SF or NT?

[Turi]

what was the reason behind it then? i think it’s just perpetuating the NTs are deep, philosophical geniuses/SFs are simple, shallow materialists stereotype. you could easily find an NT doing an unboxing video, or an SF talking about something of substance

You're kinda missing the point and I'm too tired to remedy the situation, but that's alright I'll try anyway..

Basically imagine that post as a ground up tutorial on how to type people - that's lesson one, and the lesson is SF v NT, no functions or anything else involved.

Then on top of that, a whole heap of other useful information.

 

[Luigi]

I agree with your points about bias, vibes, and inconsistent methods that people claim to be"objective" but that can't be true for these reasons.

I think what you're doing is great. Thank you for sharing it. I look forward to seeing what will be revealed about this.

 

[Dashy CVII]

I'm actually a bit skeptical nowadays that T vs F comes down to Reasons vs Values. This is because values are typically the primary focus of all humans and logical types, and this is because all humans are fundamentally focused on self-interest, favor, and taste, rather than following an exact line of universal justification, which I believe would lead to a quick death. To say values are a preference, is the same as saying breathing is a preference. It's so fundamental that it's not worth dichotomizing, as you would get like 5% Ts - 95% Fs. The MBTI doesn't gauge values anyway.

Nowadays I go with the actual MBTI test definition of T vs F, which is also the Socionics definition: Logic vs Ethics. Just read any MBTI test. Logic and Ethics have to be what the functions are about, because they follow MBTI exactly.

This also means that Fs have no monopoly on emotions either.

 

[Turi]

I'm actually a bit skeptical nowadays that T vs F comes down to Reasons vs Values. This is because values are typically the primary focus of all humans and logical types, and this is because all humans are fundamentally focused on self-interest, favor, and taste, rather than following an exact line of universal justification, which I believe would lead to a quick death. To say values are a preference, is the same as saying breathing is a preference. It's so fundamental that it's not worth dichotomizing, as you would get like 5% Ts - 95% Fs. The MBTI doesn't gauge values anyway.

Nowadays I go with the actual MBTI test definition of T vs F, which is also the Socionics definition: Logic vs Ethics. Just read any MBTI test. Logic and Ethics have to be what the functions are about, because they follow MBTI exactly.

This also means that Fs have no monopoly on emotions either.

You can't actually separate values from reasons entirely, as without any reasons, you can't validate your values - and without any values, you've got nothing to reason.
I support the idea of F - values, and T - reasons, due to this - it makes the functions crystal clear and also ensures we understand F and T are intertwined.

What you're saying has some truth to it - Feeling is more primitive, more animalistic, more ingrained into being a 'human' - therefore, Feeling trumps Thinking - hence why salespeople play off of F and not T - likes, dislikes etc - that's the kind of 'value' we're talking about here - and you can get such a great feel for what they're referring to as 'values' in the video clip with the SF girl - her punchline is values - valuing - adding 'value' to things, so she says a bunch of sensory 'reasons' to support her 'F' 'value' punchlines that are along the lines of 'so, it's super cute' etc - yes, it's an over the top example of an SF type (intentional) - but it's great for demonstrating what they mean by values.

The SF girls there has plenty of T on display, she rattles off like 20 seconds of reasons at a time, but it's in support of her F values, her focus is on those F values and that's what makes her an F.


I completely understand where you're coming from, I just wanted to try and elaborate on how they're seeing and using the term 'values', because on a surface level, I agree, values and reasons as F and T is a little sketchy, it's like - don't we use both, all day every day?
..and the answer is yes, and that's also the point, essentially humans are all the same - it's like a right-hand, left-hand kinda thing, preferences - we've all got values, we've all got reasons, which one is more of a focus for the person.

So don't see it as an either/or situation, because humans aren't so black and white.

As time goes on, I'll keep 'relaying the message' so to speak, and it'll all unfold and I'm sure we'll see precisely what they mean - though I do feel I've covered it pretty well here.

 

[Yara the Corpse]

I dunno why I ever thought I was an INTP or any NT for that matter... I'm more on the NF-SF spectrum, followed by NT then ST last.

 

[Dashy CVII]

We've all got values, we've all got reasons. Which one is more of a focus for the person?

