User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 140

Thread: ENFP/INFP

  1. #101
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    There's a description of how that test works in one of the papers on Dario Nardi's site (the cognitiveprocesses test). I still think some of the questions on that test are a bit misworded, and I told them so in the feedback form. My Ne score was low because I missed all the Ne questions that had the word "random" in them. (I told them, 'the whole point is that it's NOT random',)

    I actually completely disregard that facet stuff, and ever since I read about the facets in a sample MBTI part II report, I've concluded that they're BS. And I keep wondering, What did they base those on? (I bet that it's some circular logic thing where they based it on how people answered step two questions.) Facets schmacets. (according to the step II, am I supposed to 'accomadate' you right now and pretend that I think the facets are for real? OMG, I must not be a real ENFP).
    No, no, no! That's the whole point of subscales. This shows you can be "questioning" and not accomodating, yet still prefer F in other areas, thus still being an ENFP! In this case, it would be called an "out of preference subscale" (OOPS)
    Here's the descriptions and exercises from Hartzler's book I used to clarify it for me:

    Questioning
    T9 I use questioning to uncover premises and logical thought patterns of others

    -The next time someone makes a statement that seems illogical, ask questions until it does seem logical
    -If something a person says is confusing, ask questions to clarify. Go deeper into the concept, challenge person's facts assumptions or logical connections
    Accommodating
    F6 I attempt to connect with other people's points of view in order to maintain relationships

    -Look for areas of agreement. Show how you can modify your position to match their's.
    -Gently correct in critiquing (e.g. "My experience is..." "Have you considered"?)
    -In a conflict situation, look at what your values are and other person's values. Look for ones you both believe in, then talk about differences.
    -Recall some people in your life with whom you have not had as much contact as you would like. Find out how to spend time together to reconnect

    Breaking it down this way, it now looks more like a logical dichotomy. You either try to make sense of things by questioning what someone says, or by looking for areas of agreement; and possibly being more willing to modify your position. It does not even say you have to modify them or accept the other person's position.
    This is the mistake I made just looking at the words (facet names and brief definitions) alone. But the book really showed that it does make sense. So if you preferred accomodating, then you would phrase your objection as something like "Have you considered that the facets are not real", or point out what you see in them you can relate to, even though you're still not sure about them.


    from INFJ or INFP? a closer look
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More with the stereotypes! Here's the latest: people assume Feeling types are touchy-feely warm and cuddly.

    Nyuh-uh.

    Once you learn about interaction styles, you will discover this image is not necessarily true!

    I had an encounter with an INFJ girlfriend recently who insisted that her husband was more "effie" than she is, and ergo must be a feeling type. My take on the husband was that his preferences were more likely for INTP. But, ironically, INTPs regularly come across as more "effie" than many Fs do. Most of the INTPs I know seem like big cuddly bears, despite their Temperament!
    And people should consider they might be making this mistake with me. (I still wonder what Xander meant by "e-mail like an INFP")
    I've also met a number of INFPs who believe they are NTs because they don't think they are "effie" enough to be an F. But doesn't that make sense?! After all, their Feeling function is introverted, and they don't show it around to everybody. They prefer to feel harmony in their environment -- but that doesn't mean they're some font of outpouring love with everyone they meet! Their Feeling function is directed inwards, not outwards.

    INFJs aren't very "effie" either, I regret to say. We can be rather harsh critics at times, thanks to our extraverted Feeling judgments. Put that in combination with our devotion to Time & Task and our directing style of communication, and it's no wonder so many INFJs believe they're INTJs instead!

    For all Feeling types, Dr. Beebe says that people often make the mistake of assuming Feeling = caring, when in truth, it can sometimes be cold, ruthless, and calculating instead. So some Feeling types can be extremely nasty indeed!

    This is one of those times when "trait" descriptions really get in the way of "pattern" descriptions. People would rather believe all Fs fit some kind of friendly stereotype without taking the time to realize the falsity of this belief. Don't make that mistake

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Warning: The more I hear people spout feeling stereotypes, the bigger bitch I'll be. I suppose the whole forum knows that by now though, huh?
    Yeah;
    I always put directing/informing above the simple T/F dichotomy. For Sensors, T/F does follow D/Inf, but for Intuitors, it is J/P that determines that, and T/F is Structure/Motive, which also adds a measure of "criticalness" or "accomodation" to the type, but the outward social behavior will be determined by the Interaction Style factor. This page Achilles Tendencies: Exploring Human Frailty and Personality Type which helped me understand a lot of this stuff, put it best: The FP is the most friendly (informative), the TJ is the most directive, and the TP and FJ are "somewhere in between". The TP is the most pragmatic, the FJ is the most cooperative or empathetic, and FP and TJ are somewhere in between. (He doesn't even accept Keirsey and Berens models, but I realized, for instance, that FP's were Informing + Motive, TJ's were Directing + Structure, and the FJ's and TP's mixed those dichotomies).

