What type is House?

[Usehername]

I just saw the season opener. He wants / needs an audience. He hates that he needs them, but he needs them.

I would argue that this is simply any NT seeking to be seen as a genius and competent at what they do.

Can any NTs argue that this isn't the case for them, intraverted or extraverted, J or P?

 

[ptgatsby]

okay let me think of an example question:

you adhere to social norms while interacting with people:
1) most of the time
2) not really

an mbti test would score you as an F if you answered 1.

but Fi does not care about social norms, only Fe does.

so an INFP or something would say 2 and get scored as a T

An MBTI test does not determine attitude for based upon F answers (this would not be a F question - the divide you speak of is because it would be based on J/P and/or S/N)... and again, the questions have been validated for being sufficiently far apart the midpoint in preferences to avoid exactly this kind of fuzzy situation (because social norms are not F based to start with - the illusion of such a stance comes from them being a part of empathy and general agreeableness, not wishing to rock the boat - this was tested for specifically by creating pools of behaviours... a question that is not valid is eliminated from the test). Again, assigning behaviour directly to functions did not work - that's why MBTI created the E/I hierarchy and the J/P attitude factors and the associated questions with them. Even using a matrix of answers (Ti/Te/Fi/Fe) proved unreliable.

Now, one can disagree with MBTI or how it operates - that I understand. But it does determine attitude and hierarchy - one doesn't call House an ENTP if you don't agree with MBTI, merely Ne-Ti... MBTI created the E/I and J/P divide to sort attitude and hierarchy. To be a "P", you need to have been sorted through MBTI. By saying "ENTP", you are saying "MBTI sorting says his functions are Ne-Ti through their test".

Just because it gets it right a lot of the time, doesn't mean that a person can't do better.

How is this an argument? A theoretical person can type functions hidden in someone's mind, so I'm going to ignore a validated and fully investegated method that doesn't agree with me...?

Functions and types are the same thing. The only thing in question is how one determines what the functions are. On one hand you say you know and its possible to know if you know what to look for - on the other, you have an inventory test that has tried to know what to look for through some 60 years of research and a good 15 or so years of far more stringent scientific validation.


(How did I become the one to defend MBTI? Egad. I'm washing my hands of this whole thing. I'm suppose to be the critic of MBTI here! Gah.)

 

[redacted]

give me a test you think is reliable. i'll look through it and find a better example of what i'm talking about.

you know mbti was created AFTER function theory right?

 

[redacted]

"one doesn't call House an ENTP if you don't agree with MBTI"

i see your perspective. we just have different definitions of mbti. i think of mbti as an abbreviation of your first and second most used function. you think of mbti as 4 entirely separate binary oppositions. that's what this whole argument is about.

so, we're both right.

my opinion, though, is that your mbti is much less accurate. function theory can account for many things that your mbti can't.

 

[ptgatsby]

give me a test you think is reliable. i'll look through it and find a better example of what i'm talking about.

Any Step II test would do (ideally form G) - unfortunately, they are under copyright and so they aren't widely available. If you curious what the real test is, you also have to go through a certified group (they have a clinician follow up to ensure type and interpret the data for you). There are lots around that you can do on the web, if you pay (here.

you know mbti was created AFTER function theory right?

I wrote the history out in response to you just a dozen or so message above, so I'm somewhat aware of it, yes.

my opinion, though, is that your mbti is much less accurate. function theory can account for many things that your mbti can't.

Ok, that's it - I'm really out of this thread. I don't normally get involved in the MBTI discussions - and certainly not from this side of the fence... I can't defend something I don't agree with just because I disagree with something else even more. And it's worthy of it's own thread (and this is where bluewing, athenian and rivercrow are needed, not me.)

 

[redacted]

aw.....don't leave this discussion. i really want to show you my viewpoint. (i'm NFJ; it's not about winning, it's about helping you get more accurate info.)

can you think of a test that doesn't cost money i can look through?

p.s. i'm not even disagreeing with you; i just want you to see the same flaw in mbti that i saw when i started looking at function theory.

 

[Nonpareil]

aw.....don't leave this discussion. i really want to show you my viewpoint. (i'm NFJ; it's not about winning, it's about helping you get more accurate info.)

You don't need to worry about that, pt knows how to get accurate info probably better than most people in the world. You're new here so you don't know yet. Pt is the info guy, he knows a lot and researches a lot.

Personally, I will trust what he has to say because I have seen him in action. But that may be a bias statement...

can you think of a test that doesn't cost money i can look through?

