User Tag List

Results 1 to 10 of 10

  1. #1
    Senior Member Ilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    274

    Default So which function descriptions do you go with?

    I have noticed that the various books, websites, people posting on the site have different descriptions about what each function is like. Some vary a little, some vary a lot. Some emphasize different things.

    I would like to include any description of the functions, MBTI, socionics and variations on these theories of personality.

    Some of these are compatable for me. By this I mean I would rate myself as consistently high (or low) in function by according to all the descriptions.

    Some of these are not compatable for me. By this I mean I would rate myself as high in a function according to some of the descriptions, but low in the same function according to other descriptions.

    I'm not really sure which way to go with the contradictions.

    I also am not sure how to interpret a desciption that kind of fits me. For example if it lists 5 things that describe Si and 3 fit me and 2 don't. Does that mean I am average? Are some parts of it more important than others?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Delphyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    144

    Default

    I try to grasp the pattern behind the description. Itīs not important if I can identify with each sentence, the overall pattern is what matters to me. There are some descriptions which are superficial and I canīt dive into them. Then there are others to which Iīm drawn to. Lenore Thomsonīs description of the introverted feeling and the INFP has some things which are really spot on.

  3. #3
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilah View Post
    I have noticed that the various books, websites, people posting on the site have different descriptions about what each function is like. Some vary a little, some vary a lot. Some emphasize different things.

    I would like to include any description of the functions, MBTI, socionics and variations on these theories of personality.

    Some of these are compatable for me. By this I mean I would rate myself as consistently high (or low) in function by according to all the descriptions.

    Some of these are not compatable for me. By this I mean I would rate myself as high in a function according to some of the descriptions, but low in the same function according to other descriptions.

    I'm not really sure which way to go with the contradictions.

    I also am not sure how to interpret a desciption that kind of fits me. For example if it lists 5 things that describe Si and 3 fit me and 2 don't. Does that mean I am average? Are some parts of it more important than others?
    I understand completely, and I think it makes a difference which descriptions you use. You might be one type according to one description, and another according to another.

    I personally think these are the best ones.

    Most people seem to use these, however. I used to as well.

    I don't agree with the above poster that you can just grasp the same overall pattern from all the descriptions, because some of them point to different patterns. People seem to rely too much on their experiences and assumptions about it.

  4. #4
    Earth Exalted Thursday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LIE
    Posts
    3,965
    I N V I C T U S

  5. #5
    Senior Member Ilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    274

    Default

    A related thought. Do you go for descriptions that reinforce what you think of yourself or are you open to other interpretations.

    For example, if you found a description of your dominant or secondary trait that did not sound like you, do you assume it must be a bad description or do you concider that you might have choosen wrong?

    If you found a description of something that is supposed to be one of your weakest traits - 7th or 8th - and it fit you, do you assume it is a bad description or do you question whether the 3 - 8 function order is correct?

    Do you assume that the description(s) that correspond most closely with the official order of your MBTI traits is the correct one?

  6. #6
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilah View Post
    A related thought. Do you go for descriptions that reinforce what you think of yourself or are you open to other interpretations.

    For example, if you found a description of your dominant or secondary trait that did not sound like you, do you assume it must be a bad description or do you concider that you might have choosen wrong?

    If you found a description of something that is supposed to be one of your weakest traits - 7th or 8th - and it fit you, do you assume it is a bad description or do you question whether the 3 - 8 function order is correct?

    Do you assume that the description(s) that correspond most closely with the official order of your MBTI traits is the correct one?
    Well, I used to do that, but lately I've started thinking of it another way. Different descriptions aren't necessarily right or wrong, they're just different. Meaning that I might be a different type according to one set of descriptions than I am according to another. Different standards, different results.

  7. #7
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilah View Post
    I have noticed that the various books, websites, people posting on the site have different descriptions about what each function is like. Some vary a little, some vary a lot. Some emphasize different things.

