What's your "kindred spirit foursome"?

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The INs are my pick for kindred spirits. ENTP would be my best fit type that's not an IN.

I'll echo this.

 

[Pionart]

I don't particularly identify with any of Jung's types. I was only assuming Ni-Ti as a type for the sake of argument

Ok, a mistake on my part.

and I could just as easily argue ENFP or ENTJ using the so-called "nu-MBTI" of quasi-Jungian functions within the Grant function stack (or Beebe's eight function stack, which you prefer to use). Functions are flexible enough where people can shoehorn themselves into them however they want. It's been my experience that a lot of members of typology forums don't identify well with the purported function stacks for their type.

I don't think of MBTI types as archetypes in the Jungian sense. An INTP is someone who generally prefers I, N, T, and P responses on dichotomies tests when answering in "shoes off" mode. That's all. This opens up room for all the possible non-MBTI-related variation between personalities.

I understand the cognitive functions to be essentially discrete (but interacting) modes of cognition, which tend to have a sequential manifestation in one of 16 possible standard orderings (though can be used in non-standard orderings as well).

I'm not defining types as being related to test scores, and someone of any of the 16 cognitive function types could potentially score as any of the 16 types on a test.

A Jungian archetype is a mental image present in the collective unconscious, one which an Introverted Sensing type would engage through their reality-challenged abstractions. Sensory impressions (such as facial features) may be internalised and used as the basis for constructing these archetypes which exist only in their minds, and cannot be made understandable to others.

Good luck trying to find any consensus on how best to define your archetypes. Half of all function discussions involve bickering over how best to define the functions. "Let's use Jung's definitions!" "No, let's define functions based on which types they correspond with according to their function stacks!" "Socionics is so much better!"

Ok, I can sort of see how building templates from experience of how a type is expected to look would be Si-related, but given that it's a visual identification of a theoretical construct, it uses both intuition and sensing. Si is certainly a weak point for me.

There's much debate over who is or is not one type or another. In time, this should begin to be cleared up. I'd prefer to investigate the reality of the phenomenon though, rather than making do with test scores, which are a flimsy indicator of the underlying reality.

(test scores measure how a person sees themself, not how their mind actually works)

 

[Shadow Play]

I understand the cognitive functions to be essentially discrete (but interacting) modes of cognition, which tend to have a sequential manifestation in one of 16 possible orderings (though can be used in non-standard orderings as well).

Yes, and function ordering is devised in such a way to allow functionistas to have their cake and eat it, too. They can argue for preferred functions when it suits them, and they can explain away inconsistencies in preference when it suits them. This all assumes that mental processes (aka 'the functions') have to follow any kind of order at all.

I'm not defining types as being related to test scores, and someone of any of the 16 cognitive function types could potentially score as any of the 16 types on a test.

Fair enough, although why even bother using the four letters as labels? Why not call an 'INFJ' Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, and in doing so, avoid mixing up two different typologies into one thing?

Ok, I can sort of see how building templates from experience of how a type is expected to look would be Si-related, but given that it's a visual identification of a theoretical construct, it uses both intuition and sensing. Si is certainly a weak point for me.

Needing to use any visual identifications for rendering the abstract is Jungian Introverted Sensing. When you say 'Si' is a weak point, do you mean things characteristic of SJs, instead? See the problem of intertwining contradictory systems?

There's much debate over who is or is not one type or another. In time, this should begin to be cleared up. I'd prefer to investigate the reality of the phenomenon though, rather than making do with test scores, which are a flimsy indicator of the underlying reality.

And test scores "are a flimsy indicator of the underlying reality" where the far more subjective function theory is not because... ?

 

[Pionart]

Yes, and function ordering is devised in such a way to allow functionistas to have their cake and eat it, too. They can argue for preferred functions when it suits them, and they can explain away inconsistencies in preference when it suits them. This all assumes that mental processes (aka 'the functions') have to follow any kind of order at all.

I make that assumption because I observed it to be the case.

Fair enough, although why even bother using the four letters as labels? Why not call an 'INFJ' Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, and in doing so, avoid mixing up two different typologies into one thing?

Because that's how the labels are used. I could also say NiFe, as that's another label that is used. My main problem with the labels like "INFJ" is that the letter "J" is misleading because despite standing for "Judging" it is not referring to types whose dominant function is one of the 4 judgement functions, and thus is a problematic convention to have been adopted.

