User Tag List

First 223031323334 Last

Results 311 to 320 of 393

  1. #311
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    But then along comes introversion and extroversion, which for some reason must correspond to the direction of the primary function. So if you are an introvert, your primary function must be introverted. This overrides the J and P such that whichever of the preferred functions corresponds to introversion or extroversion gets to be the primary function.
    This is the important part -- this is why Jack and I have been arguing.

    It's not that introversion and extroversion "for some reason must correspond to the direction of the primary function". It's that introversion and extroversion are DEFINED BY the direction of the primary function. Introversion and Extroversion in MBTI are NOT to be interpreted by the dictionary definition.

    Additionally, Judging in MBTI does not mean that your dominant function is a judging function. It means that your most used extroverted function is a judging function.

    So if you have an NT, you ask, "which do they use more, thinking or intuition?". If it's intuition, they are either INTJ or ENTP. Then you ask, "is intuition mainly focused on depth or breadth?". If depth, then they're INTJ; if breadth, then they're ENTP.

    --------------------

    Jack's system doesn't work as well -- if you have an NT, you ask, "do they use thinking more or intuition more?". If intuition, then they're NTP (in his system). So far so good. But then how do you determine introversion/extroversion? Instead of being an indicator of something having to do with cognitive functions, it's an unrelated variable -- it specifies nothing about cognition.

    Even though introversion/extroversion (the way Jack is using the terms) is a useful personality distinction, it does not accurately correspond to MBTI types. Because of this, some people will have different types in Jack's system and in MBTI. So it seems misleading to even use the same code.

    Bottom line, his system, as it is now, contains less information about cognition than MBTI because it doesn't touch on function orientation (although it has added information about dictionary introversion/extroversion). And function orientation is quite a useful piece of data to examine...

    So I just don't see why I should give up MBTI for a system that contains less data. If I want the information his system contains about dictionary introversion/extroversion, I could just add it on to MBTI. No need to subtract out useful data.


    This leaves the direction of the functions used to be determined by the situation, and by overall preference for introversion or extroversion. This clears up problems that come up with, say, I's using many of the functions in an introverted way (with me, this is Ti, Fi, Ni, even though Fi and Ni are supposed to be way down there in use). It also skips over a lot of the ambiguity involved in determining what use of the function is introverted, and which is extroverted (and don't tell me this is something easy...it may be in the function descriptions, but in practice it is rarely clear).
    The problem this fixes can easily be solved by just thinking of introversion/extroversion of functions as spectrums.

    Jack's mention of this problem is completely warranted, though. The 8 function theory is quite misleading, as Ti and Te are so much more similar than Ti and Ne...what I mean is, there are really only 4 functions -- talking about Ti and Te as separate in the same way as Ti and Fi are separate makes no sense at all.

    But PREFERRED orientation of a function is actually quite an easy trend to spot -- people use functions mostly oriented towards one pole or the other; I've never really come across someone that has equal ability with both orientations. And it's also important to touch on the correlation between extroversion of thinking and introversion of feeling (and vice versa, and for perceiving functions). MBTI would be too flat and useless without this stuff.

  2. #312
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    This is the important part -- this is why Jack and I have been arguing.

    It's not that introversion and extroversion "for some reason must correspond to the direction of the primary function". It's that introversion and extroversion are DEFINED BY the direction of the primary function. Introversion and Extroversion in MBTI are NOT to be interpreted by the dictionary definition.
    Okay, but then it is misleading for people to type based on the "dictionary" definitions of introversion and extroversion (which the MBTI tests do), since merely having a dominant introverted or extroverted function doesn't mean that the individual will display introverted or extroverted behaviors by the common definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    Additionally, Judging in MBTI does not mean that your dominant function is a judging function. It means that your most used extroverted function is a judging function.
    But at the end of the day, if you are an extrovert, then your judging or perceiving preference will be also be your dominant function. I don't see why being an introvert or extrovert should determine which set of functions (judging or perceiving) is dominant. It just seems like arbitrary detail that has little connection with observable reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    Jack's system doesn't work as well -- if you have an NT, you ask, "do they use thinking more or intuition more?". If intuition, then they're NTP (in his system). So far so good. But then how do you determine introversion/extroversion? Instead of being an indicator of something having to do with cognitive functions, it's an unrelated variable -- it specifies nothing about cognition.

