User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 140

Thread: ENFP/INFP

  1. #111
    ⒺⓉⒷ 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
    "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.
    OK; let's look again at Hartzler's exercises; now with different key words emphasized:

    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

    Clearly, that is the language of Thinking vs Feeling.
    Of course there is no absolute "rule" that it is always like that, and let's not forget that each person whill have both judging functions in the primary range (though with the attitudes reversed).

    "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.
    But perhaps these definitions are not looking at when a value is violated. Most profiles and descriptions I see will give "basic descriptions" under normal circumstances, and stuff like "when a value is violated" (as well as shadows and such) are treated as "special circumstances". That is a basic description. It is not an exhaustive coverage of every aspect of the type under every circumstance.
    "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.
    Well, NP's with their Ne preference also have Si at the other end of the arm or spine, and that will be where the desire for "familiarity" comes from. Se types will probably have less of a need for familiarity. But then that is still an S/N difference, and all that was said was the FFM "Oppenness" corresponded to the perception area.

    I mean, c'mon! Everybody appreciates ART. How in the world does that have anything to do with any of the MBTI dichotomies?
    Again, appreaciation of art is perception, and that would be covered in the "Openness" area. Everyone appreciates art, but some people's appreciation is concrete, some are abstract. It's still the same area being covered. They seem to be interpreting concrete focus as supicious of art, but then the FFM apparently does not differentiate between introverted and extraverted attitudes of the functions and recognize the spines and arms where each person uses both functions in one or the other attitude. Again, nobody said it matched perfectly. Still, the areas being covered (perception, judgment, etc) do correspond.
    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.
    That's not necessarily a "value judgment" there, though it may be phrased in a way that gives that appearance. Nothing is said about "better" That's perhaps your Fi projecting that. Though I'll grant you that the difference here is that FFM is apparently more like Enneagram and FIRO in having a bigger focus on the negative aspects of personality that MBTI, which I had always noticed focused almost purely on the positive. This is one thing that makes comparisons between MBTI with both FIRO and Enneagram so difficult. Likewise, Horney's scales (which the "directional theory of Enneagram" uses) and expanded Type A theory suggest "one healthy type out of four". These both use expressive-responsive type scales (similar to E/I-D/Inf) and conclude that only the "high" expressive and responsive (corresponding to a "Sanguine") are "healthy". They move "with" people, rather than "against" or "away". Likewise, Eysenck's "Neuroticism" in which only the Sanguine and Phlegmatic are considered low on Neuroticism. This is the last factor of FFM, and is imported into MBTI's Type Differentiation Indicator as "Comfort/Discomfort". In fact, the reason apparently C/D was suppressed was because the people working with Myers feared it was too negative.

    So that doesn't mean there is no correspondence between the two systems. They are only looking at the same things from different perspectives. Directing indicates both "task-focus" (rather than people-focus) and [thus] "less responsive" (according to Berens), and antagonism and suspicion are the negative extremes of this. MBTI and KTT/BTT do not emphasize this as much, but the other instruments do.
    And it is not a value judgment, because most of these theories that portray directives that way will also point out that if you want something done efficiently, the task-oriented person will more likely get the job done. People-oriented and/or extroverts will likely either get caught up in socializing, or allow themselves to be distracted or swayed by others. They are often tagged with "irresponsibility". That is the negative side of their personality. Unfortunately, some of the theories use terms that seem to favor one side of each scale. But properly understood, it is not really a value judgment against anyone, and the scales in the two systems are covering roughly the same areas of cognition and behavior.
    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.
    So your first complaint is that these theories are without any sort of data; but then when the data is provided, you just dismiss it as "coincidence", "falsified", and "self-fulfilling prophecy". :rolli: Then how can we know any of this is true, then? Most of this stuff; the original MBTI included, are based on that sort of data. Oh, but then you keep repeating this other theory about some other factor, basically, that is supposed to be known from data (that is not even being given) plus personal experience.
    You might as well just say you don't like Step II or FFM because you just prefer Step I and leave it at that.

  2. #112
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Elfinchilde finally did my type, and this really explains a lot of what everybody's apparently been interpreting as NFP-like behavior!

    The Puddin': It works! - View Single Post - MBTI dissection

    She is really good at this stuff! Thanks Xander for linking to that board!

  3. #113
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    OK; let's look again at Hartzler's exercises; now with different key words emphasized:

    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

    Clearly, that is the language of Thinking vs Feeling.
    Of course there is no absolute "rule" that it is always like that, and let's not forget that each person whill have both judging functions in the primary range (though with the attitudes reversed).

