User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 26 of 26

  1. #21
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Reynierse being brought up in another thread made me think of Wilde once again, and so I reviewed his book again. On rereading, I do think he gives a reasonable way to map the function-attitudes (what he calls "modes") in a post Type Dynamics (TD) world. Note that Wilde starts from Reynierse's model that preferences are continuous (not dichotomous), and that strength of preference correlates to how much one prefers (and acts upon) one's preferences.

    So, really his approach of applying to this to the function-attitudes ("modes") is pretty straightforward. When one considers something like the descriptions of Te (extraverted thinking), one can break it down into it arising out of a combination of preferences.

    Te as an Example

    It's clear that descriptions of Te have Extraverted qualities (about judging and controlling externally), Thinking qualities (based on logical, objective measures of utility) and Judging qualities (it's a form of judgment: is about planning, closure, etc). That's all pretty unsurprising and definitional.

    So, if one were going to thinking about the platonic ideal of a ESTJ or ENTJ, for example, one would think of someone who's 100% Extraverted, Thinking and Judging. We'd expect such a person strongly prefer Te and express it habitually.

    But let's take a less extreme case... an ESTJ who is only slightly extraverted. We'd expect to see this person somewhat less engaged externally, so Te (while still present) wouldn't be quite so prefered or expressed.

    Or, consider an ENTJ who has a weak J preference. We'd expect to see less emphasis on closure, planning, etc.

    So, we could extrapolate that strong preference for E+J = strong preference for Je (extraverted judging). And, conversely, strong preference for I+P = strong preference for Ji (introverted judging).

    We can farther extrapolate the same thing for perceiving. Strong preference E+P = strong Pe. Strong preference for I+J = strong Pi.

    We could graph this relationship like so:



    Where the red arrow indicate the Ji <-> Je axis (conceptually extending to the corners of the graph), and the blue arrow indicates the Pe <-> Pi axis (also conceptually extending to the corners of the graph).

    We could map the ideal/pure ESTJ like so (see purple X in upper right):




    We could then imagine some additional cases. Suppose someone has strong E+J preferences, and a middling T/F preference. We'd expect such a person to prefer Je, but be more flexible about using Te (that is, be flexible about sometimes seeing things from more of an Fe perspective).

    Additional Differences from Traditional Type Dynamics

    Another interesting quality of this layout when on falls on the red judging line (in the graph above, where one's E/I preference is approximately equal to one's J/P preference... that is your E~J or I~P, where "~" means aproximately equal). In that case, your Je vs Ji preference is going to be approximately balanced... meaning you your Se/Si or Ne/Ni preference may be almost equal.

    The some goes when one's judging preference falls along the blue judging line (also as above, but extending to the corners of the graph). If your perferences are E~P or I~J, then you may have two judging preferences that are similar (Te & Ti, or Fe & Fi).

    In this approach, there are also cases where one can lead with two modues/functions in the same orientation. For example, if one is strong E, S, T and moderate P, one could lead with Se & Te (followed by Ti and Si):



    These cases are not represented in traditional type dynamics, but do seem true to life in some cases (like my parter, who is ISTJ-esque but leads with Si and Ti).


    Corner Cases

    In additional to the above cases, there are also cases where the mode/function calculations seems a little mismatched to the traditional definitions of the functions.

    In my case, which is something like this, Wilde's formulas claim I prefer Fi, Ni, Ne and Ti (in that order):



    I generally find that to be moderately close to my actual strengths, except for the Ni part. Why doesn't the Ni seem to fit well? Well, it has to do with Ni in Wilde's model being comprised of I, N and J.

    In my case, I'm strongly perceiving; so insofar as Ni = N+J, Ni isn't a good fit for me (because of the lack of much judging preference). I'm not good at long term planning; I'm not particularly aware of trends over time; I don't tend to seek closure.

    Conversely, insofar as Ni is I+N, Ni is not a terrible fit. I don't rush into external action, I like to mull things over internally before expressing them, and I don't require much internal stimultation to fuel a lot of internal thought (introversion qualities). I also strongly prefer intuition.

    So, there are limitations to Wilde's calculations, in that the functions (as they are defined today) or the combination of three different preferences. Depending on specifics, you may end up not falling into one of the preferences that contribute to a function/mode, and so your usage of the function/mode may match the traditional definition that well. In those cases, I think it pays to think of the function/mode as its component parts, and figure out which ones make sense.

    Adjustments

    If I were going to tune Wilde's formulas to fit better with traditional function definitions, I think I might weight things a bit towards the J/P scale, and a bit less towards the E/I scale, such that an "ideal" or "extreme" ESTJ would favor Si over Se. That would also, presumably, adjust my case to favor Ne over Ni.

    Conclusion

    Regardless, I think Wilde's approach is a useful one, and one that better matches observed strengths and behaviors than traditional Type Dynamics. While I think it's particularly strong when applied to balancing team composition (Wilde's primary focus), it's still useful in other realms. It also serves as a means of adapting some of the description power of the functions/modes to an empirically-based worldview... one truer to reality than traditional type dynamics.

