Proposed Changes To the Codes (To Preclude J/P Confusion)

[Eric B]

I see how this has caught on a bit, with some people adopting it as their type code.
Thinking about it more, it really is a better system. The first letter is the dominant attitude, with the second letter as the dominant function. So the first two letters tell you right out what the dominant function is. Makes me really wonder why Myers and Briggs didn't think of it this way.

Again; losing the J/P does make some things more diffifult. Like here now are what some of the type groups become:

Temperament:

Rational: N/T (NT or TN)
Idealist: N/F (NF or FN)
Guardian: IS, ExS
Artisan: ES, IxS

Interaction Style:

Chart the course: IN and I + S/T (IST or ITS)
In Charge: ExN and E + S/T (EST or ETS)
Behind the Scenes: IxN and I + S/F (ISF or IFS)
Get Things Going: EN and E + S/F (ESF or EFS)

The Interaction Styles are just as complicated (two different letter combinations differing by S and N), but now temperament becomes nearly just as complicated, rather than being defined by simple two letter codes.

Thje factors of temperament and Interaction Style (other than I/E) also become impossible to simplify, especially along the lines of S/N.

Directing: S/T (ST or TS) and IN/ExN
Informing: S/F (SF of FS) and EN/IxN

For Pragmatic, Cooperative, Structure and Motive, you basically end up listing out all the types they share. (Pragmatic would be N/T, ES, IxS; with no common letter groupings to further reduce them down to. Process/Outcome actually becomes more simplifiable on the N side, with Process as EN/IN and Outcome as ExN/IxN; but on the S side, it breaks down again. Process for example is ESF, EFS, IST, ITS).

J, BTW, becomes ET, IxT, EF, IxF, and P becomes ES, IxS, EN, IxN

 

[Athenian200]

It seems that people on all of the forums still miss the J/P understanding. I noticed threads on each of them in the past week. The J/P dichotomy is repetetive and redundant since it was only used to distiinguish the extraversion of the S/N and T/F in all types. Myers asserts that Jung did not give enough notice to introverted types, therefore created her inverted theory to show that the extraverted function is being shown. I liked the creativity, but it's not functional and runs contrary to Jung. Based on his work was explicit in contrasting introverts and extraverts by saying, "The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast, that their existence, even to the uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected."

Myers also contradicts Jung on the auxiliary matter for introverts by giving the function greater recognition than Jung in creating the fourth dichotomy. Jung clearly notes that about the auxiliary and subsequent functions, "…..the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function."

Where does this leave us? Referencing back to Jung's statements, I think he would have disagreed with J/P if not the entire code. He could have (if found it useful to have a code) referenced to the actual functions and acknowledging that Ti-Ne represents INTP equally well, as does Ni-Te for INTJ and so on. Or he may have given Myers-Briggs her kudos, but found the J/P problematic and redundant Jung may have chosen a simpler code to reflec the varied types:

INTJ=INT (Ni-Te)
INTP=ITN (Ti-Ne)
INFP=IFN (Fi-Ne)
INFJ=INF (Ni-Fe)

ISTJ=IST (Si-Te)
ISTP=ITS (Ti-Se)
ISFJ=ISF(Si-Fe)
ISFP=IFS (Fi-Se)

ENTJ=ETN (Te-Ni)
ENTP=ENT (Ne-Ti)
ENFJ=EFN (Fe-Ni)
ENFP=ENF (Ne-Fi)

ESTJ=ETS (Te-Si)
ESTP=EST (Se-Ti)
ESFJ=EFS (Fe-Si)
ESFP=ESF (Se-Fi)

This system was actually listed somewhere in Jung's book, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, your system makes more sense functionally speaking and in Jungian terms. It also brings MBTI theory into closer accord with Socionics.

Although there is one thing I have a concern about, though... J/P seems to measure something. It seems to me that Js are people who get things done on time, think about what they'll do to reach their goals, and have something of a self-preservation instinct. Ps, on the other hand, are all adventurous and everything, just run around all over the place, take risks they don't stand to gain from, struggle to make themselves do anything they don't want to, have a poor understanding of boundaries/priorities, etc...

Can you explain why this is? Does it have more to do with rationality/irrationality than J/P?

 

["?"]

But I think we most agree that Keirsey only confused things when he used Myers-Briggs' four letter codes instead of staying with his titles. Since his theory is not based on the same thing, he has muddled things for those who attempt to correlated the two systems. Besides Myers-Briggs saw temperaments from her system as ST-SF-NT-NF.

