User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 45

  1. #21
    Senior Member Littlelostnf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    I'm making a telescope ASAP. That'd be hillarious!!

    not such a good idea eh...
    oh well guess that means...back to yours.
    for my life is slowed up by thought and the need to understand what I am living.

  2. #22
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Littlelostnf View Post
    not such a good idea eh...
    oh well guess that means...back to yours.
    But that ruins the plan of sneaking onto your island during the night and just moving stuff to wind you up.

    Damn!



    Edit :-

    Oooooh. Hang on. ENTJs and ENFJs can get on well... just so long as they help each other and ignore the whole processing part. My father is an ENTJ and my sister is an ENFJ, they work well together. It's funny to watch though!
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  3. #23
    Senior Member Littlelostnf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    But that ruins the plan of sneaking onto your island during the night and just moving stuff to wind you up.

    Damn!



    Edit :-

    Oooooh. Hang on. ENTJs and ENFJs can get on well... just so long as they help each other and ignore the whole processing part. My father is an ENTJ and my sister is an ENFJ, they work well together. It's funny to watch though!
    Dude if you were in my space right now you prob could move everything around and I'd thank you. Why is there this generalization that ENFJ's are neat freaks... I mean don't get me wrong I like things to be in order but generally that's not the rule. People on the other hand..in my head..they are in order...if that makes sense.

    but you can still come to our island and visit your dad and sister.
    for my life is slowed up by thought and the need to understand what I am living.

  4. #24
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Littlelostnf View Post
    Dude if you were in my space right now you prob could move everything around and I'd thank you. Why is there this generalization that ENFJ's are neat freaks... I mean don't get me wrong I like things to be in order but generally that's not the rule. People on the other hand..in my head..they are in order...if that makes sense.

    but you can still come to our island and visit your dad and sister.
    Neat freaks? Can be. It's not a rule though.

    I think my sister is "special". She has like squared paper and colours in the squares to make patterns. Most odd.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #25
    Senior Member marm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    For myself, I have taken to heart the changes that MBTI are undergoing and researched quite a few other models. Of the ones I've looked at, I believe that the FFM model is the most complete model. As a result, I now use it as my baseline...

    MBTI has recently adopted a similar view, going as far as adding the 5th trait for research (neuroticism/reactiveness/whateverispoliticallycorrect). It also has subdivided it's main traits, although I don't agree with the need to keep it so symmetrical, with 6 traits each.

    I've come to realize that unlike the functional approach, people have four (five) independent dominant traits, made up of many sub-traits (4-6 in FFM, 6 in MBTI). This offers huge variation since the sub traits, while they tend to bunch together, are susceptible to environmental differences. A good example is how MBTI believes empathy and critical thought are mutually exclusive traits, whereas FFM has a blend of what would make up those two (it blends into 'need to express' and 'seeks engagement').

    I don't know if that answers the question, but I don't see variants in type anymore, since that assumes type is accurate. I see variations in people, which requires a more robust model to measure and understand them.
    ptgatsby---I've come across some of what you said there, but I haven't studied any of it closely. I've seen MBTI sub-traits before and that would be helpful for this thread. Do you remember what they are? The empathy and critical thought example is very good because I definitely don't see they need to be mutually exclusive.

    I don't know how accurate types are. My wondering about variations is partly my wondering about type itself. I haven't come across a theory yet that gives a fully satisfying explanation of variations. Some people believe that any variants would disprove type, but I believe it just shows it to be an incomplete theory(as any theory ultimately is). It leaves out certain things and simplifies others. I'd love to see a model that superseded present type theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Some random thoughts about "subtypes"... this kind of fits in to ptgatsby's idea of a spectrum model of temperaments...
    Idea on type modelling... what does subtypes mean in typology? Instead of trying to divide people up into subgroups per type... would it be more accurate to say depending on what point they're at in function development... they lean towards one ideal "type" more than another?

    Think of the 16 types as being special points on a sphere... equidistance apart from one another. At different points in time, people can fall anywhere on that sphere based on their current function use. So overtime, you get an averaged "reading"... mean location of the sphere. Based on where that mean lies, you get your temperament "type". However, at any instance in time, a person can lean towards other types close to their focal temperament. E.g. INFJ... Ni Fe Ne Fi Ti Te Se Si... When they are young... developing Fe & Fi... they might have a tendency to lean towards ENFJ or INFP... when they are developing Ti, they can lean towards INTP or ENTP... and use of Ni Te would seem like INTJ.

    Therefore MBTI would be merely a theory... we don't fit people to a temperament... we fit the average tendency of people to a temperament.
    nightning---This is one useful way of looking at it. What would it mean for type theory? An assumption of many type theorists is that there is something inborn about being a specific type. Do you think there aren't aspects of type that are genetic and biological? What is a type? Just an idealized pattern somewhat like an archetype(or like Sheldrake's morphogenetic field)? Does type get at something fundamental? Or is it only about general tendencies? In what way do these tendencies change in a person over time? And in what ways do they stay mostly the same? And what can exlain all of this if type theory can't?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    A good model of personality (in terms of MBTI for the moment) is that the person, or subject, is a glass sphere. On the perimeter is the 8 functions and around them associated "bits" commonly incorperated beneath their banner.

