X's do NOT exist!

[Into It]

If I could pick out just one flaw in the Typology theory, this would be the one. While one letter may determine a certain set of tendencies, the whole of the four letter code is much greater than the sum of its parts. I would suggest to anyone who asserts that they are an INFx that they should analyze further, because it is not possible to dodge categorization. An ENTP who has a structured lifestyle is disciplined, not hybrid. The notion of an IxFJ is paradoxical, and one who claims to belong to this type may identify wholly with both of their Si & Ni dominant cousins, but they will either categorize their information in a concrete grid or they won't. I have drawn this conclusion from my observations.
When I first found MBTI, I was puzzled at how the ENTP seemed like me in some ways, but worlds apart in others. I tested ENTP time after time, because my Fi prizes clarity of thought. My Fi feels that in regard to decision making, emotions are a fog at their most benign. On this note, I look a bit different from most of the other ENFP's that I come into contact with, but I would never consider myself an ENxP. This is because Ne by itself is an intelligence devoid of any reality until its "brand" is specified. The Ti version of Ne is a very different animal from the Fi version. Only when I realized that my Ne focused on possibilities to improve myself, rather than to improve conditions, was I able to identify with the ENFP camp. There are some very talkative introverts out there, but that doesn't mean that their psychological focus is not predominantly psychic. I don't work the same as an NT by any means, but I consider rationality and intuition the highest forms of intelligence, so in order to be in line with my own values (which an NF must be), I feel at home when I am behaving rationally. I also consider it the greatest sin to feel that any subjective belief should be applied universally, and any belief of mine that doesn't hold up to an objective external standard is immediately abandoned. Thus, my behavior, dictated by these F sentiments, resembles typical "T" behavior in many ways. (Which is not to say that I look like an ENTP, or any T type in particular.) But I could see how others would think that they are between two types, when they are in fact merely an emotional thinker or a practical intuitionist.
Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Snow Turtle]

Agreed. That they don't exist in theory, most people are one or another.

Disagree in the sense that it's useful for people to represent themselves. There's a reason people use things like iNfP for example. However I generally disagree with the notion that functions are fixed and fully believe that it's possible to have somebody with high Fi/Ti combined. (Obviously one will be the natural/prefered one.) or someone with a strong Si/Ni nature. Meh... it's all just things to capture how a person thinks.

 

[BlackCat]

Agreed 100%.

 

[Azseroffs]

I agree with Kai.

Technically I think you are correct, but if people want to express themselves in more individualized way I don't see any harm in showing themselves as iNtP or EXTJ

although an X is inaccurate, as there is always a preference.

 

[plaguerat]

Agreed. I think rather than x's existing, there's just a strong development of some function common to the opposite of whatever "letter" is in question. Like an INTJ with overdeveloped S sensibilities or something.

 

[zarc]

Agreed.

If I could pick out just one flaw in the Typology theory, this would be the one.

Who's theory? lol People just perpetuate what they want because of uncertainty or misinformation, which in turn perpetuates further wrong, and because some refuse to be "boxed". When if they learned further, MBTI isn't about being boxed but of removing oneself from their limitations within their own box by evolving in a healthy manner. That's how you get out of the box. You learn to do this by developing yourself in a manner that's best suited to your top two functions because you're most conscious and familiar with them with occasional relief/interference from your Tert. The rest vary based on your individual awareness which you place on them when necessary or out of necessity due to your circumstances. They oscillate all the time, regardless.

Wish people understood this more.

I also consider it the greatest sin to feel that any subjective belief should be applied universally, and any belief of mine that doesn't hold up to an objective external standard is immediately abandoned. Thus, my behavior, dictated by these F sentiments, resembles typical "T" behavior in many ways. (Which is not to say that I look like an ENTP, or any T type in particular.)

