• 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

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
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.
I just have to quote this for absurdity. And no, it's more like saying "2+2+1+1+?+?+?+?=10" is a ridiculous conclusion, and "2+2=4" is more reasonable. As long as we're using stupid little analogies.



I should probably field this post by Eric B, but Orangey has the opportunity to respond to dissonance if she chooses. And I agree with jason m's post, for the most part.
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.
I completely agree, because in the INTP, a preference for Intuition doesn't imply that use of logic is flawed in any way. More effort is generally applied to perceiving the object than judging it. (Additionally, It is my assessment that the Cognitive Processes test was designed to fit the sixteen types as much as to fit the original Jungian functions. But I don't have direct evidence that this is the case.)

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).
To define I/E with something as specific as "gregariousness" is erring, I believe. I can usually tell the difference between an I and an E by watching them communicate IRL, but I can't give you a short list of specific traits. How I would best define I/E is need, and it can sometimes be noticed. Viewing an individual in group interaction, say, do they seem to need the interaction? If so, E, and if not, I.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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?
I would think, because it's introverted, it might not look like much to the outside. However, the use of tools and machines requires the same internal knowlege of frameworks and models as the more familiar abstract counterpart. And that's the difference. Ti+Ne is more into concepts and theories, while Ti+Se is more into physical things.

Now I too often try to sort out what exactly the difference is between Pe/Ti and Ti/Pe, particularly since I am one who came out with Ne stronger on the CP test, yet I still ended up INTP and, I really do not identify with ENTP and extraversion much at all. It seems to be that the ENP's (Ne dom.) start with ideas (information gathering, for its own sake), and then process it through their judging function. INP's however, are driven by their internal logic or ethic/value frameworks, and then use Ne to "feed" this by exporing all the possibilities. So this is where the archetype roles come in; because the auxiliar is the "parent" that guides how the dominant ("hero") is used.
One is the driving force, and the other is the guide.

(Edit: Having an overdeveloped Ne when I'm wired for dominant thinking ends up in a flood of incoming information, and not enough time or energy to process it. So I go jumping from one thing to another, and find it hard to focus, though to try to focus is my natural preference. I imagine the flipside of this is the ENTP with an overdeveloped Ti will have a deficit of information to process).

So with the STP's, the ESTP's driving force would be Se, and the type is described as "action" oriented. Ti would then guide or parent this. So the ISTP like the INTP starts with the internal frameworks, but then uses it on physical experience moreso than just concepts.

And then also, S/N changes both the temperament and interaction style. Both ITP types are introverted and pragmatic, but one is informing and structure focused, while the other is directive and motive focused. So they are different in that respect, as well as the perception functions. I would call those types simply judgment compatible. They share a judgment "spine" tandem, as well as three letters in the code; but otherwise, yes, they are quite different.
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.
In some of those cases, you may be seeing the "inflation" of the tertiary function (which then can sometimes appear to outdo those with the function in the dominant position). So INTP's and INFP's have Si in that position (and when I'm artistic, it will usually involve some nostalgic thing or something like that). ISTP's and ISFP's have Ni in that position.
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?
Well, detail is definitely something that is perceived! (then the methodicalism comes from wanting to stick to what's familiar, which is their internal concrete perception). The drive and determination of Ni types comes from their visions of change, which are characteristic of their perception.
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.
I completely agree, because in the INTP, a preference for Intuition doesn't imply that use of logic is flawed in any way. More effort is generally applied to perceiving the object than judging it. (Additionally, It is my assessment that the Cognitive Processes test was designed to fit the sixteen types as much as to fit the original Jungian functions. But I don't have direct evidence that this is the case.)
I agree, and I would think that the Nardi cognitive processes test should be the "official" MBTI!

