The alternative/real function orders

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Simulated and I have a long history of shooting shit at each other.
It's that simple.
If it bothers you, ignore it.

No. I thought of that later. Didn't mean to get in the middle of your private energy flow there. Three's a crowd, after all, right?

An ENTJ conforming, traditional, fundamentalist?
What are you going to tell me next, ESTJs are anarchists, planning to raid Washington?

Well, yeah, this guy is so individualistic now. He's having to relive his past life because he was so brow-beaten into this conformist Christian role by his family growing up. He is in his 30's but seems like he's just out of high school the way he acts.

Congrats, you just described the opposite of me once again.

But I wasn't trying to describe you.

Why do you think he is ENTJ? Sounds like an unhealthy FJ.
I fight with those who dare tell others how to live their life.

Hell, I got on an INFJs ass in this forum for being a bible-thumping, religious fundamentalist,
who dared to think he had the right to tell people how to live their life,
and worse yet--thought he had the right to actually deny certain types of people equal, legal, rights.

You're not going to like this, but it is far more likely to see an FJ tell people how they "should" live their life, than an NTJ.
I cringe when I hear the words: "should" or "appropriate."
Those words are FJ words pounded into their heads, by their fundamentalist parents.

Mkay. You may be right. You notwithstanding, perhaps, but I am admittedly almost as confident as an entj when it comes to knowing (or thinking I know) what people should do. It's a gift, and a curse.

Okay, you are still batting zero.
Where are you getting these crazy ideas from? Lol.

Think about what you are saying.
If an ENTJ had a hard time assimilating into society,
he or she could never organize anything, much less a group of people,
a team, a company, or anything.

Seriously, I'd like to help you.
But when you start saying things that I cannot even remotely identify with,
or that have anything in common with my life, I have no idea what to say to you.

Yes, you are right. The one I know (and I guess entjs in general) can assimilate well in society, because they are smart and have other attributes. Perhaps it's in their personal lives where the rub occurs. But I didn't ask for help, and you didn't need to be condescending to make that point. Or did you? But I am glad you were not offended by my previous post anyway.

 

[Jaguar]

My S preference is actually real. I have a blast using it and it is what I do for fun. It is real because I dont need to prove it to anyone. I was talking to my brother the other night about driving and the stupid crap we do. Half the things I do no one has any idea I do and I dont say anything because people just tell me its crazy, stupid, you could hurt yourself, blah, blah, blah. I do it for me because I enjoy it and I will hide what society doesnt like. Its a way for me to blow off energy in a way I enjoy and I would rather hide what I do and do what I want than match some stupid image society has of whats right and wrong.

One of my strengths is Se which means I go out and do it. I dont generally talk the talk, I walk the walk. There was a period in my life that I hit over 100MPH daily on the highway and most people have no idea.

I do see what you say and have wondered if in the back of my head I do it because its an image society portrays, instead of trying to fake this image, I live it. Its hard to decide, all I can say for sure is that I enjoy doing these things and I usually do them when it is just me.

I don't think what you do is "wrong" as long as you aren't killing people.
I don't understand people giving you a hard time about it.
I hope you let out the engine on the interstate, and not on your neighborhood street.
100 on a neighborhood street aaahaha. That would be tough.

BTW, I used to get arrested all the time for speeding when I was in college.
I had a fast car. (Why should I waste it, right?)
I'm pretty Se for an N.
I was on the tennis team in school.
Rather than beat the hell out of people,
I beat the hell out of a tennis ball.

Good therapy.

By the way your comment about "just being you" interests me.
It sounds so simple, yet so complex.

 

[Poki]

Its simple. I dont feel like arguing in this thread so I dont. Sometimes I dont care who thinks who is right. I ignore everyone else and write what I write, do what I want. You can tell the times I feel being a smart ass or arguing just for the sake of arguing. No one responds to some of my posts, yet I just throw my thoughts out there.

If you watch I can be in the middle of a serious argument just messing around, having fun, then all of a sudden feel like someone could use a hand and decide to argue, then just fade out and disappear in the background.

