User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 91

  1. #41
    Senior Member paintmuffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    eNTP
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'm pasting this from an extended wall conversation I've been having with Two Point Two, because I thought it had some other applications and might result in some good discussion. It provides support for my ongoing assertion that only the four primary functions (dom, aux, tert, inf) are ever truly exercised.

    This is in the context of speaking to an INTJ:


    A good example of what I mean here is people who claim to be borderline P/J.

    In actuality this doesn't make any sense because P and J imply completely different sets of functional value systems. I've seen people claim to be something like ENFx, which is ridiculous because it implies that Fi, Fe, Ni and Ne are all of equal importance to you, and this simply doesn't work because Fi and Fe are so fundamentally opposed in their approaches (same for Ni and Ne.) (Amusingly, people who claim ENFx are virtually always ENFPs who are just attracted to the idea of being "miscellaneous". "Wow, I don't fit into any of the molds! I guess that's cause I'm just SO unique and different!" It's no coincidence that "be unique and different/don't fit the molds/go outside the box" is such a huge part of Ne's value system. Go fucking figure!)

    This is what I mean about how every behavior, thought, action and opinion can be reduced further until you end up with ~4 primary life directives...one for Je, one for Ji, one for Pe and one for Pi.

    People who make these claims simply don't understand enough about functional dichotomies to recognize why they're implicitly contradicting themselves. We're not working with 8 mutually exclusive and completely independent processes here; we're working with an interconnected system of competing and often absolute opposite value systems. Saying that you value Fi and Fe equally is completely absurd; you just don't understand the implications of those terms.

    I may "use Fi" sometimes, but not because I place any fundamental value in Fi itself, but rather because I recognize situations where Fi's values happen to align with my own (which are invariably the result of Ne+Ti+Fe+Si.) I have no shame in admitting that I find Ti a totally superior system for internal judgments, but then--of course I do, I'm a Ti user! Again you need to direct your focus toward the total reasoning process and its most basic underlying values, not just the surface behavior or end conclusion.

    You as an Fi user may make decisions in some situations that resemble Fe decisions, but it's always possible to look further into the motivations for those decisions and recognize which function or functional combination was ultimately responsible. Just because you did something that a lot of Fe users commonly do doesn't mean that Fe actually motivated your reasoning process to do it. I realized this through just talking to a lot of people and prying for honest, deep insight as to the most basic values that make them tick--and trust me, nobody values Fi and Fe equally. The natures of those two value systems are too fundamentally contradictory.
    I definitely tried to point this out once, especially the bolded parts, in some other thread about Fe but got bored arguing halfway through when I wasn't getting my point across.
    You're doing a much better job of explaining it!
    A colleague of the great scientist James Watson remarked that Watson was always “lounging around, arguing about problems instead of doing experiments.” He concluded that “There is more than one way of doing good science.”
    It was Watson’s form of idleness, the scientist went on to say, that allowed him to solve “the greatest of all biological problems: the discovery of the structure of DNA.” It's a point worth remembering in a society overly concerned with efficiency.

  2. #42
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    Don't think I can agree with the OP or for that matter anyone’s conclusions yet but do find the issue quiet fascinating. For example one answer on a MBTI would separate an INTP from and INTJ who on the whole are often very different. The first time I tested I was closest on the P/J boarder and this issue crossed my mind often particularly how being a P makes one Ne, Ti and Fe. Ulimately the test is just a tool and it is a self evaluation which I know am clearly an INTP yet feel my closest cousin is the INTJ.
    Good issue, yet don't see persuasive conclusions or analysis from either side of the debate.
    The MBTI test itself is garbage. We're operating under Jungian functional theory here to a much greater extent than MBTI.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant View Post
    MBTI barely touches on how functions manifest themselves in different positions. Also, the concept of shadow functions is stupid. Everything is so vague and general.

    Deciding your MBTI is best done by the four dichotomies because doing it anyway else will give you a headache.
    That's true for each letter except P/J. The whole point of this thread is that P/J doesn't translate well into a simple one-dimensional dichotomy like the others.

    For instance, let's take an INTP, primary functions Ti+Ne.

    If we change his first letter, we get Ne+Ti (ENTP), same processes but prioritized slightly differently. Still pretty close. Here we have Pe+Ji instead of Ji+Pe, but it's still the same two processes (and not NEARLY as different as the INTJ's Pi+Je.)

    If we change his second letter, we get Ti+Se (ISTP), and here we have the same dominant function as well as preserving the Ji+Pe structure. Still pretty close.

    If we change his third letter, we get Fi+Ne (INFP), which is a little further away than ENTP or ISTP, but still preserves the Ji+Pe format and does have the same secondary function. A little further away, but not that far.

