• 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.

Meta MBTI thread: Things to Consider

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
dynamics

Officially, "type dynamics" refers to the way a person's preferences interact with each other and develop. It includes the order of preferences as a tool for describing development/motivation/dominants. It explains why INTP and INFP differ only on one letter but couldn't be more different in their core approach to decisions. And why INTJs and INFJs are more similar than the previous pair. And why Si looks different in ESTJ and ISTJ.

As for how type practitioners go about it...it isn't that we think the person is always an adequate source of information but that we don't have the right to tell another person what type they are. It usually backfires, anyway.

Again, ethically, whether done with groups or individually,
  • The type practitioner introduces the concept of preferences--we can do both, and develop skills, but have a preference for one end of each dichotomy over the other
  • We explain the theory, whether it is our preference to introduce it through the preference pairs, the 8 functions, or begin with temperaments. There's no right way, just varying degrees of skills, interests and application needs among practitioners.
  • Ideally, there is also time for exercises--short experiences using the preferences that are designed to help the person discover preferences over learned skills
  • The person self-selects their 4 letter type code
  • The person is then given their results from a validated type indicator, be it the MBTI, the Golden, the PTI, the JTI, or whatever
  • The person and the practitioner work through interpretation of any differences between self-selected results and reported results
  • If the person believes he/she has figured out best fit type, the practitioner provides a full type description for the person to read. Often the person also wants to read another type, such as both ISTJ and ISFJ, for further verification

If I don't think a person has correctly identified his/her type, usually there is no point arguing right then and there. But as a workshop goes on (this first part should ideally take at least 3 hours), most of those people have aha moments, especially if the trainer is skilled at ensuring that every preference is honored and the group comes to see how the best type to be is your own type...
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Any time I want to help a male figure out his type, I get a female in his life to help me, such as his mom or wife.
Ooo bad mojo... What's the counterpart of mysogyny? Dictionary anyone??

Misandry... thank you wikipedia :)

Anyhow.. mother's idealise their sons and partners tend to interpret their counterparts in terms of their use rather than their natural state. Although no technique in singular is 100% .. my natural argumentative nature raises it's heckling in the direction of your clutch plan !!

:newwink:
And generally speaking whenever I can get the opinions of other friends or family members, it helps the process go more quickly because, as I have experienced anyway, MBTT is all about "compared to who".
I've got concerns about the comparison approach. It's been my primary route into the MBTI but I'm not too sure about whether it's as straddled with problems as every other route. After all the chances of compound error are much greater than typing by the numbers for example.
I used to think I was observant until I realized what they meant by "observant" was more like what my ISTP husband was doing.
See what I mean?

:devil:
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
no matter what my answer would be on #1 function order/orientation should always remain the same. now ya, you can say, "oh, he is using Ne" and that might be true. great. but that is about all it is going to tell you. woo. now what i get a little pissy about is when i hear people saying, "oh, im an ENTP and i took a cognitive functions test and my functions are as follows: Ti, Te, Ne, Fe...blah blah blah" ya if your an ENTP your functions are Ne, Ti, Fe, Si. now true, you can use your Fe and such but it is still filtered through your Ne and Ti so of coures your Fe is going to be different then someone who is, say, an ENFJ. so your right, you can observe individual functions at work, but many times they are still being filtered through other functions and thus may not be true to the definition of that function as an individual entity.
That's something I've been thinking about recently. If you're taking a test then surely it's entirely possible that you aren't engaging your preferred functions? The testing environment could have an effect upon what you'd use.

If everyone can and does use every function then surely whenever a person is attempting to evaluate or determine which functions are preferred then every effort should be made to ensure that the environment is "function neutral" no? If not then would it not be entirely possible that the testing itself will warp the results?
ya i kept switching between the shadow function (which is subconscious. i think the tertiary function is conscious but not always being used) and the traditional definition of subconscious. sorry bout that lol. also, there is a difference between subconscious and unconscious. personally i believe that the shadow is unconscious, but that is just me.
According to what I have read the tertiary function is not usually under conscious control and the inferior is rarely under conscious control. I think this blends into the theory that those things which are easiest to control end up being preferred.. back to the handedness parallel.
and ya, tests can be HORRIBLY flawed and im quite against them, for the most part. they do have their place however so i cant completely discredit them. i know tons of INFJs that come out ISFJs and tons of ENXPs that come up INXP (i think that has to do with the introspection factor, which doesn't necessarily mean introversion but usually when you are introspecting you tend to be introverting in a sense).
If you don't use tests then isn't the whole thing thrown out the window? I mean you can type by observation, that much is clear but then what do you do about those who do not express a marked enough preference to evaluate them, especially introverts who tend not to show as much of their nature as extraverts.

Perhaps the tests are supposed to attempt to reveal what is in the introverted world of the subject regardless of their preference for extraversion or introversion? Perhaps the lack of comfort of an extraverts is indicative itself?
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
well, you've touched upon something here in terms of my understanding of functional analysis...


..., "oh, im an ENTP and i took a cognitive functions test and my functions are as follows: Ti, Te, Ne, Fe...blah blah blah" ya if your an ENTP your functions are Ne, Ti, Fe, Si. now true, you can use your Fe and such but it is still filtered through your Ne and Ti so of coures your Fe is going to be different then someone who is, say, an ENFJ. so your right, you can observe individual functions at work, but many times they are still being filtered through other functions and thus may not be true to the definition of that function as an individual entity.​

so there are 8 functions. if you consider the possible rankings (if all 8 were considered completely independent functions) they could form 5,040 different combinations, but we're told that there are 16. what is the basis for this? i'm not a complete skeptic, i believe in personality types to some degree, but why should there be only 16 possible combinations here? (i personally believe i'm not one of the 16...)
5,040? Yikes.

That's the combination of the functions regardless of what they represent isn't it? Surely you wouldn't find that a person was at home using Se backed up by Si? That'd make decision making very difficult...
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
Not stereotypes.... just the users of them. You can't kill an idea but you can have a damn good try and killing off anyone who uses it :devil:
ptG just posted the perfect metaphor on his blog...
"If we consider the human mind to be a source of light, it follows that we will never see beyond the immediate: light stops at the first thing it sees. The mind can only see what is reflected back to it, from the position it exists in."

It's not as if we want to, it happens unconsciously anyways. Not just in other people, but also in ourselves.

I think you skipped a bit... Beren's sheds light on these mature types or I should read it cause it spectacularly fails to?
I've just read the summaries. It's her descriptions of cognitive functions that fails for me. Everything must be ordered... from strongest to weakest. Are the shadows necessarily weaker than the tertiary and the inferior? I feel that varies depending on the individual.

I do agree though that most of the typing stuff I've read really doesn't help when it comes to developed types. When I was trying to figure the parallels between myself and Wildcat I kept coming up against brick walls. I think we both developed away from the INTP norm... just not in the same way... We're both playing all the right notes... it's just some *#@!! nicked the music sheets :newwink:
You might have better luck comparing function interactions than going along with types.

It makes me think of two different instruments playing the same note. Say a piano and a trombone. You can tell they're the same note because they share the fundamental frequency. Yet the piano sounds nothing like the trombone because the harmonics are all different. In other words, both of you are using Ti as your dominant function, but you're combining it with different kind of functions and drawing from different experiences. I sense a fair bit of Ni and to some extent Fi from wildcat, where as your writing has more Ne exploratory undertones. ;)

Well that's the thing isn't it. How do you develop a function? I personally think that it's better to think in terms of practising thinking and acting more in tune with other types and not actually altering my own type. Kind of more like trying to incorporate other's thinking rather than change my own thinking to match theirs. Osmosis I think is the correct term.
Osmosis is a good word for it. I'm sure actively assessing yourself once in a while also helps in the learning. I like to compare my responses to other people's. Try and figure out whether their thinking or action is influenced by cognitive functions and contrast it with my own. Then draw the principles out and see if I can benefit from learning. A very Ni centered process.

Officially, "type dynamics" refers to the way a person's preferences interact with each other and develop.
Hmmm what happens if you switch the two words around and get "dynamic type". Switch the adjective with the subject and you get two very different meanings... ;)
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
I think the other thing to keep in mind that the theoretical order in which the functions develop produces the 16 types. If a person's environment doesn't support natural development, then the preferences do develop out of order--at least a not-very-vocal group of type practitioners believe this is true, vs. the more vocal Beebe and other camps who stick to a set order.