    Even though introversion/extroversion (the way Jack is using the terms) is a useful personality distinction, it does not accurately correspond to MBTI types. Because of this, some people will have different types in Jack's system and in MBTI. So it seems misleading to even use the same code.

    Bottom line, his system, as it is now, contains less information about cognition than MBTI because it doesn't touch on function orientation (although it has added information about dictionary introversion/extroversion). And function orientation is quite a useful piece of data to examine...
    If the introversion and extroversion of MBTI don't actually correspond to the observable behaviors typically ascribed to people who we call "introverts" or "extroverts", then I'd might as well call myself an ENTP, because I am positive that I use my perceiving function more often than my judging function. That is what makes me "indecisive" and "out-there". The only thing that stops me is that I don't think I'm an extrovert (by the MBTI test questions AND the type descriptions)...but you're saying that the E and the I don't actually mean what they are typically thought to mean.

    So yes, if you've typed yourself according to the MBTI functions, which I see as difficult to do because I can very rarely identify my own behavior as, "look, I just used Ti", then you will have to change your type code. In other words, if you think you are an INTJ because you are positive that you're an I, that you are a thinker, and that you prefer judging, then you will have filled in the gaps to determine that Ni is your primary function. If that's how you view your type, if you are determined that you use Ni dominantly because MBTI says so (even if that wasn't one of the major traits that you observed of yourself), then of course it will be different in Jack's system.

    The thing is, though, that I think there is too much "filling-in of the gaps" when typing that way, and if you simply typed by determining the J/P, T/F, and then E/I, you'd be good to go in Jack's system...no counter-intuitive gap-filling by theory. It would be simpler to determine type based on behavior this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    So I just don't see why I should give up MBTI for a system that contains less data. If I want the information his system contains about dictionary introversion/extroversion, I could just add it on to MBTI. No need to subtract out useful data.
    Yes, but you see, I don't think that having extra "data" is something to be desired when that data doesn't correspond to something that's real. The way that MBTI is set up doesn't really offer a framework that corresponds well enough to what I observe. And isn't that the whole point?

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    The problem this fixes can easily be solved by just thinking of introversion/extroversion of functions as spectrums.

    Jack's mention of this problem is completely warranted, though. The 8 function theory is quite misleading, as Ti and Te are so much more similar than Ti and Ne...what I mean is, there are really only 4 functions -- talking about Ti and Te as separate in the same way as Ti and Fi are separate makes no sense at all.

    But PREFERRED orientation of a function is actually quite an easy trend to spot -- people use functions mostly oriented towards one pole or the other; I've never really come across someone that has equal ability with both orientations. And it's also important to touch on the correlation between extroversion of thinking and introversion of feeling (and vice versa, and for perceiving functions). MBTI would be too flat and useless without this stuff.
    No, it would be more flexible.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  3. #313
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    What Orangey said, again. I am at peace with the Universe.

  4. #314
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Okay, but then it is misleading for people to type based on the "dictionary" definitions of introversion and extroversion (which the MBTI tests do), since merely having a dominant introverted or extroverted function doesn't mean that the individual will display introverted or extroverted behaviors by the common definition.
    Completely agree. Almost all tests are flawed in this way.

    But at the end of the day, if you are an extrovert, then your judging or perceiving preference will be also be your dominant function. I don't see why being an introvert or extrovert should determine which set of functions (judging or perceiving) is dominant. It just seems like arbitrary detail that has little connection with observable reality.
    I/E and J/P are just indicators of information about function distribution/orientation. That is all.

    I personally think socionics codes make more sense than MBTI codes (they flip the J/P for all introverts). So an Ni dom with Fe is called an INFp, since their primary function is introverted and a perceiving function.

    But that's a matter of aesthetics; it doesn't have to do with the information contained within the system. Jack's system contains less information than socionics.

    Regarding "arbitrary detail with little connection" -- again, the letters themselves (I/E and J/P) don't directly correlate to observable reality. All that correlates to observable reality are the 4 cognitive functions and their orientations. MBTI type is NOT composed of four dichotomies -- it's just a code for the distribution.

    (Someone suggested a few months ago that we don't even need 4 letters to contain all the information in MBTI, we just need 3. So an INFJ would be INF and an INFP would be IFN. This is also definitely a better code...)

