Add a New Function to MBTI

[Edahn]

What's the function? What are some questions that can be used to classify people along the function? Any predictions about how it might look in conjunction with the temperaments or types?

[Edahn]

One personality feature I've noticed that occurs in varying degrees is a need for group membership. The closest thing I know of in personality psychology would be the need for affiliation (N-affil), but need for affiliation is more of a need to connect. What I'm proposing is a need for group inclusion or membership ("N-memb").

Example: people with a high N-memb are the types of people who fear excommunication from a group. These groups can be religious (identifying with Christians), a psychological group (NTs), an academic group (as a scientist or skeptic), or political group (as a liberal or liberal-hater). I've found lots of people who are afraid of losing membership in these group. The stronger the attachment to (need for) membership, the more likely the person will show aggression towards opposing group members. For example, the religious people will battle with each other, the NTs will try and deprecate NFs, the skeptics will deride the believers, and the liberals will criticize the republicans and capitalists. I am pretty sure we could find a link between N-memb and social exclusion at a young age, and draw correlations with attachment theory, specifically, fearful/anxious/avoidant with high N-memb and secure with low N-memb. In contrast to the high N-membs, the low N-membs would be comfortable not belonging to groups, challenging the groups, and standing alone. A good example might be religious iconoclasts. Buddha, OSHO, Abraham, Jesus to name a few. Holden Caufield comes to mind, too.

A few questions to tease out high N-membs from low N-membs:

1. I can't help but judge people when I find out they are members of political parties that differ from mine. (T/F)

2. I am much more comfortable talking to people who share my religious heritage than people who don't. (T/F)

3. I believe that my type is somewhat superior to other types. (T/F)

4. I often criticize people by referring to their psychological type. (T/F)

5. I often criticize people by referring to their political affiliation. (T/F)

6. I have volunteered or would consider volunteering for the political party I support. (T/F)

1 point for each True.

[Bella]

I didn't read this properly. Made stupid comment.

[Usehername]

Mentally/socially healthy v. unhealthy creates so big a difference in type it really should be a function in and of itself.

[Edahn]

Originally Posted by Usehername

Mentally/socially healthy v. unhealthy creates so big a difference in type it really should be a function in and of itself.

How would operationalize healthy?

[Usehername]

Originally Posted by Edahn

How would operationalize healthy?

I don't know. Was really hopin' some Ti user would come along and put in all the effort to, you know, make it all work 'n stuff. I like your post above, btw, and think it's got a lot of potential to figure it out.

What about people that don't need to be part of a group but have a high need for meaningful, personal relationships? I would say I can stand alone but only for a short time unless I know I have a few deep relationships (friendships, family) to be true toward. I would hypothesize I can be fine so long as I have 2 good relationships with friends. And they don't need to know each other, which makes the group theory an issue.

/end random thoughts past midnight when I need to be up early tomorrow.

[ThatGirl]

Originally Posted by Usehername

I don't know. Was really hopin' some Ti user would come along and put in all the effort to, you know, make it all work 'n stuff.

isnt that what the enneagram does?

[Edahn]

Well, the easiest thing I could think of is attachment theory, which relates to how one exists within social relationships. Secure and insecure would be a simple way to build a function. It's related to what I said, but with a different emphasis. Interesting, tho, for sure. It would help explain lots of relationship and career decisions.

[ThatGirl]

Originally Posted by Edahn

Well, the easiest thing I could think of is attachment theory, which relates to how one exists within social relationships. Secure and insecure would be a simple way to build a function. It's related to what I said, but with a different emphasis. Interesting, tho, for sure. It would help explain lots of relationship and career decisions.

Thats exactly what I was trying to ask in the ego thread. Wouldn't that be fuled by ego?

"Attachment Theory"

Ones need for social acceptance and what they are willing to compromise to gain it? Control it? or leave it?

[Mondo]

My first reaction was.. no.. but from reading your description of the type- it makes sense. An INTP can have as much of a desire to belong as an ESFJ and vice versa.