    But perhaps these definitions are not looking at when a value is violated. Most profiles and descriptions I see will give "basic descriptions" under normal circumstances, and stuff like "when a value is violated" (as well as shadows and such) are treated as "special circumstances". That is a basic description. It is not an exhaustive coverage of every aspect of the type under every circumstance.

    Well, NP's with their Ne preference also have Si at the other end of the arm or spine, and that will be where the desire for "familiarity" comes from. Se types will probably have less of a need for familiarity. But then that is still an S/N difference, and all that was said was the FFM "Oppenness" corresponded to the perception area.


    Again, appreaciation of art is perception, and that would be covered in the "Openness" area. Everyone appreciates art, but some people's appreciation is concrete, some are abstract. It's still the same area being covered. They seem to be interpreting concrete focus as supicious of art, but then the FFM apparently does not differentiate between introverted and extraverted attitudes of the functions and recognize the spines and arms where each person uses both functions in one or the other attitude. Again, nobody said it matched perfectly. Still, the areas being covered (perception, judgment, etc) do correspond.

    That's not necessarily a "value judgment" there, though it may be phrased in a way that gives that appearance. Nothing is said about "better" That's perhaps your Fi projecting that. Though I'll grant you that the difference here is that FFM is apparently more like Enneagram and FIRO in having a bigger focus on the negative aspects of personality that MBTI, which I had always noticed focused almost purely on the positive. This is one thing that makes comparisons between MBTI with both FIRO and Enneagram so difficult. Likewise, Horney's scales (which the "directional theory of Enneagram" uses) and expanded Type A theory suggest "one healthy type out of four". These both use expressive-responsive type scales (similar to E/I-D/Inf) and conclude that only the "high" expressive and responsive (corresponding to a "Sanguine") are "healthy". They move "with" people, rather than "against" or "away". Likewise, Eysenck's "Neuroticism" in which only the Sanguine and Phlegmatic are considered low on Neuroticism. This is the last factor of FFM, and is imported into MBTI's Type Differentiation Indicator as "Comfort/Discomfort". In fact, the reason apparently C/D was suppressed was because the people working with Myers feared it was too negative.

    So that doesn't mean there is no correspondence between the two systems. They are only looking at the same things from different perspectives. Directing indicates both "task-focus" (rather than people-focus) and [thus] "less responsive" (according to Berens), and antagonism and suspicion are the negative extremes of this. MBTI and KTT/BTT do not emphasize this as much, but the other instruments do.
    And it is not a value judgment, because most of these theories that portray directives that way will also point out that if you want something done efficiently, the task-oriented person will more likely get the job done. People-oriented and/or extroverts will likely either get caught up in socializing, or allow themselves to be distracted or swayed by others. They are often tagged with "irresponsibility". That is the negative side of their personality. Unfortunately, some of the theories use terms that seem to favor one side of each scale. But properly understood, it is not really a value judgment against anyone, and the scales in the two systems are covering roughly the same areas of cognition and behavior.
    So your first complaint is that these theories are without any sort of data; but then when the data is provided, you just dismiss it as "coincidence", "falsified", and "self-fulfilling prophecy". :rolli: Then how can we know any of this is true, then? Most of this stuff; the original MBTI included, are based on that sort of data. Oh, but then you keep repeating this other theory about some other factor, basically, that is supposed to be known from data (that is not even being given) plus personal experience.
    You might as well just say you don't like Step II or FFM because you just prefer Step I and leave it at that.
    -So the questioning/accomodating facet describes the language of thinking and feeling...because it says it does. It isn't clear to me at all, and, as I've already explained, seems incredibly artificial. "normal circumsances" are almost nonexistant in real life, hence this facet-talk does such a lousy job predicting behaviors. Normal circumstances is a 1950s movie, and of course the male feeling type is usually ignored, or is very accomodating, even in conflict, while the female feeling type is some archetype of eros who is all emotion and sappy violin music plays in the background whenever she speaks. That was a time when america's extraverted feeling culture was its most glaringly obvious. Even then, In real life in the 1950s, those movie scenes were not normal circumstances. That is even more true now. That's why I mentioned Rosie O-Donell.

    Whatever your type actually is (and I admit I don't know), you probably have some very false assumptions about people who prefer feeling. Please tell me everything that you think you know about a thinking vs. feeling preference.

