User Tag List

First 243233343536 Last

Results 331 to 340 of 393

  1. #331
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    First of all, Eric B has been explaining a lot of this stuff much better than I am, and I agree with what he's saying completely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I agree that the J/P and E/I only refer to the order and orientation of functions in MBTI. That's the whole problem. I/E determines the overall primary function, and J/P determines the primary extroverted function (or the function that deals with the outer world). When I/E and J/P come into conflict, as they do in the case of all introverts, the I/E overrides the J/P in importance (in determining the dominant function). In other words, the dominant function must always align in orientation to I/E, and this will be equivalent to the J/P for all extroverts but changes for introverts, because an extroverted function can't be dominant in an introverted person.

    Jack's system gives more importance to J/P in this regard, as you know, because it determines the primary function regardless of I/E. If we kept the function orientation, this would (as I think Bluewing pointed out in another thread, though I could be mistaken) make the system incoherent because some introverts would have extroverted dominant functions (like the INTP, which would have Ne as primary). And if we are defining introversion and extroversion by the orientation of the dominant function, then it makes no sense to call someone with an extroverted dominant function an introvert. This is why it is necessary to cut out the function orientation and define introversion and extroversion as separate categories unlinked to the functions.
    I don't see how that conclusion follows from what you've been saying.

    In MBTI, introversion and extroversion are defined by the orientation of the dominant function. That is all that they mean. The words contain no direct information about how a person acts. You are attached to the notion that introversion and extroversion mean something different, so you are calling the system flawed. But they don't mean anything else. If you want to attach a separate variable for behavioral introversion/extroversion, go ahead -- that's fine, but it's not MBTI, and it's not MBTI's problem.

    No point in taking out a part of the MBTI code that indicates something about function usage. It guts the system for no reason -- it fixes no flaw.

    And doing this has the merits that I mentioned in an earlier post, namely:

    -It clears away the confusion of determining what counts as introverted or extroverted function behavior (which, you can keep telling me are clear and that it's just because of some deficiency on my part that I can't see them...and I will keep denying that this is so because I've read as much of the material as anybody, though perhaps less than some people).
    I don't know what to say, except that it isn't exactly clear which direction a function is pointing. You have to watch people for a while a lot of the time. Other times it's obvious (like with Te dominants).

    I think I'm gonna start a thread today or tomorrow to try to come up with good function descriptions.

    I mean, I see from the function descriptions that the only real difference between, say, Ti and Te is the object at which the thinking is aimed...and if this is the case, then the distinction between the two is not in the function itself, but in the situations in which the function is used. So Te is better at organizing material in the outside world, while Ti is better at doing this for internal 'concepts'.
    Correct!

    It seems clear to me that the act of using either will depend on the situation in which the actor finds his/her self, and not as a result of their being predisposed to use either one.
    Not quite. For example, a Ni user in a group of people brainstorming would probably think longer about his/her ideas and offer fewer (but better thought out) ideas than an Ne user. An Si user might order something they already knew was good at a restaurant, an Se user would be more likely to try something new. A Te user would be more likely to solve a problem on their computer by using the help menu, a Ti user would be more likely to think about why the error is happening given how the computer works...etc.

    -It makes the connection between introverted/extroverted social behavior (by the common definitions) and I/E more clear. So if you see that someone needs their "alone time" frequently, then you know that they are an introvert. You don't have to try and figure out the orientation of their dominant function to determine whether they are introverted/extroverted (which seems like a far less accurate endeavor).
    Again, this is a separate variable. It has nothing to do with MBTI, and is not a problem with MBTI. You're proposing an add-on to MBTI.

    -It is less counter-intuitive when observing people. Take the INTJ, for example. If we had two people for whom thinking was clearly preferred to feeling, but one of those people displayed more definitiveness while the other was more laid back, we could easily attribute thinking as the dominant function to the one and a perceiving function as the dominant function in the other to account for the difference. This is more clear than saying that, well, one is using Te but as a support function, and the other is using Ti but with Ne as a support function. In both of those cases, if we use MBTI, we end up having to play up the support function to account for the differences in behavior when it would be easier to just say that one is a dominant thinker while the other is a dominant perceiver.
    This is just an aesthetic difference. We could switch the MBTI notation to socionics notation and solve the same problem. (Switch J/P for all introverts). This has nothing to do with the information contained in the system.

