Nobody said anything about "have". You're the one making an issue, not me, so why should I have to do anything? I still don't see why it's any problem to you.
Go back through this thread and see who engaged whom. I wasn't even speaking to you. I made a comment to cascadeco and you got upset.
Well, I thought I suddenly remembered you mentioning the Singer-Loomis once, and by criticizing me for "trying to make everything fit" just for mentioning different function order models in relation to MBTI type (not even other systems like DISC or APS in this discussion), and that a person should be able to have any "variation", you seem to be arguing that function orders don't even correlate with MBTI. That's all that was being correlated in this discussion.
Ah, there's the key word: ORDER. (Not models.) Eric, let's try Katharine Myers' words again, since you aren't listening:
Developmental models imply there is one particular pattern to be followed for 'healthy' development. According to type theory, however, each person develops variations of the pattern whether through choice or adaptation. It is important not to apply any model, including this one, too rigidly to oneself and certainly not to others. A particular adaptation may be serving one well; another may have been useful in the past but is no longer productive.
The irony is, she's the MBTI poster girl. And if Myers can speak that way about type theory then what is your excuse? She doesn't advocate a rigid order or applying any model in a rigid manner. She is clearly stating the likelihood of people developing adaptive variations and that variations may be dropped and new variations supplanted at another time. The bottom line is - anything is possible.
I am wide open to variations and I would expect them in people. Quite frankly, I can't imagine anyone not realizing how people
can vary, and by doing so, it's their way of adapting in the world. And if by DEFINITION that means they're not one of 16 types, so what? BFD. You, however, expect people to be A-B-C-D. Not because it's accurate, but because it's simple. Let's jam a size 12 foot into a size 9 shoe and shout, "Eureka! It fits!"
As far as Singer and Loomis are concerned, what impressed me most about those two ladies is the fact they chose to question Jung's basic assumption of bimodality. Oh, dear. They dared to ask questions and poke holes in an old theory. The horror of it all. Say it isn't so.
If in fact people prefer S or N, T or F, altering the testing method should change nothing. Guess what - it
did change. The alleged "preferences" didn't hold true. It's not an increase in # of types that matters, it's what Singer and Loomis discovered that matters.
I created the DiSC thread so people could look at something in a NEW way. Not an old way, a new one. But no, Eric had to storm the thread and hit everyone over the head with his old MBTI hammer. Even DiSC was updated to reflect the fact that most people do not fall into a single D,I,S or C category (as previously thought) but are more often found to be a
blend. DiSC has its roots in the Galen Humors, not MBTI.
I applaud DiSC theory being updated to reflect a person more accurately which is more than I can say for MBTI, or the type profiles, which are based on nothing more than the first two functions. Worse yet, are Jung's basic types, which are based on only
one function. Needless to say, that's why Jung's types read like caricatures of people, rather than actual people. Is it any wonder Gary Hartzler wrote:
Jung's model focused on the Dominant and suggested that all the other functions had to develop in the opposite attitude in order to “balance†the dominant. His descriptions of the eight types were based almost solely on the Dominant and feel unbalanced to those of us who have worked with type in the post-Myers period.
Has it ever occurred to you that natural deviations are what are required to balance an individual on his, or her, terms and not some standard, rigid, structure which has been ordained? My goal isn't to create 16 types, 160 types, or even 1600 types. My goal is for people to accept they don't have to follow a particular
order.
Oh, the irony of ending with Jung's words:
Give up all you have ever believed, and then perhaps you will discover something new.
).