To define I/E with something as specific as "gregariousness" is erring, I believe. I can usually tell the difference between an I and an E by watching them communicate IRL, but I can't give you a short list of specific traits. How I would best define I/E is need, and it can sometimes be noticed. Viewing an individual in group interaction, say, do they seem to need the interaction? If so, E, and if not, I.
I was just trying to give an example of one of those classic "extraversion" traits that some people with dom. extraverted functions are said to not necessarlily display all the time. Separating "expression" from "need" is also what we do over in the FIRO system, but in my own correlation of the sytems (ERICA vs) high need (or "responsiveness"; "people vs task focus", etc) would tend to correspond to Informing communications and Motive focus (and loosely, the T/F and J/P scales). It would depend on who tends to approach who in the interaction. Traditional extraversion basically would refer to those who do the approaching, rather than passively want to be approached. However, cognitively, I could see wanting being classified as an "outer focus' as defined in the definition of extraverted functions. That's why for one, I realize that I do have extraverted tendencies, though I am low in expression (at least, in person).
 
Last edited:

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Dissonance: I'm going to respond, but I have a paper to write for the early part of the day. Will be back.
 

miked277

New member
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
343
MBTI Type
INTP
if you wanted to make type theory more useful i don't think dumbing it down and eliminating valid distinctions is the right direction. but hey, if you're having fun then i'm in no place to stop you.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
if you wanted to make type theory more useful i don't think dumbing it down and eliminating valid distinctions is the right direction. but hey, if you're having fun then i'm in no place to stop you.
You're in no place to stop me regardless of your intentions, using non-arguments like that with such reckless haste. You obviously don't understand the system, and have made an incorrect snap judgment. I salute you.
 

miked277

New member
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
343
MBTI Type
INTP
You're in no place to stop me regardless of your intentions, using non-arguments like that with such reckless haste. You obviously don't understand the system, and have made an incorrect snap judgment. I salute you.

sure i understand it. as highly you think of your ideas jack, it is possible for others to understand them and still have good reasons to disagree. shocker i know.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
sure i understand it. as highly you think of your ideas jack, it is possible for others to understand them and still have good reasons to disagree. shocker i know.
You'll have to define good. If being comfortable with an antiquated system of false conjecture is a good thing, then I have to agree. This is the only argument which holds merit, because your level of happiness will decrease if your system is replaced. You have to respect happiness.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
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...)

I agree that the J/P and E/I only refer to the order and orientation of functions in MBTI. That's the whole problem. I/E determines the overall primary function, and J/P determines the primary extroverted function (or the function that deals with the outer world). When I/E and J/P come into conflict, as they do in the case of all introverts, the I/E overrides the J/P in importance (in determining the dominant function). In other words, the dominant function must always align in orientation to I/E, and this will be equivalent to the J/P for all extroverts but changes for introverts, because an extroverted function can't be dominant in an introverted person.

Jack's system gives more importance to J/P in this regard, as you know, because it determines the primary function regardless of I/E. If we kept the function orientation, this would (as I think Bluewing pointed out in another thread, though I could be mistaken) make the system incoherent because some introverts would have extroverted dominant functions (like the INTP, which would have Ne as primary). And if we are defining introversion and extroversion by the orientation of the dominant function, then it makes no sense to call someone with an extroverted dominant function an introvert. This is why it is necessary to cut out the function orientation and define introversion and extroversion as separate categories unlinked to the functions.

And doing this has the merits that I mentioned in an earlier post, namely:

-It clears away the confusion of determining what counts as introverted or extroverted function behavior (which, you can keep telling me are clear and that it's just because of some deficiency on my part that I can't see them...and I will keep denying that this is so because I've read as much of the material as anybody, though perhaps less than some people).

I mean, I see from the function descriptions that the only real difference between, say, Ti and Te is the object at which the thinking is aimed...and if this is the case, then the distinction between the two is not in the function itself, but in the situations in which the function is used. So Te is better at organizing material in the outside world, while Ti is better at doing this for internal 'concepts'. It seems clear to me that the act of using either will depend on the situation in which the actor finds his/her self, and not as a result of their being predisposed to use either one.

-It makes the connection between introverted/extroverted social behavior (by the common definitions) and I/E more clear. So if you see that someone needs their "alone time" frequently, then you know that they are an introvert. You don't have to try and figure out the orientation of their dominant function to determine whether they are introverted/extroverted (which seems like a far less accurate endeavor).

