why nobody is actually borderline P/J

[simulatedworld]

Huh.

Well, I wrote the quiz and got a 50/50 split on the J/P thing, so that's why my last letter has a nice little 'x'. I didn't really think of the mechanics overmuch, and I intentionally did not research the meanings at length beforehand, because I did not want to project any bias onto the results.

The quiz questions were quite simple everyday things, and didn't hint at a deeper meaning.

The quizzes are garbage. They're akin to those little "What kind of music do you like?" quizzes; they don't actually prove anything because they depend entirely on self-report. They only test how you see yourself, not how you actually are.

The best they can do is point you in the right direction so that you can do research on your own and discover for yourself which archetype fits you best.

If we go back to starting with just four functions (S, N, T, F), and that an ego uses them in an inner or outer orientation, choosing in an alternating fashion which to use where. It becomes clear that Xe and Xi are not the totally separate animals that we have made them out to be. So it is hypothetically possible for someone to be close in J/P. We do normally choose one and reject the other, but still, however it develops, they can be close where it is hard to tell.

I completely disagree with this. It may be hard to tell in children who have not yet formed clear functional preferences, but once most people reach adulthood their value systems are very clearly defined and not really that difficult to discern. Xi and Xe are very, very opposed because they disagree completely on where the source of the decision should be--internally from the self, or externally from the environment.

-irrelevant whining-

Who the hell invited you into this thread, anyway?

 

[Polaris]

Missed the point, though not so badly as to warrant not getting a response (like Ragingkatsuki, lol.)

I'm clueless as to how this or anything else in your post has any relevance to what I said. I feel like you're addressing a caricature of me, one based on the mentality that you think someone must have if they disagree with you. You talk about how I seem to focus on "surface appearances," but I never suggested anything like that. When I said that someone can contain contradictions and that reality is in fact rife with such contradictions, I literally meant that. By extension, there's every reason to allow the possibility that someone could prefer the introverted and extroverted forms of a function. The MBTI ignores that possibility, of course, but the MBTI does not reign supreme over human psychology. The MBTI is just a theory, a mental construct, a rough outline. All it does is sort people into arbitrary categories that are at best rough generalizations. At worst they're an excuse to supplant the infinite variation of reality with a cold, theoretical simplicity.

 

[poppy]

INTJs can have concern for social harmony without using Fe. Some INTJs that I know consider this to be an inherently ethical part of how one should behave, and so the root motivation here is Fi.

ENFPs can have objective conceptions of truth via Fi+Te. They can reason out what they find to be internally ethical and combine it with what they see works to complete meaningful external goals, and there you have it. Lacking Ti does not a compulsive liar make.

My point is that whenever you think you're seeing someone use a function outside the main four, if you really sit and talk to that person about the deeper fundamental reasons for it, if that person is willing to be open with you then you can always find a better explanation for it based on that person's four traditional functions. I think that most people see the surface behavior and neglect to consider the true underlying motivation; for example:

"Wow I've seen lots of Fe users do that, and now this INFP is doing it--he must be using Fe!" Well, no, he's not. Fe implies a completely different set of values and end causes for behavior and belief systems, and furthermore many of these blatantly contradict Fi's values. I don't buy that he's using both; you just need to dig deeper into that person to see what's really going on. I believe your interpretation here is flawed because it defines functions according to observable surface behaviors instead of internal motivations.

Alright, I see what you're saying, and that makes perfect sense. I was trying though, to get at the idea that it might not just be surface behavior ie that as a member of a social community an INTJ would use Fe itself, in a limited way (that is, not in a way determined by Fi ethics or Te practicality)...however I think I'm stepping outside of MBTI interpretation of Fe as a function and talking about basic human psychology that I see as falling under Fe. Depending on whether or not you think that's a valid way to go, my interpretation would be flawed or not.

The black and white part is the functional combination, not the particular order of the functions in any given combination. Each person uses one Ji attitude, one Je, one Pi and one Pe--but never two of the same cognitive process, and never two different directions of the same process. (e.g., you might see someone who uses Ni+Fi as the top two functions, but never Ni+Si or Ni+Ne.)

Now as for the orders of those functions--some people have them in different orders than what MBTI suggests, but it's my contention that these people virtually always suffer from personality imbalances and could generally improve their results in life by working to balance out their priorities so that their top two functions contain an E, an I, a P and a J. This is most conducive to self-actualization, balance and happiness.

On a side note, it's absolutely, completely, extraordinarily ridiculous--no, in fact, more than that--it's a sheer ludicrous absurdity that you would even begin to suggest that I ever exaggerate or use hyperbole. That's by far the most outrageous thing I've ever heard.

Thanks for clarifying. It's helpful to see a more cohesive picture of your interpretation.