It just means you've developed your Aux well enough and are strengthening your Tert to support you in relief instead of hinder you. So what you're doing is Ne orientation-Te support, by Fi's guideline. It's not one of dictation or else you would be applying your Fi universally and inappropriately at that. It's a Benevolent ruler, not a Dictator. (I know that's not what you meant by dictated but I think using guideline is more preferable in this case. ) You'd be well balanced in this respect. It's why you might look T to people who are unfamiliar with what a balanced person looks like due to stereotypes about F/T (nvm the rest of I/E J/P etc zz). The type you look in particular is a well balanced person who just happens to be ENFP.

 

[527468]

Disagree.

At a certain moment in time one fits into category, and another moment, another category. In likelihood these moments will represent the same category, however some one person can represent two categories by subjecting an inconcludable combination of moments. This is more noticeable in N types. There is an example that an ENTJ fits with the INFJ profile, but has chosen ENTJ to make a clear division. For an example of INFX, no such division exists. The INFX is planned in many aspects and quite casual for many aspects of equal personal significance. There is no standard, for no one would meet a standard. Theory however subjects black and white thinking for simplicity. Simplicity is well appreciated.

 

[zarc]

There is no standard, for no one would meet a standard. Theory however subjects black and white thinking for simplicity. Simplicity is well appreciated.

There is no black and white thinking nor is there of simplicity regarding it. The black and white thinking or simplicity is due to people who've misunderstood how MBTI works. The system is fairly complex. The simplicity is largely misunderstood by the four letters which people mainly believe constitute their prefs when they're only representative of their "type" holistically. The only thing those four letters indicate is the rest of one's preferences but not of an order to them. This is one reason why MBTI is mostly misunderstood. The preferences after the first two vary greatly according to the individual. The functions are tailor made for you by you and not of a composite "type". They oscillate during an individual's circumstances from moment to moment, whether aware or not, in positive, negative or neutral manners. How well we use them depends upon our awareness placed upon them and whether or not we favour them if we've developed them well enough not to feel deficient.

 

[527468]

There is no black and white thinking nor is there of simplicity regarding it. The black and white thinking or simplicity is due to people who've misunderstood how MBTI works. The system is fairly complex. The simplicity is largely misunderstood by the four letters which people mainly believe constitute their prefs when they're only representative of their "type" holistically. The only thing those four letters indicate is the rest of one's preferences but not of an order to them. This is one reason why MBTI is mostly misunderstood. The preferences after the first two vary greatly according to the individual. The functions are tailor made for you by you and not of a composite "type". They oscillate during an individual's circumstances from moment to moment, whether aware or not, in positive, negative or neutral manners. How well we use them depends upon our awareness placed upon them and whether or not we favour them if we've developed them well enough not to feel deficient.

I agree. Though I think typing is relative of the people in the sample. If one J type by a large scale closer to P than average, I'd consider him an X. It doesn't matter if he's mostly J. This mostly is a 51/49 ratio and makes it more clear that this person is too P to be a full fledged J. If more people used the X system of typing, X types wouldn't seem so ambiguous. An X means a lot more than deciding by a tiny percentage what your preference is. If I were as low as 55% J, I would call myself X, so people understand that I'm not that J, that I have P tendency in a lot of aspects of my life.

 

[wildcat]

