Functional Orientation ≠ Typological Orientation

[Jaguar]

You know, you don't win by claiming you're right - you win by demonstrating you're right.

I was looking at this comment on I-Spy.
It only shows the first couple of sentences.

I shook my head and said out loud, "I bet it's another fucking ENTP,
who cares nothing about knowledge, and only about winning.
Look at your word choice.


I rest my case.

 

[Jeffster]

Engler, I definitely agree with you, and I have said repeatedly that the thing that annoys me most on this forum is when someone says something like "you are ENFP, so your tertiary function is Te." That is an invalid assumption because a person may have arrived at the decision they are "ENFP" based on the 4 dichotomies presented rather than anything to do with function use.

There seems to be a significant division between those who operate mostly on confirmation bias, and those who are open to actually learning about people.

 

[Lethe]

Engler, I definitely agree with you, and I have said repeatedly that the thing that annoys me most on this forum is when someone says something like "you are ENFP, so your tertiary function is Te." That is an invalid assumption because a person may have arrived at the decision they are "ENFP" based on the 4 dichotomies presented rather than anything to do with function use.

They were most likely theorizing than assuming it was absolute truth. Without knowing the person had used the 4 dichotomies method or any additional factors, they have little to base their hypothesis on and decided to use the standard trends to guess the function order. (Theories are meant to measure the common patterns of a population/species, though many do interpret this as an infallible system.)

There seems to be a significant division between those who operate mostly on confirmation bias, and those who are open to actually learning about people.

Then there are people who operate on both ends. The most we can do is to explain why confirmation bias frequently leads us to inaccurate assumptions, and let the person decide if they want to learn what they were shown.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Engler, I definitely agree with you, and I have said repeatedly that the thing that annoys me most on this forum is when someone says something like "you are ENFP, so your tertiary function is Te." That is an invalid assumption because a person may have arrived at the decision they are "ENFP" based on the 4 dichotomies presented rather than anything to do with function use.

There seems to be a significant division between those who operate mostly on confirmation bias, and those who are open to actually learning about people.

exactly. and i've been wondering for a while now who decided (carl jung?) the dom and aux cognitive functions for each type? i know john bebee expanded on function order and prescribed an allignment theory for the 3rd through 8th functions, but i read in my functions book, Functions of Type that in research, beebe's theory is not panning out, that you can't really rely on other than the first two functions of someone's type, and that the 3rd and 4th functions are usually the partner to the first two: for example, Ni and Fe would then have Ne/Fi for the 3rd and 4th, which makes sense in many ways, because those are the functions you are already used to. this theory can be blown out of the water however, if you have had a difficult life or any other stressors as you were/are developing.

what i want to know is how he derived the first two functions per each type. why, for example, does isfp not utilize Si as it's dom function, but Fi? yet, the dom and aux functions seem to usually fit for most of the types i've seen, and can help one figure out your type if you are waffling between two different types.

 

[Lethe]

exactly. and i've been wondering for a while now who decided (carl jung?) the dom and aux cognitive functions for each type? i know john bebee expanded on function order and prescribed an allignment theory for the 3rd through 8th functions, but i read in my functions book, Functions of Type that in research, bebee's theory is not panning out, that you can't really rely on other than the first two functions of someone's type, and that the 3rd and 4th functions are usually the partner to the first two: for example, Ni and Fe would then have Ne/Fi for the 3rd and 4th, which makes sense in many ways, because those are the functions you are already used to. this theory can be blown out of the water however, if you have had a difficult life or any other stressors as you were/are developing.

what i want to know is how he derived the first two functions per each type. why, for example, does isfp not utilize Si as it's dom function, but Fi? yet, the dom and aux functions seem to usually fit for most of the types i've seen, and can help one figure out your type if you are waffling between two different types.

To every theory, there are atypical members whom are often acknowledged as the exceptions.