So let's say your preferences are INFJ. Sticking with the traditional order of preferences...
  • Ni develops first, in early childhood with daydreaming and a rich imaginative inner life. The young INFJ is content to frequently play alone and pretend to be the greatest French Resistance fighter of all times. What if the parents are Extraverted and haul that child everywhere, seldom allowing the solo play? Ni development may well be stunted.
  • Fe should develop next. But maybe it's had a head start since the child has been dragged everywhere. The child then has its Judging preference but hasn't learned conscious control of its Ni. This could result in an adolescent who makes snap decisions about the needs and motivations of others rather than the more mature pattern of INFJs who first use Ni to consider possibilities and then Fe to act in the outer world.
  • Or, worse yet what if the parents dragged that child to very Thinking environments--perhaps the parents value math achievement above all else so the child has been to math camps and math competitions and chess club and...all logical pursuits? Now the child hasn't been able to develop either of its natural functions. They may have some conscious control of Te but it'll always be less natural, less fulfilling, than if Fe had been allowed to develop. The child may begin feeling inept compared to all the natural chess players/ math people (note: F's can be great at math and some might even want to be in the math competitions from an early age. I'm just setting up patterns...)
  • Se would be last traditionally. This child might find it a total escape, joining sports or getting into sensory overload through drugs, overeating, overexercising--anything to avoid the constant inner emptiness caused by a lack of conscious control of Ni that has been blocked by an environment that didn't support the natural growth pattern of the child...

Yes this post assumes that type is innate--we're born with a predisposition to our psychological preferences. But our environment, culture, education, social circles, family, experiences influence the development of those preferences, for better and for worse. The good news is that ALL normal people will develop skills with the opposite preferences. The bad news is that a lot of (*$&(# can get in teh way of normal development. that's why counselors and psychotherapists can generally count on full employment if they're any good at what they do...
Ignoring the fine definitions about nature or nurture, this has always thrown me a little. If your INFJ has been raised with a good command of T and has had their F squashed (a term my father uses for these situations) then aren't they something else other than INFJ?

Does it not seem sensible to make more of these situations? If not then shouldn't the typing literature as a whole make more of these "deviations"?

There does seem to be wholes not particularly in the theory itself but in the way that it is supported. There seems to be some level of patronising going on... Either that or I'm getting the wrong books...
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
I am now using the Keirsey split and the following split almost equally. They are similarly useful in my mind.

NP, SP, TJ, FJ
I'm not sure I follow this though. Surely ENFP and ENFJ are similar?

ENTJ and INTP can be similar given time...

Are ENFP and ENTP similar?
What about ESTP and ESTJ?
Yes. It is one of a few effective analysis techniques, but one very dependent on the practitioner's ability. Novices and MBTI experts alike may or may not be skilled at comparison classification. Therefore, I recommend that if a person doesn't think it holds merit, they should definitely steer clear of using it. I hypothesize that NPs will be more naturally adept.
This should be the case but perhaps not always so. I'd imagine that an INTJ could be quite skilled in this area as long as they can master the control impulse. When they're not as bothered about being "right".
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Officially, "type dynamics" refers to the way a person's preferences interact with each other and develop. It includes the order of preferences as a tool for describing development/motivation/dominants. It explains why INTP and INFP differ only on one letter but couldn't be more different in their core approach to decisions. And why INTJs and INFJs are more similar than the previous pair. And why Si looks different in ESTJ and ISTJ.....
Nice to see that the typing process is more often a longer process than that experienced by posters here...

As for the INFP versus INTP thing... maybe it's just me but I'm not that far off how my INFP friend approaches things. Mind you though I'm perhaps closer to F than usual and him to T.

Bah the outliers always screw up a nice neat pattern :(
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
I'm not sure I follow this though. Surely ENFP and ENFJ are similar?

ENTJ and INTP can be similar given time...

Are ENFP and ENTP similar?
What about ESTP and ESTJ?
ENFJ and ENFP are, of course, I said I used the Keirsey splits also.

ESTP and ESTJ, well, probably less similar. Different drives.

