User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 43

  1. #31
    Not Your Therapist Sinmara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,092

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    Because i've noted your use of Ti and Ni, which means you'd have to be an NFJ/STP, and my impression of you, though perhaps somewhat shallow in the amount of interaction i had to go by, is that you are very much a Judger... though like i said, most of the above "non MBTI-kosher" typing's are half-witted shots in the dark when i was looking for examples. i've had no problem editing a few people's location within it based on the feedback.
    I wasn't saying you were incorrect or that I wanted you to move my place on the chart. I was just curious as to what your thought process was that made you think I was, that's all.
    Never wrestle with a pig. You will get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.



  2. #32
    Honor Thy Inferior Such Irony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INtp
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    5,091

    Default

    Assuming I've got my type right as INTP, I think I might be Ti > Si > Ne > Fe

    I have pretty strong Si.
    INtp
    5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
    Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff
    Neutral Good
    LII-Ne




  3. #33
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    on what basis does the MBTI assume they can't exist?
    You are mixing up only loosely related theories.

    Function order is mostly meaningless and unproven. It doesn't produce type. Type only tells us about Dom/aux (and inf by implication).

    All that can be meaningfully said about functions within MBTI can be expressed thus:

    Ptypes
    [Ne / Se ] + [ Ti / Fi ]

    Jtypes
    [Ni / Si ] + [ Te / Fe ]

    Everything else follows from these principles (and if it does not, it's invalid or at best, speculative).

    Less is more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    The prevalence of a particular way of perceiving and judging, necessarily pushes the "opposite" ways of perceiving and judging into subordinate roles.
    Yes. This is embedded in the notion of dichotomies. If you remove dichotomies, type becomes meaningless.

    Your scheme disregards the dichotomous nature of type. Which is fine to do, but you are left with continuums rather than discrete types of endless variety. (Essentially, your logic is kinda fucked. )
    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    This was meant satirically. It adds nothing and subtracts a good deal of clarity. It's helpful to recognise that strength of preference is non-trivial, but to convert that understanding into sub-types is just a joke (or at least, should be).

    Edit. To visualise the logic of MBTI, I find it helpful to consider it represented in 3-dimensional space as a cube (or a nested cube, to include E/I dimension). Then the operations that are 'permissible' / meaningful become immediately apparent.

    The midpoint on any axis = X, other combinations do not resolve to a "type", they float somewhere in the void.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  4. #34
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    you know, these unbolded folks right here:

    Who killed them? Or rather, on what basis does the MBTI assume they can't exist?
    To answer that you have to unsertand the way the functions relate to each other. To do that you need an accurate understanding of what the functions are. I'll use Pe and Pi to explain.

    Pe is an explorative urge, a desire to experience things and act spontaneously. Se explore based on what is there, Ne is more motivated by what things represent. Pi is the urge to plan ahead, review what is known and consider implications.

    Now, the more time you spend sitting on your ass thinking about what you intend to do, the less time you spend actually doing it. Extensive preplanning precludes spontinatity. The more time you spend considering if something should be done or not, the less likely you are to do something off the cuff, just to see how it turns out.

    Pe and Pi preclude each other, which rules out many of the combinations you've listed. Ji and Je follow a similar pattern. Ji is to do with assessment of value based in ideas of worth, where as Je is assessment based in ideas of utility.
    Don't make whine out of sour grapes.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    You are mixing up only loosely related theories.

    Function order is mostly meaningless and unproven. It doesn't produce type. Type only tells us about Dom/aux (and inf by implication).

    All that can be meaningfully said about functions within MBTI can be expressed thus:

    Ptypes
    [Ne / Se ] + [ Ti / Fi ]

    Jtypes
    [Ni / Si ] + [ Te / Fe ]

    Everything else follows from these principles (and if it does not, it's invalid or at best, speculative).

    Less is more.

    Yes. This is embedded in the notion of dichotomies. If you remove dichotomies, type becomes meaningless.

