• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Poor MBTI typing practices on this forum.

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
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.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.

:yes: 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.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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:
G

garbage

Guest
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."
 

iwakar

crush the fences
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,877
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Cool post, Athenian. Here are some of my initial thoughts.

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.

:hifive:

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.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
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.

I'm mostly concerned that a lot of people aren't aware of it at all, and just seem to be telling a person that they are whatever type they say they are. I'm not saying it's possible to eliminate it completely, just that I think perhaps it would be less prevalent if people had themselves typed by others more anonymously, rather than by people who know what type they think they are.

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.

Note that I said LIBERAL application. :wink: And my biggest problem with it is when it's used too heavily in younger people rather than older people. I'm also more wary of people using the Inferior to explain behavior than I am of them using the Tertiary. It's just that occasionally, people use it to dismiss really huge patterns in behavior, which sends up a red flag in my mind.

Paying attention to how the function might manifest in a tertiary/inferior role would be a GOOD use, I just don't like it when people just see a function, and decide it must be tertiary or inferior so that it will fit the current pattern, without considering that the way they're using it might be indicative of having it in a higher position.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
i agree with your points, athenian, though sort of in the same vein with what arclight was saying, i think some of these things can fall apart when you get someone who is close to the boundary in certain things. statistically there are going to be certain people who fall closer to the middle in every aspect - people whose Ne borders on Se, whose Te borders on Fe, etc - even that one rare person who hits near the middle on all of the functions. they will be very unlikely, yes, but they will exist. i would hesitate to ever jump to that conclusion for someone's type before ruling out all other possibilities, but we do have to acknowledge that someone is going to be like that.

i actually wonder if there will not be a holistic effect with people whose functions are like that - in other words, if your Ne borders on Se, because Ne depends on Si, will your Si move closer to Ni? i would think so.

and then there are some people who just have a random, seemingly "strong" function for certain reasons. take me and Fe - on tests, i often score very high Fe. that's not true, and it becomes clear when i'm breaking down my reasoning for things - but on the surface i think it could seem that way because i have been raised by a Fe dom, in a household that is completely Fe>Fi, and many of my friends are Fe doms. many F aspects already overlap, and i have taken on many of these people's qualities from interaction with them and learning from them. it kind of goes along with what you were saying about tests only accounting for behavior - a better way of typing Judging functions is to break down one's reasoning behind their behavior.
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Your points are good, but this J/P thing.. in my case, the undecision about the J/P feels more like a flaw of the system as opposed to my inability to handle it.
 

Such Irony

Honor Thy Inferior
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
5,059
MBTI Type
INtp
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Your points are good, but this J/P thing.. in my case, the undecision about the J/P feels more like a flaw of the system as opposed to my inability to handle it.

Jung made no mention of J/P as an MBTI letter. It was added later on. The real purpose of J/P is to help designate whether the dominant function is a judging (T or F) one or a perceiving (S or N) one. People tack on qualities to J/P like neat vs. messy or punctual vs. always late that miss the point of what the J/P designation was originally intended for.
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I know.

I was trying to address the points in the OP. For a person to have different Dominant function, and ALSO a different SECONDARY function, is explained by a very simple scenario.

Suppose someone has equally strong Ti and Ni, both quite strong. Possible? Yes, I thought so.

Suppose someone has almost equally strong Ne and Te, both very strong. Possible? Yes.

If in this case, Ne becomes greater than Te, his best match will be Ne-Ti. He will be ENTP. The other way, Te is greater than Ne, he becomes ENTJ.

It only becomes impossible if one takes too many constraints based on theory, not observance. The function order theory is a nice effort but not good. I believe the functions can appear in a dominance/preference order mostly independent of each other. There's 8 possibilities for the first function, and if we make no restrictions (as I believe we shouldn't), then there's 7 other functions possible as the secondary function.

I believe in function strength measures more than I believe the MBTI. Hence, I believe in a flaw in the MBTI. I think the function stuff is good enough to be used, though.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I know.

I was trying to address the points in the OP. For a person to have different Dominant function, and ALSO a different SECONDARY function, is explained by a very simple scenario.

Suppose someone has equally strong Ti and Ni, both quite strong. Possible? Yes, I thought so.

