• 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.

Alignment MBTI hybridization

Katsuni

Priestess Of Syrinx
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,238
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4?
Alright, I was thinking about the D&D alignment thread down in the bonfire subforum, and got to thinking about things perhaps a bit too much in depth >.>

Whot I ended up concluding, in general though, was that D&D alignment is pretty much a form of a personality indicator of sorts, in line with the concept of MBTI, however, it's got several distinctive differences, and is far more restrictive in its' coverage.

For the basic concepts, let's start with the advantages and flaws of the two to compare.

MBTI has 4 axis, or focal points it considers, with more or less a black and white description of any axis; for example, S vs N, T vs F, et cetera. The concept in general though, is that it lists each of these four categories individually as positive, or negative, with no middle ground or explaination past that point. The cognitive functions, Ne, Ti, and so on, are just extensions of this (or rather the ISFJ/ENTP combos are easier descriptions of the functions), but they give very little indication other than yeur dominant functions, and even those, if they're not THAT dominant, can be very unclear.

D&D's alignment system has 2 axis, but uses a 3 point of referance frame to judge it by. For example, it breaks things down into not just "good / evil" or "chaos / lawful", but also provides a middleground of neutrality as well. This provides greater informational detail for the axis it defines, however, the functions it describes are pretty much mislabled... it's pretty much listing "chaotic / lawful" instead of P / J, which has the same general principle, and if one breaks down good/evil further, it can be interpreted as healthy/unhealthy strengths of whichever is more dominant.

This realization basically states that D&D's alignment, is in fact a very rudimentary personality ranking system, but only covers a small fraction of the mind and skips most of the MBTI coverage.

It also implies, however, that the chances are that this information could be further applied and expanded upon to each of the particular functions and possibly expanded further to cognitive functions as well.

The basic concept, here, is to further outline the basic MBTI functions, by providing further subfunctions in greater detail to better explain the relation of each one.

This would provide a far better personal understanding of individuals, and would better account for the dispairities which're often found in the basic MBTI profiling (why for example yeu can have two individuals with the same MBTI type, yet still be significantly different to each other). This would also provide far better coverage over the concepts such as 'middleground' people who don't really fall heavily onto one side or the other.

In this way, I'm hoping to be able to greatly expand upon the standard MBTI functions to provide a more accurate detailed report of the various functions, an 'advanced' MBTI of sorts.



Now, the standard D&D concept this originally stemmed from, is obviously flawed, and won't work all that well, and will need heavy adaptation to properly coincide with the particular aspects of MBTI, so it really isn't anything other than an inspiration really I guess, and a basic outline for the structured form I'm hoping to take this to.

Specifically, I'm looking for the following:

To break down, initially, the various functions (E/I, S/N, F/T, J/P)
To further define each by a pair of related axis, or subfunctions
To then provide these subfunction axis in a method of top, bottom, and middleground
Finally, to display the resultant information akin to multiple 3x3 grids, in direct relation to the 4x2 grid of MBTI.


In the end, this should make an MBTI profile look more like this:

E(3,2)N(1,3)T(1,1)P(2,1)

Which would provide a wealth of additional data.

As this's obviously a fairly large undertaking, and I'm still a bit shaky on many of the finer details at this point, I'll be subsequently making additional posts to further gain information and definition of each intrinstic function, to see which methods would be the best way to describe each function accordingly.

For this particular post, I'm mostly just looking for ideas on the basic concept in general, don't bother with information on whot yeu think the individual aspects would correlate to just yet... Imma make individual posts based on each one over time, trying to narrow things down for a more accurate portraital.

In any case, whot do yeu think of the basic concept to start with? I doubt it'll ever catch on, but do yeu think the idea holds any real merit, and do yeu think it'd even be considered benefitial to have the additional information, or do yeu find the information may be less relevant or not really worth bothering with?
 

Valuable_Money

New member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
679
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w6
ENTJ lawful evil

INTJ neutral evil

ENTP caotic evil

ISTJ Lawful neutral

INTP True Neutral

I/ESTP caotic neutral

INFJ Caotic good

INFP neutral good

???? Lawful good
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
ENTJ lawful evil

INTJ neutral evil

ENTP caotic evil

ISTJ Lawful neutral

INTP True Neutral

I/ESTP caotic neutral

INFJ Caotic good

INFP neutral good

???? Lawful good

Lol did you even READ the OP? She has a good idea.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
I'm not going to go back into the thread, but off the top of my head,
those who scored "neutral" along with me, were from many different MBTI types.
 

