Jack Flak's Function System Adventure

[redacted]

Right.

Typically INTP of me, I've pondered this for years, have come to a conclusion, and I won't be persuaded that it's incorrect.

 

[Jack Flak]

Right.

Re: Quote: Exactly. The function system's perfectly logical to me, and anyone is welcome to use the system, or not use the system, but it's pointless to attempt to convince me it's flawed or less-than-useful. Because I don't find it so. I already use it for analysis, and have found it advantageous and superior to any other system.

 

[redacted]

Re: Quote: Exactly. The function system's perfectly logical to me, and anyone is welcome to use the system, or not use the system, but it's pointless to attempt to convince me it's flawed or less-than-useful. Because I don't find it so. I already use it for analysis, and have found it advantageous and superior to any other system.

It is perfectly logical, I agree.

It just isn't as powerful as it could be.

I'm just trying to help here.

 

[MissMurder]

I'm just trying to help here.

You've seemed... combative, not helpful. But, this is the internet... I guess it can do that to people.

 

[Jack Flak]

It is perfectly logical, I agree.

It just isn't as powerful as it could be.

I'm just trying to help here.

Well, we likely disagree on how it could be made more useful. Perhaps you mean by somehow further defining use of the reserve functions, and/or further defining the preferred object of the functions? That's all too variable in my observations.

Example: MBTT function theory doesn't specify Fi use for the INTP, thus leading many people to believe (And don't tell me it doesn't) that it's hardly used at all. Whereas even on the Cog Proc test, which I believe is flawed and was designed to test MBTI types as much as anything, myself and many others test higher in Fi than Fe. People get the idea that INTPs don't have values, and MBTT is therefore misleading.

This system is the antithesis of misleading. The Feeling function is called "reserve," which means it doesn't typically occupy the INTP's concentration, but it remains there, always.

 

[Simplexity]

It's just a matter of how much background info is needed to accurately assess people. I think you can't discredit how MBTT has helped you to a certain degree. I'm sure you've internalized some of that knowledge, at the very least I think you have to have a decent amount of psycho-analysis skills or psychology other than straight typology knowledge. If you look at MBTT by definition it should stand alone by itself.

I think your system affords a certain amount of freedom to those who are comfortable in there typing skills.

 

[Jack Flak]

It's just a matter of how much background info is needed to accurately assess people. I think you can't discredit how MBTT has helped you to a certain degree. I'm sure you've internalized some of that knowledge, at the very least I think you have to have a decent amount of psycho-analysis skills or psychology other than straight typology knowledge. If you look at MBTT by definition it should stand alone by itself.

I think your system affords a certain amount of freedom to those who are comfortable in there typing skills.

I believe I've already stated that I think Jung "had the right idea" and "got it half right." And that Myers & Co.'s creation "Made sense" in spite of the errors in transcribing functions. It's all true. To improve and clarify as I've done hardly seems like a disadvantage to me.

 

[Simplexity]

It depends what approach you are coming at it from. For those who are looking at making your system widely accessible the question of how self contained it is has to be answered. I think that even with all the *errors* in MBTT you have to not discount the fact that MBTT was a learning experience for you personally.

You can learn a lot from your mistakes as a you alluded to in a number of your posts. If you give this system to someone who hasn't learned the same faults, and had the same extensive background that you did in typology, you can't discount the fact that you are privy to some unspoken or hidden knowledge that they may not necessarily be aware of.

I haven't read all of dissonance arguments but from the gist of his posts I think that's what hes getting at. Maybe your goal is making it accessible to those who have some knowledge of MBTT or psychology in general and can therefore utilize a streamlined (not necessarily worse) typology system that allows them ease of use, and better accuracy due to flexibility.

 

[mlittrell]

its logical yes, i understand that, i just dont see the point considering its nothing new but i have stated that before so pardon this comment, i just wanted to follow that i understood how it generally worked

 

[Jack Flak]

You can learn a lot from your mistakes as a you alluded to in a number of your posts. If you give this system to someone who hasn't learned the same faults, and had the same extensive background that you did in typology, you can't discount the fact that you are privy to some unspoken or hidden knowledge that they may not necessarily be aware of.

The mistakes, if you can call them such, which I've made, are only related to my inability to write a book-length description of the entire concept. The foundation is sound.

I haven't read all of dissonance arguments but from the gist of his posts I think that's what hes getting at. Maybe your goal is making it accessible to those who have some knowledge of MBTT or psychology in general and can therefore utilize a streamlined (not necessarily worse) typology system that allows them ease of use, and better accuracy due to flexibility.

You overestimate the scope of my goals. My goal is to be correct and efficient, and the burden is on the reader to make use of the system as I do. The burden to make this system accesible to the less-Intuition/Thinking inclined is on the burden of "I don't know who." I'm consistently unable to define abstract concepts in a way that makes them easily understood by everyone.

But you underestimate my recognition of the state of affairs. I know where everyone's coming from here, which only serves to reinforce my position. The opposing arguments are coming from places where logic flows like molasses.

