Alright, I was thinking about the D&D alignment thread down in the bonfire subforum, and got to thinking about things perhaps a bit too much in depth >.>
Whot I ended up concluding, in general though, was that D&D alignment is pretty much a form of a personality indicator of sorts, in line with the concept of MBTI, however, it's got several distinctive differences, and is far more restrictive in its' coverage.
For the basic concepts, let's start with the advantages and flaws of the two to compare.
MBTI has 4 axis, or focal points it considers, with more or less a black and white description of any axis; for example, S vs N, T vs F, et cetera. The concept in general though, is that it lists each of these four categories individually as positive, or negative, with no middle ground or explaination past that point. The cognitive functions, Ne, Ti, and so on, are just extensions of this (or rather the ISFJ/ENTP combos are easier descriptions of the functions), but they give very little indication other than yeur dominant functions, and even those, if they're not THAT dominant, can be very unclear.
D&D's alignment system has 2 axis, but uses a 3 point of referance frame to judge it by. For example, it breaks things down into not just "good / evil" or "chaos / lawful", but also provides a middleground of neutrality as well. This provides greater informational detail for the axis it defines, however, the functions it describes are pretty much mislabled... it's pretty much listing "chaotic / lawful" instead of P / J, which has the same general principle, and if one breaks down good/evil further, it can be interpreted as healthy/unhealthy strengths of whichever is more dominant.
This realization basically states that D&D's alignment, is in fact a very rudimentary personality ranking system, but only covers a small fraction of the mind and skips most of the MBTI coverage.
It also implies, however, that the chances are that this information could be further applied and expanded upon to each of the particular functions and possibly expanded further to cognitive functions as well.
The basic concept, here, is to further outline the basic MBTI functions, by providing further subfunctions in greater detail to better explain the relation of each one.
This would provide a far better personal understanding of individuals, and would better account for the dispairities which're often found in the basic MBTI profiling (why for example yeu can have two individuals with the same MBTI type, yet still be significantly different to each other). This would also provide far better coverage over the concepts such as 'middleground' people who don't really fall heavily onto one side or the other.
In this way, I'm hoping to be able to greatly expand upon the standard MBTI functions to provide a more accurate detailed report of the various functions, an 'advanced' MBTI of sorts.
Now, the standard D&D concept this originally stemmed from, is obviously flawed, and won't work all that well, and will need heavy adaptation to properly coincide with the particular aspects of MBTI, so it really isn't anything other than an inspiration really I guess, and a basic outline for the structured form I'm hoping to take this to.
Specifically, I'm looking for the following:
To break down, initially, the various functions (E/I, S/N, F/T, J/P)
To further define each by a pair of related axis, or subfunctions
To then provide these subfunction axis in a method of top, bottom, and middleground
Finally, to display the resultant information akin to multiple 3x3 grids, in direct relation to the 4x2 grid of MBTI.
In the end, this should make an MBTI profile look more like this:
Which would provide a wealth of additional data.
As this's obviously a fairly large undertaking, and I'm still a bit shaky on many of the finer details at this point, I'll be subsequently making additional posts to further gain information and definition of each intrinstic function, to see which methods would be the best way to describe each function accordingly.
For this particular post, I'm mostly just looking for ideas on the basic concept in general, don't bother with information on whot yeu think the individual aspects would correlate to just yet... Imma make individual posts based on each one over time, trying to narrow things down for a more accurate portraital.
In any case, whot do yeu think of the basic concept to start with? I doubt it'll ever catch on, but do yeu think the idea holds any real merit, and do yeu think it'd even be considered benefitial to have the additional information, or do yeu find the information may be less relevant or not really worth bothering with?