User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 91

  1. #61
    Badoom~ Skyward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    I'm skipping basically all the posts to point out my view on this:

    I believe in the shadow functions, thus, everyone has all the functions, but underneath each of your conscious functions is another one that works along with or against it, usually without your knowing.

    An example is Fe and Fi. Fe seeks harmony around us and can be willign to laugh at something amoral just to make the group feel more close, but beneath it is Fi that sneaks in the feeling of: 'Ummm, wouldn't that make you an amoral person? That would be worse than NOT laughing at it.'

    Really, believe what you want, I only use MBTI as a structure of my thoughts. The function order and descriptions are accurate enough for me. I don't need perfect quantitative information. I have crazy Ni and my subconscious.
    'Imperfection is beauty, madness is genius and its better to be absolutely ridiculous than absolutely boring.' - Marilyn Monroe

    This is who I am, escapist, paradise-seeker.
    -Nightwish

    Anthropology Major out of Hamline University. St. Paul, Minnesota.

  2. #62
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I completely disagree with this. It may be hard to tell in children who have not yet formed clear functional preferences, but once most people reach adulthood their value systems are very clearly defined and not really that difficult to discern. Xi and Xe are very, very opposed because they disagree completely on where the source of the decision should be--internally from the self, or externally from the environment.
    In reality, functions/processes cannot "agree" or "disagree" at all, even though we often use that parlance. The ego is the only self-conscious entity, and the processes or functions are just that; processes and functions (actions) employed by the ego. The attitude is simply the location the actions are taken in, or standards derived from. I believe this is the way Jung originally framed his theory, though I have seen it said that it was later on that he reframed it so that introversion and extraversion were strictly "dominant function attitude". Hence, in practice, the functions become sort of virtual egos in themselves. I think his earlier conception was better and covers many people's anomalies more accurately.
    So it's the ego that chooses one attitude and function and rejects others. But it is easy to see that it is possible for the ego to engage the rejected stuff, for whatever reason. (And the more he does it, the better at it he becomes, hence the ambiguity for some).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  3. #63
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I seek to explain why, rather than how. It doesn't matter to me how we label the process of taking in sensory information or of considering it internally; it matters what deeper value systems using these methods primarily will lead to and how we can apply those to better identifying with other people's perspectives.
    The problem with that approach is that all you have access to is other people's surface level behavior. You can't see motivations at all. You can ask about them, but lots of times, people don't even understand their own motivations.

    I don't even seek to explain how. I use definitions that split cognition up as labels, and use them to describe what I'm seeing. Over time, I try to observe function distributions and come up with a best-fit type.

    My approach relies on observation and hypothesis testing. Your approach relies on unfalsifiable hypotheses.

    The thing is, you can assume ANY type, and explain ANY behavior you see as some interaction of functions in that type's arsenal. That's why I try to prove my hypotheses wrong, not prove them right.


    Don't get me wrong. I'm extremely interested in other people's motivations and how they make sense of their actions and choose them. I just don't think a four dimensional tool is complex enough to give satisfactory answers. Sometimes I can describe what I think people's motivations are in terms of MBTI functions, or at least use that vocabulary to account for part of their motivation structure. But there are so many other dimensions that go into motivation that most of the time you'll miss hugely important factors by just using MBTI.

    The point of MBTI is that it's simple and quick. If you want something deep, you have to realize that it will be slower and more complex. MBTI isn't a good tool for that stuff.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    My reasoning for thinking that people can't be half Ni and half Ne, though, has absolutely nothing to do with MBTI's function molds. It has everything to do with the fundamentally opposing values of those functions.
    Yeh, I was (in a way) alluding to the problem with this transition. I agree. In the model having a continuum running between J and P causes many problems. The mapping to Jungian is a problem in the sense that MBTi defines J/P to choose between the extroverted J or P function, so completely changes the function set either side of the divide. The point the function order must cross at half way brings functions that do not mix together as the dominant function.

    If we stick to the four function idea, we can separate into four type groups (defined by function set).

    1. [Ni Fe Ti Se] - INFJ, ENFJ, ISTP, ESTP
    2. [Ni Te Fi Se] - INTJ, ENTJ, ISFP, ESFP
    3. [Ne Fi Te Si] - INFP, ENFP, ISTJ, ESTJ
    4. [Ne Ti Fe Si] - INTP, ENTP, ISFJ, ESFJ

    When moving across the barriers on the axes the following happens:

    - I/E switches the order of the Nx/Sx and Fy/Ty functions.
    - F/T switches the e/i of the Fx and Ty functions and swaps their position.
    - N/S switches the e/i of the Nx and Sy functions and swaps their position.
    - J/P switches the e/i of all the functions and does the switch I/E does.

