[Ni] MBTI must be destroyed.

[Mole]

For God's sake don't destroy mbti, rather keep it as an object lesson in false and damaging ideas that are enthusiastically spread by a global cult. And just as we don't destroy the idea that the Sun goes round the Earth, we should not destroy mbti.

 

[existence]

Meaning, I don't think one can (with the additional stuff I quoted) still envision that the MBTI foundation meant something so flexible as saying the functions stackings stuff is just a rough guideline, rather than rigidly in place.

Well everywhere it's presented as a rough guideline. A rough draft with some not fully-fleshed out ideas about the dominant/inferior and even less fully fleshed out ideas about the auxiliary/tertiary. Similar for Jung. If you want rigid in place, that's the Socionics model A. That one really clarifies the differences between the dominant and the demonstrative functions (which can be mistaken for each other in MBTI) and likewise between the inferior (called suggestive in Socionics) and the vulnerable functions. Then the differences between the dichotomy of Rationality/Irrationality and other factors where MBTI does not. And so on.

And to return back to the original point - you were saying that despite some people's claims, the NeTiFeSi (Grant model I think it's called) model is just one of many speculative ones and not actually all that empirical. I agree with that actually, but it's really in Socionics that they claim there is this great and clear model that at the same time is actually "officially" endorsed. (And funnily enough, there are alternative speculative models popping up in Socionics too.) MBTI's Grant model in comparison to that is really a lot less emphasized "officially". Somewhere between Jung and Socionics in terms of how strict the "official" function model is. So if any MBTI fan tries to claim the Grant model is the "official Right way", they are very much off. This was my point, I hope it's clear now.

 

[GavinElster]

MBTI's Grant model in comparison to that is really a lot less emphasized "officially". Somewhere between Jung and Socionics in terms of how strict the "official" function model is. So if any MBTI fan tries to claim the Grant model is the "official Right way", they are very much off. This was my point, I hope it's clear now.

I guess there are two "levels" of rigidity: one is on the level of whether they are clear which of the many models floating around that they adopt (and my understanding is top two function-attitudes alternating in attitude, a controversial idea) aren't really left for question in Gifts Differing+MBTI foundation -- the tertiary might be vaguer than the Grant model.
The next level is, indeed, socionics where they try to pin all the 8 down in definite roles and build an entire theory of type-interactions off that.

I find the first pretty unwarranted itself, personally, in that I think with these speculative models, it's bad form not to offer some conceptual justification for why you use them. I actually respect that more than claims that "it just seems to fit real life!" I mean, NONE of these models is empirically grounded, but you can at least motivate them conceptually.

When I read this:

Type is more than just the sum of the four preferences. The four-letter MBTI® type formula is a shorthand way of telling you about the interaction of your four mental functions and which ones you prefer to use first.

That feels to me pretty strongly like they're really saying "your dichotomies type is JUST an indicator to the functions type!" It's hard for me to interpret that as saying it's the main deal -- even if I agree socionics is much crazier in rigidity.

Dom/aux being claimed in alternating attitudes

For those who prefer Extraversion, the dominant function is extraverted because Extraverts use their favorite function (dominant) in their favorite world (the outer world.)

For those with a preference for Introversion, the dominant function is introverted, used in their inner world, and what they show to the outside is their auxiliary or second favorite function.

That seems definitive enough! Not like a suggestion, any more than the discussion of the dichotomies does.

Obviously I'm less definitive, but I don't claim the foundation supports me, sadly.

 

[GavinElster]

Perhaps I ought to add that Naomi Quenk, someone I think counts as having pretty high official affiliation, wrote extensively about the inferior function-attitudes (being the opposite to the dominant -- that is, extraverted thinking for introverted feeling doms), and this is also listed as the reference for the material on the fourth function on the mbti foundation site.

Basically, I think people who think the MBTI indicates to function types are going by a reasonable reading of source materials (Quenk, Myers, the mbti foundation); that doesn't mean these sources are right or the best perspective.

