• 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.

MBTI so far...

S

Society

Guest
intent: This is a half-bloggish attempt at collecting all my understandings & contemplation of MBTI into one place, both now as continuously as it develops, mostly geared for understanding the underlying mechanics behind MBTI.


[to be continued in further posts]
 
S

Society

Guest
the functions as objects:
TiFe: reflects upon information to explore the outside.
FiTe: superimposes information to express the inside.
SiNe: connects incoming information in one's collection.
NiSe: connecting incoming information in it's own frame.

this allows me to split each function in two ways:

temperamental:
T: resolving stress from cognitive dissonance in general.
F: resolving stress from emotional dissonance in particular.
S: reacts to the existing details of the experienced objects.
N: reacts to the relationships between the experienced objects.

cognitive:
Je manifests as an information mapping mechanism, stressed by chaotic stimuli.
Ji manifests as an information navigating mechanism, seeking maximum stimuli.
Pe manifests as information threading, providing the most stimulating images.
Pi manifests as information framing, providing the most cohesive images.

which stems from this:
E functions are processed faster than the rate at which we consciously experience them.
-> demanding that we'll catch up & compensate for the missing nuances by bouncing it off others.
I functions are processed slower than the rate at which we consciously experience them.
-> demanding that we'll wait for the information to unfold and give it the mental space to do so.

this way, i can examine someone on a spectrum and say:
someone is "very E" = always running to catch up with the latest processed info.
someone is "very I" = always vigilantly observing the incoming processed info.
someone is "very N" = pays a lot of attention to the relationships between objects.
someone is "very S" = pays a lot of attention to the details within the experience.
someone is "very T" = easily stressed by cognitive dissonance in general.
someone is "very F" = easily stressed by emotional dissonance in particular.
someone is "very P" = constantly seeking the maximum stimulation.
someone is "very J" = constantly seeking the most cohesive information.

discussion source:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61568&p=2053754&viewfull=1#post2053754

continuation: breaking down and explaining each of the obscure items above.
 
S

Society

Guest
ok, let's start with the obvious:


the functions as objects:
TiFe: reflects upon information to explore the outside.
FiTe: superimposes information to express the inside.
SiNe: connects incoming information in one's collection.
NiSe: connecting incoming information in it's own frame.
why the fuck am i putting those as singular objects in the first place? don't they gear totally different behaviors? SJs and NPs? TJs and FPs?

well, this is a core assumption of MBTI: each of those pairs come with it's opposite:
there is no such thing as someone with Te but no Fi
there is no such thing as someone with Fe but no Ti
there is no such thing as someone with Ne but no Si
there is no such thing as someone with Se but no Ni
this assumption IS worth questioning, but for the purpose of this line of thought, i am going to be building it on the current system of MBTI building on it's existing assumptions.

if they always come together, it is not far fetched that there's a reason for that ingrained in causality. under the current explanation, we are to believe that this is "for balance".

but why? did someone put them there in case we'd fall out of balance? did everyone who wasn't balance enough die in the course of evolution? this explanation is incredibly lacking, as tribal creatures humans are not well adapted to be self sufficient in the first place, we are already geared towards balancing each other out within a teamwork setting, our capacities to specialize demonstrates the many ways in which our psyche is fine with being unbalanced as long as there are other people who can balance us - it's fine if you are a good tactician in hunting but suck at using the hide for clothing for the winter, because someone else is the reverse, and neither you or them will die off because of it.

no, i believe the reason is actually a lot more fundamental: they always come together because each of those pairs is in fact, two different fruits of the same cognitive phenomena working in different arenas, two operations of the same piece of cognitive code.
essentially: each pair is the same body, simply having to move one way to swim in the water but another way to walk on land.

later down the road (to do list):
how the code works for each of those pairs - the system behind it.
how do they interact, and why do we end up preferring one aspect over another.
function developmental theory (ties in to the I/E definitions).
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
well, this is a core assumption of MBTI: each of those pairs come with it's opposite:
there is no such thing as someone with Te but no Fi
there is no such thing as someone with Fe but no Ti
there is no such thing as someone with Ne but no Si
there is no such thing as someone with Se but no Ni
this assumption IS worth questioning, but for the purpose of this line of thought, i am going to be building it on the current system of MBTI building on it's existing assumptions.
To question your assumption: one line of thought holds that everyone uses every function, just with varying degrees of proficiency and comfort, which gives rise to the types. in other words, someone with Te will have Fi, Fe, and Ti. The last two are often considered "shadow functions", meaning they are not in the top four by preference. Beyond that, theories vary as to how they come into play. Lenore Thomson, for instance, claims that people can jump to the opposite function of the same attitude if the dom/aux is not getting the job done (e.g. a Te dom/aux would resort to Fe rather than Fi). John Beebe has a different model. It's been awhile since I read these references, so I don't have all the details at my fingertips. Many references say little about the bottom 4 functions at all. What is your view, or at least have you run across any other theories worth considering?
 