    I don't see why the function's introverted-ness should mean that it is any less decisive. Ti is a function that is used to make decisions (albeit decisions whose objects are "inward" as opposed to "outward", whatever that means). If I am not so good at making decisions (i.e., "indecisive"), then how can I say that I use Ti, or any other decision-making function, most?
    Gah. I don't mean it's less decisive literally...I mean that it's less visibly decisive because it's introverted. Making a decision about how something fits into your own internal framework isn't something you're gonna share as much as making a decision about tangible objects in commonly talked about frameworks.

    I never said anything about the quality of function usage. I only said that I use Ne more often than Ti, which, if I hang on to the MBTI definitions, I think is absolutely true. And I probably come off as far more decisive on this forum than I am IRL, because I won't post anything unless I have something clear to say about it. Plus, I don't see how Ne or Ni can be determined by someone's posting (unless we're talking about the way that people erroneously label incoherent or rambling posts as Ne).
    You're right, it's very hard to type people online. I have my opinion; my reasoning for why I think you're a clear Ti dominant, but you obviously know yourself way better than I do

    I do think Ne vs. Ni is visible in people's posts, though. Ni people are obsessed with themes -- and their ideas don't necessarily correspond to the general discussion as much. Those are only clues, I know, but they are definite trends.

    But you see? You've relied solely on the system as put forth by MBTI. You've identified a couple of variables, and then used the system to fill in their order and the order of all the other variables.
    Yes, I've relied solely on the MBTI system to type myself in the MBTI system...

    I don't get it.

    Yes, but this doesn't tell me why, if I identify myself as a dominant perceiver, say I even choose Ne specifically, I should be constrained to ENTP or ENFP. What if I don't identify with either of those profiles, especially as they describe social extroversion?
    If you are an Ne dominant, you are either ENTP or ENFP by definition. I don't know how to make it more clear. If you don't identify with the profiles, there are two and only two explanations. 1) The profiles are a bunch of crap or 2) You are not an Ne dominant.

    If the orientation is impossible to spot in any momentary function usage, then I don't see how it is possible to spot trends in that regard over time, as a whole bunch of those unidentifiable moments adds up to just that- a group of unidentifiable moments.
    I didn't say it was impossible. I say it was almost impossible or something. Its the same idea as measuring average gas mileage on a car -- it's hard to measure in one moment in time.

    Whether or not something corresponds systematically with MBTI is not the issue. No, Jack's system doesn't correspond to MBTI (like socionics does, only with a shifting of the naming convention). But that doesn't mean it is any less descriptive, because as I have (hopefully) shown, getting rid of the function orientation is made up for by replacing the qualities attributed in MBTI to introverted functions with a switch in the order (making the perceiving function dominant). And like I said before, if you've typed yourself by identifying specific MBTI functions like Ti or Ni, then yes, you might have to change your type code. This only applies to introverts, though.
    K. So it's a different system. I'll stick to MBTI.

    But the way that MBTI is set up, there is rarely an occasion in which Fi and Fe come into direct conflict. In other words, if there is a conflict between people of different types, the Fi and Fe rarely align in ways that make the conflict seem unambiguously attributable to differences between Fi and Fe. For instance, even between types where Fi and Fe are dominant (in MBTI), such as the INFP and the ENFJ, the conflicts that arise between these two can be attributed to lots of other factors besides Fi and Fe alone (such as the famous imperiousness and decisiveness of J's, and the flippant laziness of P's).
    Interesting. I find Fe vs. Fi to be the source of a HUGE deal of conflicts. I see it happen all the time. And the way that people resolve those conflicts also correlates strongly with Fe vs. Fi in my observation. (And there is no such thing as J and P when you're talking about functions...)

    Well, to characterize what I'm doing as adopting one thing over another thing is false. I never really adopted MBTI wholesale in the first place, so I'm not actually adopting Jack's system in favor of MBTI at all. I don't want to discard either system...I'm just defending Jack's from being discarded because I think that it has merits that MBTI doesn't.
    I think that Jack's system has merit too. I just think MBTI has more.

    I also think that there's a lot of really bad information out there about functions, and I think I'm going to try to compile some good information and make a thread.

