User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 53

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    You're misunderstanding my point. While the J or P might not be strongly expressed in terms of behavior, it's still there on a mental level. The problem is that the tests only measure behavior. So you're balanced in terms of acting out your J or P, but it's still there. To be honest, I think that J/P isn't a good dichotomy... it makes more sense to just pay attention to the dominant and auxiliary functions. Those are more important than whether you test as J or P.

    The reason you can't have a weak J or P, is because J/P happen to have exclusive sets of functions. An IJ with a weak auxiliary might test as P, and an IP with a weak auxiliary might test as J, because their dominant Introverted functions are actually the opposite of what their code claims.

    With Extraverts, the weak J just reflects that the person has learned to be less rigid (perhaps developing their tertiary), it doesn't mean that their dominant function is underdeveloped.

    I think J/P itself might have some flaws as a concept, honestly, but it's a part of determining function order.
    OK then, My preference is for J.. I just really put a lot of value on being flexible. because it helps me get along better with others.. which I think you already covered..

  2. #12
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    OK then, My preference is for J.. I just really put a lot of value on being flexible. because it helps me get along better with others.. which I think you already covered..


    Exactly. You're Fe dominant, so your main value is getting along with others. If this requires you to be more flexible, you will be. Functionally it makes sense, but the test can't make that connection.

    Another reason why your J could be weak, is because the J/P tests a little more for Te than for Fe.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post


    Exactly. You're Fe dominant, so your main value is getting along with others. If this requires you to be more flexible, you will be. Functionally it makes sense, but the test can't make that connection.

    Another reason why your J could be weak, is because the J/P tests a little more for Te than for Fe.
    Interesting..

  4. #14
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    I agree on J/P not always signifying much and that tests might be a little more geared towards T on that angle. Fi doms may very well be stuck in their ways a bit or pulled back and might come across "rigid" at times. While a Ni dom may not.. To use a popular reference, if you don't mind, I think that character in Buffy, Drusilla, is a kind of crazy INFJ caricature. She gets typed as ENFP often, but she is not Ne at all really. And her extroverted traits seems to be more Fe. She would never "test"as a J though, if she were real. Nor would some toned down realistic version of her.

  5. #15
    Senior Member FakePlasticAlice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    430

    Default

    Athenian - would you elaborate more on #5 please? It's something i really haven't gotten around to understanding yet but have always wondered why it's divided NF, NT, SP, SJ.

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I think that character in Buffy, Drusilla, is a kind of crazy INFJ caricature. She gets typed as ENFP often, but she is not Ne at all really. And her extroverted traits seems to be more Fe. She would never "test"as a J though, if she were real. Nor would some toned down realistic version of her.
    Dru seems to be Ni-ing all over the place
    "You can't take a picture of this...it's already gone."

    “But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?”
    -Mark Twain

  6. #16
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Okay, we've listed some texts and ideas that we should avoid.

    Which texts and ideas should we actually trust? Which are we treating as authoritative on the subject?

    Since there are so many conflicting or hazy ideas floating out there, people come in with completely different perceptions on what it even means to be a certain type. Squelch that, find common definitions, and we won't have this problem.

  7. #17
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FakePlasticAlice View Post
    Athenian - would you elaborate more on #5 please? It's something i really haven't gotten around to understanding yet but have always wondered why it's divided NF, NT, SP, SJ.
    I would be glad to do so.

    Actually, MBTI doesn't define things that way. Isabel Myers herself actually originally defined the four temperaments as NF, NT, SF, and ST. However, she also defined them in terms of IJ, EP, IP, and EJ. More than one perspective, in other words. It was Keirsey who came along later and redefined them in the configuration that you see today. The reason he did it, was because he wanted to make the groupings fit with Galen's ancient temperament theory... that is, Melancholic, Sanguine, Choleric, and Phlegmatic. This was a flawed approach, however, because Jungian types were not meant to be grouped according to an alien paradigm like that. Jung had tried to improve on Galen's theory, and Keirsey's idea was actually a step backwards. It oversimplified the types.

    You will not find an official MBTI source that supports the SP/SJ division, AFAIK.

    To be honest, even MBTI is somewhat removed from Jung's theory, but not nearly as much as Keirsey, who redefined the types and their groupings based on behaviorist principles, and created an abstraction atop an abstraction. MBTI is close to Jung, but Keirsey is WAY off the mark.

  8. #18
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Okay, we've listed some texts and ideas that we should avoid.