Suppose someone has almost equally strong Ne and Te, both very strong. Possible? Yes.

If in this case, Ne becomes greater than Te, his best match will be Ne-Ti. He will be ENTP. The other way, Te is greater than Ne, he becomes ENTJ.

It only becomes impossible if one takes too many constraints based on theory, not observance. The function order theory is a nice effort but not good. I believe the functions can appear in a dominance/preference order mostly independent of each other. There's 8 possibilities for the first function, and if we make no restrictions (as I believe we shouldn't), then there's 7 other functions possible as the secondary function.

I believe in function strength measures more than I believe the MBTI. Hence, I believe in a flaw in the MBTI. I think the function stuff is good enough to be used, though.

I can see a bit of the Ne/Te and Ni/Ti things... but I do think we need some restrictions. For instance, I don't think someone can be equally strong in their shadow functions. One of the two strongest needs to be a perceiving function, and the other needs to be a judging function, at the very least. You can't have someone with Ti first and Fi second, or something like that.

The way I see it, if someone has equally strong Ti and Ni, that means they're either an ISTP or an INFJ, depending on whether their Fe or Se is stronger. If someone has equally strong Ne and Te, that means they're either ESTJ or ENFP, again depending on strength of preference. However, I know that that's because I appreciate the pre-defined function orders as "ideal" types that people tend towards, just as geometric shapes are "ideal" shapes that real shapes tend towards. If that makes sense.

Essentially, if a person doesn't embody enough of their auxiliary function, and has two introverted or extraverted functions that are stronger, that means that they need to develop their recommended auxiliary in order to be more balanced people.
 

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Hey Athenian, great post. I definitely commit these sins and see them committed.

I really only have something to add about #3.


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!

I think this is right, people don't recognize how weak the tertiary is, it can NOT just supersede the dominant function. But I think the inferior function is actually really important, because it can manifest itself in a way occasionally as dominantly as the dominant function, it's just in a negative, crude way. A lot of people recognize their inferior/negative descriptions better than their normal descriptions.

Sidebar: Eric was right in reminding you that those aren't the shadow functions. Although, I should add that the inferior falls under neither category of conscious/shadow. The shadow is in the middle, it's the door that the unconscious functions sneak through when the conscious side is in crisis. You can't pull the shadow up into a higher consciousness, you have to go down to meet it. I dunno if that makes any sense, I find it hard to explain. Maybe I'll dig up the original text and quote it.

As for authoritative scholars, I would say Jung, his closest original followers (Jolande, van Der Hoop, van Franz, etc), and the creator of MBTI, even though she kind of sucks. You know, Jung did say there are probably 16 types, but he also said right after that you could just as easily say 360. I wish he was on this forum, I have so many questions.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
and then there are some people who just have a random, seemingly "strong" function for certain reasons. take me and Fe - on tests, i often score very high Fe. that's not true, and it becomes clear when i'm breaking down my reasoning for things - but on the surface i think it could seem that way because i have been raised by a Fe dom, in a household that is completely Fe>Fi, and many of my friends are Fe doms. many F aspects already overlap, and i have taken on many of these people's qualities from interaction with them and learning from them. it kind of goes along with what you were saying about tests only accounting for behavior - a better way of typing Judging functions is to break down one's reasoning behind their behavior.

:yes:
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Note that I said LIBERAL application. :wink: And my biggest problem with it is when it's used too heavily in younger people rather than older people. I'm also more wary of people using the Inferior to explain behavior than I am of them using the Tertiary. It's just that occasionally, people use it to dismiss really huge patterns in behavior, which sends up a red flag in my mind.

Occasionally? It's basically common practice for people to pump up the tertiary or inferior if they're undecided between two fairly different types, even though it's the function order (and the particular use of each function that this order implies) that makes a type what it is. An INFP with really high Si and Te is an ISTJ, not some fucked up INFP who somehow developed their lower functions because of difficult life circumstances or whatever.

Also, you should add #10 - Arbitrary Function Equivalencies. Ti+Fe != Fi. Neither does Ni+Fe, or whatever other BS people come up with. You cannot rationalize things in this way and expect to come out with an accurate typing for yourself or for others. It just mires down the entire process in more confusion.
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Athenian, your post is a good post given the premise that pre-given MBTI function order templates are okay.
 
Top