Oh, I dunno. If people on here claiming a function order is enough to make that function order true, and studies back it up, who's to argue?
These Jungians, the ones who studied, what did they find? I'm all agog. And hoping they didn't find that function preference is essentially random. I'm hoping order didn't change too much over time. I'm hoping there is something other than whim behind it all.
All secret-holders are invited to deign to inform.
I think the MBTI types aren't meant to represent actual development, but rather someone's sense of what are "ideal" development patterns.
For instance, my function order is something like Ni > Ti > Fe > Ne=Si > Te=Se > Fi.
Now, I don't fit any of the types perfectly, of course, but which one of the "ideal" function orders am I closest to? The INFJ one, obviously, though it's somewhat off. It's just that that's a better match than any of the others, though all of them are wrong for my order if looked at specifically. So the advice an average MBTI practitioner would give me, is to develop Fe further and strive to balance my Introversion/Extraversion. But who knows whether that's really desirable or not?
I guess it's kind of like in Geometry, there are "ideal" shapes. Most shapes aren't in their ideal form, but we tend to look at them relative to the most similar ideal shape in order to make it easier to work with. I figured this was sort of like that.
What's the difference between function order, function usage, subjective importance of the function to the user, function reportage by the user, and general self-perception?
It seems to me there's a gap to be bridged: what happens vs what users think happens. Which is to say, wonky function orders would be more easily believeable if they could be nameable under some new yet coherent theory. The gap would have been bridged.
But if I'm going to fall back on anything, it'll be the simpleminded Jungian axioms, e and i alternate to provide balance, function order refers to relative conscious control, and there's 16 types.
So... got any other axioms, anyone?
Oh wait, the point was ideal vs real.... hm, good point Athenian.
Seems to come back to needing, or at least me wanting, a theory on the origin of preference.
Te: not having a clear line of thought
Ti: not being accurate
Fe: not considering the group
Fi: not knowing what really matters
Ne: not seeing the forest
Se: not seeing the trees
Ni: not considering implications
Si: not considering what is already known
This is excellent.
We should all realize that there are different types of intelligence, and as someone pointed out, the average person is not an MBTI archetype. And even if they were, they would probably be missing many of the different types of intelligences that exist.
"How dreadful!" cried Lord Henry. "I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect." ~ Oscar Wilde - The picture of Dorian Gray
MBTI is an indicator of preferences.
It is not an indicator of ability, or skill.
If you wish to see stupidity, one only needs to read the original post in this thread.
Actually that is not true. This proves exactly my point. That people are so afraid to recognize intelligence, specially in NT types, that they will go out of their way to say it is either even or to a greater extent, stupid.
I was analyzing political correctness amongst MBTI. Thanks for not taking it personally.
No one gets pissed off when people say SJs are helpful, SPs are spontaneous, or NF are dreamers. But say NTs are intelligent, and you're in a world of trouble. Fact of the matter is each of these is a description of the type. These are Types not constants. There will always be variation, but there is a pattern within the type that was apparent enough to be put into the general description.