    Looking at the transitions:

    T/F axis: As you move from T to F the balance of the Tx function to the Fx function changes. At halfway both would be similar strengths I'd assume. So you would end up with Tx and Fx at a certain level, and Ty and Fy at a weaker level. ie. an ENxP would be something like Ne>Fi=Ti>Te=Fe>....>Si. The N/S axis is analogous to this.

    I/E axis: As you move from I to E the relative strengths of the Nx/Sx and Ty/Fy functions change. At halfway you would end up with Nx/Sx and Ty/Fy at similar strengths. So an xNFP would be something like Ne=Fi>Te=Si>....

    J/P axis: As you move from J to P the balance of the Nx to Fx, Sx to Fx, Nx to Tx, and Sx to Tx changes. At halfway you would end up with i/e of NF, NT, SF, or ST functions at one strength. An ENFx would be something like Ne=Fe>Ni=Fi>Te=Se>Ti=Si. Just to the P side of equilibrium it would be Ne>Fe=Fi>Ni=Te>Se>Ti>Si maybe.

    Ne Fe is not an impossible leading combo. I Ne Te quite often. The occasional glimpse of Fi or Ni seems quite okay also. You just have a total thinkotard and sensotard. With Ni and Fi significantly weaker they will be more helpers for meeting the dominant function's needs, so should not conflict. I changed this from yesterday because I got the J/P function order wrong.
    Last edited by BlueScreen; 10-23-2009 at 07:56 PM. Reason: fixed due to inherent brain faults ;)
    Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Linguist View Post
    WHY would these necessarily be diametrically opposed, and WHY can't you have both?

    And how can you explain Fe > Ne > Te > Se? Theoretically, I should not be able to have all these in the top four, but I definitely do.
    Two Jungian analysts named June Singer and Mary Loomis took on MBTI decades ago.
    Anyone who knows typology, already knows who they are.

    The difference between Singer and Loomis and MBTI is simple:
    Singer and Loomis sought to identify the functions people are actually using.
    MBTI does nothing of the sort, and merely spits out a "profile" based upon what you "prefer."

    One of the reasons Singer and Loomis developed an alternative,
    was the increasing number of people reporting the MBTI profile did not match their characteristics.

    How insightful-or accurate- is a personality profile going to be,
    when it's based on forcing you to choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream?

    MBTI is nothing but a tally of what you were forced to choose as a preference.
    (Never mind the fact that the majority of the questions on any MBTI test have answers where BOTH are true, rather than just one.)

    Singer and Loomis give 20 situations to a subject, followed by 8 possible reactions.
    They are then asked to indicate how often they would make that response.
    So what really shows up in the results are the functions people choose to use, in real-life situations.

    It's not possible for MBTI to do anything like that.

    Here is a Singer-Loomis sample profile of a team leader:

    • Extraverted Sensation Dominant
    • Extraverted Thinking Dominant
    • Extraverted Intuition Auxiliary
    • Introverted Feeling Mid-Mode
    • Introverted Thinking Mid-Mode
    • Introverted Sensing Mid-Mode
    • Extraverted Feeling Least Developed
    • Introverted Intuition Least Developed


    If people can't understand how the above is possible, there is something seriously wrong in their understanding of human nature.
    Yet here we are in a forum where people argue an old theory, as if it's the SINGLE way to look at the human psyche.

    If we, as a people, have to pretend to be a certain way just to fit into one of sixteen boxes,
    it's no different than being told we have to wear shoes three sizes too small, while pretending they actually "fit."

  6. #66
    Senior Member Tyrant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    181

    Default

    Really, the deeper you go into MBTI, the more it doesn't make sense. It still doesn't make sense irrational types are apparently judging types. You should believe in "shadow functions" - having only four functions is stupid. It has no intertype relationships, function positions are pretty much nonexistant, every function manifests itself differently in every position (MBTI doesn't touch on that at all). This is why ..... socionics is superior.
    INTP | IEI - INFp

  7. #67
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Fi says: I should draw my ethical principles from my own internal sense of what is ethical in a vacuum. Ethics would still exist as a fundamental property of the universe even if we were not here to think about them.