Decent post. I'm not convinced personally, as Values is something almost everyone displays more strongly than Reasons, a 95-100% / 0-5% difference. I tend to find the most psychological difference between Logic vs Ethics types of individuals, in other words: it seems to be a very distinct and easily-typed indicator where we have clear F types and weak F types. This leads me to an important point:

You can design Reasons/Values and Abstract/Physical to be a 50%/50% dichotomy of population, since it falls in a spectrum. You adjust required strength to meet criterion, where if someone displays somewhat more reasoning tendencies (but like all humans, primarily value-orientation) you can classify them as T as they're more reasonable than 50% of the population. There you have 25% SFs, 25% STs, 25% NFs, 25% NTs. The fundamental problem with this, and the reason I don't follow this theory but look for clear 50-50 indicators like Logic/Ethics as prescribed by MBTI, is because when we say a T-primary type is reasons-oriented, it still doesn't fit their main mentality: In other words, dominant-function theory goes out the window and there is no Values-inferior type: F would still be a T's primary function, because Values are the primary function of everyone, and are much higher on the hierarchy. Only a computer would ever utilize Reasons > before Values.

My relationship with typology stems from everyone having a much more stand-out individual primary function. For example, with my type, I'm not too F or S, even though I'm very values-oriented, very logically-oriented, very abstractly-oriented, and physically-oriented. Instead, the more obvious trait I and others tend to display is having obviously poor F (ethics, empathy, humanitarian principles), contrasted to F dominants who are a 180 degree difference from us. There doesn't seem to be much contrast between a Reason vs Values dominant, because everyone is Values dominant, so I tend to stay with indicators where dominant-function theory always applies dead-on. This is a more useful typology as it's more applicable to the inert self, where we have distinct individual mentalities/functions, and is something I'd like to better realize for N/S. I think MBTI made a somewhat useless dichotomy with S being predominant in 75% of the population, because that 75% (5.6 billion people) can't be further differentiated. Perhaps there's a more useful N/S indicator to find, but a clear distinction indicator.

 

[Turi]

Decent post. I'm not convinced personally, as Values is something almost everyone displays more strongly than Reasons, a 95-100% / 0-5% difference. I tend to find the most psychological difference between Logic vs Ethics types of individuals, in other words: it seems to be a very distinct and easily-typed indicator where we have clear F types and weak F types. This leads me to an important point:

You can design Reasons/Values and Abstract/Physical to be a 50%/50% dichotomy of population, since it falls in a spectrum. You adjust required strength to meet criterion, where if someone displays somewhat more reasoning tendencies (but like all humans, primarily value-orientation) you can classify them as T as they're more reasonable than 50% of the population. There you have 25% SFs, 25% STs, 25% NFs, 25% NTs. The fundamental problem with this, and the reason I don't follow this theory but look for clear 50-50 indicators like Logic/Ethics as prescribed by MBTI, is because when we say a T-primary type is reasons-oriented, it still doesn't fit their main mentality: In other words, dominant-function theory goes out the window and there is no Values-inferior type: F would still be a T's primary function, because Values are the primary function of everyone, and are much higher on the hierarchy. Only a computer would ever utilize Reasons > before Values.

My relationship with typology stems from everyone having a much more stand-out individual primary function. For example, with my type, I'm not too F or S, even though I'm very values-oriented, very logically-oriented, very abstractly-oriented, and physically-oriented. Instead, the more obvious trait I and others tend to display is having obviously poor F (ethics, empathy, humanitarian principles), contrasted to F dominants who are a 180 degree difference from us. There doesn't seem to be much contrast between a Reason vs Values dominant, because everyone is Values dominant, so I tend to stay with indicators where dominant-function theory always applies dead-on. This is a more useful typology as it's more applicable to the inert self, where we have distinct individual mentalities/functions, and is something I'd like to better realize for N/S. I think MBTI made a somewhat useless dichotomy with S being predominant in 75% of the population, because that 75% (5.6 billion people) can't be further differentiated. Perhaps there's a more useful N/S indicator to find, but a clear distinction indicator.

I feel like you're misinterpreting what's meant by values here - or, I'm misrepresenting them, one or the other - so, to that end, I'll just post up three clips from the youtube channel in hopes it'll clear things up more.

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube



Re: standout dominant function - that's not the view here, from the class it's suggested we all basically feel, experience and think the same things, the functions are more like left-hand, right-hand preferences.
I think going into typology with a 'dominant' approach might wind up with a fair few mistypes occurring because there are people out there with say, Ti as their inferior function, who are more rational, logical and better at 'Ti' than a Ti dom, and this will break your system, you'll mistype them.