X's in type make very little sense

[booyalab]

The X stands for Xtreme P.

 

[Little Linguist]

^You're right, it doesn't make any sense. Why have only three of us seen this?

Do you mean what I said or what he said????

Hmmm...I was hoping someone could clarify the whole thing a bit more, but alas....

Gahhhhhhhhh!!!

Okay, anyway, I guess the solution will never be found. Is a person who is Ne>Fi>Fe>Ni>Ti>Se>Te>Si an ENFP or an ENFJ or an ENFX?

 

[Jack Flak]

Do you mean what I said or what he said????

Hmmm...I was hoping someone could clarify the whole thing a bit more, but alas....

Gahhhhhhhhh!!!

Okay, anyway, I guess the solution will never be found. Is a person who is Ne>Fi>Fe>Ni>Ti>Se>Te>Si an ENFP or an ENFJ or an ENFX?

It's that people either assume "the leading theory" (one of several) of function order is correct, and base many of their self-assessments on this arbitrary scheme; or they take a test (which may test something meaningful, or not) and use the order it spits out. Either way it's kind of a barbed wire canoe.

 

[Little Linguist]

Ah, who gives a crap? I'm going with my original idea, my type is:

CRAZ.

Problem solved.

 

[Jack Flak]

That's better, LL. *silly smileys and stuff*

Don't think I'm discounting 16-type, I've become a Keirseyan for the most part. +some socionics.

 

[Little Linguist]

That's better, LL. *silly smileys and stuff*

Don't think I'm discounting 16-type, I've become a Keirseyan for the most part. +some socionics.

You're a Keirseyan? I'm a crazy fart - pleased to meet ya! *holds out hand*

Nahhh, but seriously - how is that all that different?? (Yeah, I'm an ignorant person, but at least I admit it and ask questions to correct it).

 

[Jack Flak]

Keirsey doesn't use functional analysis. I think he explains it in Please Understand Me II but I haven't read it in years.

 

[Ivy]

In my case, it's because my best-fit type doesn't fit all that well. The closest thing I've come to is INFP, but I don't feel much kinship with other INFPs for the most part. I'm way more J than my husband but too indecisive to think J in general. And I'm the most T in my family-- which isn't saying much, but it skews my perspective. Basically I don't think I'm capable of objectivity and I can't quite identify the middles, so I reserve judgment.

Also I kind of like being an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in mystery.

 

[Little Linguist]

Keirsey doesn't use functional analysis. I think he explains it in Please Understand Me II but I haven't read it in years.

Hmm...I'd read the book, but I'm a conundrum. Nahhh, I guess I'll have to take a look.

 

[Usehername]

1. It's not a true scientific theory.
2. People are complex.
3. As with anything, nature vs. nuture ALWAYS interact. Sometimes it's difficult to pull out what's nature in an environment that has demanded otherwise for a long time.
4. Some "x"s make more sense than others if you are a CP theorist. (i.e. INxJ makes sense b/c you can still identify yourself as an Ni dom, yet INTx doesn't as much, because you'd either be Ni/Te or Ti/Ne which are very different ways of being, and very different ways of interacting with the world.

 

[Little Linguist]

In my case, it's because my best-fit type doesn't fit all that well. The closest thing I've come to is INFP, but I don't feel much kinship with other INFPs for the most part. And I'm the most T in my family-- which isn't saying much, but it skews my perspective. Basically I don't think I'm capable of objectivity so I reserve judgment.

Also I kind of like being an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in mystery.

Sweet, then you know how I feel! Or think? Heh.

Well, anyway, I guess I will just have to do more research to see what I am. Self-knoweldge is essential.

 

[booyalab]

Kiersey couldn't use functional analysis because some types that have opposite cognitive processes are not opposite temperaments.

For instance: The opposite of the ENTJs' cognitive processes (Te Ni Se Fi) is ISFP (Fi Se Ni Te) but the opposite of it's temperament (abstract utilitarian) is not the ISFP temperament (concrete utilitarian), it's concrete cooperator.

 

[Jack Flak]

^Keirsey decided to avoid the problem because temperament is observable while function use isn't, necessarily.

 

[Little Linguist]

^Keirsey decided to avoid the problem because temperament is observable while function use isn't, necessarily.

Are there any good online resources, or does one necessarily have to buy the book?

 

[CharmedFantasy]

I put myself as ISFJ/INFJ because I can relate to some descriptions of both of them(compared to all other types those two resemble me best)... although I do lean more towards N I think. However I don't relate to Everything that is in one or the other, it's like alittle of both... so why can't I put both of them in? I don't really see why someone has to be completely one type and expect them to be everything it describes them to be. We are not clones o.o but w/e it's not a huge deal to me >.>. I like both! so hah!

 

[Jack Flak]

Are there any good online resources, or does one necessarily have to buy the book?

Online resources for what, specifically. Well there's no reason to ask, here's everything: Personality Test - Keirsey Temperament Website.

 

[Ivy]

Animated furry avatar is pretty much shoe-in for NF, don't you think?

 

[Little Linguist]

Online resources for what, specifically. Well there's no reason to ask, here's everything: Personality Test - Keirsey Temperament Website.

Heh. Interesting - with that one, I relate more with the Teacher...and not just because I am a teacher - although that helps - but yeah...Interesting....Let's take the test and see.

 

[booyalab]

^Keirsey decided to avoid the problem because temperament is observable while function use isn't, necessarily.

I don't think they're that different. Temperament is just more holistic and harder to falsify because you're going from generals to particulars. Any outliers can be lumped into 'things that aren't MBTI'.

 

[Jack Flak]

OK those are good things right?