    Right now imagine one of those 3 dimensional graphs. It looks like there's a whole bunch of red within the sphere. It stretches closer to those things on the perimeter which it has competance and confidence in. That would be a complete model of the subject/ person according to MBTI.

    Also it nicely underlines that the more developed the person, the more "complex" their likely to be.

    Where's Mac with that Walt Whitman quote? It fits so well but I can't recall it

    Edit :-
    Realising I could be answering a derailment instead of the origional question (sorry).

    The variations between types which I've witnessed I see more as people either developing from their type or lacking it. I've seen more than a few people have their own preferential crutches within their type and stubbornly refuse to walk by themselves. I knew an ENFJ who refused to admit the reality infront of her because it meant she had to compromise her values daily. Eventually something happened where she was stripped of power and could do nothing but accept the reality intruding. She did at one point swear she was going to give up and throw herself from a building or some such. Of course once I'd wound her up the same fiery resistance came through and I told her "don't be stupid, I've never seen you give up once. Not ever". Now it's like a new person almost. She's still just a fesity as before but now only when it's needed. She's context sensitive and much more introspective. Where as previously were you to question her she'd immediately get defensive and try to blow you through all obstacles into next week, she now will admit her failings and reflect.

    Anyhow basically she's gone from what was described as "dictatorial" (which is a facet of any ExxJ I'd guess) to a more peaceful person. She's balanced her F & T better and is far less EJ than before. I now don't even go deaf whilst on the phone to her which is a major turn around!!

    Is that what you were thinking of Marmalade?
    Xander---Well, I don't know specifically what I'm looking for now. I just wanted to brainstorm and see what others would think of that wouldn't occur to me. The 3-d graph was quite interesting as an image, and I liked your comment about the more developed the person the more likely the complexity. Maybe most variations between people of similar personalities are developmental.

    There is also the influence of environment: culture and family, and life experiences especially early ones. How much does the types of others(such as parents, authority figures, and role models) effect the development of someone's type?

  6. #26
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade View Post
    ptgatsby---I've come across some of what you said there, but I haven't studied any of it closely. I've seen MBTI sub-traits before and that would be helpful for this thread. Do you remember what they are? The empathy and critical thought example is very good because I definitely don't see they need to be mutually exclusive.
    Let's see if I can get this to work...

    Code:
    Extraverting	Introverting	Sensing		Intuiting	Thinking	Feeling		Judging		Perceiving
    
    Initiating	Receiving	Concrete	Abstract	Logical		Empathetic	Systematic	Casual
    Expressive	Contained	Realistic	Imaginative	Reasonable	Compassionate	Planful		Open-ended
    Gregarious	Intimate	Practical	Conceptual	Questioning	Accommodating	Early Starting	Prompted
    Active		Reflective	Experiential	Theoretical	Critical	Accepting	Scheduled	Spontaneous
    Enthusiastic	Quiet		Traditional	Original	Tough		Tender		Methodical	Emergent

    Aha! Sadly, in searching for this, I found out they have it at wikipedia. :steam: Bah. That would of saved me a whole lot of time (oh well, here it is, from wikipedia anyway). They also have a good write up on Step II now, which is new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#MBTI_step_II

    I don't know how accurate types are. My wondering about variations is partly my wondering about type itself. I haven't come across a theory yet that gives a fully satisfying explanation of variations. Some people believe that any variants would disprove type, but I believe it just shows it to be an incomplete theory(as any theory ultimately is). It leaves out certain things and simplifies others. I'd love to see a model that superseded present type theory.
    This is a rather large argument going on right now. In general, the FFM was picked because it had the right amount of traits, sub traits and themes - not because it was the most complete. Stuff like the 16PF and 15FQ had far more depth (for their time), but ultimately suffered from pratical limits.

    The tendency is for all systems to move towards some type of FFM - it seems to be the natural crossing point (MBTI has added the 5th measurement, 16PF has created general traits - 5 of them, etc).

    However, these modesl are not type theories - type theories fit a more narrow purpose than the full psychological tools.

  7. #27
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Let's see if I can get this to work...

    Code:
    Extraverting	Introverting	Sensing		Intuiting	Thinking	Feeling		Judging		Perceiving
    
    Initiating	Receiving	Concrete	Abstract	Logical		Empathetic	Systematic	Casual
    Expressive	Contained	Realistic	Imaginative	Reasonable	Compassionate	Planful		Open-ended
    Gregarious	Intimate	Practical	Conceptual	Questioning	Accommodating	Early Starting	Prompted
    Active		Reflective	Experiential	Theoretical	Critical	Accepting	Scheduled	Spontaneous
    Enthusiastic	Quiet		Traditional	Original	Tough		Tender		Methodical	Emergent

    Aha! Sadly, in searching for this, I found out they have it at wikipedia. :steam: Bah. That would of saved me a whole lot of time (oh well, here it is, from wikipedia anyway). They also have a good write up on Step II now, which is new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#MBTI_step_II



    This is a rather large argument going on right now. In general, the FFM was picked because it had the right amount of traits, sub traits and themes - not because it was the most complete. Stuff like the 16PF and 15FQ had far more depth (for their time), but ultimately suffered from pratical limits.

