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.
Yeah, passive-aggressive baiting! (And now, we find out why, below).
Ah, there's the key word: ORDER. (Not models.) Eric, let's try Katharine Myers' words again, since you aren't listening:
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.
So she's really saying there aren't 16 types?
I want to see the
context of that. Is that from
Gifts Differring? What "pattern"? What "models"? What "development" even? of the dom and aux? or is she talking about beyond those things. Those words can be referring to many things.
(If it's a matter of eight function-attitudes "developing" whenever, in whatever order, then there are basically 40,320 "variations", which you claimed I was making things up with.)
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!"
Most people here believe in 16 types. Not just me. I didn't make it up. (And I remember you last time comparing me to another person who
doesn't believe in the theory, yet stays here doing nothing but just scoffing at it!)
And I'm the one constantly saying that A-B-C-D is not as much as people make it out to be. It's mostly
roles in a person's psyche, which is what both Beebe's order and the ship order are dealing with.
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.
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:
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.
You apparently do not understand the point of Jung's theory. It's not about "which functions develop in which order". It's about how we take in information, and make decisions on it. That's what makes it "bimodal" in the first place! We're not looking [necessarily] for "strongest functions".
The functions are all there from birth, but not yet "
differentiated". They're not even really distinguished from
each other, but simply tied to the emotions. One will differentiate, and then for BALANCE, another function of the opposite attitude and opposite j/p mode serves as the "auxiliary". The assumption is that they develop in a particular order, but not as much is being made of this as you seem to think. Someone asked here about typing by the "tertiary" function, but I did not even support that idea. Type is based on a person's perception and judgment, not a stack of arbitrary things called "functions".
So you can have your SiNiSe... or whatever it is you want. To Jung and type theory, if we assume Si is the dominant, then the person's type will be completed by Pe. It doesn't matter if you think those other functions "developed" first, or are "stronger". Nobody is calling the person "unhealthy" or whatever you complained.
If a person is all perception functions like that, then how does he make decisions? There must be one function he will prefer for that, and that will complete his type.
If you determine a person is "SiNiSe...", what does that even mean? What is the point of it? "OK, my 'strongest' is Si, and my 'next strongest' is Ni, and my next strongest after that after that is Ne". OK, now what do we do with that? The Beebe and ship models suggest psychic roles they might fall into. These are basically parts of the ego structure. If a function is "strong", then it might mean an associated complex is simply one that surfaces a lot. I've found this to be accurate, in myself, and others I've discussed this with. If one thinks they don't fit, then remember these things are usually unconscious anyway. (Those of us who discuss them are looking for them, and thus become more aware of them)
These things aren't gears that you shift between; one, two, three. That's basically what your premise would assume, just as much as the "A-B-C-D" you're criticizing. So ironically, you're the one whose apparent views assume a really rigid concept. You simply allow them to be jumbled around any which way and argue that it still means something useful.
The problem is, that we have gotten too much into eight function attitudes, and I had gotten caught up in that as well (From the influence of Berens/Nardi and their followers) and precisely what I have been doing in many threads is to backtrack and point out that is is not a rigid eight complete function-attitudes, but the four functions, S, N, T, F, and the orientations held separately and blended with the functions. The best way to illustrate it is teamtechnology's Mental Muscles (and didn't you praise that one once, too?) I've been coming to appreciate that one more. So once you break up the eight back into the four, then you get a less rigid system that can explain a lot of variations.
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.
So it looks like this is some sort of payback, because you felt your topic was derailed or something. (And that does seem to be when you started this periodic challenging of me over practically nothing afterward, and now you keep mentioning this).
Difference was, I was just giving out ideas, not scoffing and heckling any theories. Now, I'm not even comparing different systems; I was remaining completely within MBTI/Jung theories in this one, but you choose to [continue] tak[ing] out your resentment or whatever by criticizing me for "correlating" everything, or "a "rigid order", when I was actually pointing out how the order is not as rigid as it would be to assume you can type by a tertiary. (It may not look the same in everyone).
So I don't know what you want from me now.
All you're doing is throwing out a lot of sarcastic snark. ("oh dear", "oh the irony", "say it isn't so", etc; doesn't even disprove my points, but sure must feel good saying). Just your way of getting even for something where there was no ill will intended.
Well, sorry if you thought your thread was "stormed" or whatever. This is a place of sharing ideas, and not everything is going to be what you agree with. (I actually thought there could be some common ground there with DISC. How was I to know you were basically trying to ditch MBTI?)
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.
And that's precisely what I've been saying all along (including whenever the subject of DISC comes along). When I first saw it (before I even know about MBTI) I recognized it as the four temperaments. And I'm sure I said that in that thread. (So just like then, you just go on the attack, and you don't even know what you're attacking). That was probably the second system I came to know, and what led me to see a common thread in the expressive/responsive matrix, with the Assertive/Passive and Open/Controlled factors it uses.
And Berens is the one who compares them to the Interaction Styles. That provides one at least possible connection between the theories.
And if you recognize that both Interaction Styles AND Keirsey's temperaments represent the four Galen temperaments, then guess, what; each type ends up a BLEND of Galen temperaments! That's the main "correlation" I've been making the whole time. My whole starting point or "home base system" is in fact the Galen temperaments, not MBTI. When I first saw MBTI, its cognitive functions looked like another angle of personality that would be useful. So I sought out to find how it corresponds. The results might not be perfect, but they most have been darn close, at least.
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.
And that's the good of finding possible correlations between the systems. Then you realize that functions is looking at personality through ONE angle, and temperament is looking at it through another. If one doesn't explain something, then you can try the other.
So even if one finds the functions don't seem to line up right, then the temperament combo is another clue.
This is the TiNe approach. It's a different perspective. It's not
WRONG just because you disagree with it.
Oh, the irony of ending with Jung's words:
Give up all you have ever believed, and then perhaps you will discover something new.
And that's what you need to do, since you seem to be just reacting to some past offense (or whatever) or stuff said in the past, and not even seeing what's really being said now.