-It is less counter-intuitive when observing people. Take the INTJ, for example. If we had two people for whom thinking was clearly preferred to feeling, but one of those people displayed more definitiveness while the other was more laid back, we could easily attribute thinking as the dominant function to the one and a perceiving function as the dominant function in the other to account for the difference. This is more clear than saying that, well, one is using Te but as a support function, and the other is using Ti but with Ne as a support function. In both of those cases, if we use MBTI, we end up having to play up the support function to account for the differences in behavior when it would be easier to just say that one is a dominant thinker while the other is a dominant perceiver.

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.

I don't see why the function's introverted-ness should mean that it is any less decisive. Ti is a function that is used to make decisions (albeit decisions whose objects are "inward" as opposed to "outward", whatever that means). If I am not so good at making decisions (i.e., "indecisive"), then how can I say that I use Ti, or any other decision-making function, most?

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.

I never said anything about the quality of function usage. I only said that I use Ne more often than Ti, which, if I hang on to the MBTI definitions, I think is absolutely true. And I probably come off as far more decisive on this forum than I am IRL, because I won't post anything unless I have something clear to say about it. Plus, I don't see how Ne or Ni can be determined by someone's posting (unless we're talking about the way that people erroneously label incoherent or rambling posts as Ne).

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.

But you see? You've relied solely on the system as put forth by MBTI. You've identified a couple of variables, and then used the system to fill in their order and the order of all the other variables.

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).

Yes, but this doesn't tell me why, if I identify myself as a dominant perceiver, say I even choose Ne specifically, I should be constrained to ENTP or ENFP. What if I don't identify with either of those profiles, especially as they describe social extroversion?

@"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.

If the orientation is impossible to spot in any momentary function usage, then I don't see how it is possible to spot trends in that regard over time, as a whole bunch of those unidentifiable moments adds up to just that- a group of unidentifiable moments.

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.

Whether or not something corresponds systematically with MBTI is not the issue. No, Jack's system doesn't correspond to MBTI (like socionics does, only with a shifting of the naming convention). But that doesn't mean it is any less descriptive, because as I have (hopefully) shown, getting rid of the function orientation is made up for by replacing the qualities attributed in MBTI to introverted functions with a switch in the order (making the perceiving function dominant). And like I said before, if you've typed yourself by identifying specific MBTI functions like Ti or Ni, then yes, you might have to change your type code. This only applies to introverts, though.

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.

But the way that MBTI is set up, there is rarely an occasion in which Fi and Fe come into direct conflict. In other words, if there is a conflict between people of different types, the Fi and Fe rarely align in ways that make the conflict seem unambiguously attributable to differences between Fi and Fe. For instance, even between types where Fi and Fe are dominant (in MBTI), such as the INFP and the ENFJ, the conflicts that arise between these two can be attributed to lots of other factors besides Fi and Fe alone (such as the famous imperiousness and decisiveness of J's, and the flippant laziness of P's).

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.

Well, to characterize what I'm doing as adopting one thing over another thing is false. I never really adopted MBTI wholesale in the first place, so I'm not actually adopting Jack's system in favor of MBTI at all. I don't want to discard either system...I'm just defending Jack's from being discarded because I think that it has merits that MBTI doesn't.

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

Maybe not as a rule, but in this case it does, I think.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
A personal note to all doubters and naysayers:

[youtube=ZXiZPhMCxNY].[/youtube]
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
First of all, Eric B has been explaining a lot of this stuff much better than I am, and I agree with what he's saying completely.

I agree that the J/P and E/I only refer to the order and orientation of functions in MBTI. That's the whole problem. I/E determines the overall primary function, and J/P determines the primary extroverted function (or the function that deals with the outer world). When I/E and J/P come into conflict, as they do in the case of all introverts, the I/E overrides the J/P in importance (in determining the dominant function). In other words, the dominant function must always align in orientation to I/E, and this will be equivalent to the J/P for all extroverts but changes for introverts, because an extroverted function can't be dominant in an introverted person.