Needing to use any visual identifications of rendering the abstract is Jungian Introverted Sensing. When you say 'Si' is a weak point, do you mean things characteristic of SJs, instead? See the problem of intertwining contradictory systems?

I mean that I am not a strong user of the introverted sensing function in comparison to my use of the other functions.

And test scores "are a flimsy indicator of the underlying reality" where the far more subjective function theory is not because... ?

As I added to the end of my post, test scores are self-assessments which measure how a person sees themself. In order to understand what a type is, you need to identify the cognitive functions actually being used by a person, and so need to understand what it means to say that a function is manifesting.

The assumption here is that cognitive functions are a real thing (although "thing" might refer to a pattern) that can be directly studied through observing people.

 

[LittleCat]

Possibly FPs. IPs are cool too. I feel understood by some members of both of these groups and I love how we encourage each other to stay weird!
As for the additional type outside of the foursome, I don't know. Whatever type my cat is

 

[Shadow Play]

I make that assumption because I observed it to be the case.

Because your anecdotal experience somehow makes it true.

Because that's how the labels are used. I could also say NiFe, as that's another label that is used. My main problem with the labels like "INFJ" is that the letter "J" is misleading because despite standing for "Judging" it is not referring to types whose dominant function is one of the 4 judgement functions, and thus is a problematic convention to have been adopted.

Yes, Myer's inconsistent labelling of IJs and IPs as Pi and Ji types, respectively, is a problem, but that doesn't change the fact that choosing J or P responses would make you show up on the data as a J or P, were your results to be used for comparison between types. Also, the Grant and Beebe stacks are neither Myer's stack nor the stack officially endorsed by the MBTI. The official stack for an INFJ is Ni-Fe-Te-Se, so you couldn't claim to be a Ti user on that basis.

I mean that I am not a strong user of the introverted sensing function in comparison to my use of the other functions.

I see.

As I added to the end of my post, test scores are self-assessments which measure how a person sees themself. In order to understand what a type is, you need to identify the cognitive functions actually being used by a person, and so need to understand what it means to say that a function is manifesting.

The assumption here is that cognitive functions are a real thing (although "thing" might refer to a pattern) that can be directly studied through observing people.

Right, so you infer types through observing behaviour in others. How is that an advantage over the MBTI tests?

It's not logical to work under the assumption that functions are real. They need to first be tested under the assumption that they could be falsifiable.

 

[Shadow Play]

Possibly FPs. IPs are cool too. I feel understood by some members of both of these groups and I love how we encourage each other to stay weird!
As for the additional type outside of the foursome, I don't know. Whatever type my cat is

Cats are obvious ISTPs. You have your own miniature killing machine who brings you dead birds and rodents as gifts.

 

[Pionart]

Because your anecdotal experience somehow makes it true.

It's not logical to work under the assumption that functions are real. They need to first be tested under the assumption that they could be falsifiable.

I'm investigating the phenomenon to uncover its nature. I'll do it my way, you do it yours.

Yes, Myer's inconsistent labelling of IJs and IPs as Pi and Ji types, respectively, is a problem, but that doesn't change the fact that choosing J or P responses would make you show up on the data as a J or P, were your results to be used for comparison between types. Also, the Grant and Beebe stacks are neither Myer's stack nor the stack officially endorsed by the MBTI. The official stack for an INFJ is Ni-Fe-Te-Se, so you couldn't claim to be a Ti user on that basis.

Well, I use the terminology for the forums. I just go by INFJ=Ni-Fe-Ti-Se convention because I figure that's what people will best understand, as well as being useful in describing groupings like this thread is doing.

I don't study the statistical data, and in my notebooks I often just write down the full function order, which is the one which my observation has revealed to be the correct one.

Right, so you infer types through observing behaviour in others. How is that an advantage over the MBTI tests?

Because a person who is a particular type could score as any type in a test. I sometimes use test scores to get a feel for whether a person is imbalanced or not and what those imbalances might be, or at least to note their biases in how they see themself.

It's... quite clearly an advantage, as long as I know what I'm doing. Directly observing something, compared to asking questions to see if a person thinks that's how they are or not. I don't know why it's not apparent, but I can't just reorient your mind to know what I'm saying.

 

[cacaia]

I really like NTs and am drawn to them. I can goof off and have a good time with nfs, too. So, I guess, my foursome would be:INTP, ENFP, INFP, INTJ.

