• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Jack Flak's Function System Adventure

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think this discussions scope is far greater than that of MBTT and requires a lot more information and context than we can necessarily cover and come to a realistic conclusion on.

In general, I think one of the main discussions concerning the MBTI itself is exactly what kind of scope it's expected to have.

I think the terms (and the extension in terms of applicability and interaction) as presently stated are too vague and need to be more rigorously defined based on just what it is we are trying to prove.

Verily.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
Some defining and validating of terms is what
this requires.

I've defined the terms in the OP, though vaguely. Some of the "clarification" I've attempted to provide dissonance for example, well, in my naive hope that he may "get" what I've been saying, doesn't fall in line 100% to what I believed, or intended. I was trying to phrase it differently, and perhaps strayed too far. Oops. The OP stands.

I could probably use Orangey's help right about now.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I've defined the terms in the OP, though vaguely. Some of the "clarification" I've attempted to provide dissonance for example, well, in my naive hope that he may "get" what I've been saying, doesn't fall in line 100% to what I believed, or intended. I was trying to phrase it differently, and perhaps strayed too far. Oops. The OP stands.

I could probably use Orangey's help right about now.

Ah, well, all other matters aside, you do get an A for effort (I have not yet decided to consider your system very heavily). Anyhow, most people do not give any definitions, and I know that Nocapszy wasn't using your definitions. At the very least, I have a link to a book now, courtesy of the ______ that has now stolen my avatar. :dry:
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Were you expecting, "Jack vs. Locke, rivals 4eva?"

Nooo, if I could expect things I would go for a IJ personality. I personally fell in love with the ISFJ. He at least would not have to deal with stupid problems or would he ?! :D
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Okay, I am going to attempt to explain why I think that Jack's theory here is convincing. This is my interpretation of what he's written. But first, one thing needs to be clarified in order to proceed.

The function order beyond a primary and support is not important, since even with regular MBTI it's so speculative that it's almost useless.


Let us proceed, then...

Part I: MBTI

In MBTI, judging and perceiving, or the J and the P, indicates which function, T - F - N - S, we direct towards the outside world, or extrovert. Some people direct their perceiving functions (N/S) to the outside, and others direct their judging functions (T/F) to the outside. Keep in mind that the italicized use of the words perceiving and judging are not the same as the perceiving and judging that J and P denote.

This is the basis for the descriptions of J's and P's, because a person with a preference for J will direct their judging function outward, making decision-making an important priority for them, and a person with a P preference will direct their perceiving functions outward, making the gathering of information an important priority for them.

Alright, so far so good. That seems to make sense intuitively. But then along comes introversion and extroversion, which for some reason must correspond to the direction of the primary function. So if you are an introvert, your primary function must be introverted. This overrides the J and P such that whichever of the preferred functions corresponds to introversion or extroversion gets to be the primary function. So even if your preferred way of interacting with the world, or extroverting, is through judgment (T/F), because you are a J, your orientation towards introversion or extroversion, in the E or I sense, demands that the function corresponding to that direction become the primary function. Case in point: if you know someone is a J because they are good at making decisions and are natural organizers, that they are a T, and that they are introverted (by the descriptions, energized by being alone, etc...), then the introversion demands that intuition, or the introverted perceiving function, and not thinking, be the primary function. Thus, the extroverted, thinking, judger will retain the judging function as the primary function, but the introverted, thinker, judger will not. (Doesn't this seem rather arbitrary, given that the only observable difference between the two is that one is quiet and the other is probably not? Why does that constitute a shift in the primary function?).

Now, even if we keep the function directions, it seems to me that there is no good reason why the I/E should be more important than the J/P. In other words, the reason why the primary function (in terms of direction) needs to correspond to the introversion or extroversion of an individual seems rather arbitrary. And in fact, the type descriptions tend to emphasize the difference more in terms of J/P than I/E, especially for types who share the I or the E but have different J or P.

Part II: Jack's System


In Jack's system, both of these complications are elided because the distinction between outward oriented and inward oriented functions is collapsed. The only factor that is of importance is the J/P distinction because it determines the primary function (if someone is a J, they use their judgment function more, and if someone is a P, they use their perceiving function more).

I and E can be seen as separate functions (or if you don't want to call them functions, then orientations). So someone is introverted, not because they use their dominant function in an introverted way, but because they exhibit behaviors attributed to introverts...namely, they are in general quiet, like to have alone time, get energized by solitude, and so on. Similar ways are used to determine extroversion, only in this case using exuberance, social effusiveness, and gregariousness as determinants.

