User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 18 of 18

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    you know what its like with Te. there can be only one
    Haha... Yeah.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    So you'll prefer every function to varying degrees, right? Like you prefer various foods. What says that there has to be a hierarchy? Maybe you prefer broccoli to carrots sometimes, and sometimes vice-versa, with neither one occurring more often. Maybe you eat them both because you don't like choosing and couldn't bear to live life without either one.

    That's why X is possible. Even though in theory, one will probably have a miniscule "preference", in reality if the difference is so small to be undetectable, it's not a distinction worth making. The theory goes that most people will be in binomial groups, but I think reality is closer to a bell curve, with many near the middle.
    Interesting. I tend to think type is more like species specialization so there MUST be a preference.

  3. #13
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maliafee View Post
    What are people so scared of when it comes to the theory that a person's type expresses itself visually on a person's face in the form of physical characteristics and especially facial expressions? I'd like to hear about it.
    agree


    2. Why the need to be an X anything? For instance, IXFP, XNTJ, etc.? For those of you who really understand different type theories, I find it confusing that you would think X is legitimate. Just because you relate to two sides does not mean you are X. Because it's about functions. They are either dominant or not. Dominant is not all-encompassing, it is simply dominant. A cat dominating a mouse does not necessarily mean that the mouse ceases to exist, the cat is simply in charge. I would liken that analogy to functions. One function will be dominant, and two functions never equal.
    I just liken it to a number line.. that you've got, say, an integer ranging from -100 to 100. Demystifying the "X" is just stating whether the number is positive or negative; the actual value is the strength of preference. The mouse can still put up a good fight.

    Now, given that an exact number is necessary.. if you don't know the exact number but think that it could range from, say, -9 to 11.. what would the "preference" be there? Sure, the preference exists, but it's also unknown.

    "X" is just a way of expressing that they're very, very close in their preference or that they're unsure. No big deal.

    Also, even the official MBTI has a gradient for the dichotomies rather than the underlying function preferences. It, like Socionics, Lenore, and all the rest, is just another way of looking at (largely) the same information.


    3. I get confused when people say they were at one time a certain type and then another later on, that they changed types, because they tested differently before. And I hear that this is maybe because of how they were raised, pressured to behave, etc. But that is not really possible. Just because you tested a certain way because you were conditioned to behave a certain way does not mean you "used to be" a certain other type. It merely means you were not being yourself and therefore answered how you were conditioned to. Or am I way off base?
    It's theoretically not possible to change ingrained preferences. But as we're exposed to different situations, we come to a better understanding of what our natural strengths really are, and, therefore, what our type really is.

  4. #14
    Is Willard in Footloose!! CJ99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Well i think its less natural looks and more the way people move and act.

    Like Ne people all seem to have this sparkle in there eyes as ILE socionics points out.
    And INTx seem to all have a thoughtful piercing look.

    Its not natural physique as must as they way personality affects how we use that physique!
    "I'd never die for my beliefs, I might be wrong"

    "Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairys at the bottom of it too"

    "Intelligence is being able to hold too opposing views in the mind at the one time without going crazy" - Now all I need to figure out is if I'm intelligent or crazy!

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Possibly, possibly. Still, there's a bit more to it, in my experience.

  6. #16
    Senior Mugwump Apollanaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    550

    Default

    Excellent points, maliafee. Your reasoning is sound and your conclusions are accurate, but you can't blame people too much for getting confused by all the contradictory, misleading and just plain incorrect type-related information flying around cyberspace!

    I'll address your point 1 first:

    I also believe that there is some correlation between type and physical appearance. Many cognitive experts consider the mind and body to be one system. In other words we "think/feel/sense/intuit" with our bodies as well as our brains. However, the question of whether our type influences our appearance or vice versa is a bit like trying to decide which came first: the chicken or the egg! There was a recent thread on a similar topic here:

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tion-infj.html

    A man named William Sheldon (1898-1977) attempted to create an ingenious constitutional psychology based on a careful examination of normal bodily and temperamental differences which he expressed in terms of the classic body shapes known as endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy.

    In his view, there is a strong correlation between ectomorphic body types (tall, thin, wiry, fast metabolism, lots of nervous energy) and Introverted Intuitive types (INFJs and INTJs). He also equated endomorphs with Se-types (ESFP, ESTP) and mesomorphs with Te-types (ESTJ, ENTJ). All other types are formed from different blends of the 3 basic body types.

    I fit this classification perfectly, being both INFJ and a tall, thin, ectomorph, with lots of nervous energy. I am able to eat huge amounts of food without putting on weight (at least I could before I reached mid-life!).