    And the FFM MBTI stuff IS a self-fullfilling prophecy. It makes perfect sense. And The FFM stuff has no real theoretical relation to psychological type. Who knows, maybe there is some theoretical relationship between the FFM and MBTI that nobody knows about yet. But the one you tried to invent is absolutely rediculous.

    The FFM stuff and the Bissel Stuff is total bunk. It defies Berens interaction styles, it difies the 8 cognitive processes, and it defies real life. But you had a theory. You theory is that, although there are thinking and feeling types for each Berens interaction style, that thinking types must have a bit more of a preference for directing in general. And you base that off of the Bissel and FFM stuff. And you call you'r new sliding scale "directive" vs. "informative". But what came first for you. Did you research the FFM and Bissel stuff first, or did you have your theory first. And if you had your theory first, what was it based on then? At what point in all of this did you decide your type?

  4. #114
    ⒺⓉⒷ 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
    -So the questioning/accomodating facet describes the language of thinking and feeling...because it says it does.
    Because "it" says it does? The terms it uses are right there. "It" doesn't "say" anything about what language it uses; it just uses it.
    It isn't clear to me at all, and, as I've already explained, seems incredibly artificial. "normal circumsances" are almost nonexistant in real life, hence this facet-talk does such a lousy job predicting behaviors. Normal circumstances is a 1950s movie, and of course the male feeling type is usually ignored, or is very accomodating, even in conflict, while the female feeling type is some archetype of eros who is all emotion and sappy violin music plays in the background whenever she speaks. That was a time when america's extraverted feeling culture was its most glaringly obvious. Even then, In real life in the 1950s, those movie scenes were not normal circumstances. That is even more true now. That's why I mentioned Rosie O-Donell.
    When I say "normal circumstances", I mean that type or temperament profiles/descriptions will usually give a basic overview of the typical behaviors, and in MBTI, it usually focuses on positive traits. That is what I mean by "normal circumstances". Because is anyone always like that? No. As you said; everyone has bad days. So then, the profile may add stuff like what comes out under stress, or what the shadows are like. More of the "negative" side of the type. All I'm saying is that other theories such as FFM focus more on those negative from the getgo. It is still there in the MBTI types, but not ususally mentioned right away, unless you dig really deep. (I could not find any negative sides of the types, until I found the PUM 1 and Hirsch & Kummerow profiles on Lifexplore, and the Team Technology profiles that mentioned the "shadow")
    It seems we're always getting caught up on words and phrases. I guess that's supposed to be Te too, right?
    And the FFM MBTI stuff IS a self-fullfilling prophecy. It makes perfect sense. And The FFM stuff has no real theoretical relation to psychological type. Who knows, maybe there is some theoretical relationship between the FFM and MBTI that nobody knows about yet. But the one you tried to invent is absolutely rediculous.
    I didn't invent that; Costa & McRae did. You keep attributing all of this to me; all I'm doing is mentioning what these other theorists have come up with. And FFM may not have a "type" system. From what I've seen, they just score each of those factors separately and leave it at that. So noone said it related to "Type"; it's the factors that roughly correspond. And I'm not the one who invented the subscales or Comfort/Discomfort or any other further development of MBTI to compete with FFM. So I dont know why you seem to be blaming me for that. If you don't believe in it, then you've already said so. I'm not forcing you to accept it.
    The FFM stuff and the Bissel Stuff is total bunk. It defies Berens interaction styles, it difies the 8 cognitive processes, and it defies real life.
    How? You're making this up from your own misunderstandings about what FFM is about.
    Whatever your type actually is (and I admit I don't know), you probably have some very false assumptions about people who prefer feeling. Please tell me everything that you think you know about a thinking vs. feeling preference.
    But you had a theory. You theory is that, although there are thinking and feeling types for each Berens interaction style, that thinking types must have a bit more of a preference for directing in general. And you base that off of the Bissel and FFM stuff. And you call you'r new sliding scale "directive" vs. "informative". But what came first for you. Did you research the FFM and Bissel stuff first, or did you have your theory first. And if you had your theory first, what was it based on then? At what point in all of this did you decide your type?
    I explained [the first part of] this to you before. I do not call the whole scale "directive vs informative", though I may sometimes use the terms as generic indicators of some parallel properties directing and informing share with structure vs motive. It's not that thinking types have "more" of a directing preference, despite the interaction styles. It's that a T will always be either structure, or directing, or, in the case of the TJ's, both. And this tied into what Bissell said, even though he does not even believe in any of Berens' dichotomies. He independantly of those made an observation of the TJ vs FP vs TP vs FJ groups, and I saw the pattern (you should understand this since you have dom. Ne) of how it came together.
    The fact that T/F and J/P switch back and forth between indicating one of those dichotomies or the other, according to S and N hints that they have something in common. Thinking preference indicates something about the Interaction Style for S types, and it indicates something about the temperament for N types.

