# Thread: John and Linda

1. Originally Posted by Jeffster
Sandwiches are good.
I've always thought making a good sandwich is an art. That's why I won't let other people make mine for me. Like those folks Subway... I know they mean well, but I'd rather do it myself.

(off topic)

2. Originally Posted by wildcat
Thank you.
I started this thread because the function order confusion is still there, as bad as before.
Many members are confused. They find out, quite correctly, that the tertiary is not one of their strong functions.

The ISTJ is represented as a Si Te Fi Ne. It is highly confusing. Yes, you can phrase it that way in the four function model, but then you have to understand what the thing represents. It means simply that your primary functions are Si Te and your inferior functions (= the least developed functions) are Fi Ne.
You cannot use this kind of representation in the eight function model.
It is wrong.
Besides "John and Linda"; another person in that circle in the APT, is Dario.
(Just ask "Dario, Dario...Can you get me into APT, APT, con-fer-ence?")
That's actually his test, on Linda's site. Even though we can still access it in a different location in the site, it was part of some research, which they havestated was complete. Maybe this will lead them to revise the theory. I have noticed how many INTP's almost universally have Si and eepecially Fe at the very bottom. My results more fit John's order, with Si third place. Fi and Te then squeeze in above Fe, but Se and Ni are at the bottom for me (Se being in the right place according to John).

So you're suggesting that the last two in four function model are really weaker then the unmentioned four (which seems to be confirmed by the INTP results)? From what I have heard, this would be Lenore Thompson's order.

John's order is more of archetypal roles, then necessarily strengths. I think the strengths falling into that order is basically the "ideal" for the type. But then the inferior doesn't develop until later in life, so if it is the weakest now, it may change later on. Yet it will still be something we deep down inside "aspire" to, while the next four functions will tend to be "oppositional","immobilizing", "deceiving", and "destructive" (and the tertiary, our "relief" or "eternal child"). The top four and bottom four parallel each other, though in a negative way as shadows: lead-opposing personality; good parent-critical parent; good child-mischevous child (trickster), aspirational-daemon.

3. Originally Posted by Night
Still works quite well.

Participation isn't mandatory.

Neither is comprehension.
Courage is not mandatory.
It is an only an option.
An option exacts a price.

A position of power is either given or taken.
A give is a blessing.
A take is a loss.

The object is in the subject.
The subject is not in the object.

4. Originally Posted by wildcat
I do not mix drinks either. I like my Koskenkorva and my Campari and my Scotch and my Rye and my Schnaps and my Chianti and my Saku and my Saki and my Lowenbrau, unmixed and unstirred.

A fancy restaurant is an abomination.
Places like El Morocco and the Storck make me sick. Walford Astoria has no taste.
White tablecloth is for the Republicans and all those Country Club Waspies.

Plain country food in a simple diner in a remote village on the riverside in the mountains is the best thing ever.
And if you do not have money it does not matter. You can always help the host with the harvest, or dishes, whatever.

The waspies jog and they go to the gym. They even pay money to do it.
They do not know that the best things in life do not cost anything.
Friedman said there is no free lunch. What did he know?
He was never out in the open.
If people have spent centuries perfecting the interaction of ingredients in a drink like chartreuse, why should you even think of mixing it? Why mess with something so good that it hasn't had the need to be altered for centuries? I'd say that the sign of quality is that a product can stand alone... a very good tequila should NEVER be taken as a shot or mixed in a margarita- that is a waste.

I've been taken to some "very nice" restraunts before- I knew what water glass was mine and what fork to use, but I laughed too loud and people turned and stared. It seems that the pinnacle of human "sophistication" means to supress our humanity... don't laugh when something amuses you, at least don't do so with abandon!

Eating at someone's house is also wonderful- and a total honor. When in South America, I frequently was invited over to join people for dinner. It was often rather simple fare, the type of food that has been eaten in the region for ages and is grown nearby... it was better than anything I've had in a restraunt. Even here, in my native country, I get invited over by strangers... there are still nice people out there

I've never seen much reason to pay for something that is more enjoyable in its free form- it is more fun to go walking down by the river than to jog on the treadmill any day!