 

[Shadow Play]

My answer has long been the INs, and the recycled reckful in the spoiler explains why.

Below are some membership stats for Personality Cafe and Typology Central. For each type, the first percentage is the percentage of that type at the forum, the second percentage (in parentheses) is the estimated "general population" percentage from the official MBTI folks (from this page), and the final number on the right is the self-selection ratio for that type — i.e., the ratio of the forum percentage to the general population percentage.

November 2014 membership stats for Personality Café:

INFJ — 9133 — 15.7% (1.5%) — ssr: 10.5
INTJ — 7307 — 12.6% (2.1%) — ssr: 6.0
INFP — 11865 — 20.4% (4.4%) — ssr: 4.6
INTP — 7825 — 13.5% (3.3%) — ssr: 4.1
ENTP — 3709 — 6.4% (3.2%) — ssr: 2.0
ENTJ — 1681 — 2.9% (1.8%) — ssr: 1.6
ENFJ — 1904 — 3.3% (2.5%) — ssr: 1.3
ENFP — 4915 — 8.5% (8.1%) — ssr: 1.0
ISTP — 1926 — 3.3% (5.4%) — ssr: 0.6
ISFP — 1986 — 3.4% (8.8%) — ssr: 0.4
ISTJ — 2094 — 3.6% (11.6%) — ssr: 0.3
ESTP — 635 — 1.1% (4.3%) — ssr: 0.3
ISFJ — 1374 — 2.4% (13.8%) — ssr: 0.2
ESFP — 620 — 1.1% (8.5%) — ssr: 0.1
ESFJ — 573 — 1.0% (12.3%) — ssr: 0.1
ESTJ — 542 — 0.9% (8.7%) — ssr: 0.1

November 2014 membership stats for Typology Central:

INFJ — 1782 — 16.1% (1.5%) — ssr: 10.7
INTJ — 1437 — 13.0% (2.1%) — ssr: 6.2
INTP — 1958 — 17.7% (3.3%) — ssr: 5.4
INFP — 2016 — 18.2% (4.4%) — ssr: 4.1
ENTP — 781 — 7.0% (3.2%) — ssr: 2.2
ENTJ — 298 — 2.7% (1.8%) — ssr: 1.5
ENFP — 1156 — 10.4% (8.1%) — ssr: 1.3
ENFJ — 321 — 2.9% (2.5%) — ssr: 1.2
ISTP — 304 — 2.7% (5.4%) — ssr: 0.5
ISFP — 256 — 2.3% (8.8%) — ssr: 0.3
ISTJ — 278 — 2.5% (11.6%) — ssr: 0.2
ESTP — 100 — 0.9% (4.3%) — ssr: 0.2
ISFJ — 181 — 1.6% (13.8%) — ssr: 0.1
ESFP — 84 — 0.8% (8.5%) — ssr: 0.1
ESTJ — 74 — 0.7% (8.7%) — ssr: 0.1
ESFJ — 65 — 0.6% (12.3%) — ssr: 0.05

And here someone may object: But reckful, come on. Everybody knows that INs are the folks who freaking live on the internet, so the fact that there are a lot more of them on any particular website may not say as much as you might otherwise think about their greater affinity for the theme of that website. And to that I'd respond: I don't necessarily disagree with that, but the fact that INs are the folks most inclined to live on the internet — to the extent that you're right about that — is another piece of strong evidence in favor of viewing the INs as a significant type group.

I'd say the INs are the types best characterized as "born students." They're the types most likely to be found learning something for the sheer joy of learning, and the types most likely to begin their response to "What do you hope to accomplish in your life?" by saying (to quote an INTJ woman at PerC), "I want to learn as much as I can."

The MBTI Manual calls INs the "thoughtful innovators" and says they "are introspective and scholarly. They are interested in knowledge for its own sake, as well as ideas, theory, and depth of understanding. They are the least practical of the types." In Type Talk, Kroeger & Thuesen note that INs "would rather speculate as to why Rome is burning than actually fight the fire. They are speculative, reflective, introspective, conceptual, and highly abstract in orientation."

I'd say INs are the nerds. INs are the folks who tend to be the most serious about the world of literature and philosophy and the arts, and to take one or more divisions of pop culture seriously. You might say the INs' church is the library. As already noted, the INs are the folks most likely to more or less live on the internet, and to fail to see much of a significant distinction between the internet and so-called "real life." I think INs tend to be the most independent thinkers, and the most likely to define themselves strongly on the basis of their independent perspectives — not "special snowflake" unique, necessarily, but independently arrived at, and often more minority/subcultural than culturally mainstream.

