User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 58

  1. #11
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    Well, guess what: when you're discussing typology, you're already in it.
    MBTI = normal conversation
    Function analysis = middle management speak

    It's all language but there's a huge different vis a vie how you use it.
    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    I still have no idea what your problem is, but I do agree that observation of your own behaviour is the best way of determining your type. But surely, unless you know how the functions behave and inter-operate, how could you possible do this to any degree of accuracy? Relying soley on the dichtomies just creates confusion, with people saying "I'm borderline P/J" or "borderline F/T". It's just too simplistic and doesn't reflect how the system really works.
    Even borderline doesn't work well with function analysis. Knowledge of how types test under stress or certain influences works better and doesn't sound like a crock.
    Quote Originally Posted by brainheart View Post
    Yeah, you're probably right, Xander. It's just when you think about things a lot and apply theories to specific situations you end up getting specific and nit-picky as a way of explaining it, which requires some stretching and extrapolation. Hence the fairy land of theory.

    What do you think a fairy land of theory would look like? That's the important question. I see a lot of white space and abstract objects, kind of like a Salvador Dali dream sequence. I think it would give me a headache. I prefer the traditional fairy land- trees, etc. Does that mean I'm mis-typed and Se dominant? Shit, maybe I should re-take the function test!
    I've decided... I love you deeply and intensely...

    The landscape is olive green with tan lines, upon it sits all manner of colourful splut creatures. I'm thinking it looks like the inside of the Trapdoor's creators brain.
    Quote Originally Posted by noigmn View Post
    The test has two elements to each function: which of the function traits you possess, and how much you possess them. Some test the how much you possess them with a scale for each attribute, some are just do it or don't do it. Either way you are seeing these two things compressed into a single scale. Someone who does all the traits for the function occasionally gets the same as someone who does half the traits all of the time.

    The other problem is the tests are ambiguous enough that you can answer for the wrong functions by misinterpreting the questions. They aren't all clear things that a person can say about themselves without careful consideration. Also different types see different questions from different perspectives. Read an ENFP and INFJ thread from the past and you'll get the point. Both will believe they possess the same trait and the other doesn't. How does that make a solid platform for a test. In a way it seems like they have all the correct scientific attributes in the test, but have forgotten how the test taker sees the questions. If you are addressing them to humans, they are pretty lame. They're like something out of a feel good TV commercial or promotional campaign.
    That's what I like though. People aren't well defined.

    To put it in an artistic framework you draw people with no solid outline and it looks better than with. That's because people don't have an outline to them just a presence or absence of them, there is no border.

    This function order malarkey seems to be trying to add lines and edge to something which exists in 4 dimensions!
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #12
    brainheart
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post

    I've decided... I love you deeply and intensely...

    The landscape is olive green with tan lines, upon it sits all manner of colourful splut creatures. I'm thinking it looks like the inside of the Trapdoor's creators brain.
    My goodness, didn't you just make my day!

    I think I like your theory fairy land better than mine.

  3. #13
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Where I find it useful is that as I have been saying, it is not the "functions" themselves that really do anything; it's the complexes of the ego. So when you observe your function use, you are likely observing the various complexes employing them. So in stress and conflict, it is good to be aware of those things.
    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

  4. #14
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Where I find it useful is that as I have been saying, it is not the "functions" themselves that really do anything; it's the complexes of the ego. So when you observe your function use, you are likely observing the various complexes employing them. So in stress and conflict, it is good to be aware of those things.
    For me, the Archetype Model sounds nice on paper, but even if I think of myself as another type, it clashes with my experience of how I use the functions. Take Ti for example. This process isn't demonic for me, it isn't heroic, and it isn't childlike. It's simply a tool that I feel compelled to use on a regular basis. Sometimes I use it too much, and feel cold and dead, and sometimes I use it too little and lose the ability to communicate. It falls into one archetype, then into another, and sometimes it leaps out of them altogether.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  5. #15
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    When comparing Functional Analysis with MBTI Tests, one can deduce that they are inconsistent for one primary reason

    The MBTI Tests measure your preferences based on 50/50 questions, which are taken into direct account in summation of your functional preferences (Preset MBTI Archetype). Thus, the test taker is inevitably assigned an archetype on completion of the test.

    On the other hand, Functional Analysis determines the measurements of specific functions regardless of direct coincidence with MBTI Archetypes. For instance, one could feasibly complete the Functional Analysis test and get a result like:

    extraverted Sensing (Se) *
    no use
    introverted Sensing (Si) *
    no use
    extraverted Intuiting (Ne) *
    no use
    introverted Intuiting (Ni) *
    no use
    extraverted Thinking (Te) *
    no use
    introverted Thinking (Ti) *
    no use
    extraverted Feeling (Fe) *
    no use
    introverted Feeling (Fi) *
    no use

    Now, this is not to say that functional analysis is useless, for it provides more insight into why MBTI archetypes are the way they are. Furthermore, studying functions can give an individual a steadier foundation for which they can identify archetypes (although, this is not always the case). Likewise, MBTI provides a more general framework for which we can analyze functional theory.