This leaves the direction of the functions used to be determined by the situation, and by overall preference for introversion or extroversion. This clears up problems that come up with, say, I's using many of the functions in an introverted way (with me, this is Ti, Fi, Ni, even though Fi and Ni are supposed to be way down there in use). It also skips over a lot of the ambiguity involved in determining what use of the function is introverted, and which is extroverted (and don't tell me this is something easy...it may be in the function descriptions, but in practice it is rarely clear).

And, like I've said 'til I'm blue in the face, it corresponds more closely to the type descriptions, because judging and perceiving play a more observable role in the way functions are used than introversion or extroversion.

I hope this helps, and everyone is welcome to pick apart this analysis.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
Thank you very much, Orangey. It seems you are incapable of misunderstanding my intent, and I am grateful.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Thank you very much, Orangey. It seems you are incapable of misunderstanding my intent, and I am grateful.

Yep :). Just hope I didn't miss something...it's pretty late here.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Just curious orangey. What does Veritasiness mean ? I think there is a good joke in it, but I think I cant get it due to language differences
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Just curious orangey. What does Veritasiness mean ? I think there is a good joke in it, but I think I cant get it due to language differences

It's a silly joke. At the University of Michigan, the slogan is Artes, scientia, veritas, which means art, science, and truth. I added the -siness to the end of veritas to make it roughly equivalent to "truthiness", which is the term used by Colbert when he's talking about people using rhetoric to fabricate partially true statements.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
hahaha, ok that IS great :D

I'ld go for: Artes, Scientia, Veritatisininess

But that's a different topic for a different thread :D
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
But then along comes introversion and extroversion, which for some reason must correspond to the direction of the primary function. So if you are an introvert, your primary function must be introverted. This overrides the J and P such that whichever of the preferred functions corresponds to introversion or extroversion gets to be the primary function.

This is the important part -- this is why Jack and I have been arguing.

It's not that introversion and extroversion "for some reason must correspond to the direction of the primary function". It's that introversion and extroversion are DEFINED BY the direction of the primary function. Introversion and Extroversion in MBTI are NOT to be interpreted by the dictionary definition.

Additionally, Judging in MBTI does not mean that your dominant function is a judging function. It means that your most used extroverted function is a judging function.

So if you have an NT, you ask, "which do they use more, thinking or intuition?". If it's intuition, they are either INTJ or ENTP. Then you ask, "is intuition mainly focused on depth or breadth?". If depth, then they're INTJ; if breadth, then they're ENTP.

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

Jack's system doesn't work as well -- if you have an NT, you ask, "do they use thinking more or intuition more?". If intuition, then they're NTP (in his system). So far so good. But then how do you determine introversion/extroversion? Instead of being an indicator of something having to do with cognitive functions, it's an unrelated variable -- it specifies nothing about cognition.

Even though introversion/extroversion (the way Jack is using the terms) is a useful personality distinction, it does not accurately correspond to MBTI types. Because of this, some people will have different types in Jack's system and in MBTI. So it seems misleading to even use the same code.

Bottom line, his system, as it is now, contains less information about cognition than MBTI because it doesn't touch on function orientation (although it has added information about dictionary introversion/extroversion). And function orientation is quite a useful piece of data to examine...

So I just don't see why I should give up MBTI for a system that contains less data. If I want the information his system contains about dictionary introversion/extroversion, I could just add it on to MBTI. No need to subtract out useful data.


This leaves the direction of the functions used to be determined by the situation, and by overall preference for introversion or extroversion. This clears up problems that come up with, say, I's using many of the functions in an introverted way (with me, this is Ti, Fi, Ni, even though Fi and Ni are supposed to be way down there in use). It also skips over a lot of the ambiguity involved in determining what use of the function is introverted, and which is extroverted (and don't tell me this is something easy...it may be in the function descriptions, but in practice it is rarely clear).

The problem this fixes can easily be solved by just thinking of introversion/extroversion of functions as spectrums.

Jack's mention of this problem is completely warranted, though. The 8 function theory is quite misleading, as Ti and Te are so much more similar than Ti and Ne...what I mean is, there are really only 4 functions -- talking about Ti and Te as separate in the same way as Ti and Fi are separate makes no sense at all.

But PREFERRED orientation of a function is actually quite an easy trend to spot -- people use functions mostly oriented towards one pole or the other; I've never really come across someone that has equal ability with both orientations. And it's also important to touch on the correlation between extroversion of thinking and introversion of feeling (and vice versa, and for perceiving functions). MBTI would be too flat and useless without this stuff.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
This is the important part -- this is why Jack and I have been arguing.