    If the introversion and extroversion of MBTI don't actually correspond to the observable behaviors typically ascribed to people who we call "introverts" or "extroverts", then I'd might as well call myself an ENTP, because I am positive that I use my perceiving function more often than my judging function. That is what makes me "indecisive" and "out-there". The only thing that stops me is that I don't think I'm an extrovert (by the MBTI test questions AND the type descriptions)...but you're saying that the E and the I don't actually mean what they are typically thought to mean.
    Eh. I mean, I/E does correlate to observable behavior, just not directly. Plus, I'd attribute "indecisiveness" more to the fact that your first judging function is introverted -- it doesn't directly engage the outer world.

    You seem like a quite clear Ti dominant to me. What we must remember, though, is that amount of usage of a function is not correlated to ability with that function. An EFJ could have "better" Ti than an ITP; they just use it less often by definition. You could even have a "better" Ne than Ti (although I don't think you do) and still be an INTP as long as Ti is more often used.

    So yes, if you've typed yourself according to the MBTI functions, which I see as difficult to do because I can very rarely identify my own behavior as, "look, I just used Ti", then you will have to change your type code. In other words, if you think you are an INTJ because you are positive that you're an I, that you are a thinker, and that you prefer judging, then you will have filled in the gaps to determine that Ni is your primary function. If that's how you view your type, if you are determined that you use Ni dominantly because MBTI says so (even if that wasn't one of the major traits that you observed of yourself), then of course it will be different in Jack's system.
    I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but I think you have it backwards. I do not type myself as an INFJ because I know I'm an I, an N, an F, and a J. I type myself as INFJ because I know my Ni is dominant, leaving two possibilities, INTJ or INFJ. Then I look at the orientation of my thinking and feeling and find that Ti/Fe is a closer match than Te/Fi.


    Typing people really isn't so hard. Just identify the dominant function (which is what Jung's book is all about anyway -- the dominant function), and then look at the orientation of the complimentary ones (if your dominant is a judging, look for orientation of perceiving and vice versa).

    @"I can very rarely identify my own behavior as, "look, I just used Ti"," -- What you should be able to do at least is to identify when you are using thinking, feeling, sensing, or intuition. The orientation in one moment in time is pretty impossible to spot. Orientation comes from observing trends in your functions OVER TIME.


    The thing is, though, that I think there is too much "filling-in of the gaps" when typing that way, and if you simply typed by determining the J/P, T/F, and then E/I, you'd be good to go in Jack's system...no counter-intuitive gap-filling by theory. It would be simpler to determine type based on behavior this way.
    The problem is that J vs. P is a false dichotomy. Unless you want to change the definitions, but then you're losing some data and gaining other data, which means the system doesn't correspond to MBTI.


    Yes, but you see, I don't think that having extra "data" is something to be desired when that data doesn't correspond to something that's real. The way that MBTI is set up doesn't really offer a framework that corresponds well enough to what I observe. And isn't that the whole point?
    That's another thing. I'm not just blindly defending this function orientation thing...I've observed people for years and found this stuff to be the most interesting distinction of them all. Communication problems between Fe and Fi users, etc... it's really a useful framework.

    It definitely takes some practice and some research to get working definitions for everything and to be able to spot these trends in people. But the trends are there.

    If you want to give up on MBTI in favor of Jack's system, you'll never be able to see the cool distinctions that function orientation lets you see.

    It's understandable; learning this all is quite frustrating. But you really can get to a point where it all clicks...and it would be too bad if you gave up on that path.


    Also, not to sound like an asshole, but it's entirely clear that Jack has not gotten to that point with MBTI. He got frustrated before he figured out the system, so he made up a new one, that, yes, is easier to learn, but is also sort of a lobotomized version.


    Again, his system works -- it's logically consistent and all. It just isn't as powerful. He's trading complexity for learnability.


    No, it would be more flexible.
    How does fewer variables lead to greater flexibility??????

  5. #315
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    fewer variables = less effective and more over generalization. the brain can't be described in even eight functions or four temperaments or nine enneagram types etc simplifying an already simple system is catastrophic
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

  6. #316
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Some of this would be solved by realizing the standard function order identifies roles and not necessarily strengths. That's why the CP test results come all out of order, but while a function designated a "shadow" might be strongly used; it you think about it, it will still probably fall into the more negative role described for your type.

