User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 20

  1. #1
    Xena's boyfriend Bardsandwarriors's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w3 sp/so
    Socionics
    ENFp Fi
    Posts
    106

    Question Are the function stacks oversimplified?

    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?

    Or maybe the typing method is oversimplified, and the model needs revising? (I ask with a learner's innocence, not as an expert.)
    Status: was , then , now
    Neutral good Fi-ENFp 4w3 sp/so 479 gentle spirit, 50yo male. Travels the land seeking a good sig line.

  2. #2
    Senior Member The Great One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    3,461

    Default

    Personally, I think that functions can be stacked a little differently. However, I think that a person always leads with their dominant function, but the other functions can vary a bit. Here's actually a thread that specifically pertains to the ENTP personality type and how their functions stacks can change...

    http://personalitycafe.com/entp-foru...ke-theory.html

  3. #3
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    Typology, of any kind, is an 'oversimplification'.

  4. #4
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,410

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Xena's boyfriend Bardsandwarriors's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w3 sp/so
    Socionics
    ENFp Fi
    Posts
    106

    Default

    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.
    Status: was , then , now
    Neutral good Fi-ENFp 4w3 sp/so 479 gentle spirit, 50yo male. Travels the land seeking a good sig line.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    358

    Default

    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bardsandwarriors View Post
    (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.

  7. #7
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    libtard SJW chickpea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,961

    Default

    I think people over complicate them because they're suffering from special snowflake syndrome.

  9. #9
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,440

    Default

    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.
    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

  10. #10
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,981

    Default

    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.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

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