If Friedman couldn't get a free lunch he never met the right people... though he never seemed like a particularly nice man to me anyways

I'm still convinced that the greatest flaw with society is that we've forgotten our humanity

5. Originally Posted by wildcat
Whatever put it quite right.
The lopsided interpretation of the function order does not make sense either with the theory or with the empirical data of the Cognitive Processes tests.
Totally agree. This has been my beef with mbti for quite some time.

6. Originally Posted by wildcat
I do not mix drinks either. I like my Koskenkorva and my Campari and my Scotch and my Rye and my Schnaps and my Chianti and my Saku and my Saki and my Lowenbrau, unmixed and unstirred.

A fancy restaurant is an abomination.
Places like El Morocco and the Storck make me sick. Walford Astoria has no taste.
White tablecloth is for the Republicans and all those Country Club Waspies.

Plain country food in a simple diner in a remote village on the riverside in the mountains is the best thing ever.
And if you do not have money it does not matter. You can always help the host with the harvest, or dishes, whatever.

The waspies jog and they go to the gym. They even pay money to do it.
They do not know that the best things in life do not cost anything.
Friedman said there is no free lunch. What did he know?
He was never out in the open.

This is a really beautiful post, Wildcat.

The message and the imagery.

7. wtf is happening here lol

8. Originally Posted by mlittrell
wtf is happening here lol
OMG you seriously don't understand?

9. Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid
OMG you seriously don't understand?

HA

no

10. Originally Posted by Eric B
Besides "John and Linda"; another person in that circle in the APT, is Dario.
(Just ask "Dario, Dario...Can you get me into APT, APT, con-fer-ence?")
That's actually his test, on Linda's site. Even though we can still access it in a different location in the site, it was part of some research, which they havestated was complete. Maybe this will lead them to revise the theory. I have noticed how many INTP's almost universally have Si and eepecially Fe at the very bottom. My results more fit John's order, with Si third place. Fi and Te then squeeze in above Fe, but Se and Ni are at the bottom for me (Se being in the right place according to John).

So you're suggesting that the last two in four function model are really weaker then the unmentioned four (which seems to be confirmed by the INTP results)? From what I have heard, this would be Lenore Thompson's order.

John's order is more of archetypal roles, then necessarily strengths. I think the strengths falling into that order is basically the "ideal" for the type. But then the inferior doesn't develop until later in life, so if it is the weakest now, it may change later on. Yet it will still be something we deep down inside "aspire" to, while the next four functions will tend to be "oppositional","immobilizing", "deceiving", and "destructive" (and the tertiary, our "relief" or "eternal child"). The top four and bottom four parallel each other, though in a negative way as shadows: lead-opposing personality; good parent-critical parent; good child-mischevous child (trickster), aspirational-daemon.
This is a good post.

Yes, I noticed earlier on there is a minority in the INTP group with Si as their third function. If Ne is in the orthodox place as the auxilary function, there is an unmatch of balance. If you have on the other hand Si as the fourth function, then you can have Ne beside it as the fifth function, and maintain the balance. Si is the complement of Ne.

I find it difficult to understand people can be unconcerned about balance. There is no pattern without a balance.

And as you say, the pattern can be seen in the test results. If Ti is the first function, it follows Fe is at the other end of the line and Te and Fi complement each other in the middle as the 4th and the 5th. If Ne is the second function, it follows Si is close the other end the 7th, and Ni and Se complement each other near the middle as the third and the sixth.
This is the medial line, it has a sway, it is not rigid. The middle functions, the 4th and the 5th, change places frequently. The more you move towards the edge, the more it would disturb the balance.
If Si is the third, then we have to look for Ne, and Ni and Se. If the P functions do not have a pattern, it is not likely the J functions can have one.

All the possibe patterns are related, and their number is limited. The choices are easy to see. Ne and Si, as second and third, simply do not thyme in any of these.

I have nothing against what John and Linda say, as such. And I know they are not into function order. Perhaps it would be better to leave it out, entirely. For them.

Thanks for mentioning the archetypal roles, too. I shall look into them.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO