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.
Does this resonate for you? For example - do you find yourself using your dominant and inferior functions together? Do you find yourself using your auxilary and tertiary functions together?
The so-called "tandems" go hand in hand with the model that says that an INFP's functions (for example) are Fi-Ne-Si-Te. That model is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks, has no respectable body of evidence behind it — and indeed, for the reasons described below, should really be considered all but disproven at this point.
As further explained in the two-post discussion starting here, Jung's function stacks for an Ni-dom with a T-aux and a Ti-dom with an N-aux were Ni-Ti-Fe-Se and Ti-Ni-Se-Fe, respectively. And Myers' stacks for those two were Ni-Te-Fe-Se and Ti-Ne-Se-Fe.
Myers acknowledged that her take on the Jungian auxiliary function ran counter to the majority (all but one, she said) of Jung scholars — but nobody respectable really disagrees with the idea that Jung thought that the attitude of the tertiary function was opposite to the attitude of the dominant function (in the typical case), and that was also Myers' view.
The INFP=Fi-Ne-Si-Te model was apparently first formulated by a guy named Harold Grant in the appendix to a religious book (I am not making this up) called Image to Likeness: A Jungian Path in the Gospel Journey in 1983. And it never should have gotten any traction, but — thanks to shining lights like Linda Berens — you can find that model all over the internet today.
Wiser MBTI theorists (like Naomi Quenk) have refrained from adopting Grant's view of the tertiary function, and as previously noted, it has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.
The James Reynierse article ("The Case Against Type Dynamics") that I'm always linking to talks about a theoretical framework that he calls "preference multidimensionality" — which, if you set aside some of Reynierse's more questionable proposed embellishments, is shorthand for what was essentially Isabel Myers' perspective, rather than being an original new framing. The fact that the four MBTI dichotomies (like the Big Five factors they correlate with) appear to be tapping into the core clusters of Jungian/MBTI personality emphatically doesn't mean that there aren't significant aspects of personality that more than one of those dichotomies contributes to. Decades of data (including Reynierse's studies) show that there are lots of personality characteristics that correspond to a wide variety of dichotomy combinations, and the 1985 MBTI Manual (co-authored by Myers) included a brief description corresponding to each of the 24 possible two-letter combinations.
But what the data also shows is that the only times the so-called "cognitive functions" have any validity is when they piggyback on the simple additive effects of the corresponding dichotomy combinations. And where the Grant functions model goes beyond, or is inconsistent with, the simple, dichotomy-based "preference multidimensionality" expectation — e.g., the Grant-model notion that there are "Fi/Te vs. Fe/Ti" aspects of personality where TJs and FPs are on one side of the divide and TPs and FJs are on the other — the real world virtually never seems to reflect those Grant-model expectations.
The way type really works is that S's and N's are opposites (or opposite-ish) when it comes to S/N stuff and J's and P's are opposites (or opposite-ish) when it comes to J/P stuff, and — believe it or not! — SJs and NPs are opposites (or opposite-ish) when it comes to SJ/NP stuff.
In decades of MBTI data pools, the patterns corresponding to the so-called "tandems" have virtually never shown up. Whatever it is that any particular study is correlating with MBTI type, if it's something with respect to which the SJs tend to be out toward one end of the correlational spectrum, you can expect to find the NPs out toward the other end. You virtually never find the SJs and NPs together on one side (because Ne/Si types) and the NJs and SPs together on the other (because Ni/Se types). And that's in stark contrast to the multitude of data pools — over more than 50 years — where substantial correlations have shown up between the MBTI dichotomies (and various dichotomy combinations) and a host of personality and behavioral characteristics.
Statistically significant correlations in reasonably large samples is how the validity of personality typologies gets respectably established. Without them, you might as well be talking about somebody being a Pisces.
And again, neither Jung nor Myers described those kinds of patterns, and in fact, Jung's conception of the inferior function was inconsistent with the "tandem" idea in two different ways — as further explained in the first spoiler.
First, Jung said that the inferior function was unsuited to work constructively "alongside" the dominant function because it was "by its very nature too strongly opposed to" the dominant function, and accordingly needed to be "rigorously excluded" for the dominant function to operate properly and be "true to its own principle."
