• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Meta MBTI thread: Things to Consider

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
There's several things which I'd like to address in a thread, figuring all of them to be linked and best considered as a whole I'm going to put them all in one thread. Feel free to respond to however much of the subject/s as you like.

#1 Dynamic type.
I've read this term in many books on the MBTI and though I'm not fully certain I understand it I think it's core to understanding the MBTI itself.

What does 'Dynamic Type' mean to you?
Does anyone have a full grasp of this concept yet? (I'd appreciate the insight)

#2 Function order.
There seems to be a lot of debate going on about this and the relative use of functions in typing. Personally I think it's linked to #1 in that precise function order is useful but it's going to flex with context.

I think that's why they only list four functions. The others are presumably more prone to shifting with context and are therefore too fluid in their priority to list with any certainty.

#3 Subconscious influences.
Not sure if it's just me but could it not be said that the subconscious defines type as much if not more so than the conscious mind?

Aren't ENTJs equally noticeable by how they respond in a submissive manner to certain things as they are noticed for their commanding presence?

Should more attention be paid to these undercurrents?

#4 Correct typing methodology.
To my mind there should be some agreement of how to type people without recourse to tests and yet it seems that everyone has their own take on how to do it.

From recent readings I'm thinking that the most effective method is to type in pairs NT, SP and so forth. So typing someone as an NT and then looking to see if they are E or I and by considering EJ vs IJ and EP vs IP and so forth.

I'm not certain if this is the "official" technique but I'm beginning to think it is.

Neatly linking into this is the idea of type "snapshots". Those little pieces of a types tendencies which we recall like stereotypes. Should these be used? Are they part of a healthy approach to typing (although a shortcut) or do they merely propagate poor typing and poor understanding of types?
 

Chris_in_Orbit

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
504
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Neatly linking into this is the idea of type "snapshots". Those little pieces of a types tendencies which we recall like stereotypes. Should these be used? Are they part of a healthy approach to typing (although a shortcut) or do they merely propagate poor typing and poor understanding of types?

I'll respond to this one since it relies on my opinion and not specific knowledge that I don't have :yes:

Stereotyping is nice to some extent but a lot of times I think it hinders basic understanding of types and MBTI in general. We all know that no two people are alike (even if they are the same type) Yet we are constantly using MBTI to judge people...and yes a lot of us on this website are guilty of that.

ESTJs are bossy and impossible to get along with, of course most people will add the "for the most part" at the end of this so it doesn't seem like they are stereotyping...they still are.

Because of stereotyping and, even worse, using the best examples of a type, we end up with a less than perfect image of what any type is. If I'm supposed to be like mother Theresa or Princess Diana then I am quite obviously not an INFP.. or saying Jesus was an INFJ; that alone could cause someone who is highly religious and an INFJ an impossible image to live up to.

I think it would be interesting to see what the descriptions would be like without the stereotypes...
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
I'll respond to this one since it relies on my opinion and not specific knowledge that I don't have :yes:

Stereotyping is nice to some extent but a lot of times I think it hinders basic understanding of types and MBTI in general. We all know that no two people are alike (even if they are the same type) Yet we are constantly using MBTI to judge people...and yes a lot of us on this website are guilty of that.

ESTJs are bossy and impossible to get along with, of course most people will add the "for the most part" at the end of this so it doesn't seem like they are stereotyping...they still are.

Because of stereotyping and, even worse, using the best examples of a type, we end up with a less than perfect image of what any type is. If I'm supposed to be like mother Theresa or Princess Diana then I am quite obviously not an INFP.. or saying Jesus was an INFJ; that alone could cause someone who is highly religious and an INFJ an impossible image to live up to.

I think it would be interesting to see what the descriptions would be like without the stereotypes...
I think this broaches into a question of how much is enough. Without any stereotypes you cannot have definition by the very nature of what you're dealing with. Without recourse to any assumptions you are left only with "This is Jim. He's a person".

I think the interesting part of the stereotypes is how they are formed. In essence each is a shorthand note of the shorthand which is the MBTI system. Sure you're an INFP but to reduce that into the typical attributes most common to INFPs and say you are that is another step.