    I also am not sure how to interpret a desciption that kind of fits me. For example if it lists 5 things that describe Si and 3 fit me and 2 don't. Does that mean I am average? Are some parts of it more important than others?
    People have listed the varied descriptions of functions. Personally I like Berens/Nardi’s descriptions in their booklet ”Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the Personality Type Code” because they provide functional samples of each type. It was one reason that I was able to confirm that I use Se, thus finally determining my best fit type. Others have provided other examples, however I went straight to the horses mouth and started reading Jung’s work to prevent the biasness and interpretations of others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilah View Post
    A related thought. Do you go for descriptions that reinforce what you think of yourself or are you open to other interpretations.

    For example, if you found a description of your dominant or secondary trait that did not sound like you, do you assume it must be a bad description or do you concider that you might have choosen wrong?

    If you found a description of something that is supposed to be one of your weakest traits - 7th or 8th - and it fit you, do you assume it is a bad description or do you question whether the 3 - 8 function order is correct?

    Do you assume that the description(s) that correspond most closely with the official order of your MBTI traits is the correct one?
    Good questions. I think the average introverted type does over interpret and Ti dominant types dangerously become subjective in wanting the description to fit their view of things. I say dangerous because Ti dominant types delude themselves in being objective when they’re as subjective as the other introverted types. In the end, although Jung does not dismiss that we use all eight functions, he was primarily interested in the dominant and auxiliary functions, merely notes that your weakest function will be the opposite in function and attitude of your primary or dominant function. After that it’s a free-for-all which functions can and cannot be developed.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Delphyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    I don't agree with the above poster that you can just grasp the same overall pattern from all the descriptions, because some of them point to different patterns. People seem to rely too much on their experiences and assumptions about it.
    Your descriptions are very short, there are only a few sentences. I agree that it would be hard to grasp the overall pattern if you only rely on a lot of these sketchy descriptions. The Fi description of Lenore Thomson is 25 pages long and her description of an INFP has 8 pages. Naomi Quenk descripes the grip experiences of Fi on 23 pages. Thatīs a lot more information.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Delphyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilah View Post
    Do you assume that the description(s) that correspond most closely with the official order of your MBTI traits is the correct one?
    Some people seem to think that the order of the functions is based on oneīs skill to use them in an effective way. But it makes more sense to me that the dominant function reflects oneīs approach to life. The secondary is the one which broadens your perspective, whereas the last (inferior) function is the opposite of your dominant function and therefore your approach to life.
    If I arrange something alphabetically Iīm using Te, but I donīt see life in a clear impersonal structured Te way. Te is my opposite and therefore my last function which erupts from time to time. I also donīt feel very comfortable with the Si approach nor the Fe approach.

    My function order:
    dominant Fi
    secondary Ne
    right-brain alternatives Ti and Se
    left-brain double-agents Ni and Fe
    tertiary Si
    inferior Te

  10. #10
    Senior Member "?"'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    TiSe
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delphyne View Post
    Some people seem to think that the order of the functions is based on oneīs skill to use them in an effective way. But it makes more sense to me that the dominant function reflects oneīs approach to life. The secondary is the one which broadens your perspective, whereas the last (inferior) function is the opposite of your dominant function and therefore your approach to life.
    If I arrange something alphabetically Iīm using Te, but I donīt see life in a clear impersonal structured Te way. Te is my opposite and therefore my last function which erupts from time to time. I also donīt feel very comfortable with the Si approach nor the Fe approach.

    My function order:
    dominant Fi
    secondary Ne
    right-brain alternatives Ti and Se
    left-brain double-agents Ni and Fe
    tertiary Si
    inferior Te
    So you basically prescribe to Lenore Thomson's lasagna theory. It's a good theory and realistic with the reasons that types are not as different in real life as they are in theory.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 04-05-2016, 08:17 AM
  2. With which TypoC member do you most associate each type?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: 05-16-2015, 01:49 PM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-17-2014, 12:49 PM
  4. Which kind of function use do you think this might be?
    By Halfjillhalfjack in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-19-2009, 09:28 AM
  5. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 03-03-2009, 02:28 AM

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