Does type = ability?

[Quinlan]

It seems I have been using type differently to many others, I envision your "type" or set functional order as a single layer, this layer is a person's most natural way of being, something they fall back on and feel comfortable with but beyond that, functional strength can be conciously developed in any way, right across the functions. So there will be a second layer which is functional ability and strength, this layer is influenced by training and practice.

Being a Se dominant for example, will give you a headstart when it comes to Se strength but their is nothing preventing another type conciously developing skill and surpassing the Se dom in the skillful use of Se.

To me frequency of use does not equal proficiency of use.

So with myself as an example I'm an SP, yet I know for a fact that if someone of a different temperament were to be trained by a professional in say the martial arts from a young age, their reflexes and awareness of the immediate environment would be better than mine but their type would still have remained the same, regardless of the massive increase in the strength of their Se related skills.

Does this seem right?

 

[wolfy]

I see it as a mix of nature and nurture. Over the course of your life you have tended to rely on certain functions.
Those functions have become strong and you have developed a strong neurological pathway in that area.
So having that strength will provide you with a head start in certain activities.

You can build strengths in other areas by building skills and gaining knowledge in areas where your functions are weaker but the pay-off will not be as great as if you had built on your natural temperament.

 

[pure_mercury]

I don't think that it necessarily does. I'm an F, but I communicate in a very T way (especially online). I may have the preference for one, but the other is very useful to me and I have the capability to use it.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

Type almost synonymous with your habitual consciousness. Being type as a feeler means you habitually judge by feeling. Being type as a thinker is to mean you habitually judge by thinking functions.
It has been my theory that the type potentially explain more about psychological aptitude. Extrovert sensation-introvert thinker tend to be naturally talented since a kid with practice in martial arts more than others. So when An extroverted sensation - introvert thinker practice martial art, they tend to do much better than other type even other type undergo the same practice. They can do so because their psychological functions support what they do.

 

[nerdy anthropoid]

I think you're conflating skills with MBTI functions. It is the function that determines the interest and capacity for developing a particular skill and not the other way round.
My nature can determine the type of skills I would like to pursue but the skills I develop won't change my nature. I can learn the skills to care for people and animals but it's not going to change the fact that feeling is one of my weaker functions and will remain that way. Like what Horace says, you can drive nature out with a pitchfork but it just comes back. And my nature is more than the sum of my abilities.

 

[Maou]

Im going to use a pokemon analogy, because I can.

Type is your elemental attribute, plus 4 moves. 2 moves being of your elemental type, another 2 being of a different attribute. Inborn ability is your IV scores/nature, and experience/ effort is your level.

Not every Blastoise will be the same, even at level 100. One might have stronger water moves than the other (water gun vs hydro pump), or stronger not same type elements (skull bash, vs rapid spin). These differences will make them better at different things. Lets say you got a blastoise that's a special attack powerhouse, and another one that's a tank, but clears the field for others.

MBTI types is the same way. You have a function pair that denotes your type, that you predominately use, plus two other functions that supplement. Your innate ability can either work with, or work against your type. (Dumb NT's for example). How you choose to grow, affects your overall outcome (IV training, and level gain). No two types are exactly the same.

 

[GavinElster]

I'd say your type isn't about your ability so much as something more like a philosophical outlook, where you seem to see things primarily through the perspective of the dominant function, and no matter how 'strong' the second/others get, they seem to be operating through the dominant's prism.

As an example, a philosophy that said ultimately, the concept of truth is subordinate to that of pursuing human happiness, I'd associate with an F point of view. Someone holding this point of view can easily be exceptionally skilled at the wielding of logic/the concept of truth, even to the highest (like a nobel prize) levels. However, they just don't see the T point of view as quite as real to them.

In terms of the more data-driven sectors (the above is more functions-y), though, there might be some correlation -- e.g. I'd not be surprised if there's some relation between academic achievement and the N/S. However, even so, I don't think the data indicates that those dimensions are primarily about ability -- primarily about psychological preference.

 

[rav3n]

Type would be your inherent abilities which can be honed or not.

 

[Non_xsense]

Alot of people forget hard work . Of course , there is a "motivation" which make for example , INTP and INTJ the top of the abstract thinkers ( Not all of them but the vast majority ).
INTP and INTJ have this thinking : the present me is not the real me , the future one will be better .

Learning is never a problem for us ( actually we enjoy the process) ... we already know how to do it .

Other types for sure intrinsically have other "motivations" , "Goal of life" , ect....but at the end is just how much effort you can put in your goals.

 

[The Cat]

Do tentacles = octopus?