    Fe says: I should draw my ethical principles from what my community surroundings hold as important values. Ethics exist only as a means of fostering emotional connection between people so that they can work toward external goals together.
    yup, those are the purest theoretical definitions of both... although in reality every person is a mix, I'm not sure the functions realistically separate out that extremely... and we modify our behavior to some degree based on circumstance.

    I really liked the next point you made:

    The key is that to Fe, nothing is actually ethical until some external goal has been defined. If the goal is integrating into a given culture, then the methodology would clearly involve integration into that culture's moral and social norms. Fe's ethics change and adapt based on the emotional texture of its environment.

    Fi, on the other hand, sees ethics as private, personal and non-negotiable. It neither seeks nor requires any external validation, because it knows what is ethical and what is not, end of story.
    Yup.

    Yes, Fi is completely outside of my personal value system. Since I use Ti for my internal judgments, I find use of Feeling for internal judgments to be inappropriate and selfish. Sometimes my internal logic and another person's internal feelings will reach the same conclusion, but for totally different reasons.
    That's basically what I experience, although I can't say it's for "totally different reasons" because I think the functions -- while helpful -- are just one model of personality and thus aren't quite a perfect fit for real people. Hence, I think someone designated INFP and I can reach conclusions with some overlap, but the basic key is that we still do get there in our own particular ways.

    It's pretty funny, actually, when I debate with my INFP coworker.

    She's very quick to become indignant over a particular social situation: "That's just not the way it should be, everyone should be able to <be themselves, express themselves, whatever>." To her, that ideal should be a constant and people should just do it because it's right. Usually our conflict is my looking at it and saying, "Yes, I think that ideal is what should be in play... but just because you believe it should be so doesn't mean it will work or that the best way to go about it is just to tell people to do it."

    The ideal might ideal but not realistic based on what I see about how people work... and it can also clash with external Fe-style goals that also should be met.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    ...Singer and Loomis sought to identify the functions people are actually using. MBTI does nothing of the sort, and merely spits out a "profile" based upon what you "prefer."
    ...
    Singer and Loomis give 20 situations to a subject, followed by 8 possible reactions. They are then asked to indicate how often they would make that response. So what really shows up in the results are the functions people choose to use, in real-life situations. It's not possible for MBTI to do anything like that.
    Nice.

    And yup, again we have the "theory" predictive function order vs one that actually checks real-life data. The latter should trump the former every time, IMO, if the data is collected consistently. A theory is theory, it's a "best through line" approach to a bunch of sometimes disparate data... which means much of the data won't fall on the line anyway. Here we have an opportunity to check theory with hard data in terms of function order.

    However, I still think the OP premise is realistic -- generally, ENFx really operate from different motivations and function use regardless of what data shows what functions are being used by a specific individual.

    I think the idea of using an x for the J/P binary is pretty bogus, even if occasionally there could be a "true" ENFx.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #68
    Retired Member Wonkavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post

    The answer is to develop the auxiliary. This is how to achieve balance between the internal and external worlds and create a healthy self-image and productive lifestyle.
    Amen, Brotha.

    Preach!
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  9. #69
    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 Evan View Post
    The problem with that approach is that all you have access to is other people's surface level behavior. You can't see motivations at all. You can ask about them, but lots of times, people don't even understand their own motivations.
    I don't agree with that. I think looking for underlying value systems provides a lot more depth than defining functions in terms of which single function is responsible for any given surface action. But I guess we're just not going to agree on this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I don't even seek to explain how. I use definitions that split cognition up as labels, and use them to describe what I'm seeing. Over time, I try to observe function distributions and come up with a best-fit type.
    Well, I usually use the simpler surface behavior type of reads to get a first impression and decide what direction to go in dealing with a person, but after getting to know someone reasonably well I can piece together enough different situations to make a theoretical model of that person's value system, which I then revise if and when they do something to contradict it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    My approach relies on observation and hypothesis testing. Your approach relies on unfalsifiable hypotheses.

    The thing is, you can assume ANY type, and explain ANY behavior you see as some interaction of functions in that type's arsenal. That's why I try to prove my hypotheses wrong, not prove them right.
    Ok, nobody's approach to typology is anything beyond a pure thought exercise. I "hypothesize" and "test" on people the same way you do, but the entire thing is inherently unscientific so let's not pretend anyone actually has any kind of objective approach here, ok?