Berens also used the four letter codes, however as she develops her system more and weens herself from Keirsey she refers to her titles more. The two word titles are good because they have meaning for the individual as they see themselves and for those who see the person differently, hence Analyzer/Operator (ISTP), Designer/Theorizer (INTP) etc.

When I considered the three letter codes, I was basing it more on Jung's theory than MBTI. Since Myers-Briggs believes that the dominant function is less prevalent in introverts my codes reflect Jung's thoughts that the dominant function is prevalent (regardless of attitude) and the auxiliary is in clear subordination:

11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions

Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]

For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness..... This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle....

 

[Jack Flak]

But I think we most agree that Keirsey only confused things when he used Myers-Briggs' four letter codes instead of staying with his titles. Since his theory is not based on the same thing, he has muddled things for those who attempt to correlated the two systems.

I'm sure he knew exactly what he was doing, though. He wouldn't have experienced anything like the success he had. Besides, the types do correlate. He defines them in different ways.

 

[entropie]

I tend to aggree with Jack. That whole J and p thing does have the slight meaning that explains, if someone is more eager to use a rational or irrational function on the world. That whole explanation oj "Judgement" and "perceiving" totally got it wrong, because the main point was concentrated on the distribution of functions. The type code is merely a mnemonic to describe function distribution.

 

["?"]

I'm sure he knew exactly what he was doing, though. He wouldn't have experienced anything like the success he had. Besides, the types do correlate. He defines them in different ways.

Oh without a doubt, the man’s marketing of the system should be applauded. But’s it’s temperament not type and he admits it. As for correlating Jack, I would like to know your ideas because as I have said before Keirsey is not consistent with his descriptions since he writes the ISJ and ISPs with considering the common function Si and Se respectively, however writes the NT and NF descriptions using both the dominant and auxiliary functions combined. Read his descriptions of ISTP and ISFP and see how far you read before there is an after thought of the aforementioned having a dominant function if at all. Clearly he had to do it to keep his radical theory of SJ and SP cohesive, but I appreciate Keirsey more now than I did eight years ago since I now can appreciate that his system is separate.

 

[entropie]

Well I saw a certain logic behind it. If you have the S concentrating on objects, things and facts, it is just the question, how he interacts with them; namely passive or aggressive. The two words dont fit in a general sense, though.

And when you have the N, who sees primarily relations between objects, you cant really decide if he does this passively or aggressively. Because an aggressive Seer would be commonly interpretated as being nuts.Then you have to decide by which means he rationalizes the information gathered, namely T or F.

 

[Jack Flak]

Oh without a doubt, the man’s marketing of the system should be applauded. But’s it’s temperament not type and he admits it. As for correlating Jack, I would like to know your ideas because as I have said before Keirsey is not consistent with his descriptions since he writes the ISJ and ISPs with considering the common function Si and Se respectively, however writes the NT and NF descriptions using both the dominant and auxiliary functions combined.

Does he go into function use at all? I don't remember, lost the book a long time ago, but I did glean that he values functional analysis little, like myself. Too much extrapolation.

 

[entropie]

I thought that to be the prime fun@extrapolation

 

["?"]

I tend to aggree with Jack. That whole J and p thing does have the slight meaning that explains, if someone is more eager to use a rational or irrational function on the world. That whole explanation oj "Judgement" and "perceiving" totally got it wrong, because the main point was concentrated on the distribution of functions. The type code is merely a mnemonic to describe function distribution.

If I am not mistaken, Myers-Briggs created the codes merely to make it easier to determine type with the indicator. It was easier to create a forced choice question between E/I, S/N, T/F and so on than to create a question to determine Ti, Si, Ni, etc, hence the dichotomies.

She also leads readers to believe that Jung gave very little credence to introversion and based his theory on extraversion for the most part, resulting in the reversal of codes to show the J/P on introverted types. However as I have continued to argue the final code is redundant since it merely repeats which function extraverts.

Referring back to the quote I pasted above from Jung, the auxiliary function is not strong enough on it’s own to be given the consideration proposed by Myers-Briggs. It merely gives a differing flavor to the type when you change out the auxiliary. Myers-Briggs and Keirsey have done impeccable work to expound on type, but their theories only correlate because Keirsey used the four letter codes the same as Socionics and Berens. Just MHO.

 

[entropie]

Then I am sorry, I am not so fond with the history of MBTI and I am not very fond also at understanding it, how it was supposed to be meant.

I like to interpret it my way and to give it a meaning to better my life together with other humans.

But I will follow the thread and learn more and eventually slip in.

