The issue with dynamic type is the word "dynamic", does it mean a person's type is constantly changing (which the word implies) or does it mean people don't change but the type should flex? Or is it both? I get confused.I'm beginning to think that this is what is meant by "dynamic type". Perhaps it's supposed to infer that although you may be an ESFJ you are not always an ESFJ in effect, not purely. It is only saying that if you were to take the average then you are an ESFJ and that this colours most of what you do.
That is an excellent example. I'll send that one along to my father for consideration in his book if you don't mind.
*nods* Feel free to use it. It's not exactly my example, I just pulled it from a different context.
If you haven't read Berens' stuff, I'll recommend that you don't. Types are slotted into such narrowly defined and static groups that it doesn't correlate to mature and well developed individuals very well.Two things, aside from that I've never read Berens' theories. I think that the dominant functions are those we find easiest to work with. Just like the handedness example in mainstream MBTI literature. So yeah perhaps it is the first one we pick up, without studying a child under a microscope to see when they develop a left or right hand preference I'm thinking that you're probably right.
The second thing is in reference to function order. I think that you type only displays what your original preference order would be if you were a classic example of the type (probably an example that is purely theoretical in nature). The actual results shown by people will include what development they have gone through, their experiences and influences. That's why they don't really correlate neatly.
On the issue of development of functions... this topic has never been properly discussed in type theories. I find the idea of "you should develop your first three functions and ignore the rest" hard to accept.
Heh... got any guinea pigs we can do testing on? I wouldn't mind playing.Hmmm... fancy doing a Schrodinger's cat example with types?
Self diagnosis is made difficult because the average individual typically doesn't understand the terminology used. Words like Thinking and Feeling have pre-existing meanings that bias responses. That's one of my pet peeves with MBTI testing.That was one surprise I found whilst reading through the MBTI books. It states that the primary authority on a person's type is the person themselves. That seems to be kinda asking for trouble from an organisation that makes ends meet with computer readable tests and such.