    The whole thing operates entirely upon personal interpretation anyway. You can't prove any typology hypotheses right or wrong because it's a field of philosophy, not psychology...there's nothing empirical or quantifiable here at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Don't get me wrong. I'm extremely interested in other people's motivations and how they make sense of their actions and choose them. I just don't think a four dimensional tool is complex enough to give satisfactory answers. Sometimes I can describe what I think people's motivations are in terms of MBTI functions, or at least use that vocabulary to account for part of their motivation structure. But there are so many other dimensions that go into motivation that most of the time you'll miss hugely important factors by just using MBTI.

    The point of MBTI is that it's simple and quick. If you want something deep, you have to realize that it will be slower and more complex. MBTI isn't a good tool for that stuff.
    I don't think the four-dimensional dichotomies are all that great either, beyond a very quick surface analysis. It seems we do agree about that part.

    But I've basically tried to compile Jungian functional theory and a number of ideas from different sources to come up with my own system for going beyond those basic surface MBTI reads to try and truly understand and identify with other people on a deeper basis.

    I've appropriated Jung's functional labels and interpreted them as broader value systems rather than focusing on interpreting specific single actions as one function. I don't see why you'd want to do this anyway, since it seems intuitive to me that all four functions would combine into one fluid process, all having some influence on everything a person does.

    So, in response to your last paragraph--I'm not using MBTI to form deeper character models for people; I'm using some conglomerate of ideas from a number of different schools of thought on this topic, part of which involves the belief that MBTI's 16 molds provide the most utility (but are NOT the only function orders that exist in practice.)

    Everybody keeps responding to me to talk about how bad MBTI is, but I've never said anything to indicate that I accept the MBTI as gospel. In fact, I pretty constantly point out my belief that psychological type can't be tested or empirically verified in any way, which outright negates the entire MBTI "test" approach. If I think all "testing" of psychological type is inherently useless, how could I possibly have total faith in everything MBTI says?

    I talk about functional orders a lot because I believe they are the most successful approaches. People approach life strategies in much the same way that they approach Chess, for instance--there are millions upon millions of possible combinations, but most of them are ultimately meaningless because they perform poorly in practice.

    You guys keep getting hung up on whether non-standard function orders exist, but that's not my point and never has been. I freely admit that they do exist, in fact, just that they're rather uncommon compared to the standard molds because they lack balance and symmetry.

    So please, please stop telling me how bad MBTI is. I get it; I've acknowledged the flaws in MBTI quite a few times, but there are a few valuable ideas in it, and I will continue to use them. I'm not automatically throwing out every idea Myers and Briggs had just because some of them were flawed. (I reject Christianity but still believe Christ had a number of good ideas--if it has to be all or nothing on any given theory, how could this viewpoint be possible?)

    But hey, if Jaguar wants to burn straw men until the cows come home, be my guest. I just get bored repeating myself over and over to someone who's absolutely determined not to listen and would rather stuff the same bullshit words in my mouth again and again and again.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #70
    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 Jaguar View Post
    If we, as a people, have to pretend to be a certain way just to fit into one of sixteen boxes,
    it's no different than being told we have to wear shoes three sizes too small, while pretending they actually "fit."
    The point isn't forcing people into conformity or stifling individuality or whatever other conspiracy theories your angry gut reactions seem to believe.

    The point is that many functional orders simply perform poorly in practice for reasons I've outlined many times. There are 20 possible opening moves in Chess but only 5 of them are ever actually used in practice because the others are just plain inefficient.

    Does that mean that the others are never used in practice? No, I never said it was illegal or impossible for you to open with pawn to a3, just that it's a generally poor approach that rarely yields any successful result. That's why most non-standard function orders are uncommon; they have fundamental structural problems that steer most people away from wanting to use them.

    It doesn't mean they're never used! I never said that, nor did I ever embrace MBTI as some kind of perfect gospel truth. I told you--I see its 16 molds as the most successful "styles" or approaches in most cases, not the only possible priority orders that real people ever have. I've seen several people open with pawn to a3--and they all lost.

    I'd even agree with you that Singer-Loomis are much closer to having it right than MBTI, but they're still making a fundamental mistake by trying to empirically test an inherently untestable proposition. There's no evidence to indicate that their test questions actually align realistically with functional uses, and yet you seem to have glossed over this problem.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

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