    Which texts and ideas should we actually trust? Which are we treating as authoritative on the subject?
    Well, I would treat Isabel Myers' Gifts Differing as authoritative. I would also treat C. G. Jung's Psychological Types as authoritative. Beyond that, I'm uncertain.

    I like Lenore Thompson's ideas somewhat, as well as those of Beebe, but I'm not certain about them.

  9. #19
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    I'm guilty of this myself at times. But seriously, his temperament descriptions were extremely shallow and stereotypical... also, they discount the importance of the dominant function, and make the auxiliary too important. Not to mention that they group Sensors differently from Intuitive types. I don't agree with the assumptions behind why T/F isn't as important for one group as it is for the other. I think those assumptions underestimate the intelligence and decision-making capacities of Sensors. SF and ST are just as valid, if not more so, as SJ and SP... even though I admit to having been programmed to think otherwise at one point.
    I agree that SF and ST are worth exploring as archetypes in themselves, but how do you resolve the issue occuring from the reality that J/P means functions are entirely different?

    ISFJ = Si + Fe + Ti + Ne
    ISFP = Fi + Se + Ni + Te

    So these two SF personalities actually have a lot less in common in some ways than the more conventional SJ/SP split.

    I also think your gender T/F comments are too simplistic. Whether you like it or not, there are still both cultural and biological factors that impact thinking and behavior, as well as expression of emotions, all of which impacts type identification. You're right in that the card is probably overplayed, but it still needs to be taken into account.

    Well, I would treat Isabel Myers' Gifts Differing as authoritative. I would also treat C. G. Jung's Psychological Types as authoritative. Beyond that, I'm uncertain.
    Authoritative on what, again? Typology?

    If you're talking about who is authoritative on Jung, it's kind of obvious that Jung would be authoritative on himself; and the same if you are talking about authoritative on MBTI, it would be one of the originators of the theory (Myers).
    "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

  10. #20
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I agree that SF and ST are worth exploring as archetypes in themselves, but how do you resolve the issue occuring from the reality that J/P means functions are entirely different?

    ISFJ = Si + Fe + Ti + Ne
    ISFP = Fi + Se + Ni + Te

    So these two SF personalities actually have a lot less in common in some ways than the more conventional SJ/SP split.
    Well, no one ever brought that up with NTs and NFs, and the same issue applies there, doesn't it? Are you saying that the distance between the functions is less relevant for Ns? I think that's really an argument in favor of ignoring temperaments and focusing more on functions in general. It doesn't really justify the odd split Keirsey invented. Also, Keirsey didn't even use the functions in his theory... as far as I know, it's all behaviorist and focused on the four dichotomies. No functions to be spoken of are even found in his theory, so that that's basically attempting to justify it by applying something that doesn't apply within the framework of his theory.


    I also think your gender T/F comments are too simplistic. Whether you like it or not, there are still both cultural and biological factors that impact thinking and behavior, as well as expression of emotions, all of which impacts type identification. You're right in that the card is probably overplayed, but it still needs to be taken into account.
    I don't think this should be permitted to define male and female versions of the types, though. What's wrong with simply holding things constant, and allowing more females to test as F, and more males to test as T? Maybe the differences in cultural and biological factors mean that most men are simply less capable of being Fs than women, and that most women are less capable of being Ts than men. Rather than being regarded as a distracting influence and discounting it, maybe that should be considered part of the pattern. I'm not denying the impact, I'm just saying that perhaps we should evaluate the impact in a different manner. Especially since there do exist extreme Ts and extreme Fs even among the incorrect gender group, and they're very different from the typical "filtered" version of that type, and more like the original archetype.

    Authoritative on what, again? Typology?

    If you're talking about who is authoritative on Jung, it's kind of obvious that Jung would be authoritative on himself; and the same if you are talking about authoritative on MBTI, it would be one of the originators of the theory (Myers).
    Well, MBTI is what the thread is about. And Jung is also fairly authoritative on MBTI, because Myers' herself used him as a source directly.

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI type based on this cognitive spread
    By SteinitzGamgbit in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-20-2015, 05:38 PM
  2. Why do some people on this forum seem to dislike MBTI?
    By sofmarhof in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 11-19-2015, 08:43 PM
  3. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 06-18-2014, 07:35 PM
  4. Which people on this forum are the hardest to type?
    By Such Irony in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 10:43 AM
  5. Communication types on this forum.
    By Athenian200 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-12-2008, 06:26 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