    So while "Feeling" will indicate that the person will tend to not be the most "critical" of the types, yet they can still be pretty directive (or structure focused, though not both), when the Feeling is extraverted.

  2. #102
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    "Actually that's half the interest I find with ENFPs (half being a large large overstatement).. somehow the more I try to be extroverted and transparent [thereby trying to head off the paranoid "I wonder if he really meant that" response] the more toes I tread on. I never cease to wonder at what will be picked up and argued over... often things I didn't even consider. In a way my "interations" with ENFPs have taught me a lot about how other's emotions work... Sounds mean said like that but it's a side thing really. I subconciously learn and try to compensate if I think they may get upset... Also I should mention that this applies to all individuals to some degree and not just ENFPs whom I patronise endlessly. I patronise them as a conplete side quest [kidding])"

    That actually sounds like trickster Fe.

    "I never cease to wonder at what will be picked up and argued over...often things I didn't even consider". In other words you are...*wring hands*, "I just can't win"...which is a signature of the trickster. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you don't try to be tactfull, you offend people, if you try to be tactfull you offend people even more. Am I anywhere near the mark?

    Young INTJs are usually way more socially inept than young INTPs. Trickster Fe, man, think about it!

  3. #103
    Senior Member Leysing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    FiSi
    Posts
    309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    More with the stereotypes! Here's the latest: people assume Feeling types are touchy-feely warm and cuddly.

    Nyuh-uh.

    Once you learn about interaction styles, you will discover this image is not necessarily true!

    I had an encounter with an INFJ girlfriend recently who insisted that her husband was more "effie" than she is, and ergo must be a feeling type. My take on the husband was that his preferences were more likely for INTP. But, ironically, INTPs regularly come across as more "effie" than many Fs do. Most of the INTPs I know seem like big cuddly bears, despite their Temperament!

    I've also met a number of INFPs who believe they are NTs because they don't think they are "effie" enough to be an F. But doesn't that make sense?! After all, their Feeling function is introverted, and they don't show it around to everybody. They prefer to feel harmony in their environment -- but that doesn't mean they're some font of outpouring love with everyone they meet! Their Feeling function is directed inwards, not outwards.

    INFJs aren't very "effie" either, I regret to say. We can be rather harsh critics at times, thanks to our extraverted Feeling judgments. Put that in combination with our devotion to Time & Task and our directing style of communication, and it's no wonder so many INFJs believe they're INTJs instead!

    For all Feeling types, Dr. Beebe says that people often make the mistake of assuming Feeling = caring, when in truth, it can sometimes be cold, ruthless, and calculating instead. So some Feeling types can be extremely nasty indeed!

    This is one of those times when "trait" descriptions really get in the way of "pattern" descriptions. People would rather believe all Fs fit some kind of friendly stereotype without taking the time to realize the falsity of this belief. Don't make that mistake
    TRUE! TRUE!

    I'm definitely not a warm person. I normally seem cold to others... no, I seem FREEZING.

    I have never hugged anyone spontaneously. Well, I hug my pets, but not people. Never.

    If someone is talking about his problems to me, the empathy and pain for the other person that I feel inside myself is immense, but the only thing I do is that I nod and say "Okay.". This makes me appear cold and emotionless.

    The best thing is that my sister calls me logical, rational and objective.

  4. #104
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    No, no, no! That's the whole point of subscales. This shows you can be "questioning" and not accomodating, yet still prefer F in other areas, thus still being an ENFP! In this case, it would be called an "out of preference subscale" (OOPS)
    Here's the descriptions and exercises from Hartzler's book I used to clarify it for me:

    Questioning
    T9 I use questioning to uncover premises and logical thought patterns of others

    -The next time someone makes a statement that seems illogical, ask questions until it does seem logical
    -If something a person says is confusing, ask questions to clarify. Go deeper into the concept, challenge person's facts assumptions or logical connections
    Accommodating
    F6 I attempt to connect with other people's points of view in order to maintain relationships

    -Look for areas of agreement. Show how you can modify your position to match their's.
    -Gently correct in critiquing (e.g. "My experience is..." "Have you considered"?)
    -In a conflict situation, look at what your values are and other person's values. Look for ones you both believe in, then talk about differences.
    -Recall some people in your life with whom you have not had as much contact as you would like. Find out how to spend time together to reconnect

    Breaking it down this way, it now looks more like a logical dichotomy. You either try to make sense of things by questioning what someone says, or by looking for areas of agreement; and possibly being more willing to modify your position. It does not even say you have to modify them or accept the other person's position.
    This is the mistake I made just looking at the words (facet names and brief definitions) alone. But the book really showed that it does make sense. So if you preferred accomodating, then you would phrase your objection as something like "Have you considered that the facets are not real", or point out what you see in them you can relate to, even though you're still not sure about them.