    I actually found out about the Interaction Styles first, then came across Bissell's theory, which seemed to explain some things, and then finally saw Beren's Structure vs Motive, and then it all came together, and seemed to match the common dimension called Responsiveness or Wanted behavior, which is what I was familiar with before anything else.
    I did look at a type based on this, and it seemed to fit, but then someone suggested something else purely by shadow dynamics, and I went along with it at first (yet still with serious questions about it), but as I studied the functions more, I saw that it did not really fit that type, and fit the first one I selected better after all.

    I'm still curious as to why you seem so angry about all of this. People have all kinds of theories about type and everything else. Why is it like some sort of personal offense that others or other variations even exist?

  5. #115
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Because "it" says it does? The terms it uses are right there. "It" doesn't "say" anything about what language it uses; it just uses it. When I say "normal circumstances", I mean that type or temperament profiles/descriptions will usually give a basic overview of the typical behaviors, and in MBTI, it usually focuses on positive traits. That is what I mean by "normal circumstances". Because is anyone always like that? No. As you said; everyone has bad days. So then, the profile may add stuff like what comes out under stress, or what the shadows are like. More of the "negative" side of the type. All I'm saying is that other theories such as FFM focus more on those negative from the getgo. It is still there in the MBTI types, but not ususally mentioned right away, unless you dig really deep. (I could not find any negative sides of the types, until I found the PUM 1 and Hirsch & Kummerow profiles on Lifexplore, and the Team Technology profiles that mentioned the "shadow")
    It seems we're always getting caught up on words and phrases. I guess that's supposed to be Te too, right?
    I didn't invent that; Costa & McRae did. You keep attributing all of this to me; all I'm doing is mentioning what these other theorists have come up with. And FFM may not have a "type" system. From what I've seen, they just score each of those factors separately and leave it at that. So noone said it related to "Type"; it's the factors that roughly correspond. And I'm not the one who invented the subscales or Comfort/Discomfort or any other further development of MBTI to compete with FFM. So I dont know why you seem to be blaming me for that. If you don't believe in it, then you've already said so. I'm not forcing you to accept it.
    How? You're making this up from your own misunderstandings about what FFM is about.

    I explained [the first part of] this to you before. I do not call the whole scale "directive vs informative", though I may sometimes use the terms as generic indicators of some parallel properties directing and informing share with structure vs motive. It's not that thinking types have "more" of a directing preference, despite the interaction styles. It's that a T will always be either structure, or directing, or, in the case of the TJ's, both. And this tied into what Bissell said, even though he does not even believe in any of Berens' dichotomies. He independantly of those made an observation of the TJ vs FP vs TP vs FJ groups, and I saw the pattern (you should understand this since you have dom. Ne) of how it came together.
    The fact that T/F and J/P switch back and forth between indicating one of those dichotomies or the other, according to S and N hints that they have something in common. Thinking preference indicates something about the Interaction Style for S types, and it indicates something about the temperament for N types.

    I actually found out about the Interaction Styles first, then came across Bissell's theory, which seemed to explain some things, and then finally saw Beren's Structure vs Motive, and then it all came together, and seemed to match the common dimension called Responsiveness or Wanted behavior, which is what I was familiar with before anything else.
    I did look at a type based on this, and it seemed to fit, but then someone suggested something else purely by shadow dynamics, and I went along with it at first (yet still with serious questions about it), but as I studied the functions more, I saw that it did not really fit that type, and fit the first one I selected better after all.

    I'm still curious as to why you seem so angry about all of this. People have all kinds of theories about type and everything else. Why is it like some sort of personal offense that others or other variations even exist?
    I was angry because I think I'm looking at a continuing influence of feeling stereotypes- which is why I mentioned the 50s movie part. That's also why the 'heart of servent supines' thing set me off (way earlier).


    Anyways. When Fi types live thier callings, they aren't in normal circumstances. For example My INFP roomate is planning on becoming a criminal defense attorney, and I bet there are tons of Fi type lawyers. The career can be incredibly satisfying for Domfis, both for thier herioc and inferior functions. I'm sure that they don't fit much of the feeling facets when they're living they're callings though.