 

[existence]

I guess there are two "levels" of rigidity: one is on the level of whether they are clear which of the many models floating around that they adopt (and my understanding is top two function-attitudes alternating in attitude, a controversial idea) aren't really left for question in Gifts Differing+MBTI foundation -- the tertiary might be vaguer than the Grant model.
The next level is, indeed, socionics where they try to pin all the 8 down in definite roles and build an entire theory of type-interactions off that.

Yeah, levels of that. Btw, interestingly enough, I don't always see MBTI authors clarify the auxiliary's specific orientation (I or E). And yes, the treatment of the tertiary function gets even more vague.

I find the first pretty unwarranted itself, personally, in that I think with these speculative models, it's bad form not to offer some conceptual justification for why you use them. I actually respect that more than claims that "it just seems to fit real life!" I mean, NONE of these models is empirically grounded, but you can at least motivate them conceptually.

Yeah agreed.

When I read this:

Type is more than just the sum of the four preferences. The four-letter MBTI® type formula is a shorthand way of telling you about the interaction of your four mental functions and which ones you prefer to use first.

That feels to me pretty strongly like they're really saying "your dichotomies type is JUST an indicator to the functions type!" It's hard for me to interpret that as saying it's the main deal -- even if I agree socionics is much crazier in rigidity.

Yet they don't consistently go with this type based approach. So I find it hard to call that the default "official" approach. Again, probably because they could never build a test or any other - strict enough - empirical evidence for that function model.

Dom/aux being claimed in alternating attitudes

That seems definitive enough! Not like a suggestion, any more than the discussion of the dichotomies does.

Obviously I'm less definitive, but I don't claim the foundation supports me, sadly.

OK, out of curiosity, how much do you yourself define of these typology things in any solid way?

So, yes, definitive in that paragraph, but yet not used consistently.

Perhaps I ought to add that Naomi Quenk, someone I think counts as having pretty high official affiliation, wrote extensively about the inferior function-attitudes (being the opposite to the dominant -- that is, extraverted thinking for introverted feeling doms), and this is also listed as the reference for the material on the fourth function on the mbti foundation site.

Basically, I think people who think the MBTI indicates to function types are going by a reasonable reading of source materials (Quenk, Myers, the mbti foundation); that doesn't mean these sources are right or the best perspective.

Of course. Though, if we throw out the most basic jungian idea of the dominant/inferior dynamics then we have pretty much invalidated the whole point behind the existence of all these functions.

 

[VILLANELLE]

When I look too much into it, I think it should be destroyed, too. It's just a basis for understanding your cognitive functions, it's not a rulebook to be followed.

 

[Psyclepath]

In fairness, the model is so ambiguous it's really, really open to interpretation. I've been trying to find a way that I can get said model to make sense... that's not been any easy feat.

Structures of the model that people will give you are generally extremely simplistic and if you treat them in any rigid manner, you won't find an answer. I think it's largely because cognition is so abstract, it's really difficult to explain. When you start trying to explain it in a concrete way, you're giving the bigger picture to nobody and the workings of the model simply aren't being explained.

 

[GavinElster]

Yet they don't consistently go with this type based approach. So I find it hard to call that the default "official" approach. Again, probably because they could never build a test or any other - strict enough - empirical evidence for that function model.

Hmm, what do you mean they don't consistently go with it? I guess to me, making a statement that your test type indicates to functions on the MBTI foundation site more or less seals the deal!

They haven't implemented a separate test for the functions, but if you believe Myers' theory, you don't need one -- you can just take the official MBTI and get your functions type (modulo problems with the tertiary).

Apparently this comes from the MBTI manual, here http://www.csun.edu/~hcpsy002/INFJ.pdf and you can already see it's colored with the idea that INFJs are intuitive doms with auxiliary feeling.

I'm not going to say at all that the MBTI folks don't also respect the dichotomies/post tons of stats on them without always mentioning the functions next to them. However, they don't seem to view the two systems as different systems, so you more or less see both endorsed together as a whole, even if some pages are more dedicated to one or the other. This idea that one approach is validated and the other simply isn't just isn't one I've seen in literature anywhere close to official stuff.