And second, Jung said that the inferior function, in addition to being in an "archaic, animal state," fused with the other unconscious function (or functions) and therefore incapable of usefully having a "direction," also typically manifested in a problematic way that made it more like the opposite of that same function in the dominant role. For example:
Jung said that, whereas Ne-doms have a knack for sniffing out the latest trends and the ways things could be changed for the better, the inferior Ne of Si-doms tends to exhibit "an amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background" and has "a dangerous and destructive quality" — with the result that Ne-doms tend to embrace/cause change, while Si-doms tend to fear/resist change.
Similarly, in describing the ways inferior Fi tended to manifest in a Te-dom, Jung described several examples of unethical behavior and commented that "only an inferior feeling function, operating unconsciously and in secret, could seduce otherwise reputable men into such aberrations." He said a Te-dom's inferior feelings tend to have "a sultry and resentful character," and to lead the Te-dom to "make negative assumptions about other people."
Describing Fe-doms, Jung said that their inferior thinking tends to be "infantile, archaic [and] negative," and to take the form of "obsessive ideas which are invariably of a negative and depreciatory character," noting that "women of this type have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten on the very objects most valued by their feelings."
Myers tended to talk about inferior functions in more dichotomous terms — e.g., with N's tending to view/experience S in negative terms (rather than talking about, e.g., "Ni" and "Se"). But the second edition of the MBTI Manual noted that the types with either form of N as their inferior function — the "ISJ and ESP types" — are prone to view "possibilities" in overly negative terms, and urged MBTI counselors to help them "develop strategies to counteract the 'black cloud effect.'"
So... unlike internet forumites who've put their faith in bad type sources and think that Si-doms and Ne-doms actually have substantial aspects of personality in common onnaccounta they're both "Si/Ne types," Jung and Myers were both inclined to view Si-doms and Ne-doms as pretty much just opposites.
And as far as the auxiliary and tertiary functions go: Again, Myers didn't believe someone's tertiary function had the opposite attitude to the auxiliary (e.g., her INTJ stack was Ni-Te-Fe-Se). Jung thought the auxiliary and tertiary would be opposites in the typical case (e.g., Ti-Ni-Se-Fe), but he also thought that it was typical for the tertiary function (1) to be predominantly unconscious, (2) to be "undifferentiated" and "fused" with the inferior function, and (3) to basically serve as the inferior function's auxiliary. So Jung no more thought that tertiary Si (in the typical case) resembled the positive form of Si in the dominant role — and worked in constructive tandem with an Ne auxiliary function — than he thought an Si inferior worked in constructive tandem with an Ne dominant.
And in any case, setting aside what Jung or Myers thought, the most important thing to understand is that the idea of tandem-based types has no respectable body of empirical support behind it. They've been collecting data and doing studies involving MBTI types for decades now, and as previously noted, those data pools consistently show that if whatever's being correlated with your MBTI type is something that's affected by both your S/N and J/P preferences, and the SJs are at one end of the applicable spectrum, where can you reliably expect to find the NPs, kids? That's right! At the opposite end of the spectrum.
That 2009 Reynierse article is one of a series of articles that Reynierse (and Harker) published in the Journal of Psychological Type (which is published by the official MBTI folks) and that strongly argued against the Harold Grant model and scoffed at its lack of validity, as well as taking a sharp swipe or two at Naomi Quenk for her ongoing support of "type dynamics." And Quenk is about as "establishment MBTI" as you can get, having authored or co-authored lots of official MBTI materials, including the Step II Manual. Outside her "official" MBTI work, as Reynierse pointed out, she's been a pretty big cognitive functions person — although, as previously noted, she's remained agnostic on the issue of the tertiary's attitude — and you'd better believe she's someone who has ready access to the vast trove of MBTI data that's been gathered over the last 50 years.