    So how did Bissel observe the groups. What was the exercise? (I'll warn you now, for other reason's I mentioned I won't believe his stuff anyway. And how did he know what types the people were?)

    You're right about the FFM definitions. At first I had no idea what each factor really was. Then I read the stuff on wikipedia, and it turns out my initial reaction was right after all. Forget the studies. If ________ is what 'openness' is, and __________ is what we know about types who's type is actually confirmed. Also, in real life, when it comes to metaphysics, improvisors are into way wierder ideas than anything I'll buy- scientology (I keep thinking of Tom Cruise's character in Minority Report), quantum mysticism, numerology, etc. I also know ES_Js who brag about some supposed eccentricity of themselves.

  6. #116
    ⒺⓉⒷ 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
    I was angry because I think I'm looking at a continuing influence of feeling stereotypes- which is why I mentioned the 50s movie part. That's also why the 'heart of servent supines' thing set me off (way earlier).
    Well, I'm not trying to make stereotypes. Sorry if I've given any kind of impression like that. But then it's not like anyone is saying Feeling types are wimpy or soft or anything. They just have somewhat different type/temperament patterns, giving them their unique identity. Sometimes they seem less "critical" than Thinking, which is about logic, and is often stereotyped as being "cold".
    Supine is a fifth temperament only held by two instruments (and implicit in the original FIRO, plus TKI and a couple of others with five types), and all I was describing was its responsiveness, or "informing" characteristics. And I fall into the category, yet I believe I'm still a Thinking type.
    Anyways. When Fi types live thier callings, they aren't in normal circumstances. For example My INFP roomate is planning on becoming a criminal defense attorney, and I bet there are tons of Fi type lawyers. The career can be incredibly satisfying for Domfis, both for thier herioc and inferior functions. I'm sure that they don't fit much of the feeling facets when they're living they're callings though.
    Well, nobody's denying that.
    (Forgot to ask, what is Rosie's full type supposed to be? And is that verified by her, or just speculation based on behavior?)
    So how did Bissel observe the groups. What was the exercise? (I'll warn you now, for other reason's I mentioned I won't believe his stuff anyway. And how did he know what types the people were?)
    What types which people were? He did not assess people, he uses statistical date of the comparitive types using a Mean Similarity Method (MSM) and noted the similarities of those type. TJ, TP, FJ, FP are known as the "Normative Temperaments" or "judging attitudes". Then he also mentioned the original "Myers temperaments" of function combinations (ST, NT, SF, NF), and the "cognitive temperaments" or "perceiving attitudes" (SJ, SP, NJ, NP). He and others like George Frisbie and Janet Germane prefers these "symmetrical" models over the Keirseyan and Berens groupings which are totally asymmetrical, at least when mapped to the MBTI's scales. He points out that any of the groupings mentioned above (and many others) may be "better" or the most useful for a particular purpose.
    "If you want to see what aspects of personality relate to two specific dimensions, obviously the Germane "syncretic temperaments" or the analogous TJ, TP, FP, FJ (Judging Attitudes) combination, or the Myersian function combinations (ST, SF, NF, NT) all can serve admirably well.
    If, however, you want to have maximum distinctiveness of each of the four groups of types from each of the other groups, the Keirsey temperaments (as well as other asymmetrical groupings) are clearly preferable.
    "
    I myself disagree with him on favoring symmetrical models (To me, symmetry is desired, but not expected when mapping an ancient temperamt system to a newer system with it's own framework, based on cognitive functions including perception, which was not covered in the older theory). But he still offers excellent insights.
    You're right about the FFM definitions. At first I had no idea what each factor really was. Then I read the stuff on wikipedia, and it turns out my initial reaction was right after all. Forget the studies. If ________ is what 'openness' is, and __________ is what we know about types who's type is actually confirmed. Also, in real life, when it comes to metaphysics, improvisors are into way wierder ideas than anything I'll buy- scientology (I keep thinking of Tom Cruise's character in Minority Report), quantum mysticism, numerology, etc. I also know ES_Js who brag about some supposed eccentricity of themselves.
    Well, one, none of these tests perfectly measure every aspect of a person, two we do not know if these out of preference behaviors are hardwired, or learned, or even if they've typed themselves correctly, or if they have typed themselves at all, and it is not just us speculating on what their type is based on their behavior. How can you use a fictional character to argue what a type should or should not behave like? Or because a person adopted a particular religion or philosphy? You will find all types in any given one of those groups.