The perspective that you should move away from the Jungian stuff seems to be in part due to certain Big 5 scientists, who showed you can interpret the MBTI scales in a Big 5 fashion, and laid criticism on both the Jungian interpretation and a strictly binary dichotomies view (in favor of a continuous dimensional view).

OK, out of curiosity, how much do you yourself define of these typology things in any solid way?

I have my preferred interpretation, compiled from reflection and studying lots of the conflicting systems, so I can say what I mean by everything, just won't pretend it is definitive, in that it might not fit certain people as well. However, this isn't a real bother, because at some level, you'll always find some organizations will fit some better than others. For example, maybe the MBTI T/F fits some better than its Big 5 counterpart, Agreeableness. Or, maybe someone's pronounced traits lie more in the combination of two scales than in an individual one. I think my current view is well-motivated and reasonable, and thus can be stated outright pretty clearly, but it's based on what dichotomies are conceptually most interesting (to me), not based on how the general populace tends to vary most frequently, for which the Big 5 ought to be deferred to.


Anyway, I guess the simplest way of summarizing what the overall position among the closely MBTI-affiliated crowd seems to be is that there's really no big conflict between the functions and the dichotomies, and that the dichotomies indicate to the functions type. It certainly isn't pro-functions anti-dichotomies, nor vice versa.

It's the pro-functions anti-dichotomies and pro-dichotomies anti-functions people who tend to disagree with this. The latter tend to a Big 5 interpretation, and the former tend to want to go more fanatically towards Jungian or socionics ideas.

 

[Fluffywolf]

MBTI isn't science, it doesn't claim to be.

On a personal level, what it can do is get you to recognize certain personality traits, understand them better and as such allow you to learn to focus your positive traits and work on improving or dealing with your negative ones.

A bit harder to do, but not impossible, is gaining the ability to understand other people better. This is a bit of a pitfall though. I've not seen people use MBTI very wisely when it comes to dealing with other people. Issues are glossed over and more often than not entirely ignored on the bases of it being something that 'can't be helped' or is because 'a certain cognative function or whatever'.

Being accepting of ones faults is all fine and dandy of course, but just because you know the root of an issue, doesn't mean you should entirely ignore the issue.

Ultimately, what you gain from MBTI however is pretty much entirely up to you.


The beauty of MBTI is that it allows for a specific amount of depth that is right in the sweet spot between <not enough information to be useful> and <too much information to be useful>.

/personal opinion.

A good example of not enough information to be useful is an IQ test. As there are many more layers to intelligence than the pure ability to process information quickly. It might be a good base to start with, I won't disagree there, but I will never label someone 'intelligent' or 'not intelligent' based on an IQ score alone. There are plenty of 100's IQ people that I think are more intelligent than 130+'s IQ people.

A good example of too much information to be useful are tritypes. There is literally nothing you gain by figuring this out, other than perhaps a headache for trying to.

/end personal opinion.

 

[existence]

In fairness, the model is so ambiguous it's really, really open to interpretation. I've been trying to find a way that I can get said model to make sense... that's not been any easy feat.

You mean you were trying to operationalize it?

Structures of the model that people will give you are generally extremely simplistic and if you treat them in any rigid manner, you won't find an answer. I think it's largely because cognition is so abstract, it's really difficult to explain. When you start trying to explain it in a concrete way, you're giving the bigger picture to nobody and the workings of the model simply aren't being explained.

I don't see how explaining in a concrete way would be against explaining the workings of a good model. One where all aspects can be operationalized.

Hmm, what do you mean they don't consistently go with it? I guess to me, making a statement that your test type indicates to functions on the MBTI foundation site more or less seals the deal!

In practice they don't as far as I've seen.

They haven't implemented a separate test for the functions, but if you believe Myers' theory, you don't need one -- you can just take the official MBTI and get your functions type (modulo problems with the tertiary).

If you believe it. Without evidence. The conceptualization itself has errors in it anyway.

Apparently this comes from the MBTI manual, here http://www.csun.edu/~hcpsy002/INFJ.pdf and you can already see it's colored with the idea that INFJs are intuitive doms with auxiliary feeling.