    Your scheme disregards the dichotomous nature of type. Which is fine to do, but you are left with continuums rather than discrete types of endless variety. (Essentially, your logic is kinda fucked. )
    This was meant satirically. It adds nothing and subtracts a good deal of clarity. It's helpful to recognise that strength of preference is non-trivial, but to convert that understanding into sub-types is just a joke (or at least, should be).

    Edit. To visualise the logic of MBTI, I find it helpful to consider it represented in 3-dimensional space as a cube (or a nested cube, to include E/I dimension). Then the operations that are 'permissible' / meaningful become immediately apparent.

    The midpoint on any axis = X, other combinations do not resolve to a "type", they float somewhere in the void.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    To answer that you have to unsertand the way the functions relate to each other. To do that you need an accurate understanding of what the functions are. I'll use Pe and Pi to explain.

    Pe is an explorative urge, a desire to experience things and act spontaneously. Se explore based on what is there, Ne is more motivated by what things represent. Pi is the urge to plan ahead, review what is known and consider implications.

    Now, the more time you spend sitting on your ass thinking about what you intend to do, the less time you spend actually doing it. Extensive preplanning precludes spontinatity. The more time you spend considering if something should be done or not, the less likely you are to do something off the cuff, just to see how it turns out.

    Pe and Pi preclude each other, which rules out many of the combinations you've listed. Ji and Je follow a similar pattern. Ji is to do with assessment of value based in ideas of worth, where as Je is assessment based in ideas of utility.
    Both correct. I won't say any more about dichotomies or the way inw hich the fucntions work because you explained better than I could. But I will try to say how this relates to some of the other points made here - not the "internal workings" of the functions but rather the "external implications" of this theory.

    People have said that this kind of sub-categorizing is a better idea than traditional Function Order Theory because "people don't fit into neat little boxes". But trying to categorize every different way a certain type may act as the result of a revised "function order" (well, actually the opposite of Function Order Theory) - is PRECISELY an attempt to fit a chaotic reality, into neat little boxes.

    The same person can emphasize functions in a different way, on different days, depending on some inner feeling which MBTI does not claim to know. This is how it works in actuality. Some days an ENTP - to use the exmaple in this thread - may be "the Hero", some days, he may be "the robot", other days, "the Professor". Different external variables can trigger different internal (unconscious) repsonses, causing the same person to show a different personality on different days, as we all do.

    I think these kinds of attempts to subcategorize, come from the search for identity, through MBTI. The person thinks "damn, I feel so different to other XXXX type, there are superficial simialrities but we differ in so many ways, there must be a reason, there must be 'true type' which I REALLY belong to".

    No. the OPPOSITE is true. MBTI describes the STYLES but there is NO deeper identity. People think it's the opposite, i.e. "on the surface we are different but deep down we are both XXXX type". Wrong. On the surface, you are processing ifnromation and communicating in similair ways - even if you dress differently or whatever (perhaps due to background, or perhaps, ironicallyu, because of the result of some difference which is DEEPER and not more superficial than MBTI) - but deep down, we are completely different people with different unconscious desires and fears, and the reuslt of different environments. Cognitive Functions just "mediate" the "rocky path" between those two things.

    The "happy" consequence of this, is that it SHOULD help us to overcome our misunderstandings between types, to help us realize that we are more similar than we thought. The "unhappy" consequence is that it means, there is NO "deeper unity" with other people just because the same type, it is simply a superficial similairty of thought and communication but DOES NOT ultimately define us fully.

    Cognitive Functions are the beginning of a jouney, not the end. They tell you the tools you have and identify natural strengths, and areas which are potential for development (Tert+Inferior), as well as areas which are not "your thing", but which you need to understand in order to realize they are not just people being assholes (the way we may percieve the shadow Functions - i.e. I used to be unable to comprehend strong Fi, because unlike Fe, I had no conception of it even as an "aspiration" or a "guilty neglected area" - rather I just thought it was people being deliberately difficult. Now I know otherwise).

