Tertiary and Inferior

[redacted]

Except....Nevermind, it's not worth it. *violent disagreement*

Again, this whole disagreement comes down to order of usage vs. "order" of roles.

The order of roles people just think of the function order as an arbitrarily defined framework that's internally consistent.

The order of functions people have a problem with order in general because nurture effects everything so much (aka there is too much variation).

 

[mlittrell]

4 function system. And you don't fuck with it. INTPs are Ti, Ne, Si, Fe, ALWAYS, and in that order. This is how and why the system was created. The system is a system. Obviously it isn't perfect, but it was never given. Since there is no such thing, in reality, as Ti, Ne, etc. etc., that is specifically why you cannot change them. It is taking them out of context. Many people here don't understand them.

exactly. order makes all the difference. i get a kick out of people who take the cognitive personality test and get Te, Ti, Ne, Fe etc etc. lol, what does that tell you!? (besides the test is pointless). personally though, i see no flaws with the function system having order, its the order and orientation of all the functions that tells you the most. like i push excessively, a single function out of order doesn't tell you all that much but a single function in relation to the other three tells you a whole lot.

 

[Venom]

i think the naysayers get caught up in the exceptions and hence poo poo the theory because they can think of all these examples against the theory. I think the INTPs who pride themselves on making a theory more accurate may be prone to confirmation bias of things that stand out against the theory.

example: a lot of INTPs do relate to Fi more than Fe so they often think the theory is BS.

however, on the whole, I think the theory makes lots of sense and has many positive examples:

A Ni user needs some sort of input from the environment, having Se be the little helper just makes sense. If it were Si, this person would lack external data, if it were Ne, this person would have a very distorted view of the world. (i am aware that function tests often show both Ni and Ne being high together)

IXTJs and Fi. Excellent example. INTPs and Si (ability to memorize all of these facts/theories). EXTPs and Fe (adds a sense of tact to their verbal agility in debates). ENxJs, Se, and their sense of being "of the sensor world"....

I think to appease the naysayers, it should be said that the function theory is just an example of a perfect model. The theoretical ENTJ makes the most sense as Te Ni Se Fi. This doesnt mean that the theory cant absorb the naysayers who have differing results.

 

[Nocapszy]

i think the naysayers get caught up in the exceptions and hence poo poo the theory because they can think of all these examples against the theory. I think the INTPs who pride themselves on making a theory more accurate may be prone to confirmation bias of things that stand out against the theory.

You say exception, I say disproof.

If it's a rule, it hasn't got any exceptions. If it does, then it's a tendency. Calling a rule doesn't mean that's what it is.

You're wearing something metal around your neck. I call it a fish.
But it's not.

 

[nightning]

Eight function model!
We all obviously use all eight; it's just a matter of what role the other six fall into (regardless of necessary relative strength)

+1

You tend to use dominant and auxiliary more frequently/more efficiently than say tertiary and inferior. I agree to that. You do not use (or rarely use) shadow functions I disagree with. There is no function order beyond 1 & 2. The rest of it varies depending on what environment you're in and what you consciously practice.

4 function system. And you don't fuck with it. INTPs are Ti, Ne, Si, Fe, ALWAYS, and in that order. This is how and why the system was created. The system is a system. Obviously it isn't perfect, but it was never given. Since there is no such thing, in reality, as Ti, Ne, etc. etc., that is specifically why you cannot change them. It is taking them out of context. Many people here don't understand them.

If the system is wrong, do you not fuck with it? Theory is not fact. If cognitive functions aren't up to the task of describing behaviour, there's no point in keeping it.

You say exception, I say disproof.

If it's a rule, it hasn't got any exceptions. If it does, then it's a tendency. Calling a rule doesn't mean that's what it is.

Agree with the difference between rule and tendency. MBTI isn't rules... it's a model (i.e. made up) to describe tendencies.

You're wearing something metal around your neck. I call it a fish.
But it's not.

What you call it has no relation to what is. Calling it a fish is only helpful if other people can identify that object as "fish" and find uses for that label.

 

[Eric B]

+1

You tend to use dominant and auxiliary more frequently/more efficiently than say tertiary and inferior. I agree to that. You do not use (or rarely use) shadow functions I disagree with. There is no function order beyond 1 & 2. The rest of it varies depending on what environment you're in and what you consciously practice.