A test that doesn't cost money will not be able to prove his point. The reason he argues the way he does is because of all the information he knows. He has seen good tests in action but like he said, it will cost money to look through such a test. He is the seeker of information and that is why he believes what he does.

p.s. i'm not even disagreeing with you; i just want you to see the same flaw in mbti that i saw when i started looking at function theory.

Personally, I think the flaw you see in mbti is from your lack in information. Since you haven't seen the true test to mbti and you definately haven't seen it applied properly, you can not assume it's flawed based on bad mbti tests.

I don't understand function theory and many people have tried explaining it to me. From my standpoint, I see many flaws in it and it is less accurate than mbti. If you really can take that step back and see things for more than what you think it is, you will see the superiority in mbti over function theory. That is what I have learned through observation and what I gathered after a particular few have tried explaining functions to me.

P.S. Oh, and welcome to mbtic! :hi:

 

[redacted]

Personally, I think the flaw you see in mbti is from your lack in information. Since you haven't seen the true test to mbti and you definately haven't seen it applied properly, you can not assume it's flawed based on bad mbti tests.

I don't understand function theory and many people have tried explaining it to me. From my standpoint, I see many flaws in it and it is less accurate than mbti. If you really can take that step back and see things for more than what you think it is, you will see the superiority in mbti over function theory. That is what I have learned through observation and what I gathered after a particular few have tried explaining functions to me.

P.S. Oh, and welcome to mbtic! :hi:

first of all, i've been studying/researching/talking about/analyzing mbti for about 2 years (i've been COMPLETELY OBSESSED), and i didn't know anything about functions until about 6 months ago. so i don't think i lack very much information. it's true that i've never paid for a test, but that's because i think self-analysis and study is more accurate.

secondly, "you definately haven't seen it applied properly" is completely untrue and unfounded. unless you want to argue that my 18 months of research were worthless :-/

third, you start your last paragraph with "I don't understand function theory" and go on to say "From my standpoint, I see many flaws in it and it is less accurate than mbti." and "If you really can take that step back and see things for more than what you think it is, you will see the superiority in mbti over function theory." if you don't understand the theory, why are you drawing such strong conclusions about it?


my point is this: i've studied mbti AND function theory. and i understand BOTH of them.

MBTI cannot differentiate between the N and F in xNFPs and xNFJs even though they are completely different. MBTI says xNFPs and xNFJs ONLY differ in the J vs. P spectrum.

in function theory, which is what the mbti was originally based on, the kind of intuition and the kind of feeling that NFPs and NFJs use are different. this allows for a more accurate interpretation of cognitive functioning (not the jungian functions, but the more abstract concept).

my qualm with mbti isn't a problem with the tests. its a problem with the application. mbti implies that an ENTP and an ENTJ are just as similar as an ENTP and an ENFP. this is NOT the case. ENTP and ENFP are much much more closely related than ENTP and ENTJ.

you have to understand that mbti is an oversimplification of function theory, not vice versa. you can deduce mbti type from order of cognitive functions, but you cannot deduce function order from mbti alone.


i really don't mean to come across as an asshole, but i can't help defending my stance.

 

[ptgatsby]

you have to understand that mbti is an oversimplification of function theory, not vice versa. you can deduce mbti type from order of cognitive functions, but you cannot deduce function order from mbti alone.

This is technically incorrect. MBTI tests the main two dimensions (S/N and F/T). J/P determines attitude (i/e) and E/I determines which attitude is dominant in the hierarchy.

ie:

INTP -> N, T (+P) -> Ne, Ti (+I) -> Ti-Ne(-Sx-Fe)
ESFJ -> S, F (+J) -> Si, Fe (+E) -> Fe-Si(-Nx-Ti)

The behaviours expressed in J/P are suppose to determine if the rational function is extroverted or introvered (and the irrational) through questions that extraverted rationals have - likewise for E/I, to see if they are predominantly outwardly focused or not.

 

[redacted]

i see what you're saying. but we have different definitions of introverted and extroverted functions. take, for example, Se and Si:

your definition says for an Si person, their sensing is focused inward. what does this mean? i'll assume it means they sense things about themselves/their inner world. (correct me if i'm wrong).

but in function theory, Si is defined completely differently. Si is a storehouse of past sensory information. it's basically a hard drive. so, in function theory, if you're Si-ing, you're looking at past experiences you've had.

Se (in function theory) would more accurately correlate to the Si where you're sensing things about yourself. Se is basically seeing details about the current moment in time. So if you're feeling a certain way, Se will focus on the details of that feeling.


so i'm not incorrect. i'm incorrect based on your definitions, true. but that's not function theory.

 

[Nonpareil]

i really don't mean to come across as an asshole, but i can't help defending my stance.

