User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 53

  1. #21
    The Duchess of Oddity Queen Kat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    E.T.
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    3,116

    Default

    That's why I don't have a type.
    I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower. The TV was obviously on. I used to fly myself and I said, "There's one terrible pilot."
    - George W. Bush -


    SCUAI - 7w8 sx/sp - Chaotic Evil - Fucking Cute - ALIVE

    Blog. Read it, bitches.
    Questions? Click here
    If you don't agree about my MBTI type, you can complain about it here. I've had plenty of people telling me I'm something else, in my reputation box. That's annoying.

  2. #22
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    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.
    As a female T, I can tell you that you can be (nearly) 100% certain of being a T while still having some "typical female" traits that come off as F.

    Is there a benefit to calling T women Fs, if they identify more with the T description? It's all about preference here.

    Remember that the system in essence defines T vs F as making decision based on values vs. reasoning/logic. So you can fit that very well while still appearing to others as an F. I'm surprised that you of all people are dismissing the idea that cultural expectations and treatment are irrelevant to our behaviour.
    -end of thread-

  3. #23
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    As a female T, I can tell you that you can be (nearly) 100% certain of being a T while still having some "typical female" traits that come off as F.

    Is there a benefit to calling T women Fs, if they identify more with the T description? It's all about preference here.

    Remember that the system in essence defines T vs F as making decision based on values vs. reasoning/logic. So you can fit that very well while still appearing to others as an F. I'm surprised that you of all people are dismissing the idea that cultural expectations and treatment are irrelevant to our behaviour.
    I'm not completely dismissing it, I'm just saying that I think the idea is over used. You see, you're pretty confident in your T, even though you have a few traits that come off as F. I think the problem arises when, if a person of a given gender doubts their T/F, they're told that they're probably the opposite of the norm as a result. I just don't think the principle should be applied to the borderline cases so readily.

    Also, I don't believe in typing according to "traits." I believe that typing should be conducted based on how a person thinks. not a few behaviors. The problem I have, really isn't when the "card" is used to dismiss a few feminine behaviors, but rather when it's used to dismiss a thought process. I think that having a slightly more T or F tendency in thought process/focus shouldn't be chalked up to cultural gender tendencies. I do believe you can do that with mere behaviors to some extent, because behaviors are learned. I should have qualified that statement, and I'm sorry for the confusion.

    There's also the problem of a lot of Fs "wanting" to be T, because they think T means more intelligent, even among some women.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    As a female T, I can tell you that you can be (nearly) 100% certain of being a T while still having some "typical female" traits that come off as F.

    Is there a benefit to calling T women Fs, if they identify more with the T description? It's all about preference here.

    Remember that the system in essence defines T vs F as making decision based on values vs. reasoning/logic. So you can fit that very well while still appearing to others as an F. I'm surprised that you of all people are dismissing the idea that cultural expectations and treatment are irrelevant to our behaviour.
    my ISTP cousin has alot of female type F traits...much more so then me. I dont thinks it possible to NOT have more womanly traits if you are a female ISTP vs a male ISTP. The other factor that plays into things is that women ISTP will be treated differently then male ISTPs strictly because of how society views women vs men and this alone will cause a female ISTP to have different needs/wants or having a harder time to meet those needs/wants in certain relationships that are not met vs a male and it will affect them and who they are irregardless of T vs F.

    For example a female that is a tom boy will struggle differently then a female who is not.

  5. #25
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Here are some things that we need to do away with if we are to accurately type people:
    2. Unofficial behaviorist function test.

    Come on, we all know that test is broken. For one thing, function use is not equivalent to function preference. For another, the definitions of the functions on that test are behaviorist and differ from the actual MBTI definitions. They also seems somewhat biased towards certain functions, and against others. Finally, functions are not about behavior or skill, they're about how a person thinks, which is not as easy to assess.
    I would pretty much agree with this. I used to cheer on that test more, but then saw the Forer effects, particularly around Fi ("aka "valuing"; and even for Ni when people such as charismatic-leaning Christians take the test).

    Still, behavior can be used as an evidence of type, because the way a person thinks does affect his behavior. And the key word here (as in my assessments of people's type) is evidence.
    3. Liberal allocation of the shadow functions.

