• 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.

JCF Isn't The Answer

Bush

cute lil war dog
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
5,182
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
1. I give no shits if my answer is anyone else's answer. The only time it matters is when 2+ of us are discussing the thing. I'll start paying attention to how many types there are "objectively" when the science behind it matures enough, but even my great, great grandchildren will be dead by then.

2. With respect to Judging Fi'ers and so on -- seems to me that it's a matter of what's actually of use to represent in a model. Do we need to differentiate INFPs who have Judging tendencies from those who don't? Yeah, it's a worthy idea if there's a huge variability within INFPs (and other types) that can be explained by introducing it. Do we need another whole dichotomy to tell us whether a person likes to dip their fries in ketchup or not? No, but we could do that, too.

Kinda-sorta like how the Japanese color "ao" doesn't differentiate between blue and green, since a distinction wasn't seen as necessary. (Similar with a lot of other languages, too.) Separating the two introduces more complexity (one/two additional words) but it's worth it if distinguishing between blue and green is useful. Is it useful/necessary to subdivide green into, say, neon, xanadu, lime, olive, forest, jade, etc.? For everyday use, probably not so much.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
1. I give no shits if my answer is anyone else's answer. The only time it matters is when 2+ of us are discussing the thing. I'll start paying attention to how many types there are "objectively" when the science behind it matures enough, but even my great, great grandchildren will be dead by then.

2. With respect to Judging Fi'ers and so on -- seems to me that it's a matter of what's actually of use to represent in a model. Do we need to differentiate INFPs who have Judging tendencies from those who don't? Yeah, it's a worthy idea if there's a huge variability within INFPs (and other types) that can be explained by introducing it. Do we need another whole dichotomy to tell us whether a person likes to dip their fries in ketchup or not? No, but we could do that, too.

Kinda-sorta like how the Japanese color "ao" doesn't differentiate between blue and green, since a distinction wasn't seen as necessary. (Similar with a lot of other languages, too.) Separating the two introduces more complexity (one/two additional words) but it's worth it if distinguishing between blue and green is useful. Is it useful/necessary to subdivide green into, say, neon, xanadu, lime, olive, forest, jade, etc.? For everyday use, probably not so much.

If all you want to do is type someone, then it is as I said in my "MBTI Destroyed!" thread - more distinctions makes for an unwieldy (and unpopular) system.

In that thread I'm taking it to the level of actual psychology of neurosis. It's true that I did (with the help of Fudjack) theoretically destroy the MBTI, and also by finding an Fi-dominant in reality who prefers Judging. I've been talking about this since, oh, around 2011. But Karen Horney discusses neurosis and that's my basis for the new thread. Jung does not go into pathology in Psychological Types, except maybe in very vaguely put terms about a Shadow which is bordering on mystical. It's really just mysticism combined with psychology. Karen Horney is more down to earth, the theory is more approachable. It is not loaded down with assumptions and preposterous terminology such as "collective consciousness."

And really, the best way to overcome neurosis is to get out there and apply what's in your heart, which is the part of your psyche that gets lost when self-confidence is lost.
 

Reborn Relic

Damn American Cowboy
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
555
MBTI Type
INTP
This isn't about functions, it's about J and P as independent variables in the type nomenclature.

Alright. Well, I agree with you on some level that there's no reason that Fi-doms can't be Js in the sense you're describing. I believe that Jung would've called them Js specifically, in fact.

Whether it in particular is a distinction we need to find relevant, I don't know. But you could make it.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Alright. Well, I agree with you on some level that there's no reason that Fi-doms can't be Js in the sense you're describing. I believe that Jung would've called them Js specifically, in fact.

Whether it in particular is a distinction we need to find relevant, I don't know. But you could make it.

We who?
 

existence

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
352
MBTI Type
ISTJ
I have found someone on Facebook who identifies as an Fi-dominant with a preference for Judging. She identifies as a type 4.

You wanna more examples? I'm jungian Ti-dom, MBTI TJ type. In MBTI I do not identify very well with Ti-dom TP, not with the aspects that go with high intuition/Ne, let alone the aspects that describe a Perceiving dominant...