Reynierse's articles caused quite a stir in the MBTI community, as I understand it. And all Quenk or Berens or Nardi or any of those other cognitive functions people needed to do to refute his assertion that the functions are just a "category mistake" — not to mention provide, at long last, some respectable support for the functions — was to go through the vast stores of existing MBTI data and find a respectable body of results reflecting one of those patterns (TJs/FPs on one side and TPs/FJs on the other, or SJs/NPs on one side and SPs/NJs on the other). Because if either of those patterns — which are decidedly inconsistent with simple "preference multidimensionality" — ever turned up in a respectable body of MBTI data, well, that's what validity is all about.
And instead, as I understand it, the response to Reynierse (as far as the validity issue goes) was... *crickets*
At this point, the aspect of the Harold Grant functions model that says that an INTJ has "tertiary Fi" (i.e., has MBTI-related aspects of personality that they share with INFPs, and that INFJs don't share with INFPs), and that an INFP has "tertiary Si" (i.e., has MBTI-related aspects of personality that they share with ISTJs, and that ISTPs don't share with ISTJs) is past the point of being able to respectably claim "not yet proven" status, and should really be considered disproven by anyone who likes to think of themselves as reality-oriented. Because at this point I think it's pretty much safe to assume (1) that, if any respectable body of data existed in support of those "tandem" patterns, we would have heard about it, and (2) that if no such body of data exists within all those decades of studies, that means the tandems lack validity.
And just in case you're stroking your chin and thinking, well, maybe there isn't any respectable body of data showing those patterns yet, but that's just because the vast majority of psychologists who've been gathering MBTI data have been dichotomy-oriented (which is certainly true) and so they weren't really testing the Grant model. Well, if that's what you're thinking, you're wrong, because MBTI test results aren't tests of any particular hypothesized patterns. They're just the subjects' MBTI types, and when they're correlated against whatever's being studied, the correlational patterns are whatever they are. And if the TPs and FJs are on one side and the TJs and FP are on the other, then bingo! — you've got results that would support the notion (take that, James Reynierse!) that "Fe/Ti" and "Fi/Te" are among the relevant personality components. But, as I've noted, they somehow never seem to be.
But reckful, you might be thinking to yourself, data pools or no data pools: INTJs and Fi! It just rings so true!
Well, if that's what you're thinking... I've put some bonus discussion of the Forer effect in the spoiler.
The MBTI as a whole — including the dichotomy-centric side — sometimes gets wrongly compared to astrology, and its detractors sometimes claim that MBTI followers only think it works because of the Forer effect. That charge is unwarranted with respect to the MBTI dichotomies, and the same (often dramatic) correlations between the dichotomies (and dichotomy combinations) and countless real-world things that have respectably established the MBTI's validity have also effectively countered the Forer claims. But if you're wondering how so many forumites have convinced themselves that INTJs are "Fi" types and INTPs are "Fe" types (for example), I'd say the answer to that question is basically the Forer effect.
If an INTJ is looking for support for the Grant model and reads an Fi description — and especially, reads it with the idea that it's not, you know, one of their main two functions — then it's certainly not unlikely that some or all of the description will provoke something along the lines of "yeah, I do that sometimes." And if they're a Grant model believer (or looking to be one), they're not unlikely to nod and say, "So there's my Fi in action."
Of course, a more meaningful test of the Grant model (and the tandems) is seeing whether INTJs are a lot more likely to relate to Fi descriptions than INTPs — and INTPs are a lot more likely to relate to Fe descriptions than INTJs. And anyone who's perused the posted results from the famous Nardi functions test I analyze in the spoiler in this post knows that INTJs and INTPs alike tend to favor (at least Nardi's version of) Fi over Fe. And all the IN types tend to relate pretty strongly to Ti. And etc. (There's never been a cognitive functions test where the results come anywhere close to lining up with the Grant model expectations.)
Anyway, moving on, another reason "tertiary function" stuff may seem to ring true is if real MBTI-related personality aspects get misattributed to the purported function-related combination. So, for example, somebody may nod and say, "yeah, INTJs are more Fi types and INTPs are more Fe types" because of J/P differences that make the typical INTJ more stubborn and non-accommodating (when they think they're right) and the INTPs more easygoing/accommodating and less likely to insist on their own rightness when a disagreement arises. And the silliness of that particular example becomes clearer when you focus on the fact that the stubborn/arrogant insistence on the rightness of their views that's being attributed to the INTJs' "Fi" corresponds so poorly with typical ISFP descriptions, notwithstanding the fact that ISFPs are purportedly one of the two "Fi-dom" types — and anyone who's interested can find some pertinent excerpts from ISFP profiles in the first spoiler in this post.
