# Thread: Hap's Theory of Dynamic Type

1. Originally Posted by Jack Flak
No, no, this opinion is so justified it hurts. The system discussed in this thread has no practical use. It's only valid as a subject of contemplation.

The underlying thesis is "There are too many types of people to describe with sixteen types. We should attempt to describe them all." It's worse than the confusing mess that is Jungian functions.
ok thanks for the clarification, I just needed the validation from the outside to see if my thinking is correct.

I will try to follow you and give you a GOOD opinion on things, if I can. I myself have a hard time to synchronize MBTI with my own ideas. It did fit so far very well and specializations on the topic, I see sense in.

I did see sense in hap's specialization of the topic now aswell. It's just it's too much. I need to figure that out now for myself really.

And most of all, I need to do this sober

2. I wish I knew visual C++ or something, I'd show you guys a sick idea I have for a visual representation of this system.

3. if you need help with C let me now, there I am better

4. Originally Posted by entropie
if you need help with C let me now, there I am better
I want to make something that looks kinda like volume control on windows...

Slidey thingos for value of introversion/extroversion for each function (4)
Slidey thingos for value of thinking/feeling and sensing/intuiting (2)
Slidey thingo for value of judging/perceiving (1)

Then I want the letters for MBTI type on the top that switch when you pass midpoints of the spectrums.. (it would have to calculate relative values of usage for each of the "eight functions" before being able to determine type. and you'd have to program in arbitrary weights for how the spectrums affect each other to figure out those values.)

5. The continuum with extroversion/introversion of functions is not so specifically I/E but rather whether one uses N, S, T, or F 'like a judger' or 'like a perceiver.'

So, in this system, unlike Jack's, N and S are not exclusively 'perceiving' and T and F are not exclusively 'judging.'

So most of the differences between the 'variations' have to do with people favoring a certain aspect of MBTI besides 'perceiving/judging,' like introversion, extroversion, or a particular function.

6. Originally Posted by Haphazard
So, in this system, unlike Jack's, N and S are not exclusively 'perceiving' and T and F are not exclusively 'judging.'
You're taking the error further than Jung did (He included elements of both input and processing in several P and J functions).

You can call a cat a dog, but it doesn't make it true, and only ends in an increase in incorrectness, and therefore a lack of understanding.

7. Originally Posted by Haphazard
The continuum with extroversion/introversion of functions is not so specifically I/E but rather whether one uses N, S, T, or F 'like a judger' or 'like a perceiver.'

So, in this system, unlike Jack's, N and S are not exclusively 'perceiving' and T and F are not exclusively 'judging.'
Just on this topic... is it even possible to have judging without perceiving? Might be better off having them paired... perceiving plus judging (Pi + Je vs Pe + Ji)?

8. Originally Posted by Jack Flak
You're taking the error further than Jung did (He included elements of both input and processing in several P and J functions).
Um, what? Which judging function has elements of input? And perceiving does not technically mean input anyway. Only sensing literally takes in information.

Judging/Perceiving does not make the split between input/processing. It makes the split between conscious and unconscious.

9. Originally Posted by Jack Flak
You can call a cat a dog, but it doesn't make it true, and only ends in an increase in incorrectness, and therefore a lack of understanding.
And there you go with your Ti again.

If you call a cat a dog, and everyone believes you, then for all intents and purposes, the cat is a dog. 'Dog' will begin to refer to the similarities between what was formerly known as 'cats' and 'dogs' rather than your preconceived concept of 'dog.' It is therefore no longer incorrect but merely a change of terminology.

10. Originally Posted by Haphazard
And there you go with your Ti again.

If you call a cat a dog, and everyone believes you, then for all intents and purposes, the cat is a dog. 'Dog' will begin to refer to the similarities between what was formerly known as 'cats' and 'dogs' rather than your preconceived concept of 'dog.' It is therefore no longer incorrect but merely a change of terminology.
High five!

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•