I do value the stereotypes personally because they are a lot easier to hold in your head originally and can form your initial hypothesis about a person. I could assume that you are like my friend Chris who's an INFP but I'd no doubt be wrong to some degree or another. However the comparison of you with my friend Chris would then form my understanding of you. Without comparison most people are lost to actually form and understanding of something and without the stereotypes you are asking a lot for people to compare two individuals.

I would concede that stereotypes can lead people to assume that the type is it's stereotype but is that actually damning enough to say that the whole thing would be better off without the stereotypes or is it more a case of re-educating those who don't use them correctly with the understanding that the stereotype is a concentrated note of the type as a whole?
 

Chris_in_Orbit

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
504
MBTI Type
ESTJ
You make good points. I think that INFP, to me, is much less than its stereotypes. INFP is Fi with Ne... but what does that mean? I guess that is why its so much easier to use stereotypes, especially for people who know nothing about MBTI in the first place.

You value stereotypes, I'm glad that you can admit that. I think that all human beings -need- stereotypes to an extent. Its impossible to understand the world without them (and I use "understanding" arbitrarily.) Then again, is it impossible to understand the world without stereotypes? I guess it is possible but the effort of viewing every single piece of something with an empty slate is inefficient.

I know that I use stereotypes and I know it is impossible to expect someone not to use them. I forgive people who use stereotypes as long as they are willing to keep an open mind. Someone may have a preconceived notion about a subject. For instance you say you have Jim and this person is an INTP. You decide in your mind upon typing Jim that he must be reclusive, incapable of showing emotions and probably very smart. If Jim contradicts any of those things the right approach would be to say "oh, this is interesting, maybe I was wrong in assuming all INTPs are alike." As opposed to saying "he must not be an INTP.. at least not a typical one."

I almost feel like MBTI is a roadblock to understanding a person when it is used incorrectly....which is unfortunate because it was created to be used as a tool for better understanding.

I will say that the stereotypes aren't so bad to the point that they need to be completly wiped from descriptions altogether, though I would like to see how it would look without them. You are probably correct in saying the problem can be remedied by re-educating those people who misuse it. But, Xander, I am curious as to how you would go about doing such a thing.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
...
For instance you say you have Jim and this person is an INTP. You decide in your mind upon typing Jim that he must be reclusive, incapable of showing emotions and probably very smart. If Jim contradicts any of those things the right approach would be to say "oh, this is interesting, maybe I was wrong in assuming all INTPs are alike." As opposed to saying "he must not be an INTP.. at least not a typical one."
If that happened to me, I would question whether I had evaluated his type correctly, and I would also adjust my stereotype if it turned Jim was indeed an INTP.

I almost feel like MBTI is a roadblock to understanding a person when it is used incorrectly....which is unfortunate because it was created to be used as a tool for better understanding.
...
I agree. For a person such as myself who grew up socially inept, MBTT is a valuable tool that gives me a basic foundation to work from when getting to know people and attempting to get along with them and avoid conflict.
I put everything in boxes. My pictures, my papers, my letters, my jewelry, etc. I love boxes. The more I sort things apart from each other, the more organized I feel. I know some people hate being put into boxes; I don't like being put into a box either! So I am careful to make sure my "people boxes" are not too rigid.

The MBTI types provide just enough definition to help me not feel like an inept fool.
I usually feel quite satisfied with just knowing someone is a J or an S or what-have-you. I don't try to over-define people.
I use MBTT as a helpful guide while I am getting to know a person.

For people I know well, like my own family members, then I am more confident in saying I know their type.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
#1 Dynamic type.
I've read this term in many books on the MBTI and though I'm not fully certain I understand it I think it's core to understanding the MBTI itself.

What does 'Dynamic Type' mean to you?
Does anyone have a full grasp of this concept yet? (I'd appreciate the insight)

#2 Function order.
There seems to be a lot of debate going on about this and the relative use of functions in typing. Personally I think it's linked to #1 in that precise function order is useful but it's going to flex with context.