    But CF theory does not explain what you choose to do with that set of tools. Each person decides that based on complex factors which operate both on a deeper internal level than MBTI (the unconscious) and on an external level (environmental conditional and triggers). And even all of that does not fully define a person, because when the thought or desire arises, we still have the choice to accept or reject it - but that's another post.

  6. #36
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    You are mixing up only loosely related theories.

    Function order is mostly meaningless and unproven. It doesn't produce type. Type only tells us about Dom/aux (and inf by implication).

    All that can be meaningfully said about functions within MBTI can be expressed thus:

    Ptypes
    [Ne / Se ] + [ Ti / Fi ]

    Jtypes
    [Ni / Si ] + [ Te / Fe ]

    Everything else follows from these principles (and if it does not, it's invalid or at best, speculative).
    first of all thank you for actually tackling the challenge this thread was supposed to pose instead of agreeing. this is the core debate this thread aims to stimulate, with a seemingly high degree of failure (what's with all the agree'ers?).

    so fast forward:

    within this structure:
    EP: Pe>Ji>Je>Pi
    IP: Ji>Pe>Pi>Je
    EJ: Je>Pi>Pe>Ji
    IJ: Pi>Je>Ji>Pe

    we see two core principles:

    J>P>P>J (EJ & IP)
    P>J>J>P (EP & IJ)

    I>E>I>E (introverts)
    E>I>E>I (extroverts)

    in other words, we are assuming that these:
    J>P>J>P
    J>J>P>P
    P>J>P>J
    P>P>J>J

    as well as these:
    I>I>E>E
    I>E>E>I
    E>E>I>I
    E>I>I>E

    are impossible.

    why would they be impossible?

    and please remember we're talking psychology here, so "innate for the system" doesn't quite meet the benchmark, yes the system is internally consistent, but that doesn't mean it's principles are applicable to it's theoretical subjects (people's personalities).

  7. #37
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    To answer that you have to unsertand the way the functions relate to each other. To do that you need an accurate understanding of what the functions are. I'll use Pe and Pi to explain.

    Pe is an explorative urge, a desire to experience things and act spontaneously. Se explore based on what is there, Ne is more motivated by what things represent. Pi is the urge to plan ahead, review what is known and consider implications.

    Now, the more time you spend sitting on your ass thinking about what you intend to do, the less time you spend actually doing it. Extensive preplanning precludes spontinatity. The more time you spend considering if something should be done or not, the less likely you are to do something off the cuff, just to see how it turns out.

    Pe and Pi preclude each other, which rules out many of the combinations you've listed. Ji and Je follow a similar pattern. Ji is to do with assessment of value based in ideas of worth, where as Je is assessment based in ideas of utility.

    see but we do know that Ji and Je, as well as Pi and Pe, can follow each other, that is ingrained in the current system as the auxilary and tertiery functions, so the assumption is, as Morto said, that the dominant function innately pushes it's corresponding "sister function" to the inferior.

    to apply it to your theory, we do know that people with (EJs and IPs) can have a "more balanced" level of planning (Pi) and doing (Pe) to the point of having those sit side by side each other as the auxiliary and tertiary functions. so why is it possible for them, but impossible if Pi/Pe doms?

  8. #38
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    To answer that you have to unsertand the way the functions relate to each other. To do that you need an accurate understanding of what the functions are. I'll use Pe and Pi to explain.

    Pe is an explorative urge, a desire to experience things and act spontaneously. Se explore based on what is there, Ne is more motivated by what things represent. Pi is the urge to plan ahead, review what is known and consider implications.

    Now, the more time you spend sitting on your ass thinking about what you intend to do, the less time you spend actually doing it. Extensive preplanning precludes spontinatity. The more time you spend considering if something should be done or not, the less likely you are to do something off the cuff, just to see how it turns out.

