhealthy when I was younger, when a Fi-Ti loop (or would that be some sort of "supergrip"?) seems to have been likely. But these days, Fi-Ne-Ti get along swimmingly, and -Si-Te can tag along too if they play nice. :tongue:
> 
> Of course, all eight are "there," and I'm not worried. But I would be interested in the conclusions, however preliminary, of anyone who subscribes to both the archtypes and the validity of "atypical" stacks, and has studied both areas in an attempt to reconcile them.



That's just a multiple choice online test you get that from. Understanding the functions is much deeper than that. I would wager that most people who tested something on those tests are something else actually.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Jmm124567 said:


> So do Ne and Si work together?


Yes , the INTP, INFP, ESFJ, and ESTJ are examples of Ne-Si working together. In these types those functions are not dominant but they are not inferior or repressed either. The INTP for example has Ne as secondary and Si as a third function which means they tend to work together to give the INTP a concrete picture that allows for possibilities. The ESTJ has a pretty good sense of detail but can also see possibilities and alternative methods which may be viable.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Bugs said:


> That's just a multiple choice online test you get that from. Understanding the functions is much deeper than that. I would wager that most people who tested something on those tests are something else actually.


So you believe what's-his-name (help me out, @reckful ?) got the "model" stacks right for each type, and every person (or every healthy person) is one of those, and the CF tests are wrong for most people?


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Verity3 said:


> So what happens when your function stack "fails" to align with your type's "model" stack? For example, I claim Fi-Ne-Ti-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se (and I test as Fi-Ti-Ne-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se hno: ) which puts my dom-inferior pair as Fi-Si ...or does it?
> 
> I suspect some would answer that this makes me an unhealthy INFP. I suspect I was in fact unhealthy when I was younger, when a Fi-Ti loop (or would that be some sort of "supergrip"?) seems to have been likely. But these days, Fi-Ne-Ti get along swimmingly, and -Si-Te can tag along too if they play nice. :tongue:
> 
> Of course, all eight are "there," and I'm not worried. But I would be interested in the conclusions, however preliminary, of anyone who subscribes to both the archtypes and the validity of "atypical" stacks, and has studied both areas in an attempt to reconcile them.


Don't put stock in tests. Also, the loop business seems really weak as a theory. I would not put stock in that either.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

WT_Neptune said:


> Don't put stock in tests. Also, the loop business seems really weak as a theory. I would not put stock in that either.


Holdin' on loosely to many competing ideas at the moment. I only wish I had more hands!


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Verity3 said:


> Holdin' on loosely to many competing ideas at the moment. I only wish I had more hands!


Explain. These models don't really deviate due to the nature of them. They stack that way because they have to for things to make sense. It is like that jar metaphor people use for using your time wisely. The big rocks go in first, then the little rocks, then the sand. If the sand were to be put in first, the jar would not be correctly filled. Imagine your Dom to be the big rocks and the sand to be the inferior.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Verity3 said:


> So you believe what's-his-name (help me out, @reckful ?) got the "model" stacks right for each type, and every person (or every healthy person) is one of those, and the CF tests are wrong for most people?


I'm not saying that they are outright wrong. They may be right but how would you know without really understanding the functions and how they apply to you? You might know but then again you might just accept the test results without really understanding Jungian typology. 

I found a pretty good description for INFP. Tell me if this describes you accurately. 

_Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what's going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others. 
_


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Bugs said:


> I'm not saying that they are outright wrong. They may be right but how would you know without really understanding the functions and how they apply to you? You might know but then again you might just accept the test results without really understanding Jungian typology.


I don't know. I have a good feeling about Fi-Ne-Ti because I picked them out of a list of descriptions without referring back to my test results. I think the test I took overemphasizes thinking, or minimizes intuition, or both somehow. But I don't have a deep understanding of the functions, because I've been studying them for only a little over a month. That's why I asked for opinions from those who have studied it more. I appreciate your perspective as someone who emphasizes the model stacks, but if there were anyone out there who might have managed to harmonize the models + archtypes with divergent stacks somehow ...well, that would be downright fascinating to me 



Bugs said:


> I found a pretty good description for INFP. Tell me if this describes you accurately.
> 
> _Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what's going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others.
> _


That's me, all right. Or at least, that's how I believe myself to be.



WT_Neptune said:


> Explain. These models don't really deviate due to the nature of them.


Unless. They. DO.



WT_Neptune said:


> They stack that way because they have to for things to make sense. It is like that jar metaphor people use for using your time wisely. The big rocks go in first, then the little rocks, then the sand. If the sand were to be put in first, the jar would not be correctly filled. Imagine your Dom to be the big rocks and the sand to be the inferior.


Maybe things aren't supposed to make as much sense as you expect. Maybe people are even more complicated than sixteen little boxes, or two-hundred-odd boxes, will allow. Maybe they're not, but maybe. (Highly complex order is not chaos. It's just very, very, VERY complicated.)


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

I'm not sure how to get around these Fi and Ne components to tell you that you are wrong here.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Verity3 said:


> I don't know. I have a good feeling about Fi-Ne-Ti because I picked them out of a list of descriptions without referring back to my test results. I think the test I took overemphasizes thinking, or minimizes intuition, or both somehow. But I don't have a deep understanding of the functions, because I've been studying them for only a little over a month. That's why I asked for opinions from those who have studied it more. I appreciate your perspective as someone who emphasizes the model stacks, but if there were anyone out there who might have managed to harmonize the models + archtypes with divergent stacks somehow ...well, that would be downright fascinating to me


Well it's fantastic you're looking for more perspectives :happy: , but what do you know about Fi and how it relates to your other functions? If someone said , you know , actually I think you are an ISFP how would you describe yourself as an INFP? 




> That's me, all right. Or at least, that's how I believe myself to be.


I feel guilty because I wasn't honest about the description. _That's actually a description of an ISFP_. The point of that slight of hand was to show that these online descriptions really do not say much and that anyone can psychologically convince themselves that a general description applies to them just like the horoscope . This is why understanding the real essence of Jungian typology is so important if this type of psychology interests you.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Bugs said:


> Well it's fantastic you're looking for more perspectives :happy: , but what do you know about Fi and how it relates to your other functions? If someone said , you know , actually I think you are an ISFP how would you describe yourself as an INFP?


I'd say no, ISFPs are awesome at immersing themselves in the physical world and letting their Se inform their Fi. Whereas I value the world of ideas and just need to give myself permission to let my imagination run wild.



Bugs said:


> I feel guilty


No you don't, you king of troll! :tongue:



Bugs said:


> because I wasn't honest about the description. _That's actually a description of an ISFP_. The point of that slight of hand was to show that these online descriptions really do not say much and that anyone can psychologically convince themselves that a general description applies to them just like the horoscope . This is why understanding the real essence of Jungian typology is so important if this type of psychology interests you.


Well, at least you didn't try to make me pick between INFP and INTP. Because if I do then either everyone who tells me I'm overthinking things is right, or MY WHOLE WORLD IS A LIE.