I think that's why they only list four functions. The others are presumably more prone to shifting with context and are therefore too fluid in their priority to list with any certainty.
I'm going to put these two together because, the way I see it, people aren't of a specific type. They're just slotted into types so it make it easier for us to categorize their motives and behaviors.

An analogy is the rainbow. The visible spectrum contains a continuous range of wavelength from 400 - 700nm. But we say the rainbow has 7 colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. Why? To make it easier for us to describe them. Same goes for MBTI types.

Existence of functions and function ordering... I think there's indications that cognitive functions exists and that everybody can and does use all 8. We do have preferences though and that leads to function ordering. I think it's safe to say that our dominant (1') and auxiliary (2') functions are first to develop and thus we can categorize people based on those two... which typology tries to do. After that, I doubt people develop the other functions in the same order. The so-call complete functional ordering, Berens' theories etc is a load of bulls. Just take a look at people's cognitive functions testing results and you'll see that there is no patterns beyond the 1st two functions.

Point two, similar to the dynamic type idea... what we develop is use dependent. Throw ourselves in a theoretical environment, Ti and Te is more likely be to developed than say Fi or Fe. Our minds are also adaptive to environmental changes. We have a tendency to use pre-existing principles when responding to new stimuli... but these principles can be overridden by experience, which we obtain by immersion in a specific sort of environment.

I see myself as a good example of this. I was first typed INFJ... now I'm closer to INTJ. Is it an environment induced change from F to T or is it the environment that leads to unmasking of my "actual" type? Not sure.

#3 Subconscious influences.
Not sure if it's just me but could it not be said that the subconscious defines type as much if not more so than the conscious mind?

Aren't ENTJs equally noticeable by how they respond in a submissive manner to certain things as they are noticed for their commanding presence?

Should more attention be paid to these undercurrents?
Yes, type has as much to do with unconscious/subconscious tendencies as our deliberate actions. Unfortunately whenever you deal with the unconscious... evaluation becomes a great deal more difficult. You can't exactly ask people directly what's on their unconscious minds. Perhaps this is why people focus more on the conscious. Although the subconscious should be equally telling.

#4 Correct typing methodology.
To my mind there should be some agreement of how to type people without recourse to tests and yet it seems that everyone has their own take on how to do it.

From recent readings I'm thinking that the most effective method is to type in pairs NT, SP and so forth. So typing someone as an NT and then looking to see if they are E or I and by considering EJ vs IJ and EP vs IP and so forth.

I'm not certain if this is the "official" technique but I'm beginning to think it is.

Neatly linking into this is the idea of type "snapshots". Those little pieces of a types tendencies which we recall like stereotypes. Should these be used? Are they part of a healthy approach to typing (although a shortcut) or do they merely propagate poor typing and poor understanding of types?
Short of doing a proper study and testing the effectiveness of individual methods, I don't think this question can be answered. My suspicions is everybody is typing by comparing the person to some sort of mental pattern. Of cause, the type of pattern we have will be type dependent. An Si dominant will probably recall more details relating to specific mannerism, and quarks about different types more so than an Ni dominant individual. Clearly to ask an Ni dominant to use the Si method isn't going to work since they don't have the necessary details stored in their memories.

My rambling two cents that doesn't help. :spam_laser:

I almost feel like MBTI is a roadblock to understanding a person when it is used incorrectly....which is unfortunate because it was created to be used as a tool for better understanding.

I will say that the stereotypes aren't so bad to the point that they need to be completly wiped from descriptions altogether, though I would like to see how it would look without them. You are probably correct in saying the problem can be remedied by re-educating those people who misuse it.
Agreed fully with your comments. :) Sometimes I think MBTI is more of a hinder than a gift because of this.
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
#4 Correct typing methodology.
To my mind there should be some agreement of how to type people without recourse to tests and yet it seems that everyone has their own take on how to do it.

From recent readings I'm thinking that the most effective method is to type in pairs NT, SP and so forth. So typing someone as an NT and then looking to see if they are E or I and by considering EJ vs IJ and EP vs IP and so forth.

I'm not certain if this is the "official" technique but I'm beginning to think it is.