Defend away.

You are free to think the way you do. But from someone who isn't obsessed with neither and doesn't understand it as much: what you say makes no sense. Looking at it from a child's point of view, it doesn't seem to describe people accurately.

I'm not saying your 18 months of research is worthless but I am saying it's not complete - our understanding of the human mind will probably never be complete. 18 months is not a long time in terms of researching something as complex as the human mind. I would say 18 years is not even enough time. You are basing what you believe on things you read, how long have you spent actually studying people - their beliefs, their experiences and how it relates to their actions?

I'm not trying to attack your beliefs, I'm just saying, from a more niave and objective standpoint, what you say still makes no sense to me - it lacks scientific backing. It's not that scientific backing is all there is, but MBTI found four personality traits that I can see in everyday life. I can't see how functions represents the behaviours I see in everyday life. It may say how people are suppose to think but it doesn't help me see how they behave. I think there is more to the human mind than mbti says (let alone functions), people just can't be broken down as easily. Life/past/present experiences, trauma, and social encounters all affect how one would react/think in life. I do not believe that functions or mbti can explain the cognitive behaviour of our minds that easily.

 

[ptgatsby]

i see what you're saying. but we have different definitions of introverted and extroverted functions. take, for example, Se and Si:

your definition says for an Si person, their sensing is focused inward. what does this mean? i'll assume it means they sense things about themselves/their inner world. (correct me if i'm wrong).

but in function theory, Si is defined completely differently. Si is a storehouse of past sensory information. it's basically a hard drive. so, in function theory, if you're Si-ing, you're looking at past experiences you've had.

Se (in function theory) would more accurately correlate to the Si where you're sensing things about yourself. Se is basically seeing details about the current moment in time. So if you're feeling a certain way, Se will focus on the details of that feeling.


so i'm not incorrect. i'm incorrect based on your definitions, true. but that's not function theory.

MBTI uses the same functional history as the functional theory that you are using... although there are some differences between Jungian and MBTI views, just as there are differences from Socionics and Jungian views (mostly on hierarchies though). MBTI is just meant to find the order of functions - the definitions are more or less the same. (That is, as best as they can be defined - they are pretty hard to define in the first place, not having any physical representations.)

 

[Nocapszy]

This is technically incorrect. MBTI tests the main two dimensions (S/N and F/T). J/P determines attitude (i/e) and E/I determines which attitude is dominant in the hierarchy.

ie:

INTP -> N, T (+P) -> Ne, Ti (+I) -> Ti-Ne(-Sx-Fe)
ESFJ -> S, F (+J) -> Si, Fe (+E) -> Fe-Si(-Nx-Ti)

Right/

The behaviours expressed in J/P are suppose to determine if the rational function is extroverted or introvered (and the irrational) through questions that extraverted rationals have - likewise for E/I, to see if they are predominantly outwardly focused or not.

Oh and again. You know the theory according to the book. GG son.

The application makes no sense though. Dissonance is right, in that.

This is only correct according to what MBTI claims to do. Actually what you said is probably verbatim from the mission statement.

Here's the problem: With

The behaviours expressed in J/P are suppose to determine if the rational function is extroverted or introvered

We notice that it tells if THE rational function is extraverted or otherwise. But wait... Oh! There are TWO rational functions. And since serve opposing purposes, having a question that asks ONLY about whether the rational function is extraverted is meaningless, unless they can ask questions specific to either Feeling or Thinking. Instead though, they have that in a completely separate question. One that ignores the attitude of the rational function. If the question puts a mark for the thinking side but it calls for Ti, but the person normally employs Te, they're going to answer no. This will cause them to lose a thinking point, when they would have otherwise deserved it. The same takes place with the J and P scale.

If we have a question asking if someone uses Fe, but they use Te, the obvious answer is no, and they get a P point, even though they're using Te, which is implicative of a J.

It's impossible to measure how extraverted or introverted someone's rational function is without figuring out first what rational function they use. Conversely, you will be hard pressed to get an accurate measurement of the correct rational function without first determining the attitude of the function...

Unless... Eureka! We could COMBINE them and ask function specific questions! This way we figure out if someone favors Te or Ti, Fe or Te, Ti or Fi etc. The same applies with the perception axis.

On depends on the other, which is why it makes so little sense to separate the questions.

 

[redacted]

Right/

Oh and again. You know the theory according to the book. GG son.

The application makes no sense though. Dissonance is right, in that.

This is only correct according to what MBTI claims to do. Actually what you said is probably verbatim from the mission statement.

