Not all Fs. See, one of the problems with the system is this. Say you're an Ni dominant. Well, you could either be an INTJ or an INFJ. But say you're an Ni dominant who uses Thinking more than Feeling AND prefers Ti/Fe to Te/Fi. Is that just not possible? Well, it's not possible in MBTI, but it surely is possible in real life. They call us INFJs, but we're really 'T's by dichotomy.
I don't know. Aren't there similar situations where generalizations are still useful? (Such as distinguishing between "white" people and "black" ones or other cultures, in order to determine probabilities of particular genetic differences?)
For, for example, just because some white people can still get sickle-cell anemia doesn't mean the generalizations (that the disease is more common in black populations) are useless or ill-founded.
People are complex entities. Usually to deal with the complexities, we can make general categories, then deal with deviations. MBTI does the same thing.
I guess your argument is, are the categories truly representative, or are the differentiations actually more of the standard and the MBTI theory itself the artifice.
Another thing. Say you're an INJ racecar driver. You describe the experience of driving as just being in the moment, feeling and noticing all of the sensory data coming through. You're using Se, yeah? It could even be the state in which you're most comfortable. You could be "better" at using Se than an ESP. But MBTI calls it the inferior function, and when you tell someone that you're an INJ, they assume you are out of touch with Se.
Not if they know you.
It's merely a baseline.
It says, if you prefer Se so strongly, chances are you're not INJ. Strong Se usually doesn't show up until later in life if it's your inferior. If it shows up early or preexisting your Ni+Je combo, you're probably not INJ!
So yes, now, if you look at an ADULT, you can't entirely predict what their functions will be... due to the natural differentiation that occurs in life experience. But I bet if you look at the child, you will see a strong primary and type is more clear.
If you really wanted, you could take the time explaining that you're an INJ with a highly developed Se; you could come up with some explanation for why you seem not to fit the system without contradicting the rules. But it's as if we're scrambling for reasons that the system works before questioning the system itself.
Maybe that's because of where you're entering the system. Like I said, if you try to analyze ADULTS directly, you're going to run across those problems.
It's one reason why I gave up arguing people's types. Like you insinuated, there are too many variables to know for sure if someone is a deviation from the assumed type or actually another type altogether. The only way to figure it out is a holistic approach that takes everything into account and also looks at growth over time. Which is a rather lengthy process.
How interesting. Now how do we distinguish from people who are just using confirmation bias versus people who ARE thinking through it but come to the same conclusions as the confirmation bias people?
There's no such thing as someone who isn't using confirmation bias. Any coherent viewpoint we pick -- we're gonna flock to reasons that support it and gloss over reasons that don't.
I'm doing it right now, and so is everyone else.
Yes.
So obviously we're discussing confirmation bias that goes beyond the "reasonable" inherent confirmation bias in any discussion, aren't we?
Just like we commonly discuss illogical/misperceptions that are unreasonable, even though we all know that no one has true knowledge of anything and so ANY piece of knowledge is perhaps unreasonable at the base level?
eeep.
That's kind of a pointless qualm. It's like if I said: "Philosophically, it's impossible to know the Truth as we don't have access to objective information". You'd say I'd be making a claim that I assume is objective about how no claims could be objective. So should I just not open my mouth?
See above.
I think it's clear I was distinguishing between the common "inherent" minor bias existing in everything and directly focusing on the extremity of your claim.
In case all y'all haven't noticed: I'm trying to convince myself as much (if not more) than all of you.
Oh. that is undoubtedly because you are an INFJ with a Ti obsession. *snort*
or something.
When I say seriously: Seriously. When I don't, roll one six-sided die. If the result is "6": Seriously.
I like the ten-siders better.
Seriously.