User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 52

  1. #1
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Question What if we organized type this way...

    2 ideas here, so try your best not to get confused. I will bold where one starts and the other starts.

    4 out of 16 types have the same 4 primary functions respectively (ordered originally), and hints of using all 4 of these and almost disregarding the other 4. So let's make four unified groups.

    Maybe we can see similarity in answers and opinions that way in our forums, if we bunch these people together. Recognizing for instance, an Fe interaction with Ni, and relating closely to it even for an ISTP.

    So... why not rename the personality types based on function understanding? Using three letters I can make this simpler to write out or regard for anyone.

    ENTJ - ETN (extraverted thinking with intuition)
    ENTP - ENT (extraverted intuition with thinking) easy enough?

    if we have dislexic people, why not try...

    ENTJ - NET (intuition with extraverted thinking)

    then place the E the same as the first for ENTP, keeping perceiving function at the front...

    ENTP - ENT (thinking with extraverted intution/ the E specifying that they are extrovert and therefore EN states having extraverted intution as primary.)

    INTP - NIT (introverted thinking with intution) intuition obviously is extraverted


    Then we have four common groups, besides the Rational, Guardian... etc. (that is one major identity) but groups of common thought process based on function.

    Let's decide on names for these


    Group one - extraverted N and T (extraverted rationals? heh I'm joking based on the extraverted functions... let's say logically tuned to possibilities?)

    ENF - ENFP
    NIF - INFP
    SET - ESTJ
    IST - ISTJ

    all having Ne, Te, Fi, Si

    Group two - extraverted N and F (emotionally tuned to possibilities? )

    ENT - ENTP
    NIT - INTP
    SEF - ESFJ
    ISF - ISFJ

    all having Ne, Ti, Fe, Si

    Group three - extraverted S and T ( logically tuned to surroundings? )

    ESF - ESFP
    SIF - ISFP
    NET - ENTJ
    INT - INTJ

    all having Ni, Te, Fi, Se

    Group two - extraverted S and F ( emotionally tuned to surroundings? )

    EST - ESTP
    SIT - ISTP
    NEF - ENFJ
    INF - INFJ

    all having Se, Fe, Ti, Ni

    (sorry if the renaming of type is unnecessary, I happen to like the idea because it cuts off an extra letter and identifies a type by function relationship. I mainly like the four group idea based on alike functions without reference to order)




    If we could organize forum rooms like this, it could get interesting, because not only are extroverted functions in these groups the same, introverted functions are as well. A different reference point may be inspiring to one with a distant reference point for a specific function.

  2. #2
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lemons View Post
    Group three - extraverted S and T ( logically tuned to surroundings? )

    ESF - ESFP
    SIF - ISFP
    NET - ENTJ
    INT - INTJ
    That's all well and good, except I'm not logically tuned to anything. My T isn't extraverted, it is hidden in a shed and has to live off the grubs it can find in the ground.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lemons View Post
    2 ideas here, so try your best not to get confused. I will bold where one starts and the other starts.

    4 out of 16 types have the same 4 primary functions respectively (ordered originally), and hints of using all 4 of these and almost disregarding the other 4. So let's make four unified groups.

    Maybe we can see similarity in answers and opinions that way in our forums, if we bunch these people together. Recognizing for instance, an Fe interaction with Ni, and relating closely to it even for an ISTP.

    So... why not rename the personality types based on function understanding? Using three letters I can make this simpler to write out or regard for anyone.

    ENTJ - ETN (extraverted thinking with intuition)
    ENTP - ENT (extraverted intuition with thinking) easy enough?

    if we have dislexic people, why not try...

    ENTJ - NET (intuition with extraverted thinking)

    then place the E the same as the first for ENTP, keeping perceiving function at the front...

    ENTP - ENT (thinking with extraverted intution/ the E specifying that they are extrovert and therefore EN states having extraverted intution as primary.)

    INTP - NIT (introverted thinking with intution) intuition obviously is extraverted


    Then we have four common groups, besides the Rational, Guardian... etc. (that is one major identity) but groups of common thought process based on function.

    Let's decide on names for these


    Group one - extraverted N and T (extraverted rationals? heh I'm joking based on the extraverted functions... let's say logically tuned to possibilities?)