    If a claimed INFJ seems more like an ISTP, people will just cite tertiary Ti and inferior Se as the culprits. If an claimed INTP seems more like an ISFJ, people will just cite tertiary Si and inferior Fe as the culprits. Sigh... the shadow does NOT work that way. A person's basic behavior while not under stress, would not be more like that of their shadow, at least not until they're older and they've consciously tried hard to integrate it. I can tolerate a provision for allowing the shadow traits to come up once in a while when it's not part of the typical pattern, but you can't use that to dismiss a huge, major pattern in their personality!
    For one thing, the tertiary is not a shadow function, and even though the inferior was widely considered as such; "shadow" has come to mean the "other four", or the four with the attitudes reversed. These aren't being used to type people much, though again, I might occasionally use them and the associated Beebe archetypes as evidence when I see something that appears fit.

    The tertiary often becomes quite strong, because it's the next function in the dominant attitude that the ego runs to (sometimes bypassing the auxiliary). So it may be quite apparent and mistaken for a preferred function.
    4. The T/F gender socialization card.

    I can buy it only in very limited circumstances. Sure, this might explain away a few superficial traits, or maybe even major ones if the person had a VERY harsh upbringing that emphasized gender roles and was forced against their preference repeatedly. I don't think this is as common as people are imagining, though. The reality is that this card is effectively used to make it such that a woman can show far more F preferences and still be called T, while a man can show far more T preferences and still be called F. They're basically lowering the standards in an attempt to make the distribution of T and F more equal. But in reality, it doesn't work that way. The standards should not be lowered, because there are T women and F men who have CLEAR preferences, and often without even going too far outside of gender roles. Accept that this function sometimes shows a gender bias and move on... don't try to artificially "repair" that bias with this card, please? You're only making it harder for women that are only slightly expressed Fs, or men that are only slightly expressed Ts, to determine their type.
    Others addressed this. I would add, again, since behavior is influenced by functions, this will have an impact.
    5. Overuse of Keirsey's temperaments.

    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.
    Again, behavior (which temperament focuses on) being influenced by type. Keirsey's groupings are just those that matched the ancient ones, and the Interaction Styles are as well; but both are covering different aspects of those same four temperaments, and each type is a blend.
    I do believe that the other groups (ST, SF, etc) have their uses as well. (Like ST/SF figures in Interaction Style. IP, IJ, EP, EJ are said to be the first letters that become apparent in a child, etc).
    6. "Weak" letters that don't fit the type pattern.

    One's dominant function should never be "weak." One can have a weak auxiliary, but the dominant function should always be fairly strong, or that means you're a different type. I would think this would be obvious, considering that the dominant function is supposed to represent the consciousness and the self-image.I can accept a weak I/E, because that just means you have a strong auxiliary. I can also accept a weak auxiliary indicated by a weak letter associated with it. But I do not buy the whole concept of a weak dominant, or a weak J/P. J/P has less to do with behavior in terms of organization/punctuality/neatness, and more to do with functions. The difference between J/P types is a completely different functional order, and you should be able to tell which one you have, unless you're completely mistyped.
    The letter is weakened largely because the outward behavior doesn't seem to match the expected behavior. So this is where we realize the point you are making, that you can't go too much on behavior, and as in the case of SuchIrony, when you really get to the bottom of "the way she thinks", it becomes clear she is a dominant T, despite whatever behaviors that might seem to suggest F.
    7. Use of third-party systems that attempt to convert MBTI types.

    Whether it's the classic 4 or 5 temperament system, Socionics, or Beren's interaction styles, this method is somewhat unreliable. It's based on a separate system of typology that is different from MBTI, and finding a result within these systems does not tell you your MBTI type. You could even be a different type in these systems than in MBTI.
    Again, I use these just as evidence. (Actually, Interaction Style is built into type. All I did was show how the 5 temperament system maps onto both it and Keirsey's groups).

    Well, that's my rant. I'm sure people will disagree with me here, but it's all just my opinion, and I hope I get a few people to think about these things. There have to be better ways of assessing type. I'm going to try and come up with a few, later on.

    Chances are good that I will slip back into these very behaviors and assumptions I described due to temptation by others, making me a hypocrite, but I still actually think they're flawed.
    Again, all of this is just a matter of squaring together functions and behaviors. I believe they do correspond, as different angles of the same thing, but the different angles raise different questions that can make them seem not to fit at times.
    Last edited by Eric B; 02-26-2011 at 09:48 AM.
    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

  6. #26
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Authoritative on what, again?
    Well.. exactly.

    If we can't even agree upon which model we're using, of course we're going to disagree on typing procedures.