W

WALMART

Guest
My largest gripes of personality theories are that they are geometrically derived. Only through ample study does a cohesive, dynamic framework begin to emerge.


Good work so far, a neatly comprehensive introduction to anyone looking to delve into function theory.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
there is no such thing as someone with Te but no Fi
there is no such thing as someone with Fe but no Ti
there is no such thing as someone with Ne but no Si
there is no such thing as someone with Se but no Ni

this is the only thing i can agree about on this topic..

ill just give one example on where you are going wrong: sensing is not about details, its about having preference to trust the sensory information(or what it directly releases within) over possibilities hidden beyond sensory information. it is true that sensing types are more in tune with details in sensory information, but thats simply because they are consciously reviewing the sensory information more carefully -> sensing does not mean "to be detail oriented", it means being more conscious what comes through eyes and ears and because consciousness is more filled with sensory information it is trusted more and paid more attention to.

could write similar correction so pretty much everything else you said, but i cant be arsed to do that because it would be too much work
 
S

Society

Guest
i'll probably answer most feedback further down as i go along to explain how the above works. at a glance - [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] makes a good point i'll have go back too, [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] continues to crouch as the mind boggling silly & repetitive mistake fly hovers over his head - defining the generality of S-N & T-F to the specific of Si-Ne & Ti-Fe... but any feedback that doesn't attempt to direct things towards embracing the broken logic would be welcomed.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I actually have to agree with INTP here.

I didn't read all of it, cuz most everything I did read was utter crap.

You seem to have just cobbled together various biases you possess into some semi-related generalities about various functions/function groupings.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
i'll probably answer most feedback further down as i go along to explain how the above works. at a glance - Coriolis makes a good point i'll have go back too, INTP continues to crouch as the mind boggling silly & repetitive mistake fly hovers over his head - defining the generality of S-N & T-F to the specific of Si-Ne & Ti-Fe... but any feedback that doesn't attempt to direct things towards embracing the broken logic would be welcomed.

nice counterargument :D . i know it might be hard to accept something going against your vision of things, but your inability to form a proper argument and just going with "your logic is flawed cuz its against my ideas" just shows how much your vision is lacking any reasoning. not to mention besides missing reason and obviously being based on some intuitive idea, its pretty far off from any realities and is clearly just some weird shit you made up. one funny example of this is you trying to differentiate T and F by saying that T is about cognitive dissonance stuff and F about emotional dissonance and well: "In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions." -wiki :---D
 
S

Society

Guest
"your logic is flawed cuz its against my ideas"
rofl, no - your logic goes against the basic notions of MBTI: you've repetitively went on defining the generalizations based on your own specifics, you define T functionality as Ti (not accounting for Te), N functionality as Ne (not accounting for Ni) and so forth - i am not saying its flawed because it contradicts my ideas, i am saying it's flawed because it doesn't allow for anything other than NTPs & SFJs - the existence of any other type wouldn't be possible if your understanding was correct, a.k.a. it isn't.

that's a rookie mistake, and you're being here since 2009 :doh: if you want to judge the commonalities between the functions you need more than anyone else to go back to reading about the functions that you don't have and observe them in other users & the people around you.

as for cognitive dissonance, note what i am actually saying:
T: resolving stress from cognitive dissonance in general.
F: resolving stress from emotional dissonance in particular.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
this is the only thing i can agree about on this topic..

ill just give one example on where you are going wrong: sensing is not about details, its about having preference to trust the sensory information(or what it directly releases within) over possibilities hidden beyond sensory information. it is true that sensing types are more in tune with details in sensory information, but thats simply because they are consciously reviewing the sensory information more carefully -> sensing does not mean "to be detail oriented", it means being more conscious what comes through eyes and ears and because consciousness is more filled with sensory information it is trusted more and paid more attention to.

could write similar correction so pretty much everything else you said, but i cant be arsed to do that because it would be too much work


I've had similar thoughts and ideas about sensing, independently developed. Not everyone is as into playing follow the leader as others do.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
You seem to have just cobbled together various biases you possess into some semi-related generalities about various functions/function groupings.

Although when it comes to this theory and the people who engage in it, that sounds about right. And since the people ARE the theory in this case....it seems quite accurate that anything coming out of it should be a series of cobbled together biases and generalities.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Although when it comes to this theory and the people who engage in it, that sounds about right. And since the people ARE the theory in this case....it seems quite accurate that anything coming out of it should be a series of cobbled together biases and generalities.

If that is the view you want to take, then the goal should be that the biases you cobble together are more than just semi-related.

They should be highly germane, insightful, accurate, on-point, lean, and robust.

The point was that his observations do not hit these marks very well.
 
Top