But... but I don't want to follow Jung's personal train of thought via his obtuse writing style until I'm more convinced he had it right, and such an endeavor would be worthy of my focus. Because I heard a rumor he pissed himself up a lot, and I have a really good feeling about that.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Verity3 said:


> So you believe what's-his-name (help me out, @reckful ?) got the "model" stacks right for each type, and every person (or every healthy person) is one of those, and the CF tests are wrong for most people?


Harold Grant was the deep thinker who came up with the famous stack that says INTJs and INTPs have _no functions in common_ and INTJs and ESFPs have _the same four functions_, and his inspiring model has been carried on by shining lights like Linda Berens, not to mention an army of bamboozled internet forumites.

That stack has no respectable body of supporting evidence behind it, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

As further explained in this long post, Jung's function stacks for an Ni-dom with a T-aux and a Ti-dom with an N-aux were Ni-Ti-Fe-Se and Ti-Ni-Se-Fe, respectively. And Myers' stacks for those two were Ni-Te-Fe-Se and Ti-Ne-Se-Fe.

The idea that, if Ne (for example) is one of your top four functions, then Si must also be one of your top four functions, because Ne and Si somehow necessarily work together "in tandem" has no real basis in Jung or Myers, not to mention no other respectable reason to subscribe to it.

It's true that Jung and Myers both said that an Ne-dom would have Si as their inferior function. But to both Jung and Myers, your inferior function typically manifested in a problematic way that made it more like the _opposite_ of that same function in the dominant role.

For example, Jung said that, whereas Ne-doms have a knack for sniffing out the latest trends and the ways things could be changed for the better, the inferior Ne of Si-doms tends to exhibit "an amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background" and has "a dangerous and destructive quality" — with the result that Ne-doms tend to embrace/cause change, while Si-doms tend to fear/resist change.

Similarly, in describing the ways inferior Fi tended to manifest in a Te-dom, Jung described several examples of _unethical behavior_ and commented that "only an inferior feeling function, operating unconsciously and in secret, could seduce otherwise reputable men into such aberrations." He said a Te-dom's inferior feelings tend to have "a sultry and resentful character," and to lead the Te-dom to "make negative assumptions about other people."

Describing Fe-doms, Jung said that their inferior thinking tends to be "infantile, archaic [and] negative," and to take the form of "obsessive ideas which are invariably of a negative and depreciatory character," noting that "women of this type have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten on the very objects most valued by their feelings."

Myers tended to talk about inferior functions in more dichotomous terms — e.g., with N's tending to view/experience S in negative terms. But the second edition of the MBTI Manual (which she co-authored) noted that the types with either form of N as their inferior function — the "ISJ and ESP types" — are prone to view "possibilities" in overly negative terms, and urged MBTI counselors to help them "develop strategies to counteract the 'black cloud effect.'"

So, unlike internet forumites who've put their faith in bad type sources — did I mention Linda Berens already? — and think that Si-doms and Ne-doms actually have substantial aspects of personality in common onnaccounta they're both "Si-Ne types," Jung and Myers were both inclined to view Si-doms and Ne-doms as pretty much just _opposites_.

And as far as the auxiliary and tertiary functions go: Again, Myers didn't believe someone's tertiary function was the opposite of their auxiliary (e.g., her INTJ stack was Ni-Te-Fe-Se). Jung thought the auxiliary and tertiary would be opposites in the typical case (e.g., Ti-Ni-Se-Fe), but he also thought that it was typical for the tertiary function (1) to be predominantly unconscious, (2) to be "undifferentiated" and "fused" with the inferior function, and (3) to basically serve as _the inferior function's auxiliary_. So Jung no more thought that tertiary Si (in the typical case) resembled the positive form of Si in the dominant role — and worked in constructive tandem with an Ne auxiliary function — than he thought an Si inferior worked in constructive tandem with an Ne dominant.

And in any case, setting aside what Jung or Myers thought, the most important thing to realize is that the idea of _tandem-based types_ has no respectable body of empirical support behind it. They've been collecting data and doing studies involving MBTI types for 50 years now, and those data pools consistently show that if whatever's being correlated with your MBTI type is something that's affected by both your S/N and J/P preferences, with the result that the SJs (for example) are at one end of the applicable spectrum, you know where you can reliably expect to find the NPs? That's right! At the opposite end of the spectrum.

If SJs and NPs have substantial aspects of personality in common onnaccounta they're both "Si/Ne types," then there ought to be MBTI data pools where those aspects of personality are the main ones that influence whatever's being correlated with type, with the result that the SJs and NPs are together on one side of the correlational divide and the SPs and NJs (the "Se/Ni types") are on the other side. But alas for Harold Grant and Linda Berens, that pattern somehow never seems to show up.

And reckful is here to tell you that the reason that pattern virtually never shows up is that the idea of "tandem functions," and the corresponding Harold Grant function stack, both lack "validity" — to characterize them in psychometric terms. Or in lay terms: _they're both horseshit_.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

Most people who did ok in high school go to university,at least here.Many sensors there.
But of course,some universities are more likely to attract people of certain types,for example mine was imo very xxFP (I quit XD)
It's not about intelligence,it's about interests


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

We did the MBTI in my Honors program, and a lot of the kids there tested as Intuitives. I think over half, honestly (like ESFJs and ESTJs had very low numbers.) But 1. I'm not sure if the test gave accurate results and 2. It was the honors program, naturally we were going to have more intuitives than the general population on campus.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

alittlebear said:


> We did the MBTI in my Honors program, and a lot of the kids there tested as Intuitives. I think over half, honestly (like ESFJs and ESTJs had very low numbers.) But 1. I'm not sure if the test gave accurate results and 2. It was the honors program, naturally we were going to have more intuitives than the general population on campus.


The test most likely didn't give accurate results because the intuitive traits typically have positive associations on the tests (like "creative" "imaginative" "abstract" etc.) I feel like at least 75% of the population tests as intuitive, if you're basing it on one test they take.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

JTHearts said:


> The test most likely didn't give accurate results because the intuitive traits typically have positive associations on the tests (like "creative" "imaginative" "abstract" etc.) I feel like at least 75% of the population tests as intuitive, if you're basing it on one test they take.


I can see where you're coming from - and I agree that the tests give misleading results, often because of the positive association with intuition (but also with other traits - the judges seemed too perfect for me, as well as too... judgey, so I usually test as a perceiver) but I also disagree that 75% of the population tests as intuitive. I may be incorrect, but I do believe results from the actual MBTI test - which is the one my class took - are where these statistics with an overwhelming sensing majority are derived.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

JTHearts said:


> The test most likely didn't give accurate results because the intuitive traits typically have positive associations on the tests (like "creative" "imaginative" "abstract" etc.) I feel like at least 75% of the population tests as intuitive, if you're basing it on one test they take.


I agree,S answers are very unappealing,especially to young people,unless they are Se oriented.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

Living dead said:


> I agree,S answers are very unappealing,especially to young people,unless they are Se oriented.


