Why do people care about defining whether they, or anyone else, is E or I?

[Il Morto Che Parla]

It seems irrelevant as the functions are the same just in slightly different order. Most people could probably even switch the order easily over time. Seems like worrying over whether someone is 24 or 25 y/o.

Discuss.

 

[Entropic]

Because it actually correlates to the function attitude of the dominant which matters a great deal in Jungian psychology since Jung spent most of the time explaining the dominant-inferior relationship in Psychological Types since it is the psychic process which matters the most. Everything else is quite irrelevant. So being able to pin down your actual dominant function is important. Not because anyone gives a damn about understanding actual analytical psychology on this forum but anyway.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

You are probably right in theory, but in practice I see a lot of difference between myself as an ENFP and INFPs around me. And I do find that I can learn a lot from their Fi and Si while they can learn a lot from my Ne and Te. Also, you find correlations between MBTI and the enneagram (or other systems) where for example ENFP is more highly linked to type 7 and INFP to type 4....and this is what I have observed, again, in pratice.

 

[Entropic]

You are probably right in theory, but in practice I see a lot of difference between myself as an ENFP and INFPs around me. And I do find that I can learn a lot from their Fi and Si while they can learn a lot from my Ne and Te. Also, you find correlations between MBTI and the enneagram (or other systems) where for example ENFP is more highly linked to type 7 and INFP to type 4....and this is what I have observed, again, in pratice.

I don't think the correlation is that great part because I think those correlations occur because MBTI describes a certain type associated with each type that correlates to the descriptions of the various enneatypes. While in reality people are probably far removed from all this. Every 5 is not going to be an INTP. In fact, if you score INTP on the MBTI you are likely to score 5 on an enneagram test as a default. Funnily enough, the reality is that most people who do this are actually neither INTPs nor are they 5s. I noted a certain tendency in particular among ESFJ and ISFJ men (that is, a preference towards Si and Fe as their two ego conscious functions) who are more intellectual to easily mistake themselves for INTP and 5 when they are in fact 9 and xSFJ.

But whatever.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

I didn't say that every 5 is an INTP. I said correlation (ie. everything higher than 50% or that at least shows statistical significance). And I think you can say that certain types are more likely an enneagram than others.
That said, that was a parenthesis and you didn't make any comment about the marrow of my comment and now we are getting off track...

I don't think the correlation is that great part because I think those correlations occur because MBTI describes a certain type associated with each type that correlates to the descriptions of the various enneatypes. While in reality people are probably far removed from all this. Every 5 is not going to be an INTP. In fact, if you score INTP on the MBTI you are likely to score 5 on an enneagram test as a default. Funnily enough, the reality is that most people who do this are actually neither INTPs nor are they 5s.

But whatever.

 

[WALMART]

The functional order is explanatory for habitual sets of actions, though yeah, it's not as much of an important detail as say P and J.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Because it actually correlates to the function attitude of the dominant which matters a great deal in Jungian psychology since Jung spent most of the time explaining the dominant-inferior relationship in Psychological Types since it is the psychic process which matters the most. Everything else is quite irrelevant. So being able to pin down your actual dominant function is important. Not because anyone gives a damn about understanding actual analytical psychology on this forum but anyway.

Possibly true. But a lot of people who do understand actual analytical psychology would probably dismiss the theory, am I wrong?

You are probably right in theory, but in practice I see a lot of difference between myself as an ENFP and INFPs around me. And I do find that I can learn a lot from their Fi and Si while they can learn a lot from my Ne and Te. Also, you find correlations between MBTI and the enneagram (or other systems) where for example ENFP is more highly linked to type 7 and INFP to type 4....and this is what I have observed, again, in pratice.

I agree, but "therein lies the rub" as William Shakespeare said.

If it's obvious in practice then you don't need to ask it on a forum.

And as it is by your own defintion ONLY relevant in practice: then if it ISN'T obvious in practice, why try to define it "in theory"? i.e. why not just accept many people as ambiverts (or in any case, so close to ambiversion as to make a definition useless)?

The functional order is explanatory for habitual sets of actions, though yeah, it's not as much of an important detail as say P and J.

Agreed JTR, as usual.

(btw I am still relying on you to solve the iNtuition vs Sensing conundrum).

 

[WALMART]

(btw I am still relying on you to solve the iNtuition vs Sensing conundrum).

Don't you know P's aren't prone to being pressured?!


And also, a non-MBTI oriented study showed around 70% of the population is ambiverted. It's ridiculous for most of us to have to pick a dichotomy (let alone enforce it on another), but whatever.

 

[Entropic]

Possibly true. But a lot of people who do understand actual analytical psychology would probably dismiss the theory, am I wrong?