Yeah I saw those, but it's exactly an example of how there is hardly any real use of the function model. At best those type descriptions are "coloured" with the idea as you put it.

I'm not going to say at all that the MBTI folks don't also respect the dichotomies/post tons of stats on them without always mentioning the functions next to them. However, they don't seem to view the two systems as different systems, so you more or less see both endorsed together as a whole, even if some pages are more dedicated to one or the other. This idea that one approach is validated and the other simply isn't just isn't one I've seen in literature anywhere close to official stuff.

There are studies online that do not validate the Grant function model.

There is also probably a reason for MBTI making the move to Step II and further stuff in that direction (as planned, afaik) instead of the functions model.

Anyway, I guess the simplest way of summarizing what the overall position among the closely MBTI-affiliated crowd seems to be is that there's really no big conflict between the functions and the dichotomies, and that the dichotomies indicate to the functions type. It certainly isn't pro-functions anti-dichotomies, nor vice versa.

I'd say it's pro-dichotomies and somewhat between pro and neutral on functions.

The beauty of MBTI is that it allows for a specific amount of depth that is right in the sweet spot between <not enough information to be useful> and <too much information to be useful>.

/personal opinion.

That certainly is personal opinion. I find systems with more depth more useful personally, so for me MBTI is closer to "not enough information to be useful". Though it's not terrible.

A good example of not enough information to be useful is an IQ test. As there are many more layers to intelligence than the pure ability to process information quickly. It might be a good base to start with, I won't disagree there, but I will never label someone 'intelligent' or 'not intelligent' based on an IQ score alone. There are plenty of 100's IQ people that I think are more intelligent than 130+'s IQ people.

Out of curiosity, what's an actual example of such a 100 IQ person that's more intelligent than 130+'s IQ people in your view?

A good example of too much information to be useful are tritypes. There is literally nothing you gain by figuring this out, other than perhaps a headache for trying to.

Hahaha right.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Out of curiosity, what's an actual example of such a 100 IQ person that's more intelligent than 130+'s IQ people in your view?

Ambition, effort, education, etc.

There are plenty of facets people can have or lack, that can influence intelligence beyond what IQ is capable of measuring.

 

[Mole]

There are three levels of learning. In the first we learn the mechanics such as reading and writing. In the second we learn the manners and mores. And in the third we learn to think critically.

Mbti operates at the second level. Mbti does not touch the third level.

 

[existence]

Ambition, effort, education, etc.

Ah, well those things are definitely important.

 

[GavinElster]

Yeah I saw those, but it's exactly an example of how there is hardly any real use of the function model. At best those type descriptions are "coloured" with the idea as you put it.

I think there's a mix of sources like this and others, like the MBTI foundation site that expressly endorses type dynamics, or Quenk's writings, or Myers' own Gifts Differing. As far as I can see, Quenk, as someone who has, I think, been involved with things like the MBTI manual, is pretty emphatically pro-functions.

I think my perspective is that it does not matter exaaaactly how tainted with outdated ideas these sources are, as we can always, as aware users, we can choose to affiliate with either side -- more Jungian or more modernized (or both in different ways). It never mattered to me too much what the "official" position is anyway.

 

[Psyclepath]

You mean you were trying to operationalize it?

I don't see how explaining in a concrete way would be against explaining the workings of a good model. One where all aspects can be operationalized.

Yes; all 16 types are connected in a matrix. Socionics makes that very clear, with the premise of intertype relations. If they weren't in some kind of matrix, many people could be at least 2, or even 3 types. Any model that doesn't use all 8 functions with each type can, by my assessment be deemed inviable: as everyone will come into contact with the 8 functions even if the individual would not use all of them in their own free will.

And perhaps you're right - a concrete explanation of the workings of the model is not impossible, however it requires having no misconceptions. And unfortunately, if I don't misconceive the model someone else very likely will. There's a kind of gut feeling for me that the model is workable, which I have to trust.