Jung was an IN, Briggs and Myers were both INs, and Keirsey was an IN. And it sounds to me like most of the predecessor typologists whose theories Jung reviewed in Psychological Types were fellow INs who I suspect were also, like Jung, partly moved to formulate their "different types" theories by the fact that — like a sizeable percentage of the INs in (I assume) most eras — they felt significantly alienated from the majority of their fellow men.

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

As a final, more wonkish, note on the INs...

As I'm always pointing out, Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. I'm not really a Beebe fan, but he certainly characterized Jung's perspective accurately when he said:

For Jung the attitude type was the primary thing, and the function type a kind of subsomething that expressed that attitude in a particular way. Accordingly, he organized his general description of the types in terms of the attitudes, describing first "the peculiarities of the basic psychological functions in the extraverted attitude" and then going on to "the peculiarities of the basic psychological functions in the introverted attitude."​

In the Foreword to a 1934 edition of Psychological Types, Jung bemoaned the fact that too many people were inclined to view Chapter X as the essence of the book, and explained that he'd put the eight specific "function-type" descriptions at the end of the book for a reason. He said, "I would therefore recommend the reader who really wants to understand my book to immerse himself first of all in chapters II and V." And Chapters II and V are pretty much all about extraversion vs. introversion, with Chapter V devoted to a long analysis of Spitteler's Prometheus and Epimetheus — which Jung calls "a poetic work based almost entirely on the type problem," explaining that the conflict at the heart of it "is essentially a struggle between the introverted and extraverted lines of development in one and the same individual, though the poet has embodied it in two independent figures and their typical destinies."

And the central focus on extraversion/introversion, and the things Jung thought all extraverts and all introverts tend to have in common, runs through every chapter of Psychological Types other than Chapter X — the only part of the book with any substantial description of the eight functions. As Jung saw it, the dynamics of the human psyche revolved first and foremost around a single great divide, and that divide involved two all-important components — namely, introversion/extraversion and conscious/unconscious.

And here's the thing (for purposes of the present discussion): Jung assigned what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) to E/I, with the result that, when Jung looked out at the world and spotted what he thought was a definite "introvert," he was almost assuredly looking at someone who'd be typed IN under the MBTI.

So I think it's fair to say that Jung himself viewed the INs (who he called the "introverts") and ESs (who he called the "extraverts") as the two most significant MBTI subgroups — even though he didn't frame them in those terms.

The MBTI Manual also shows that E-I x S-N is by far the most significant pair in predicting personality differences.

 

[Pionart]

The MBTI Manual also shows that E-I x S-N is by far the most significant pair in predicting personality differences.

The reason that J-P is such a poor predictor is probably because it's the most poorly designed set of test items in terms of correspondance to the types, as defined by cognitive functions.

If it was measured properly, it may well become the most predictive test dichotomy (especially with 2-way interactions), or I suspect so at least.

--

The reason being...

Assume that the test items are validly constructed in such a way that an INFJ score correlates most strongly with the NiFe type, and so on for the other types, and thus assume that the predictive level of each dichotomy has a correspondance to its effect on the functions.

Let's compare INFJ/NiFe with the 4 types which differ by one dichotomy:

INFJ to ENFJ = NiFe to FeNi (same functions, different order)
INFJ to ISFJ = NiFe to SiFe (primary function changed, secondary function the same)
INFJ to INTJ = NiFe to NiTe (primary function the same, secondary function changed)
INFJ to INFP = NiFe to FiNe (both functions changed, with perception and judgement switching places)

Clearly the change from J to P results in the greatest change, as it's the only single-letter switch which changes both functions.

The same applies to any other chosen type, due to the symmetry in type definitions.

As such, it becomes a reasonable prediction that the J-P switch would be highly predictive.

Further analysis may identify the dichotomy as less predictive than it seems at first, due to the wide variety present in J types, for instance, although this is only a possibility until further analysis is performed.

Another reason that the J-P dichotomy may not be as predictive as it seems, is as a result of the "secondary types hypothesis", A.K.A the "multi-type hypothesis", of which a preliminary result is that types differing by only the J-P dichotomy are the most correlated, from a multi-type perspective.

--

And now! An analysis of my analysis...