If I could pick out just one flaw in the Typology theory, this would be the one. While one letter may determine a certain set of tendencies, the whole of the four letter code is much greater than the sum of its parts. I would suggest to anyone who asserts that they are an INFx that they should analyze further, because it is not possible to dodge categorization. An ENTP who has a structured lifestyle is disciplined, not hybrid. The notion of an IxFJ is paradoxical, and one who claims to belong to this type may identify wholly with both of their Si & Ni dominant cousins, but they will either categorize their information in a concrete grid or they won't. I have drawn this conclusion from my observations.
When I first found MBTI, I was puzzled at how the ENTP seemed like me in some ways, but worlds apart in others. I tested ENTP time after time, because my Fi prizes clarity of thought. My Fi feels that in regard to decision making, emotions are a fog at their most benign. On this note, I look a bit different from most of the other ENFP's that I come into contact with, but I would never consider myself an ENxP. This is because Ne by itself is an intelligence devoid of any reality until its "brand" is specified. The Ti version of Ne is a very different animal from the Fi version. Only when I realized that my Ne focused on possibilities to improve myself, rather than to improve conditions, was I able to identify with the ENFP camp. There are some very talkative introverts out there, but that doesn't mean that their psychological focus is not predominantly psychic. I don't work the same as an NT by any means, but I consider rationality and intuition the highest forms of intelligence, so in order to be in line with my own values (which an NF must be), I feel at home when I am behaving rationally. I also consider it the greatest sin to feel that any subjective belief should be applied universally, and any belief of mine that doesn't hold up to an objective external standard is immediately abandoned. Thus, my behavior, dictated by these F sentiments, resembles typical "T" behavior in many ways. (Which is not to say that I look like an ENTP, or any T type in particular.) But I could see how others would think that they are between two types, when they are in fact merely an emotional thinker or a practical intuitionist.
Do you agree or disagree?

Look at the rainbow.
The divide is in the middle.
The divided is not.

On the other hand you may look at the dichotomy of Mendel.
What comes around goes around.

Preference is not a category.

 

[527468]

Look at the rainbow.
The divide is in the middle.
The divided is not.

On the other hand you may look at the dichotomy of Mendel.
What comes around goes around.

Preference is not a category.

I think the issue is the visual X. What lies before is a symbol. People want to know out of two which is most. But I am saying X is more significant to one who is very close to both preferences. One is most, but it doesn't matter because its not "primary." There are four other different preferences. J won't typically describe someone who is 55% J.

Look at the gray.

Is it particularly "black" to anyone? How about "white?" Its it particularly white?

This gray is defined much clearer because its not so dark.

 

[nanook]

there are two sides to a communication.

as long as people inconsistently confuse NiFe and FiNe all the time, when they refer to people who they know, as being either "infj" or "infp", i will not call myself by any of those two labels, because at least 50% of people will read the opposite (wrong) meaning/associate the opposite (wrong) reference from their experience with me. this includes people who are infx themselves.

so there are only infx

 

[527468]

Personalities are too different, and my advice of these four important personality preferences is to allow X towards this theory.

I know for sure that a so-called INTJ and a so-called INFJ can be more in common than the INTJ is with other INTJs, and INFJ with other INFJs. Why? Because they have a 10 or 20 % difference between their T/F, and the others have a 30+% difference. This relationship is much more common than some would think. They are INXJs because they are the most in common.

And put functions aside for a while. I see INFJs score Fi-Ne all the time, and that doesn't mean they have so much in common with INFPs. If you can't notice this for yourself, I'm just going to tell you: Functions are colored by one's preferences, not the other way around. Classic Ti mistake. It sounds logical to assume functions color preferences, but from pure observation, it's obviously not the case.

 

[Mort Belfry]

Of course there's no Xs, it's just a shorthand way of saying this letter is undecided. Nobody is going around trying to find out what the introverted and extraverted X functions are. It's also helpful for typing fictional characters that, through undisciplined or homogenised writing, don't have a definite type.

Also, a word of advice, it's nice to space out paragraphs for your readers.

 

[527468]

Of course there's no Xs, it's just a shorthand way of saying this letter is undecided. Nobody is going around trying to find out what the introverted and extraverted X functions are. It's also helpful for typing fictional characters that, through undisciplined or homogenised writing, don't have a definite type.

Also, a word of advice, it's nice to space out paragraphs for your readers.

But this isn't psychological brain testing. There is no knowledge specific to any of the preferences that goes hand in hand. It is like saying the statement "I keep options open and I'm organized" is illogical. Or even "I'm complicated and I like details." Preference theory isn't ruled by statistics!