Yes! Like my dad - an ESTP - finds the intuitive answers just stupid... But then again, I know so many girls who tested as SJs and feel it fits... and they chose sensing answers... So yes the test does give more people intuition than it should, but it also does sort some people out properly.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

reckful said:


> So there's no misunderstanding, and as Myers (and the 1985 MBTI Manual, which she co-authored) emphasized, there are noteworthy personality characteristics associated with each of the 24 possible two-letter preference combinations. Which preferences and/or preference combinations end up at one end or the other (or one side or the other) of the relevant correlational spectrum all depends on what aspects of personality any particular study is focusing on.
> 
> Your post refers to "the spectrum" with TJs at one end and FPs at the other, and that particular configuration would only be the one you'd expect to see if whatever particular thing you were correlating with the types was one where the T/F and J/P dimensions were the most influential ones, and T and J pulled in the same direction (and accordingly, F and P pulled in the opposite direction). In a case like that, you'd expect to find the FJ types and the TP types somewhere in between. If the J/P dimension was a significantly stronger factor than the T/F dimension, you'd expect a spectrum that looked like FP-TP-FJ-TJ; and if the T/F dimension was a significantly stronger factor than the J/P dimension, you'd expect a spectrum that looked like FP-FJ-TP-TJ.
> 
> ...


Thank you.

I see, so statistics determine that TJ is always opposite to FP, regardless of the slight favouring of the F/T or P/J dimension that distribute the rest.

And this suggests that the current stacking of the functions is not valid because TJs should not be opposite to FPs but should fall onto the same side opposing FJs and TPs.

To me this suggests the four function modes is incorrect. That is INTJs only use Ni-Te-Fi-Se and ESFPs only use Se-Fi-Te-Ni does not fit with the statistical evidence as they are always complete opposites. If this model were correct the assumption would hold that these two types would have more in common with each other than types who use Ti, Fe, Si, Ne.

Could this then suggest that the function stacking is more (using INTJ as an example) Ni-Te-(Ne,Ti,Fe,Si somewhere here)-Fi-Se which would place INTJs as opposite to ESFPs and explain them having something in common with all IN/EN types? Just my speculation.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

JTHearts said:


> Lots of people on this website think that the majority of university students are intuitives.


They are misinformed.

I know an Ne Dom who thought he'd do a trade instead of going to university. Now he's into outdoor recreation as a career prospect. And I also know of an ESFJ in my university classes. University student =/= Intuitive.




There was an interesting article that was suggesting back in the day of my parents that it was predominately intuitives who went to university, and sensors the went to tech schools. The students who took to learning for the sake of learning (often intuitives) were encourage to pursue higher education and so went to uni.

With the change in society to valuing degrees much more, more people from all walks of life are going to uni, including sensors.

The article seems to highlight the struggle sensors may be having in their tertiary education as their professors are often intuitives. The intuitive professors seem to have a self learning expectation and can be quite vague to let the students explore themselves. The sensor students find this confusion because they want to know exactly what they need to learn, or exactly what they are expected to do. They want the details the intuitive professors aren't giving them.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Ksara said:


> I see, so statistics determine that TJ is always opposite to FP, regardless of the slight favouring of the F/T or P/J dimension that distribute the rest.
> 
> And this suggests that the current stacking of the functions is not valid because TJs should not be opposite to FPs but should fall onto the same side opposing FJs and TPs.
> 
> ...


As further explained in the posts I linked to at the end of post 27, I agree with James Reynierse that the cognitive functions are essentially a "category mistake."

Here's how I'd suggest you should think about this:

Virtually all the respectable data/studies point to the conclusion that the actual, at-least-semi-genetic, underlying components of MBTI personality are the four dichotomies, and that personality characteristics that result from (or are influenced by) a combination of two or more of the dichotomies are affected in a simple, additive way.

So, for example...

INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ.

INTP = I + N + T + P + IN + IT + IP + NT + NP + TP + INT + INP + ITP + NTP + INTP.

ESFP = E + S + F + P + ES + EF + EP + SF + SP + FP + ESF + ESP + EFP + SFP + ESFP.

And it follows from that that what I call the Real MBTI Model expects INTJs and INTPs to have a lot of MBTI-related characteristics in common, and INTJs and ESFPs to have _no_ MBTI-related characteristics in common. (For a long discussion of the misguided notion that moving from J to P _flips all your functions_, so that INTJs and INTPs have _no functions in common_, see this post.)

And if you assume that the Real MBTI Model is correct, it means that the the cognitive functions perspective that you most often encounter on internet forums is mistaken in multiple respects.

For one thing, the typical cognitive functions perspective treats a very limited subset of the MBTI preference combinations — e.g., NJ (Ni) and TJ (Ti) for an INTJ — as if they were the fundamental building blocks of personality, while tending to ignore or shortchange the others.

For another, assuming somebody's working with the Harold Grant function stack, they're saying that INTJs, besides tending to have the characteristics that NJs and TJs tend to have in common, also tend to have the characteristics that FPs and SPs tend to have in common (onnaccounta INTJs' "Fi" and "Se") — and that's the issue that my posts in this thread have mostly focused on. That function stack — and its associated "tandems" aspect (where INTJs and ESFPs are both "Ni/Se types" and "Fi/Te types") — has no respectable validity (on top of being inconsistent with Jung and Myers both).

For another, the typical cognitive functions perspective says that, comparing an INTJ and an INTP, the INTJs' N will generally play a greater role in their personality than their T and the INTPs' T will generally play a greater role than their N — because dom/aux! — and that notion, too, has no respectable validity. INTJs and INTPs both have N and T preferences, with all that those entail, and whether the N or the T plays a greater role in any NT's personality will basically depend on whether one of those two preferences is substantially stronger than the other — and the data suggests that the N preference is no more likely to be the stronger one for an INTJ than for an INTP.

And so on.

Now, getting back to the "function stack" question at the end of your post...

The cognitive functions may be a "category mistake," but that doesn't mean that descriptions of, say, "Ne" can't end up having validity 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.

So if somebody's an INFP, and they're looking at function descriptions, and the "Fi" description they're looking at is at least mostly made up of things that FPs (or IFPs) tend to have in common, and the "Ne" description they're looking at is at least mostly made up of things that NPs (or INPs) tend to have in common, then there's every reason to expect they'll relate pretty well to those "Fi" and "Ne" descriptions.

Buuut to the extent that the "Si" description that the INFP is looking at — because tertiary function (per Harold Grant)! — is made up of things that SJs tend to have in common, and if that same INFP looks at it and says, "Huh, yeah, I kind of relate to that, so I guess that's my _tertiary Si_," that's when you should assume they've moved outside the bounds of piggybacked validity and into Foreresque lala land. Because, to beat the dead horse one more time, if there was something more than Forerism involved, then the pattern with NPs and SJs (Si/Ne types!) on one side of the correlational divide and NJs and SPs (Se/Ni types!) on the other would have turned up a respectable number of times in what is now over 50 years of MBTI correlational studies. And it hasn't.

So... assuming you're looking at cognitive function descriptions that are reasonably well designed to match the two MBTI preferences found in people who have them as their dom or aux functions — e.g., SJ for Si, NP for Ne, FJ for Fe, etc. — then the only "function stack" you should expect to really end up working well is the simple, two-function, dom/aux stack. In other words, an INTJ should expect to find that Ni (NJ) descriptions fit them well and Te (TJ) descriptions fit them well, and the rest of the function descriptions fit them either kinda-sorta-halfway — with some help from Mr. Forer — or not at all.