    And people should consider they might be making this mistake with me. (I still wonder what Xander meant by "e-mail like an INFP")


    Yeah;
    I always put directing/informing above the simple T/F dichotomy. For Sensors, T/F does follow D/Inf, but for Intuitors, it is J/P that determines that, and T/F is Structure/Motive, which also adds a measure of "criticalness" or "accomodation" to the type, but the outward social behavior will be determined by the Interaction Style factor. This page Achilles Tendencies: Exploring Human Frailty and Personality Type which helped me understand a lot of this stuff, put it best: The FP is the most friendly (informative), the TJ is the most directive, and the TP and FJ are "somewhere in between". The TP is the most pragmatic, the FJ is the most cooperative or empathetic, and FP and TJ are somewhere in between. (He doesn't even accept Keirsey and Berens models, but I realized, for instance, that FP's were Informing + Motive, TJ's were Directing + Structure, and the FJ's and TP's mixed those dichotomies).

    So while "Feeling" will indicate that the person will tend to not be the most "critical" of the types, yet they can still be pretty directive (or structure focused, though not both), when the Feeling is extraverted.

    The accomadating facet is really just a Fe detector in my opinion. However, you should know, even then, once they're out of the social setting, Fe types don't do any of that stuff you described. If a friend is trying to explain the 'facets' to a Fe type, they'll probably pretend to be interested and pretend to agree. If a family member tries to introduce the facets to them and they don't find them relevant/meaningful, they'll criticize the facets. If they're boss is hiring a type consultant who might fire people based on MBTI, they'll probably criticize it every chance they get.

    Most __FP types are probably out of preference on accomodating. Stupid dichotomy, stupid abbreviation- "OOPs, I didn't conform to some arbitrary facet".

    I also don't buy the facets for any of the other dichotomies. It's not reaally related to the actual cognitive processes, and it doesn't match real life (If you want me to, I'll create another thread critiquing each of the facets. I mean, it's a well-intentioned effort by Quenk and Kummerow, but the result is, unfortunately, junk. So what were the step II facets based on? The step one? What did they do, interview people who took the step one? How could you get a random, statistically significant sample? The facets are really about*character*. How can you know enough about someone's character? Where they derived by conceptually stretching the type profiles? ??????

    -Interest in motive has nothing to do with 'directive-ness'. What IS 'directive-ness'? It can't be directing vs. informing. What is it? You defined a new term, tell me what it means.

    -FPs are not the most friendly type. I'm not sure there even is a most friendly type. Feeling types have bad days to, just like everyone else.

  5. #105
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    The accomadating facet is really just a Fe detector in my opinion. However, you should know, even then, once they're out of the social setting, Fe types don't do any of that stuff you described. If a friend is trying to explain the 'facets' to a Fe type, they'll probably pretend to be interested and pretend to agree. If a family member tries to introduce the facets to them and they don't find them relevant/meaningful, they'll criticize the facets. If they're boss is hiring a type consultant who might fire people based on MBTI, they'll probably criticize it every chance they get.
    Maybe that facet does deal more with Fe, but where do you get these generalizations from? Why would Fe types in particular pretend or criticize?
    Most __FP types are probably out of preference on accomodating. Stupid dichotomy, stupid abbreviation- "OOPs, I didn't conform to some arbitrary facet".
    According to the study done by Roger Bissell (the same guy who did the Achilles Tendencies article linked above, and he's a big advocate of Step II, also called "E.A.R. Expanded Analysis Report), the FP's used in the study did edge out in favor of accomodating, though lower than other scales. FP's were highest in "affective", "compassionate", "casual" and "open-ended". Again, where do you get your claim that most FP's are out of preference in that scale? So maybe almost half might be, but then so what? They are still higher on those other scales, and maintain their "F" preference, and since they are unique from FJ's and other combinations, then they can be more out of preference in one giiven subscale.
    I also don't buy the facets for any of the other dichotomies. It's not reaally related to the actual cognitive processes, and it doesn't match real life (If you want me to, I'll create another thread critiquing each of the facets. I mean, it's a well-intentioned effort by Quenk and Kummerow, but the result is, unfortunately, junk. So what were the step II facets based on? The step one? What did they do, interview people who took the step one? How could you get a random, statistically significant sample? The facets are really about*character*. How can you know enough about someone's character? Where they derived by conceptually stretching the type profiles? ??????
    It seems the e-mail where Bissell was explaining that to me has disappeared. From what I remembered, the subscales, including those for an additional factor called Comfort-Discomfort, were once proposed by Myers, but then "suppressed". C/D was seen as too negative, and I forgot why the rest were suppressed, but C/D originally loaded onto some of the other subscales. But now with competition from the Five Factor Model (in such instruments as NEO-PI) which is like the four factors of MBTI plus Neuroticism-- which C/D is supposed to match; interest was renewed in the subscales.
    You can see the factor analysis on this here:
    http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/...tzSIOP2003.pdf
    -Interest in motive has nothing to do with 'directive-ness'. What IS 'directive-ness'? It can't be directing vs. informing. What is it? You defined a new term, tell me what it means.
    In that case, I was using it as a common category for both "directing" and "structure-focus".
    Directing/Informing and structure/motive are mirrors of each other. Meaning that they have the same basic scale definitions on the other side of the S/N divide. For Sensing types, T=directing, F=informing, J=structure and P=motive. For iNtuiting types, T=structure, F=motive, J=directing and P=informing.