You can still express it with the MBTI letter code. To me the MBTI letter code means this:

I/E: the attitude of the dominant function
S/N: if one prefers S/N
T/F: if one prefers T/F
J/P: this denotes the dominant function although in a very fucked up manner.

These letters are absolute and do not have a varying percentage scale with the exception being the auxiliary/tertiary. You cannot be 70% Fi and 30% Fe as your dominant function, that doesn't work. If that's true then your dominant function is not fully differentiated which in other words means that you have no real psychological type either and trying to type you is utterly useless to begin.

 

[Entropic]

I didn't say that every 5 is an INTP. I said correlation (ie. everything higher than 50% or that at least shows statistical significance). And I think you can say that certain types are more likely an enneagram than others.
That said, that was a parenthesis and you didn't make any comment about the marrow of my comment and now we are getting off track...

I know you didn't. I am just stating that I think the correlation is weak because the correlation does not correlate to actual psychological type but persona.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Basically, the "role" of the functions change a LOT depending on what the dominant function is, because that function is the ego and everything is in relation to it.

The primary difference Jung saw in personality was introversion/extroversion. In order to be extroverted, you have to suppress your introverted side & vice versa. Of course, with age, people begin to differentiate their other functions, but this why the inferior causes problems (it's been suppressed to develop the ego). The auxiliary differentiates & develops as a support to the ego; I would consider it an expansion of the ego as it allows you to extrovert or introvert (depending on your dominant type) without your ego being threatened.

After I/E, the second major distinction Jung makes is rational or irrational, aka, judging or perceiving. So for 4 letter type, it's not just functions, but also whether the person is Pe-dom or Ji-dom (for xNFPs). Even though INFPs have a "Pe" face of sorts, they're dominant rationals & ENFPs are dominant irrationals. *This doesn't mean Ji-dom are more like Je-dom. Remember that Ji has to suppress Je in order to develop.

As much criticism as MBTI may get for the whole J/P thing, that's likely one of the reasons they indicate type with that dichotomy. It still makes Ji-dom "P" types because they prefer Pe, but in testing IxxP, it's meant to indicate Ji more than gauge how much you like to interact with people or organize stuff .

 

[pinkgraffiti]

MBTI is a theory and thus should reflect reality, rather than the opposite. In my small scenario, consisting of analysing myself and friends, I do find that being an extrovert of introvert (ENFP vs INFP for example) makes a big difference, due to the function order.
You assume that the order of the functions isn't relevant, but give zero evidence to back it up, so it's difficult to discuss something based on that. Mostly, I agree with you that some people are probably ambivert, but I find it exaggerated to say that all people are like that.
Maybe you are confused about your own type and projecting it? Consider that the order of the functions has a meaning: for example your 3rd function serves as a response to stress.
Anyway, I don't think we can go very far with discussions like this. Unless you are a researcher and have performed MBTI statistics, or otherwise have an interesting reference, then we can only compare personal experience.

And as it is by your own defintion ONLY relevant in practice: then if it ISN'T obvious in practice, why try to define it "in theory"? i.e. why not just accept many people as ambiverts (or in any case, so close to ambiversion as to make a definition useless)?

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

MBTI is a theory and thus should reflect reality, rather than the opposite. In my small scenario, consisting of analysing myself and friends, I do find that being an extrovert of introvert (ENFP vs INFP for example) makes a big difference, due to the function order.
You assume that the order of the functions isn't relevant, but give zero evidence to back it up, so it's difficult to discuss something based on that. Mostly, I agree with you that some people are probably ambivert, but I find it exaggerated to say that all people are like that.
Maybe you are confused about your own type and projecting it? Consider that the order of the functions has a meaning: for example your 3rd function serves as a response to stress.
Anyway, I don't think we can go very far with discussions like this. Unless you are a researcher and have performed MBTI statistics, or otherwise have an interesting reference, then we can only compare personal experience.

Ok so a very introverted person will seem different to a very extraverted person.

If someone is not obviously introverted or extraverted, why do you think it matters to define them one way or the other?

I am not asking you to disprove an "argument", but instead asking you a question.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

You can still express it with the MBTI letter code. To me the MBTI letter code means this:

I/E: the attitude of the dominant function
S/N: if one prefers S/N
T/F: if one prefers T/F
J/P: this denotes the dominant function although in a very fucked up manner.

These letters are absolute and do not have a varying percentage scale with the exception being the auxiliary/tertiary. You cannot be 70% Fi and 30% Fe as your dominant function, that doesn't work. If that's true then your dominant function is not fully differentiated which in other words means that you have no real psychological type either and trying to type you is utterly useless to begin.