Then. I know some (three so far) Socionics EII-Fi's who'd be definitely J in MBTI. For more concrete data, I actually had one of them look at Step II and he was 100% Judging there. ...I know a Socionics EII-Ne that fits P and INFP in MBTI, on the other hand. He's extremely Ne though (yes, still an introvert).
 

erg

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
291
MBTI Type
None
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Socionics subtype does correlate somewhat with MBTI J/P, but it can also not correlate. There are IEI-Ni's that are INFJ, and LII-Ti's that are INTP for example.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Socionics subtype does correlate somewhat with MBTI J/P, but it can also not correlate. There are IEI-Ni's that are INFJ, and LII-Ti's that are INTP for example.

I did explain that somewhere else, how INTp = INTJ, but ENTJ = ENTj.
 

existence

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
352
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Socionics subtype does correlate somewhat with MBTI J/P, but it can also not correlate. There are IEI-Ni's that are INFJ, and LII-Ti's that are INTP for example.

Agreed - I wasn't trying to say it correlated 100%. For example, I definitely don't type as P in MBTI.


I did explain that somewhere else, how INTp = INTJ, but ENTJ = ENTj.

Also often ISFJ = ISFj, etc.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
I came to this forum to discuss personality types, and found there was an agenda preceding me. There has been a push against the MBTI and toward a return to cognitive functions.

I believe there are good, logical reasons to be against the MBTI, and I have stated those reasons here on many occasions - pretty much, every chance I get. But if I have any agenda, it is to use reason in solving problems. Compare reason to the whiny badgering of those who believe they have found the Answer in JCF.

Thinking you have found the Answer is not a problem for me. Everybody has their own answer. But that's just it - it's YOUR answer. I will debate with you logically over the validity of your answer. The fact that I only get one-liners and bigotry in return is evidence that your Answer is neither reasonable nor logical. So I often feel like a pet owner walking into a meeting of animal rights activists.

And really, your Answer is not reasonable. Jung was no scientist, he was some kind of modern "Prophet." Logic, as he employed it, was only a tool of some subconscious "reality." And so he created a religion or dogma of the subconscious that is not established in fact. Jung's logic is coherent enough, but it does not correspond to reality.

The main problem with Jung's theory is that he moved from cognitive functions
to personality types without regard to any scientific study whatsoever. Such a "Genius" as Jung apparently didn't need it, all of his Answers came from "somewhere" - God, taking the form of the collective unconsciousness, who has granted him omniscience by whispering into his subconscious "ear." The information came from some vast pool of collected wisdom hovering around somewhere in the aether, waiting for just the right kind of mind to extract the Truths lying therein. The result is merely a cultish following of those who don't dare question the Master.

But these intellectual fads tend to just come and go.

So far I haven't seen anybody who has spiritually profited from JCF. I've seen some dilettantish types hanging around who barely understand the words they are spouting into their keyboards. All I can say to you is that personality typing is not the same as cognitive function typing. And anyway, JCF is very reductionistic. I also know you don't know or care what that term means or what it implies about your rigid mindset.

Personality typing is about the whole character of the person, not these few cognitive functions you can barely manage to identify, if at all. For us, the clues to personality are always external to the person, not hidden in the secret recesses of their minds.

KILL THE INFIDEL :happy2:
 

erg

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
291
MBTI Type
None
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Agreed - I wasn't trying to say it correlated 100%. For example, I definitely don't type as P in MBTI.

The answer could be in the system of DCHN subtypes The DCNH subtype model . Dominant and normalizing subtypes could be more J-ish, while creative and harmonizing could be more P-ish. Or perhaps there is not direct correlation. J-P seems the most problematic dichotomy. Another answer could be enneagram type.
 

existence

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
352
MBTI Type
ISTJ
The answer could be in the system of DCHN subtypes The DCNH subtype model . Dominant and normalizing subtypes could be more J-ish, while creative and harmonizing could be more P-ish. Or perhaps there is not direct correlation. J-P seems the most problematic dichotomy. Another answer could be enneagram type.

Yeah, other factors seem to affect it. Also the fact that, in MBTI, J/P is a concept built from several parts that do not necessarily belong together. Rationality/Irrationality, option limiting/expansion quality of Ni/Ne with regard to goals/plans, etc.
 

527468

deleted
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
1,945
What you need to understand is MBTI is moreso the test yielding a good statistical probability of giving you your correct JCF type, but it's not the type and not always accurate. JCF is the real distinct type itself.

For grasping the types themselves, I most of all prefer Lenore Thomson's function descriptions. Excellently formed and accurate.

