MBTI function order and Thomson's Type Lasagna and Ship Analogies

[Doctor Cringelord]

deleted

 

[Doomkid]

lenore thomson saying basically J are left brain and P are right brain, she got right IMO...I was gonna mention a certain group is already using it but there is too much controvery around them

 

[Doomkid]

"I also see myself using Extraverted Sensing. Most often I find myself using it at work, simply due to the very physical nature of the work. There is little room for me to use Ne at my job, so it happily takes a backseat and lets Se take over for a while. Yes, this is generally more exhausting for me, but I think I utilize Se to fairly good effect, albeit not as naturally as an ESTP or ISTP."

I couldn't quote properly, but anways I see what you're saying Se and Ne are similar because they're both gatherers, they seek objective information; in most work environments Ne has little place
because you have to deal with real things as they are, however say when you're trying to brainstorm Ne will be useful, but notice that it needs inspiration FROM EXTERNAL THINGS, that's how I see it

 

[Doomkid]

I had always viewed functions as two sides of the same coin...i.e. Te and Ti are basically two attitudes or expressions of the same function.

Thomson's theory leads me to reconsider that view. Instead, perhaps Fi and Ti are two sides of the same coin and likewise Te and Fe are related.

yes! I got that too, Fi and Ti can look similar in the sense that they both have depth as opposed to Te and Fe are more brash

 

[INTP]

The most common and prevailing belief in online MBTI communities seems to be that the cognitive functions ordering, from strongest to weakest, is as follows: dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior, followed by the shadows which are the same but with the attitudes reversed.

Sorry but this 8 function model is not MBTI. Also this 8 function model is actually less dynamic and flexible than the jungian model is. It might seem at first that more functions = more flexibility, but in order to use the 8 function model, the whole functions need to be redefined and that redefinition makes it all less flexible and dynamic(also they leave much stuff out that is not compatible with the model and which offers over 9000 times more dynamics).

 

[INTP]

I didn't actually say it was MBTI. Pay closer attention to what I wrote. I merely pointed out that it tends to be the most commonly accepted model in online communities whose focus is MBTI and similar systems. At no point did I type "This is the model used in Myers Briggs." I apologize for being less clear.

Also, which 8 function model are you saying is less dynamic and flexible? I agree that the Beebe/Berens dominant-auxiliary-tertiary-inferior-shadows model is less dynamic and less flexible. I never said that it was a better model.

I said I thought Thomson's model was more flexible than other models derived from Jung's theories. Also, I never said I thought her theory itself is superior to Jung, as it is merely a development of his theory.

Did you even read my entire post?

You said MBTI communities, i said that its not MBTI -> its not an MBTI community(and since you demand accurate wording, a typology community would be the correct term), MBTI community would be a community that works/talks/whatever around MBTI not some other theories that are derived from the same source than MBTI but modified to a large extend to a different direction.

All of the 8 function models are total bullcrap in my opinion, i have the lenores book and while there is some good info for newbs, much of it(like the lasagne thing) is bullshit.

No i didnt read the entire post. Why?

 

[Doomkid]

The main point is I did not at any point say it was MBTI. Again, apologies for not making my original post more coherent, more specific, for not wording it better.

I don't necessarily accept Thomson's model as solid, indisputable. The main point of my original post is to inquire why it isn't more popular in typology communities. It appears the Beebe and Berens models are far more popular and more widely discussed/referenced.

In all honesty, I think most systems derived from Jung are too static and rigid. Even Thomson's system has its drawbacks and weaknesses, but it's better than the other 16 type systems, at least in my opinion.

Jung's theory is very dynamic--it's his disciples and devotees who have largely corrupted it or turned it into an over-structured, inflexible, over-simplified mess

I agree its oversimplified these days, thomson brought interesting insights into it, talking now about Ni and Si I think they're similar in the sense that they both perceive stored data, even though they are perception functions they'll be more rigid than Ne and Se(where the environment is external and constantly changing)