Neatly linking into this is the idea of type "snapshots". Those little pieces of a types tendencies which we recall like stereotypes. Should these be used? Are they part of a healthy approach to typing (although a shortcut) or do they merely propagate poor typing and poor understanding of types?

This reflects how the "Temperament" contingency among type experts do it. Many, many others start with trying to identify the dominant function, what seems to be the person's motivation. Still others start with function pairs-ST, SF, NF, NT--and some of them think that's as close as you can get while avoiding too much bias.

Because the preferences are subgrouped in different ways for different purposes, I'm not sure there can be a universal method, nice as it might be. I suspect that people gain agility working with the method that is most apropo to the ways in which they use type. I for example use S and N so much with educators that I think I am very good at spotting those differences in constructive ways.
 
Last edited:

mlittrell

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,387
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w1
#1 im going to ignore

#2 functions. personally, function orientation is the most important part of functions in general. without orientation they are pointless and have no power. a quick and dirty example of this is an ENFJ and an ENTP. an ENFJ uses Fe significantly different then an ENTP does, hopefully that is an obvious fact and it doesn't need to be explained. i will debate this point to the death if need be haha.

#3 the subconscious is quite important and not in ways that we notice immediately. they (if you are talking functionally) are subconscious and tend to manifest themselves in a very off hand way and can almost seem childish at times. now if your just talking about subconscious cognitive processes NOT as defined by MBTI it is still the same. it is something that isn't easily accessable but does manifest itself in ways that you may not even notice. i would go into this more but im running on extremely low sleep.

#4 i type by the temperaments. end of story. if someone else type by functions and gets the same type then great. if someone else types by some other random method, great. as long as we are typing right there is no right or wrong way to type. though i think whoever is being typed should read a few profiles of possible types and decide for themselves. they know quite a bit better than anyone else
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
You make good points. I think that INFP, to me, is much less than its stereotypes. INFP is Fi with Ne... but what does that mean? I guess that is why its so much easier to use stereotypes, especially for people who know nothing about MBTI in the first place.
The type means much more than the pure functions infer but the person means a lot more than just the type. Though one is descriptive of the other, one is not the other. An apple is green, green is not apple.
You value stereotypes, I'm glad that you can admit that. I think that all human beings -need- stereotypes to an extent. Its impossible to understand the world without them (and I use "understanding" arbitrarily.) Then again, is it impossible to understand the world without stereotypes? I guess it is possible but the effort of viewing every single piece of something with an empty slate is inefficient.
To see everything objectively you would have to be nothing.
I was wrong in assuming all INTPs are alike." As opposed to saying "he must not be an INTP.. at least not a typical one." [/quote]
That's the entire point behind one of the quotes in my signature. The base MBTI book states that "All ENFPs are like all other ENFPs, like some other ENFPs, like no other ENFP".
I almost feel like MBTI is a roadblock to understanding a person when it is used incorrectly....which is unfortunate because it was created to be used as a tool for better understanding.
Could this not be said for the misunderstanding of all things? Religion when used correctly and understood fully is a boon to society but when used poorly it is a bane the same as a gun.
I will say that the stereotypes aren't so bad to the point that they need to be completly wiped from descriptions altogether, though I would like to see how it would look without them. You are probably correct in saying the problem can be remedied by re-educating those people who misuse it. But, Xander, I am curious as to how you would go about doing such a thing.
I was trained well by my ENTJ father. You wait until you can bear it no longer and then simply state "I'm sorry but you're going to have to die" and then carry it though. It's kind of evolved natural selection in practice :newwink:
If that happened to me, I would question whether I had evaluated his type correctly, and I would also adjust my stereotype if it turned Jim was indeed an INTP.
It has been said that a wise man knows that he knows nothing. I think you get that.
So I am careful to make sure my "people boxes" are not too rigid.
I think that this is key to good use of the MBTI. The boxes are more rigid than the individual being typed. If they weren't then you would be reduced to just saying "This is Jim, he's a person".
I'm going to put these two together because, the way I see it, people aren't of a specific type. They're just slotted into types so it make it easier for us to categorize their motives and behaviors.
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.
An analogy is the rainbow. The visible spectrum contains a continuous range of wavelength from 400 - 700nm. But we say the rainbow has 7 colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. Why? To make it easier for us to describe them. Same goes for MBTI types.
That is an excellent example. I'll send that one along to my father for consideration in his book if you don't mind.
Existence of functions and function ordering... I think there's indications that cognitive functions exists and that everybody can and does use all 8. We do have preferences though and that leads to function ordering. I think it's safe to say that our dominant (1') and auxiliary (2') functions are first to develop and thus we can categorize people based on those two... which typology tries to do. After that, I doubt people develop the other functions in the same order. The so-call complete functional ordering, Berens' theories etc is a load of bulls. Just take a look at people's cognitive functions testing results and you'll see that there is no patterns beyond the 1st two functions.
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.
Point two, similar to the dynamic type idea... what we develop is use dependent. Throw ourselves in a theoretical environment, Ti and Te is more likely be to developed than say Fi or Fe. Our minds are also adaptive to environmental changes. We have a tendency to use pre-existing principles when responding to new stimuli... but these principles can be overridden by experience, which we obtain by immersion in a specific sort of environment.
Precisely. Hence no INTP is the same INTP after they have been exposed to exterior influences.