Of course, lots of cognitive function descriptions are not so well designed. Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive function guys (as you probably know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test but, as further discussed in the spoiler in this post, INTJs typically get high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test. They also get high Ni scores _and high Ne scores_ (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne). And INFJs often get Fi scores that are as high or higher than their Fe scores. And so on. But that's really a subject for another thread.

And as a final note, when I say you should expect the simple Ni + Te (NJ + TJ) function combo to "work well" in terms of matching up with an INTJ, please note how grotesquely _incomplete_ an INTJ profile is going to be if it stops at NJ + TJ — since it means the profile is likely to be missing quite a lot of the stuff that's common to all introverts, and all N's, and all T's, and all J's, and all IN's, and all NTs, and so on.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> As further explained in the posts I linked to at the end of post 27, I agree with James Reynierse that the cognitive functions are essentially a "category mistake."
> 
> Here's how I'd suggest you should think about this:
> 
> Virtually all the respectable data/studies point to the conclusion that the actual, at-least-semi-genetic, underlying components of MBTI personality are the four dichotomies, and that personality characteristics that result from (or are influenced by) a combination of two or more of the dichotomies are affected in a simple, additive way.


So, what you are saying is that Myers and Briggs started with Jung's cognitive functions, and then tossed them and went solely with the dichotomies, and are essentially nothing more than another way of going about things like Keirsey--and that functions and orientations have nothing to do with MBTI, the instrument and their descriptions? Is that how MBTI is these days? If so, it seems that they've thrown Jung under the bus--is that because he's not popular? Is it because it seems less scientific? Something seems a bit out of alignment here from what you are saying.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> So, what you are saying is that Myers and Briggs started with Jung's cognitive functions, and then tossed them and went solely with the dichotomies, and are essentially nothing more than another way of going about things like Keirsey--and that functions and orientations have nothing to do with MBTI, the instrument and their descriptions? Is that how MBTI is these days? If so, it seems that they've thrown Jung under the bus--is that because he's not popular? Is it because it seems less scientific? Something seems a bit out of alignment here from what you are saying.


I assume you wouldn't be asking those questions if you'd read those linked posts. And honestly, what sense does it make for me to repeat them all again in this thread? If you're not willing to read them by following the links, why would you read them here?

Here's an alternative piece of recycled reckful for you (from this post):

Jung was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the _science_ of personality. Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she'd gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the end of the 1950s (as McCrae and Costa have acknowledged), she had a typology (and an instrument) that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that _identical twins raised in separate households_ are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to _real_, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

Again, McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and they've studied both Jung and the MBTI. In the same article I linked to at the top of this post, they noted — correctly — that Jung's typology erred in lumping various psychological characteristics together that decades of studies have shown _are not significantly correlated_. By contrast, after Myers was finished adjusting Jung's system to fit the data, she had a modified version whose dichotomies passed muster by the relevant scientific standards. As McCrae and Costa explain:



McCrae & Costa said:


> Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...
> 
> Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices.


As further discussed in this post and this post and (especially) the posts linked to in that second post, Jung included what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) in his very broad notion of what E/I involved. But Myers discovered that there are abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and that there's _no significant correlation_ between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N. Jung said extraverts tend to subscribe to the mainstream cultural views of their time, while introverts tend to reject mainstream values in favor of their own individualistic choices. But Myers discovered that a typical ISTJ is significantly more likely to be a traditionalist than a typical (more independent-minded) ENTP. Jung said an extravert likes change and "discovers himself in the fluctuating and changeable," while an introvert resists change and identifies with the "changeless and eternal." But Myers discovered that it was the S/N and J/P dimensions that primarily influenced someone's attitude toward change, rather than whether they were introverted or extraverted.

And so on. The appropriate way to view the Myers-Briggs typology is _not_ as some kind of simplified (and more "testable") implementation of Jung's original typology. Instead, it's fairer to say that the Myers-Briggs typology is basically where Jung's typology ended up after it was very substantially modified — not to mention _expanded_ — to fit the evidence.​
If that's "throwing Jung under the bus," you have a very different idea than I do of what it means to throw somebody under the bus.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them.

Here's the second-to-last paragraph of that long, linked INTJforum post that I assume you haven't read:

The more I reread Psychological Types, the more I appreciate the extent to which getting from Jung to the Myers-Briggs typology involved substantial adjustments and additions. I think the formidable job Briggs and Myers did in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff and modifying and supplementing Jung's theory is grotesquely underappreciated by many internet forumites. Myers may not have been as smart as Jung, and she may not have had a psychology degree, but she and her mother had the benefit of standing on Jung's shoulders, and Myers then spent many years, as a labor of love, designing and refining her test instrument and gathering data from thousands of subjects, leading her to conclude — among other things — that the four dichotomies (as she conceived them), and not the functions, were the main event. I think Myers' conceptions of the dichotomies and the types still leave plenty of room for further improvement but, fifty years later, the results of many more studies — and, in particular, the correlation of the MBTI dichotomies with the Big Five — suggest that, in terms of the basics, Myers pretty much got it right. If Jung were still around, I think he'd mostly approve.​


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

reckful said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> So if somebody's an INFP, and they're looking at function descriptions, and the "Fi" description they're looking at is at least mostly made up of things that FPs (or IFPs) tend to have in common, and the "Ne" description they're looking at is at least mostly made up of things that NPs (or INPs) tend to have in common, then there's every reason to expect they'll relate pretty well to those "Fi" and "Ne" descriptions.


This is what I needed you to say.

You don't disagree with what the cognitive functions _mean_. We just prefer different names for them.

You prefer "NFP" as opposed to "Ne/Fi." Which is fine. They're the exact same thing in result. They just have different names. (I would argue that the former is a lot easier to learn and remember !)

What we disagree on is that those who share "axes" have to self-report that they prefer similar things to other people on the axis.

You think that they do. I think that they don't. And would be shocked if they did.

So it's clear to me that we had equal and opposite understandings of the repercussions of the functional axis model.

You thought that people inferior in Ne had to have fundamental personality traits in common with people inferior Si. And you based your way-too-long posts off this false* assumption. (I think anyone who has ever MET an INFP would see that their "Si" is very different from an ISTJ's Si.) <-- and I agree with you that that is an overly-complicated aspect to the functions. And one might even call that a "failure" since there is a lot easier way to explain it. (FP vs TJ, being just one of many ways). And I would agree with that person. It is a *category *mistake, as you said.

If you want to think of the types as just the subcategories (TJ, STJ, NT, blah blah blah) then I think that's great and actually very useful and beneficial. It in no way discounts the cognitive functions because the cognitive functions are simply ways to explain these subcategories. (TJ being the exact same thing as "Te" as it manifests in dom and aux Te users)

"NP" simply being explained by the function "Ne."


*I still maintain that Michael Pierce never makes those claims that you claim that he claims. (Dr. Seuss, anyone?). He _does _use the axis model, yes. But It's very self-evident that the "functions" (let's use Si as example) manifest in different ways in different types. It's very self-evident that INFPs "use" Si differently than ISTJs "use" Si. One could chock this up to fundamental differences between "TJ" and "FP," and they'd be right. That is consistent with the functions. Because TJs obviously prefer different functions to FPs. Actually, the functional model explains perfectly why TJs are so different from FPs--one is inferior in the other's functions, and vice versa.


