Jack Flak's Function System Adventure

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

It is, and some things are simplified or removed for the sake of "not getting ahead of ourselves."

Hmm...

I have some disagreement, though.

After just getting to know an INTP, you can notice that there's a lot more 'thinking' in them than an ENTP or even an INTJ, even though they spend most of their time 'intuiting.' You may have a point about 'taking time,' but does how much time something takes really decide what's the boss?

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by Haphazard

After just getting to know an INTP, you can notice that there's a lot more 'thinking' in them than an ENTP or even an INTJ, even though they spend most of their time 'intuiting.'

Contemplation isn't necessarily Thinking. Would you define "Introverted Intuition" as something other than contemplation? I wouldn't.

You may have a point about 'taking time,' but does how much time something takes really decide what's the boss?

Well, the preference for effort is what's important in this context. An INTP generally prefers to spend more time understanding something than making a decision. Long periods of Intuition interrupted by short periods of Thinking. The opposite for INTJ.

[Nocap]

Well then I'm an introvert.

But not really.

E and I as per public usage ought to be struck from typology altogether.

It's objective vs. subjective.

Te Thinks using objects. Literally.
The ruler is its preferred metric for analysis.

Ne observes the environment intuitively, merely taking part in what intuitions are already inherent in the objects which is dealt with privately, and sorted out one's own ends by introverted judgement.
Ni observes the self, and all things directly relevant to the self intuitively, and offers this intuition to the objects (or not... depends on the Extraverted Judgement).

This all works down the line for sensing and feeling and Thinking etc.

But introversion and extraversion are idiotic labels for this discourse.

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

Well then I'm an introvert. But not really. E and I as per public usage ought to be struck from typology altogether. It's objective vs. subjective.

I at least partially agree with you, but changing terminology when there are already proper definitions (even if oft misused) is asking to be ignored, even more than I would like to.

Te Thinks using objects. Literally. The ruler is its preferred metric for analysis. Ne observes the environment intuitively, merely taking part in what intuitions are already inherent in the objects which is dealt with privately, and sorted out one's own ends by introverted judgement.
Ni observes the self, and all things directly relevant to the self intuitively, and offers this intuition to the objects (or not... depends on the Extraverted Judgement).

These split functions can be defined, and the definitions make sense. What I claim is that they can't be reliably applied to people, and especially not in order, based on the four preferences.

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

Well, the preference for effort is what's important in this context. An INTP generally prefers to spend more time understanding something than making a decision. Long periods of Intuition interrupted by short periods of Thinking. The opposite for INTJ.

So this is for surface evaluation. Gotcha.

I guess one of my biggest complaints with MBTI, and how it's set up, is that perceiving functions (Ni, Ne, Si, Se) and judging functions (Ti, Te, Fi, Fe) are used alongside terms like 'judgers' (Ni, Si, Te, Fe) and 'perceivers' (Ne, Se, Ti, Fi).

Which doesn't seem to make much sense, because it makes people think that IJs are more like 'perceivers' and IPs are more like 'judgers,' when this is not the case.

I guess what could be done is establishing introverted functions as 'frameworks,' Ti and Fi (how things are) being 'perceiver's' frameworks and Ni and Si (what you see) being 'judger's' frameworks, and the fact that one has 'judging' functions and one has 'perceiving' functions does not make one more of a 'judger' or 'perceiver.' So then the difference between an introvert and an extrovert would be whether the framework is on top or not.

...If that made any sense whatsoever.

[Nocap]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

I at least partially agree with you, but changing terminology when there are already proper definitions (even if oft misused) is asking to be ignored, even more than I would like to.

You know, you literally just said "I want to be known for being wrong."

Nice.

These split functions can be defined, and the definitions make sense. What I claim is that they can't be reliably applied to people

Sure they can, just

not in order based on the four preferences.

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by Haphazard

I guess one of my biggest complaints with MBTI, and how it's set up....

I was under the impression that my system solved all of these problems.

To get more specific requires trusting a format which could be incorrect.

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

You know, you literally just said "I want to be known for being wrong."

You mean "figuratively," and no, I didn't.

[Nocap]

You literally used figures.
And yes you did. Else you wouldn't be able to correct me.

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

I was under the impression that my system solved all of these problems.

To get more specific requires trusting a format which could be incorrect.

I don't see a solution, though. I think, in fact, you made it worse.

An ITP is still a dominant 'thinker.' But this dominant thinking is in no way like a TJs 'thinking'. So what one could say is that 'a dominant judger who is a perceiver's judging is nothing like the way a judger judges,' which is so convoluted that I don't even know what 'judging' means anymore.

Judging, in MBTI terms, means 'to assign value.' However, it's also used to mean 'to assign value to the outside world as a means of making a decision.' To simply 'assign value' is totally different than the latter, and can be open-ended, 'perceiver'-like. In your case, you seem to only assign 'judging' functions to do only the latter.

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by Haphazard

I don't see a solution, though. I think, in fact, you made it worse.

An ITP is still a dominant 'thinker.' But this dominant thinking is in no way like a TJs 'thinking'. So what one could say is that 'a dominant judger who is a perceiver's judging is nothing like the way a judger judges,' which is so convoluted that I don't even know what 'judging' means anymore.

What I'm saying is that Intuition is the preferred function of INTPs, and Sensing that of ISTPs. I think you have misunderstood my angle in a major way.

Judging, in MBTI terms, means 'to assign value.' However, it's also used to mean 'to assign value to the outside world as a means of making a decision.' To simply 'assign value' is totally different than the latter, and can be open-ended, 'perceiver'-like. In your case, you seem to only assign 'judging' functions to do only the latter.

I don't know where you got that idea.