Hmmm... fancy doing a Schrodinger's cat example with types?
I see myself as a good example of this. I was first typed INFJ... now I'm closer to INTJ. Is it an environment induced change from F to T or is it the environment that leads to unmasking of my "actual" type? Not sure.
Well that's the thing isn't it. What we are is most often not what we were and the MBTI, as far as I understand it, is based more on what we were than what we are. It just helps us understand what we are by offering general predictions of patterns in our thinking.
Yes, type has as much to do with unconscious/subconscious tendencies as our deliberate actions. Unfortunately whenever you deal with the unconscious... evaluation becomes a great deal more difficult. You can't exactly ask people directly what's on their unconscious minds. Perhaps this is why people focus more on the conscious. Although the subconscious should be equally telling.
I think this is why I love those bits which tell you what the pitfalls are of a certain type as they tend to be more revealing about the persons subconscious.
Short of doing a proper study and testing the effectiveness of individual methods, I don't think this question can be answered. My suspicions is everybody is typing by comparing the person to some sort of mental pattern. Of cause, the type of pattern we have will be type dependent. An Si dominant will probably recall more details relating to specific mannerism, and quarks about different types more so than an Ni dominant individual. Clearly to ask an Ni dominant to use the Si method isn't going to work since they don't have the necessary details stored in their memories.

My rambling two cents that doesn't help. :spam_laser:
It's your method and you can cry if you want to :newwink:

Seems logical enough to me though.
This reflects how the "Temperament" contingency among type experts do it. Many, many others start with trying to identify the dominant function, what seems to be the person's motivation. Still others start with function pairs-ST, SF, NF, NT--and some of them think that's as close as you can get while avoiding too much bias.

Because the preferences are subgrouped in different ways for different purposes, I'm not sure there can be a universal method, nice as it might be. I suspect that people gain agility working with the method that is most apropo to the ways in which they use type. I for example use S and N so much with educators that I think I am very good at spotting those differences in constructive ways.
Perhaps then it show be taught as various approaches each shown to be a tool with relative strengths and weaknesses so that the user of the tools can select which tool is best applicable to the task at hand?

There does seem to be more literature available on what the types are, what it means and what it predicts than there is on how you should go about typing people. It seems that the current game of snap which most people engage in isn't as reliable as it perhaps should be.
#1 im going to ignore

#2 functions. personally, function orientation is the most important part of functions in general. without orientation they are pointless and have no power. a quick and dirty example of this is an ENFJ and an ENTP. an ENFJ uses Fe significantly different then an ENTP does, hopefully that is an obvious fact and it doesn't need to be explained. i will debate this point to the death if need be haha.
This is why I was hoping that function "users" would respond to #1 though. If you are observing a person in a less than ideal (for them) environment then the function usage will be slanted in favour of whatever they are using at that point in time.
#3 the subconscious is quite important and not in ways that we notice immediately. they (if you are talking functionally) are subconscious and tend to manifest themselves in a very off hand way and can almost seem childish at times. now if your just talking about subconscious cognitive processes NOT as defined by MBTI it is still the same. it is something that isn't easily accessable but does manifest itself in ways that you may not even notice. i would go into this more but im running on extremely low sleep.
So are you talking MBTI subconscious functions (ie the tertiary and inferior) or something else here? You've switched between MBTI and something undeclared.. either that or I'm confusing myself.
#4 i type by the temperaments. end of story. if someone else type by functions and gets the same type then great. if someone else types by some other random method, great. as long as we are typing right there is no right or wrong way to type. though i think whoever is being typed should read a few profiles of possible types and decide for themselves. they know quite a bit better than anyone else
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.
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
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.

