# Thread: Are there really 24 types?

1. Originally Posted by guesswho
XNTP => Ne=Ti
Si and Fe should also be equal and its also about function roles, so you cant really be an XNTP

2. Originally Posted by Randomnity
Actually most "scientists" (I think you mean psychologists) agree that the MBTI system is fundamentally nonscientific.

And your argument only makes sense if you think function order is always exactly as described in the model (i.e. that it never goes Ne, Ni, Fi, Fe or something)....which seems unlikely to me.
it's true, but most scientists don't discredit introversion/extraversion.

3. Originally Posted by allegorystory
Scientists before the theory of special relativity tried to do that with the concept of "the aether." It turned into a huge jumbled mess of hypotheses and speculation and people were so wrapped up with creating new parametres to explain why it wasn't working that they ignored all the evidence pointing towards the fact that there is no aether.
In that sense, the theory sort of came full circle, as string theory proposes a "fabric" of space (consisting of strings itself) embedded either in higher dimensions, or a "primeval" realm that is not space. That is sort of like what the "aether" would be.

Originally Posted by Randomnity
And your argument only makes sense if you think function order is always exactly as described in the model (i.e. that it never goes Ne, Ni, Fi, Fe or something)....which seems unlikely to me.
Originally Posted by guesswho
XNTP => Ne=Ti

How do we quantify Ne to prove that it is equal to Ti?

We can't, therefor we can't prove Ne=Ti.

Why are people taking the MBTI so serious..........
This is still looking a the function order in terms of relative "strengths". That's what would suggest "quantifying" in the first place.
But the order is really about what the ego most identifies with (based on the emotional subsystems, where the person feels most in control when using the function), and it will be one function or the other, and one orientation or the other.
The preference itself might be stronger or weaker, where the person might seem to be an ambivert, and/or have a "strong", early-developing auxiliary. If you figure the function and orientation separately, then you could see where they might even waft between Ne, Ni, Te and Ti.

4. Originally Posted by Eric B
In that sense, the theory sort of came full circle, as string theory proposes a "fabric" of space (consisting of strings itself) embedded either in higher dimensions, or a "primeval" realm that is not space. That is sort of like what the "aether" would be.

This is still looking a the function order in terms of relative "strengths". That's what would suggest "quantifying" in the first place.
But the order is really about what the ego most identifies with (based on the emotional subsystems, where the person feels most in control when using the function), and it will be one function or the other, and one orientation or the other.
The preference itself might be stronger or weaker, where the person might seem to be an ambivert, and/or have a "strong", early-developing auxiliary. If you figure the function and orientation separately, then you could see where they might even waft between Ne, Ni, Te and Ti.
but would your ego not be emotionally conflicted if for instance Ti and Ne ruled equally? What I mean is as comfortable one might be with using functions equally there must be one you trust/gain comfort from more than the other.

5. I don't think it would be a matter of a solid "Ti" and "Ne" ruling. It would be T and N conflicting, aling with being torn between an internal and external focus. (Which could also potentially generate Te and Ni). But while they might seem to be "conflicting", according to the theory, one or the other side of both factors will ultimately, if ever so slightly, be more preferred.

6. ^ I agree on both points.

Altough some things that are "used" in MBTI typing have been "proven" to exist like extraversion and introversion. And that there are people who don't see the wood from the trees and the ones' who don't see the trees from the wood (big picture - detail oriented people). There is no "proof" of Intuition - sensing or feeling - thinking differences, I think. I would rather say that thinking doesn't exclude feeling (value based decisions). The same with intuition and sensing. I think intuition always includes some sensing/pre-learning and sensing can include intuition in the moment. But as we all know, there are people who are "emotionally warm people and emotionalyl cold people. There are empathic people and more detached people. There are people-oriented people and people who care more about things than people.

Even if I feel, personally, that MBTI's ENFP firs function Ne describes quite well how my head "operates" and Fi describes well my deepest feelings. But I'm not only Ne + Fi or whatever they actually are. And MBTI is a good tool in understanding differences in people even if it's not scientifially proven to be correct. But it shouldn't be taken too seriously as there is no typing that would completely explain anybody. Gladly.

And I know the MBTI is about preference, but that doesn't still explain it well enough.

#### 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