    But if we change his fourth letter, we get Ni+Te (INTJ), which shares zero functions with INTP's Ti+Ne, and furthermore completely inverts organizational priority by introverting perception and extroverting judgment. You'll find with experience that this is the most significant difference in typology and that being "borderline" on the P/J "scale" is basically impossible because P and J imply completely different functional structures and value sets.

    Using the dichotomies alone really limits your understanding because it leads you to believe that having more letters in common makes you automatically more similar, but there's covariance between the functions. It's just not that simple, unfortunately.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #43
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SillySapienne View Post
    I like this post!

    This is kind of off topic, but...

    sim, don't get mad at me, I absolutely think you're brilliant, but you scare me with how strongly you adhere to typological theory.

    You don't believe in "God" but you sure seem to *believe* in the MBTI, don't hate me, just an observation.

    I think you are very much so an ENTP, and I think many NTs for some reason get really into MBTI and use it as more than just a tool but rather as a way to cohesively explain human nature.

    Yet, one must understand that human nature and psychology extends and transcends way outside the MBTI box.

    Don't be mean to me, I'm pms-ing.

    -SS

    *scared of confrontation and hides*


    If you think my typology is based heavily on insistence that nobody exists outside MBTI's function orders, you're not paying attention to my posts. When I discuss functional makeup with people, it's typically under the assumption that these people fit into the type molds they claim to fit into.

    I'm actually very surprised that you as an Ne dom would so badly misunderstand my position here. I discuss all kinds of shit that I don't necessarily believe fully in; arguing it out is part of my learning and idea evaluation process. You can go back and find lots of posts where I argued theoretical positions that contradict the ones I hold now, and the more of these threads that I go through the more my ideas will become refined.

    Jaguar will tell you that this is because I have no consistency of thought, but actually it's because I'm capable of learning and refining my perspective over time. My conceptions of typology have changed dramatically quite a few times over the few months I've been here. Personally, I find "you don't believe exactly the same things you believed six months ago!!!" to be a pretty meaningless criticism.

    Aside from that, haven't you ever heard of Devil's Advocate?

    Haven't you also heard about how ENTPs love doing it and frequently don't bother making it known whether we really agree with the positions we're arguing? Don't you see us switching sides on things just to explore the theoretical implications of each angle? It's really just shocking to me that you don't realize I do that.

    I'll say this one more time:

    I don't think that the 16 MBTI molds are the only function orders that exist in practice.

    And again, if that will help:

    I don't think that the 16 MBTI molds are the only function orders that exist in practice.


    How about one more time, just for good measure?

    I don't think that the 16 MBTI molds are the only function orders that exist in practice.



    As I've already explained in quite a few instances now, I consider MBTI's functional orders to be idealized balances of functions which will theoretically tend to lead to the most self-actualization and happiness. There do exist people who don't follow these orders, but lacking any of the four primary cognitive skills Je/Ji/Pe/Pi results in imbalance and is less likely to produce successful results.


    P.S.,

    I don't think that the 16 MBTI molds are the only function orders that exist in practice.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #44
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The MBTI test itself is garbage. We're operating under Jungian functional theory here to a much greater extent than MBTI.
    I'm beginning to think this myself. I have a friend whom I was certain was either an ESFJ or ESFP. She took two tests I showed her and told me she's an ENFJ. I was like, "Oh, okay" and in my head thought oh well I was wrong.

    But then tonight she decided to drop the history class we had together, saying that she doesn't know how to cope yet with classes that focus purely on theory and ideas (she's getting a 2 year associates degree in a health related field and doesn't need history for that just took it as an elective), and told me that she's used to taking classes that are hands-on and generally learns better when something is right in front of her or practically related to her real life.

    So now I'm thinking - you are an S, I was right, and you tested yourself as an N incorrectly. I didn't say any of this out loud, of course.

  5. #45
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    I'm beginning to think this myself. I have a friend whom I was certain was either an ESFJ or ESFP. She took two tests I showed her and told me she's an ENFJ. I was like, "Oh, okay" and in my head thought oh well I was wrong.

    But then tonight she decided to drop the history class we had together, saying that she doesn't know how to cope yet with classes that focus purely on theory and ideas (she's getting a 2 year associates degree in a health related field and doesn't need history for that just took it as an elective), and told me that she's used to taking classes that are hands-on and generally learns better when something is right in front of her or practically related to her real life.

    So now I'm thinking - you are an S, I was right, and you tested yourself as an N incorrectly. I didn't say any of this out loud, of course.
    Haha yeah that happens to me a lot too. It's kind of awkward with people who are kind of semi-informed and have mistyped themselves because nobody ever wants to hear that!