It's not that introversion and extroversion "for some reason must correspond to the direction of the primary function". It's that introversion and extroversion are DEFINED BY the direction of the primary function. Introversion and Extroversion in MBTI are NOT to be interpreted by the dictionary definition.

Okay, but then it is misleading for people to type based on the "dictionary" definitions of introversion and extroversion (which the MBTI tests do), since merely having a dominant introverted or extroverted function doesn't mean that the individual will display introverted or extroverted behaviors by the common definition.

Additionally, Judging in MBTI does not mean that your dominant function is a judging function. It means that your most used extroverted function is a judging function.

But at the end of the day, if you are an extrovert, then your judging or perceiving preference will be also be your dominant function. I don't see why being an introvert or extrovert should determine which set of functions (judging or perceiving) is dominant. It just seems like arbitrary detail that has little connection with observable reality.

Jack's system doesn't work as well -- if you have an NT, you ask, "do they use thinking more or intuition more?". If intuition, then they're NTP (in his system). So far so good. But then how do you determine introversion/extroversion? Instead of being an indicator of something having to do with cognitive functions, it's an unrelated variable -- it specifies nothing about cognition.

Even though introversion/extroversion (the way Jack is using the terms) is a useful personality distinction, it does not accurately correspond to MBTI types. Because of this, some people will have different types in Jack's system and in MBTI. So it seems misleading to even use the same code.

Bottom line, his system, as it is now, contains less information about cognition than MBTI because it doesn't touch on function orientation (although it has added information about dictionary introversion/extroversion). And function orientation is quite a useful piece of data to examine...

If the introversion and extroversion of MBTI don't actually correspond to the observable behaviors typically ascribed to people who we call "introverts" or "extroverts", then I'd might as well call myself an ENTP, because I am positive that I use my perceiving function more often than my judging function. That is what makes me "indecisive" and "out-there". The only thing that stops me is that I don't think I'm an extrovert (by the MBTI test questions AND the type descriptions)...but you're saying that the E and the I don't actually mean what they are typically thought to mean.

So yes, if you've typed yourself according to the MBTI functions, which I see as difficult to do because I can very rarely identify my own behavior as, "look, I just used Ti", then you will have to change your type code. In other words, if you think you are an INTJ because you are positive that you're an I, that you are a thinker, and that you prefer judging, then you will have filled in the gaps to determine that Ni is your primary function. If that's how you view your type, if you are determined that you use Ni dominantly because MBTI says so (even if that wasn't one of the major traits that you observed of yourself), then of course it will be different in Jack's system.

The thing is, though, that I think there is too much "filling-in of the gaps" when typing that way, and if you simply typed by determining the J/P, T/F, and then E/I, you'd be good to go in Jack's system...no counter-intuitive gap-filling by theory. It would be simpler to determine type based on behavior this way.

So I just don't see why I should give up MBTI for a system that contains less data. If I want the information his system contains about dictionary introversion/extroversion, I could just add it on to MBTI. No need to subtract out useful data.

Yes, but you see, I don't think that having extra "data" is something to be desired when that data doesn't correspond to something that's real. The way that MBTI is set up doesn't really offer a framework that corresponds well enough to what I observe. And isn't that the whole point?

The problem this fixes can easily be solved by just thinking of introversion/extroversion of functions as spectrums.

Jack's mention of this problem is completely warranted, though. The 8 function theory is quite misleading, as Ti and Te are so much more similar than Ti and Ne...what I mean is, there are really only 4 functions -- talking about Ti and Te as separate in the same way as Ti and Fi are separate makes no sense at all.

But PREFERRED orientation of a function is actually quite an easy trend to spot -- people use functions mostly oriented towards one pole or the other; I've never really come across someone that has equal ability with both orientations. And it's also important to touch on the correlation between extroversion of thinking and introversion of feeling (and vice versa, and for perceiving functions). MBTI would be too flat and useless without this stuff.

No, it would be more flexible.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
What Orangey said, again. I am at peace with the Universe.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Okay, but then it is misleading for people to type based on the "dictionary" definitions of introversion and extroversion (which the MBTI tests do), since merely having a dominant introverted or extroverted function doesn't mean that the individual will display introverted or extroverted behaviors by the common definition.

Completely agree. Almost all tests are flawed in this way.

But at the end of the day, if you are an extrovert, then your judging or perceiving preference will be also be your dominant function. I don't see why being an introvert or extrovert should determine which set of functions (judging or perceiving) is dominant. It just seems like arbitrary detail that has little connection with observable reality.

