## User Tag List

1. OK, thanks.
The link is the first one, above. I'll update that page when I get the chance.

2. Originally Posted by greed
Opened it up and re-saved it.. said some features were incompatible with Word 97/2003 but it seems to be just fine. This may or may not work..

Haven't had a chance to look over it in detail yet, but it looks interesting.
Thanks. I've yet to try this, though, because I installed a new version of Windows on my computer.

3. I understand the idea. But I think I'm an idiot because I don't understand how to interpret these charts.

4. Umm, Eric B, I don't know if this some straight-in-the-face thing that I should understand, but I can't see the link. How do I click on it?

Originally Posted by Shaula
I understand the idea. But I think I'm an idiot because I don't understand how to interpret these charts.
No, it's probably me. I think I underestimated the need for an explanation.
It's the same as the 1-8 for the basic 16 patterns. only the thing is, since you have more first functions, (and 2nd or third, whatever) as you're combining patterns, you have to have other functions in lower places to compensate. So you're not going to get functions in eight different places, although generally there are still four functions on each side. With the rationale that the natural capacities of the patterns (if not individuals) are equivalent, I took the number 36, which was the total if you add up 1-8 for the main functions, and applied it as the total for the other 60 types. I was also working with the idea of balance between the functions themselves (for example, if there are 2 ones and 2 twos, there also have to be 2 sevens and 2 eights). I was able to apply this later by making sure that working outside-in, there were either 4 sets of functions that added up to nine, or two that added up to nine and one that added up to eighteen in the middle, so it's all balanced out in that way as well as by the general number.
Again, how I figured out the patterns was by combining existing patterns. I put the patterns of the types I was combining into rows, using what seems to be the standard E before I, S before N, T before F, and J before P, and then crossing out repetitions of each function. Initially I had it wrong- I used the functions in the order that they first appeared, but at some point I realized that Te and Se seemed more likely to come before Si and Ti in my pattern, and I looked at a few other peoples' patterns as well which made more sense the second way. Oh yeah, the second way was to either take the first four functions and then the last four and cross out the ones in the middle (or the first five with the last two between primary and shadow). That's the way I currently have the patterns, and i'm convinced of it because it also has a similar structure to the basic 16. It keeps the E I reversal from primary to shadow which the other method doesn't, and it keeps the order of functions' opposites (by this I mean, if you have Ni first, you're going to have Se before Si). You might want to try combining the patterns yourself- it might make better sense if you actually try it.
The thing with the 7 nonexistent patterns I explained just a few posts ago.
I hope this makes a little more sense now. Again, I used Wikisocion's function descriptions as a frame of reference (they list what functions do in each place), although you have to use your judgment on it, since they'll make statements assuming if Ni is in seventh place then it's after Ne or Se when that might not be the case for a particular subtype. but I think it's generally pretty useful information as a frame of reference for understanding a particular type. (you just type the function abbreviations into the search box).
Let me know if there's anything else about the charts that you don't understand.

5. Shaula, I just went back up and saw your avatar, and it reminded me of the old prisoner guy in Disney's 'Hunchback of Notre Dame," which I found amusing.

6. Originally Posted by jackandthebeast
Umm, Eric B, I don't know if this some straight-in-the-face thing that I should understand, but I can't see the link. How do I click on it?
It was at the beginning of the first post I made in this thread (were you looking in the more recent post?)

Here it is again, and now I have added it all, with anchors that link directly to it: Temperament Part 3: The Thought Box

7. The IxTP one looks messed up. I'm pretty sure Fe would be last and not Fi.

8. I think this makes a little sense. When I do the MBTI type tests, I get ISTJ half the time and ISTP half the time. Then again when I do cognitive tests, I normally get some mixed up function order like...
Si > Ti > Te > Se > Ni > Fi > Ne > Fe

That's the average order function for me. I don't strictly identify with either the ISTJ or ISTP types totally. I probably would identify more with the ISTx type.

9. Originally Posted by iamathousandapples
The IxTP one looks messed up. I'm pretty sure Fe would be last and not Fi.
imo, i'm Very sure Fi would be before Fe due to P alone. The aspects of typology do have areas that aren't so much theoretical. i would say cognitive function descriptions are accurate as an individual preference, even if it's by 51% one over the other. They are also very accurate in there description alone. I really don't see any overlap. Yet, i can see where they could be misinterpreted, even by myself Next in line, i can see Fe, Te, Ni and Si being the decision maker or info gatherer in J. Where it gets anal/clinical is when typology forces specific function orders to make one of a possible 16. I do like where this thread and other innovations are going though Who sais this theory can't evolve by attempting a possible 76. Even when there are flaws here and there. Fe before Fi in IxTP.....psh , doubt it.

10. Originally Posted by professor goodstain
imo, i'm Very sure Fi would be before Fe due to P alone. The aspects of typology do have areas that aren't so much theoretical. i would say cognitive function descriptions are accurate as an individual preference, even if it's by 51% one over the other. They are also very accurate in there description alone. I really don't see any overlap. Yet, i can see where they could be misinterpreted, even by myself Next in line, i can see Fe, Te, Ni and Si being the decision maker or info gatherer in J. Where it gets anal/clinical is when typology forces specific function orders to make one of a possible 16. I do like where this thread and other innovations are going though Who sais this theory can't evolve by attempting a possible 76. Even when there are flaws here and there. Fe before Fi in IxTP.....psh , doubt it.
but both INTPs and ISTPs are Fe Aux

#### 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