  7. #117
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Well, I'm not trying to make stereotypes. Sorry if I've given any kind of impression like that. But then it's not like anyone is saying Feeling types are wimpy or soft or anything. They just have somewhat different type/temperament patterns, giving them their unique identity. Sometimes they seem less "critical" than Thinking, which is about logic, and is often stereotyped as being "cold".
    Supine is a fifth temperament only held by two instruments (and implicit in the original FIRO, plus TKI and a couple of others with five types), and all I was describing was its responsiveness, or "informing" characteristics. And I fall into the category, yet I believe I'm still a Thinking type.
    Well, nobody's denying that.
    (Forgot to ask, what is Rosie's full type supposed to be? And is that verified by her, or just speculation based on behavior?)
    What types which people were? He did not assess people, he uses statistical date of the comparitive types using a Mean Similarity Method (MSM) and noted the similarities of those type. TJ, TP, FJ, FP are known as the "Normative Temperaments" or "judging attitudes". Then he also mentioned the original "Myers temperaments" of function combinations (ST, NT, SF, NF), and the "cognitive temperaments" or "perceiving attitudes" (SJ, SP, NJ, NP). He and others like George Frisbie and Janet Germane prefers these "symmetrical" models over the Keirseyan and Berens groupings which are totally asymmetrical, at least when mapped to the MBTI's scales. He points out that any of the groupings mentioned above (and many others) may be "better" or the most useful for a particular purpose.
    "If you want to see what aspects of personality relate to two specific dimensions, obviously the Germane "syncretic temperaments" or the analogous TJ, TP, FP, FJ (Judging Attitudes) combination, or the Myersian function combinations (ST, SF, NF, NT) all can serve admirably well.
    If, however, you want to have maximum distinctiveness of each of the four groups of types from each of the other groups, the Keirsey temperaments (as well as other asymmetrical groupings) are clearly preferable.
    "
    I myself disagree with him on favoring symmetrical models (To me, symmetry is desired, but not expected when mapping an ancient temperamt system to a newer system with it's own framework, based on cognitive functions including perception, which was not covered in the older theory). But he still offers excellent insights.


    Well, one, none of these tests perfectly measure every aspect of a person, two we do not know if these out of preference behaviors are hardwired, or learned, or even if they've typed themselves correctly, or if they have typed themselves at all, and it is not just us speculating on what their type is based on their behavior. How can you use a fictional character to argue what a type should or should not behave like? Or because a person adopted a particular religion or philosphy? You will find all types in any given one of those groups.

    My type-'guess' for Rosie O-Donnel is not a guess. I have gotten very good at process watching, and it is much easier when you hear and see the person. Rosie is definately an __FP type, my *guess* is ISFP. I'm pretty sure she took the position of 'persecutor' in insulting donald trump, and last I checked, she never apologized.

    Yes, I will have to agree to dissagree about the facets, FFM, and 'normal circumstances'.

    And If Bissell wasn't even actually observing people, I have no faith in his ideas (admittadly, I would never believe them anyway, but the fact that he was just armchair-theorizing goes in my evidence-box). Furthermore, his theorizing looks to me to be just a chain of false assumption so that he can get a symmetrical theory (real people don't adhere to this kind of numerology!) I'll adress each one of his assumptions tommorow.

  8. #118
    ⒺⓉⒷ 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
    My type-'guess' for Rosie O-Donnel is not a guess. I have gotten very good at process watching, and it is much easier when you hear and see the person. Rosie is definately an __FP type, my *guess* is ISFP. I'm pretty sure she took the position of 'persecutor' in insulting donald trump, and last I checked, she never apologized.
    Is "persecutor" supposed to be an SP trait? With her feistiness, she always came off as an extrovert to me. (And I tend to associate "confidence", at least as an inborn trait, with extroversion). And she strikes me as more like a J. But then, I never watched her much, and just remember the news about her coming out of the closet, and then she had her own show, and then was briefly on the View. (And she likes my favorite, Drake's Cakes, which are mostly a northeast US thing, and now basically merged with Hostess and Dolly Madison) Much of it is a blur, and I just remember her as some hot-tempered person who has strong feelings or complains about a lot of things.

    Bush is said to be ISFP, and an ISFP on another boars was greatly disturbed at the notion of being the same type as him. (Because of his policies). But neither of them strike me as having the same personality as Rosie.
    Yes, I will have to agree to dissagree about the facets, FFM, and 'normal circumstances'.

