User Tag List

First 4121314

Results 131 to 134 of 134

  1. #131
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Would it be agreed that if someone were to say that a person was either an INTJ or an ENTJ because they used Te that this would be wrong? If Te and Ti do not exist except as concepts to explain the different results of two T preference people then how can you work backwards with any reliability?
    I agree with you on this point, though as with MBTT in general, everyone has their own method that they believe works for them.
    Personally, I consider myself too much of a novice to know what Te looks like.
    And if I did, I wouldn't know if I was looking at a person's first or second function,
    or a usually unused function.
    And frankly, I don't see how anyone else could know that either.
    And by the time you had been with someone long enough to determine that,
    it seems to me that there would be faster more accurate means of determining someone's type.

    The "working backwards" you mentioned happens in the 4 dimensions as well, if we think about it. What is the proper way to determine someone's type? Is it not by a personal/group consultation where the options are laid before the persons and they decide for themselves what type they are?
    Technically, the system wasn't meant for people to go around typing other people, yet it's increasingly being used that way. I have read some of the most atrocious ways people have for determining the type of another. They jump to conclusions; they have no way of falsifying their findings, yet they insist that they're correct.
    I think it just comes with the territory.
    As with all of life, people are wrong all the time.
    Some of the online tests use this "backwards" thinking as well.
    Visit the "What's my type" sub-forum and you will see all kinds of information given in the name of thinking they are helping someone determine their type!

    If Linda Berens were here, do you think she would agree with you? I think maybe not.
    She probably feels secure enough in her understanding of people and of the functions that she feels she can determine someones type quite easily.
    Maybe not. I could be wrong.


    You see I don't have a problem with the function order as listed in most text books per se only the way in which people pick it up and use it literally. In strictest definition is Te a function? Is it not that T is the function and e the preferred arena to use it in?
    Once again I agree. And given that a person might be forced to use a function outside of their preferred arena occasionally, it seems pretty arrogant to claim to be able to judge total strangers by such an observation.
    As far as textbook listings, it's not that exact of a science, right? Or is it?
    I think some people here are of the opinion that it is not.

    I can only be as exact with my work as my tools allow me to be.
    I.e., a chisel is less precise than an Exacto knife.

    Ergo function analysis should not be based upon Fe and Fi but rather F itself as a whole. The various arenas should be a layer of analysis on top of that and not beside.
    If I were a function "expert" I perhaps would disagree with that. Given the time to study someone, and observing that a certain person ALWAYS uses Fe and Never uses Fi, that might be helpful in helping me determine their type, but as I said, there are probably faster, easier ways to do it.

    It's a question of priority and importance. It seems that many consider the context as part of the function itself, it is this which I find incorrect and it's this tendency which I'm trying to address.
    I agree with you that determining someone's type by observing the functions they use is not a good way to do it.
    But if a person chooses to do it that way and is always correct, then I don't see the harm.

    It would be incorrect to assume that I'm trying to alter the system as it is, or as I interpret it to be (to be precisely precise), but rather how it is interpreted by a few people.
    Perhaps these people are novices who don't know any better?

    Also in part I'm trying to find out if my thinking is correct but that's an aside to this particular thread as if I try to do both I'll only get buried in nay sayers and that's just irritating.
    That's an INTP question that I can't help with.

  2. #132
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    No, you can't type someone based just on seeing them use a function. We all use all functions, and type is determined by preference of the functions. Then there are the words "function" and "process", which are often used interchangeably. Perhaps one can refer to the neutral T, F, S or N, and the other refer to the specific attitude. I have not seen a consistent rule followed on that.
    Perhaps it is this lack of consistency which started my thinking? Not sure what starts me noticing a pattern as I only notice after the patterns starting to form..

    Anyhoo, perhaps I should say that without stability in approach then the function should be used neutrally and the attitude determined separately?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  3. #133
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    I agree with you on this point, though as with MBTT in general, everyone has their own method that they believe works for them.
    I resist such comfort myself (and no that's not an in joke btw). I find I'm never satisfied just saying "well that's this persons way".. I can be happy with people doing things differently but mostly I try to make sense of it.. if it makes sense, then I'm happy.

    This doesn't make sense...yet.
    Personally, I consider myself too much of a novice to know what Te looks like.
    And if I did, I wouldn't know if I was looking at a person's first or second function,
    or a usually unused function.
    And frankly, I don't see how anyone else could know that either.
    And by the time you had been with someone long enough to determine that,
    it seems to me that there would be faster more accurate means of determining someone's type.
    That's the thing, you can do all of this without recourse to determining the attitude of function usage. It's not usually difficult to determine if someone is a J or a P. Even in my case I'm most assuredly a P even though I've been around Js all my life pretty much (aside from Dom I think they're all Js!!).