I think what you're advocating is a reform in the way that we think about the labeling of these 16 types. You find the cognitive function explanation rife with incorrect interpretations and assumptions and false assumptions about the repercussions.

I agree with you. The cognitive functions are overly-complicated. There is a way easier way to explain the exact same characteristics--simply refer to them as NP, TJ, NTJ, SFP, whatever. Exact same thing. Much more simplistic to understand. Leads to much less confusion and misinterpretation.

Am I understanding you? I think we agree completely.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@emberfly - If it's "very self-evident that INFPs "use" Si differently than ISTJs "use" Si", then what reason is there to suppose we're dealing with the same thing, such that both of them warrant being called "Si"?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> @emberfly - If it's "very self-evident that INFPs "use" Si differently than ISTJs "use" Si", then what reason is there to suppose we're dealing with the same thing, such that both of them warrant being called "Si"?


Because they're both introverted sensation?

Fi interacts with introverted sensation differently than Te interacts with introverted sensation. So they present themselves differently.

But they are both introverted sensation. (duh).


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

emberfly said:


> Because they're both introverted sensation?
> 
> Fi interacts with introverted sensation differently than Te interacts with introverted sensation. So they present themselves differently.
> 
> But they are both introverted sensation. (duh).


I don't doubt that something might present itself differently when the same thing is part of two different wholes. But for us to say something is the same thing as some other thing, there has to be an identity beyond the mere assertion: saying "they are both introverted sensation" is begging the question, telling me Si is Si, not telling me what reason there is to suppose an ISTJ and an INFP share some identical element that happens to manifest differently in them both. Saying that ISTJs and INFPs share Si, which is introverted sensation, is all well and good, but it doesn't have any meaning: Si means nothing if it doesn't connote anything, it's an empty construct. It would be akin to my asserting that ISFPs, ENTPs and ISTJs, and only those three types, all share some mythical X, that happens to manifest differently in all of them since Fi/Se, Ne/Ti and Si/Te all interact with it differently, but is nevertheless the same X: for that X to be the same X across all of them, the construct must have an actual meaning. 

So that's what I'm asking - when you say ISTJs and INFPs share some thing called Si, you are asserting some similarity between the two types, else you are not actually asserting the presence of the same thing in both types at all. However this might manifest differently, for the notion that the two types share this conceptual object we call "Si"/"introverted sensation" to have any validity, the essence of this similarity needs to be identified, so _what is the essence of the similarity_?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> I don't doubt that something might present itself differently when the same thing is part of two different wholes. But for us to say something is the same thing as some other thing, there has to be an identity beyond the mere assertion: saying "they are both introverted sensation" is begging the question, telling me Si is Si, not telling me what reason there is to suppose an ISTJ and an INFP share some identical element that happens to manifest differently in them both. Saying that ISTJs and INFPs share Si, which is introverted sensation, is all well and good, but it doesn't have any meaning: Si means nothing if it doesn't connote anything, it's an empty construct. It would be akin to my asserting that ISFPs, ENTPs and ISTJs, and only those three types, all share some mythical X, that happens to manifest differently in all of them since Fi/Se, Ne/Ti and Si/Te all interact with it differently, but is nevertheless the same X: for that X to be the same X across all of them, the construct must have an actual meaning.


Yes. 



> So that's what I'm asking - when you say ISTJs and INFPs share some thing called Si, you are asserting some similarity between the two types, else you are not actually asserting the presence of the same thing in both types at all. However this might manifest differently, for the notion that the two types share this conceptual object we call "Si"/"introverted sensation" to have any validity, the essence of this similarity needs to be identified, so _what is the essence of the similarity_?


A subjective way of perceiving literal/concrete/sensory/whateveryouwanttocallit information.

You might like this video:

* *


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

emberfly said:


> Yes.
> 
> A subjective way of perceiving literal/concrete/sensory/whateveryouwanttocallit information.
> 
> ...


So, given the model you're working with, there are now only four possible combinations of function-attitudes, each with four possible permutations. That's a very strict and very rigid divide: you are claiming that, for every person who subjectively perceives concrete information, he/she must perceive abstract information in an objective way; for a person to perceive both types of information subjectively or objectively is not a possible option. Likewise with the judging functions, and their different attitudes. So how is this claim substantiated? On what basis are possibilities such as perceiving all information subjectively, or being inclined towards deductive reasoning but also adhering to internally-derived values, excluded? Basically, why these presumptions? Indeed, what reason is there to assume that types must perceive concrete information in either an always subjective or an always objective fashion - why can't they do both? All these seem like arbitrary limitations, restrictions on a theory of how people's personalities can be that lack any justification: have you any means of substantiating such limitations?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> So, given the model you're working with, there are now only four possible combinations of function-attitudes, each with four possible permutations. That's a very strict and very rigid divide: you are claiming that, for every person who subjectively perceives concrete information, he/she must perceive abstract information in an objective way; for a person to perceive both types of information subjectively or objectively is not a possible option. Likewise with the judging functions, and their different attitudes. So how is this claim substantiated? On what basis are possibilities such as perceiving all information subjectively, or being inclined towards deductive reasoning but also adhering to internally-derived values, excluded? Basically, why these presumptions? Indeed, what reason is there to assume that types must perceive concrete information in either an always subjective or an always objective fashion - why can't they do both? All these seem like arbitrary limitations, restrictions on a theory of how people's personalities can be that lack any justification: have you any means of substantiating such limitations?


I don't know what you're talking about. I never said any of the things to which you're objecting.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

emberfly said:


> I don't know what you're talking about. I never said any of the things to which you're objecting.


How does your claim differ, then, from that which, in my last post, I aimed to rebut? You appear to be endorsing the XYXY model - claiming INFPs having tertiary Si is evidence for that. You define the essence of Si - by which is meant, that which is shared by both ISTJs and INFPs - as the subjective perception of concrete information. It follows, if we take that description and the video you linked to and extrapolate your position from that, that you subscribe to the view that Si is subjective perception of concrete information, that Ne is objective perception of abstract information, that Si and Ne are always found in the same stack as each other, and that each type either has both functions or neither. That conclusion is one of the notions questioned in my previous post, and the others further depend on extrapolations from what you've presented, including the Michael Pierce video. It is of course possible that you don't subscribe to the view that the video is directly accurate, or perhaps you don't subscribe to the XYXY function stack, or whatever. If so, please make clear the argument you're running so that it can be properly analysed; at present, your brusque responses are making it tremendously difficult to actually determine what it is you're even claiming.


----------



## Retrospective (May 4, 2014)

emberfly said:


> Because they're both introverted sensation?
> 
> Fi interacts with introverted sensation differently than Te interacts with introverted sensation. So they present themselves differently.
> 
> But they are both introverted sensation. (duh).



The Te is strong in this one. :tongue:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

emberfly said:


> Well, you identify as an INTJ, right? What do you think the stack is?
> 
> I personally cannot identify well with Fe. At least not in a healthy sense. I can definitely be unhealthy Fe if I want to be.*
> 
> ...