This should be the case but perhaps not always so. I'd imagine that an INTJ could be quite skilled in this area as long as they can master the control impulse. When they're not as bothered about being "right".
They can be. I said most "naturally" adept or something, meaning on average of course.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
ptG just posted the perfect metaphor on his blog...
"If we consider the human mind to be a source of light, it follows that we will never see beyond the immediate: light stops at the first thing it sees. The mind can only see what is reflected back to it, from the position it exists in."

It's not as if we want to, it happens unconsciously anyways. Not just in other people, but also in ourselves.
Depressingly true. Also depressingly true is the way it links to people's behaviour at night. You get those who cast around the torch light frantically trying to observe everything as they would in bright daylight and those who subbornly shine it at one spot certain that should they move the light then they will miss something important.

Personally I believe it's better to naturally distrust those reflected images and what the light covers. It often misses context and images make a whole lot more sense when combined with sounds, smells and textures. The exact parellel of this within the mind I leave to you.
I've just read the summaries. It's her descriptions of cognitive functions that fails for me. Everything must be ordered... from strongest to weakest. Are the shadows necessarily weaker than the tertiary and the inferior? I feel that varies depending on the individual.
Err... aren't the tertiary and inferior the shadow functions? I'm confused. INTP is Ti Ne Si Fe. Fe Si is ESFJ is it not?
You might have better luck comparing function interactions than going along with types.

It makes me think of two different instruments playing the same note. Say a piano and a trombone. You can tell they're the same note because they share the fundamental frequency. Yet the piano sounds nothing like the trombone because the harmonics are all different. In other words, both of you are using Ti as your dominant function, but you're combining it with different kind of functions and drawing from different experiences. I sense a fair bit of Ni and to some extent Fi from wildcat, where as your writing has more Ne exploratory undertones. ;)
So function usage is like what key you're playing in? Holy breadboard!!! That means that to identify with another type you have to transpose as well as attempt to mimic the instrument!! No wonder most make it sound like an englishman trying his latest french phrases in italy!

(Ni and Fi?? Fi???.... you sure??? :doh: what am I saying.. you're an INTJ :newwink: )
Osmosis is a good word for it.
Yeah... it sucks :newwink:
I'm sure actively assessing yourself once in a while also helps in the learning. I like to compare my responses to other people's. Try and figure out whether their thinking or action is influenced by cognitive functions and contrast it with my own. Then draw the principles out and see if I can benefit from learning. A very Ni centered process.
Me thinks my Ni is overactive then... See this is where the whole type thing tends to fall down for me as I can identify conscious control of all eight functions at various points in my thinking and yet never by itself. There is always another function being paired with it. If such is common for everyone then how do you remove the influence of the other functions to ascertain which is in predominance? Aren't your preferred functions always in the dominant position and hence limiting and guiding the other functions accordingly?

Oh and compared to my experience of INTJs.... Epic Fail. You haven't said I'm wrong yet. This is most disconcerting. Shape up immediately or consequences cannot be far behind.

:smile:

(It is nice to note though that someone detects the whole background Ne rather than thinking it foreground working or perhaps some representation of sensing. I think I've been typed as just about everything except an FJ or an SJ at this point. Perhaps my P is too strong?)
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
ENFJ and ENFP are, of course, I said I used the Keirsey splits also.

ESTP and ESTJ, well, probably less similar. Different drives.
So you're subdividing four groups into four more groups? Well there's your sixteen :newwink:
They can be. I said most "naturally" adept or something, meaning on average of course.
I was indicating towards those who though being NPs are not at all suited to such analysis. I know of one INFP who would be useless at such things as the whole process of making a decision about someone would send him into mild panic!

I'd estimate that the analysis of people does sit well with NPs but perhaps not necessarily solely based upon this. It also requires some level of ability with analysis and also learning to work, in part as a J. Without definition and assumption then all progress is halted.

(Call that nitpicking if you like... it's true... it is.... :D )
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
So you're subdividing four groups into four more groups? Well there's your sixteen :newwink:
Two separate divisions, to be used separately!
I was indicating towards those who though being NPs are not at all suited to such analysis. I know of one INFP who would be useless at such things as the whole process of making a decision about someone would send him into mild panic!
Yeah but look at this board. Most of the people who regularly type celebrities and shit are NP. Intuition Primary.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Two separate divisions, to be used separately!
Not so. You are applying them to one subject no? If not then your typing is inconsistent and if so then you are using them together whether consciously or not.
Yeah but look at this board. Most of the people who regularly type celebrities and shit are NP. Intuition Primary.
Prevalence does not indicate ability.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
Not so. You are applying them to one subject no? If not then your typing is inconsistent and if so then you are using them together whether consciously or not.
I talk about NTs, and I talk about NPs. Two divisions, both useful. I formerly saw the Keirsey setup as the most useful, but since I developed that function system, more has become clear.