Jack's system gives more importance to J/P in this regard, as you know, because it determines the primary function regardless of I/E. If we kept the function orientation, this would (as I think Bluewing pointed out in another thread, though I could be mistaken) make the system incoherent because some introverts would have extroverted dominant functions (like the INTP, which would have Ne as primary). And if we are defining introversion and extroversion by the orientation of the dominant function, then it makes no sense to call someone with an extroverted dominant function an introvert. This is why it is necessary to cut out the function orientation and define introversion and extroversion as separate categories unlinked to the functions.

I don't see how that conclusion follows from what you've been saying.

In MBTI, introversion and extroversion are defined by the orientation of the dominant function. That is all that they mean. The words contain no direct information about how a person acts. You are attached to the notion that introversion and extroversion mean something different, so you are calling the system flawed. But they don't mean anything else. If you want to attach a separate variable for behavioral introversion/extroversion, go ahead -- that's fine, but it's not MBTI, and it's not MBTI's problem.

No point in taking out a part of the MBTI code that indicates something about function usage. It guts the system for no reason -- it fixes no flaw.

And doing this has the merits that I mentioned in an earlier post, namely:

-It clears away the confusion of determining what counts as introverted or extroverted function behavior (which, you can keep telling me are clear and that it's just because of some deficiency on my part that I can't see them...and I will keep denying that this is so because I've read as much of the material as anybody, though perhaps less than some people).

I don't know what to say, except that it isn't exactly clear which direction a function is pointing. You have to watch people for a while a lot of the time. Other times it's obvious (like with Te dominants).

I think I'm gonna start a thread today or tomorrow to try to come up with good function descriptions.

I mean, I see from the function descriptions that the only real difference between, say, Ti and Te is the object at which the thinking is aimed...and if this is the case, then the distinction between the two is not in the function itself, but in the situations in which the function is used. So Te is better at organizing material in the outside world, while Ti is better at doing this for internal 'concepts'.

Correct!

It seems clear to me that the act of using either will depend on the situation in which the actor finds his/her self, and not as a result of their being predisposed to use either one.

Not quite. For example, a Ni user in a group of people brainstorming would probably think longer about his/her ideas and offer fewer (but better thought out) ideas than an Ne user. An Si user might order something they already knew was good at a restaurant, an Se user would be more likely to try something new. A Te user would be more likely to solve a problem on their computer by using the help menu, a Ti user would be more likely to think about why the error is happening given how the computer works...etc.

-It makes the connection between introverted/extroverted social behavior (by the common definitions) and I/E more clear. So if you see that someone needs their "alone time" frequently, then you know that they are an introvert. You don't have to try and figure out the orientation of their dominant function to determine whether they are introverted/extroverted (which seems like a far less accurate endeavor).

Again, this is a separate variable. It has nothing to do with MBTI, and is not a problem with MBTI. You're proposing an add-on to MBTI.

-It is less counter-intuitive when observing people. Take the INTJ, for example. If we had two people for whom thinking was clearly preferred to feeling, but one of those people displayed more definitiveness while the other was more laid back, we could easily attribute thinking as the dominant function to the one and a perceiving function as the dominant function in the other to account for the difference. This is more clear than saying that, well, one is using Te but as a support function, and the other is using Ti but with Ne as a support function. In both of those cases, if we use MBTI, we end up having to play up the support function to account for the differences in behavior when it would be easier to just say that one is a dominant thinker while the other is a dominant perceiver.

This is just an aesthetic difference. We could switch the MBTI notation to socionics notation and solve the same problem. (Switch J/P for all introverts). This has nothing to do with the information contained in the system.

I don't see why the function's introverted-ness should mean that it is any less decisive. Ti is a function that is used to make decisions (albeit decisions whose objects are "inward" as opposed to "outward", whatever that means). If I am not so good at making decisions (i.e., "indecisive"), then how can I say that I use Ti, or any other decision-making function, most?

Gah. I don't mean it's less decisive literally...I mean that it's less visibly decisive because it's introverted. Making a decision about how something fits into your own internal framework isn't something you're gonna share as much as making a decision about tangible objects in commonly talked about frameworks.

