Which is the True Opposite?

[Carebear]

Oh how I love platitudes... :rolli:

How does that make sense?

Te is in another "sandbox" because it's part of another personality.

Ti and Fi don't always get along, but they can. Using the same method, but different definitive rigors is no more plausible than inviting some other kid to play with your toys.

If you truly understood the nature of Ti and Fi, you'd see how they could alternate in a person.

Extroverted judgement altogether could be thrown out.

Actually, Te is in more conflict with Fi, because Fi's natural disposition is a quiet emotional one. It would be troubling, for an Fi dominant to become overtly critical. It's a contrast to their values and inclinations.

Just like it's a bother for an INTP, who's typical response to nearly anything is to rationalize it, for them to need to comfort people, especially in the face of providing poorly structured guidance. Fe goes more against Ti than Fi does, because at least he doesn't have to announce his affection.

This does make much more sense to me. It fits better with the switching between Fi and Ti that I was talking about above (though as I said, I can also switch to Fe, but thinking about it now the "switch" to Fe is not as much switching as using Ne and emulating, while the Ti switch is more genuine.)

As for the talk about shadow functions in the OP (it came up in a PM so I'll post it here as well):
I'm not so sure I really believe in shadow functions. We prefer some functions and sure, under stress when our preferred method doesn't work, we are from time to time forced to try the less used ones which we use ineffectively and in a crude manner, but I don't think they're shadowing anything. They're just functions we're less good at using. The "shadow" functions we exhibit vary with the type of stress we're in and can also often just be the the functions we use more frequently applied in a negative/new way. Instead of exhibiting a "shadow type" depending on our MBTI type like the theory seems to suggest, I think we instead make a crude patchwork "type" out of desperation and frustration, glued together from different pieces of other functions. This "type" could in some situations very well happen to be the shadow type, but in other situations it could as easily be something completely different or not really a type at all.

One of the reasons I started doubting the neat setup of the shadow functions is the realization that the letters aren't really a binary thing, like dissonance mentioned above. If the strength of the letters isn't a binary thing, it means the function order can't be a neat system either. How on earth can the shadow function order be as neat and tidy as the theory seems to suggest if the general function order isn't?

It makes a lot more sense to me (and fits much better with my empirical data) that the function order is a jumble of random strengths and weaknesses governed only by a moderate level of probability.

 

[Nocapszy]

No, he doesn't have to 'announce his affection', but many INTPs (for whatever reason) DO use compliments in thier speech, whether it's to get you to listen or just to be nice.

To use Fe, you have to voice your affection. Or at least somehow attempt to make it known.

 

[Gabe]

lol@ignorance

Fine. If you're content believing falsity, be my guest. I'm going to stop you from spreading bullshit to everyone else though.

bullshit? wheras every one of your ideas is based on a very flawed understanding of the cognitive processes. Your ideas about cognitive processes sometimes have nothing to do with what Jung defined, and others refined.
I suppose we should all stop (myself included) saying "is" about these theories. They are different ideas, and some experts even think that the tertiary is the same attitude as the auxiliary for instance. So, from now on, I'll put a "8-process model" headline on relevant stuff I post. Frustrating, but possibly neccesary.

However, if you want to skew the definition and description of a cognitive process, than call it your own little theory, not fact!

 

[Nocapszy]

bullshit? wheras every one of your ideas is based on a very flawed understanding of the cognitive processes. Your ideas about cognitive processes sometimes have nothing to do with what Jung defined, and others refined.

Interesting.

Jung made the original ones.
Other people thought about them, and made their own contributions.

Maybe I'm doing the same thing as those other people.

I suppose we should all stop (myself included) saying "is" about these theories. They are different ideas, and some experts even think that the tertiary is the same attitude as the auxiliary for instance. So, from now on, I'll put a "8-process model" headline on relevant stuff I post. Frustrating, but possibly neccesary.

However, if you want to skew the definition and description of a cognitive process, than call it your own little theory, not fact!