That would seem accurate, from what I observe. Hence, they are roles and not necessary strength levels.

 

[Nocapszy]

In any play I've ever seen, the Role Players are very strong.

No one's done even a decent job explaining what those roles are.

And there's no need for the roles at all -- Ne is Ne no matter who's using it.

 

[bluebell]

You tend to use dominant and auxiliary more frequently/more efficiently than say tertiary and inferior. I agree to that. You do not use (or rarely use) shadow functions I disagree with. There is no function order beyond 1 & 2. The rest of it varies depending on what environment you're in and what you consciously practice.

I kinda assumed that was implicit with MBTI. A rigid type order doesn't really help, it's more of a fuzzy logic thing IMO. If that makes sense. I'm struggling to put it into words.

Edit: Alternatively, you can keep the function order, but the intensity varies, like on a bar graph.

 

[Nocapszy]

Agree with the difference between rule and tendency. MBTI isn't rules... it's a model (i.e. made up) to describe tendencies.

Are you paying any attention to the issue here?
No one has said they're rules. I say there's no function order at all. You guys say there are only 8 possible configurations, whence there is deviation.
If it's flexible, why even bother mentioning it?
Either way you have to treat each case as though it might be a deviant from the tendency. You could do it your way, or you could just set yourself up to be naturally inclined for further analysis, by ignoring the 'tendency' altogether.


The 'roles' thing is a load of crap too. Every function, because they have a specific abstract definition in which all concrete behavior fits into one of which categories, has the same potential role in every person. The only questions are strength, frequency of use, and preference.

 

[Eric B]

In any play I've ever seen, the Role Players are very strong.

No one's done even a decent job explaining what those roles are.

And there's no need for the roles at all -- Ne is Ne no matter who's using it.

But it might be used different to the different people using it. To you, it's the dominant or hero, but to INP's, its auxiliary; to an Si type it's less mature, and to Ni and Se types, it's unconsciously used and usually negative. (oppositional, critical, deceiving or destructive). From what I'm seeing, this does seem to fit somewhat.

 

[redacted]

Are you paying any attention to the issue here?
No one has said they're rules. I say there's no function order at all. You guys say there are only 8 possible configurations, whence there is deviation.
If it's flexible, why even bother mentioning it?
Either way you have to treat each case as though it might be a deviant from the tendency. You could do it your way, or you could just set yourself up to be naturally inclined for further analysis, by ignoring the 'tendency' altogether.


The 'roles' thing is a load of crap too. Every function, because they have a specific abstract definition in which all concrete behavior fits into one of which categories, has the same potential role in every person. The only questions are strength, frequency of use, and preference.

So then why two and not one?

 

[nightning]

I kinda assumed that was implicit with MBTI. A rigid type order doesn't really help, it's more of a fuzzy logic thing IMO. If that makes sense. I'm struggling to put it into words.

Edit: Alternatively, you can keep the function order, but the intensity varies, like on a bar graph.

Actually, I don't agree with the function order at all. Just 1 and 2 as defined by the basis of the 16 types.

Are you paying any attention to the issue here?
No one has said they're rules. I say there's no function order at all. You guys say there are only 8 possible configurations, whence there is deviation.
If it's flexible, why even bother mentioning it?
Either way you have to treat each case as though it might be a deviant from the tendency. You could do it your way, or you could just set yourself up to be naturally inclined for further analysis, by ignoring the 'tendency' altogether.

Well excuse my inability to pay attention to details. Then I'll have to disagree. There is function order... but only within individuals and that does not apply for types. An individual can have one of 8! (40320) ordering. However for all individuals for a specific type, the 1st 2 functions should be identical as defined by their type. That is what I meant.

The 'roles' thing is a load of crap too. Every function, because they have a specific abstract definition in which all concrete behavior fits into one of which categories, has the same potential role in every person. The only questions are strength, frequency of use, and preference.

Never liked Berens etc's garbage.