Prevalence does not indicate ability.
Nor does the fact that "you know this one INFP..."
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
Personally I believe it's better to naturally distrust those reflected images and what the light covers. It often misses context and images make a whole lot more sense when combined with sounds, smells and textures. The exact parellel of this within the mind I leave to you.
You're going to put my Ni through the roof playing with analogies. :bananallama:

I guess there's no way we can know precisely what's truth and what's reflection because all our senses have bias. But if we combine all of them, we might get a more complete image of what's out there. So bringing the analogy forward, what we should do is as you say, to distrust the first image. Wait and spend more time gathering information before judgment.

Not sure what you can do for hardheaded people though. Sure you can beat them on the head with contrary evidence but if they see just the reflected image in front of them, they wouldn't believe you...

Err... aren't the tertiary and inferior the shadow functions? I'm confused. INTP is Ti Ne Si Fe. Fe Si is ESFJ is it not?
I think the shadow functions refers to the "hidden" 4.

INTP is Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi.
Tertiary is Si, Inferior is Fe
Shadows are Te Ni Se Fi.

So function usage is like what key you're playing in? Holy breadboard!!! That means that to identify with another type you have to transpose as well as attempt to mimic the instrument!! No wonder most make it sound like an englishman trying his latest french phrases in italy!
Heh, actually in my analogy I haven't even thrown in the key yet. The Englishman works for me though. Translating is definitely difficult. There's no reference standard for anything.

Me thinks my Ni is overactive then... See this is where the whole type thing tends to fall down for me as I can identify conscious control of all eight functions at various points in my thinking and yet never by itself. There is always another function being paired with it. If such is common for everyone then how do you remove the influence of the other functions to ascertain which is in predominance? Aren't your preferred functions always in the dominant position and hence limiting and guiding the other functions accordingly?

Oh and compared to my experience of INTJs.... Epic Fail. You haven't said I'm wrong yet. This is most disconcerting. Shape up immediately or consequences cannot be far behind.
I seriously doubt anybody can isolate functions other than their dominant. Even with their dominant, it's not so much isolating as in function subtraction. Your dominant is always present, but the other functions will not be. So if you subtract out the "noise" you get your dominant.

The rest of the functions are even more difficult to understand. I'm not even sure if I can explain the process I use. I try to find people who seems to display the "purest" dominant function and study them in detail again using the subtraction method. Then I compare them to other people. But in this case I can't go back to check my work. I only get output based on their behavior and never their input even if I'm placed in the same situation. Very much your description of trying to figure out the music without the sheets. :doh:

About your Ni, there's no reason why we can't use all 8 functions consciously so long as we pay attention and practice often. We're probably never going to be as good as a dominant function user but it doesn't mean we don't improve. Is your Ni better than say your Ne, I'll say likely not. In fact are you sure you're using Ni or a mix of Ti Ne that resembles Ni?

My Ni knows patterns are stable even if the system is flexing. So if I dig deep enough, I usually find what I need. Ne directed by Ti most likely shifts through lots of data to see whether there's a pattern. The starting point for the two processes are different even know it seems like both are search for the same thing.

(It is nice to note though that someone detects the whole background Ne rather than thinking it foreground working or perhaps some representation of sensing. I think I've been typed as just about everything except an FJ or an SJ at this point. Perhaps my P is too strong?)
I personally don't think it matters what other people type you as. Only that you're comfortable with who you are whether you've been typed or not. Typology is just a model.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
I talk about NTs, and I talk about NPs. Two divisions, both useful. I formerly saw the Keirsey setup as the most useful, but since I developed that function system, more has become clear.
How is it useful to have divides which aren't applied to people? Or are you merely refining my definition instead of changing it's core?
Nor does the fact that "you know this one INFP..."
What I mean't by my comment was that just because NPs are more prone to try and type people doesn't actually mean they're any good at it. They perhaps just enjoy how conceptual it is.

