MBTI Faith and the Ideal vs the Real

[Kalach]

The assertion of the existence of 16 types appears now to be the assertion of 16 ideal types, types where health and balance exist. To keep the faith, one would tend to assert that whatever real types exist, they are corruptions, or less than ideal instantiations of the ideal, people who've emphasized for whatever reason one aspect of their type at the expense of another.

Last time I did a function strength test, I came out Te>Ni>Fi>Se, but I don't believe that result. It would seem to imply, though the Te result was only slightly higher than the Ni result, that I should be an extrovert, and I know from real life that I surely ain't. So I put it down to doing the test questions wrong.

So I guess that makes me one of the faithful. I believe.

So, which comes first, the functions people manage to test as having or the ideal orders MBTI thinks they should have? People are people are people, yes, but and perhaps this is just the Te talking, people are works in progress... they're on their way to the ideal.

Aren't they?

 

[BlueScreen]

MBTi works, because it is defining. ie. you can't test as a type without fitting more properties of that type than any another. It's like something doesn't get called a tree unless it fits the definition. Hence if you fit the ENFP description pretty well, you are ENFP. If you are ENFP, then you fit the description of ENFP pretty well. Obviously it is statistical, and you don't normally fit it all for any type. I fit a large amount of the ENTP description too, but I have more things in there that clearly aren't me.

The interesting part is that people tend to fit quite well into one of the 16 descriptions. The reasons I can see for this are: the type descriptions are broad and ambiguous (ie. no one really knows wtf they are), the Jungian functions are fundamental. But this makes me question, are the Jungian functions fundamental, or just another subset of descriptions and groupings that are broad and ambiguous? Is there anything really solid that we can say about the physical brain from any of this, or is it just loose categories that show the differences in approach humans tend to take?

 

[Eric B]

What I've found is that you can't use all the functions to find a type. That just leads to a lot of ambiguity. Type is determined by the first two functions, and the others may well be what would be called "undifferentiated" until certain complexes they are associated with come up. Meaning you can engage in behaviors associated with the other six functions, and you can engage them a lot, but it doesn't determine what type you are. They are all basically in the unconscious, and only the first two are preferred by the ego.

Even if the first two functions don't come up in the right order in those tests, it still doesn't necessarily change the type. Basically, if you're an introvert, and your ego's primary function is iNtuition, and auxiliary is Thinking, that is wha determines it. The Te can for some reason come out stronger, but it doesn't change you into an E.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/1416-archetypes-functions-6.html#post748446