Why function theory may be better...

[Sunny Ghost]

Extraversion:
initiating
expressive
gregarious
active
enthusiastic
Introversion:
receiving
contained
intimate
reflective
quiet

Thinking:
logical
reasonable
questioning
critical
tough
Feeling:
empathetic
compassionate
accommodating
accepting
tender

Sensing:
concrete
realistic
practical
experiential
traditional
Intuitive:
abstract
imaginative
conceptual
theoretical
original

Judging:
systematic
planful
early starting
scheduled
methodical
Perceiving:
casual
open-ended
pressure-prompted
spontaneous

www.capt.org

I was sitting with my INTJ boyfriend the other day, and reviewed this list with him. I started reading the sensing and intuitive list first, and said, "So, I'm concrete, you're abstract. I'm realistic, and you're imaginative. I'm practical, and you're conceptual. I'm traditional, and you're original." He turned to me and laughed and said it sounds as though they're mixed up, because the list for him sounded more like me and vice versa. When considering how Se works compared to Ni, it really is the case. As Se is closer to Ne and Ni is closer to Si.

However, I would even go on to say the same for feelers that are introverts, and how they may seem more extroverted due to feeling prompted to reach out to others, and being initiating. And so forth.

Lists like the above just don't quite work. When presented with such, I can see how many people mistype their selves. Being in a liberal arts department of a university, I know many people who are mildly familiar with mbti and have taken assessments, or self assessments. And a fair about of ISFP's I know have mistyped their self as ENFP's and INFP's and even INFJ. An ESFP mistyped himself for an ISTP. And etc. However, I think I've seen more confusion amongst ISFP's I know in real life. I'd like to say it's due to the spontaneity and artistic aspect of the ISFP that pulls them towards words like, "Imaginative," and makes them believe themself to be Intuitive rather than Sensing.

 

[INTP]

the problem with these jungian typologies that are made from original jungs work(like MBTI), is that they try to describe what these people are like. jungs work tries to explain their thinking/perceiving styles and only told few things about how these types are prone to act.

the deal with these MBTI descriptions is that they are only describing what these types are most likely like, not explaining the actual thinking style that leads to this behavior. same sort of thinking style can lead to very different way to act(or be) depending on the situation and i think MBTI descriptions are trying to take them bit too far. like most might be true with many people, but they are also saying things that arent likely enough to be true with majority. like you cant say that something is an INTP trait if only 75% of INTPs have that trait. also they are written about too stereotypical people and someone with ESFP type for example might not relate to some long MBTI description nearly at all, because he/she has grown up in environment that made him/her act in different ways.

not to mention that when you say that some INTJ(who never heard about MBTI) is imaginative and abstract, he will laugh at you and say that he is one of the most rational person in the world. especially if its an ISFP who calls herself realistic and says that the INTJ is not..

 

[rav3n]

Wish list preferences over naturally manifested cognitive processes are why many times, typing fails. Not many people are capable of seeing themselves clearly and if you consider it, how do you pinpoint unconscious processes?

Also, how do you know they're mistyped? Two people can go about a task in completely different ways and still end up with the same outcome or manifest the same end behaviour.

 

[Thalassa]

I agree with you Indy. I think function theory confuses people a bit, but once you really grasp it, it is the only way.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

I know my friends have mistype their selves, because... well... I know my friends. And in general, I feel as though I have a pretty good grasp on people.

I agree, that often times, it's more of a wish-list. I actually like that term a lot in getting across what I mean. People pick out what they want to, and see their selves as they wish to.

 

[entropie]

What world would we live in, in which everybody knew who he were and what he wants ?

 

[CrystalViolet]

Personally, I think function theory is limited as well. I have issues with function order, but all said and done, I do prefer it for the most part.
It is useful for explaining type manifestations, and to a certain degree childhood personality development (given if a child is allowed to develop interference free, and by interference, anything that may suppress natural tendencies such as child hood illness etc, etc).
I'm not alone in my queries about function order though, and it does some what deal with the dichotomies, making them spectrums which I believe is a better reflection of the human experience.