Testing a few thoughts on MBTI

[Xander]

Your theory is too inefficient and too unstructured for me to comment on.




No, I'm serious. Really.

Root of theory :- To be comfortable INTPs ideally require a certain level of a structured environment. Pure chaos is not healthy for them. This is contrary to their nature as often stated though. I'm theorising that this is not just INTPs who have this need which is contra to their natural behaviour.

 

[INTJMom]

Root of theory :- To be comfortable INTPs ideally require a certain level of a structured environment. Pure chaos is not healthy for them. This is contrary to their nature as often stated though. I'm theorising that this is not just INTPs who have this need which is contra to their natural behaviour.

That's a good piece of information, though I wonder if that's just an INTP thing.

As a parent, I was taught by "family experts" that all children need a certain amount of structure in their lives in order to feel safe and secure emotionally as well as physically. I was encouraged as a parent to have a set bedtime schedule for my children, to tell them the rules ahead of time, etc.

Reading what I have about the effects that the chaotic environment of having an alcoholic in the family creates, I find it easy to believe that complete chaos and unpredictability is damaging to children, and probably most people in general.

Dr. Dobson says that it is neither good to be too strict nor too lenient.


So based on the Ni I have collected, I would agree that "pure chaos" is not good for INTPs, or anyone, really. As a child, I appreciated a little leniency when I got it, but my most favorite teacher was the one who was the strictest, and ran his class with a rod of iron. I much prefered predictability over chaos, so I think that disagrees with you question that INTJs "need" their opposite preferred environment.

I mean I'm a J because I prefer J. I don't need P. I dislike it immensely, actually.

 

[garbage]

Root of theory :- To be comfortable INTPs ideally require a certain level of a structured environment. Pure chaos is not healthy for them. This is contrary to their nature as often stated though. I'm theorising that this is not just INTPs who have this need which is contra to their natural behaviour.

That, and those of us who are stong J's require flexibility and need to learn to be less rigid. At least in my own life, it's just the sense of balance that I tend to strive for on each of the dichotomies..

 

[Xander]

That's a good piece of information, though I wonder if that's just an INTP thing.

As a parent, I was taught by "family experts" that all children need a certain amount of structure in their lives in order to feel safe and secure emotionally as well as physically. I was encouraged as a parent to have a set bedtime schedule for my children, to tell them the rules ahead of time, etc.

Reading what I have about the effects that the chaotic environment of having an alcoholic in the family creates, I find it easy to believe that complete chaos and unpredictability is damaging to children, and probably most people in general.

Dr. Dobson says that it is neither good to be too strict nor too lenient.


So based on the Ni I have collected, I would agree that "pure chaos" is not good for INTPs, or anyone, really. As a child, I appreciated a little leniency when I got it, but my most favorite teacher was the one who was the strictest, and ran his class with a rod of iron. I much prefered predictability over chaos, so I think that disagrees with you question that INTJs "need" their opposite preferred environment.

I mean I'm a J because I prefer J. I don't need P. I dislike it immensely, actually.

Well as someone who got no choice in the matter I can say I truly appreciate the input and contribution of all types... not necessarily all people but all types.

The INTP thing though is in with the analysis of the type. Not sure about INTJs... perhaps with them it's that they need to feel welcomed without necessarily being welcoming people.

 

[Xander]

That, and those of us who are stong J's require flexibility and need to learn to be less rigid. At least in my own life, it's just the sense of balance that I tend to strive for on each of the dichotomies..

You is sure one strange ENTJ... I like it

Balance is essential to me but then again I've got it written all over me, or implied. Type, name, star sign, chinese year thingy... all things concerned with balance or justice (to which I see balance as a prerequisite).

 

[Xander]

Theory,
Typing isn't about getting it right, just understanding a little better..

Thoughts?

 

[garbage]

You is sure one strange ENTJ... I like it

Haha, I keep getting told this, especially when sticking up for feelers. Glad for it

Theory,
Typing isn't about getting it right, just understanding a little better..

Thoughts?

Depending on what exactly you're talking about getting right.. doesn't "getting it right" also mean understanding better? Is "getting it right" more about an end goal, and understanding more about undirected means?

 

[Xander]

Depending on what exactly you're talking about getting right.. doesn't "getting it right" also mean understanding better? Is "getting it right" more about an end goal, and understanding more about undirected means?

Getting it right seems too close to the line to my eyes. It's too easy to stray into worrying about the details when it's the overall understanding which is of greatest importance. Let's face it, it's an intuitive tool and doesn't work too well when you get lost in the nitty gritty.

 

[garbage]

It's too easy to stray into worrying about the details when it's the overall understanding which is of greatest importance.

Oh yeah, I agree. When the various MBTI extensions or Socionics tries to explain too much, we run into confusion and problems overall. I prefer the systems that try to simplify the explanations rather than trying to explain things with further complication.

There might come a point where the details of the models will be relevant, but.. well, I think MBTI had it right by focusing on the four dichotomies, which are easy to explain in a meaningful way.

 

[Xander]

Oh yeah, I agree. When the various MBTI extensions or Socionics tries to explain too much, we run into confusion and problems overall. I prefer the systems that try to simplify the explanations rather than trying to explain things with further complication.

There might come a point where the details of the models will be relevant, but.. well, I think MBTI had it right by focusing on the four dichotomies, which are easy to explain in a meaningful way.

Personally I tend to stick to real life examples of the types and particular displays of particular functions or combinations of functions. I find the theory is often too dry and taken far too literally.

For example, the best critic I know is an ENFJ. The most warm person I know is an ENTJ. The best person for thinking things through in theory is an ENFP.

None of that really makes too much sense according to the dry facts.