    The tendency is for all systems to move towards some type of FFM - it seems to be the natural crossing point (MBTI has added the 5th measurement, 16PF has created general traits - 5 of them, etc).

    However, these modesl are not type theories - type theories fit a more narrow purpose than the full psychological tools.

    I doubt this shows that there are any variations within the innate type. There are just many idiosyncratic ways that type shows itself through personality.

  8. #28
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I doubt this shows that there are any variations within the innate type. There are just many idiosyncratic ways that type shows itself through personality.
    I doubt that there is any evidence at all that there are 16 fixed types with a fixed functional breakdown. There is actually evidence against it, and there is strong evidence for a gradient approach to every trait that makes up "type" theories.

    MBTI changed as a result of studying behaviour and integrating new theories to explain their weaknesses. Those subtypes are the first major step towards it, with another step underway. They include breaking the 4 letter type mold ("type") by adding another major factor (the next step being a look at how it impacts on functions) and further refining the descriptive terms used to define the previous four traits.

    You'd have to start with the premise that there are types to justify believing in type... There is no evidence to support it, only theory (that cannot be proven or unproven.) MBTI itself is increasingly stating that types are generalisations of traits (previously 4, now 5) that work into a functional breakdown (which itself is now under revision).

  9. #29
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I doubt that there is any evidence at all that there are 16 fixed types with a fixed functional breakdown. There is actually evidence against it, and there is strong evidence for a gradient approach to every trait that makes up "type" theories.

    MBTI changed as a result of studying behaviour and integrating new theories to explain their weaknesses. Those subtypes are the first major step towards it, with another step underway. They include breaking the 4 letter type mold ("type") by adding another major factor (the next step being a look at how it impacts on functions) and further refining the descriptive terms used to define the previous four traits.

    You'd have to start with the premise that there are types to justify believing in type... There is no evidence to support it, only theory (that cannot be proven or unproven.) MBTI itself is increasingly stating that types are generalisations of traits (previously 4, now 5) that work into a functional breakdown (which itself is now under revision).

    The theory seems reliable enough. We see how its variable are represented in empirical evidence. Dont know what all of this talk about sub-types is. There are a lot of illusions in MBTI. You can so easily mistype people and there are so many idiosyncratic ways that types show themselves in. This is probably the case though...

    No evidence at all to support that types exist..? Jung described how those unconscious functions showed themselves in the minds of philosophers... we can see more of this in many ever day people as well... sure there is evidence... plenty of it..

  10. #30
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The theory seems reliable enough. We see how its variable are represented in empirical evidence. Dont know what all of this talk about sub-types is. There are a lot of illusions in MBTI. You can so easily mistype people and there are so many idiosyncratic ways that types show themselves in. This is probably the case though...

    No evidence at all to support that types exist..? Jung described how those unconscious functions showed themselves in the minds of philosophers... we can see more of this in many ever day people as well... sure there is evidence... plenty of it..
    Jung assumed three traits (by watching people). Myers found a fourth (by watching people). Factor Analysis found five. Analysis shows no particular type correlations between traits (traits act independent from one another). MBTI has now also found this. This means that the J/P functional approach is under a lot of pressure. MBTI realises this, which is why they have worked on Step III of their program.

    If you boil this down, you get the following - type assumes strength where there is none. Type assumes dominant traits based on traits that don't affect one another. Those are the fundamental flaws in type.

    This is only an argument if you go back nearly 20 years and embrace the theory before it was refined with new evidence. You can see an example of the report they produce here - http://www.cpp.com/images/reports/smp267149.pdf

    For all intents and purposes, it acts like DISC or FFM, it's just a different model.

    So as I say, you can believe in type - but you have to assume that type exists in order to conclude that the evidence fits it neatly. Generalised traits (main traits) do carry subtraits that can be widely diverse, even if they are normally correlated (which is what type assumes). See page 6 in the sample report for an idea of 'widely' can be like (S breakdown). Then consider the impact this has on saying (as they do farther down the page) that they prefer S dominant.

    In type, you'd be hard pressed to believe that someone can be both Concrete and Imaginative - but they are seperate traits that make up S, and while correlated, are not absolute.

Similar Threads

  1. No Type
    By paulwhy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-05-2015, 09:01 PM
  2. Most similar/dissimilar members within your type
    By Such Irony in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 01-19-2013, 10:41 PM
  3. 16 types X 2 sexes = 2 variations of each type yielding 32 manifestations.
    By SillySapienne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 01:43 AM
  4. Types within music
    By niffer in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-13-2007, 06:13 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