 

[the state i am in]

i agree with simulatedworld in pretty much every aspect of typology on this thread except that ep/ej/ip/ij are the most fundamental- which, i think, is a mostly irrelevant claim anyway. but in light of the attempt to say that the orientation of functions doesn't matter, i agree with his approach FAR more than talking about the functions as a continuum (which makes no sense to me).

you can group the functions according to temperament theory but it doesn't even hold up with itself (perception + judgment) nt/nf/sJ/sP? it basically holds that for sensory types their orientation is so limiting and prescriptive that it arranges their behavior more than their actual judgments, bc their sensory information is everything to them. yet, as behavioral descriptions, it can be decent if you have nothing else to go on.

simulatedworld doesn't have to be an MBTI subscriber to do typology the way he does bc he constantly insists on an explicitly jungian approach completely removing the TEST-TAKING element of mbti at all. plus it's really fucking unclear if mb changes any aspect of jungian function order or not- jung's unclear on this point and it's very controversial.

the best website is "fundamental nature of the mbti"- it has pictures. introversion/extroversion as far as i'm concerned only matter in terms of perception. Pi needs Je for context, for something to grip onto, for external cues in the environment, judgments, patterns, values, to organize itself and to hold on to while it's doing its busy Pi detail work (integrating/arranging/scanning information). Pe needs Ji to recognize the value of its perceptions, to stay somewhat on track, to have some sort of internally derived purpose that can withstand the onslaught of the new.

this psychology is interesting bc it is developmental. patterns of activation that emerge with intelligence (creating multiple centers of intelligence). yes you have a shit-ton of plasticity- at first. the longer you go, the less plasticity you have (stem cells, anyone?). the more cost it is to your body-brain system to drastically alter itself, change shape, re-wire, adapt. you kill off plasticity your whole life to become more efficient, smoother in gradient, more habitual and instinctively reacting w/o conscious thought. less bumps and bruises along the way. the idea that i've understood is that functions come in fours and development generally fosters the immediate usage of one more than others. after which the functions learn to balance out as a result of total fucking failure when you don't use the other ones well.

and you can group functions in many ways to find similarities.
enfp and infj (n, f, t, s) (mirror image)
entp and infj (n, Ti-Fe Fe-Ti, s) (alter ego)
intj and infj (Ni, Te-Fi Fe-Ti, Se) (inj)
isfj and infj (pi, Fe, Ti, pe) (ifj)

and then there's the behavioral descriptions of nf temperament (keirsey) or the communication styles (berens) which i find much more valuable and relevant than keirsey. but then you have teh difference between 7w6 and 7w8 being more in-charge with the later bc of Te. the enneagram fits in and plays such a strong role in function development (5w4 and growing up NiTi which created a social retard and why i thought i was an intp for so long).

referring to the other functions as shadow functions makes the most sense to me. i think that berens still does interesting work with these, altho whether they are actually present and available to everyone or not is mostly irrelevant anyway. generally when people say they are using them, i do chalk it up to poorly understanding the jungian functions. yet they do have specific types of relationships with them, ie the 7th function and humor makes a ton of sense to me and seems accurate from teh experiences i have with others (which is all you can ask for a system like this, after you have played wiht the concepts in your mind to the point where they are finished without real-world application).

 

[simulatedworld]

If anyone whines, it's you.
You get all teary-eyed since I shut you down all the time.
Maybe I should send you a box of tissue before you cry your next river.

This isn't about being "respectful to people," in general.
It's about you being an arrogant little prick to people who have the right to decide what their function strengths are.
Who the hell are you to tell a forum member what their function order is?
Who the hell are you to tell them what functions they have developed?

You do it all the damn time.
Knock it off.

Honestly, no, I don't do that.

I explain functional orders of theoretical MBTI types to people who have already made the claim that they are members of those groups.

If someone has offered no information as to his type, I really can't go around telling him which functions are his best. You are taking my posts out of context and missing the point.

I am merely clarifying theory, NOT insisting that I can read perfect functions orders from people.