And at this point somebody might say, well, but reckful, everybody knows that the functions manifest somewhat differently depending on where they are in the stack. And hopefully I can leave that famous theoretical kludge pretty much unaddressed. It's one thing to allow for some degree of variation between Fi in the dom and tert positions, and quite another to point to "Fi/Te" types as a group with substantial "Fi/Te" things in common while also allowing Fi's manifestation in INTJs to sound almost nothing like (or more like the opposite of) Fi's manifestation in ISFPs. I think it's fair to say that the latter degree of theoretical, uh, flexibility is Mr. Forer's best friend.
Still awake? For a little more fun with Linda Berens, Harold Grant and Bertram Forer, read on!
==========================================
Linda Berens's latest "lens" is something she calls the "Cognitive Styles," and it's the apotheosis of the Harold Grant functions model, since it's the four groups who have all the same functions under the Grant model. So it's based on all the things that, for example, INTJs, ENTJs, ESFPs and ISFPs (who she calls the Orchestratingâ„¢ types) have in common.
You can take a free "introductory course" here if you're interested. The style descriptions are truly Forer-on-steroids — and I mean, they'd have to be, wouldn't they?
To quote Ms. Berens:
Berens said:
I've been working with psychological type models since 1975, and we realized that there's a pattern that we hadn't really detected yet. So over the last six years we've been doing research and exploring and seeing if we can detect what this pattern is, and then we're calling it Cognitive Styles because it's reflective not of cognitive processes and not of separate preferences but a whole style that has a theme of its own.
Once you discover this exciting lens and gain some practice with it, you will see that it informs the other preferences you have, and they inform it, in a magnetic way, keeping the patterns in place. This really helps us make sense of the world while we grow and develop. I believe all growth occurs on this platform of the magnetic lenses.
Here's the first anecdotal example they offer us of the Orchestrating Mind in action:
Montoya said:
Craig was a training director at a new company. The organization's sales were down and needed to let some people from the organization go in the next few months. They put him in charge of the initiative even though he had never had any experience with it. He started a campaign to frame the communication intentionally in realistic, positive drips. Based on a few conversations he had with some of the impacted people before they knew, they wanted to feel cared about. He leveraged this information by planning a few career change seminars and outplacement support, with a free resume service to help people in the process. The result was well received, and people were grateful that the organization tried to help them through the process. The organization was grateful to Craig that there were no lawsuits or grievances from it.
Naturally Craig (an INTJ) handled that situation the same way an ESFP would have, and quite differently from the way a Customizingâ„¢ INFJ or an Enhancingâ„¢ ISFJ or an Authenticatingâ„¢ ISTJ would have handled it, because, for example, the INFJ would have...
Oops! They don't tell us what any of the other types would have done differently! That's not what you do if you're being Foreresque! If you're being Foreresque, you use different anecdotes for the different types, and you make sure they all sound pretty much like what just about anybody might do. Clever Linda Berens! Clever Chris Montoya!
This is all very interesting. So you believe that there is evidence that supports the dichotomies and no evidence to support cognitive processes or functions. Is that right?
Do you believe in cognitive functions/processes at all? If you don't, then I can see why you would say that tandem functions don't have any validity. It almost seems as if you feel that even the original theory was derived from those jungian cognitive functions - you think that is irrelevant. All that matters is the dichotomies because that's the only thing supported by the data.
I have seen the question on the direction/orientation of the tertiary in the MBTI manuals but it doesn't seem to be mentioned in a lot of other places these days. Who these days believes that the tertiary is an opposite attitude of the dominant function? Even if that is in question, it still doesn't invalidate that the dominant and inferior functions could potentially have a "tandem" relationship. I don't think there is disagreement on the direction of the inferior.