I never said anything about the quality of function usage. I only said that I use Ne more often than Ti, which, if I hang on to the MBTI definitions, I think is absolutely true. And I probably come off as far more decisive on this forum than I am IRL, because I won't post anything unless I have something clear to say about it. Plus, I don't see how Ne or Ni can be determined by someone's posting (unless we're talking about the way that people erroneously label incoherent or rambling posts as Ne).

You're right, it's very hard to type people online. I have my opinion; my reasoning for why I think you're a clear Ti dominant, but you obviously know yourself way better than I do :)

I do think Ne vs. Ni is visible in people's posts, though. Ni people are obsessed with themes -- and their ideas don't necessarily correspond to the general discussion as much. Those are only clues, I know, but they are definite trends.

But you see? You've relied solely on the system as put forth by MBTI. You've identified a couple of variables, and then used the system to fill in their order and the order of all the other variables.

Yes, I've relied solely on the MBTI system to type myself in the MBTI system...

I don't get it.

Yes, but this doesn't tell me why, if I identify myself as a dominant perceiver, say I even choose Ne specifically, I should be constrained to ENTP or ENFP. What if I don't identify with either of those profiles, especially as they describe social extroversion?

If you are an Ne dominant, you are either ENTP or ENFP by definition. I don't know how to make it more clear. If you don't identify with the profiles, there are two and only two explanations. 1) The profiles are a bunch of crap or 2) You are not an Ne dominant.

If the orientation is impossible to spot in any momentary function usage, then I don't see how it is possible to spot trends in that regard over time, as a whole bunch of those unidentifiable moments adds up to just that- a group of unidentifiable moments.

I didn't say it was impossible. I say it was almost impossible or something. Its the same idea as measuring average gas mileage on a car -- it's hard to measure in one moment in time.

Whether or not something corresponds systematically with MBTI is not the issue. No, Jack's system doesn't correspond to MBTI (like socionics does, only with a shifting of the naming convention). But that doesn't mean it is any less descriptive, because as I have (hopefully) shown, getting rid of the function orientation is made up for by replacing the qualities attributed in MBTI to introverted functions with a switch in the order (making the perceiving function dominant). And like I said before, if you've typed yourself by identifying specific MBTI functions like Ti or Ni, then yes, you might have to change your type code. This only applies to introverts, though.

K. So it's a different system. I'll stick to MBTI.

But the way that MBTI is set up, there is rarely an occasion in which Fi and Fe come into direct conflict. In other words, if there is a conflict between people of different types, the Fi and Fe rarely align in ways that make the conflict seem unambiguously attributable to differences between Fi and Fe. For instance, even between types where Fi and Fe are dominant (in MBTI), such as the INFP and the ENFJ, the conflicts that arise between these two can be attributed to lots of other factors besides Fi and Fe alone (such as the famous imperiousness and decisiveness of J's, and the flippant laziness of P's).

Interesting. I find Fe vs. Fi to be the source of a HUGE deal of conflicts. I see it happen all the time. And the way that people resolve those conflicts also correlates strongly with Fe vs. Fi in my observation. (And there is no such thing as J and P when you're talking about functions...)

Well, to characterize what I'm doing as adopting one thing over another thing is false. I never really adopted MBTI wholesale in the first place, so I'm not actually adopting Jack's system in favor of MBTI at all. I don't want to discard either system...I'm just defending Jack's from being discarded because I think that it has merits that MBTI doesn't.

I think that Jack's system has merit too. I just think MBTI has more.

I also think that there's a lot of really bad information out there about functions, and I think I'm going to try to compile some good information and make a thread.
 

jason_m

New member
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
10
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
I would think, because it's introverted, it might not look like much to the outside. However, the use of tools and machines requires the same internal knowlege of frameworks and models as the more familiar abstract counterpart. And that's the difference. Ti+Ne is more into concepts and theories, while Ti+Se is more into physical things.

Then you would have to explain why ISFPs are often interested in using tools and machines. According to "Type Talk", ISFPs often choose "mechanics and repair" as their career. Further, Keirsey talks about how, in general, SPs are adept at using tools. If this is a function of Ti+Se, then I don't see why those who value Fi+Se would also show some interest in these activities.