*Nardi's findings and comments about age (INFJ's) don't surprise me at all.* The connections you make in your brain build up over time. A preference is still a preference but you brain wiring literally changes with use. You don't change your personality but you use more interconnectedness of your brain - living life makes those connections. -Also I've seen INFJ's worry about what they look like or what their apartment looks like, almost to the point of snooty or uptight - I'ts just that it stems from Fe, but can be carried out by Se and Ti.

You still have triggers or approaches and habits, but you also have more skills and adaptability. When you get older you appreciate alternate routes and compromises. As long as your first two functions get basic needs met you are satisfied; you have more methods to that end - as you get older.

I'll bet some people are 70 and still clearly using the first two functions primarily. This doesn't mean they are functioning better or worse than someone else, in their particular life context. You could say they are less self aware or whatnot - but maybe they have a smooth life that suits them. 

The stack concept makes logical sense to me - a nice neat package that explains a lot of real life communication.

If you lead with Ne you cannot be oblivious to the opposite of Ne a tension exists, a spectrum, or a contrast.

If you lead with Te, you have to contrast or balance Te with some internal contrasting value, or what would be the point? - you would be reacting for survival and not much more.

If you live inside your own thoughts - you learn the benefit or danger of gaining another's perspective - to collaborate or negotiate.

At first I thought Beebe was overkill, but I even see some use for his ideas, in some ways, for some people.

*The Clustering though*, may not work because people have strength of preference within their type - example I am not strongly PE - near the edge on those qualities and much less concerned about being liked than some ENTP's. 

For some who call themselves ENTP - they socialize through their brain. For me, social skills facilitate inventive and productive and exploring, broadening of horizons. Knowing more people means living in a bigger mental world of more opportunities and less specialization on details. Being liked is more means than desired outcome, but I must be extroverted - when I notice how introverts operate. I watch people, and "get" what they must be thinking from body language, I think about where the direction of a group is going, even if I don't need people around me as much as some.
And I can tell I don't do Fi when I am around people who ARE Fi.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_emberfly_ loved the video - just had an epiphany moment.

DISC profile is what the video guy is seeing.

What he calls royalty - D - Dominant personality on the disk profile (INTJ, ENTJ, ISFP, ESFP)

Philosophers - I - the influencer: (INTP, ENTP, ESFJ, ISFJ)

Steadfast type he calls free spirits - I think he is looking for a nice word for stubborn? but it fits high S (disk description):
(ISTJ, ESTJ, ENFP, INFP) This might fall down a little here because we can think of ENFP's as moody flakes, but there has been something going around about how they end up making good money statisticaly speaking? so - maybe they have High S? Same with INFP they can seem high maintenance but also big on loyalty.

And this group yes, definitely the High C types. Some Disk tests call this compliant and others conscientious:
(INFJ, ENFJ, ISTP, ESTP) We might think of high C as "neat freak" but "fussy" can be about different things. INTJ's seem high C but think about the death stare - it is about not making a mistake so as to maintain control or a sense of superiority. The INFJ is defined by an external standard - where the ENTP acknowledges the external standard and questions it or uses it for his own purpose.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@reckful

Woke up with this on my mind. I apologies if I am repeating myself.

You are making me aware of is that there is a lot of statistical data that suggests a particular preferences on the I/E N/S T/F and P/J scale correlate to particular values/interests/career choices/etc. The statistics always show TJs on the opposite side to the FPs etc. yet never grouping TJs and FPs.

Have I got your argument right? That is, the function axes are not valid because TJ and FP similarities would show up in the statistical data as they have the same cognitive functions. What does show up is types with completely different cognitive functions, e.g. INTJ and INTP, have more in common than types that supposedly share the same functions, E.g. INTJ and ESFP.

My question, does the evidence invalidate the function axis or is it highligting a lack of attention to what different functions have in common?

Both Ti and Te are thinking functions and so evaluate objectively, both Fe and Te are extroverted judging functions and so extrovert their judgment. The only thing Te shares with Fi is that they fall under the umbrella of judgment functions, otherwise they have nothing in common. Te is opposite to Fi, and statistical data seems to show this.
Is there anything wrong with this?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Ksara said:


> @reckful
> 
> Woke up with this on my mind. I apologies if I am repeating myself.
> 
> ...


As I noted in my last reply to you, and as James Reynierse points out in "The Case Against Type Dynamics," virtually all the respectable data/studies point to the conclusion that the actual, at-least-semi-genetic, underlying components of MBTI personality are the four dichotomies, and that personality characteristics that result from (or are influenced by) a combination of two or more of the dichotomies are affected in a simple, additive way.

So what I call the "Real MBTI Model" — partly because, if you ignore the Jungian lip service, it was essentially Isabel Myers's model — looks like this:

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

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

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

Type analysis that's supposedly based on the cognitive functions often "works" — in the sense of matching up reasonably well with the corresponding types — to the extent that it simply overlaps with the Real MBTI Model. So, to repeat the example from my previous post, if somebody's an INFP, and they're looking at function descriptions, and the "Fi" description they're looking at is at least mostly made up of things that FPs (or IFPs) tend to have in common, and the "Ne" description they're looking at is at least mostly made up of things that NPs tend to have in common, then there's every reason to expect they'll relate pretty well to those "Fi" and "Ne" descriptions.

But _on the other hand_, and as Reynierse emphasizes, if what you're talking about is assertions about the types that are based on "cognitive functions" analysis and that are _inconsistent_ with what the Real MBTI Model would lead you to expect, those kinds of assertions have never had any respectable body of data support behind them, and in fact have tended to be _contradicted_ by the results of relevant MBTI studies.

And again, and getting back to the specific topic of this thread, those _inconsistent assertions_ include the idea that an INFP's personality tends to exhibit _both_ "Ne" characteristics (so far, OK) _and_ "Si" characteristics — with the Ne and the Si working together "in tandem."

The Real MBTI Model for INFPs and ESTJs (see above) says that INFPs and ESTJs have _no_ MBTI-related personality characteristics in common, because they're opposites on all four dimensions — and therefore also opposites with respect to all the relevant _preference combinations_ that make contributions to their personality. According to the Real MBTI Model, the INFP is indeed an "Ne" type (to the extent that your "Ne" description is made up of characteristics that NPs tend to have in common) but is _not_ an "Si" type (to the extent that your "Si" description is made up of characteristics that SJs tend to have in common).

By contrast, the cognitive functions model — in its tandem-based incarnation (the Harold Grant function stack) — says that INFPs and ESTJs share quite a bit in the way of MBTI-related personality characteristics because they're both "Si" types, and that the types who tend to _not_ share those personality characteristics are the "Se" types (e.g., ENFJs with "tertiary Se").

You've asked...



Ksara said:


> Have I got your argument right? That is, the function axes are not valid because TJ and FP similarities would show up in the statistical data as they have the same cognitive functions. What does show up is types with completely different cognitive functions, e.g. INTJ and INTP, have more in common than types that supposedly share the same functions, E.g. INTJ and ESFP.


... and if I understand your question correctly, the answer is yes. The reason that the existing MBTI data should essentially be seen as _disproving_ the Harold Grant "tandems" is that, to the extent that those tandems predict correlational patterns that are different from the Real MBTI Model, those tandem-based correlational patterns _virtually never show up_. And in the world of psychometrics, that kind of lack of correlation with a type category is referred to as a lack of "validity."