    As such, the two factors have a lot in common, as they are both determined by the same scales: T/F and J/P, but in an alternating fashion.

    Directing and informing indicates a person's social (i.e. "interaction") orientation. It is more than just about a person phrasing statements in the form of "direction" or "information". According to Berens: "Directing communications seem to have a task focus and Informing communications have a people focus. MBTI practitioners have long related task focus to a preference for Thinking and people focus to a preference for Feeling". "Descriptors of 'responsive' seem to go with the Informing style of communication and descriptors of 'less responsive' seem to go with the Directing style of communication." (Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles)

    Likewise, structure and motive indicate a person's "conative" orientation. She defines "The Rational and Guardian patterns are characterized by a focus on structure, order, and organization to gain a measure of control over life's problems and irregularities rather than be at the mercy of random forces. The Idealist and Artisan patterns are characterized by a focus on motives and why people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying to force them into a preconceived structure". ("Essential Qualities of the Personality Patterns").

    The motive-focused types can also be described as "responsive" to people (e.g. "work with people"), while the structure-focused types will be "less responsive" (use structures to gain a measure of control).
    So "responsiveness" is the common element of both scales. It is also known as "people/task focus". (Notice how she links those terms to D/Inf, and then to T/F in general, though for N types, T/F is structure-motive). Since the terms responsiveness and people/task are not as well known as "directive", I sometimes use "directiveness" to refer to both, especially since Bissell picked up that the types that are both directing and structure (the TJ's) are "the most directive" as he calls it. (though he doesn't recognize structure/motive). Sometimes I say "critical (vs. Agreeable)" instead, but that sounds more negative. It makes sense, as we see, that directing and structure are two sides of the same coin. One indicated responsiveness in the area of social interaction, and the other indicates reponssiveness in the area of "action" or conation.

    -FPs are not the most friendly type. I'm not sure there even is a most friendly type. Feeling types have bad days to, just like everyone else.
    According to both the EAR data, as well as the general descriptions of the types, the FP's are more responsive than other types (informing plus motive). That's what "friendly" there means. It's not talking about "bad days"; and neither "shadows", "stress" or any other condition that affects behavior; it's talking about the general disposition.

  6. #106
    To the top of the world arcticangel02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    eNFP
    Posts
    892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Questioning
    T9 I use questioning to uncover premises and logical thought patterns of others
    -The next time someone makes a statement that seems illogical, ask questions until it does seem logical
    -If something a person says is confusing, ask questions to clarify. Go deeper into the concept, challenge person's facts assumptions or logical connections
    Okay, everybody does that bit. I don't know how you can assign that to T-types only.

    Accommodating
    F6 I attempt to connect with other people's points of view in order to maintain relationships
    -Look for areas of agreement. Show how you can modify your position to match their's.
    -Gently correct in critiquing (e.g. "My experience is..." "Have you considered"?)
    -In a conflict situation, look at what your values are and other person's values. Look for ones you both believe in, then talk about differences.
    -Recall some people in your life with whom you have not had as much contact as you would like. Find out how to spend time together to reconnect
    The last one is very Fe, IMO. I'm not sure how accurate that would be in measuring Fi.

    Can you really say that a person with that preference, even a strong one, will always behave that way? What about someone who tends to simply reject an idea they don't understand, and doesn't accommodate or enquire?

    Breaking it down this way, it now looks more like a logical dichotomy. You either try to make sense of things by questioning what someone says, or by looking for areas of agreement; and possibly being more willing to modify your position. It does not even say you have to modify them or accept the other person's position.
    Then how can you possibly tell the difference? If you consider changing your position but don't, vs. simply not changing position at all?

    And people should consider they might be making this mistake with me. (I still wonder what Xander meant by "e-mail like an INFP")
    We already have - that's why we're suggesting INFP even though we're pretty certain you're not a very cuddly person at all. :P
    ANFP:
    Extraversion (52%) ---- Introversion (48%)
    Sensing (26%) ---- iNtuition (74%)
    Thinking (16%) ---- Feeling (84%)
    Judging (5%) ---- Perceiving (95%)

    9w1 so/sx/sp

  7. #107
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arcticangel02 View Post
    Okay, everybody does that bit. I don't know how you can assign that to T-types only.
    Can you really say that a person with that preference, even a strong one, will always behave that way? What about someone who tends to simply reject an idea they don't understand, and doesn't accommodate or enquire?
    It's like the four main scales. Everybody does all of them, but they prefer one over the other.