#1. Defining judging and perceiving

Judging [Rational]: Interpreting the data
Extroverted: (Te, Fe)
Introverted: (Ti, Fi)

• Rationals; Dominant Judging (Ti, Te, Fi, Fe): IPs & EJs

Perceiving [Irrational]: Receiving the data
Extroverted: (Ne, Se)
Introverted: (Ni, Si)

• Irrationals; Dominant Perceiving (Si, Se, Ni, Ne): IJs & EPs

------------------------
#2. The P and J letters determine which dom/aux functions are extroverted or introverted

---P: Perceives externally (Ne, Se) and judges internally (Ti, Fi)
---J: Judges externally (Te, Fe) and perceives internally (Ni, Si)

• 'Perceivers': IPs & EPs
• 'Judgers': IJs & EJs

------------------------
#3. The E and I letters determine which dominant functions are extroverted or introverted

• Extroverts: EJs (Te/Fe) & EPs (Ne/Se)
• Introverts: IPs (Ti/Fi) & IJs (Ni/Si)

------------------------
So... # 1, 2 and 3:

'Perceivers'
I--P: Dominant Introverted Judging (Ti, Fi) and Auxiliary Extroverted Perceiving (Ne, Se)
E--P: Dominant Extroverted Perceiving (Ne, Se) and Auxiliary Introverted Judging (Ti, Fi)

'Judgers'
I--J: Dominant Introverted Perceiving (Ni, Si) and Auxiliary Extroverted Judging (Te, Fe)
E--J: Dominant Extroverted Judging (Te, Fe) and Auxiliary Introverted Perceiving (Ni, Si)

The ISFP 'theoretically' cannot use Si as their dominant preference because it is a function the SJs use as their dominant or auxiliary. It would make them a ISTJ [Si, Te, Fi], if that were the case. Perceivers initially rely on the external environment to obtain data (Ne & Se).

Does this help?

 

[onemoretime]

I was looking at this comment on I-Spy.
It only shows the first couple of sentences.

I shook my head and said out loud, "I bet it's another fucking ENTP,
who cares nothing about knowledge, and only about winning.
Look at your word choice.


I rest my case.

Dude, we're making it up as we go along. There is no objective standard beyond the constrictions of our evolution. The scientific method is the best that we have.

Guess what - even if you have knowledge, it dies with you if you don't spread it. That means you have to win arguments.

What you define as knowledge today could very likely be construed as absurd superstition 300 years from now. Read a history book.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

To every theory, there are atypical members whom are often acknowledged as the exceptions.

#1. Defining judging and perceiving

Judging [Rational]: Interpreting the data
Extroverted: (Te, Fe)

Introverted: (Ti, Fi)

• Rationals; Dominant Judging (Ti, Te, Fi, Fe): IPs & EJs

Perceiving [Irrational]: Receiving the data
Extroverted: (Ne, Se)

Introverted: (Ni, Si)

• Irrationals; Dominant Perceiving (Si, Se, Ni, Ne): IJs & EPs

------------------------
#2. The P and J letters determine which dom/aux functions are extroverted or introverted

---P: Perceives externally (Ne, Se) and judges internally (Ti, Fi)
---J: Judges externally (Te, Fe) and perceives internally (Ni, Si)

• 'Perceivers': IPs & EPs
• 'Judgers': IJs & EJs

------------------------
#3. The E and I letters determine which dominant functions are extroverted or introverted

• Extroverts: EJs (Te/Fe) & EPs (Ne/Se)
• Introverts: IPs (Ti/Fi) & IJs (Ni/Si)

------------------------
So... # 1, 2 and 3:

'Perceivers'
I--P: Dominant Introverted Judging (Ti, Fi) and Auxiliary Extroverted Perceiving (Ne, Se)
E--P: Dominant Extroverted Perceiving (Ne, Se) and Auxiliary Introverted Judging (Ti, Fi)

'Judgers'
I--J: Dominant Introverted Perceiving (Ni, Si) and Auxiliary Extroverted Judging (Te, Fe)
E--J: Dominant Extroverted Judging (Te, Fe) and Auxiliary Introverted Perceiving (Ni, Si)

The ISFP 'theoretically' cannot use Si as their dominant preference because it is a function the SJs use as their dominant or auxiliary. It would make them a ISTJ [Si, Te, Fi], if that were the case. Perceivers initially rely on the external environment to obtain data (Ne & Se).

Does this help?

yes, thanks! #2 was the part i wasn't getting before.

