MBTI Atypical. Lol.
Frankly, I'd bet money a lot of people are "atypical."
If you think he's Ni-Ti or Ti-Ni, that clearly implies Dom/Aux.
As to Singer and Loomis, they are two women who decided to test MBTI.
In a nutshell, the MBTI "assigned" function orders did not hold up.
No shocker there.
I'm talking out loud here, but, is there a way we could create a files and links section on this forum?
Our own "library," so to speak.
I went to look some of this up, but all the data on it is proprietary and expensive. The research and testing methodology they came up with looked sound, though. Addresses a few things I always thought were wrong with MBTI.
I have a feeling people still play with MBTI mostly because the material is freely accessible (as are the tests) for the most part. Better systems have probably been made (even from the same source), but they all cost money and can't be discussed or theorized about quite as openly.
read lenore thomson if you want to understand a good middle ground between jungian functions and the myers briggs code. it clarifies the purpose j/p add to jungian cognitive functions and prescribes a pattern of development/activation that occurs when a dominant function develops an auxilary function to balance it in terms of i/e and perceiving/judging (ie rational).
in other words, the functional development present in myers briggs is prescribed the way it is for a very good reason. that there are many variations and differences in articulation of expression seems like an irrelevant objection to me. i've identified w/ Ni and Ti more than any other functions for the majority of my life. understanding myers briggs and its articulation of the ramifications of such a lifestyle makes so much sense to me now. with all that said, the 4 letter code that best corresponds with mbti (which is AFTER jung's initial work) is infj. he's so much more Ni than Ne. he's way more Fe than Te. he's infj.
also, i've heard both lenore thomson and katherine briggs are infjs. tho i could see lenore thomson (solely based on the book) being an intj too.
1) Try to guess, based on my first message.
2) There's no seriously proved method of proving (~100% accuracy) for type. There is no even method with seriously proved high accuracy (> 80% for ex) of type identifing.