 

[Spamtar]

Don't think I can agree with the OP or for that matter anyone’s conclusions yet but do find the issue quiet fascinating. For example one answer on a MBTI would separate an INTP from and INTJ who on the whole are often very different. The first time I tested I was closest on the P/J boarder and this issue crossed my mind often particularly how being a P makes one Ne, Ti and Fe. Ulimately the test is just a tool and it is a self evaluation which I know am clearly an INTP yet feel my closest cousin is the INTJ.
Good issue, yet don't see persuasive conclusions or analysis from either side of the debate.

 

[SillySapienne]

LOL---This IS a joke, right?

I'm pretty sure it is, but just wanted to check.

Yeah, I saw that too. That's why he's both cunning and charming.

 

[Giggly]

Well, couldn't we say this about all four dichotomies?

I do agree that people have core patterns that they are more inclined to, but they may ignore them. Some people (adults included) are still finding themselves. Meaning, they don't know what they are and where they want to settle yet, if at all, so they change up often, according to their moods, or the according to the moon.

They resist being boxed in, because being boxed in seems frightening to them.

 

[Jaguar]

Who the hell invited you into this thread, anyway?

You seem to be under the misguided impression this is your personal thread.
It is everyone's thread.

Just because you have no ability to synthesize functions which seemingly oppose,
doesn't mean others have the same problem as you.

Frankly, I don't know how you call yourself ENTP.
You will do anything, and I do mean anything, to keep from expanding the number of possible types.
Which means you defy the very type you claim to be.
Oh, no, there can't be ANY other possibilities than what MBTI suggests.

Compared to you, ESTJs are anarchists.

Maybe one day you might actually understand how two things which seemingly oppose,
can actually be true at the same time.

Until then, live in the dark.
You seem perfectly content, being there.

 

[Tyrant]

MBTI is a piece of crap.

 

[SillySapienne]

You seem to be under the misguided impression this is your personal thread.
It is everyone's thread.

Just because you have no ability to synthesize functions which seemingly oppose,
doesn't mean others have the same problem as you.

Frankly, I don't know how you call yourself ENTP.
You will do anything, and I do mean anything, to keep from expanding the number of possible types.
Which means you defy the very type you claim to be.
Oh, no, there can't be ANY other possibilities than what MBTI suggests.

Compared to you, ESTJs are anarchists.

Maybe one day you might actually understand how two things which seemingly oppose,
can actually be true at the same time.

Until then, live in the dark.
You seem perfectly content, being there.

I like this post!

This is kind of off topic, but...

sim, don't get mad at me, I absolutely think you're brilliant, but you scare me with how strongly you adhere to typological theory.

You don't believe in "God" but you sure seem to *believe* in the MBTI, don't hate me, just an observation.

I think you are very much so an ENTP, and I think many NTs for some reason get really into MBTI and use it as more than just a tool but rather as a way to cohesively explain human nature.

Yet, one must understand that human nature and psychology extends and transcends way outside the MBTI box.

Don't be mean to me, I'm pms-ing.

-SS

*scared of confrontation and hides*

 

[SillySapienne]

MBTI is a piece of crap.

Interesting, why do you like this forum, then?

 

[Jaguar]

MBTI is a piece of crap.

Interesting, why do you like this forum, then?

It's called Typology Central, not MBTI Central.

 

[Spamtar]

Some good point Jag.

This helps one realize often the unknown is discounted.

x is most often always part of the equation (along with y, z, God/antiGod, DNA strands etc...). In other words: the map is not the terrain. MBTI is a tool or measuring device and not the matter measured (nor a measure of all things).

Then again of course without generalizations or common denominators/agreed hypothesizes greater abstractions would remain invisible outside of the scope of reason or debate.

 

[SillySapienne]

It's called Typology Central, not MBTI Central.

Didn't it used to be called MBTICentral, waaaaay back in the day, sometime during the Pleistocene era?

When Giant wubbie ground sloths roamed the earth!

 

[SillySapienne]

Wanna know something kinda embarrassing?

:blushing:

I'm kinda thinking about removing that post where I confront sim because it is kinda irrelevant, I can (he's not online, right now), and I'm a pussy!



Should I get rid of it, Jag?

 

[Kalach]

I'm pasting this from an extended wall conversation I've been having with Two Point Two, because I thought it had some other applications and might result in some good discussion. It provides support for my ongoing assertion that only the four primary functions (dom, aux, tert, inf) are ever truly exercised.

This is in the context of speaking to an INTJ:


A good example of what I mean here is people who claim to be borderline P/J.

In actuality this doesn't make any sense because P and J imply completely different sets of functional value systems. I've seen people claim to be something like ENFx, which is ridiculous because it implies that Fi, Fe, Ni and Ne are all of equal importance to you, and this simply doesn't work because Fi and Fe are so fundamentally opposed in their approaches (same for Ni and Ne.) (Amusingly, people who claim ENFx are virtually always ENFPs who are just attracted to the idea of being "miscellaneous". "Wow, I don't fit into any of the molds! I guess that's cause I'm just SO unique and different!" It's no coincidence that "be unique and different/don't fit the molds/go outside the box" is such a huge part of Ne's value system. Go fucking figure!)