That's actually the official "doctrine," even in the MBTI manual. Proper interpretation includes (in this order)

Person hears a description of the theory and self-selects preferences
Person is given MBTI results
Facilitator helps person interpret results and determine best-fit type wherever reported (MBTI) and self-selected type doesn't match
Person reads full type description and discusses whether it fits them

There are books/manuals out there for how to use the various lenses but not much on the internet.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
I was trained well by my ENTJ father. You wait until you can bear it no longer and then simply state "I'm sorry but you're going to have to die" and then carry it though. It's kind of evolved natural selection in practice :newwink:
Does that actually work though? Stereotypes persists even when we don't want them to. You can tell it to die all you want, but the sneaky bastard always resurrects. :doh: This is something I'm prone to doing. Thoughts just creeps in and I have to beat them back.

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.
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.

*nods* Feel free to use it. It's not exactly my example, I just pulled it from a different context.

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.
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.

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.

Hmmm... fancy doing a Schrodinger's cat example with types?
Heh... got any guinea pigs we can do testing on? I wouldn't mind playing. :devil:

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.
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.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
There does seem to be more literature available on what the types are, what it means and what it predicts than there is on how you should go about typing people. It seems that the current game of snap which most people engage in isn't as reliable as it perhaps should be.
I agree, but I own one such book:
The Art of SpeedReading People by Barron and Tieger.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
...
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.
I agree with you. That's what I have found also. That's why there is no perfect written test, in my opinion. I find the personal interview/response method to be the best. And not to be mean, but I have found men notoriously less self-aware than women. Any time I want to help a male figure out his type, I get a female in his life to help me, such as his mom or wife. And generally speaking whenever I can get the opinions of other friends or family members, it helps the process go more quickly because, as I have experienced anyway, MBTT is all about "compared to who". I used to think I was observant until I realized what they meant by "observant" was more like what my ISTP husband was doing.
 

mlittrell

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,387
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w1
This is why I was hoping that function "users" would respond to #1 though. If you are observing a person in a less than ideal (for them) environment then the function usage will be slanted in favour of whatever they are using at that point in time.

So are you talking MBTI subconscious functions (ie the tertiary and inferior) or something else here? You've switched between MBTI and something undeclared.. either that or I'm confusing myself.

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 organization that makes ends meet with computer readable tests and such.
no matter what my answer would be on #1 function order/orientation should always remain the same. now ya, you can say, "oh, he is using Ne" and that might be true. great. but that is about all it is going to tell you. woo. now what i get a little pissy about is when i hear people saying, "oh, im an ENTP and i took a cognitive functions test and my functions are as follows: Ti, Te, Ne, Fe...blah blah blah" ya if your an ENTP your functions are Ne, Ti, Fe, Si. now true, you can use your Fe and such but it is still filtered through your Ne and Ti so of coures your Fe is going to be different then someone who is, say, an ENFJ. so your right, you can observe individual functions at work, but many times they are still being filtered through other functions and thus may not be true to the definition of that function as an individual entity.

ya i kept switching between the shadow function (which is subconscious. i think the tertiary function is conscious but not always being used) and the traditional definition of subconscious. sorry bout that lol. also, there is a difference between subconscious and unconscious. personally i believe that the shadow is unconscious, but that is just me.

and ya, tests can be HORRIBLY flawed and im quite against them, for the most part. they do have their place however so i cant completely discredit them. i know tons of INFJs that come out ISFJs and tons of ENXPs that come up INXP (i think that has to do with the introspection factor, which doesn't necessarily mean introversion but usually when you are introspecting you tend to be introverting in a sense).
 

brazil

New member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
6
MBTI Type
??TP
well, you've touched upon something here in terms of my understanding of functional analysis...