    Once you know that then you know which function is extraverted and so on.
    The "working backwards" you mentioned happens in the 4 dimensions as well, if we think about it. What is the proper way to determine someone's type? Is it not by a personal/group consultation where the options are laid before the persons and they decide for themselves what type they are?
    Technically, the system wasn't meant for people to go around typing other people, yet it's increasingly being used that way. I have read some of the most atrocious ways people have for determining the type of another. They jump to conclusions; they have no way of falsifying their findings, yet they insist that they're correct.
    I think it just comes with the territory.
    As with all of life, people are wrong all the time.
    Some of the online tests use this "backwards" thinking as well.
    Visit the "What's my type" sub-forum and you will see all kinds of information given in the name of thinking they are helping someone determine their type!
    Errm wasn't this whole thing started by someone trying to type people? Isn't that what it's all based upon? Whether or not the subject is the most accurate arbitrator is irrelevant to whether you can apply it to others or not (you obviously can).

    I think the thing which can be drawn from the evidence on this board and in many other locales is that the system is very open to abuse and context. I lost track many moons ago, for example, of the number of Americans who swear blind their intuitives because they can spot patterns that their neighbour can't and yet display none of the other signs of intuitive behaviour. Such things are a mistake of context. Contrast only works if the background is fairly neutral otherwise the whole thing shifts accordingly.
    If Linda Berens were here, do you think she would agree with you? I think maybe not.
    Surely you don't think I wouldn't argue with her? Hell I'd argue quantum physics with Heinz Wolfe given half a chance.. It'd be fun and I'd learn something... even if that is just not to mess with them
    She probably feels secure enough in her understanding of people and of the functions that she feels she can determine someones type quite easily.
    Maybe not. I could be wrong.
    This is what concerns me with those regarded as "experts". I find a lot of them have travelled so long along the path before them that they can no longer relate properly to other paths and hence become increasingly detached from the wider reality.
    Once again I agree. And given that a person might be forced to use a function outside of their preferred arena occasionally, it seems pretty arrogant to claim to be able to judge total strangers by such an observation.
    As far as textbook listings, it's not that exact of a science, right? Or is it?
    I think some people here are of the opinion that it is not.
    I think typology as with most psychology, defies "science". Hell mathematics defies science... as does physics come to think of it... I mean what is it with the whole thing of "this always happens" from an observed result of "this happened for as long as we watched but when we weren't watching something random happened"?
    I can only be as exact with my work as my tools allow me to be.
    I.e., a chisel is less precise than an Exacto knife.
    Even so you could be more accurate with a hair, though your patience would need to be accordingly greater.

    If I were a function "expert" I perhaps would disagree with that. Given the time to study someone, and observing that a certain person ALWAYS uses Fe and Never uses Fi, that might be helpful in helping me determine their type, but as I said, there are probably faster, easier ways to do it.
    This is a good question. I know that people are capable of using all 8 functions and do so in a blend which MBTI only pulls out the grosest of tendancies but I wonder if according to theory we're using all 8 functions all of the time and only the strongest is really noted in the MBTI or if we do operate on a selection of those 8 functions most of the time and just retain the capability to "switch" occasionally.
    I agree with you that determining someone's type by observing the functions they use is not a good way to do it.
    But if a person chooses to do it that way and is always correct, then I don't see the harm.
    I've yet to see someone do that though. They usually seem to totally miss the point.
    Perhaps these people are novices who don't know any better?
    In which case I hope that by discussing it the thinking is brought out in the open for others to understand or work from to a better solution. There's little point keeping it behind closed doors even if it is true and right (I know we disagree on this last point but I'm hoping you'll permit this P that leeway )
    That's an INTP question that I can't help with.
    Oh but you are, said the spider to the fly.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  4. #134
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Oh but you are, said the spider to the fly.
    tee-hee

Similar Threads

  1. The alternative/real function orders
    By Virtual ghost in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 10-11-2009, 03:25 PM
  2. How Function Order dictates behaviour
    By VagrantFarce in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-28-2009, 06:31 PM
  3. [JCF] What is the function order?
    By INTJ123 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-16-2009, 04:34 PM
  4. Function Order Game
    By StephMC in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-10-2009, 03:18 PM
  5. Function order
    By Poki in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 06:09 AM

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