    And If Bissell wasn't even actually observing people, I have no faith in his ideas (admittadly, I would never believe them anyway, but the fact that he was just armchair-theorizing goes in my evidence-box).
    He may have observed people too, for all we know. But then do all theorists who work with statistics observe people? I do think that observation would be more reliable, but you can only observe but so many poeple at a time, while statistics are all right there before you. And even with observing people, people can wear masks of learned behavior.
    Furthermore, his theorizing looks to me to be just a chain of false assumption so that he can get a symmetrical theory (real people don't adhere to this kind of numerology!) I'll adress each one of his assumptions tommorow.
    Well, his symmetrical models he did not make up himself. SP/SJ/NP/NJ are from Janet Germane. TJ/TP/FJ/FP, I forgot who they were from, but both sets are legitimate "function attitude" groups. And then, ST/SF/NT/NF were what were suggested by Myers herself, along with George Frisbie.

    I hope what you plan to respond to is his page, and not just the partial info I have relayed to you. One of the pertinent articles, on the EAR data, is not even online. And he has more articles that are not on the "Achilles" part of his webspace.

  9. #119
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Now for the Bissel stuff.

    "The concepts that best capture this basic J/P difference are engaged vs. disengaged, "engage" being thought of in the sense of "to mesh together; to interlock with," like the gears in an automobile. J types, when intimate, become relatively more engaged, blurring the boundaries between themselves and the other person, getting "hooked into" the other. P types remain relatively more disengaged, keeping personal boundaries more distinct, "sidling up to" the other."

    Either Bissel, or someone (I really don't care who) made this up. It is not true. It is made up. J/P has nothing to do with intimacy desired in relationships, and relationships that are codependent and have boundary problems usually revolve around the auxiliary (parent) function of both parties, and that goes for every type. No type has any type tendency to be more or less 'engaged'

    "FJs, who extravert Feeling, are the most empathetic types. More than the other types, they tend to project inwardly, into themselves the values, standards, and concerns of other people. They experience those values, etc., as though they were their own, and they judge their own actions and character on the basis of those internalized values. TJs, who extravert Thinking, are the most directive types. More than the other types, they tend to project outwardly, into others their own values, standards, and concerns. They experience those values, etc., as though they belonged to other people, and they judge the actions and character of others on the basis of their own externalized values."

    That was really just an elaborate semantics game, and Bissel has no clue what might actually go on in the minds of these types. Both types demand that some other people behave according to thier rules, and leave other people completely off the hook. My favorite example of neurotic codependent auxiliary extraverted THINKING was actually the British film "Remains of the day". The Butler (an ISTJ ) became completely aware of what his boss was up too, but the butler code is to not interfere with that stuff, which he never did, even though others reminded him that he probably had the most influence on his master of anyone. Why? Because he used his extraverted feeling to campartmentalize and specify his job, restricting what he could do. Also, INFLUENCE is a MOTIVE thing that may gaurdians and rationals remain amazingly clueless of. NTJs often seem not to care if someone is listening to them, and they also can go on and on when nobody is listening. Also, TJ types have a tendency to adopt a few pieces of ettiquette and follow them rigidly and robotically, thinking that that will ensure that people will like them. I remember reading about the sociology of the string-theory community. Because it is impossible (and impractical in terms of time, task, and trying to build a career) to adress every potential problem with theoretical physics, young string theorists just take at face value how thier superiors answered these problems. They say "It is obviously ___", because that's what Ed Witten said at the last conference, or "It has been proven that ___" even if theorists of other fields doubt the validity of that proof. Basically, because of the vast amount of material, they let thier superiors think for them when it comes to tying loose ends in the theories. What a bunch of sucking up, right? And most of them are rationals!! Sometimes I'm amazed at how NTJs seem to arbitrarily restrict themselves to what they can and can't work on. This atmosphere was created, because the original experimental culture of the 1970s was an incredibly extraverted thinking culture- "Shut up and calculate". Well, now they still all shut up and calculate, but they don't do experiments. But really, think about it, that activity has become (and always sort of was) a way of sucking up. The field is dominated by theorists- political, brown-nosing theorists (including, maybe ESPECIALLY, the NTJs).

    "TPs, who introvert Thinking, will tell you their opinions and ideas. They tend to do so, however, in a less emotional way. Emotions, in fact, are normally the last thing TPs will share with you. When they do, it tends to be more explosive and after a period of stuffing or gunny-sacking their feelings. TPs are the type most unlike FJs in this respect. Myers and McCaulley recognize this basic difference when they refer to TPs as "impersonal" and FJs as "expressive." While TJs are most likely to be directive and control-minded and FPs least likely so, most FJs and TPs are likely to be somewhere in the middle."