It doesn't surprise me that you don't like Montoya's stuff - which basically groups the types into four buckets of types that share the top 4 functions. I'm not sure if I believe in that yet or not. It seems interesting. As I understand it, he took 40 pages of interview information for each of the 16 types, took their quotes and put it on index cards and let that analysis - which well - seem to be supported by some kind of data - take him to these groupings. The way Berens describes it, all INTJs have a little bit of SFP in them. I can believe that.
I don't claim to know all the answers. My personal experience is that the cognitive processes enrich my understanding of how others think, so I tend to think it has some validity. I get this sense if for no other reason than my observations of people that I know and my perceptions as to how their minds work. As to each type's stack 1 - 8 and how valid the supposed roles or ordering is - I am not sure. I am pretty sure as an INTJ that if I possess a feeling function, that it aligns with a introverted feeling description and not an extraverted feeling one. I know for sure that ISFJ and INFJs that I know demonstrate thinking that looks a lot more like an extraverted feeling description than introverted feeling. I can see the conflicts that arise between people who are "supposed" to be using those respective feeling functions. I can see the differences between people that seem to prefer Ti vs Te. That is very obvious and starkly different. So as a concept, I think it works. It helps me to understand people.
One more question - if you are sure you are an INTJ - and you have read the descriptions for Introverted Feeling and Extraverted Feeling - which one resonates better for you personally? For the sake of argument, use these descriptions here. Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes
One more question - if you are sure you are an INTJ - and you have read the descriptions for Introverted Feeling and Extraverted Feeling - which one resonates better for you personally? For the sake of argument, use these descriptions here. Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes
As I noted in the second spoiler in my first post, it's been my experience that all four IN types tend to favor Fi over Fe when they take that test, and that's certainly been true of both the INTJs and the INTPs who've posted their results in that long thread at INTJforum. As I assume you know, and as discussed at some length in this post (also linked to in my first post), the function results on Nardi's test are typically very much out of whack with the Grant stack. And that's consistent with the fact that, as I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs tend to get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs tend to get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model.
On a related note, and in case you're interested, I've put some recycled reckful (from another forum) on bad Fe descriptions in the spoiler.
The internet is crawling with descriptions of "Fe" and "Fi" (among other "cognitive functions") that, combined with faulty function stacks, are often poor matches in various ways for the supposedly corresponding types.
I just participated in a thread at another forum where a poster said that INFJs tend to be more "emotionally expressive" than ENFPs. Because "Fe" vs. "Fi," dontcha know. And I've put some of my reply in the first spoiler.
If you're under the impression that the average INFJ (because "Fe type"!) is more emotionally expressive than the average ENFP (because "Fi type"!), you've let a silly "cognitive functions" model lead you seriously off the rails from a reality-based perspective.
What's more, you've certainly adopted a perspective that's inconsistent with Jung. Jung rightly understood that emotional expressiveness was first and foremost an E/I thing. As he explained:
The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, because his whole nature goes outwards to the object. ... The introvert, on the other hand, who reacts almost entirely within, cannot as a rule discharge his reactions except in explosions of affect. He suppresses them, though they may be just as quick as those of the extravert. They do not appear on the surface, hence the introvert may easily give the impression of slowness. Since immediate reactions are always strongly personal, the extravert cannot help asserting his personality. But the introvert hides his personality by suppressing all his immediate reactions. Empathy is not his aim, nor the transference of contents to the object, but rather abstraction from the object. ... As a rule one is badly informed about the introvert because his real self is not visible. His incapacity for immediate outward reaction keeps his personality hidden. ...
Both [extraverts and introverts] are capable of enthusiasm. What fills the extravert's heart flows out of his mouth, but the enthusiasm of the introvert is the very thing that seals his lips.
If you're looking for the types who are the most and least "emotionally expressive," you should mostly be thinking in terms of the EFs and the ITs, not in terms of the FJs/TPs vs. the FPs/TJs. And probably needless to say, if somebody's MBTI perspective revolves around the goofy Harold Grant function stack (where INFJ = Ni-Fe-Ti-Se) — a model that's inconsistent with Jung and Myers, and has no respectable validity — they're likely to mostly or totally ignore combinations like EF and IT.
EF? IT? WTF?! They don't correspond to any functions, man.