I've never once used the word fact regarding my CP posts.

Are you sure you pay close enough attention to get a full understanding of what I say?

 

[Gabe]

This does make much more sense to me. It fits better with the switching between Fi and Ti that I was talking about above (though as I said, I can also switch to Fe, but thinking about it now the "switch" to Fe is not as much switching as using Ne and emulating, while the Ti switch is more genuine.)

As for the talk about shadow functions in the OP (it came up in a PM so I'll post it here as well):
I'm not so sure I really believe in shadow functions. We prefer some functions and sure, under stress when our preferred method doesn't work, we are from time to time forced to try the less used ones which we use ineffectively and in a crude manner, but I don't think they're shadowing anything. They're just functions we're less good at using. The "shadow" functions we exhibit vary with the type of stress we're in and can also often just be the the functions we use more frequently applied in a negative/new way. Instead of exhibiting a "shadow type" depending on our MBTI type like the theory seems to suggest, I think we instead make a crude patchwork "type" out of desperation and frustration, glued together from different pieces of other functions. This "type" could in some situations very well happen to be the shadow type, but in other situations it could as easily be something completely different or not really a type at all.

One of the reasons I started doubting the neat setup of the shadow functions is the realization that the letters aren't really a binary thing, like dissonance mentioned above. If the strength of the letters isn't a binary thing, it means the function order can't be a neat system either. How on earth can the shadow function order be as neat and tidy as the theory seems to suggest if the general function order isn't?

It makes a lot more sense to me (and fits much better with my empirical data) that the function order is a jumble of random strengths and weaknesses governed only by a moderate level of probability.

(8-function model follows)

Beebe says that the ordering is sort of arbitrary, what should be emphasized is the archetype positions. The ordering is to show how the DO mimic the ego-syntonic functions. So, say, someone is just having some fun with the tertiary function (child), if they are threatened, they may very well go from play (the 3rd function) to outright rebellion (trickster). Or, when frustrated, the parent that advises and supports turns into the senex/witch that bellitles and immobilizes (often when people take a seemingly disproportionate amount of offense to a remark, the witch has been triggered). The witch is what the good parent becomes if the other party 'talks back' to much (both archetypes treat others like children)
Anyway, sometimes it's best to look at this stuff in the 'diagram' or 'windmill' or 'arms and spine' 'fashion' (beebe came up with that too, the diagrams are at the end of his paper on the 8-function model)

 

[nightning]

Jung had a personality theory... basically nothing more than an model in his head.
MBTI is a system built upon this model... If the model is flawed, then the system must be flawed.

Same goes for CP... and function order... flawed.

But it doesn't mean we can't use them despite the flaws. Use them to get whatever you can get out of them. I really don't think the semantics like what "opposite" means truly matter. It depends on how you define the parameters. That's all.

 

[Gabe]

Interesting.

Jung made the original ones.
Other people thought about them, and made their own contributions.

Maybe I'm doing the same thing as those other people.


I've never once used the word fact regarding my CP posts.

Are you sure you pay close enough attention to get a full understanding of what I say?

No, you are not contributing, you are changing the definition. It's your theory now. Power to you. But it's barely even assosiated with Jungian material.

For example, you think that one of my posts had something germane to introverted thinking in it. That is rediculous. If it happens to agree with some Ti principle, I'm sure it's a complete accident. Really, my statement was just obvious logic that both thinking attitudes would believe, and really in the case of you're type it's more a matter of perception than judgement. That reminds me. It might just be because of my trickster, but I find your idea about how I'm supposed to act as an extraverted intuition type to be a manipulative catch-22: the kind of logic where heads you're right, tails I'm wrong. Well, unfortunately for you, I'm not going to fall for your brainwashing technique.