..., "oh, im an ENTP and i took a cognitive functions test and my functions are as follows: Ti, Te, Ne, Fe...blah blah blah" ya if your an ENTP your functions are Ne, Ti, Fe, Si. now true, you can use your Fe and such but it is still filtered through your Ne and Ti so of coures your Fe is going to be different then someone who is, say, an ENFJ. so your right, you can observe individual functions at work, but many times they are still being filtered through other functions and thus may not be true to the definition of that function as an individual entity.​

so there are 8 functions. if you consider the possible rankings (if all 8 were considered completely independent functions) they could form 5,040 different combinations, but we're told that there are 16. what is the basis for this? i'm not a complete skeptic, i believe in personality types to some degree, but why should there be only 16 possible combinations here? (i personally believe i'm not one of the 16...)
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
...
so there are 8 functions. if you consider the possible rankings (if all 8 were considered completely independent functions) they could form 5,040 different combinations, but we're told that there are 16. what is the basis for this? i'm not a complete skeptic, i believe in personality types to some degree, but why should there be only 16 possible combinations here? (i personally believe i'm not one of the 16...)
When you do your math, you have to add in a couple of limitations.
Of the first two functions, one must be an information gathering function - either S or N,
and the second must be a decision making function, either F or T,
though either one can come first.

Here is a list to look at:
(it's at the bottom of the page)
The 16 Type Patterns

As you can see, the 3rd and 4th functions follow the same rule.
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
I think the other thing to keep in mind that the theoretical order in which the functions develop produces the 16 types. If a person's environment doesn't support natural development, then the preferences do develop out of order--at least a not-very-vocal group of type practitioners believe this is true, vs. the more vocal Beebe and other camps who stick to a set order.

So let's say your preferences are INFJ. Sticking with the traditional order of preferences...
  • Ni develops first, in early childhood with daydreaming and a rich imaginative inner life. The young INFJ is content to frequently play alone and pretend to be the greatest French Resistance fighter of all times. What if the parents are Extraverted and haul that child everywhere, seldom allowing the solo play? Ni development may well be stunted.
  • Fe should develop next. But maybe it's had a head start since the child has been dragged everywhere. The child then has its Judging preference but hasn't learned conscious control of its Ni. This could result in an adolescent who makes snap decisions about the needs and motivations of others rather than the more mature pattern of INFJs who first use Ni to consider possibilities and then Fe to act in the outer world.
  • Or, worse yet what if the parents dragged that child to very Thinking environments--perhaps the parents value math achievement above all else so the child has been to math camps and math competitions and chess club and...all logical pursuits? Now the child hasn't been able to develop either of its natural functions. They may have some conscious control of Te but it'll always be less natural, less fulfilling, than if Fe had been allowed to develop. The child may begin feeling inept compared to all the natural chess players/ math people (note: F's can be great at math and some might even want to be in the math competitions from an early age. I'm just setting up patterns...)
  • Se would be last traditionally. This child might find it a total escape, joining sports or getting into sensory overload through drugs, overeating, overexercising--anything to avoid the constant inner emptiness caused by a lack of conscious control of Ni that has been blocked by an environment that didn't support the natural growth pattern of the child...

Yes this post assumes that type is innate--we're born with a predisposition to our psychological preferences. But our environment, culture, education, social circles, family, experiences influence the development of those preferences, for better and for worse. The good news is that ALL normal people will develop skills with the opposite preferences. The bad news is that a lot of (*$&(# can get in teh way of normal development. that's why counselors and psychotherapists can generally count on full employment if they're any good at what they do...
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
#2 Function order.
There seems to be a lot of debate going on about this and the relative use of functions in typing. Personally I think it's linked to #1 in that precise function order is useful but it's going to flex with context.

I think that's why they only list four functions. The others are presumably more prone to shifting with context and are therefore too fluid in their priority to list with any certainty.
See my signature for a solution to most problems with the functions. (I know you've read all about it, X, but others may not have.)