 

[bluebell]

Well excuse my inability to pay attention to details. Then I'll have to disagree. There is function order... but only within individuals and that does not apply for types. An individual can have one of 8! (40320) ordering. However for all individuals for a specific type, the 1st 2 functions should be identical as defined by their type. That is what I meant.

lol, my words were too fuzzy. ^^^ is what I meant in my post.

 

[redacted]

Anyone? Why aren't there 56 types?

 

[Simplexity]

Dissonance, I think you understand fully where both sides stand. You also from my perception of you see where there is mutual agreement as well. I don't feel like expounding (because I don't think I could do so as articulately as I'd like), but it seems like my stance aligns closer to yours. I think its one of those cases where you just have to sit back and understand that people on either sides are not going to budge.

It's most likely due to their strong personal experience and interpretation on the matter and that is one thing that grants a somewhat unnecessary amount of inflexibility.

Hmm... interesting how that sort of parallels the discussion.

In essence the inflexibility is the source of contention, but the balance and mutual understanding/agreement that you seek is in opposition to that. Seeing both sides can be a taxing position be in, and I commend you for trying to bring clarity to the matter, but I don't know if it will get you anywhere.

 

[nightning]

lol, my words were too fuzzy. ^^^ is what I meant in my post.

Awesome!

Anyone? Why aren't there 56 types?

Because Myers and Briggs said 16 is enough. Why select 56 though? Why not 40320? I'm going to use my rainbow example again. The level of personality traits are like light refracted off a prism. It's a continuous spectrum just like visible light. People arbitrary defined 7 "colors" of the rainbow just like Myers and Briggs arbitrary said there should be 16 types. It just make it easier to categorize.

Dissonance, I think you understand fully where both sides stand. You also from my perception of you see where there is mutual agreement as well. I don't feel like expounding (because I don't think I could do so as articulately as I'd like), but it seems like my stance aligns closer to yours. I think its one of those cases where you just have to sit back and understand that people on either sides are not going to budge.

No Siree! Ain't budging. I find it great fun.

In essence the inflexibility is the source of contention, but the balance and mutual understanding/agreement that you seek is in opposition to that. Seeing both sides can be a taxing position be in, and I commend you for trying to bring clarity to the matter, but I don't know if it will get you anywhere.

Hmmm it really is less about seeing the opposite perspective than disagreeing with the starting definition of what typology ought to mean. Which brings up an interesting topic. What does typology mean? MBTI? Enneagram? A mixture? or something else?

 

[Anonymous]

There's an infinite amount of personality types since each function itself is on a percentage scale of strength. So you're basically sacrificing accuracy for generalization when you start cutting back from infinite to finite amounts of personalities (for instance, from infinite to 40,320 [thanks nightning] to 16). So in a way, as soon as you do this with manageable numbers and try to use it to describe an entirely personality, you're getting utter nonsense. That's why I'm more partial to simply testing for traits alone, and not creating profiles at all based off of those traits. And the traits themselves are very limiting in MBTI. I don't think it has enough to really be useful, and most of them haven't even been studied very well.

 

[redacted]

Because Myers and Briggs said 16 is enough. Why select 56 though? Why not 40320? I'm going to use my rainbow example again. The level of personality traits are like light refracted off a prism. It's a continuous spectrum just like visible light. People arbitrary defined 7 "colors" of the rainbow just like Myers and Briggs arbitrary said there should be 16 types. It just make it easier to categorize.

I know -- I'm playing devil's advocate.

If your type is defined by your first two functions, and "function order is bullshit" or whatever (this is the stance nocap is taking), there should be 56 possibilities, not 16.

P.S. Aimahn seems to be the only one that isn't misinterpreting me...

 

[Nocapszy]

Actually, I don't agree with the function order at all. Just 1 and 2 as defined by the basis of the 16 types.
Well excuse my inability to pay attention to details. Then I'll have to disagree. There is function order... but only within individuals and that does not apply for types. An individual can have one of 8! (40320) ordering. However for all individuals for a specific type, the 1st 2 functions should be identical as defined by their type. That is what I meant.

If that's your holding, than we don't disagree.

 

[Nocapszy]

So then why two and not one?

I've explained it pretty solidly in my P and J muddling post.
When I finish composing the entire thing, I'll hilight the section.

I might even import the relevant parts to this thread, but for the most part, I've abandoned this thread.