You might also have read that "Fe types" tend to adopt the values of their culture or some other group they're part of — in contrast to "Fi types" who are more independent/individualistic in arriving at their values. But that's a piss poor framing for several of the types who supposedly "use" those functions, including INFJs.
And as with the "emotional expressiveness" idea, besides being a bad match with reality, that "group values" notion (as applied to INFJs) is also strongly inconsistent with Jung, who believed that it was extraverts generally whose values tended to reflect "external factors" (e.g., culturally-dominant values), while introverts generally tended to be independent minded. And I've put some recycled reckful on that issue in the next spoiler.
Here's Jung describing extraverts and introverts:
[W]e shall come upon individuals who in all their judgments, perceptions, feelings, affects, and actions feel external factors to be the predominant motivating force, or who at least give weight to them no matter whether causal or final motives are in question. I will give some examples of what I mean. St. Augustine: "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." ... One man finds a piece of modern music beautiful because everybody else pretends it is beautiful. Another marries in order to please his parents but very much against his own interests. ... There are not a few who in everything they do or don't do have but one motive in mind: what will others think of them? "One need not be ashamed of a thing if nobody knows about it."
[The previous examples] point to a psychological peculiarity that can be sharply distinguished from another attitude which, by contrast, is motivated chiefly by internal or subjective factors. A person of this type might say: "I know I could give my father the greatest pleasure if I did so and so, but I don't happen to think that way." ... There are some who feel happy only when they are quite sure nobody knows about it, and to them a thing is disagreeable just because it is pleasing to everyone else. They seek the good where no one would think of finding it. ... Such a person would have replied to St. Augustine: "I would believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel it." Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion.
So... that's what Jung thought, and that's the main reason the majority values focus was there in his Fe-dom description. To Jung, it was first and foremost an extravert characteristic, rather than an Fe characteristic.
Was Jung right to identify this as predominantly an E/I issue? Well, not exactly, I wouldn't say. All other things being equal, I'd say an introvert is more likely to be independent-minded than an extravert, but I think S vs. N is the biggest factor — and, among the S's, and as I think Keirsey rightly noted, SJs are the most likely to be majoritarian/traditional in their beliefs. But as a final note, Jung assigned what's arguably the lion's share of the modern conception of S/N (the concrete/abstract duality) to E/I, with the result that, when Jung looked out at the world and spotted what he thought was a definite "extravert," he was presumably more often looking at what we'd consider an ES than an EN — and, conversely, the cussedly independent/individualistic "introverts" he spotted were presumably more often INs than ISs.
As a final note on Jung and Fe and Fi: As discussed at length in this two-part post (also linked in my first post), Jung didn't believe that the auxiliary function would have the opposite attitude to the dominant, and that means Jung didn't expect that any introverted type (INFJs included) would be an "Fe" type or that any extraverted type would be an "Fi" type.
Responding to more of your post is on my to-do list for tomorrow.
As I noted in the second spoiler in my first post, it's been my experience that all four IN types tend to favor Fi over Fe when they take that test, and that's certainly been true of both the INTJs and the INTPs who've posted their results in that long thread at INTJforum. As I assume you know, and as discussed at some length in this post (also linked to in my first post), the function results on Nardi's test are typically very much out of whack with the Grant stack. And that's consistent with the fact that, as I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs tend to get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs tend to get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model.
On a related note, and in case you're interested, I've put some recycled reckful (from another forum) on bad Fe descriptions in the spoiler.
As a final note on Jung and Fe and Fi: As discussed at length in this two-part post (also linked in my first post), Jung didn't believe that the auxiliary function would have the opposite attitude to the dominant, and that means Jung didn't expect that any introverted type (INFJs included) would be an "Fe" type or that any extraverted type would be an "Fi" type.
Responding to more of your post is on my to-do list for tomorrow.
On Fe vs. Fi, I would read the following post which is the culmination of a rather long thread about the differences between Fe and Fi. That is summarizing perspectives and input from a lot of people. That spolier you had focuses too much on the emotional expressiveness aspect of things.
I am not super impressed with the quality nor consistency of results from Nardi's cognitive function tests. Maybe it's just not such a good test. I have always thought the best one is the MBTI Step 2 but it seems to me there is an opportunity to develop a better instrument. Maybe I will develop one some day.