    It's interesting that you would narrow her type down to "ESFP or ESFJ"...this sort of analysis seems to result from a more superficial, surface-behavior type of perspective as encouraged by MBTI.

    But from a functional perspective, shouldn't these types be very, very different and therefore awfully hard to confuse? ESFP (SeFiTeNi) and ESFJ (FeSiNeTi) share zero functions! So what I'm proposing is that the MBTI four-dichotomy method is a good way to get a quick and very basic read on someone, but it doesn't go much deeper than that.

    That's where MBTI reads stop. To get deeper reads that really explain the full value system and reasoning process, we need to use a more functional perspective, I think, which makes it much, much harder to confuse ESFP vs. ESFJ. Functional study allows us to recognize that J vs. P is by far the biggest dividing line, and furthermore, that it doesn't even translate accurately into a simple one-dimensional dichotomy. (None of the functions do, really, but least of all P/J.)

    Such is one of the major issues with MBTI. I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth; I am most certainly not an MBTI fundamentalist.

    The value I see in MBTI is its suggestions as to which functional combinations provide the most utility--NOT as a dogmatic assertion that no other combinations exist.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #46
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Haha yeah that happens to me a lot too. It's kind of awkward with people who are kind of semi-informed and have mistyped themselves because nobody ever wants to hear that!

    It's interesting that you would narrow her type down to "ESFP or ESFJ"...this sort of analysis seems to result from a more superficial, surface-behavior type of perspective as encouraged by MBTI.

    But from a functional perspective, shouldn't these types be very, very different and therefore awfully hard to confuse? ESFP (SeFiTeNi) and ESFJ (FeSiNeTi) share zero functions! So what I'm proposing is that the MBTI four-dichotomy method is a good way to get a quick and very basic read on someone, but it doesn't go much deeper than that.

    That's where MBTI reads stop. To get deeper reads that really explain the full value system and reasoning process, we need to use a more functional perspective, I think, which makes it much, much harder to confuse ESFP vs. ESFJ. Functional study allows us to recognize that J vs. P is by far the biggest dividing line, and furthermore, that it doesn't even translate accurately into a simple one-dimensional dichotomy. (None of the functions do, really, but least of all P/J.)

    Such is one of the major issues with MBTI. I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth; I am most certainly not an MBTI fundamentalist.

    The value I see in MBTI is its suggestions as to which functional combinations provide the most utility--NOT as a dogmatic assertion that no other combinations exist.

    Oh she's totally an Fe dom. She's an ESFJ.

  7. #47
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Yes, you're right that functionally speaking nobody is borderline P/J. Reading Jung's Psychological Types, it becomes almost immediately obvious that the only two dichotomies that can be blurred are S/N and T/F, because those are the defining qualities of the function (i.e. there is only rational feeling, and only perceiving sensing, you can't have perceiving feeling).
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  8. #48
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Yes, you're right that functionally speaking nobody is borderline P/J. Reading Jung's Psychological Types, it becomes almost immediately obvious that the only two dichotomies that can be blurred are S/N and T/F, because those are the defining qualities of the function (i.e. there is only rational feeling, and only perceiving sensing, you can't have perceiving feeling).
    That's a good point. E/I can be somewhat blurred and, imho, becomes virtually nonexistent if and when a person is able to completely balance his dominant and auxiliary functions. He is able to use both equally well because they apply to different situations and different types of cognitive tasks.

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    Oh she's totally an Fe dom. She's an ESFJ.
    Case in point! Good work.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #49
    Senior Member Tyrant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    181

    Default

    I said typing yourself with the four dichotomies because the system is so muddled. You want to explore a typology system? Socionics is the way to go.
    INTP | IEI - INFp

  10. #50
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    I get your point, but what basis do you have for assuming people can't switch between Xi and Xe.

    I hope you're not implying that INTPs NEVER use Te, Ni, Se, and Fi.

    Anyway, what about this, even assuming you only use 4 functions -- say you're INTP but you use Si and Fe a lot. Those are J functions. So you could be borderline between NTP and SFJ.

Similar Threads

  1. Why Nobody Cares the President Is Lying
    By Z Buck McFate in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 04-23-2017, 09:54 AM
  2. Why Each Myers Briggs Stereotype is Actually False
    By CarolineForbes in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-09-2015, 06:29 AM
  3. Why Prayer is a SIN and affront to God
    By nozflubber in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 03-05-2009, 11:08 AM
  4. [ESTP] why ESTP is rarely present, or even talked?
    By niki in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 05-04-2008, 09:57 AM
  5. This is why incest is against the law...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 01:46 PM

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