 

[zarc]

bullshit? wheras every one of your ideas is based on a very flawed understanding of the cognitive processes. Your ideas about cognitive processes sometimes have nothing to do with what Jung defined, and others refined.
I suppose we should all stop (myself included) saying "is" about these theories. They are different ideas, and some experts even think that the tertiary is the same attitude as the auxiliary for instance. So, from now on, I'll put a "8-process model" headline on relevant stuff I post. Frustrating, but possibly neccesary.

However, if you want to skew the definition and description of a cognitive process, than call it your own little theory, not fact!

Whoa, he has an excellent understanding of the CPs-- You've been keeping track of every one of his ideas, though? Heh, he'll enjoy that one, I'm sure. I've had a few issues with a few things of what he's said but that's because we have different views on them. We're not necessarily wrong, either, we just see them differently.

Instead of just attacking his ideas, why don't you explain your reasoning for it? I saw you do it once in a former post. Don't stop now. Edit: ^ you're trying again! ^_^

People have taken MBTI theories and moved it beyond Jung or Myers. That's called evolving an idea? Enhancing it? You say it yourself afterwards. They are different ideas. I disagree with a lot of old theories, myself. I like to think I'm enhancing them or viewing them differently as are other people. Strict function order? Perhaps we initially access them in such a way, at least for our top 2 or 4 CPs, maybe more so as little wee children. But we evolve as people and we evolve our functions as we choose to consciously or even unconsciously.

I don't recall Noc saying his ideas were *facts* ever. Then again, my Si is mucked up and he well knows this. He's confident. And uh, he's usually right- I will say, and he knows this because I tell him often enough, that he's an insensitive @$$. He doesn't care, though. I get that. Too bad for us all or for those of us who care. You can ignore him in future if you can't tolerate him, though. He can come on strong but that's how he is sometimes. Or at least, it's how people may perceive him as being. Endearing or frustrating, accept it or don't.

 

[zarc]

Back to the OP~

I liked nightning's take on it. I've considered what she's said before as well.

INFJ - NiFeTiSe NeFiTeSi
ISTJ - SiTeFiNe SeTiFeNi
ESTP - SeTiFeNi SiTeFiNe

As she's said, the type most unlike an INFJ would seem to be ISTJ No wonder my father and I are so opposed.. ^_^ or INTJ sis to ISFJ mother. HAHA, our family dynamics are hilarious...it is so us vs them...and we always win-

But I agree, if you believe in a true opposite type that we likely Shadow into when we are in crisis mode or deeply stressed, that ESTP would be for INFJ as ESTJ for INFP etc.

HEY! ISTJ is ESTP's inverse shadow type! I love patterns... ^^

Me too!

 

[GZA]

ISTP is opposite, ESTJ shares no functions. ISTP has the same functions in reverse order, correct? ESTJ has none of the same functions at all.

I'll leave that up to you to decide which one is opposite...

 

[Carebear]

ISTP is opposite, ESTJ shares no functions. ISTP has the same functions in reverse order, correct? ESTJ has none of the same functions at all.

I'll leave that up to you to decide which one is opposite...

If you're talking about the opposite of INFP, it's the ESTJ who has the opposite four primary functions according to MBTI and ISTP together with ESTP, INFJ and ENFJ who share none.

 

[527468]

I don't believe there is a strict function order, but I believe it goes like this...

INTJ Example:

Ni Ne Te Ti Fi Fe Se Si

The alternative function goes right after on a very lenient notion.

Mine fits closely with this.

Ni Ne/Te Fi/Ti Fe Se Si

A lot of the times Te is more used than Ne. Depends.

But based on how I believe the functions to play out, in a general sense, the opposite type would be ABBA, like the band, where A stays the same and B is the opposite. ABBA types literally have opposite ways of judging that are quite noticeable. I also think BBAB is a good opposite type (more complicated reason for function order.) BBAB types literally have opposite ways of perceiving that are quite noticeable.

The P/J dichotomy is quite wide in potential.

If you reverse the order of the functions, you get a good opposite type.