    Um, being a robot is a survival game for all theorists. And what I notice is that it's usually the INTJs who go around bragging that they "have no F.", and are a 100% logical robot. In my experience, TPs are much more willing to share thier emotions then TJs.

    "Similarly, FPs, who introvert Feeling, will talk about values and concerns, but they tend to do so more indirectly and less logically or critically than others. They tend to stuff their criticisms and are the type most unlike TJs in this respect. Again, Myers and McCaulley allude to this basic difference in calling FPs "gentle" and TJs "tough minded." And while FJs are most likely to be empathetic and ethical-minded and TPs least likely so, most TJs and FPs are probably somewhere in between."

    Less critically, huh? People should really meet some I_FP children, here how they sound before they get dummed down by society. And forget the 'less logically'. That's just a sublte little insult. Blow it out your ass, Bissel. Any FP and TP that prefers informing will express themselves indirectly, but there's really no more or less. In other words, I think Bissel is playing his numerology here. TPs will be more precise in thier criticism, but FPs will be much more willing to use value judgement, such as "That's disgusting" and "I hate ...", and "Well he's a prick"


    Now for the real baloney.



    "(1) Blaming occurs when one is overly critical of another person, probably with aggressive posture and a harsh tone of voice. The "tough-minded" TJs can sometimes become Blamers, if they are feeling defensive. They prefer to extravert their Thinking -- to use their logical, critical faculty in dealing with the world -- which can easily turn into Blaming if taken too far. An STJ Sensing Blamer would tend to focus more on the concrete level. He would base his message that he disapproves of you on details and miss the overall trend of your goodness. An iNtuitive Blamer (NTJ), on the other hand, would use a more abstract way of proving that you have done something wrong. He would be so invested in his overall view of you that he would not be aware of details that contradict that overall view."

    And again I'm feeling like I'm being forced to watch a 1950s movie. The Humphrey Bogarts are not the only people who blame, OK? Everyone has a tendency, through thier 6th function, to be blaming and vindictive.

    "(2) Placating, in a certain respect the opposite to Blaming, occurs when one is being overly self-critical, with apologetic posture and tone of voice. The "expressive" FJs, when feeling defensive, are likely to become Placaters, based on their preference to use Feeling to deal with the world. This tendency to be empathetic with and accommodating to others can easily turn into Placating if taken too far. A Sensing Placater (SFJ) is more likely to be overly apologetic over specific actions and out of touch with his overall goodness. An iNtuitive Placater (NFJ) is more likely to be so invested in his overall negative view of himself that he overlooks details that contradict that view."

    And he makes incredibly false assumptions about motives. Placating doesn't neccesary stem from self loathing. All types do a bit of placating with thier auxiliary function. The self-esteem problem is actually more of an introverted feeling type thing. They're the types that can become locked in a very negative self-image.

    "(3) Computing or Super-Reasonable is the hiding of one

  10. #120
    To the top of the world arcticangel02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    eNFP
    Posts
    892

    Default

    A couple random points:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Is "persecutor" supposed to be an SP trait? With her feistiness, she always came off as an extrovert to me. (And I tend to associate "confidence", at least as an inborn trait, with extroversion). And she strikes me as more like a J. But then, I never watched her much, and just remember the news about her coming out of the closet, and then she had her own show, and then was briefly on the View. (And she likes my favorite, Drake's Cakes, which are mostly a northeast US thing, and now basically merged with Hostess and Dolly Madison) Much of it is a blur, and I just remember her as some hot-tempered person who has strong feelings or complains about a lot of things.
    Actually, extraversion and confidence really don't have much to do with each other. The extravert may appear more confident, but many of them can be really quite shy. Likewise, there are plenty of confident introverts. So try not to mix those two up.

    Bush is said to be ISFP, and an ISFP on another boars was greatly disturbed at the notion of being the same type as him. (Because of his policies). But neither of them strike me as having the same personality as Rosie.
    Actually, I've heard elsewhere that he's an ESTP. But I'm not really sure.

    ISFPs always seem to come across quite soft and kind, to me. But of course the level-headed ISFP I know is certainly not the be-all and end-all of that type.
    ANFP:
    Extraversion (52%) ---- Introversion (48%)
    Sensing (26%) ---- iNtuition (74%)
    Thinking (16%) ---- Feeling (84%)
    Judging (5%) ---- Perceiving (95%)

    9w1 so/sx/sp

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