    In conclusion, I believe that the original MBTI has more direct utility for institutions and individuals because it outlines detailed descriptions of how the functions work in conjunction to each other.

  6. #16
    Pumpernickel
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post

    Now, this is not to say that functional analysis is useless, for it provides more insight into why MBTI archetypes are the way they are. Furthermore, studying functions can give an individual a steadier foundation for which they can identify archetypes (although, this is not always the case). Likewise, MBTI provides a more general framework for which we can analyze functional theory.

    In conclusion, I believe that the original MBTI has more direct utility for institutions and individuals because it outlines detailed descriptions of how the functions work in conjunction to each other.

    To me it is the other way around, I think functional analysis is more useful in practical applications. For example, my friend is an INFP who also happens to be a philosophy student, her Ti score was near even to her Fi. If I were to ignore this function that is so strongly developed just because it wasn't "natural" but was rather trained, I would be pretty much ignoring a very large and important aspect of her personality.

    By learning someone's functional order, you can deduce what they will respond to and what they will not respond to. Like I can't just say "Well I won't make a Ti argument to you because you will not understand or appreciate it". And development is varied with each individual, so I think having the knowledge of how to best communicate with a person is more valuable and practical than just knowing their mbti letters.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Tyrant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    181

    Default

    When people begin to question functional analysis, you know something's wrong. Typing someone solely by dichotomies is just ..... and ignores what the types are founded on. Honestly, if you label yourself as INxP, you rightfully admit to being ignorant. If you label yourself as INTx, just get out.
    INTP | IEI - INFp

  8. #18
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    For me, the Archetype Model sounds nice on paper, but even if I think of myself as another type, it clashes with my experience of how I use the functions. Take Ti for example. This process isn't demonic for me, it isn't heroic, and it isn't childlike. It's simply a tool that I feel compelled to use on a regular basis. Sometimes I use it too much, and feel cold and dead, and sometimes I use it too little and lose the ability to communicate. It falls into one archetype, then into another, and sometimes it leaps out of them altogether.
    (Realize this is an older post, but...)

    Huh, this is exactly the same issue I'm having. Granted, I'm still struggling with it and trying to give the Archetype Model a very fair shake, but my experience with Ti is much like yours.

    I really like the 8 functions and find them to be very useful concepts, but matching them up to the expected archetypal roles is causing me serious cognitive dissonance.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    96

    Default

    For me, function analysis is taking typology to the next level in an attempt to understand how each type functions, and gain greater insight into an individual -customizing mbti, if you will. I took the cognitive functions test recently, when "type" is no longer a perfect description for me, needing to understand my personal evolution.

    While I agree that there are many limitations, I cannot accept this as a basis for invalidating cognitive functions. All 16 types are based on the ordering of cognitive functions (with all its archetypes). It is impossible for me to accept this tool, without making an attempt to understand its building blocks. Then again, there is also the question of how accurate the 16 types might be, and how Jung was adapted by Myers Briggs. In short, I think understanding the theory behind the type, is inevitable process that noobs and theorists go through.

    Telling me that its better to type by gaining a "feel", is like telling me that you somehow managed to "psyche" out a person using superpowers. When you identify behavorial traits, aren't you also in the process of assigning names to some invisible psychological process? You just skip the middle portion, arriving directly at the final conclusion. I might agree with you regarding its overall accuracy, but I can't articulate the process or put my finger on it. Besides, does it means that you accept all the underlying concepts and definitions of this tool?

    I've also encountered people who disagree with typing, because "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" - which sounds like what you're saying - that humans cannot be that solidly defined. While I empathise with it, I can't live by it because it impedes me from understanding humans. Instead, I see mistakes as part of the process in grasping the entire picture.

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant View Post
    When people begin to question functional analysis, you know something's wrong. Typing someone solely by dichotomies is just ..... and ignores what the types are founded on. Honestly, if you label yourself as INxP, you rightfully admit to being ignorant. If you label yourself as INTx, just get out.
    Most of the time, I have no idea what argument you are trying to make. When people type by dichotomies, you tell them it doesn't work, please look at cognitive functions. When people type by cognitive functions, you say its rubbish. When someone questions cognitive functions, you call them ignorant. Please make up your mind.

Similar Threads

  1. What is an easy way to tell what functions you use?
    By Paris34 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-25-2014, 08:56 PM
  2. Functions Analysis: What's My MBTI Type?
    By 527468 in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 227
    Last Post: 12-22-2010, 02:50 PM
  3. How is this MBTI useful to your life?
    By Xander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-25-2010, 01:22 PM
  4. Is personal analysis so viable?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 09:11 AM
  5. Eight Function Analysis of INTPs
    By Totenkindly in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 05:19 AM

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