    Pe and Pi preclude each other, which rules out many of the combinations you've listed. Ji and Je follow a similar pattern. Ji is to do with assessment of value based in ideas of worth, where as Je is assessment based in ideas of utility.

    see but we do know that Ji and Je, as well as Pi and Pe, can follow each other, that is ingrained in the current system as the auxilary and tertiery functions, so the assumption is, as Morto said, that the dominant function innately pushes it's corresponding "sister function" to the inferior.

    to apply it to your theory, we do know that people with (EJs and IPs) can have a "more balanced" level of planning (Pi) and doing (Pe) to the point of having those sit side by side each other as the auxiliary and tertiary functions. so why is it possible for them, but impossible if Pi/Pe doms?

  9. #39
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    see but we do know that Ji and Je, as well as Pi and Pe, can follow each other, that is ingrained in the current system as the auxilary and tertiery functions, so the assumption is, as Morto said, that the dominant function innately pushes it's corresponding "sister function" to the inferior.

    to apply it to your theory, we do know that people with (EJs and IPs) can have a "more balanced" level of planning (Pi) and doing (Pe) to the point of having those sit side by side each other as the auxiliary and tertiary functions. so why is it possible for them, but impossible if Pi/Pe doms?
    Because a balance is different to lots of both. You can have 90% Pi and 10% Pe, or 60% Pe and 40% Pi, but you can't have 90% Pe and 60% Pi, because that gives you 150% of your mental efforts and time devoted to the Pe/Pi combination. Don't try that because it makes your brains explode, which is messy.

    The primary function has to rule, followed by the others in layers. Why? So you can make decision and prioritise. That's what the functions are about - what you want. If they are all present at too similar levels then you have trouble telling what you want, or even what you don't want because everything has equal priority.

    The other thing you need to understand is the balance between action and contemplation. To be a functional human being, you need a bit of both. Too much of either makes you ineffectual, either because you do nothing, or because you do the wrong thing and never learn from it.

    Once the primary is known, the auxilary has to take the opposite action/contemplation stance to create the balance.
    Don't make whine out of sour grapes.

  10. #40
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    Because a balance is different to lots of both. You can have 90% Pi and 10% Pe, or 60% Pe and 40% Pi, but you can't have 90% Pe and 60% Pi, because that gives you 150% of your mental efforts and time devoted to the Pe/Pi combination. Don't try that because it makes your brains explode, which is messy.

    The primary function has to rule, followed by the others in layers. Why? So you can make decision and prioritise. That's what the functions are about - what you want. If they are all present at too similar levels then you have trouble telling what you want, or even what you don't want because everything has equal priority.

    The other thing you need to understand is the balance between action and contemplation. To be a functional human being, you need a bit of both. Too much of either makes you ineffectual, either because you do nothing, or because you do the wrong thing and never learn from it.

    Once the primary is known, the auxilary has to take the opposite action/contemplation stance to create the balance.
    your extending the flow of information (we judge the information we perceive) to assume that we judge all the information we perceive and perceive all that we can judge, thus concluding that P=J, and one could not, let's say, utilize 120% J and 80% P. but there is a loophole around that which maintains that flow of information, through recursive perception and recursive judgement.

    what is stopping someone from using the judgement they passed over the information they got to pass further judgement as a substitute for perceiving new information from the perceiving functions, and do repeat the process with that judgment? likewise with perception.

    in other words, why couldn't we process things as:
    P -> J -> J -> J -> J -> J
    or
    P -> P -> P -> P -> J
    or any combination thereof, thus maintaining the flow of information from perception to judgement without necessarily making them equal partners in the process?

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] ENTPs, what do you think of the other types?
    By BlahBlahNounBlah in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-25-2016, 08:23 AM
  2. What have you learned from the other types and temperaments?
    By Amargith in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 09:17 AM
  3. [MBTItm] Are INFPs (and ISFPs) better bullsh*t detectors than the other types?
    By asynartetic in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-04-2013, 07:58 PM
  4. Describe the other types
    By BlackCat in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 06:35 PM
  5. [SJ] SJs, what are your thoughts on the other types?
    By Dali in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 05:29 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