Most have heard of Lenore Thomson (INTJ) for helping popularize MBTI and JCF during the new millennium, and her 20yo book is selling used and cheaply nowadays. In her understanding, something like INTJ and INTP are quite different types from one another more than someone who merely fits J or P lifestyles. That's not quite the reality of their separation, as NiTe vs TiNe is a whole larger cognitive difference, that she paints these two types in entirely different categories and styles to approaching life. For me this makes them a piece of cake to distinguish irl, for instance defining both Ti doms more closely together as they should be, unique but with opposite secondary and tertiary functions. The methods and descriptions she uses in her book to distinguish every type make them stand apart uniquely from one another. Her intentions now are to make each types' profile reflect the predominating functions first and foremost, instead of MBTI/Keirsey stereotypes and preferences.

INFJs and INFPs frequently mistype,
and INTJs and INTPs frequently mistype.
Initially she said this may be due to Xi dominating an underdeveloped Xe, but I think she's adapted a bit more from there since her book remarking that Xe doesn't always designate P/J tendencies. The P/J divide instead is much more cognitively-based and separates the functions themselves according to either the experiential right-brained mentality of flowing involvement, the true "P" type like ISTPs and their INTP counterparts where "Pe external information flows in to converge with Ji personal judgment sense," or the more linear left-brain mentality of analytical involvement like IxTJs where "Je categories of objectivity enrich Pi surfaced information and visa-versa." Ps have something of a sharper, more intuitive go-with-the-flow approach to life, while Js have a more organized, linear and conceptual approach to life. It's not that Js are planned, but that they like things charted out, the Je knowledge systems further objectified and accounted for, where as Ps can simply chart anything in the moment that comes their way, they have the judgement of Ji's first-hand nature where knowledge isn't something out there, but is something one is said to just know and feel is true. I recommend the book which goes entirely deeper on the explanations of all the aspects of typology and type differences, this is just the beginning of comprehension.

One thing I liked learning from this book back in the day was about INTJs and ISTJs. They don't actually hold to Te (which is a true thinking function.) Te is just a host they prefer to dabble in and ultimately effect, it's their expansive direction of choice. This realm is not worth dabbling in for INTPs because knowledge and reason is something far more essential and true to themselves, instinctive and first-nature. This can't be said of TJs, as knowledge for Te is something adopted from concept and objective foundation, not a real experience. I can't reword this book, it goes far more complexly and eloquently into these matters.
 
Last edited:

existence

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
352
MBTI Type
ISTJ
For grasping the types themselves, I most of all prefer Lenore Thomson's function descriptions. Excellently formed and accurate.

I like Lenore Thomson's descriptions of types in the sense that her approach neatly aligns with other MBTI resources. Also some of the detailed observations on ways of thinking are good.

I don't buy the right-left brain thing though. I'm very easily able to see the environment in a holistic right brained spatial way, yet this just seems the background (however an always conscious and pervasive one) when I go into analytical mode of fitting things together methodically, not like go-with-the-flow at all.


It's not that Js are planned, but that they like things charted out, the Je knowledge systems further objectified and accounted for, where as Ps can simply chart anything in the moment that comes their way, they have the judgement of Ji's first-hand nature where knowledge isn't something out there, but is something one is said to just know and feel is true.

I'm more conscious of many of my judgments. I can respond quickly if I'm oriented, in some immediate situations this is easy to do, also easy in familiar structures, otherwise I will first go to the analytical mode to get the new information sorted out.


One thing I liked learning from this book back in the day was about INTJs and ISTJs. They don't actually hold to Te (which is a true thinking function.) Te is just a host they prefer to dabble in and ultimately effect, it's their expansive direction of choice. This realm is not worth dabbling in for INTPs because knowledge and reason is something far more essential and true to themselves, instinctive and first-nature. This can't be said of TJs, as knowledge for Te is something adopted from concept and objective foundation, not a real experience.

My Thinking can take information and apply that before experiencing first but experience will help further solidify and perhaps even simplify some things. Thinking for me definitely can be detached from the experience and made conceptual in that sense. I would not know why Lenore argues only Te is able to do that but it fits for whatever reason.


So all in all... I see myself in some aspects of the holistic "thinking" stuff (not jungian Thinking for sure - yes this is another piece of criticism, applying to MBTI as well) and in the conscious sequential analytical stuff too.

Take this for whatever it's worth. Reality is more complex than that theory.
 
Top