    The last one is very Fe, IMO. I'm not sure how accurate that would be in measuring Fi.
    Yeah, the facets do seem to lean towards one attitude or the other.
    Still, it's an aspect of the overall general "feeling" scale beign differentiated from others. So an FI type (such as FP's) may score lower on that. but they will be higher in other F areas.

    Then how can you possibly tell the difference? If you consider changing your position but don't, vs. simply not changing position at all?
    It's covering a particular T vs F approach to a problem.

    Here are Hartzler's full definitions:

    Questioning:
    To come to a valid judgment about a problem, people using the questioning skills ask questions in order to check for consistencies, overcome obstacles, find common ground, or be convinced of the truth of another's argument. Questions are intended to make sure that the "argument" is fully understood and makes sense.
    Accommodating:
    When using the accommodating skills people handle differences of opinion by gently correcting, not by direct questioning. They place a premium on harmony, so they tend to find a way to let the other person's position stand rather than disagreeing. They believe compromises are more useful than disagreements.


    So the same objectives are being met with both facets: to understand the other position, in order to be able to either find common ground, be convinced, or continue to reject it. It's just a "thinking" vs "feeling" approach to it.

    (There was an MBTI Step II thread that fizzled out, and it seems this area of the discussion would be good over there).

    We already have - that's why we're suggesting INFP even though we're pretty certain you're not a very cuddly person at all. :P
    Well, if "not cuddly", then I still wonder what does appear so INFP then, besides "Te" (which is actually inferior for that type!) Both Fi and Ti are internal processes that won't be as readily seen by the outside; so I wonder what is appearing as a dominant Fi. People have mentioned stuff like "connecting" and "sharing", but those are what are usually thought of as "cuddly" features (and they would seem to be be compatible with a non-preferred Fe).

  8. #108
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Maybe that facet does deal more with Fe, but where do you get these generalizations from? Why would Fe types in particular pretend or criticize?
    According to the study done by Roger Bissell (the same guy who did the Achilles Tendencies article linked above, and he's a big advocate of Step II, also called "E.A.R. Expanded Analysis Report), the FP's used in the study did edge out in favor of accomodating, though lower than other scales. FP's were highest in "affective", "compassionate", "casual" and "open-ended". Again, where do you get your claim that most FP's are out of preference in that scale? So maybe almost half might be, but then so what? They are still higher on those other scales, and maintain their "F" preference, and since they are unique from FJ's and other combinations, then they can be more out of preference in one giiven subscale.
    It seems the e-mail where Bissell was explaining that to me has disappeared. From what I remembered, the subscales, including those for an additional factor called Comfort-Discomfort, were once proposed by Myers, but then "suppressed". C/D was seen as too negative, and I forgot why the rest were suppressed, but C/D originally loaded onto some of the other subscales. But now with competition from the Five Factor Model (in such instruments as NEO-PI) which is like the four factors of MBTI plus Neuroticism-- which C/D is supposed to match; interest was renewed in the subscales.
    You can see the factor analysis on this here:
    http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/...tzSIOP2003.pdf
    In that case, I was using it as a common category for both "directing" and "structure-focus".
    Directing/Informing and structure/motive are mirrors of each other. Meaning that they have the same basic scale definitions on the other side of the S/N divide. For Sensing types, T=directing, F=informing, J=structure and P=motive. For iNtuiting types, T=structure, F=motive, J=directing and P=informing.

    As such, the two factors have a lot in common, as they are both determined by the same scales: T/F and J/P, but in an alternating fashion.

    Directing and informing indicates a person's social (i.e. "interaction") orientation. It is more than just about a person phrasing statements in the form of "direction" or "information". According to Berens: "Directing communications seem to have a task focus and Informing communications have a people focus. MBTI practitioners have long related task focus to a preference for Thinking and people focus to a preference for Feeling". "Descriptors of 'responsive' seem to go with the Informing style of communication and descriptors of 'less responsive' seem to go with the Directing style of communication." (Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles)

    Likewise, structure and motive indicate a person's "conative" orientation. She defines "The Rational and Guardian patterns are characterized by a focus on structure, order, and organization to gain a measure of control over life's problems and irregularities rather than be at the mercy of random forces. The Idealist and Artisan patterns are characterized by a focus on motives and why people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying to force them into a preconceived structure". ("Essential Qualities of the Personality Patterns").