The above example shows the mathematical process, as applied to typology, as performed by an INFJ.

The assumption first mentioned represents the validation of a transformation, or perspective shift, an example of Ni. This is followed by a populating maneuvre, with a resulting analysis of relationships between items, an example of Fe.

The mention of symmetry suggests Ti, although the reasons for the symmetry were not outlined. The conclusion is probably related to Se, although seems to lack clear identifying markers apart from its concreteness.

The further mention of possible other interpretations is the call to the unconscious, in this case Ne.

The final line, mentioning the secondary types hypothesis, was a later addition, with uncertainty regarding which function it represents, though likely is one of INFJ's unconscious functions (Te?).

--

Critique of something generally represents the Shadow, in fact. It's climbing up the "hierarchy of the unconscious" as Jung put it, and so going from the action of the persona, to the anti-thesis of the shadow.

It metas and then metas again, so meta.

 

[Shadow Play]

The reason that J-P is such a poor predictor is probably because it's the most poorly designed set of test items in terms of correspondance to the types, as defined by cognitive functions.

Yeah, J/P supposedly flips all your functions and turns you into a completely different type. Whatever.

Critique of something generally represents the Shadow, in fact. It's climbing up the "hierarchy of the unconscious" as Jung put it, and so going from the action of the persona, to the anti-thesis of the shadow.

It metas and then metas again, so meta.

Are you just trolling at this point?

 

[Pionart]

Are you just trolling at this point?

No and I don't know why you think that.

Are you?

 

[Shadow Play]

No and I don't know why you think that.

Are you?

It's hard to tell at times, Poe's law coming into play and all. "Critique of something generally represents the Shadow" suggests a possible dig about my username (which you capitalised), followed by a joke about being meta. Maybe I'm just jumping the gun.

I'm bored with this discussion, anyways.

 

[Pionart]

It's hard to tell at times, Poe's law coming into play and all. "Critique of something generally represents the Shadow" suggests a possible dig about my username (which you capitalised), followed by a joke about being meta. Maybe I'm just jumping the gun.

I'm bored with this discussion, anyways.

The shadow is a Jungian concept, as I'm sure you're aware. I noticed after writing it that it also happened to be linked to your username and posted it anyway, but the comment was just a note about how I understand things.

(the meta line may have had a comical tone, but I was being clever in response to my own writing, not attacking you)

 

[Shadow Play]

The shadow is a Jungian concept, as I'm sure you're aware. I noticed after writing it that it also happened to be linked to your username and posted it anyway, but the comment was just a note about how I understand things.

(the meta line may have had a comical tone, but I was being clever in response to my own writing, not attacking you)

Yeah, that's partly why I chose my username in the first place.

 

[Pionart]

Yeah, that's partly why I chose my username in the first place.

So were you aware of the association between the shadow and the process of critique?

Even if you were, others may not be, and I'm posting for a broader audience.

 

[Shadow Play]

So were you aware of the association between the shadow and the process of critique?

Even if you were, others may not be, and I'm posting for a broader audience.

I'm aware that the shadow contains the parts of the psyche repressed by the conscious into the unconscious. The shadow archetype could project a certain attitude in the right situation, but "process of critique" doesn't seem to be an apt term to describe it.

The projection-making factor (the Shadow archetype) then has a free hand and can realize its object—if it has one—or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power.

 

[Pionart]

I'm aware that the shadow contains the parts of the psyche repressed by the conscious into the unconscious. The shadow archetype could project a certain attitude in the right situation, but "process of critique" doesn't seem to be an apt term to describe it.

The shadow is just the beginning of the unconscious. As I mentioned, there is a hierarchy of the unconscious, where the shadow leads to the anima/animus, which leads to the wise old man/woman, which leads to the self, which leads to...

Each step on the ladder represents a higher perspective than the step before. The shadow sees further than the persona, but each archetype beyond the shadow sees further than it.

What I was representing in my post at the top of the page* was the activity of the persona, being critiqued by the shadow, which was then moved to a further level by my anima.

--

edit: * The section starting with "The reason being..." is presumably the persona, with the "And now! An analysis of my analysis..." being shadow, and "Critique of something..." being anima.

 

[chickpea]

definitely xxFP, i’ve always felt the most comfortable with and similar to fellow FPs.

IxxP(demeanor) and xNxP(thought process) tied for second. i’m allergic to judgers but also occasionally allergic to NTs.