 

[mlittrell]

The mistakes, if you can call them such, which I've made, are only related to my inability to write a book-length description of the entire concept. The foundation is sound.

only a paragraph is needed to convince all

 

[Jack Flak]

The mistakes, if you can call them such, which I've made, are only related to my inability to write a book-length description of the entire concept. The foundation is sound.
only a paragraph is needed to convince all

Did you read Orangey's posts? I thought she was rather convincing, but again, it's hard for me to get a read on what's convincing to the mean/median/mode person.

 

[mlittrell]

i just read orangeys posts. sorry for reading them after i posted that, though i still stand by my post. so basically you are just using this for typing people and typing people only? like people whose type you don't know. if that be the case i thought everyone did this already when typing people. i know i do. this further backs up my faith in the use of the temperaments...

and i know we are talking more about the functions seperate of the temperaments.

 

[Jack Flak]

i just read orangeys posts. sorry for reading them after i posted that, though i still stand by my post. so basically you are just using this for typing people and typing people only? like people whose type you don't know. if that be the case i thought everyone did this already when typing people. i know i do. this further backs up my faith in the use of the temperaments...

It's not just for typing people. In fact, that wasn't what I had in mind when devising it. I was trying to demonstrate the uselessness of the established school.

Turns out though, when I used the system in analysis, it worked really well. The primary function defines J/P, so if you determine, say, someone is Intuition Primary, you have N and P. You do have to be adept at analysis, but that was true before anyway.

 

[Salomé]

. I was trying to demonstrate the uselessness of the established school.

Huh?

Where did you do that exactly? That's the bit I'm waiting for.

 

[Jack Flak]

Huh?

Where did you do that exactly? That's the bit I'm waiting for.

The system itself does that, so I don't have to. But I did devise the system, so I take full credit. Well, Orangey gets credit too. Read her posts in this thread.

 

[Salomé]

The system itself does that, so I don't have to. But I did devise the system, so I take full credit. Well, Orangey gets credit too. Read her posts in this thread.

Oh no it doesn't!

I have read Orangey's posts, and I agree, she is more eloquent than you are, but she doesn't discredit function theory at any point.

Instead of knee-jerking off, why don't you apply your brain-power to constructing a convincing argument? I'm perfectly capable of being convinced, as are many of the other posters. You just need to try harder.

 

[Jack Flak]

Oh no it doesn't!

I have read Orangey's posts, and I agree, she is more eloquent than you are, but she doesn't discredit function theory at any point.

Instead of knee-jerking off, why don't you apply your brain-power to constructing a convincing argument? I'm perfectly capable of being convinced, as are many of the other posters. You just need to try harder.

That's the catch though, isn't it. You have the brain power to potentially understand it, but you don't understand it already, so I don't know what to say to convince you. I mean, I understood it before I even typed it out, so how can I come down out of the clouds to the ground, where you are standing? This perplexes me.

 

[Salomé]

That's the catch though, isn't it. You have the brain power to potentially understand it, but you don't understand it already, so I don't know what to say to convince you. I mean, I understood it before I even typed it out, so how can I come down out of the clouds to the ground, where you are standing? This perplexes me.

I understand all. Unlike some people I am capable of holding several conflicting concepts in my head at the same time, and looking at them from many different angles. Just because I don't believe it, doesn't mean I don't understand it.

In fact, I've even thought of a good argument to support your position, it occurred to me a couple of days ago. But I'm not going to give it to you, because you don't deserve it.


BTW, those aren't clouds. We call that fog.

 

[Nocapszy]

What's cool about this post is, I can move the quotes around to show how its wrong.

Bullshit.

...

If it can't be explained by neuroscience at any point, then it is invalid. And you can't argue against conjecture when it's all you have. You're pulling the rug out from under your own feet!

Bullshit.

Lady, what the fuck are you talking about?
When conjecture is all you've got, then you'd better damned argue the hell out of it. I don't know what the context of this argument is, but I can't picture even one scientific scenario where unchallenged conjecture is better than nothing. What if it's false? Then you've wasted a whole heap of time studying what can't be true.

Fallen Astrologists will tell you I'm right on that.
If you can find yourself an INTJ who isn't too stubborn to confess, he'll tell you too.

One thing I do agree with, though, is scrapping the separate functions for introversion/extroversion.

You also link S/N T/F.

Why don't we just lump them all together and call it Ff?*
Come on son -- We're referencing the fragments of behavior separate from all others. Thinking is not tied to feeling. Else we ought to just call it judgement. When we're talking about Thinking, we're talking about the part of judgement which is separate from emotive judgement.

By your mish-mash logic, Thinking is tied to sensing, since photons still go into the eyeballs and make electrical signals even while we're using Judging functions.

You and The Poriferan need to get off the soapbox about this linking and dependency bullery. We parse concepts for a reason.





*The reason we don't is the same reason cars don't say "engineengineengineengine" as they putt along, and a street light doesn't go "redredredredredred."