    As for I/E; I would say based on the type descriptions that your "expressiveness" will basically match the dominant function attitude, though for various reasons, it may not always play out in the stereotypical "introvert/extrovert". So an extravert may be more reserved at times, but the "gregariousness" will come out in some way at times, or they will be driven by the same motives, but carry them out differently. (Much of this questioning of I/E definitions involves saying "I know this Exxx who is quiet and thinks a lot"; but this is basically the exception and not the rule, and probably also you're only seeing a period of their behavior. But their dominant function is defined as referencing the outer world of people and action. (and there's also the possibility that they're simply mistyped).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  7. #317
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    I shall say nothing unless nothing is what Orangey says within two days time.

  8. #318
    Senior Member Simplexity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    I shall say nothing unless nothing is what Orangey says within two days time.
    Since when do you resist the chance to get your word in.

    Whipped!!
    My cold, snide, intellectual life is just a veneer, behind which lies the plywood of loneliness.

  9. #319
    Senior Member miked277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    343

    Default

    this whole thing is like saying, "people are having trouble seeing that 2 + 2 = 4 so let's just define 2 + 2 = 5 so that everyone can be right."

    i agree w/ pretty much all of what dissonance and hap have said.
    I'm feeling rough, I'm feeling raw, I'm in the prime of my life.

  10. #320
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    6

    Default

    I agree that the underlying theory behind the MBTI is flawed, and that the Socionics theory fits the types better (how much better, and whether it is good enough to officially use it as an underlying theory are different questions).

    Here are the reasons why MBTI function theory is flawed:

    1) In what way are ISTPs and INTPs alike? If you look at their careers, their interests, and their behaviour, they don't seem very alike at all. ISTPs typically express themselves using tools and machines. In what way are they engaging their logical abilities more than their senses by doing this? Does it make sense to think that the introverted thinking of ISTPs is so hidden that it doesn't even show up in their careers or interests?

    2) MBTI Si and Ni bear little relation with Jung's original interpretations of them. Introverted intuitives were considered to be prototypical artists. If you look at the career preferences of the types, you will find that INTPs and INFPs prefer artistic careers over INTJs and INFJs. Further, Jung's introverted sensors could be artists, because they had unique sensory perceptions of the world, and this could easily be translated into art; ISFPs and ISTPs are much more likely to go into art than ISTJs and ISFJs. When you look at Myers' and Briggs' definitions of Si and Ni, there are problems. For instance, IS_Js are very detail-oriented and methodical, and IN_Js are noted for their drive and determination. Not only are these definitions very different from what Jung described, but in what way are these characteristics a matter of perception?

    3) You often see people emphasizing aspects of their types that go against the theory. (E.g., ISfP or IXTJ).

    4) From the limited data I've found, there is a stronger correlation with Socionics theory than MBTI theory for the MBTI types. For instance, look at this poll: INTP Central - View Poll Results.

    For these reasons, I think that Socionics function theory is more accurate. In fact, if you look at the Socionics pairings, there are no glaring mismatches. Once again, however, whether Socionics function theory is accurate enough to be used over no underlying theory at all is another question.

    Also, I think that Myers' and Briggs' basic approach to determining the types is flawed, and that's what creates this problem. In an attempt to determine functions, they created a test that measures dichotomies. A more logical approach would have been to test people for their dominant function, and, once that is determined, give them a second test to determine which of the two possible auxiliary functions is appropriate. I can't understand why this approach was not taken.

    This is not to say that everything about the MBTI is flawed. Whereas the MBTI falls short in terms of theory, it is strong in its application. (Socionics is just the opposite.) I think that, irrespective of the underlying theory, the tests are reasonably accurate and the descriptions accurate as well. The only improvement I could see for the tests would be that they should be used more as a guide than a standard; the descriptions are what really determine the types, as opposed to the formula their based on. The tests can help narrow down some types based on the formula, but they should not have the final say.

    In practice, Socionics is flawed because:

    1) There are no standards, so there is a lot of variation in the tests and descriptions.
    2) A lot of the descriptions are not general enough.
    3) There is no good test that can be used to help determine your type.

    This is why people who study Socionics often have such a difficult time determining their type, while it is rare to see that happen with the MBTI.

    Jason

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