Jack Flak's Function System Adventure

[Morgan Le Fay]

Can you talk a bit about how it is that you can accept the results of MBTI tests as valid, but not the thinking that went into developing them?

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by bluemonday

Can you talk a bit about how it is that you can accept the results of MBTI tests as valid, but not the thinking that went into developing them?

A general answer to your specific question:

Many people accept Jung's analysis as the word of God, whereas I don't. He had the right idea. I think it was obvious to all the developers of type systems that people are fundamentally psychologically different in several ways, but they were also human, and made errors in diagnostics and definitions. I got tired of picking and choosing what makes sense from what doesn't in each mutually exclusive system, so I've developed a system which corrects some errors, and removes some classifications which aren't sensible to make.

[Morgan Le Fay]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

A general answer to your specific question:

Many people accept Jung's analysis as the word of God, whereas I don't. He had the right idea. I think it was obvious to all the developers of type systems that people are fundamentally psychologically different in several ways, but they were also human, and made errors in diagnostics and definitions. I got tired of picking and choosing what makes sense from what doesn't in each mutually exclusive system, so I've developed a system which corrects some errors, and removes some classifications which aren't sensible to make.

I'm not asking about many people. And Jung didn't write the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (clue is in the name).

The fact is, you can't accept the instrument but not the theory behind it - that's illogical.

You don't have a system. You need to write your own test, to have a system.

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by bluemonday

I'm not asking about many people. And Jung didn't write the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (clue is in the name).

The fact is, you can't accept the instrument but not the theory behind it - that's illogical.

You don't have a system. You need to write your own test, to have a system.

In order:

I hesitate to ask, since I assume you're aware, but "Did you know that the MBTI functions are based on Jung's work called Psychological Types?"

I accept some of the theory. Why don't you understand my position? I can't figure it out.

This is a function system related to the types everyone already knows about, and tests aren't the best way to type people anyway. Analysis is, self or otherwise.

[Nocap]

Jackie, I am inspired!
I'm going to make my own typing system using runes to explain functions and write everything in ASCII binary.

It'll all be the same, just like yours, it'll just be explained differently.

Pardon my absence for the next few minutes while I work on it.
I'll post it then.

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

Jackie, I am inspired!
I'm going to make my own typing system using runes to explain functions and write everything in ASCII binary.

It'll all be the same, just like yours, it'll just be explained differently.

Pardon my absence for the next few minutes while I work on it.
I'll post it then.

View Nocapszy's demonstration that while he is Extroverted, he can only hope to parallel the INTP when it comes to Intuition. Quite unlike MBTI function order theory.

I invite the audience to make other type comparisons of individuals, using my theory, and discover how much sense it all makes.

[Morgan Le Fay]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

In order:

I hesitate to ask, since I assume you're aware, but "Did you know that the MBTI functions are based on Jung's work called Psychological Types?"

Naturally. I've read it and everything. See further down the thread.

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

I accept some of the theory. Why don't you understand my position? I can't figure it out.

This is a function system related to the types everyone already knows about, and tests aren't the best way to type people anyway. Analysis is, self or otherwise.

What I'm trying to say is that the theory came first. The test was written with the theory in mind (including attitudinal functions), The test in part, proves the theory, because of the accuracy of its predictions.

You accept the test, and its results, but not the theory. It's like Keirsey, another arrogant INTP, who discredits Myers and Jung whilst standing on their shoulders. He prefers the simple approach you describe as well - in fact I don't really see how you differ from Keirsey. Except that he has the decency to write his own test.

[Jack Flak]

Simply because the framework of MBTI makes a lot of sense does not mean the theory it's based on is perfect.

Originally Posted by bluemonday

He prefers the simple approach you describe as well - in fact I don't really see how you differ from Keirsey. Except that he has the decency to write his own test.

That's a compliment. The difference, however, is that Keirsey stuck to his guns and abandoned functions, while I've decided to create a simple system, because people don't want to live without their functions. They are the wellspring from which MBTIc flows.

And I have written tests, that worked. Not recently, because I've gotten very adept at analysis.

[Morgan Le Fay]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

Simply because the framework of MBTI makes a lot of sense does not mean the theory it's based on is perfect.

That's a compliment. The difference, however, is that Keirsey stuck to his guns and abandoned functions, while I've decided to create a simple system, because people don't want to live without their functions. They are the wellspring from which MBTIc flows.

And I have written tests, that worked. Not recently, because I've gotten very adept at analysis.

I didn't say it was perfect. There is a lot of work to be done. But you are rejecting the fundamentals upon which it is built - that is the framework.

You keep functions in your 'system' because people don't want to live without them?

I'm applying for your INTP membership card to be withdrawn.

[entropie]

you forgot the EMTP

No looks quite nice. Makes the whole thing simpler and less open to speculation