• 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.

For people that don't "believe in functions"

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think I get it. We can't prove that there's actually a "Ti mechanism" that processes after a "Ne mechanism". We could sum up the critics by saying "the map is not the territory". Functions are abstractions. Etc etc

But do we deny that this sort of a definitions list: TPs, FPs, TJs, FJs creates a pretty compelling arguement for judging function descriptions having some legitamacy?

TJs tend to plan things and use structured methodical ahead of time thinking throughout their lives.

TPs tend to find the holistic logic of a situation ("let me break it down for you") and leverage this information as they see fit.

FJs tend to plan things and use structured methodical ahead of time thinking according to how "the audience" is supposed to react.

FPs tend to find the holistic "how does this make ME feel" logic of a situation and leverage this information as they see fit.

They aren't function definitions. Theres no functions voodoo. They are completely pulled from the obsevation of overlapping two of the four dichotomies. ...and yet, they stand in for function definitions pretty **** well. What say you function doubters?
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The function are real alright (we have brain scans), but anything short of an EEG, and we run the risk of chronic mistypings of other people, all in assumptions that we just 'gaze inside into their functions'.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
[People who tend to plan things and use structured methodical ahead of time thinking throughout their lives] tend to plan things and use structured methodical ahead of time thinking throughout their lives.
... and so on.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
The function are real alright (we have brain scans), but anything short of an EEG, and we run the risk of chronic mistypings of other people, all in assumptions that we just 'gaze inside into their functions'.

We do have brain scans and the scans indeed show different areas of the brain and their activity. But nowhere is there an Ni lobe or a Te cortex.

As [MENTION=2549]Venom[/MENTION] pointed out the terms are merely abstractions designed to capture an observed pattern. The problem with this, though, is that the only way to prove the pattern is to get others to see it.

This idea Venom put forward doesn't really solve this issue either, since it still assumes the structure of the dichotomies to be inherent without any actual evidence beyond observation. And so long as typology hides in the realm of shared observation as proof, it can never wholly be taken seriously, or put to good use.
 
S

Society

Guest
They are completely pulled from the obsevation of overlapping two of the four dichotomies.

excellent post, and you can extend this to NJs/SJs/SPs/NPs (you probably should - for a better system view).

BUT, you are still lacking any non-theoretical support that:
1. that I/E behavior means the corresponding I/E function dominance
2. that the dom/aux function pull the corresponding tert/inf functions
3. that function loops provide for likely explanations to exception
4. the whole shaningans with shadow functions
 
Top