This is what I mean about how every behavior, thought, action and opinion can be reduced further until you end up with ~4 primary life directives...one for Je, one for Ji, one for Pe and one for Pi.

People who make these claims simply don't understand enough about functional dichotomies to recognize why they're implicitly contradicting themselves. We're not working with 8 mutually exclusive and completely independent processes here; we're working with an interconnected system of competing and often absolute opposite value systems. Saying that you value Fi and Fe equally is completely absurd; you just don't understand the implications of those terms.

I may "use Fi" sometimes, but not because I place any fundamental value in Fi itself, but rather because I recognize situations where Fi's values happen to align with my own (which are invariably the result of Ne+Ti+Fe+Si.) I have no shame in admitting that I find Ti a totally superior system for internal judgments, but then--of course I do, I'm a Ti user! Again you need to direct your focus toward the total reasoning process and its most basic underlying values, not just the surface behavior or end conclusion.

You as an Fi user may make decisions in some situations that resemble Fe decisions, but it's always possible to look further into the motivations for those decisions and recognize which function or functional combination was ultimately responsible. Just because you did something that a lot of Fe users commonly do doesn't mean that Fe actually motivated your reasoning process to do it. I realized this through just talking to a lot of people and prying for honest, deep insight as to the most basic values that make them tick--and trust me, nobody values Fi and Fe equally. The natures of those two value systems are too fundamentally contradictory.

One wonders at people who are "working on" developing some function outside their top four. What are they working with? How has it come to be an issue? What decided for them that it was an issue?

One wonders at people who are choosing functions. What are they choosing with? Who is the deeper person inside themselves making these decisions? And why? (And what's his type?)

But, a difficulty: why can people not keep a function but switch orientation? They can't do it willy-nilly, that's for sure, because switching orientation counts as a violation of the original function, and switching would hurt... something--sense of identity, at least. But why can people not over relatively very long periods of time shift from one orientation to another?

That difficulty is maybe not entirely answered by observing that Xe and Xi are competing systems. The competition will make it difficult for the person to accept the change. Psychologically they'll resist it. But how stubborn is that resistance, ultimately? Why is it seemingly so stubborn that the change (theoretically) never happens?

Maybe there's an obvious answer, like switching orientation of one function affects all the others and so destabilizes the sense of self that your identity disappears, and people will always fight that or die.

Still, what is it that makes preference so stubborn?

 

[Jaguar]

Should I get rid of it, Jag?

You don't need to worry about voicing your true opinion.

I will not tell you what to do. It is your post.
Word to the wise: there are mods here for a reason.
They are fast, fair, and funny.
And I'd even hire one in particular, to swing an axe

 

[poppy]

Wanna know something kinda embarrassing?

:blushing:

I'm kinda thinking about removing that post where I confront sim because it is kinda irrelevant, I can (he's not online, right now), and I'm a pussy!



Should I get rid of it, Jag?

Oh don't be a pussy Besides it was a good post and needed to be said.

 

[Thalassa]

Wanna know something kinda embarrassing?

:blushing:

I'm kinda thinking about removing that post where I confront sim because it is kinda irrelevant, I can (he's not online, right now), and I'm a pussy!



Should I get rid of it, Jag?

Simulated likes to argue with people. Be difficult. He digs that. It gives him something to be long-winded about.

 

[Matthew_Z]

Functions are not "pure" modes of thinking that exist perfectly partitioned. They often act in a pair between a perceiving function and a judging function.

To make an analogy, take visible light, particularly in the sense of RGB color theory. We shall let Fi be represented by Green. The "opposite" of Green, Magenta, shall be represent Fe. In their current forms, the colors are most easily distinguishable.

In this example, the Fi shall be used by an INFP, an Fi-dominant. The Fe shall be used by an ESFJ, an Fe-dominant. Next we shall represent Ne by the color blue. For whatever reason, the INFP and the ESFJ have opted to use their F function and Ne together. In the INFP's case, Green Fi and Blue Ne combine to form a Cyan Fi+Ne. In the ESFJ's case, the Magenta Fe and Blue Ne form a tertiary existent between Magenta and Blue. While the two remain distinct, they are somewhat "blurred."

For a visual demontration:

F functions:
Fi
Fe

F functions through the Ne "lens":
Fi+Ne
Fe+Ne

Should the F functions be supportive of a common function rather than vice versa, the difference is even harder to discern, especially in the context that both F functions deal in the same "realm," albeit differently. This is all said without touching on the concept of shadow functions, the idea that one develops/uses the "opposite" form of a function under stress.

 

[Tyrant]

MBTI barely touches on how functions manifest themselves in different positions. Also, the concept of shadow functions is stupid. Everything is so vague and general.

Deciding your MBTI is best done by the four dichotomies because doing it anyway else will give you a headache.