ReGroup the types

[Randomnity]

So in what context would grouping by dominant judging function be the best to group by, and why?

It's basically describing how you make decisions, so I guess it would work pretty well overall, but maybe a specific context would be comparing how different types try to solve a difficult situation.

 

[skylights]

Actually, those would be ways to group also (the way Jung groups):
IP aka Ji-dom
EP aka Pe-dom
IJ aka Pi-dom
EJ aka Je-dom

Yes, I feel like dominance is important...

Heck, you could even group dominants.

Intuitives: INFJ, ENFP, INTJ, ENTP
Sensors: ISFJ, ISTJ, ESFP, ESTP
Feelers: INFP, ISFP, ENFJ, ESFJ
Thinkers: INTP, ISTP, ENTJ, ESTJ

I think that would be my personal preference if we're talking about identifying people by internal cognition, but if we're grouping them by external tendencies then I'd probably go quadras like Socionics.

 

[Little_Sticks]

haha, okay...

IXTP - lazy bastards
INXJ - sophists
ISXJ - stick in their ass syndrome
EXFJ - Rampaging Hitlers
EXTJ - overachievers
EXFP - whores
IXFP - Kurt Cobains

ho ho ho

 

[Entropic]

By their dominant function so ISTPs and INTPs are together, ENTJs and ESTJs are together and so on.

 

[Entropic]

The problem I have with grouping the opposing functions is just that - they're opposed.
I think these make sense when applied to someone using them as the aux/tert, ie. an ENTP is TiFe. But when it's the dominant/inferior, then you have too much conflict to combine the two as if they work in tandem. The relationship between them in a person's psychology is more antagonistic, IMO.

I'm drawn to the "reflecting" category because it sounds more like Ji, whereas "projecting" sounds like Je.

Actually, those would be ways to group also (the way Jung groups):
IP aka Ji-dom
EP aka Pe-dom
IJ aka Pi-dom
EJ aka Je-dom

You got the introverts mixed up.

 

[Pseudo]

[MENTION=7785]Little_Sticks[/MENTION] what about the EXTPs?

 

[Pseudo]

By their dominant function so ISTPs and INTPs are together, ENTJs and ESTJs are together and so on.

The ISTPs I know. Always strike me as frightening, kindred spirits. I always feel like I really understand them, and they they throw out some hardcore shiz.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I'm guessing this exceeds most peoples' interests, but this is about a thorough as one can go with the whole type grouping thing.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/27201-complete-type-grouping-analysis-sponge.html

 

[Eric B]

You got the introverts mixed up.

Actually, no; for the introverts, Ji and Pi are what make them introverted, but they are accompanied by Je and Pe (in the auxiliary slot), which are what determine J/P. So it's IP: aux Pe; IJ: aux Je. Now, J and P match, but e/i are reversed. For introverts, it's it's mixed up because of J/P's definition as preferred extraverted function. But I know you don't believe this in favor of Jung's dominant function focus.

Another useful set of groupings are the Interaction Styles, but they are even more complicated as far as the type code.

EST/ENJ: In Charge
ESF/ENP: Get Things Going
IST/INJ: Chart the Course
ISF/INP: Behind the Scenes

These are basically the "social" temperaments. Like the ones you would get on the humour quizzes, and also, Social Styles, DISC, CPI, etc.

They are like this, because the social temperaments are basically "blind" to S/N. Social temperament is E/I and people/task (which comes to be called "informing/directing" in this model). S/N is tied to the other area of temperament; the conative (i.e. Keirsey, via Plato, Kant, Kretschmer).

So S/N end up denoting different "rules" for defining the people/task factor.
For N's, it's J/P, so it works like the earlier mentioned groups: EJ, EP, IJ, IP. (These are also known as the "sociability temperaments").
For S's, it's T/F, so the groups are ET, EF, IT, IF. These are groups I always thought made some sense, though they're hardly ever mentioned.

So Interaction styles are like a combination of these two letter groups. The result: T and J end up more "task focused", and F and P are more "people focused".

 

[Little_Sticks]

[MENTION=7785]Little_Sticks[/MENTION] what about the EXTPs?

Oh yeah I forgets them.

EXTP adult children

 

[OrangeAppled]

They arent, not quite imo, each pair is the same cognitive mechanism used in apposing ways.

I also think there is an internal repression mechanism involved in the process of repressing the processing of one rather then the other, a resolvable one.

See, I don't see that either. To me, the same cognitive mechanism in opposing ways would be Fe/Fi or Se/Si, etc. The same function but different attitude.