    ENF - ENFP
    NIF - INFP
    SET - ESTJ
    IST - ISTJ

    all having Ne, Te, Fi, Si

    Group two - extraverted N and F (emotionally tuned to possibilities? )

    ENT - ENTP
    NIT - INTP
    SEF - ESFJ
    ISF - ISFJ

    all having Ne, Ti, Fe, Si

    Group three - extraverted S and T ( logically tuned to surroundings? )

    ESF - ESFP
    SIF - ISFP
    NET - ENTJ
    INT - INTJ

    all having Ni, Te, Fi, Se

    Group two - extraverted S and F ( emotionally tuned to surroundings? )

    EST - ESTP
    SIT - ISTP
    NEF - ENFJ
    INF - INFJ

    all having Se, Fe, Ti, Ni

    (sorry if the renaming of type is unnecessary, I happen to like the idea because it cuts off an extra letter and identifies a type by function relationship. I mainly like the four group idea based on alike functions without reference to order)




    If we could organize forum rooms like this, it could get interesting, because not only are extroverted functions in these groups the same, introverted functions are as well. A different reference point may be inspiring to one with a distant reference point for a specific function.
    Something like this was done before MBTI was even created, as far as a three-letter layout was concerned. These were Jung's original type names. The J/P was added by Isabel Myers.

    (Yet) Another Way of Looking at Psychological Types

    And I have noticed what you're talking about. These groups consist of the Introverted and Extraverted versions of a type, and their shadows.

    So you get:

    Group 1: NFP/STJ; Te/Fi, Si/Ne Motto: "Defining Integrity"

    Group 2: NTP/SFJ; Fe/Ti, Si/Ne Motto: "Creating Harmony"

    Group 3: SFP/NTJ; Te/Fi, Ni/Se Motto: "Improving Performance"

    Group 4: STP/NFJ; Fe/Ti, Ni/Se Motto: "Confronting Reality"

    The mottos are the major issues that all those types seem fixated on (although sometimes in opposing ways), to me. I couldn't think of a better way to name those groups.

    The only negative I see is that this means we're relying almost purely on the existing framework for these correlations.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    The above is inconsequential, as it simply restates the old backwards ideas.

    The OP, I refuse to attempt to understand, lemons.

  5. #5
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    The above is inconsequential, as it simply restates the old backwards ideas.

    The OP, I refuse to attempt to understand, lemons.
    You are quite correct. We were discussing the implications of correlations that would make sense if those ideas were true.

    If you are certain that those ideas are wrong, then it's completely inconsequential for you.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    So, if you are certain that those ideas are wrong, then it's completely inconsequential for you. By all means, skip this thread. If you haven't convinced others to make the same choice on their own by now, you probably won't get any closer to doing so just by calling the ideas backwards.
    This is how progress is made, so I beg to differ.

    Besides, you're not taking lemons seriously, are you? Not long ago, he was acting like he came up with Socionics function theory (Which contradicts this one, by the way)! He's searching for an idea to call his own at all costs, all costs.

  7. #7
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    I don't care much about history. I care about what makes sense, and this makes sense: grouping types based on alike functions, to help them see a brighter role for themselves through others who have their functions.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lemons View Post
    I don't care much about history. I care about what makes sense, and this makes sense: grouping types based on alike functions, to help them see a brighter role for themselves through others who have their functions.
    But you have no idea what you're doing, and the first thing you come up with which isn't exactly like something that's already been written, you post. In spite of the fact that it makes no sense, and is therefore especially useless.

    It may sound like I'm just antagonizing you, but there are two sides here. You, and people who might read your post thinking you know what you're talking about. I'm on their side.

  9. #9
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    But you have no idea what you're doing, and the first thing you come up with which isn't exactly like something that's already been written, you post. In spite of the fact that it makes no sense, and is therefore especially useless.
    History of events is only for people who don't understand logic well enough. I can take into account history of events, but placing something irrelevant into the picture to stir up an ego is pointless. Time is just as important as anything else, though you don't know if you say backwards that it may imply what is wrong, right being forwards. You don't have the proof to say what happened isn't going to happen again, or that something already happened. What is happening now could be backwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    It may sound like I'm just antagonizing you, but there are two sides here. You, and people who might read your post thinking you know what you're talking about. I'm on their side.
    You're implying that I think I'm qualified on this subject? Why am I in a forum of normal people talking theory?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lemons View Post
    History of events is only for people who don't understand logic well enough. I can take into account history of events, but placing something irrelevant into the picture to stir up an ego is pointless. Time is just as important as anything else, though you don't know if you say backwards that it may imply what is wrong, right being forwards. You don't have the proof to say what happened isn't going to happen again, or that something already happened. What is happening now could be backwards.
    Wow, that's wonderful.

    If anyone thinks lemons makes sense, please post about it, I'd love to hear it. Could use a laugh.

Similar Threads

  1. What if we didn't have ego?
    By Fay in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 05-02-2014, 10:16 PM
  2. what if we were robots
    By prplchknz in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-14-2013, 03:45 PM
  3. what if we're "sperm"?
    By prplchknz in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-10-2013, 11:41 AM
  4. See if you can type this woman
    By BlackCat in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-01-2010, 11:01 PM
  5. What can we do with this?
    By Giggly in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 06-15-2009, 04:41 PM

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