I/E and J/P are just indicators of information about function distribution/orientation. That is all.

I personally think socionics codes make more sense than MBTI codes (they flip the J/P for all introverts). So an Ni dom with Fe is called an INFp, since their primary function is introverted and a perceiving function.

But that's a matter of aesthetics; it doesn't have to do with the information contained within the system. Jack's system contains less information than socionics.

Regarding "arbitrary detail with little connection" -- again, the letters themselves (I/E and J/P) don't directly correlate to observable reality. All that correlates to observable reality are the 4 cognitive functions and their orientations. MBTI type is NOT composed of four dichotomies -- it's just a code for the distribution.

(Someone suggested a few months ago that we don't even need 4 letters to contain all the information in MBTI, we just need 3. So an INFJ would be INF and an INFP would be IFN. This is also definitely a better code...)

If the introversion and extroversion of MBTI don't actually correspond to the observable behaviors typically ascribed to people who we call "introverts" or "extroverts", then I'd might as well call myself an ENTP, because I am positive that I use my perceiving function more often than my judging function. That is what makes me "indecisive" and "out-there". The only thing that stops me is that I don't think I'm an extrovert (by the MBTI test questions AND the type descriptions)...but you're saying that the E and the I don't actually mean what they are typically thought to mean.

Eh. I mean, I/E does correlate to observable behavior, just not directly. Plus, I'd attribute "indecisiveness" more to the fact that your first judging function is introverted -- it doesn't directly engage the outer world.

You seem like a quite clear Ti dominant to me. What we must remember, though, is that amount of usage of a function is not correlated to ability with that function. An EFJ could have "better" Ti than an ITP; they just use it less often by definition. You could even have a "better" Ne than Ti (although I don't think you do) and still be an INTP as long as Ti is more often used.

So yes, if you've typed yourself according to the MBTI functions, which I see as difficult to do because I can very rarely identify my own behavior as, "look, I just used Ti", then you will have to change your type code. In other words, if you think you are an INTJ because you are positive that you're an I, that you are a thinker, and that you prefer judging, then you will have filled in the gaps to determine that Ni is your primary function. If that's how you view your type, if you are determined that you use Ni dominantly because MBTI says so (even if that wasn't one of the major traits that you observed of yourself), then of course it will be different in Jack's system.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but I think you have it backwards. I do not type myself as an INFJ because I know I'm an I, an N, an F, and a J. I type myself as INFJ because I know my Ni is dominant, leaving two possibilities, INTJ or INFJ. Then I look at the orientation of my thinking and feeling and find that Ti/Fe is a closer match than Te/Fi.


Typing people really isn't so hard. Just identify the dominant function (which is what Jung's book is all about anyway -- the dominant function), and then look at the orientation of the complimentary ones (if your dominant is a judging, look for orientation of perceiving and vice versa).

@"I can very rarely identify my own behavior as, "look, I just used Ti"," -- What you should be able to do at least is to identify when you are using thinking, feeling, sensing, or intuition. The orientation in one moment in time is pretty impossible to spot. Orientation comes from observing trends in your functions OVER TIME.


The thing is, though, that I think there is too much "filling-in of the gaps" when typing that way, and if you simply typed by determining the J/P, T/F, and then E/I, you'd be good to go in Jack's system...no counter-intuitive gap-filling by theory. It would be simpler to determine type based on behavior this way.

The problem is that J vs. P is a false dichotomy. Unless you want to change the definitions, but then you're losing some data and gaining other data, which means the system doesn't correspond to MBTI.


Yes, but you see, I don't think that having extra "data" is something to be desired when that data doesn't correspond to something that's real. The way that MBTI is set up doesn't really offer a framework that corresponds well enough to what I observe. And isn't that the whole point?

That's another thing. I'm not just blindly defending this function orientation thing...I've observed people for years and found this stuff to be the most interesting distinction of them all. Communication problems between Fe and Fi users, etc... it's really a useful framework.

It definitely takes some practice and some research to get working definitions for everything and to be able to spot these trends in people. But the trends are there.

If you want to give up on MBTI in favor of Jack's system, you'll never be able to see the cool distinctions that function orientation lets you see.

It's understandable; learning this all is quite frustrating. But you really can get to a point where it all clicks...and it would be too bad if you gave up on that path.


Also, not to sound like an asshole, but it's entirely clear that Jack has not gotten to that point with MBTI. He got frustrated before he figured out the system, so he made up a new one, that, yes, is easier to learn, but is also sort of a lobotomized version.


