• 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.

Are the function stacks oversimplified?

Bardsandwarriors

Xena's boyfriend
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
100
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I've seen a few people's functions expressed in an order which defies "type". The normal function stacks (eg. Ne-Fi-Te-Si for an enfp) don't seem to come up much in reality. So what's going on, or what's going wrong?

I've taken a few online function tests, and mine come out as:
- 80% or higher: Ne, Ni, Fi, Fe roughly in that order,
- Se somewhere down at 40%,
- the others quite low.

I've long typed myself as ENFP, which accounts for Ne and Fi, leaving Ni and Fe hanging there. Why are they there, and am I really an ENNFFPJ? :shock:

Or maybe the typing method is oversimplified, and the model needs revising? (I ask with a learner's innocence, not as an expert.)
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
Short answer: yes, of course.

Now, I have a bit of a gripe with function tests anyway. No one seems to know how to properly word these. They are always way too broad and ambiguous. Maybe it works out for all of you N's out there, but I never know what the hell I'm doing. Personally, I always enjoyed this cognitive function test. However, the stupid people who run the website decided to get rid of the individual function scores and make you pay for the full report. You can still add up your scores manually by viewing the page source, but it's a big hassle. Otherwise you just get a result. Let me know if you need help looking at the page source.
 

Bardsandwarriors

Xena's boyfriend
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
100
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Thanks for that link, Great One. It'll take me a while to digest that.

Nebbykoo, yes. I find it strange that the functions are presented, wherever you find them, as if they are always one way. Yet when you look at individuals, they very rarely seem to be that way. There is little or no emphasis on it being "only a model". So I guess a lot of websites and books are parroting back what they've learned elsewhere, without really looking at it. (I own or have read about 5 books on MBTI, and have read perhaps another 5 websites on it). Maybe the model is too simplistic, and too detached from reality. For instance -

There may be underlying principles that need to be examined and developed.

The 16 types may be too oversimplified, and that is why a lot of people can't relate to them, or cannot find their type. Bear in mind that on a site like this, you mainly get people who like MBTI because it describes them well, and people they know well. I like it because it describes large parts of my character well.

(tangent) I was reading the "celebrity types" thread yesterday, and was surprised at how much discussion and difference there was. This may be caused by the variety in functions in real life. Only some celebrities are likely to be described well by it.
 

Burger King

New member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
338
People try too hard to describe every facet of their personality using these systems. I see them as general guidelines or caricatures of the core. I never know why people take these tests so seriously as if it means anything. I get funky results from them myself. I took the "Which planet am I" quiz and got Neptune! But I thought all men were from Mars?! Wth?!... LOL just messin'. My point - don't substitute that stuff for introspection and knowledge of the theory. And if you still can't find a label at that point, well then you can chalk it up to being a crappy theory like everyone else. It is after all, just a theory.

Edit:
(tangent) I was reading the "celebrity types" thread yesterday, and was surprised at how much discussion and difference there was. This may be caused by the variety in functions in real life. Only some celebrities are likely to be described well by it.

The functions are an internal process of how you take in information. There is no consensus style to type someone. So someone could be typing a person based on behavior. Another based on writing style - word choice, etc. This points more towards varying styles and interpretations than anything.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
I have a thread on dual function theory that may partially solve your questions. Socionics also play into these thoughts.


It is listed in the main MBTI and Other Personality Matrices subforum.
 

chickpea

perfect person
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
5,729
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think people over complicate them because they're suffering from special snowflake syndrome.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Type is only defined by two functions; one perceiving and one judgment; one introverted and one extraverted. Not four or eight. The other six are basically reflections of the first two, and the stacking is basically archetypal reflections of the dominant and auxiliary.

So if you're NeFi, but also have "strong" Ni and Fe, all that means is that your dominant and auxiliary are very strong, to the point that they both "spill over" into the opposite attitudes (e/i). The tertiary and inferior (Te, Si) are often the "weakest", so you don;t question the type just because they're not 3rd and 4th strongest.
 

violet_crown

Active member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
4,959
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
853
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
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.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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."

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.
 

Aquarelle

Starcrossed Seafarer
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
3,144
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
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.
 

Eric B

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

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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."
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This is really all it is:

shadowreflections.png
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
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.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Bardsandwarriors

Xena's boyfriend
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
100
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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.
 
Top