 

[Eric B]

exactly. and i've been wondering for a while now who decided (carl jung?) the dom and aux cognitive functions for each type? i know john bebee expanded on function order and prescribed an allignment theory for the 3rd through 8th functions, but i read in my functions bookFunctions of Type that in research, beebe's theory is not panning out, that you can't really rely on other than the first two functions of someone's type, and that the 3rd and 4th functions are usually the partner to the first two: for example, Ni and Fe would then have Ne/Fi for the 3rd and 4th, which makes sense in many ways, because those are the functions you are already used to. this theory can be blown out of the water however, if you have had a difficult life or any other stressors as you were/are developing.

what i want to know is how he derived the first two functions per each type. why, for example, does isfp not utilize Si as it's dom function, but Fi? yet, the dom and aux functions seem to usually fit for most of the types i've seen, and can help one figure out your type if you are waffling between two different types.

Functions of Type is Hartzler, and I see where he briefly mentions Beebe, but I don't see him saying that his theory wasn't panning out.
This other order mentioned; just maintains the neutral order (In the book, for ESFJ, FSNT, and divides them, FeSiFiSe followed by NeNiTeTi, but then it says the inferior, Ti is usually last.

Recently, I have come to see it more in terms of just the four, and "attitude/orientation" is really held more by the ego itself, than by the functions. So you start out with an introvert or extravert who uses a dominant function in thatorientation, and the rest of the functions fall into place from there, but it is really four functions being either accepted or rejected from the dominant attitude, amounting to eight different "processes".

See:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/1416-archetypes-functions-6.html#post748446

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Functions of Type is Hartzler, and I see where he briefly mentions Beebe, but I don't see him saying that his theory wasn't panning out.
This other order mentioned; just maintains the neutral order (In the book, for ESFJ, FSNT, and divides them, FeSiFiSe followed by NeNiTeTi, but then it says the inferior, Ti is usually last.

Recently, I have come to see it more in terms of just the four, and "attitude/orientation" is really held more by the ego itself, than by the functions. So you start out with an introvert or extravert who uses a dominant function in thatorientation, and the rest of the functions fall into place from there, but it is really four functions being either accepted or rejected from the dominant attitude, amounting to eight different "processes".

See:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/1416-archetypes-functions-6.html#post748446

hey! just to clarify the hartzler thing so you know where i was coming from, on page 6, they say that "two patterns are emerging from their research" and that one is the dom and aux in the opposite attitudes are the 3rd and 4th. since that is so far off from beebe's theory, i extrapolated that meant that (for me) beebe's theory wasn't panning out. no, they were not so bold as to say that. beebe's theory is just that. a theory. and i find it frustrating because it does not seem to pan out for anyone in real life, and i'm surprised at the amount of 'researchers' still supporting it, but i am mostly ignorant about it, and i understand the political nature of things as well.

i will check out the link later. thanks.

 

[simulatedworld]

I was looking at this comment on I-Spy.
It only shows the first couple of sentences.

I shook my head and said out loud, "I bet it's another fucking ENTP,
who cares nothing about knowledge, and only about winning.
Look at your word choice.


I rest my case.

You're skating dangerously close to straight up trolling, my friend.

 

[Jaguar]

You're skating dangerously close to straight up trolling, my friend.

Telling the truth isn't trolling, my friend.

 

[onemoretime]

Telling the truth isn't trolling, my friend.

Subjective opinions aren't the truth, buddy.

BTW, isn't it interesting how you've gone on all thread about how pointless it is to stereotype by MBTI, and you go and do it yourself? Not to mention how inductive your logic was there. Wait, inductive isn't the right word... sloppy is much better.

 

[Jaguar]

Subjective opinions aren't the truth, buddy.

If you don't like to read the truth about yourself, I don't really give a shit.

 

[onemoretime]

If you don't like to read the truth about yourself, I don't really give a shit.

Umm, you don't know me. All you have to work with are a few postings on an internet message board. You are, to use your analogy, assuming that there are nothing but purple candies in the bag.

Do yourself a favor and stop the self-ownage.

 

[Jaguar]

Umm, you don't know me.

I don't really give a shit.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I don't really give a shit.

ok, now you're trolling.

 

[onemoretime]

I don't really give a shit.

So you're basing your entire argument around something you pulled out of your ass? Seems to me then you actually are giving shit.

 

[Tyrant]

So you're basing your entire argument around something you pulled out of your ass? Seems to me then you actually are giving shit.

You wish, Jaguar keeps his ass clean.

 

[Salt n' pepper]

You wish, Jaguar keeps his ass clean.

You should try to do the same with your nose.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Internet forums: where discourse goes to DIE, ALONE AND IN PAIN