 

[Jack Flak]

The flipping was a large catalyst in my decision to minimize thinking about functions at all. The socionics system retains Jung's functions, and since I'm INTP and INTp, I have two mutually exclusive dominant functions listed, Ti and Ni, and they both make sense on their own terms. When you can do that, something's wrong.

 

[entropie]

hmm, I hope I got the english right. With flipping you mean the distinct fixation for the types to have certain functions ?

I really only know 1 iNTp in real life, he is my longest and closest friends (if something like this exists at all) I had over all the years and he has that faculty of presenting how Ti and Ne can work the other way around.

We both have a knack for the new and unknown, but his knack is pulsing. That means he is there from times to times telling me something he discovered, discussing something with me, he discovered and then he is gone for a long time and I dont see him.

Sometimes he comes up months later with a thing we discovered together and gives me his thoughts about it. Sometimes I am unfair to him, because by the time I could have lost my intrest in the topic and do not listen to him carefully.

Most of the time he IS pretty boring, because he has the ability to explain a situation in detail and that can go along way .

And in our time we had together, there always was a point when he clicked. That means, when he draw himself back from the world and all he does then is lieing in a couche somewhere sleeping, what qualifies him for the Introvert tag.

I dont know, I have a completly different understanding of the functions sometimes than most people in the forums and I think I could really contribute with some things. For example you Jack Ti and Ni is complete BS, I think. An Introverted Perceiver is someone, who has his things in the world that intrest him and who takes the world in a personalized view. Watch Über, you can talk to him all nite and he learns nothing (at least he does not show it, what not means he does not do it).

You on the contrary, read every thread on the forums, validate every single idea and if you find something you are intrested in you snap onto it. You are Ti that's for sure, but you may not confuse that with the way you see the world.

---

I am not here to defend the MBTI theory or anything. I dont know much about the history aswell, but I am eager to get it to know, but I will never base my decisions on it.

I have a basic intuition and empathie for like all my life and MBTI was/is a tool to clarify things. I am not against bettering it, but I fear I cant help much with it, because when it comes to psychology, I am more a child listening to his father, because I cant make my mind around those things.

But I dont think it could threaten me in believing the wrong thing, because to be sure, MBTI is nothing but a few nice words.

 

[burkeus]

"For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate..."

Again?!? Actually, no.

 

[Jack Flak]

entropie: I do fit most descriptions of Ti dom + Ne quite well, I know. It's the definitions I have a problem with, and function order. I prefer to just say I'm INTP, so I'm more adept at intuition and thinking than sensing and feeling, and I'm introverted, and I'm whatever the hell perceiving means. To go farther, you have to start making shit up, and why? What's the point? You tell me.

 

[entropie]

entropie: I do fit most descriptions of Ti dom + Ne quite well, I know. It's the definitions I have a problem with, and function order. I prefer to just say I'm INTP, so I'm more adept at intuition and thinking than sensing and feeling, and I'm introverted, and I'm whatever the hell perceiving means. To go farther, you have to start making shit up, and why? What's the point? You tell me.

There is no going father from here. Now it's about understanding how this works. That is commonly a entp thing. You say something and then you proof it or try to understand it. When you think you are done you can go farther, but most of the time it is the process of analyzing that carries you further.

But I think you mean something different and that is really intresting. Stop me, if I am getting it wrong, I havent read the whole thread .

If you see the human being as someone disconnected from nature, as any rational would do. In a way that says that the mind is disconnected from nature. And then you try to define the human mind. What it is made of, how it works. You will find that computer logic, where zeros and ones deductively analyze the world. You have a rational cabable body now.

But whats next and that is a common question I encountered with intp's. What is to be done, when things are analyzed ?

I figured, either way intp's are good at hiding their introvertism, because deep at night they go insane or they are afraid of laying hands on the greatest contradictonary thing there is in their life.

See entp has it easy. he says 99% percent shit and 1% is ok and that we build. But intp has not the faculty or need to say shit, so how can he come to the building part ?

That's the big question to be asked about the intp. If you want to analyze, what this MBTI really has to say.

 

[Jack Flak]

There is no going father from here. Now it's about understanding how this works. That is commonly a entp thing. You say something and then you proof it or try to understand it. When you think you are done you can go farther, but most of the time it is the process of analyzing that carries you further.

That's the justification I allude to. I could write you an essay proving that you're INFP based on your obvious use of Fi and Ne, etc., but it would be complete bullshit...As I believe most of the study is anyway....

 

[entropie]

Hmm, now I have got your point.

 

[entropie]

That was just an example @INFP

wasn't it ?

 

[Jack Flak]

That was just an example @INFP

wasn't it ?

LOL yep.