    Some people simply use the results of the official MBTI test as a "model." Some use a four-function cognitive model. Some use an eight-function cognitive model. Some say that such-and-such type can't use a particular function, and others say that they can. And they all call it "MBTI."

  7. #27

    Default

    Gah, I had so many points to respond to as I read through the whole thread and no way to record them in real time that by the time I got to the end, they escaped through the cracks like sand.

    How annoying! I bet it'll come back to me, then I'll be back.

    Both Ath and Eric make good points though. It'd be great if some of the more type-savvy here could powwow on a more efficient testing tool that focused more on processes for the benefit of our newer members and MBTI hobbyists, ...however that promises all the complicated interpersonal trappings of the Tower of Babel's construction.
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Well.. exactly.

    If we can't even agree upon which model we're using, of course we're going to disagree on typing procedures.

    Some people simply use the results of the official MBTI test as a "model." Some use a four-function cognitive model. Some use an eight-function cognitive model. Some say that such-and-such type can't use a particular function, and others say that they can. And they all call it "MBTI."
    So in regard to poor typing practices...it seems more fitting to define poor application practices...when applying the four cognitive model, or the test model, or the eight-function cognitive model is the correct choice. Or when to even split between men/women vs mature/immature for that matter.

    edit: its like trying to make a ball fit into a square container so you can easily put the square container into the square hole and say see it works perfectly.

  9. #29
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Well.. exactly.

    If we can't even agree upon which model we're using, of course we're going to disagree on typing procedures.

    Some people simply use the results of the official MBTI test as a "model." Some use a four-function cognitive model. Some use an eight-function cognitive model. Some say that such-and-such type can't use a particular function, and others say that they can. And they all call it "MBTI."
    Right. Depending on which method is used to type, different typings for the same person can be the result. Which method is 'right'? No one can decide, everyone uses their own method (various 'experts' use various methods) and it's why there's so much conflicting info on the net. There simply isn't a *definitive* consensus - that everyone agrees on - on how one goes about typing someone else or oneself. So we're left with taking all of these various methods and peppering them together into something sort of integrated method, but we still all put different weight on various aspects, so there's still no consensus. Tis why it's not a science; it's not cut and dry, one method and one method only.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  10. #30
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Cool post, Athenian. Here are some of my initial thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Here are some things that we need to do away with if we are to accurately type people:

    1. Confirmation bias.
    Might as well do away with being human. We need to be wary of confirmation bias, but it's impossible to eliminate completely. There is always the chance that one is missing that one piece of data that would totally change the analysis, and thus unintentionally engage in confirmation bias in spite of being careful.

    2. Unofficial behaviorist function test.
    Totally, 100% agree.

    3. Liberal allocation of the shadow functions.
    I disagree a bit here. Especially as one gets older, the tertiary and inferior become important. All of the conscious issues with the dominant and auxiliary have been addressed, so the mind begins to explore other means of understanding. Overall, I find it rather useful to spot modes typical of a function in tertiary or auxiliary position: e.g., if one sees "tertiary Ti" in an "INTJ", perhaps they're INFJ without the "touchy feely" behaviors, or "tertiary Fi" in an "INFJ" indicates the reverse.

    I agree that one shouldn't use tertiary or inferior to "explain away" mistyping, which is simply an example of your #1 item.

    4. The T/F gender socialization card.
    Agreed. I currently use "analysis" to denote "T" and "heuristics" to denote "F". It just so happens that analysis sucks on people and people skills (because you can't take people's motivations apart in an analytical way, it's all too interdependent), and heuristics works great on people (morals and "values" are kinds of heuristics).

    5. Overuse of Keirsey's temperaments.

    6. "Weak" letters that don't fit the type pattern.
    I tend to be forgiving of these. I just regard it as an incomplete type, that the person is still self-evaluating.

    And actually, it's fairly easy for a dominant function to be "weak" in the sense of being unskilled. It's strong in the sense that they're definitely "using" it, but the individual in question either hasn't had a chance to express it in a venue where it shines and comes into its own.
    7. Use of third-party systems that attempt to convert MBTI types.
    Agreed.

    8. Assumption that functions can be individually developed.
    I agree somewhat: this is a more touchy area of Jungian typology because it's unclear whether one is "emulating" a usage or actually using it as a dom/aux of that type would use it. By Occam's razor, I tend to assume that it's emulation, to help determine one's type. Fe and Te can seem very similar, so if it's touch-and-go there, I look for Ti/Fi in the tertiary/inferior.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

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