I don't think you know what I NEED to do. The person who started this topic presented it as an "alternative to Keirsey's classifications," not as "I love function theory and would like to marry it!" I wouldn't have bothered to comment on the latter. I'm not Victor or Jaguar or one of those other people on some sort of mission to try to convince people they're all in some brainwashed cult or something. If somebody presents something as an "alternative to Keirsey" then you would think that it would be something classifying the same things as Keirsey, not an entirely different subject with absolutely no examples of anything given. You want to live in what somebody else on this forum referred to as "fantasy theory land" or something like that, knock yourself out. But don't present it as somehow making more sense than Keirsey's groupings, and then say I don't get it because I'm expecting it to actually have something to do with reality.
There are tons and tons of examples all over reality and everywhere in real life, whether or not you can see them without someone pointing them out to you. Maybe if you'd ask for them before declaring this all totally worthless, people would be inclined to explain.
Actually, dude, I was very open to "functional theory" when I first started studying this personality stuff. I think you could find several topics where I indeed made "a genuine effort to grasp" it. There are many people on this site who use those theories to augment the real study of people, and explained some things I had trouble with before. I've posted about how the function stuff filled in some gaps in my own evaluation of my personality and how it seemed to be different when I was a child. The whole concept of functions sort of developing or "activating" over time as one matures makes a whole lot of sense when I examine my own behavior and others that I've known. The problem comes when people present long strings of theory but don't relate it to anything. Then, yes, I am going to stick up for a simple system of observing people over something that is "intuitive concepts." You're being silly for thinking that I'm not ALWAYS going to look at it in "sensory terms." That's how I look at things. I'm a Sensor!
The long strings of theory
do relate to something; you just don't get it. That's what I'm telling you. If theory-heavy posts really didn't relate to anything, you'd have a great point, but many of them do.
So, it IS assumptive gibberish until you actually apply it to something. Don't put it on me if you're incapable of doing that.
Again there's an extraordinary amount of application, whether or not you can see it. Expanding theoretical foundations allows us to explore all kinds of application that we may have previously thought impossible.
Why don't you try picking out particular sections of these posts and asking for further explanation as to how they apply in real life, rather than simply declaring them garbage before anyone has even heard your specific concerns?
Hey daddio, I work with things that work. I've read enough about cognitive functions to know that they are useless in day to day interactions with people. Now you can attempt to give me a mental reach around all day long by saying "the reason you don't think it works is because you don't get it", but that kind of approach only annoys me, at best.
Grasping people's fundamental value systems and the sources of validation for them is useless in day to day interactions? Really? You can memorize "xxxx type likes to behave this way" all you want, but it doesn't do much in terms of explaining what fundamental life priorities and goals motivate that type of person to behave that way. That is where the utility is; you can move beyond simple categorizations of what and start to learn
why.
MBTI doesn't even touch on the different forms of S/N/T/F; it all just gets lumped into one oversimplified blunt instrument that appeases the masses who find Jung too esoteric. It's great for a quick surface analysis, but you're missing all the depth if you stop there.
And I think it'd be more like mental sodomy, but we'll get into the specifics of hypothetical gay sex another day.
I follow Keirsey's typing style and groupings because of ALL the MBTI offshoots out there, they were the only ones that seem to have an actual practical application.
You don't agree? Maybe it's because you are too lazy to study it but still love shooting it down without bothering to know what you are talking about.
Well no, I used to hold the same position as you because I was introduced to Keirsey first (and I am quite competent in his temperament theory; this is how I know it's inferior) and learned the four-dichotomy system before ever studying Jungian functions. I'm so adamant on this because I've already been through the same thought processes that lead you to think functions are useless and I now realize in hindsight that I really didn't get it at the time.
I still use MBTI for certain things, mostly just very quick first impressions for which direction to go in when dealing with a new person. But in terms of working to understand and appreciate the value in perspectives different from my own, and I mean really appreciate it for its own sake instead of just considering it as some erroneous belief on the part of others, MBTI hardly does anything. You need a more nuanced system to dig deeper into what truly makes people tick.
Now as far as I am concerned, any Myers Briggs derivative theory that claims that INTJs and ISFJs are in the same grouping will automatically get my scorn. I have no interest in wasting my time figuring out exactly how wrong they are. Once I come across blatant prima facia evidence that it is wrong, I move on to other things with my life. You on the other hand, can mentally masturbate all day long.
Hope that clears up my thoughts on the matter.
XOXO,
Edgar
You haven't encountered blatant prima facie (not facia, btw) evidence of shit; you've just failed to grasp the dynamics of functional theory because you don't yet understand how to apply it. INTJs and ISFJs share quite a number of significant characteristics in terms of their learning processes and organizational methods, and yes, a lot of this applies directly to real life in a number of ways.