ABBA Types

INTJ-ISFJ
INFJ-ISTJ
ENTJ-ESFJ
ENFJ-ESTJ
INTP-ISFP
INFP-ISTP
ENTP-ESFP
ENFP-ESTP


BBAB Types

INTJ-ESTP
INFJ-ESFP
ENTJ-ISTP
ENFJ-INFP
INTP-ESTJ
INFP-ESFJ
ENTP-ISTJ
ENFP-INFJ




That's if you believe in the importance of functions. The reason I believe in ABBA is because the purpose of J and P is the signify which functions are introverted/extroverted, thus EJ has more commonality with IP than EJ does with IJ.

I like BBAB as well because it seems correct enough.

ESTJ and INFP are like fractal opposites, not mirror opposites.

 

[Eric B]

Here's the whole rundown of how changing the letters affects the functions (Starting with Beebe's order as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8):

E/I: blocks maintain same order, functions in pairs switched (2,1; 4,3; etc) (Keirsey: "least important dichotomy")
S/N: same attitudes in place; perceiving functions swapped (and also reversed in tandem order) and take opposite attitude (types will "see things differently", but judge the same way).
I Types: primary/shadow "irrational arms" (i.e. perceiving function) are swapped and reversed - 1,7,6,4,5,3,2,8.
E types: primary/shadow "irrational spines" are swapped and reversed 8,2,3,5,4,6,7,1

T/F: same attitudes in place; judging functions swapped (and also reversed in tandem order) and take opposite attitude (types will see things the same way, but "judge things differently").
I types: primary/shadow "rational spines" (i.e. judging function) are swapped and reversed - 8,2,3,5,4,6,7,1.
E types: primary/shadow "rational arms" are swapped and reversed - 1,7,6,4,5,3,2,8

J/P: same attitudes in place, but the blocks swapped between primary and shadow with pairs reversed; all functions taking opposite attitudes (total shadow opposites; most drastic dichotomy switch: 6,5,8,7,2,1,4,3)

E/I + J/P (two middle letters the same; Bob McAlpine “Opposing Personality”; Ken Liberty “attitude-antagonistic”) same processes in place with attitudes reversed; even swap of four function primary/shadow ranges (diametric attitude opposite: 5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4)

S/N + T/F (two middle letters changed; McAlpine’s “Dynamic Opposite”): All eight functions reversed in order (attitudes fall into the same places). Most diametrically opposite type, cognitively, though types will differ only by expressed or wanted Control except for NFP/STP and SFJ/NTJ. (8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1)

E/I + S/N (first two letters) judgment compatible only; spine becomes arm and is replaced with shadow arm as new "spine" with pairs reversed: (7,1,4,6,3,5,8,2)

E/I + T/F perception compatible only; arm becomes spine; and is replaced with shadow spine as new "arm" with pairs reversed: (2,8,5,3,6,4,1,7)

S/N + J/P reverse perception compatible (same primary perception functions; arm reversed and becomes spine, and is replaced with shadow spine as new "arm": 3,5,8,2,7,1,4,6)

T/F + J/P (last two letters) reverse judgment compatible (spine reversed and becomes arm and is replaced with shadow arm as new "spine": 6,4,1,7,2,8,5,3)

S/N + T/F + J/P (opposite intelligence type, same attitude): Even block swap within primary/shadow range. Next most similar type after E/I swap, also is also usually similar in e/w-I/C (3,4 - 1,2, etc.)

All letters opposite: (Keirsey’s "Opposites Attract"; Beebe “inverse relationship”): four functions reversed within primary/shadow blocks (4,3,2,1,8,7,6,5)

 

[Ivy]

moved some posts here

may move some more posts out once I can take a closer look.

Don't make me turn this car around.

 

[Jeffster]

ABBA Types

INTJ-ISFJ
INFJ-ISTJ
ENTJ-ESFJ
ENFJ-ESTJ
INTP-ISFP
INFP-ISTP
ENTP-ESFP
ENFP-ESTP

Sorry, but you are mistaken. There were only four people in ABBA.