Katsuni

Priestess Of Syrinx
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,238
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4?
ENTJ lawful evil
INTJ neutral evil
ENTP caotic evil
ISTJ Lawful neutral
INTP True Neutral
I/ESTP caotic neutral
INFJ Caotic good
INFP neutral good
???? Lawful good

ad nauseum

Not really true at all, there's actually quite alot of variation here, I'm ENTP but score chaotic neutral not evil; evil is related solely to "application to self" in the DnD scale... for example... an EVIL person cares only about themselves, how things apply to THEM, and noone else. Lawful evil would be interested in using the law, religion, or whotever to their own ends, the law has validity only in how it applies to yeurself. Chaotic evil would not care about anything, as everything exists only to service the self; a law that doesn't benefit yeu is ignored, one that does benefit yeu is embraced. The 'good' applies things to a greater whole and isn't really neccesarily "GOOD" as such... for example, a religious fanatic, would be lawful good... they are heavily interested in enforcing their beliefs and laws, values and so on, to people as a whole; if they saw someone beating a woman, and their religion specifically forbade such, they would automatically attempt to intervene, regardless of whether the woman was actually a theif and that was the law in that area or not; they would be expressing their own personal viewset upon others.

Therefore, while the vast majority of ENTP's would score CHAOTIC, the remainder is based far moreso on how they percieve it in relation to their own self or as a larger whole.

As such, whot I've reasoned out, is that "chaotic" is P (in generalization) and "lawful" is J, to a degree, though this isn't a flawless interpretation. The "good/evil" is completely independant of MBTI as it's possible to externalize yeur beliefs without being specifically E nor I.

That being said, this list is irrelevant to the discussion I'm trying to provoke here. Just matching the types to the D&D alignment WILL NOT WORK because they're not both measuring the same thing.

My idea is more to break down the MBTI in order to measure each dichotomy against a similar ruleset to the D&D concept.



I'm not going to go back into the thread, but off the top of my head,
those who scored "neutral" along with me, were from many different MBTI types.

Exactly, which was part of the point. The only thing that shows up at all really on the D&D alignment, is yeur balance of J/P, and how heavily yeu view such as internalized, or externalized (in relation to self, or groups of people as a whole).

A 'true neutral', or neutral/neutral score, would only mean yeu have about a 50/50 disposition towards J/P, equally basing things on yeur personal values, and relating them to perception in the context of the situation, and then considering both how it affects yeurself AND those around yeu.

As such, YES, many many types would show up as "true neutral". IN theory, EVERY SINGLE TYPE could possibly show up as such, because anyone who's not strictly heavily on the side of J nor P would fall under the possibility of such.
 

poppy

triple nerd score
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,215
MBTI Type
intj
Enneagram
5
I also did not read the OP because my attention span is very short and the spelling of the word "you" does nothing to garner my interest.

That being said, good on you if you can find a more in depth way to compare the two systems.
 

Katsuni

Priestess Of Syrinx
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,238
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4?
Just to warn people, I wrote this when I'm kinda tired... this's a GREAT time for me to brainstorm ideas, but a HORRIBLE time for me to try to actually explain whot I come up with XD

So I have this awesome idea but am flat out sucking at describing it I"m sure XD

Uhm... I'mma try to give this one last shot at explaination before I go to bed though =3



In short:

The D&D alignments partially describe the J/P dichotomy, but not fully. It's one key aspect but not enough of it. It also describes a second important aspect as well, but once again may lack further information. It has the largest advantage though, of explaining how these two factors relate to each other, and gives distinctive explainations for how they interact.

For the moment, we have J and P. Yeu are J. Or yeu are P. There's no real middle ground. If yeu take a more advanced test and score say... 30/70 J to P ratio, it states yeu're more P than J, but it really doesn't do much to explain whot this difference MEANS. Alright so yeu're more P than J, so... whot? >.>;;


Imma just copy paste this from a discussion I'm having in AIM right now as it kinda makes more sense than if I were to try to re-explain this again XD