FYI: X is a symbol that means cross, as in "I'm a cross between introverted and extroverted." It is symmetrical in form.

 

[Salomé]

If I could pick out just one flaw in the Typology theory, this would be the one. While one letter may determine a certain set of tendencies, the whole of the four letter code is much greater than the sum of its parts. I would suggest to anyone who asserts that they are an INFx that they should analyze further, because it is not possible to dodge categorization. An ENTP who has a structured lifestyle is disciplined, not hybrid. The notion of an IxFJ is paradoxical, and one who claims to belong to this type may identify wholly with both of their Si & Ni dominant cousins, but they will either categorize their information in a concrete grid or they won't. I have drawn this conclusion from my observations.
When I first found MBTI, I was puzzled at how the ENTP seemed like me in some ways, but worlds apart in others. I tested ENTP time after time, because my Fi prizes clarity of thought. My Fi feels that in regard to decision making, emotions are a fog at their most benign. On this note, I look a bit different from most of the other ENFP's that I come into contact with, but I would never consider myself an ENxP. This is because Ne by itself is an intelligence devoid of any reality until its "brand" is specified. The Ti version of Ne is a very different animal from the Fi version. Only when I realized that my Ne focused on possibilities to improve myself, rather than to improve conditions, was I able to identify with the ENFP camp. There are some very talkative introverts out there, but that doesn't mean that their psychological focus is not predominantly psychic. I don't work the same as an NT by any means, but I consider rationality and intuition the highest forms of intelligence, so in order to be in line with my own values (which an NF must be), I feel at home when I am behaving rationally. I also consider it the greatest sin to feel that any subjective belief should be applied universally, and any belief of mine that doesn't hold up to an objective external standard is immediately abandoned. Thus, my behavior, dictated by these F sentiments, resembles typical "T" behavior in many ways. (Which is not to say that I look like an ENTP, or any T type in particular.) But I could see how others would think that they are between two types, when they are in fact merely an emotional thinker or a practical intuitionist.
Do you agree or disagree?

You seem to be an ENFP in the same mold as noigmn.

Is that a problem with the theory? Xs are anomalous. If anything they provide supporting evidence against the theory, (that humans can be categorised according to a discrete set of innate hypothetical functions/cognitive preferences) rather than being a part of it.

X isn't a black hole though. It does tell us something. What that something is, is open to interpretation, much like everything else in MBTI...

Look at the rainbow.
The divide is in the middle.
The divided is not.

Beautifully put.

 

[Into It]

Thanks for the feedback. From my experience with people, I have only noticed P functions coupled with J functions. Do you at least agree that this must be the case in the two dominant functions of any given type? That is, NiSi,Te,Fe would not occur, even if an Ni has strong Si (which I would consider highly unlikely based on how difficult it is for me to use my inferior shadow function Se).

But suppose this INTJ Si is even more honed than his Te- I would still label his functions in order: Ni,Te, Si+Fe,Fi,Se. Some of you may consider this arbitrary, but I believe that even in such an anomalous case a J function MUST be linked with a P function, otherwise the P function (with opposite introversion/extroversion)would be without direction, which seems to me to be fine in theory, but is totally inhuman.

Others of you may think that I cling to the function theory with such faithfulness that I do not allow for the human element. That may be. But I see the merit in functions, but if I cannot understand them within a system that does not bend, then I would abandon them altogether.

But enough about me, what is your take on the second paragraph?

 

[nightning]

Agree with Wildcat's claim.

What is the point of an arbitrary distinction of being more black than white when both are two very similar shades of gray?

MBTI and any other theory/model is only as good as they can be used to describe reality. Forced categorization is only useful for bureaucracy.

 

[Into It]

On the other hand you may look at the dichotomy of Mendel.
What comes around goes around.

Would you briefly describe this for me? I am not familliar with this.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

MOVED fr NT Rationale.