From recent readings I'm thinking that the most effective method is to type in pairs NT, SP and so forth. So typing someone as an NT and then looking to see if they are E or I and by considering EJ vs IJ and EP vs IP and so forth.
I am now using the Keirsey split and the following split almost equally. They are similarly useful in my mind.

NP, SP, TJ, FJ

Neatly linking into this is the idea of type "snapshots". Those little pieces of a types tendencies which we recall like stereotypes. Should these be used? Are they part of a healthy approach to typing (although a shortcut) or do they merely propagate poor typing and poor understanding of types?
Yes. It is one of a few effective analysis techniques, but one very dependent on the practitioner's ability. Novices and MBTI experts alike may or may not be skilled at comparison classification. Therefore, I recommend that if a person doesn't think it holds merit, they should definitely steer clear of using it. I hypothesize that NPs will be more naturally adept.
 

mlittrell

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,387
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w1
well, you've touched upon something here in terms of my understanding of functional analysis...

..., "oh, im an ENTP and i took a cognitive functions test and my functions are as follows: Ti, Te, Ne, Fe...blah blah blah" ya if your an ENTP your functions are Ne, Ti, Fe, Si. now true, you can use your Fe and such but it is still filtered through your Ne and Ti so of coures your Fe is going to be different then someone who is, say, an ENFJ. so your right, you can observe individual functions at work, but many times they are still being filtered through other functions and thus may not be true to the definition of that function as an individual entity.​
so there are 8 functions. if you consider the possible rankings (if all 8 were considered completely independent functions) they could form 5,040 different combinations, but we're told that there are 16. what is the basis for this? i'm not a complete skeptic, i believe in personality types to some degree, but why should there be only 16 possible combinations here? (i personally believe i'm not one of the 16...)
ill let everyone else explain. i suggest reading please understand me part II and most anything written by carl jung. keirseys temperaments are a derivative of jungs functions so the order of the function is quite important. and where did you get 5,040 combinations. i haven't taken statistics for a LONG time but isn't it 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1. you can choose from the eight functions but once youve chosen you have seven left that you must choose from then six and so on. so there would be 40,320 lol wow that doesn't sound correct.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Does that actually work though? Stereotypes persists even when we don't want them to. You can tell it to die all you want, but the sneaky bastard always resurrects. :doh: This is something I'm prone to doing. Thoughts just creeps in and I have to beat them back.
Not stereotypes.... just the users of them. You can't kill an idea but you can have a damn good try and killing off anyone who uses it :devil:
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.
That's what's confusing me. What about the type is dynamic?

At present I'm keeping with the idea that they're stating it's "dynamic" to indicate that it should never be read as 100% certain or predictable. Seems a little like a get out clause to me but it is accurate.
*nods* Feel free to use it. It's not exactly my example, I just pulled it from a different context.
Lots of large armoured vehicle mounting a cannon.

:newwink
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.
I think you skipped a bit... Beren's sheds light on these mature types or I should read it cause it spectacularly fails to?

I do agree though that most of the typing stuff I've read really doesn't help when it comes to developed types. When I was trying to figure the parallels between myself and Wildcat I kept coming up against brick walls. I think we both developed away from the INTP norm... just not in the same way... We're both playing all the right notes... it's just some *#@!! nicked the music sheets :newwink:
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.
Well that's the thing isn't it. How do you develop a function? I personally think that it's better to think in terms of practising thinking and acting more in tune with other types and not actually altering my own type. Kind of more like trying to incorporate other's thinking rather than change my own thinking to match theirs. Osmosis I think is the correct term.
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.
I struggle to reconcile this myself. How is it that a practising MBTI professional should consider the subject an adequate source of accurate information when the subject often does not understand the implications of their analysis. Perhaps through guided psychoanalysis their responses my elicit a more accurate type but that's hardly the same as asking the person to validate their own type. Personally I think it's more helpful to be presented with a type as a challenge to my own perceptions of myself than as validation for my behaviour.

(Note to all, I've been absent for a while. I'll be responding shortly to all responses.)
 
Top