Functional Orientation ≠ Typological Orientation

[Jaguar]

So you're basing your entire argument around something you pulled out of your ass?

One would usually have to go to a bowling alley to find someone of your stature.

 

[onemoretime]

One would usually have to go to a bowling alley to find someone of your stature.

Try harder. Certainly that's not the best you've got?

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Jaguar isn't such a big a fan of them nee-gruhs...Look at how violently he reacted to my implication that he bears any resemblance to Jay-Z.

 

[sciski]

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.\

I think Beebe acknowledged that people do not use the functions in a reliable order, ie First function most, second function second most, etc. Someone can use Fe, then Si, then follow it up with some Fi.

Here's a quote from an article by Beebe (cheers to EricB for providing the original link).

we should recognize that not all of the eight functions follow hero psychology in being measurable by their degree of strength. They do not, in actual experience, follow a descending hierarchy of differentiation
from first (superior) through fourth (inferior) to eighth.
Rather, the strength, and the kind of strength, a function of consciousness displays is a consequence of the archetypal role associated with it, and archetypes are differently developed in different people. The numbering of the positions is a bit of an anachronism, left over from the early days of Jungian psychology and of Isabel Briggs Myers’ adaptation of that psychology to the analysis of the MBTI® findings. When I use numbering today, in these post-heroic times, the numbers are meant to be read as qualitative rather than quantitative, much the way the numbers of streets can be read in a well-differentiated city that one is intimately acquainted with.
Thus the “second” and “third” functions are identified, like avenues in New York City, by the qualities experience has taught us to recognize when we are actually in those places.

http://www.ccc-apt.org/system/files/Type+and+Archetype+-+Part+Two+-+The+Arms+.pdf

Not saying that Beebe is necessarily correct, but that this may be a point of misunderstanding of Beebe's theory.