Yes, I am aware of function theory.

Next: who says it has to be a "real psychological type" in order to be worthwhile? Cannot a projection onto reality of a set of criteria, in order to describe (rather than explain) observed behaviour, and from this predict behaviour in unknown scenarios, also be of some value?

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

As much criticism as MBTI may get for the whole J/P thing, that's likely one of the reasons they indicate type with that dichotomy. It still makes Ji-dom "P" types because they prefer Pe, but in testing IxxP, it's meant to indicate Ji more than gauge how much you like to interact with people or organize stuff .

This is a very big distinction for me, which I absolutely believe in. It would seem much more important than E/I as it defies your functions rather than just switching the order slightly.

 

[Entropic]

Yes, I am aware of function theory.

Next: who says it has to be a "real psychological type" in order to be worthwhile? Cannot a projection onto reality of a set of criteria, in order to describe (rather than explain) observed behaviour, and from this predict behaviour in unknown scenarios, also be of some value?

They're describing two different things. The problem is that the MBTI claims to do what Jung is doing but is not.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

I've already answered this, but I guess I'm not very eloquent.

1st: i think such people exist (in practice) and in fact for them i don't think it matters, it would mean that their functions are equally strong (and it would be interesting to test that)

2nd: there is an order to functions (dom, aux, 3rd) (in MBTI theory) and they have different functions. So for an ENFP Te would be the stress-response function whereas for an INFP Si would be a stress response function. I see this difference in reacting to stress or what have you in practice, in myself and the INFPs and ENFPs around me. so I think the order of the functions is important.

So, maybe some people are ambivalent, but i dont believe in your original premise that I/E is not important.

Ok so a very introverted person will seem different to a very extraverted person.

If someone is not obviously introverted or extraverted, why do you think it matters to define them one way or the other?

I am not asking you to disprove an "argument", but instead asking you a question.

 

[Thalassa]

Anybody who knows anything about MBTI type will tell you that E/I is actually the least important distinction.

Even in Jung, Fe doms are the only stereotypical extroverts, seeking people at every turn.

Typing people, in general, becomes frustrating when you differ on constitutes a type, whether you follow Keirsey ("expressives" for example, versus simply having an extroverted perception) ...apparently BECAUSE I WRITE A LOT, I'm an extrovert on-line.

HOWEVER, Jung makes a very very particular distinction between J doms and P doms, and how they view the world; and it makes a huge difference to be ENFJ or INFJ, to be ESFP or ISFP, for that reason.

J doms have a "rational" view of the world, and P doms do not. P doms see J doms as limited or closed off, and J doms can see P doms as easily swayed or even inhuman.

That's why in some theories, ESFJs are supposed to be with ISFPs or ISTPs, and so forth. It's not just because E and I supposedly "balance" each other, it's because two J doms have a more agreeable world view, even if it's a different judging function.

 

[Society]

Extroverted functions are processed faster then the rate at which we experience them. paying more attention to them requires catching up with the information, and drives correspndance to fill up the gaps.

Introverted functions are processed slower then the rate at which experience them. Pay more attention to them requires that we will be patient with them and give them time and space to unfold.

The behavioral difference can impact personality development to different dagrees, at times quite dramatically.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Anybody who knows anything about MBTI type will tell you that E/I is actually the least important distinction.

Even in Jung, Fe doms are the only stereotypical extroverts, seeking people at every turn.

Typing people, in general, becomes frustrating when you differ on constitutes a type, whether you follow Keirsey ("expressives" for example, versus simply having an extroverted perception) ...apparently BECAUSE I WRITE A LOT, I'm an extrovert on-line.

HOWEVER, Jung makes a very very particular distinction between J doms and P doms, and how they view the world; and it makes a huge difference to be ENFJ or INFJ, to be ESFP or ISFP, for that reason.

J doms have a "rational" view of the world, and P doms do not. P doms see J doms as limited or closed off, and J doms can see P doms as easily swayed or even inhuman.

That's why in some theories, ESFJs are supposed to be with ISFPs or ISTPs, and so forth. It's not just because E and I supposedly "balance" each other, it's because two J doms have a more agreeable world view, even if it's a different judging function.

To be honest, I don't see this at all.

Extroverted functions are processed faster then the rate at which we experience them. paying more attention to them requires catching up with the information, and drives correspndance to fill up the gaps.

Introverted functions are processed slower then the rate at which experience them. Pay more attention to them requires that we will be patient with them and give them time and space to unfold.

The behavioral difference can impact personality development to different dagrees, at times quite dramatically.

Ok but what does this have to do with I vs E? A person will still use both functions, dom and aux.