Continuing with the INFP/ESTJ example: Assuming Se and Si correspond to significant aspects of personality — and if they're used to refer to stuff that SPs and SJs, respectively, have in common, they certainly do — and given that we now have data pools (thousands of them, over 50 years) correlating the MBTI types with a huge variety of things (including countless personality dimensions as measured by other personality typologies), _if_ it was true that SPs _and NJs_ are both "Se types," and that SJs _and NPs_ are both "Si types," you'd expect there would be some significant body of data pools where Se/Si was the most significant MBTI-related influence on whatever the study was looking at, and where, accordingly, the SPs _and NJs_ showed up on one side of the correlational spectrum and the SJs _and NPs_ showed up on the other.

But again, that correlational pattern — like all patterns that are inconsistent with the Real MBTI Model — virtually never shows up. Instead, regardless of what aspect of personality it is that somebody's study may be focusing on, if the SJs show up at one end of the spectrum, look for the NPs to show up _at the other end_ — just as the Real MBTI Model would lead you to expect.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @_emberfly_ loved the video - just had an epiphany moment.
> 
> DISC profile is what the video guy is seeing.
> 
> ...


lol I find it highly unlikely to have a high I INTP. 

https://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc/overview/influence/


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

I believe I understand where you are coming from.
And I think you have highlighted my assumptions I have made that don't line up with this tandem based model(...which is due to not looking into Harold Grants's work...)



reckful said:


> By contrast, the cognitive functions model — in its tandem-based incarnation (the Harold Grant function stack) — says that INFPs and ESTJs share quite a bit in the way of MBTI-related personality characteristics because they're both "Si" types, and that the types who tend to _not_ share those personality characteristics are the "Se" types (e.g., ENFJs with "tertiary Se").


The functions may exist in tandem, but this here^ may not be an accurate conclusion to be drawn from it.

If I assume Fi/Te, Ne/Si, Fe/Ti and Ni/Se always come in pairs to be true.
And from this assume the INFP function order of Fi, Ne, Si, Te, and the same for an ESTJ with a function order of Te, Si, Ne, Fi. To both be true.

It would only be an assumption that the INFP would have something in common with an ESTJ.

Does sharing the same cognitive functions in the complete reversed order = having something in common, and so sharing no functions = nothing in common?
Not necessarily because this has completely disregarded what Fi/Fe, Ne/Ni, Si/Se and Te/Ti as well as Fi/Ti, Ne/Se, Si/Ni and Te/Fe have in common.



Now my assumption here (based on my specualtion and what I have observed...feel free to ignore or correct)

For an INFP I would expect a lot in common with those who favor Fi and Ne over Si and Te.
FPs and NPs.

INFP leads with Fi.
I would expect Fi to have something in common with those who favor Ti because both introvert their judgment.
I would expect Fi to have something in common with those who favor Fe, as they use feelings as their judging criteria.
TPs and FJs

The Second is Ne.
I would expect Ne to have something in common with those who favour Se as both extrovert their perception.
I would expect Ne to have something in common with those who favour Ni as both favor intuition.
SPs and NJs

(hey look at that^ INFJs do have a lot in common with INFPs )

Third is their Si.
Now Ne is preferred over Si, so I would expect less in common with those who favor Si.
Less in common with SJs

And last is Te.
And Fi is highly valued over Te, so I would expect little in common with those who favor Te.
Less in common with TJs

STJs types would have little in common, and as Fi is the dominant function, this would pin ESTJs as having the least in common with INFPs. Yes they may share the same function pairs, however they value the opposite side of these function pairs. Seeing data that suggests this is the case does not surprise me. Though...I could have very well mashed things together to fit my observations and understanding with all this talk of function axes...


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> lol I find it highly unlikely to have a high I INTP.
> 
> https://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc/overview/influence/


You haven't been in conversations of a bunch of techies where the INTP has ideas of how something can be done so much better?

The INTP tries to say why it will be better - with questions or knowledge about why the project is being done. The INTJ wants a perfect method but it is hard to know why his way is perfect - as if the death stare should be enough. With Fi the INTJ won't know what others are hearing, if they follow him or not. -And won't hear what others are saying at all unless they say it in familiar/approved jargon. However nerdy the INTP might be - he still has a better shot at hearing what other people ask or say.
This is the difference between I and D - D says do it my way- period.

also think about INTP teachers and bloggers. Intj's can almost only talk to other INTJ's in that regard. Think about the famouse Ni walls of text without paragraph indentation and punctuation - the difference between I and D.

You might be thinking of Nardi but he presents his findings so his talk is one sided - comes across as more easy going than some INTJ's - maybe Atypical for INTJ.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> You haven't been in conversations of a bunch of techies where the INTP has ideas of how something can be done so much better?
> 
> The INTP tries to say why it will be better - with questions or knowledge about why the project is being done. The INTJ wants a perfect method but it is hard to know why his way is perfect - as if the death stare should be enough. With Fi the INTJ won't know what others are hearing, if they follow him or not. -And won't hear what others are saying at all unless they say it in familiar/approved jargon. However nerdy the INTP might be - he still has a better shot at hearing what other people ask or say.
> This is the difference between I and D - D says do it my way- period.


I work in IT and in an organization that actually uses DiSC typology. I do have an INTP friend who goes on about ideas. He is a high D though and his biggest conflicts at work are with Is. FWIW, I am also a high D. The INTJs that I work with are all high DCs.

A high I is almost the epitome of an extravert. And unlike MBTI, DiSC is based entirely on observable behaviour. High Is are very talkative in general, like to keep it light and informal, talk fast, make big gestures, smile a lot, and maintain eye contact. Are you telling me that an INTP's goals are: victory with flair, friendship and happiness, authority and prestige status symbols, popularity; or characterized as convincing, magnetic, enthusiastic, warm, trusting and optimistic; prioritizes taking action, collaboration, and expressing enthusiasm; is motivated by social recognition, group activities, and relationships?

Is it possible for an INTP to be a high I? For sure! But is it typical? Nope.





> also think about INTP teachers and bloggers. Intj's can almost only talk to other INTJ's in that regard. Think about the famouse Ni walls of text without paragraph indentation and punctuation - the difference between I and D.
> 
> You might be thinking of Nardi but he presents his findings so his talk is one sided - comes across as more easy going than some INTJ's - maybe Atypical for INTJ.


When I think of walls of text, I think of INTPs and to a lesser extent INFPs (well let's just typecast INxx in general ). Lots of data and documentation is very much a high C thing. High I's couldn't care less for the walls of text.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

But @PaladinX I supose I'm blending concepts here a little. The definition you linked to dumps a lot of gregariousness into the distinctions being made. This is my same problem with MBTI testing phase methods. Jung function (types), (in my opinion), hint at or lend to a concept of extroversion existing aside from giddy, party animal, desperation to be liked behavior. 

In theory Ne-Ti, or Ti-Ne has an adaptable open quality. Adaptable, doesn't mean follower. Fe influence is one thing. Ne-Ti and Ti-Ne has a non-judging but still powerful leading (not following) influencer quality. Influencing doesn't mean you don't want to win, or don't believe you have the best solution. Ti, by nature is not looking for absolute "rightness" (absolute pin-point-able reality) the way Ni-Te, Te-Ni is.
This is why I would say INTP, can have strong influence to the point of dominant leadership results - but the style is still influence not dominance.