    The motive-focused types can also be described as "responsive" to people (e.g. "work with people"), while the structure-focused types will be "less responsive" (use structures to gain a measure of control).
    So "responsiveness" is the common element of both scales. It is also known as "people/task focus". (Notice how she links those terms to D/Inf, and then to T/F in general, though for N types, T/F is structure-motive). Since the terms responsiveness and people/task are not as well known as "directive", I sometimes use "directiveness" to refer to both, especially since Bissell picked up that the types that are both directing and structure (the TJ's) are "the most directive" as he calls it. (though he doesn't recognize structure/motive). Sometimes I say "critical (vs. Agreeable)" instead, but that sounds more negative. It makes sense, as we see, that directing and structure are two sides of the same coin. One indicated responsiveness in the area of social interaction, and the other indicates reponssiveness in the area of "action" or conation.

    According to both the EAR data, as well as the general descriptions of the types, the FP's are more responsive than other types (informing plus motive). That's what "friendly" there means. It's not talking about "bad days"; and neither "shadows", "stress" or any other condition that affects behavior; it's talking about the general disposition.
    The Fe example is something that could very well fit a Fe type. The thing is, if I hashed examples like that out in more general terms, I'm sure I'd end up way more accurate than the stupid facets.

    As for the five factor model, it doesn't relate to type theory in any real way.

    From Wikipedia....

    ----------------------------------
    The Big Five factors and their constituent traits can be summarized as follows:

    Openness - appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience.
    Conscientiousness - a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behaviour.
    Extraversion - energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.
    Agreeableness - a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
    Neuroticism - a tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.
    When scored for individual feedback, these traits are frequently presented as percentile scores. For example, a Conscientiousness rating in the 80th percentile indicates a relatively strong sense of responsibility and orderliness, whereas an Extraversion rating in the 5th percentile indicates an exceptional need for solitude and quiet.

    Although these trait clusters are statistical aggregates, exceptions may exist on individual personality profiles. On average, people who register high in Openness are intellectually curious, open to emotion, interested in art, and willing to try new things. A particular individual, however, may have a high overall Openness score and be interested in learning and exploring new cultures. Yet he or she might have no great interest in art or poetry. Situational influences also exist, as even extraverts may occasionally need time away from people.
    --------------------------------------

    Again, a single discriptor word for each of the factors MAY give us function/preference information, but then the other words either contradict that, are about a DIFFERENT MBTI dichotomy, or are not about psychological type at all. There is no theoretical relationship between the MBTI and FFM models. The fact that some guy managed to squeeze some correlations between MBTI and FFM (already factually shaky, because people still argue about how to interpret the FFM dichotomies, who the hell knows how the person you mentioned interpreted them). And your theory about this is to assume that the data IS the theory? You are aware that correlation does not entail causation, right? Is global warming caused by the declining pirate population (a VERY strong correlation, if you ask the FSM people) , or is it caused by aliens (increasing number of UFO sightings)? By the way, assuming that the data IS the theory is a very Te thing do do.

    On the other hand, Roger Bissels 'achilles tendencies' uses no data, twists the theory, and relies mostly on assumption. My theory about that stuff is that it's really about confidence. When feeling types are confidant, all of Roger Bissels work is relegated to irrelevent baloney. If only people would stop confusing the affect of our culture with a supposed trait of some type. Seriously. Think of a confident introverted feeling type....Rosie O-Donnel. Yeah. blows that other bullshit right out of the water, doesn't it?

    Structure vs. Motive and informing vs. directing are different dichotomies, and you are mis-reading the definition. control over lifes problems does not mean control over other people. The thing is, even people pleasing is about having an addiction to control over other people. Idealists engage in people pleasing precisely when the lose truse of someone elses judgement, and they then must, for example, placate everybody whom they don't trust to come to the right conclusion/do the right thing. People pleasing ( one of the catylist stress responses) is just as much an addiction to control as anything else.

    Besides, interest in structure does not inerently imply a greater interest in controlling other people. Basically, I don't remotely buy your concept of 'directive'-ness. Most importantly, the supposed behaviors of FPs and FJs (and every other type) do to that dichotomy is caricature-al and artificial.

  9. #109
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    The Fe example is something that could very well fit a Fe type. The thing is, if I hashed examples like that out in more general terms, I'm sure I'd end up way more accurate than the stupid facets.
    You mean like your "Fe types would pretend or criticize" statement (which was the generalization I was referring to). Yeah, that sounds more accurate that those "stupid" facets, doesn't it?
    As for the five factor model, it doesn't relate to type theory in any real way.

    From Wikipedia....

    ----------------------------------
    The Big Five factors and their constituent traits can be summarized as follows:

    Openness - appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience.
    Conscientiousness - a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behaviour.
    Extraversion - energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.
    Agreeableness - a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
    Neuroticism - a tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.
    When scored for individual feedback, these traits are frequently presented as percentile scores. For example, a Conscientiousness rating in the 80th percentile indicates a relatively strong sense of responsibility and orderliness, whereas an Extraversion rating in the 5th percentile indicates an exceptional need for solitude and quiet.