Right, so yeu have judgement in that yeu have strong morals, and understand the concept of rules and such, but yeu also have perception in that yeu're equally able to place those morals into context to apply them, so really, even though yeu're technically a "J", I think yeu're probably not an exceptionally heavily sided one either, maybe 60/40?
Which the standard MBTI test just doesn't display very well
If yeu were truly and heavily J, yeu would be far more likely to insist 'stealing is bad no matter whot' and punish them regardless of the reason behind why
Whereas if yeu were heavy heavy heavy P, yeu would be looking at the context and perceptions far too heavily, and may refuse to punish someone who killed his wife for cheating on him
The strong J would punish him regardless because he has no right to kill, the extreeme P would refuse to punish him because by his perception he was correct in his action
A more medium value would be somewheres in the middle, applying such based on the situation but within reason
Which's really why I want to hybridize this so badly =3
Because there's currently no real explaination for such... I mean there's some tests which state like "70% J!" but there's literally no explaination for whot that MEANS



That was an excerpt of a conversation (the other side got discluded from it but anyway) I hope that clears the concept up a bit more here ^^

Imma go to bed and rest on this, I doubt it'll help, Imma need to talk to people to understand my own ideas, but it'll give me time to sort the thoughts I do have a bit, and get enough rest to be coherant at least XD

Anyways I shall return to this tomorrow, and begin with the in depth explaination comparison of D&D alignment, to the internal/externalized form of J/P, and start a thread to see if we can't come up with a better description to use for evaluation.
 

poppy

triple nerd score
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,215
MBTI Type
intj
Enneagram
5
Right, so yeu have judgement in that yeu have strong morals, and understand the concept of rules and such, but yeu also have perception in that yeu're equally able to place those morals into context to apply them, so really, even though yeu're technically a "J", I think yeu're probably not an exceptionally heavily sided one either, maybe 60/40?
Which the standard MBTI test just doesn't display very well
If yeu were truly and heavily J, yeu would be far more likely to insist 'stealing is bad no matter whot' and punish them regardless of the reason behind why
Whereas if yeu were heavy heavy heavy P, yeu would be looking at the context and perceptions far too heavily, and may refuse to punish someone who killed his wife for cheating on him
The strong J would punish him regardless because he has no right to kill, the extreeme P would refuse to punish him because by his perception he was correct in his action
A more medium value would be somewheres in the middle, applying such based on the situation but within reason
Which's really why I want to hybridize this so badly =3
Because there's currently no real explaination for such... I mean there's some tests which state like "70% J!" but there's literally no explaination for whot that MEANS

J/P has nothing to do with this, especially for introverted Js who are dominated by a perceptive function (example: Ni would also be looking at all the different contexts and ways of interpretation).

Fi would be far more influential in suggesting moral rigidity.
 

Keps Mnemnosyne

New member
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
406
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
Mm
I think I get your idea with the only problem I can think of is how do you propose to determine how strong a preference is within a single person?
 

Katsuni

Priestess Of Syrinx
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,238
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4?
J/P has nothing to do with this, especially for introverted Js who are dominated by a perceptive function (example: Ni would also be looking at all the different contexts and ways of interpretation).

Fi would be far more influential in suggesting moral rigidity.

Mm see this's why I intend to get better explainations for the individual aspects and such. The cognitive functions can throw alot of this into being a mess more or less.

Keps Mnemnosyne said:
I think I get your idea with the only problem I can think of is how do you propose to determine how strong a preference is within a single person?

Mm that issue is up to the individual really, yeu can't dictate such, but only provide a guide listing how a preferance would react. Like yeu can't TELL someone they are ENFJ or INTP, or whotever, yeu can only give them a list of preferances, and see which they choose, and denote such accordingly.

I'm not one for making tests though, so I probably won't even do that. I'd rather just compose the rating system itself and allow another to write up the test after.

That being said, I intend to try to find accurate dichotomies to try to define seperate values along the scale. For example, the "law vs chaos" thing of J vs P is not an exact accurate representation and only covers a small portion of such, in which poppy is very much so correct on this. It's merely being used as the starting point of a basic example, but isn't really ACCURATE.

Moreso, the goal here is to find which dichotomies accurately distinguish the various functions. Whot is the true difference between being J or P, whot differentiates Fi from Te, etc.

Trying to fully understand these and explain such in a way that makes sense is where the real issue lies.

Then all we need to do is make a sliding scale to explain the differences between such.

Currently this is lacking, and I'd like to get this understood and explained.

Soooo Imma go do dishes, then come back and set up a post regarding the basic J/P split, and see whot we can come up with there as the starting point.
 

The Outsider

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,418
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
J/P has nothing to do with this, especially for introverted Js who are dominated by a perceptive function (example: Ni would also be looking at all the different contexts and ways of interpretation).

Fi would be far more influential in suggesting moral rigidity.

Not really.
 
Top