User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 20 of 20

  1. #11
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Typology, of any kind, is an 'oversimplification'.
    I'm going to agree with this one
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  2. #12
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    I dont think so. However peoples view of what the ordering means, the interactions between the functions and what it actually means to use a function seems pretty simple and bland most the time.

    Ps. If you have a preference for Ne, you dont have a preference for Ni, so the idea of 8 functions being applied to everyone in those function tests is inheritly flawed.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  3. #13
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    I've tended (rightly or wrongly) to assume that a type is more than the sum of its parts. It's plausible that you can have some variation in function stacks and still arrive at roughly the same expression regarding type.
    Agreed. I don't know anyone (and I don't think regardless it's a majority) who actually says their 8-function test shows the "optimized function order" for their identified MBTI type. There is always variation. I can also see people who function overall as one type, but their function type is not clear, or they tend to show a flavor of the type where their emphasize their aux more.

    Yeah, it's a crap shoot. We're going for "best overall fit type."

    Quote Originally Posted by chana View Post
    I think people over complicate them because they're suffering from special snowflake syndrome.
    #1 commonality among snowflakes: No matter how pretty they are, they all inevitably melt.
    "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

  4. #14
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I don't know anyone (and I don't think regardless it's a majority) who actually says their 8-function test shows the "optimized function order" for their identified MBTI type. There is always variation. I can also see people who function overall as one type, but their function type is not clear, or they tend to show a flavor of the type where their emphasize their aux more.
    My thoughts exactly.
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  5. #15
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    It's really not even "optimized" (I used to think that way when I first tried the test). Haas & Hunziker's Building Blocks of Personality Type points out:
    "Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to reflect the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four."

    The only "optimal" definition of a type is the dominant and auxiliary (and even then, on that test, sometimes the aux. might come out "strongest"). Everything else is really based on the complexes, not "strengths".
    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. #16
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    It's really not even "optimized" (I used to think that way when I first tried the test). Haas & Hunziker's Building Blocks of Personality Type points out:
    "Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to reflect the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four."
    Well, if Beebe said that, then I'm a little relieved. I think we've had the discussion here before where we were wondering where he came up with that order, and how arbitrary it seemed. Apparently Beebe agrees and is stating it was just a matter of convenience and/or a useful tool to assign the slots as he did and then see if they were helpful to people, rather than deriving them from some observable phenomena.

    So again we are back to "using MBTI as a tool" rather than "MBTI being some source of actual quantifiable truth." I do like systems to be coherent and patterned, internally, if it is sensible patterning rather than convenience; what that provides are plausible connections between different behaviors and thought processes that a person might not have realized just on their own.

    (So they might experience one behavior in themselves, and if the theory can tie that behavior to other behaviors they haven't yet observed about themselves, maybe the theory can be a form of enlightenment for them and make connections about identity and potential areas of strength and weakness.)

    The only "optimal" definition of a type is the dominant and auxiliary (and even then, on that test, sometimes the aux. might come out "strongest"). Everything else is really based on the complexes, not "strengths".
    I agree. The rest are supporting... and sometimes not supporting at all, they're working counter to the "strengths."
    "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

  7. #17
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    This is really all it is:

    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

  8. #18
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Agreed. I don't know anyone (and I don't think regardless it's a majority) who actually says their 8-function test shows the "optimized function order" for their identified MBTI type. There is always variation. I can also see people who function overall as one type, but their function type is not clear, or they tend to show a flavor of the type where their emphasize their aux more.

    Yeah, it's a crap shoot. We're going for "best overall fit type."
    I see the 'functions' as skill sets, some of which are more developed than others, but all have the potential for development. This is also why I don't believe that typology has much more application than, say astrology. It's a system that is based on faulty foundations, and from that starting point all conclusions must contain that original fault.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    I see the 'functions' as skill sets, some of which are more developed than others, but all have the potential for development. This is also why I don't believe that typology has much more application than, say astrology. It's a system that is based on faulty foundations, and from that starting point all conclusions must contain that original fault.
    Well, I wouldn't go as far as "astrology" depending on the system.

    Astrology seems to say that behavior and personality is entirely dependent on the date of birth and the position of celestial bodies. That is all that is used to derive "personality." There is no actual connection there that can be shown, between birth date and personality.

    I would hope that any actual typological system is at least doing a rudimentary overview of the individual's actual expressed behavior and personal preferences -- and with THAT pool of relevant information is basically conjecturing from it about other aspects of the individual's personality. So there should be SOME correlation there; behavior should reflect on behavior.

    But theories themselves can be pretty whack.
    "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
    Xena's boyfriend Bardsandwarriors's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w3 sp/so
    Socionics
    ENFp Fi
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    I see the 'functions' as skill sets, some of which are more developed than others, but all have the potential for development.
    They may go a lot deeper than mere skill sets. Things you've developed from an early age, and things you've neglected from an early age, colouring your entire outlook, and having all kinds of structures of life and thought and relationships and memory built on them, may not be so easy to change. Your physical brain has been wired one way, and not another.

    Which is why I ask about the minor functions. There must be a system behind it, which explains and predicts it. The arbitrary 1-8 numbering can be rethought from basic principles.
    Status: was , then , now
    Neutral good Fi-ENFp 4w3 sp/so 479 gentle spirit, 50yo male. Travels the land seeking a good sig line.

Similar Threads

  1. Desribe how the function stacking for your type applies for you.
    By Cat Brainz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-08-2016, 03:39 PM
  2. Observations of the function stack
    By Punderstorm in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-20-2016, 04:42 PM
  3. What are the functions, really?
    By themightyfetus in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-23-2016, 04:20 PM
  4. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-10-2014, 02:53 PM
  5. Cognition: Are the Functions Hierarchal?
    By Mempy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-20-2008, 04:07 PM

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