    Although these trait clusters are statistical aggregates, exceptions may exist on individual personality profiles. On average, people who register high in Openness are intellectually curious, open to emotion, interested in art, and willing to try new things. A particular individual, however, may have a high overall Openness score and be interested in learning and exploring new cultures. Yet he or she might have no great interest in art or poetry. Situational influences also exist, as even extraverts may occasionally need time away from people.
    --------------------------------------

    Again, a single discriptor word for each of the factors MAY give us function/preference information, but then the other words either contradict that, are about a DIFFERENT MBTI dichotomy, or are not about psychological type at all.
    Which? Let's look at all of those words:

    appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience.
    These can be found in S/N descriptions. It's about concreteness vs abstract.
    a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behaviour.
    These are found in J/P or Cooperative/Pragmatic descriptions
    Energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.
    These can be found in I/E descriptions
    A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
    These can be found in T/F descriptions, and by implication, directing/informing (when you look at definitions of alternate labels such as "responsive" or "people-focus"). Again, don't look at that word "cooperative" here and assume that is the "other" dichotomy. Cooperative can refer to different aspects of behavior.
    A tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.
    These are the definitions of Comfort/Discomfort

    There is no theoretical relationship between the MBTI and FFM models. The fact that some guy managed to squeeze some correlations between MBTI and FFM (already factually shaky, because people still argue about how to interpret the FFM dichotomies, who the hell knows how the person you mentioned interpreted them).
    What "guy" are you talking about? Bissell? If you look on the very Wikipedia page you pasted from, further down, you will see in a brightly colored template the MBTI-FFM correlation by Costa & McRae, two well respected theorists in the field. We did not make any of this up. Myers herself and others were involved in the subscales and Comfort/Discomfort factor (believed to be added to compete with NEO-PI). They made it up; you act like we just made it up.
    And of course they're not perfect, as the different numbers show. Nobody ever said the correlations were perfect. Keirsey did the same thing by mapping his system to MBTI, using the same letters and 16 types (yet rejecting the functions undergirding those letters), and it is said to only have a 65% match. Yet we still use his letters and types and MBTI's interchageably.
    And your theory about this is to assume that the data IS the theory? You are aware that correlation does not entail causation, right? Is global warming caused by the declining pirate population (a VERY strong correlation, if you ask the FSM people) , or is it caused by aliens (increasing number of UFO sightings)? By the way, assuming that the data IS the theory is a very Te thing do do.
    What are you talking about? Who said the data IS the theory? The data is evidence of a theory (and the fact that it's called "theory" shows it's not absolutely proven, but we still use statistical evidence).
    The way you're reading and responding to what I say is probably Te, so don't keep projecting that on me.
    On the other hand, Roger Bissels 'achilles tendencies' uses no data, twists the theory, and relies mostly on assumption.
    OK, he doesn't have the data on that page, but he has many other essays, some of them not published, some he plans to submit to the type associations, etc. His article "Lend Me Your EARS" has the data spreadsheet, but it's not published. You can request it if you like.

    My theory about that stuff is that it's really about confidence. When feeling types are confidant, all of Roger Bissels work is relegated to irrelevent baloney. If only people would stop confusing the affect of our culture with a supposed trait of some type. Seriously. Think of a confident introverted feeling type....Rosie O-Donnel. Yeah. blows that other bullshit right out of the water, doesn't it?
    What? Again; what are you talking about? Where in the world does this "confidence" concept come from? Where is your data and stuff you are demanding on that?
    Structure vs. Motive and informing vs. directing are different dichotomies, and you are mis-reading the definition. control over lifes problems does not mean control over other people.
    Besides, interest in structure does not inerently imply a greater interest in controlling other people.
    I did not say that it did (and IIRC, you made this same mistake misreading something I said on this before). All I did was quote directly from Berens' own definition and say that it was a form of "less responsive" behavior. Why do you read this stuff into what I said that I did not say, and then get all annoyed at it? You're the one not only misreading what I'm saying, but also yourself doing what you are criticizing by misreading the concepts, like that "we have bad days too" statement to disprove [a too literal reading of] "friendliness"; and now, "control" (next).
    The thing is, even people pleasing is about having an addiction to control over other people. Idealists engage in people pleasing precisely when the lose truse of someone elses judgement, and they then must, for example, placate everybody whom they don't trust to come to the right conclusion/do the right thing. People pleasing ( one of the catylist stress responses) is just as much an addiction to control as anything else.
    But Berens is the one who says the Structure temperaments (NT and SJ) are the ones who need to gain a measure of "control" over situations (Nobody said "PEOPLE!") The kind of "control" you're talking about falls outside of that definition of "control", and if anything, is probably apart of the opposite pole, "Motive-focus". (And it's not the FIRO-based "Control" area I talk about either).
    Most importantly, the supposed behaviors of FPs and FJs (and every other type) do to that dichotomy is caricature-al and artificial.
    Now I can't understand you at all. Again, I did not make the dichotomy up; Berens drew it out of the Keirseyan temperament matrix.
    Basically, I don't remotely buy your concept of 'directive'-ness.
    Because you're reading something else completely different into it. You need to calm down. You're just reacting, and you don't even seem to know what you're saying, at times. Because you think you see people "playing with type" and you don't like it? Makes no sense to me. If your methods of interpreting my statements are puer Te, it is definitely a shadow (oppositional, or perhaps "witch") function for me!

