Yes of course, but you cant change a system again and again and again. Then it was flawed from the beginning.
Why do writers edit their work?
Because it was flawed from the beginning. If there's still an interesting idea or particularly good bit of prose, though, the story may be worth the editing. Just because something starts out flawed doesn't mean there was nothing good in it in the first place and that it cannot be fixed.
To dissonance.
I was thinking about your spectrum idea for each of the four individual "functions" and are you saying that if you are closer to 50% you are equally adept at both with a limiting factor in overall strength, or does it imply adept at both with no limiting factor in strength.
For example T N S F with valuations for each of the four functions.
Does 60/40 in Terms of T mean
Ti Te
or does it mean
Ti -----Te
Ah. Well I guess there have to be two variables attached to each function, one for amount of usage, one for introversion/extroversion value. Then maybe there should be an extra variable in the system for ratio of judging to perceiving.
With all those variables, you have all the information the system can carry.
No, no, this opinion is so justified it hurts. The system discussed in this thread has no practical use. It's only valid as a subject of contemplation.Forgive me. I am an engineer. I like when thinks work. And after things did work. I do not like to change things. Flaw of my nature I guess
No, no, this opinion is so justified it hurts. The system discussed in this thread has no practical use. It's only valid as a subject of contemplation.
The underlying thesis is "There are too many types of people to describe with sixteen types. We should attempt to describe them all." It's worse than the confusing mess that is Jungian functions.
if you need help with C let me now, there I am better
You're taking the error further than Jung did (He included elements of both input and processing in several P and J functions).So, in this system, unlike Jack's, N and S are not exclusively 'perceiving' and T and F are not exclusively 'judging.'
The continuum with extroversion/introversion of functions is not so specifically I/E but rather whether one uses N, S, T, or F 'like a judger' or 'like a perceiver.'
So, in this system, unlike Jack's, N and S are not exclusively 'perceiving' and T and F are not exclusively 'judging.'
You're taking the error further than Jung did (He included elements of both input and processing in several P and J functions).
You can call a cat a dog, but it doesn't make it true, and only ends in an increase in incorrectness, and therefore a lack of understanding.
And there you go with your Ti again.
If you call a cat a dog, and everyone believes you, then for all intents and purposes, the cat is a dog. 'Dog' will begin to refer to the similarities between what was formerly known as 'cats' and 'dogs' rather than your preconceived concept of 'dog.' It is therefore no longer incorrect but merely a change of terminology.