  2. #332
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I would think, because it's introverted, it might not look like much to the outside. However, the use of tools and machines requires the same internal knowlege of frameworks and models as the more familiar abstract counterpart. And that's the difference. Ti+Ne is more into concepts and theories, while Ti+Se is more into physical things.
    Then you would have to explain why ISFPs are often interested in using tools and machines. According to "Type Talk", ISFPs often choose "mechanics and repair" as their career. Further, Keirsey talks about how, in general, SPs are adept at using tools. If this is a function of Ti+Se, then I don't see why those who value Fi+Se would also show some interest in these activities.

    Now, it could be that ISFPs and ISTPs are using different thought processes when they use tools, and it also seems that ISTPs have a stronger preference for technology. However, I still don't buy that using tools is a matter of models and frameworks. I would argue that tool use is tacit knowledge, in the same way that riding a bike or driving a car is tacit knowledge. When someone drives a car, they usually aren't using models and concepts in order to learn how to operate it. They use their senses to judge how one movement correlates to a specific result. There seems to be very little conscious judgment going on.

    In some of those cases, you may be seeing the "inflation" of the tertiary function (which then can sometimes appear to outdo those with the function in the dominant position). So INTP's and INFP's have Si in that position (and when I'm artistic, it will usually involve some nostalgic thing or something like that). ISTP's and ISFP's have Ni in that position.
    While this is possible, I find it hard to believe that the motives of the tertiary function would outweigh the motives of the types most dominant function. It also doesn't explain why Jung said that Ni-dominant types are typically artists.

    Well, detail is definitely something that is perceived! (then the methodicalism comes from wanting to stick to what's familiar, which is their internal concrete perception). The drive and determination of Ni types comes from their visions of change, which are characteristic of their perception.
    That may be so, but those descriptions still don't resemble Jung's descriptions.

    Finally, this is irrelevant, but I think that another way in which Socionics is superior to the MBTI is the separation of aggression and "thinking." In the MBTI, those types who are the most aggressive are Ti or Te dominant types. For example, I've seen Mike Tyson characterized as an ISTP, and Saddam Hussein characterized as an ENTJ. However, if you look at the actions of these individuals, it seems hard to construe them as being highly rational. It seems that a better explanation is that they operate on the level of gut-instincts. In fact, I've known a few very aggressive people who don't know how to argue logically at all; they constantly resort to personal attacts, rationalizations, and other logical fallacies.

    In Socionics, logic and aggression are differentiated. Logic is considered Te or Ti, and aggression is considered Se. Here are the definitions of each function:

    Ti: clarity and exactitude of thought, a sense of order and regularity in different levels of structure; a sense of building a complete system from simple and well-understood parts

    Te: an active, but steady and purposeful state conducive to performing goal-oriented activities

    Se: a mobilized state full of vitality and energy or implied strength; the desire to make strong, bold, and powerful movements

    These definitions clearly illustrate the differences amongst the functions, and, on a personal level, they make sense. I have a hard time with aggressive people, but I don't have any difficulties at all, and usually prefer, people with a logical mindset. This would be because I'm an INTj, with Ti as my strongest function, and Se as my least preferred function.

    Jason

  3. #333
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Then you would have to explain why ISFPs are often interested in using tools and machines. According to "Type Talk", ISFPs often choose "mechanics and repair" as their career. Further, Keirsey talks about how, in general, SPs are adept at using tools. If this is a function of Ti+Se, then I don't see why those who value Fi+Se would also show some interest in these activities.

    Now, it could be that ISFPs and ISTPs are using different thought processes when they use tools, and it also seems that ISTPs have a stronger preference for technology. However, I still don't buy that using tools is a matter of models and frameworks. I would argue that tool use is tacit knowledge, in the same way that riding a bike or driving a car is tacit knowledge. When someone drives a car, they usually aren't using models and concepts in order to learn how to operate it. They use their senses to judge how one movement correlates to a specific result. There seems to be very little conscious judgment going on.
    That's basically what I meant. The Se would make both types more "hands-on" oriented, but with the ISTP, it will be more about models and frameworks, and with the ISFP, as you said, it would be less about the technology of it. sort of like how INTP's are into abstract models, and INFP's can also seem to very similar.
    While this is possible, I find it hard to believe that the motives of the tertiary function would outweigh the motives of the types most dominant function.
    This apparently is "advanced" Beebean theory, which is kind of hard to find. They only appear to outdo the dominant.
    It also doesn't explain why Jung said that Ni-dominant types are typically artists.
    He also said that Fi types were most likely mostly "melancholic" females. These aspects of his theory I wold say were less developed, and improved upon by Myers and those after them.