  10. #110
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    I don't know how to split up the quote, so for now "....." is what you wrote.

    "You mean like your "Fe types would pretend or criticize" statement (which was the generalization I was referring to). Yeah, that sounds more accurate that those "stupid" facets, doesn't it?"

    That was a likely example of a behavior, not a rule. For the accomadating vs. questioning dichotomy, I don't think that there IS a rule of behavior difference between Fs and Ts.

    "Accommodating:
    When using the accommodating skills people handle differences of opinion by gently correcting, not by direct questioning. They place a premium on harmony, so they tend to find a way to let the other person's position stand rather than disagreeing. They believe compromises are more useful than disagreements."

    Whoever wrote that must pretend to ignore that introverted feeling's stance on dissagreements is 'my way or the highway' if an important value is at stake. If an important value is not at stake, an introverted feeling type MIGHT be very accomadating OR they might criticize through extraverted thinking. OR a million other options. There are real behaviors that you can relate to type, but 'accomadating' vs. 'questioning' is not one of them.

    "Which? Let's look at all of those words:

    appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience.
    These can be found in S/N descriptions. It's about concreteness vs abstract.
    a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behaviour.
    These are found in J/P or Cooperative/Pragmatic descriptions
    Energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.
    These can be found in I/E descriptions
    A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
    These can be found in T/F descriptions, and by implication, directing/informing (when you look at definitions of alternate labels such as "responsive" or "people-focus"). Again, don't look at that word "cooperative" here and assume that is the "other" dichotomy. Cooperative can refer to different aspects of behavior.
    A tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.
    These are the definitions of Comfort/Discomfort"

    Bullshit! In the *visceral realm* (can't think of a better way to describe it) __NPs are cautious and conservative, and have a tendency to seek familiarity. When they do play sports they are focused and technically conservative (I was on a ski team in high school, and the improvisors were the daredevils, and could also ski a much greater VARIETY of slopes than I could... obviously!). __NPs have very little oppenness to new sensing experiences. No, the first of the five factors is not even about S/N. I mean, c'mon! Everybody appreciates ART. How in the world does that have anything to do with any of the MBTI dichotomies?
    Thinking types and directing types are not suspicious and antagonistic. That reminds me, I told you before that FFM is irrelevant because each of the dichotomies contains an obvious value judgement about which side is the better one to be on. is 'suspicious and antagonistic' enough evidence for you?
    Oh, and yes, Extraversion obviously DOES relate to E.I SOMEWHAT. INtrovert's don't have less posative emotions than extraverts.

    I don't give a shit what the results of the MBTI and FFM study were. It's obviously a coincidence and means nothing, and it's very easy to see how it could have been falsified. _SPs (very high on 'openness') are very likely to be mis-typed in the MBTI as having a preference for intuition. So the MBTI step II, through it's rediculous-and-untrue-to-the-reality-of-the-function-attitudes S/N 'facets', ends up mis-typing a big bunch of *high-open-ness* __S's as having a preference for intuition, and then also mis-types some of the more traditional N's as S's. Then that distortion shows up on the MBTI and FFM study. It's the perfect self-fullfilling prophecy.

    Me, I'll stick to the 8 cognitive processes, thank-you-very-much.

    The part about confidence is also easily backed up by information about the cognitive processes, and the qualities of the dominant function (and the other function-roles)... and by real life, if you arent' blind.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] ENFP/INFP differences in dealing with conflict
    By Anomoly in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-25-2015, 07:06 PM
  2. [ENFP] ENFPs & INFPs: Our Relationship
    By Adasta in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 10-13-2011, 04:14 PM
  3. [ENFP] ENFP/INFP relationship
    By tortoise in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 08:55 PM
  4. [MBTItm] ENFP / INFP couples?
    By Mighty Mouse in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-31-2010, 12:25 PM
  5. [MBTItm] ENFP-INFP: How much emotion and vulnerability do you show others?
    By heart in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 05-22-2010, 10:24 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