As for using singular instances as indicative of a wider pattern, I consider that a good counter measure so that I don't end up thinking that one pattern will ever cover all instances. More philosophy than factual technique.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
God Xander, your posts are sooooo looooooooooong, pal.

#3 Subconscious influences

I'm not sure what you mean by this but I've become interested in reversing the traditional model for typing people and typing them by inferior function.
Eg. The INTP would be Fe/Si deficient.

The rationale being

a) behaviour derived from subconscious drivers cannot of necessity be faked, so one removes self-deception from the equation.

b) perceived utility in a clinical/diagnostic/self-improvement context

Thoughts?
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
You're going to put my Ni through the roof playing with analogies. :bananallama:
Sometimes I find the abstraction to give clearer insight than the actual subject. Something to do with the conceptualisation removing extraneous details.
I guess there's no way we can know precisely what's truth and what's reflection because all our senses have bias. But if we combine all of them, we might get a more complete image of what's out there. So bringing the analogy forward, what we should do is as you say, to distrust the first image. Wait and spend more time gathering information before judgment.
You sure you're a J?? :newwink:

Sometimes I think it's necessary to sit back and wait for further information but equally I find that it's also sometimes necessary to take the information you have, calculate the best route and just go for it. After all if all you do is wait then whatever you do is likely to be of little use as it'll be too late.
Not sure what you can do for hardheaded people though. Sure you can beat them on the head with contrary evidence but if they see just the reflected image in front of them, they wouldn't believe you...
Oh I've found a knowing smirk often works wonders... though if I don't have the answer myself it can get complicated :shock:
I think the shadow functions refers to the "hidden" 4.

INTP is Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi.
Tertiary is Si, Inferior is Fe
Shadows are Te Ni Se Fi.
Really? I honestly didn't know that. That'd change my thinking around a little... have to think now damn you!!! :steam:
Heh, actually in my analogy I haven't even thrown in the key yet. The Englishman works for me though. Translating is definitely difficult. There's no reference standard for anything.
You ever think that there's no standard because of those hard headed people? You know there's the one's who won't change from old ways because "if it ain't broke don't fix it even if it's 100 years old and as slow as tundra" and then there's the "independants" who basically boil down to "Change? But I don't wanna change... Right I'm going to start persuading people to not change so I don't have to".

There's no reason why UK engineers still work in english and metric. There's no reason why they insist that a thou is a measurement and not an abbreviation. There's even less reason for them thinking that everything they have as part of their personal routine is standard...

Oh we so need more NTs in the world.... or is it just me???
I seriously doubt anybody can isolate functions other than their dominant. Even with their dominant, it's not so much isolating as in function subtraction. Your dominant is always present, but the other functions will not be. So if you subtract out the "noise" you get your dominant.

The rest of the functions are even more difficult to understand. I'm not even sure if I can explain the process I use. I try to find people who seems to display the "purest" dominant function and study them in detail again using the subtraction method. Then I compare them to other people. But in this case I can't go back to check my work. I only get output based on their behavior and never their input even if I'm placed in the same situation. Very much your description of trying to figure out the music without the sheets. :doh:
It seems we use the same or similar techniques. In fact my father uses similar techniques too.. find the most indicative elements of a particular type/ function and then see if that element is present.

Seems so much simpler said like that no?

Of course practice is always more complex than concept.
About your Ni, there's no reason why we can't use all 8 functions consciously so long as we pay attention and practice often. We're probably never going to be as good as a dominant function user but it doesn't mean we don't improve. Is your Ni better than say your Ne, I'll say likely not. In fact are you sure you're using Ni or a mix of Ti Ne that resembles Ni?
This is my problem with functions... how is Ni different to Ne? Is it not basically N combined with a preference of where it is focused? If so then shouldn't someone with Ne as a preferred function also have decent command of Ni typically?

I'm wondering if this is why each function listed for a type is from either side of the judging and sensing dichotomies and never from the E/I dichotomy.
My Ni knows patterns are stable even if the system is flexing. So if I dig deep enough, I usually find what I need. Ne directed by Ti most likely shifts through lots of data to see whether there's a pattern. The starting point for the two processes are different even know it seems like both are search for the same thing.
Aha... that is where we agree.... According to my previous psychoanalysis I'm usually not working on the surface of a subject but quite a distance beneath. Least that's what they said. I always figured that's why I usually seem to be thinking in a different plane to most people... too far below what they see and too far beneath to see what they're on about.

