I don't think you're being abrasive ('course, what would I know about that anyway?) And I don't think anyone necessarily wants you to leave...there are a number of people who hang around the forum complaining about how much MBTI and various personality theories suck. I'm not entirely sure why they're here either, but I wouldn't say they're "not welcome here."
I just think you're kind of missing the point--the theory is designed such that no one can be an X type. That's in the definition. If you don't think the theory is an adequate description of reality, then fine, but if that's the case then I don't understand why you're posting on a forum about it. What do you hope to gain here? You don't seem like the trolling type, really.
Well, I did hope to gain acceptance for the theory, but I can see now that at this point and with the lack of tangible data I have now, this isn't a venue that would be open to it. It did introduce me to a member with similar opinions on the MBTI, so it wasn't exactly a loss, however.
Sometimes it takes a while to really figure out your type correctly. Many people go through believing they're several different different types until they learn enough to genuinely know which one fits best. The probability that you are motivated by N/S and P/J in precisely the same proportions is pretty low. (In functional terms, this would imply that you're equally influenced by Fi, Si and Ni in precisely equal proportions, among other structural issues.)
Actually, I shouldn't have stated that I use Fi, Ni, and Si equally. A member did do a functional analysis on my essay, and did identify strong usage of Ni and Si, but noted that much of my decision-making seems to be based on Fi. I admit that there is a lot of ambiguity when it comes to interpreting what functions in other places actually means, and that I don't know exactly what I'm talking about in regard to it because I don't know how I should evaluate how the structure actually manifests. So I haven't been stating this, but for an IXFX, Fi is in positions 1 and 5 (using the Lenore Thompson model; using the regular model it's 6), and Ni and Si are both in positions 1,3,5, and 7. I had thought that Ni and Si, as first functions, would still be used more than Fe would, but strictly from a function block standpoint the order of emphasis would be Fi>Fe>Si/Ni>Ne/Se>Ti>Te
And if you don't know where I'm getting this from, again, I use all the patterns simultaneously:
Fi Ne Si Te Ni Fe Ti Se
Fi Se Ni Te Si Fe Ti Ne
Ni Fe Ti Se Fi Ne Si Te
Si Fe Ti Ne Fi Se Ni Te
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
What is absolutely clear in this model though is that I value Ni more than Ne, Si more than Se, and Fi more than Fe, and that is something I have been saying.
So yeah, it seems likely that you aren't really too familiar with functions, because IxFx doesn't really make sense from that perspective. It's theoretically possible (though extremely unlikely, since you'd have to place precisely the same emphasis on N/S and P/J) from a functionless four-dichotomies-only standpoint, so in that way there's an outside chance you're just a really rare and special hybrid type.
I never said once that I took a functionless four-dichotomies-only standpoint. I mentioned that the possibility was there from that standpoint, but I have been discussing functions and function patterns the whole time, and I just wrote down my functional model for my type (same type of structure for X types in general) because it seems that you not only have to explain your mode of operation but to show it for people to believe that you have one.
But I think it seems more likely you just haven't learned enough about this to determine your type accurately yet--especially given your insistence that several of your friends are also X types. If pure, exactly 50/50 Xs exist in four-dichotomy MBTI theory, they'd have to be incredibly rare--which makes your case for being an X type even weaker.
Looking from a standpoint of functional patterns rather than dichotomies makes that possibility a whole lot less rare. The dichotomies are only really expressions of the functional patterns, and are in addition subject to a whole lot of bias based on what people like to see themselves as. Because of this, I would go so far as to say that someone who tested between 40-60 percent on a scale is possibly an X type.
But again, I'm relying on the combined functional model, not the four-dichotomy MBTI theory.
You can continue citing outlandish functional preferences, but you've already made enough missteps to show that you can't discern functions accurately anyway, so your functional self-analysis doesn't mean much.
Or maybe that, as purplesunset has stated, my level of confusion regarding my functions makes sense, because, having a combination of four different functional patterns; and, in addition (this part I'm saying), having all of them pertain to introversion and feeling (end my statement) makes there a lot to be confused about. [/QUOTE]
But trust me, Victor has already taken care of the lion's share of the anti-typology preaching around here for quite some time. Everyone's already heard the news.
Was the choice of the word "preaching" intentional? Because honestly, the first effect reading this had was to make me think of how a preacher would frame his response. Which was kind of unpleasant.
Seriously, if everyone's already heard the news then why don't people seem to be actively working on reforming the system?