On Fe vs. Fi, I would read the following post which is the culmination of a rather long thread about the differences between Fe and Fi. That is summarizing perspectives and input from a lot of people. That spolier you had focuses too much on the emotional expressiveness aspect of things.
It sounds like you misunderstood my post. That spoiler wasn't intended to be my take on what Fe or Fi are about. It was just two examples of the kind of poor function characterizations that lead people astray.
I agree with Reynierse that the functions are a "category mistake," pure and simple. Depending on what particular function description someone may be using, it can have some piggybacked validity from the dichotomies involved — e.g., an "Fe" description will have validity with respect to FJs if it is, in fact, made up of characteristics that F and J preferences tend to produce.
But as explained at length in my first post, an "Fe" description comprised of characteristics that F and J preferences tend to produce will have no validity if you try to apply it to TPs on the ground that they're "Ti/Fe" types and have "Fe" stuff in common with the FJs that FPs and TJs don't have.
It sounds like you misunderstood my post. That spoiler wasn't intended to be my take on what Fe or Fi are about. It was just two examples of the kind of poor function characterizations that lead people astray.
I agree with Reynierse that the functions are a "category mistake," pure and simple. Depending on what particular function description someone may be using, it can have some piggybacked validity from the dichotomies involved — e.g., an "Fe" description will have validity with respect to FJs if it is, in fact, made up of characteristics that F and J preferences tend to produce.
But as explained at length in my first post, an "Fe" description comprised of characteristics that F and J preferences tend to produce will have no validity if you try to apply it to TPs on the ground that they're "Ti/Fe" types and have "Fe" stuff in common with the FJs that FPs and TJs don't have.
Beatrice Chestnut thinks we can't make a lot of sense of the instincts without understanding the enneagram type they are attached to. Maybe that is analogous per your explanation.
On Fe vs. Fi, I would read the following post which is the culmination of a rather long thread about the differences between Fe and Fi. That is summarizing perspectives and input from a lot of people. That spolier you had focuses too much on the emotional expressiveness aspect of things.
I am not super impressed with the quality nor consistency of results from Nardi's cognitive function tests. Maybe it's just not such a good test. I have always thought the best one is the MBTI Step 2 but it seems to me there is an opportunity to develop a better instrument. Maybe I will develop one some day.
I think the Fe vs. Fi discussions can have value, as long as they are talking about Fe vs. Fi in the (in the Type Dynamics sense) dominant or auxiliary positions.That is, F+J (Fe) vs F+P (Fi) can describe something real, since preference combinations can be additive. I think each "function" has its own feel and its own validity, as long as they can be ascribed to actual preference combinations.
I'm dubious about "Fi" and "Fe" in the tertiary or inferior positions, since I don't see any empirical evidence the tertiary or inferior function is really a thing. I don't see evidence of that internally (in part because I have such a strong perceiving preference, I suspect), and there's no external empirical evidence of it either. I try to keep an open mind, since others find it a useful construct, but I have yet to see evidence that the inferior or tertiary functions have real validity. Of course the emotional and subjective play a role in the lives of those who consider themselves objective and logical. Of course the logical and objective plays a role in the lives of those who consider themselves subjective and relational.
I do think there are interesting discussions to be had as far as emotional awareness, and how being emotionally aware correlates with preferring Thinking or Feeling (or even Fe vs Fi). It seems not unlikely that certain preference combinations tend to be more emotionally aware, but I suspect that's a loose correlation at best. Anyone can learn to be emotionally aware, but not everyone does.
The MBTI Step II isn't a functional/type-dynamics-based instrument, and resembles the Big Five sub-scales more than any kind of functional analysis. I found it personally useful, but it certainly isn't evidence that type dynamics are correct. One can argue that Nardi's instrument is a bad way to measure functional preference, but it remains true that no instrument (so far) has been able to find empirical evidence supporting type dynamics. It's not completely impossible that such an instrument could be invented, but so far motivated people have failed to do so.