On a vaguely relevant tangent: I hate things that are perfect. There's no way you can add your own spin on anything. I remember seeing clips of Seinfeld, which someone had proposed was the ultimate Ne show: the problem is that all the implications Ne enjoys observing get highlighted for the watcher, making it near impossible to effectively implement the function while watching it.

 

[existence]

I think there's a mix of sources like this and others, like the MBTI foundation site that expressly endorses type dynamics, or Quenk's writings, or Myers' own Gifts Differing. As far as I can see, Quenk, as someone who has, I think, been involved with things like the MBTI manual, is pretty emphatically pro-functions.

I think my perspective is that it does not matter exaaaactly how tainted with outdated ideas these sources are, as we can always, as aware users, we can choose to affiliate with either side -- more Jungian or more modernized (or both in different ways). It never mattered to me too much what the "official" position is anyway.

Quenk is one of the vague ones as far as I saw (I went through one book of hers about inferior function issues). She does discuss the dominant and inferior functions but only those two beyond sporadic mentions of the auxiliary without an I/E orientation, and again, it's done in an incredibly vague way, hardly well-defined whether the things she writes about are really about the inferior function or something else. Not what I call a proper function model. So yes she does make a bit more use of the functions than the MBTI Manual link you had but eh, it's still on the level of "coloured with".

Yes; all 16 types are connected in a matrix. Socionics makes that very clear, with the premise of intertype relations. If they weren't in some kind of matrix, many people could be at least 2, or even 3 types. Any model that doesn't use all 8 functions with each type can, by my assessment be deemed inviable: as everyone will come into contact with the 8 functions even if the individual would not use all of them in their own free will.

Yeah, we all have all the functions, whatever they are.

And perhaps you're right - a concrete explanation of the workings of the model is not impossible, however it requires having no misconceptions. And unfortunately, if I don't misconceive the model someone else very likely will. There's a kind of gut feeling for me that the model is workable, which I have to trust.

Misconceptions?

 

[GavinElster]

Quenk is one of the vague ones as far as I saw (I went through one book of hers about inferior function issues). She does discuss the dominant and inferior functions but only those two beyond sporadic mentions of the auxiliary without an I/E orientation, and again, it's done in an incredibly vague way, hardly well-defined whether the things she writes about are really about the inferior function or something else. Not what I call a proper function model. So yes she does make a bit more use of the functions than the MBTI Manual link you had but eh, it's still on the level of "coloured with".

I think if you're saying the discussion of functions theory is vague compared to say, Jung's theory, in the sense that the theory isn't very substantially developed outside him, yes that's true. I take it the point here is that Myers/later MBTI-ers basically know that the main thing the MBTI contributes that Jung didn't is in the form of the test/data.

I'd say it's not vague what the attitudes of the dom/aux are+what the inferior function is, and type dynamics is clearly endorsed -- just not developed extensively as in Jung. By that token, technically Jung was not very clear presenting functions in "stackings" form, although I don't think there's room to dispute what he thought the attitudes most likely are once you dig hard enough. But he did write extensively on the definitions/conceptions of things in that sphere, in a way I'd agree no official MBTI source seems to come close to doing.

 

[existence]

I think if you're saying the discussion of functions theory is vague compared to say, Jung's theory, in the sense that the theory isn't very substantially developed outside him, yes that's true. I take it the point here is that Myers/later MBTI-ers basically know that the main thing the MBTI contributes that Jung didn't is in the form of the test/data.

I'd say it's not vague what the attitudes of the dom/aux are+what the inferior function is, and type dynamics is clearly endorsed -- just not developed extensively as in Jung. By that token, technically Jung was not very clear presenting functions in "stackings" form, although I don't think there's room to dispute what he thought the attitudes most likely are once you dig hard enough. But he did write extensively on the definitions/conceptions of things in that sphere, in a way I'd agree no official MBTI source seems to come close to doing.

I'll repeat my original point in the hope that it will be clear now: if any MBTI fan tries to claim the Grant model is the "official Right way", they are very much off. It's nowhere as a clear-cut model as that. See what I was saying? I don't think I'm going to repeat myself on this, really not seeing what you are trying to get at.