Now, it could be that ISFPs and ISTPs are using different thought processes when they use tools, and it also seems that ISTPs have a stronger preference for technology. However, I still don't buy that using tools is a matter of models and frameworks. I would argue that tool use is tacit knowledge, in the same way that riding a bike or driving a car is tacit knowledge. When someone drives a car, they usually aren't using models and concepts in order to learn how to operate it. They use their senses to judge how one movement correlates to a specific result. There seems to be very little conscious judgment going on.

In some of those cases, you may be seeing the "inflation" of the tertiary function (which then can sometimes appear to outdo those with the function in the dominant position). So INTP's and INFP's have Si in that position (and when I'm artistic, it will usually involve some nostalgic thing or something like that). ISTP's and ISFP's have Ni in that position.

While this is possible, I find it hard to believe that the motives of the tertiary function would outweigh the motives of the types most dominant function. It also doesn't explain why Jung said that Ni-dominant types are typically artists.

Well, detail is definitely something that is perceived! (then the methodicalism comes from wanting to stick to what's familiar, which is their internal concrete perception). The drive and determination of Ni types comes from their visions of change, which are characteristic of their perception.

That may be so, but those descriptions still don't resemble Jung's descriptions.

Finally, this is irrelevant, but I think that another way in which Socionics is superior to the MBTI is the separation of aggression and "thinking." In the MBTI, those types who are the most aggressive are Ti or Te dominant types. For example, I've seen Mike Tyson characterized as an ISTP, and Saddam Hussein characterized as an ENTJ. However, if you look at the actions of these individuals, it seems hard to construe them as being highly rational. It seems that a better explanation is that they operate on the level of gut-instincts. In fact, I've known a few very aggressive people who don't know how to argue logically at all; they constantly resort to personal attacts, rationalizations, and other logical fallacies.

In Socionics, logic and aggression are differentiated. Logic is considered Te or Ti, and aggression is considered Se. Here are the definitions of each function:

Ti: clarity and exactitude of thought, a sense of order and regularity in different levels of structure; a sense of building a complete system from simple and well-understood parts

Te: an active, but steady and purposeful state conducive to performing goal-oriented activities

Se: a mobilized state full of vitality and energy or implied strength; the desire to make strong, bold, and powerful movements

These definitions clearly illustrate the differences amongst the functions, and, on a personal level, they make sense. I have a hard time with aggressive people, but I don't have any difficulties at all, and usually prefer, people with a logical mindset. This would be because I'm an INTj, with Ti as my strongest function, and Se as my least preferred function.

Jason
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Then you would have to explain why ISFPs are often interested in using tools and machines. According to "Type Talk", ISFPs often choose "mechanics and repair" as their career. Further, Keirsey talks about how, in general, SPs are adept at using tools. If this is a function of Ti+Se, then I don't see why those who value Fi+Se would also show some interest in these activities.

Now, it could be that ISFPs and ISTPs are using different thought processes when they use tools, and it also seems that ISTPs have a stronger preference for technology. However, I still don't buy that using tools is a matter of models and frameworks. I would argue that tool use is tacit knowledge, in the same way that riding a bike or driving a car is tacit knowledge. When someone drives a car, they usually aren't using models and concepts in order to learn how to operate it. They use their senses to judge how one movement correlates to a specific result. There seems to be very little conscious judgment going on.
That's basically what I meant. The Se would make both types more "hands-on" oriented, but with the ISTP, it will be more about models and frameworks, and with the ISFP, as you said, it would be less about the technology of it. sort of like how INTP's are into abstract models, and INFP's can also seem to very similar.
While this is possible, I find it hard to believe that the motives of the tertiary function would outweigh the motives of the types most dominant function.
This apparently is "advanced" Beebean theory, which is kind of hard to find. They only appear to outdo the dominant.
It also doesn't explain why Jung said that Ni-dominant types are typically artists.
He also said that Fi types were most likely mostly "melancholic" females. These aspects of his theory I wold say were less developed, and improved upon by Myers and those after them.