Again, his system works -- it's logically consistent and all. It just isn't as powerful. He's trading complexity for learnability.


No, it would be more flexible.

How does fewer variables lead to greater flexibility??????
 

mlittrell

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,387
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w1
fewer variables = less effective and more over generalization. the brain can't be described in even eight functions or four temperaments or nine enneagram types etc simplifying an already simple system is catastrophic
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Some of this would be solved by realizing the standard function order identifies roles and not necessarily strengths. That's why the CP test results come all out of order, but while a function designated a "shadow" might be strongly used; it you think about it, it will still probably fall into the more negative role described for your type.

As for I/E; I would say based on the type descriptions that your "expressiveness" will basically match the dominant function attitude, though for various reasons, it may not always play out in the stereotypical "introvert/extrovert". So an extravert may be more reserved at times, but the "gregariousness" will come out in some way at times, or they will be driven by the same motives, but carry them out differently. (Much of this questioning of I/E definitions involves saying "I know this Exxx who is quiet and thinks a lot"; but this is basically the exception and not the rule, and probably also you're only seeing a period of their behavior. But their dominant function is defined as referencing the outer world of people and action. (and there's also the possibility that they're simply mistyped).
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
I shall say nothing unless nothing is what Orangey says within two days time.
 

miked277

New member
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
343
MBTI Type
INTP
this whole thing is like saying, "people are having trouble seeing that 2 + 2 = 4 so let's just define 2 + 2 = 5 so that everyone can be right."

i agree w/ pretty much all of what dissonance and hap have said.
 

jason_m

New member
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
10
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
I agree that the underlying theory behind the MBTI is flawed, and that the Socionics theory fits the types better (how much better, and whether it is good enough to officially use it as an underlying theory are different questions).

Here are the reasons why MBTI function theory is flawed:

1) In what way are ISTPs and INTPs alike? If you look at their careers, their interests, and their behaviour, they don't seem very alike at all. ISTPs typically express themselves using tools and machines. In what way are they engaging their logical abilities more than their senses by doing this? Does it make sense to think that the introverted thinking of ISTPs is so hidden that it doesn't even show up in their careers or interests?

2) MBTI Si and Ni bear little relation with Jung's original interpretations of them. Introverted intuitives were considered to be prototypical artists. If you look at the career preferences of the types, you will find that INTPs and INFPs prefer artistic careers over INTJs and INFJs. Further, Jung's introverted sensors could be artists, because they had unique sensory perceptions of the world, and this could easily be translated into art; ISFPs and ISTPs are much more likely to go into art than ISTJs and ISFJs. When you look at Myers' and Briggs' definitions of Si and Ni, there are problems. For instance, IS_Js are very detail-oriented and methodical, and IN_Js are noted for their drive and determination. Not only are these definitions very different from what Jung described, but in what way are these characteristics a matter of perception?

3) You often see people emphasizing aspects of their types that go against the theory. (E.g., ISfP or IXTJ).

4) From the limited data I've found, there is a stronger correlation with Socionics theory than MBTI theory for the MBTI types. For instance, look at this poll: INTP Central - View Poll Results.

For these reasons, I think that Socionics function theory is more accurate. In fact, if you look at the Socionics pairings, there are no glaring mismatches. Once again, however, whether Socionics function theory is accurate enough to be used over no underlying theory at all is another question.

Also, I think that Myers' and Briggs' basic approach to determining the types is flawed, and that's what creates this problem. In an attempt to determine functions, they created a test that measures dichotomies. A more logical approach would have been to test people for their dominant function, and, once that is determined, give them a second test to determine which of the two possible auxiliary functions is appropriate. I can't understand why this approach was not taken.

This is not to say that everything about the MBTI is flawed. Whereas the MBTI falls short in terms of theory, it is strong in its application. (Socionics is just the opposite.) I think that, irrespective of the underlying theory, the tests are reasonably accurate and the descriptions accurate as well. The only improvement I could see for the tests would be that they should be used more as a guide than a standard; the descriptions are what really determine the types, as opposed to the formula their based on. The tests can help narrow down some types based on the formula, but they should not have the final say.

In practice, Socionics is flawed because:

1) There are no standards, so there is a lot of variation in the tests and descriptions.
2) A lot of the descriptions are not general enough.
3) There is no good test that can be used to help determine your type.

This is why people who study Socionics often have such a difficult time determining their type, while it is rare to see that happen with the MBTI.

Jason
 
Top