I certainly think the opposition is resolvable, but I tend to see the aux making the bridge. The inferior can be incorporated to a limited degree successfully without being a threat to stability because it's worked around with the aux. That's often what you see in people too - developing the inferior often just means dealing with the areas its called for & using it to a limited degree that doesn't eclipse the ego.

I just thought more about your labels... the way you describe the J processes sounds like a P perspective, the way it might be experienced when not dominant, & that's part of what's weird about it to me.

To me, Ti/Fe would be constructing & Fi/Te molding. Both groups are structuring reality in some way. "Reflecting" seems a bizarre word for that, unless you mean some kind of mirroring, but even that seems odd.

I don't think the groupings themselves are a wrong way to see things, but I think the names could be better, that's all.

 

[GranChi]

I think EF, ET, IT, and IF makes some sense, because it seems like a basic way to group them, and it wouldn't be hard to tell which one someone falls into. I tend to like other IF's. I can't think of good names for them, though.

 

[Entropic]

Actually, no; for the introverts, Ji and Pi are what make them introverted, but they are accompanied by Je and Pe (in the auxiliary slot), which are what determine J/P. So it's IP: aux Pe; IJ: aux Je. Now, J and P match, but e/i are reversed. For introverts, it's it's mixed up because of J/P's definition as preferred extraverted function. But I know you don't believe this in favor of Jung's dominant function focus.

Another useful set of groupings are the Interaction Styles, but they are even more complicated as far as the type code.

EST/ENJ: In Charge
ESF/ENP: Get Things Going
IST/INJ: Chart the Course
ISF/INP: Behind the Scenes

These are basically the "social" temperaments. Like the ones you would get on the humour quizzes, and also, Social Styles, DISC, CPI, etc.

They are like this, because the social temperaments are basically "blind" to S/N. Social temperament is E/I and people/task (which comes to be called "informing/directing" in this model). S/N is tied to the other area of temperament; the conative (i.e. Keirsey, via Plato, Kant, Kretschmer).

So S/N end up denoting different "rules" for defining the people/task factor.
For N's, it's J/P, so it works like the earlier mentioned groups: EJ, EP, IJ, IP. (These are also known as the "sociability temperaments").
For S's, it's T/F, so the groups are ET, EF, IT, IF. These are groups I always thought made some sense, though they're hardly ever mentioned.

So Interaction styles are like a combination of these two letter groups. The result: T and J end up more "task focused", and F and P are more "people focused".

You didn't understand my objection. She was using socionics terminology but mixed it up. EP = Pe lead, IP = Pi lead, IJ = Ji lead, EJ = Je lead. The rest is just ramble that's pretty irrelevant to my point.

 

[Eric B]

I looked for a context, but missed where she said "the way Jung groups". I'm not sure whether she was aware of Jung's "dominant function" notation. Jung didn't use J/P, he used "rational/irrational type", and Socionics uses lowercase j/p (which I think was a mistake, in causing confusion with MBTI, but that's another topic).

And the rest is not ramble, and it wasn't intended to relate to your point.
It's just another idea of type grouping, (another point) that I had sat down to post anyway.

 

[madhatter]

She was using socionics terminology but mixed it up. EP = Pe lead, IP = Pi lead, IJ = Ji lead, EJ = Je lead.

What? I'm confused. Where was she using socionics terminology?

 

[Entropic]

What? I'm confused. Where was she using socionics terminology?

Referring types to EP, IJ and so on temperaments are socionics groupings. Jung never used such terminology as far as I know.

 

[WALMART]

TJ's, FJ's, TP's and FP's

 

[madhatter]

Referring types to EP, IJ and so on temperaments are socionics groupings. Jung never used such terminology as far as I know.

Jung did not use those specific letters, no.

But use of EP, IJ, IP and EJ is not exclusive to Socionics. I've seen them most often used in JCF literature.

 

[Entropic]

Jung did not use those specific letters, no.

But use of EP, IJ, IP and EJ is not exclusive to Socionics. I've seen them most often used in JCF literature.

Where else?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Let me think. If I wanted to be funny, I'd choose.. highly irregular system of

E-something for those who are so damned loud without any content.. who's most representative of that kind of E? Probably ExxP
J-something for those asshats who make our life miserable. Couldn't they just stop regulating everything for gods sake. xSxJ
T-something for those detached sons of bitches who just explain and philosophize everything away and walk through everything like it didn't matter a damned thing. INTP, ENTJ,INTJ,ISTP
F-or-something-something for those goddamned somethings who are so terrible because they're terribleness is accunated by their types of being one of ENFJ,INFP,ISFP or INFJ.

Oh wait, INFJ aren't terrible.

Oh wait again, they are. Sometimes. So it's a good system. Keep it and prosper.