You seem to have missed the point so here it is again:

Step 1: Somebody claims to be type xxxx.

Step 2: I explain what the theory says tends to be true of type xxxx, noting that many of these properties are likely to be true of a person if s/he is correct in labeling himself in such a way.

I REPEAT: if s/he is correct in labeling himself in such a way.

I REPEAT: if s/he is correct in labeling himself in such a way.

I REPEAT: if s/he is correct in labeling himself in such a way.


Step 3: Discussion.


Oh, but of course, here's where you come back with "OMG WHERE IS UR PROOF THAT THESE TYPES EVEN EXIST?????"

which, AGAIN, brutally misses the point because we're operating in a purely subjective field where the "types" are arbitrarily defined. No, there isn't any proof, because all of this shit is completely made up. That's just understood from the beginning--if you don't want to work with any information that can't be quantified and measured empirically, typology is probably not for you!

That's like somebody coming to me and saying, "I play in a rock band."

And I say, "Really? If that's the case, you probably use a drum set, 1-2 electric guitars and a bass guitar."

I am not picking up this instrumental arrangement out of the ether; IT'S UNDER THE PRESUMPTION THAT THIS PERSON HAS ALREADY SAID HE IS IN A ROCK BAND! The fact that there's no empirical definition of "rock band" doesn't change the utility of this categorization system. We are discussing genres of people here, not science. The genre lines are arbitrarily invented for ease of categorization!

And now you show up, drunk and rambling again: "OMG SIM STOP TELLING PEOPLE THEIR INSTRUMENTAL PREFERENCES!! WHERE IS UR PROOF THAT ROCK BANDS EVEN EXIST???"

"Rock band" is an arbitrary label meant for nothing more than indexing and categorization of information, just like psychological types. Neither requires or operates under any sort of empirical data!

NO, I don't have any proof that people with traits x, y, and z are ENFP types; the entire system operates under these arbitrary presumptions and that's why it can't be objectively quantified!

Maybe you'll get it this time...nah, that's probably just wishful thinking.

Whine your heart out!

 

[Jaguar]

NO, I don't have any proof that people with traits x, y, and z are ENFP types;

Yet people claim ENFPs have traits x, y and z.

 

[simulatedworld]

Yet people claim ENFPs have traits x, y and z.

No, they fucking don't. They claim that traits x, y and z have a tendency to show up in ENFP individuals (which is, in itself, an arbitrary label.)

Once again, in real life we work with ranges of possibilities, not 100% deductive certainty.

Whose dick did you have to suck to get that psych degree, if your understanding of the process of induction is so incredibly poor?

 

[Jaguar]

No, they fucking don't. They claim that traits x, y and z have a tendency to show up in ENFP individuals (which is, in itself, an arbitrary label.)

Once again, in real life we work with ranges of possibilities, not 100% deductive certainty.

Whose dick did you have to suck to get that psych degree, if your understanding of the process of induction is so incredibly poor?

I must say, it's amusing watching you crack.

 

[simulatedworld]

I must say, it's amusing watching you crack.

You gave me a chance to use profanity and big fonts.

I'm actually sad that you stopped

 

[durentu]

Evan, you might be on to something

Amargith, I think I'll keep to generalities.


MBTI is an interesting system, but if you read around, the MBTI tests are at most 75% accurate.

Apart from that, there are the cognitive functions. The four letters are good, but the cognitive functions are much better. But it's not enough to read Jung's cognitive functions alone. You have to understand the general make up of the brain like ego, super ego, id, unconscious etc. Then it brings the proper context. IF you really want the full value of the cognitive functions as described in the anima/animus/shadow etc, look into Jung's individuation process.

Cognitive functions are also a tricky thing to pick out. It takes a long time to pick out one's cognitive functions or to identify it in someone else. The main reason is because we can assume so many other personalities as our lives demand of us.

When using cognitive functions properly, and in isolation, it does have value, but not the value everyone thinks. The value is a path for self reflection, not for self identification. And like all systems, there are exceptions.

It's a great tool for self discovery, but it's not a law of the universe. For that, seek math/physics.