Anyhoo.. perhaps in this case it is not what is used which causes the parallel but how it is applied?

Next decision...
How INTPish of you
-or-
How INTJish of me
???
I personally don't think it matters what other people type you as. Only that you're comfortable with who you are whether you've been typed or not. Typology is just a model.
Yeah but....no...hang on....

If I'm typed as an ENFP then what I read and how I interpret things is altered by that. The people who've said I 'sound' more ENTPish or even INFPish (don't ask.. I'm figuring it was a joke) have actually helped. Without challenges to my thinking then how can I progress?

More than this, if I don't value other's insight then surely the whole MBTI process falls down.... I'm thinking too much again right?

Nuts.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
God Xander, your posts are sooooo looooooooooong, pal.
They are?

I could be more laconic but I always end up worried that it'll be misunderstood.. so I muddy the water to make the picture clearer :D
#3 Subconscious influences

I'm not sure what you mean by this but I've become interested in reversing the traditional model for typing people and typing them by inferior function.
Eg. The INTP would be Fe/Si deficient.

The rationale being

a) behaviour derived from subconscious drivers cannot of necessity be faked, so one removes self-deception from the equation.

b) perceived utility in a clinical/diagnostic/self-improvement context

Thoughts?
I forget where I posted it, I think I had a whole thread complaining about the poor distribution of information on the downside of each type. See though I don't use functions in typing (far too fine grain and detaily for my tastes) I do tend to look for the drawbacks or negative points in a type. My thinking was similar to yours that the unconscious reactions would be more honest than those under conscious control.

I'm still distrustful of this whole "typing by numbers" thingummy but I 100% agree with your premise and hell if you like functions then why not.
 

mlittrell

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,387
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w1
That's something I've been thinking about recently. If you're taking a test then surely it's entirely possible that you aren't engaging your preferred functions? The testing environment could have an effect upon what you'd use.

If everyone can and does use every function then surely whenever a person is attempting to evaluate or determine which functions are preferred then every effort should be made to ensure that the environment is "function neutral" no? If not then would it not be entirely possible that the testing itself will warp the results?

According to what I have read the tertiary function is not usually under conscious control and the inferior is rarely under conscious control. I think this blends into the theory that those things which are easiest to control end up being preferred.. back to the handedness parallel.

If you don't use tests then isn't the whole thing thrown out the window? I mean you can type by observation, that much is clear but then what do you do about those who do not express a marked enough preference to evaluate them, especially introverts who tend not to show as much of their nature as extraverts.

Perhaps the tests are supposed to attempt to reveal what is in the introverted world of the subject regardless of their preference for extraversion or introversion? Perhaps the lack of comfort of an extraverts is indicative itself?
first off, i think the tertiary is under conscious control, but to engage it is somewhat draining. i know i personally have access to it. in regards to the tests, no the whole thing isn't thrown out the window at all. you just need to use the right tests and your average MBTI test isn't the "right" test. also i test people based purely on observation but sometimes will back it up by using tests. the tests can probably be done even better by first finding out whether they are intuitive or sensing and then eventually narrowing it down to type. for example if someone is an ENTP: N/S -> NF/NT -> NTP/NTJ -> E/I. so basically you give them a couple questions that determine whether they are an intuitive or sensor. this splits off half of the types. then it figures out temperament. for testing this they could have questions and/or show them the temperament profiles. then once the temperament is figured out, it basically figures out what the J/P is in a functional sense, once again this could be questions and/or profiles. then the E/I which shouldnt be hard. once this is done they can read their profile and agree or disagree. my "logic" (which isn't that much) is that they will easily be able to differentiate what they are during each part of the test. they will know quite easily if they are an intuitive or sensor. they will quite easily know if they are an NT or NF. they will quite easily know if they are an NTP or NTJ. and extrovert and introvert is just whatever. the test, unfortunatelly would have to be quite dynamic, and might not be easy to administer on paper, in which case a computer would be nice.

EDIT:

if people like this testing idea ill do it and compile a basic MBTI test using C++.
 
Top