    That may be so, but those descriptions still don't resemble Jung's descriptions.
    Detail dealing with perception, and Ni dealing with visions of change? Why don't those resemble Jung?
    Finally, this is irrelevant, but I think that another way in which Socionics is superior to the MBTI is the separation of aggression and "thinking." In the MBTI, those types who are the most aggressive are Ti or Te dominant types. For example, I've seen Mike Tyson characterized as an ISTP, and Saddam Hussein characterized as an ENTJ. However, if you look at the actions of these individuals, it seems hard to construe them as being highly rational. It seems that a better explanation is that they operate on the level of gut-instincts. In fact, I've known a few very aggressive people who don't know how to argue logically at all; they constantly resort to personal attacts, rationalizations, and other logical fallacies.

    In Socionics, logic and aggression are differentiated. Logic is considered Te or Ti, and aggression is considered Se. Here are the definitions of each function:

    Ti: clarity and exactitude of thought, a sense of order and regularity in different levels of structure; a sense of building a complete system from simple and well-understood parts

    Te: an active, but steady and purposeful state conducive to performing goal-oriented activities

    Se: a mobilized state full of vitality and energy or implied strength; the desire to make strong, bold, and powerful movements

    These definitions clearly illustrate the differences amongst the functions, and, on a personal level, they make sense. I have a hard time with aggressive people, but I don't have any difficulties at all, and usually prefer, people with a logical mindset. This would be because I'm an INTj, with Ti as my strongest function, and Se as my least preferred function.
    Interesting, btut those descriptions seem to be making the functions simply "states" rather than propcesses of perceiving or judgment. Thus, they seem to be focusing on behavior, and while those behaviors can be connected with those functions, behaviors can be shaped by other things and even other functions as well.
    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

  4. #334
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    eric b is investing more time in this then i would have liked to (props) but basically is completely right. also i think jacks system finally clicked and unfortunately it clicked to more criticism lol i think basically what you are saying is, with an INTP for example, the extroverted intuition is the first thing you see? then the introverted thinking? all this because you really wont see the introverted thinking because it is an introverted process? if all this is true, well its still wrong haha. the extroverted thinking, though it maybe extroverted still is the second function but is driven through introverted intuition. in an ENTP you will see much more of a pure form of Ne with Ti undertones. with an INTP you will see Ti much more because Ne filters through Ti. i think thats what your saying but i dont see wats so special about the system, i do it subconsciously when typing people anyway.
    "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

  5. #335
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mlittrell View Post
    eric b is investing more time in this then i would have liked to (props) but basically is completely right. also i think jacks system finally clicked and unfortunately it clicked to more criticism lol i think basically what you are saying is, with an INTP for example, the extroverted intuition is the first thing you see? then the introverted thinking? all this because you really wont see the introverted thinking because it is an introverted process? if all this is true, well its still wrong haha. the extroverted thinking, though it maybe extroverted still is the second function but is driven through introverted intuition. in an ENTP you will see much more of a pure form of Ne with Ti undertones. with an INTP you will see Ti much more because Ne filters through Ti. i think thats what your saying but i dont see wats so special about the system, i do it subconsciously when typing people anyway.
    I wanted to add at this point that in my opinion you cant see a function, if they are introverted, to be in "hidding".

    If you want to identify Ti or Te, you have to watch and listen how people adress a situation. If I for example get my intp buddy started on programming language, his field of intrest, he is most eager to explain me the whole thing in such a great detail that I eventually will get lost in a sea of abbreviations. If I ask my ISTJ buddy about something from economics I did not understand, he will give me all the necessary information to understand, what is basically needed.

    You can see the interplay of Ti or Te in persons best, if you take p-ness into account. In a group situation the p's for example start to take every detail into account but avoid decision making, so they do not loose track of a detail. Most of the time those people are Ti or Fi's. While a Te or Fe is more likely to go with a decision from the start and asses the whole situation in terms of a wider context with the thought in the back of his head that it isnt the detail that needs focus but the output of the group in the end and its realization.