That may be so, but those descriptions still don't resemble Jung's descriptions.
Detail dealing with perception, and Ni dealing with visions of change? Why don't those resemble Jung?
Finally, this is irrelevant, but I think that another way in which Socionics is superior to the MBTI is the separation of aggression and "thinking." In the MBTI, those types who are the most aggressive are Ti or Te dominant types. For example, I've seen Mike Tyson characterized as an ISTP, and Saddam Hussein characterized as an ENTJ. However, if you look at the actions of these individuals, it seems hard to construe them as being highly rational. It seems that a better explanation is that they operate on the level of gut-instincts. In fact, I've known a few very aggressive people who don't know how to argue logically at all; they constantly resort to personal attacts, rationalizations, and other logical fallacies.

In Socionics, logic and aggression are differentiated. Logic is considered Te or Ti, and aggression is considered Se. Here are the definitions of each function:

Ti: clarity and exactitude of thought, a sense of order and regularity in different levels of structure; a sense of building a complete system from simple and well-understood parts

Te: an active, but steady and purposeful state conducive to performing goal-oriented activities

Se: a mobilized state full of vitality and energy or implied strength; the desire to make strong, bold, and powerful movements

These definitions clearly illustrate the differences amongst the functions, and, on a personal level, they make sense. I have a hard time with aggressive people, but I don't have any difficulties at all, and usually prefer, people with a logical mindset. This would be because I'm an INTj, with Ti as my strongest function, and Se as my least preferred function.
Interesting, btut those descriptions seem to be making the functions simply "states" rather than propcesses of perceiving or judgment. Thus, they seem to be focusing on behavior, and while those behaviors can be connected with those functions, behaviors can be shaped by other things and even other functions as well.
 

mlittrell

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,387
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w1
eric b is investing more time in this then i would have liked to (props) but basically is completely right. also i think jacks system finally clicked and unfortunately it clicked to more criticism lol i think basically what you are saying is, with an INTP for example, the extroverted intuition is the first thing you see? then the introverted thinking? all this because you really wont see the introverted thinking because it is an introverted process? if all this is true, well its still wrong haha. the extroverted thinking, though it maybe extroverted still is the second function but is driven through introverted intuition. in an ENTP you will see much more of a pure form of Ne with Ti undertones. with an INTP you will see Ti much more because Ne filters through Ti. i think thats what your saying but i dont see wats so special about the system, i do it subconsciously when typing people anyway.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
eric b is investing more time in this then i would have liked to (props) but basically is completely right. also i think jacks system finally clicked and unfortunately it clicked to more criticism lol i think basically what you are saying is, with an INTP for example, the extroverted intuition is the first thing you see? then the introverted thinking? all this because you really wont see the introverted thinking because it is an introverted process? if all this is true, well its still wrong haha. the extroverted thinking, though it maybe extroverted still is the second function but is driven through introverted intuition. in an ENTP you will see much more of a pure form of Ne with Ti undertones. with an INTP you will see Ti much more because Ne filters through Ti. i think thats what your saying but i dont see wats so special about the system, i do it subconsciously when typing people anyway.

I wanted to add at this point that in my opinion you cant see a function, if they are introverted, to be in "hidding".

If you want to identify Ti or Te, you have to watch and listen how people adress a situation. If I for example get my intp buddy started on programming language, his field of intrest, he is most eager to explain me the whole thing in such a great detail that I eventually will get lost in a sea of abbreviations. If I ask my ISTJ buddy about something from economics I did not understand, he will give me all the necessary information to understand, what is basically needed.

You can see the interplay of Ti or Te in persons best, if you take p-ness into account. In a group situation the p's for example start to take every detail into account but avoid decision making, so they do not loose track of a detail. Most of the time those people are Ti or Fi's. While a Te or Fe is more likely to go with a decision from the start and asses the whole situation in terms of a wider context with the thought in the back of his head that it isnt the detail that needs focus but the output of the group in the end and its realization.