But you have experience. Was it my wording, or my understanding/application to the real world 
off here?

Walls of text seem to be an Ni thing. INTP's write volumes but they have paragraph breaks - they have some awareness of readers - not pure data streams.

Yes Ni could be called high C BUT some Disk profiles define C as conscientious and some as compliant - because the intended meaning overlaps these words. ? Can you really call an INTJ compliant?

If you only contrast these types with each other - INFJ - compliant, and make sure others comply (or pay for non compliance?). INTP, understand everything and tune the system to perfect alignment with the problem. INTJ - we must be perfect, do everything perfectly, never make a mistake, never encounter an unexpected problem.

I think of myself as a D-I combination and expect that many people of various types would also say this about themselves, Just sayin if you have to pick one. . . . . .


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> But @PaladinX I supose I'm blending concepts here a little. The definition you linked to dumps a lot of gregariousness into the distinctions being made. This is my same problem with MBTI testing phase methods. Jung function (types), (in my opinion), hint at or lend to a concept of extroversion existing aside from giddy, party animal, desperation to be liked behavior.


Again, DiSC is based on observable concrete behaviour. MBTI is theoretical in nature and uses behaviours as potential indicators of a type. Jung's concept of extraversion is not necessarily as far off from the common understanding of it that this community would like to believe. Instead there is too much emphasis placed on specific behaviours like the ones you've mentioned, rather than as a wholistic concept. "Desperation to be liked" is a harshly negative value judgment and it casts a shadow on describing the behaviour as it is.



> In theory Ne-Ti, or Ti-Ne has an adaptable open quality. Adaptable, doesn't mean follower. Fe influence is one thing. Ne-Ti and Ti-Ne has a non-judging but still powerful leading (not following) influencer quality. Influencing doesn't mean you don't want to win, or don't believe you have the best solution. Ti, by nature is not looking for absolute "rightness" (absolute pin-point-able reality) the way Ni-Te, Te-Ni is.
> This is why I would say INTP, can have strong influence to the point of dominant leadership results - but the style is still influence not dominance.
> 
> But you have experience. Was it my wording, or my understanding/application to the real world
> off here?


The problem is that you seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on a few keywords and theorizing from that without considering the whole. This is just how it appears to me anyway. DiSC is also like MBTI and Jung's types in that they are general characteristics. A high D can be very S-like on occasion, but it is not their general tendency.



> Walls of text seem to be an Ni thing. INTP's write volumes but they have paragraph breaks - they have some awareness of readers - not pure data streams.


lol maybe, maybe not. Many INTPs paragraphs are way too long.  It's why I hate looking at philosophy books, even though I find the general ideas intriguing. A single paragraph can go on for multiple pages. :S Or even going to intpforum.com for a while. Massive long posts.



> Yes Ni could be called high C BUT some Disk profiles define C as conscientious and some as compliant - because the intended meaning overlaps these words. ? Can you really call an INTJ compliant?






> If you only contrast these types with each other - INFJ - compliant, and make sure others comply (or pay for non compliance?). INTP, understand everything and tune the system to perfect alignment with the problem. INTJ - we must be perfect, do everything perfectly, never make a mistake, never encounter an unexpected problem.


Not sure where you are getting "compliant" from or why you are placing so much emphasis on just that word. 

C stands for conscientiousness. It is described as "places emphasis on quality and accuracy, expertise, competency" and exhibits behaviours like: "enjoys independence, objective reasoning, wants the details, fears being wrong, etc."

https://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc/overview/conscientiousness/



> I think of myself as a D-I combination and expect that many people of various types would also say this about themselves, Just sayin if you have to pick one. . . . . .


From my understanding, ENTPs are commonly high DI's. It is actually uncommon to be a single type. I suspect that I'm a higher I than I give myself credit for.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

I believe all the tests and descriptions out there (many kinds are somewhat legit) point to something real - but *none* of them have it worded to be universally workable - all have holes, category mistakes. Lumping symptoms together doesn't give us categorical or systemic explanation of what is going on.

Being aware of what is going on outside yourself - directly aware - is a different thing than observing everything through the awareness of your own internal processes. *In today's world this matters more* (provides more understanding and usefulness) than the distinction of how friendly and outgoing you are in a socially active way. - or at least this is the thing I'm puzzling over.

Theories and studies can be showing us something, without us having to adhere to a specific accompanying application or interpretation about what is being observed.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> I believe all the tests and descriptions out there (many kinds are somewhat legit) point to something real - but *none* of them have it worded to be universally workable - all have holes, category mistakes. Lumping symptoms together doesn't give us categorical or systemic explanation of what is going on.
> 
> Being aware of what is going on outside yourself - directly aware - is a different thing than observing everything through the awareness of your own internal processes. *In today's world this matters more* (provides more understanding and usefulness) than the distinction of how friendly and outgoing you are in a socially active way. - or at least this is the thing I'm puzzling over.
> 
> Theories and studies can be showing us something, without us having to adhere to a specific accompanying application or interpretation about what is being observed.


Nothing wrong with questioning the theories. However, if you are going to place so much emphasis on gross mischaracterizations such as extraversion = party animal or high C = compliant follower, you are going to mislead yourself in understanding the nature of what the theory describes.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

___________________________

These groupings don't like, want, and do the same things; they grapple with a central core issue.
Within the groupings the *core issue* solved to a satisfactory level - is *it's own reward* not a means to some other specific. 
___________________________



Maximizing navigational power and opportunity in an admittedly social world. Even if seeking autonomy, this is seen as a social deal to be made. Being right doesn't always win because people are sheep - etc.


* *




INTP, ENTP, ESFJ, ISFJ

managing the tension on a spectrum of Ti/Fe and *Ne/Si

Ne represents freedom and adventure, Si represents a comfort level guarantee, or smooth ride.
*






Weighing choices, commitments, and integrity

* *




INFP, ENFP, ESTJ, ISTJ

managing the tension on a spectrum of Te/FI and *Ne/Si

Ne represents improvement and variety, Si represents duty and continuity

*






Methods and mechanisms

* *




INFJ, ENFJ, ESTP, ISTP

managing the tension on a spectrum of Ti/Fe and *Se/Ni

Se represents immediacy and direct observation, Ni represents consolidation of theory and long term projections

*






Asserting and protecting personal power and identity (against external forces).


* *




ISFP, ESFP, ENTJ, INTJ

managing the tension on a spectrum of Te/Fi and *Se/Ni

Se represents expression of specifics, Ni represents implications, for what is timeless and universal.

*




@PaladinX* , *I made an exaggeration to emphasize a point (prev. post) of the problem of associating extroversion with gregariousness - this being more relevant to pre-information age.
Some of what can be valued as extroversion though not directly sociable in a traditional sense - Te and Ne can matter, make a difference, if I was hiring somebody - for example.


----------



## Korra (Feb 28, 2015)

My mind is fried now. I thought I could be onto something, with these functions... but now, not anymore. Son of a...


----------