    I also think it makes one wonder about grouping by other preference pairs (or triads), and seeing what insights might arise. I can image large group exercises partitioning people into groups of EJ/EP/IJ/IP, ES/EN/IS/IN, ST/SF/NT/NF (or some other combination of preference pairs/triplets). There's no reason those couldn't be just as illuminating as grouping by function/mode, or grouping by Kiersey's temperaments (SJ/SP/NT/NF).

  2. #22
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,989

    Default

    I really like this idea! That said I don't fit it (largely the reason I am posting). According to this, I should relate to Ne fairly well. In reality, that function is dead last for me, and I barely relate to it at all. In all fairness though, I have yet to see something that explains why I don't connect to Ne, and in many ways am actively repelled by it.



    Numbers used by averaging what I typically get on tests, and what I know about myself in general.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  3. #23
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    I really like this idea! That said I don't fit it (largely the reason I am posting). According to this, I should relate to Ne fairly well. In reality, that function is dead last for me, and I barely relate to it at all. In all fairness though, I have yet to see something that explains why I don't connect to Ne, and in many ways am actively repelled by it.



    Numbers used by averaging what I typically get on tests, and what I know about myself in general.
    I might argue (although not super invested in it given the close margins) that if you have a a "functional" preference it tends to overshadow it's opposite... especially if the lesser is close to the neutral zone. So in your case, Ne might be overshadowed by Ni. That's especially true in this case, where a few preference percentage points might turn a positive "Ne" into a negative "Ne" preference.

    I'd be more interested to hear whether you relate more to Te rather than Ti, since by most traditional type dynamics models Ti should be more comfy.

    It's still a good data point if you don't agree with this particular model. I just hope most folks are so open minded as to evaluate it honestly. I find it closer to subjective truth, personally, but that doesn't mean more than the random anecdote, objectively.

  4. #24
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I might argue (although not super invested in it given the close margins) that if you have a a "functional" preference it tends to overshadow it's opposite... especially if the lesser is close to the neutral zone. So in your case, Ne might be overshadowed by Ni. That's especially true in this case, where a few preference percentage points might turn a positive "Ne" into a negative "Ne" preference.

    I'd be more interested to hear whether you relate more to Te rather than Ti, since by most traditional type dynamics models Ti should be more comfy.

    It's still a good data point if you don't agree with this particular model. I just hope most folks are so open minded as to evaluate it honestly. I find it closer to subjective truth, personally, but that doesn't mean more than the random anecdote, objectively.
    If I wasn't an Fe dom, I would be a Te dom, no question. I understand and relate to Te far more than I do to Ti. While I "do" Ti, it's difficult and it becomes straining if kept up for too long. It's one of the primary reasons in debates I quickly hit the point of wanting to shout "Well you're just stubborn, and you're WRONG". For Te, I don't use it, but I "understand it" in others and can jive with it really well. Me and Te-doms can make *quite* the team. Essentially I see it as a parallel, but different way at doing the things that I do. That's not to say I don't have times where it confuses me or I think it's doing it wrong, but I can usually come to a point of understand or acceptance with it. At the end of the day, I am just really really Je.

    Let me put it this way. I'd rather be around someone that uses Te, than use Ti myself.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari

    Likes Bush Did 9/11 liked this post

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    10,082

    Default




  6. #26
    Google "chemtrails" Bush Did 9/11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    eNtp
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    γ Ni
    Posts
    4,162

    Default

    Welp, this makes sense, at least for me. Nx > Je > everything else for me. Somehow also gels with my official MBTI result, so.. even better



    If you're going to try to reconcile JCF with MBTI's dichotomies, this is a good way to do it.

    I've always thought that Wylde's divisions (I/E, J/P) make more sense in teasing out temperaments than Keirsey's thing.

    I'm also not bothered by the fact that there could be 32, 64, 128, or a billion types. You can always meddle around at that level and abstract up when you can/need to. Hell, any discussion about e.g. "Extraverts" essentially consolidates it all into two types (E and I), at least for the sake of that discussion.

    Also, you have a freaking knack for research and site development.
    J. Scott Crothers
    aka "Bush Did 9/11"
    Founder, Truthtology, est. 1952
    Prophet and Channel, God Almighty
    Author, the Holy scripture Elevenetics

    "Just as jet fuel cannot melt steel beams, so too cannot the unshakeable pillars of Truthtology ever be shaken, whether by man, nature, or evidence."
    - Elevenetics

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 09-14-2012, 01:33 PM
  2. Identifying the "Personality theories are bad" people
    By darude11 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-22-2011, 07:54 PM
  3. How long have you been studying/interested in MBTI or Personality Theory?
    By dnivera in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 07:09 AM
  4. Information on classical Jungian personality theory
    By MerkW in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-02-2008, 10:12 PM
  5. What compells people to create/study personality theories?
    By Athenian200 in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-13-2007, 11:10 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