So Ti and Te are less processes that work hidden or show itself as it could be meant in terms of Intro- and Extroversion. In my opinion they are two completly different things that have the same function. For example a nice clean shiny and technologically über german car or a dirty heavy fuel-consuming technologically unter american car. :D
 

mlittrell

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,387
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w1
well said. this is another reason that i always push application of systems. if your system can be applied and brings something new... woo. if not, screw it.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
dissonance: It seems that your arguments against the new system are shifting over time, leading you to take mutually exclusive positions.

mlittrell: I'll recycle a statement I made elsewhere. "Some are skilled at analysis in spite of using MBTT functions. Terms are redefined to fit analyses." I think this applies to you. I also think you're still insisting on defining Intuition here as "Ne," which it isn't. It's a lot like Ne, and quite like Ni, but the definition here is simpler.
 

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
I think the basic argument is how much you define and stick to the "law" of the function definitions. If your interpretation is true and accurate to the specific functions. I think save for bluewing most people don't truly have that in depth of knowledge of them, so their going to be modified or personalized somewhat.

It's a matter of individual preference. I think as a baseline I could get on board with this system. The only question I have is how much I'm still sticking to and retaining information I got from the MBTT system and how much of it is my own individualized interpretation of it.

The same could be said for my actual application. I do sort of start from a baseline similar to jack, I don't like to start off defining too specifically or precisely at the onset. I like to look at the general essence and let the others personality come through. If I have a mind set of *Te Ne Si Fe* I may have a little confirmation bias in modifying and interpreting an individuals actions based on that reference. I think that sort of forces you to miss some of the subtler actions and drives that makes a person who they are, it also makes it difficult to account for context as easily as I think Jacks system does.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Round 2

Taken from here.
Because of the attitudes, each function has two different ways of expression, resulting in eight function-attitudes -- Introverted and Extraverted versions of Sensation, Intuition, Feeling, and Thinking. As implied, my view is that Introverted and Extraverted versions of the same function come at information from opposing brain hemispheres.

When dominant and auxiliary functions implicate the right hemisphere, the type is usually outwardly adaptable to novelty and change, but this is balanced by a reliance on principles and values that are understood to be universal. In the MBTI system, these are the P types, whose preferred Extraverted function is either Sensation or Intuition.

When dominant and auxiliary functions implicate the left hemisphere, the type is usually invested in a collective outward charter that serves as a uniting lingua franca, but this is balanced by an inner world of impressions and alternatives that are understood to be individual. In the MBTI system, these are the J types, whose preferred Extraverted function is either Thinking or Feeling.

brain-regions.gif


If the left frontal lobe of the brain is anesthetized, discrimination and executive judgment are rendered impossible. The frontal cortex is crucial to the tasks we associate with Extraverted Thinking and Extraverted Feeling.

If the right back hemisphere is anesthetized instead, executive judgment remains possible, but it occurs without reference to real subjective experience, spatial awareness, and contextual evaluation -- aspects associated with Introverted Thinking and Introverted Feeling. Without this input, the left brain simply fabricates whatever appears to "explain" how consequence is related to cause.

Extraverted Sensation, which implicates the right brain, is concerned with direct experience, whereas Introverted Sensation, which implicates the left, is concerned with maintaining categories for experience.

Extraverted Thinking, which implicates the left brain, is concerned with reliable principles of behavior, which maintain order, whereas Introverted Thinking, which implicates the right brain, is concerned with consistent underlying processes, which allow one to predict change and flux.

The two hemispheres of the brain are designed to share their products across the corpus callosum; however, research indicates that cross-hemispheric communication can't take place diagonally. This would suggest that cognitive products associated with these diagonally related quadrants can't be simultaneously conscious.

Notice, for example, that Extraverted Thinking implicates the left front hemisphere, whereas Introverted Feeling implicates the right back hemisphere. Te and Fi are considered direct opposites for good neurological reason. In my view, this is why our least developed function is most likely to become conscious as we encounter its operation in others.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
There's just as much conjecture there as with the theory alone, blue. It seems as if the author is starting with the conclusion, and forcing the analysis to fit. The definitions are still a huge problem.

Even if it were God's honest truth, which I don't believe it is, it doesn't matter. For example, my argument certainly had nothing to do with where memory (closest to "Si") is stored or accessed from.

My system is simpler, less prone to misdiagnosis of functions and types, and my function orders aren't variable among individuals and moods.
 
Top