I also said that they are more into the direction set by MBTI Step II now. Have you heard about that at all?

By the way, as for Jung, his work is most often interpreted as the auxiliary having the same I/E attitude as the dominant.


Btw, you said this earlier:

That she actually took the trouble to say that P/J tells you whether you "use Ji or Pi"/"use Je or Pe" -- that is, actually build her own theoretical assumptions about functions theory into her interpretation of the dichotomies, suggests to me that the problem is very deeprooted.

I actually see it the other way around. The dichotomy definitions are what the function definitions are built from, both in Jung's and in MBTI's theory, and in MBTI's version, the conceptualizing of the J/P dichotomy leads to different function definitions than with Jung. It's a deeprooted problem that way for people who care at all about functions, yes. But it's only the dichotomies that have empirical support anyway.

 

[GavinElster]

See what I was saying? I don't think I'm going to repeat myself on this, really not seeing what you are trying to get at.

Honestly, I believe I should be asking you that question: I EXPRESSLY made reference earlier that Myers seems to leave vaguer what the attitude of the tertiary is/I don't see any evidence of it being stated as same as the dominant, nor does the MBTI foundation, so that proves neither endorses the Grant model, so I'm not sure why you are trying to tell me that. That does not imply they don't endorse with zero ambiguity that the dom and aux are in opposite attitudes, which is extremely specific a claim, and thus only a tad less rigid than endorsing the Grant model.

Anyone claiming that is the "official position" seems like he/she would be well within reason. I mean, sure in some pages -- like that profile description -- they mention the functions in a very vague way, but the MBTI foundation has whole pages on type dynamics and their views on it...even if they presented the dichotomies as more important, I think it's very safe to say that someone who is a hardcore empiricist, for instance into the Big 5, would rightfully say the MBTI still associates with not particularly data driven methods enough that it's worth worrying about for a hardcore empiricist.

What is not in question is that there IS a purely Big 5-ish fully data-driven interpretation of the MBTI for those who want it -- it's just not the one you'd get from visiting the MBTI foundation.



What I'm getting at is that I am not sure why it's consequential just how much the MBTI foundation or other such sources endorse the functions, because the fact that they DO endorse them unambiguously, even if not enthusiastically in your view maybe, gives an opening for functions-enthusiasts to say the MBTI is indicating to cognitive functions, matter closed. The fact is that well-respected empirical psychology sources like Big 5 psychologists McCrae and Costa criticize the Jungian-functions associations made with the MBTI, and that's because the bottom line is very non-data-driven things are endorsed on the MBTI foundation site.

I just can't endorse the idea that someone would think of mostly abandoning the functions from reading official MBTI sources or Gifts Differing....certainly someone reading those sources would think to take the dichotomies seriously, but I'd think they'd get the impression you should look into both. I can see someone coming to the abandon-the-functions conclusion (if a hardcore empiricist) from studying the Big 5 connections with the MBTI, and deciding they don't need the Jungian functions theory and it's a red herring, because there's a fully data driven interpretation waiting to be exploited.

By the way, as for Jung, his work is most often interpreted as the auxiliary having the same I/E attitude as the dominant.

Of course, and search my posts on this site and I've extensively explained that. And that's WHY the claim that the dom/aux are in opposite attitudes is so controversial, and short of a proof it follows from the data, should NOT be endorsed by Myers or the MBTI foundation if indeed they are going by the test, not their own non-data-driven interpretations of it.

Not only am I familiar with all this, I provide an express example from Ch. III of Psychological Types where Jung types Nietzsche as a NiTi type.

Have you heard about that at all?

Sure, I know about the Step II/the facets. That is a move in the right direction as far as empirical psychology is concerned, because it reduces the case that they're thinking in terms of "strict dichotomies."

 

[Mask Off]

MBTI is definitely an incomplete system. As said by user Fluffywolf, it isn't science, and doesn't claim to be.

I don't think it should be destroyed, but taken as a start for a new thing. It been several months I'm wondering why no new similar, upgraded system hasn't been created.