Here's the problem: With We notice that it tells if THE rational function is extraverted or otherwise. But wait... Oh! There are TWO rational functions. And since serve opposing purposes, having a question that asks ONLY about whether the rational function is extraverted is meaningless, unless they can ask questions specific to either Feeling or Thinking. Instead though, they have that in a completely separate question. One that ignores the attitude of the rational function. If the question puts a mark for the thinking side but it calls for Ti, but the person normally employs Te, they're going to answer no. This will cause them to lose a thinking point, when they would have otherwise deserved it. The same takes place with the J and P scale.

If we have a question asking if someone uses Fe, but they use Te, the obvious answer is no, and they get a P point, even though they're using Te, which is implicative of a J.

It's impossible to measure how extraverted or introverted someone's rational function is without figuring out first what rational function they use. Conversely, you will be hard pressed to get an accurate measurement of the correct rational function without first determining the attitude of the function...

Unless... Eureka! We could COMBINE them and ask function specific questions! This way we figure out if someone favors Te or Ti, Fe or Te, Ti or Fi etc. The same applies with the perception axis.

On depends on the other, which is why it makes so little sense to separate the questions.

thanks. why aren't you on AIM?

 

[Nocapszy]

Defend away.

You are free to think the way you do. But from someone who isn't obsessed with neither and doesn't understand it as much: what you say makes no sense. Looking at it from a child's point of view, it doesn't seem to describe people accurately.

Perhaps only because you haven't gathered enough information. It's a double edged sword isn't it? MBTI and function theories are extremely complex, and unfortunately, depend heavily on semantics.

It's not intended to inform children anyway. It's supposed to be as accurate as possible, which means most likely that most adults will never even get it.

 

[Nocapszy]

thanks. why aren't you on AIM?

Sshh you'll blow our cover.

 

[Nocapszy]

MBTI uses the same functional history as the functional theory that you are using... although there are some differences between Jungian and MBTI views, just as there are differences from Socionics and Jungian views (mostly on hierarchies though). MBTI is just meant to find the order of functions - the definitions are more or less the same. (That is, as best as they can be defined - they are pretty hard to define in the first place, not having any physical representations.)

I was under the impression that they were exactly the same, but that MBTI was just used as an INDICATOR of what functions you MIGHT use.

 

[redacted]

You are basing what you believe on things you read, how long have you spent actually studying people - their beliefs, their experiences and how it relates to their actions?

i basically spend every second i'm with people trying to refine my views on personality. i observe behavior all day every day.

also, i'm an INFJ, and have a pretty good intuitive sense of people's motivations. Ni + Fe is good at that.

 

[Nocapszy]

I was under the impression that they were exactly the same, but that MBTI was just used as an INDICATOR of what functions you MIGHT use.

That is to say, tested for validity or not, it knows it can be wrong, which is a direct result of either people lying on the test to get the results they want or that they screwed up in structuring the questions, and the questions don't apply for some people.

 

[ptgatsby]

Here's the problem: With We notice that it tells if THE rational function is extraverted or otherwise. But wait... Oh! There are TWO rational functions. And since serve opposing purposes, having a question that asks ONLY about whether the rational function is extraverted is meaningless, unless they can ask questions specific to either Feeling or Thinking.

*sigh* They are tested independently because they could not be reliably tested together. I've said this many times so far. MBTI evolved the way it did for a reason.

Instead though, they have that in a completely separate question. One that ignores the attitude of the rational function. If the question puts a mark for the thinking side but it calls for Ti, but the person normally employs Te, they're going to answer no.

No, they aren't. The whole point of the factor analysis was to determine that the 4 traits being measured were unique data points. Just as every question on the official test is measured to ensure that it is distinct enough that, in combination with other questions, it is indicative of that particular trait.

It's impossible to measure how extraverted or introverted someone's rational function is without figuring out first what rational function they use. Conversely, you will be hard pressed to get an accurate measurement of the correct rational function without first determining the attitude of the function...

Ah well, be sure to let the researchers know... they must of overlooked this for the last 60 years...

Unless... Eureka! We could COMBINE them and ask function specific questions! This way we figure out if someone favors Te or Ti, Fe or Te, Ti or Fi etc. The same applies with the perception axis.

Yah, cause that wasn't tried...

On depends on the other, which is why it makes so little sense to separate the questions.

Oh, it makes sense... but only when you are actually forced to validate your system against real people.

Course, all of this is just because MBTI still uses functional theories. If it wasn't for MBTI, there would likely be no functional theory left and we'd all likely be using versions of NEO, MMPI or DSMs. The work CPP/CAPT put into MBTI (and other instruments they own) is about the only validation it has.