One can argue that Nardi's instrument is a bad way to measure functional preference, but it remains true that no instrument (so far) has been able to find empirical evidence supporting type dynamics. It's not completely impossible that such an instrument could be invented, but so far motivated people have failed to do so.
I know of a couple of cases. One it work done by the Harzler's (and referenced in Functions of Type) which is referenced in the book. I don't have a copy at work, but I recall they found that often the introverted and extraverted form of a function would follow each other in preference order. So an INTJ might have Ni followed by Ne, as far as references goes (which is what we'd expect from an additive model when one combines a strong N preference with a weak J preference). I can look that up when I get home.
The Harzler's also have the Function Skill Development Assessmentâ„¢, which I haven't taken. I'm not sure that's what they used (or developed) when writing their book, but I would be surprised if the FSDA and the results mentioned in the book were unrelated.
In addition Mark Majors (creator of the Majors PTI) did some statistical analysis related to type dynamics and then gave a talk at an APT conference. Unfortunately, they didn't make an audio recording available, and Majors declined to share the results of his research when I emailed him. One of the stated goals of the Majors PTI was to "focus on evidence of type dynamics," so it's interesting no data has been forthcoming publicly.
I see that there's a pre-session at the 2015 APTi titled "Using the Advanced Jungian Scores from the Majors PIT/PT Elements: Utility for Coaching, Couples, and Organizations." (I assume the "PIT" is a typo, and it should read "PTI.")
I also see that that there's a concurrent session at the 2015 APTi titled "Growing Type: Empirical Evidence for Type Development".
We'll see if any audio recordings or slides are made available from those talks, and whether the evidence they present can't be better explained without type dynamics.
Still, at this point I'd say that there's little to no credible evidence for type dynamics, and lots of evidence that that viewing the preferences as continuous traits that have additive effects (when viewed as dyads or triads) yields a more empirically accurate view. I remain interested in evidence to the contrary, and I'll keep searching around for evidence online.
This is all very interesting. So you believe that there is evidence that supports the dichotomies and no evidence to support cognitive processes or functions. Is that right?
Do you believe in cognitive functions/processes at all? If you don't, then I can see why you would say that tandem functions don't have any validity. It almost seems as if you feel that even the original theory was derived from those jungian cognitive functions - you think that is irrelevant. All that matters is the dichotomies because that's the only thing supported by the data.
It depends what you mean by "believing in cognitive functions." As Reynierse has rightly noted, the eight functions only really work (from a psychometric standpoint) to the extent that they just piggyback on the validity of the dichotomies.
As I'm always pointing out, the modern function descriptions you'll find in Thomson, Berens, Nardi, etc. differ in many ways (large and small) from Jung's original concepts, and appear to be a set of descriptions more or less jerry-rigged to match up reasonably well with the MBTI types they purportedly correspond with. (As one dramatic example, and as described at length in this post, the description of "Si" you'll find Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk using bears little resemblance to Jung's "introverted sensation" and is instead a description made to match MBTI SJs.)
So... since "Ni" descriptions are set up to match NJs (extraverts and introverts both) reasonably well (since the EN_Js are "Ni-aux" types) and "Te" descriptions are set up to match TJs (extraverts and introverts both) reasonably well (since the I_TJs are "Te-aux" types), it's not surprising that INTJs and ENTJs both read those modern Ni and Te descriptions and feel like they relate reasonably well. (Although I can't help noting that, as discussed in the spoiler in this post, INTJs often relate pretty well to Ne and Ti descriptions as well....)
So, as a general matter... if you're looking at those modern cognitive function descriptions, and you're applying them to the types who purportedly have them as their dominant and auxiliary functions, you're likely to get quite a bit of piggybacked validity, because if an FJ description is largely made up of things that FJs tend to have in common, it's obviously going to be reasonably valid for FJs.
But none of that has anything to do with whether the functions beat Reynierse's "category mistake" rap.
As a reminder, you and I had a dichotomies-vs.-functions exchange last month in another thread, and this post of mine has some more discussion of what it means to use a "dichotomy-centric" framework, and why typical function-based framings both add nothing to that (that has any validity) and also, just as importantly, tend to miss significant aspects of personality that are included in the richer, more flexible dichotomy-centric framework.