    My immediate family also fit Sheldon's theory: Mum is an endomorphic ESFP, Dad is INFP - mainly ectomorphic like me, but with more meso musculature. My brother is ISFP and is an endo-meso type.

    Still, my personal investigations suggest that there is only a loose correlation between body-type and MBTI-type; there are plenty of people who buck the trends Sheldon describes.

    For more information, check out the following links. Highly recommended, because this same website has masses and masses of free information about Jung, Psychological Types, and all the other stuff we love to discuss on this forum:

    William Sheldon
    The Psychology of C.G. Jung and the Body and Temperament Types of W.H. Sheldon

    I don't hold much stock with the whole "socionics" nonsense, however. I believe that socionics adds a whole additional and unnecessary layer of complexity and confusion to an already complicated subject.
    INFJ 9w1 sx/sp/so

    "A wizard is never late. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to." - Gandalf The Grey

    And if I only could,
    I'd make a deal with God,
    And I'd get him to swap our places,
    Be running up that road,
    Be running up that hill,
    With no problems.

    - Kate Bush

  7. #17
    Senior Mugwump Apollanaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    550

    Default

    OK, now for points 2 and 3:

    You are right, there is no such thing as an X in any of the 4 type letters. Nor do we change type over time. Some of the tests will score you as X is the results are 50:50 for a category and that's fine for the short term, as it at least points you in the right direction (as long as all four letters are not XXXX!). It means the individual has to do some more work to narrow down which of the two options is their true preference. There are many ways to do this, probably the easiest is reading some of the better type descriptions and seeing which one "fits" best.

    The tests are far from being 100% accurate (even the hallowed MBTI itself ), so continuing to take test after test is a really bad way to narrow down one's type - it will probably just give you even more possibilities to consider!

    Cognitive process analysis can also be confusing - we all use all of the processes at different times and will have varying levels of development in them, regardless of our innate and natural type. However, this knowledge becomes highly useful once we've established our true type.

    Temperament theory is a good approach - the temperaments are one of the easiest aspects to determine for an individual. These are particularly helpful when there is confusion between S and N categories.

    It can be very frustrating for someone who finds it hard to pin down their natural type, for whatever reason. It can cast doubts about the theory in that person's mind, or lead to the X phenomenon you describe, or all sorts of other justifications for distorting the original theory of types. However, it is well worth persisting with this work if a person is serious about wanting to better understand themselves. According to the accepted version of type theory, based on the work of Jung and Myers-Briggs, every person has an innate preference for one of sixteen possible approaches towards both outer reality and the inner world of the psyche.

    When we discover our innate, true four-letter type, our whole approach to life begins to make sense. Rather than placing us into one of 16 narrow little boxes, it instead frees us from always doing the same things in the same way. At the same time, it may reveal something we have always suspected: that we are living our lives out of accordance with our true preferences and gifts. This is more likely for the rarer types, but can happen to anyone.

    A poorly-understood or out-of-control dominant function can be extremely dictatorial within our psyches. It may insist on acting out stereotyped behaviours, consistent with its preferred approach to life, and may even insist that others should behave in the same way. Too much of this narrow approach, and the other parts of our psyches will rise up in rebellion, much like a nation suffering under the rule of a firm dictator.

    At the very least, a too-narrow attitude inevitably leads to conflict, either internal or with other people. We may become very defensive and even more rigid in our approach, which tightens the noose still further. Taken to its extreme, this can lead to alll forms of mental, physical and emotional problems, including breakdowns, neuroses and even psychosis.

    Knowing one's true type provides us with a better understanding of the situations we habitually find ourselves in, as well as a roadmap of alternatives and possibilities, of do's and don'ts.

    It's also a starting point for recognising and accessing much of our innate, but hidden, resources and potential.

    OK, lecture over! I seem to be making this same point on many different threads at present, but my own Fe function seems determined to share my Ni's belief in the usefulness and power of accurate type knowledge with as many people as will listen!
    INFJ 9w1 sx/sp/so

    "A wizard is never late. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to." - Gandalf The Grey

    And if I only could,
    I'd make a deal with God,
    And I'd get him to swap our places,
    Be running up that road,
    Be running up that hill,
    With no problems.

    - Kate Bush

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Fascinating!

Similar Threads

  1. Why is your country of type X?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 04:20 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-03-2009, 06:11 AM
  3. Deliberate use of type theory in fiction
    By Quinlan in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-13-2008, 09:35 AM
  4. Criticisms of Type-Trait Theories
    By marm in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-10-2008, 04:46 AM
  5. Theory About My Type
    By Ezra in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-16-2007, 09:45 PM

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