    So Ti and Te are less processes that work hidden or show itself as it could be meant in terms of Intro- and Extroversion. In my opinion they are two completly different things that have the same function. For example a nice clean shiny and technologically ber german car or a dirty heavy fuel-consuming technologically unter american car.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  6. #336
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    well said. this is another reason that i always push application of systems. if your system can be applied and brings something new... woo. if not, screw it.
    "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

  7. #337
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    dissonance: It seems that your arguments against the new system are shifting over time, leading you to take mutually exclusive positions.

    mlittrell: I'll recycle a statement I made elsewhere. "Some are skilled at analysis in spite of using MBTT functions. Terms are redefined to fit analyses." I think this applies to you. I also think you're still insisting on defining Intuition here as "Ne," which it isn't. It's a lot like Ne, and quite like Ni, but the definition here is simpler.

  8. #338
    Senior Member Simplexity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    I think the basic argument is how much you define and stick to the "law" of the function definitions. If your interpretation is true and accurate to the specific functions. I think save for bluewing most people don't truly have that in depth of knowledge of them, so their going to be modified or personalized somewhat.

    It's a matter of individual preference. I think as a baseline I could get on board with this system. The only question I have is how much I'm still sticking to and retaining information I got from the MBTT system and how much of it is my own individualized interpretation of it.

    The same could be said for my actual application. I do sort of start from a baseline similar to jack, I don't like to start off defining too specifically or precisely at the onset. I like to look at the general essence and let the others personality come through. If I have a mind set of *Te Ne Si Fe* I may have a little confirmation bias in modifying and interpreting an individuals actions based on that reference. I think that sort of forces you to miss some of the subtler actions and drives that makes a person who they are, it also makes it difficult to account for context as easily as I think Jacks system does.
    My cold, snide, intellectual life is just a veneer, behind which lies the plywood of loneliness.

  9. #339
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default Round 2

    Taken from here.
    Because of the attitudes, each function has two different ways of expression, resulting in eight function-attitudes -- Introverted and Extraverted versions of Sensation, Intuition, Feeling, and Thinking. As implied, my view is that Introverted and Extraverted versions of the same function come at information from opposing brain hemispheres.

    When dominant and auxiliary functions implicate the right hemisphere, the type is usually outwardly adaptable to novelty and change, but this is balanced by a reliance on principles and values that are understood to be universal. In the MBTI system, these are the P types, whose preferred Extraverted function is either Sensation or Intuition.

    When dominant and auxiliary functions implicate the left hemisphere, the type is usually invested in a collective outward charter that serves as a uniting lingua franca, but this is balanced by an inner world of impressions and alternatives that are understood to be individual. In the MBTI system, these are the J types, whose preferred Extraverted function is either Thinking or Feeling.



    If the left frontal lobe of the brain is anesthetized, discrimination and executive judgment are rendered impossible. The frontal cortex is crucial to the tasks we associate with Extraverted Thinking and Extraverted Feeling.

    If the right back hemisphere is anesthetized instead, executive judgment remains possible, but it occurs without reference to real subjective experience, spatial awareness, and contextual evaluation -- aspects associated with Introverted Thinking and Introverted Feeling. Without this input, the left brain simply fabricates whatever appears to "explain" how consequence is related to cause.

    Extraverted Sensation, which implicates the right brain, is concerned with direct experience, whereas Introverted Sensation, which implicates the left, is concerned with maintaining categories for experience.

    Extraverted Thinking, which implicates the left brain, is concerned with reliable principles of behavior, which maintain order, whereas Introverted Thinking, which implicates the right brain, is concerned with consistent underlying processes, which allow one to predict change and flux.

    The two hemispheres of the brain are designed to share their products across the corpus callosum; however, research indicates that cross-hemispheric communication can't take place diagonally. This would suggest that cognitive products associated with these diagonally related quadrants can't be simultaneously conscious.

    Notice, for example, that Extraverted Thinking implicates the left front hemisphere, whereas Introverted Feeling implicates the right back hemisphere. Te and Fi are considered direct opposites for good neurological reason. In my view, this is why our least developed function is most likely to become conscious as we encounter its operation in others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  10. #340
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    There's just as much conjecture there as with the theory alone, blue. It seems as if the author is starting with the conclusion, and forcing the analysis to fit. The definitions are still a huge problem.

    Even if it were God's honest truth, which I don't believe it is, it doesn't matter. For example, my argument certainly had nothing to do with where memory (closest to "Si") is stored or accessed from.

    My system is simpler, less prone to misdiagnosis of functions and types, and my function orders aren't variable among individuals and moods.

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