• 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.

[ENTP] ENTP: A Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis By SimulatedWorld

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
ENTP, or Extroverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiver, is a label borrowed from MBTI nomenclature and now applied to the Jungian Cognitive Function set {Ne, Ti, Fe, Si}.

Dominant: Extroverted iNtuition (Ne)

"I need to be doing something interesting as often as I can possibly find something interesting to do. I need a lot of stimulation and I tend to get bored quickly with things that are repetitive or easy to figure out. I really like making up my own approaches to things, doing things my own way, figuring out how things work by experimenting on my own and putting different pieces together until they turn into something meaningful...or at least something novel. I can find humor in a lot of places other people wouldn't necessarily see it, and I enjoy being able to entertain people with my knowledge and various talents. I think I work best when I'm given an open-ended assignment where I can suggest a lot of different possibilities, or connect different ideas together to come up with something better than what was there before. Sometimes I'm so busy thinking about different ideas for changes that I lose sight of practical concerns--it's easy for me to get caught up in the moment and forget about the needs of others around me, although I do actually care about my friends and family a lot more than more than my behavior sometimes suggests. I can get distracted easily, because the most exciting thing for me is always pursuing some kind of new experience or project. I really dislike it when people insist on following traditions or rules that I can't see any good reason for. Occasionally I even upset people without meaning to--sometimes I have trouble understanding why people seem to get upset so easily. I just can't be content living with things as they are if I can think of a better way to approach them. Why accept mundane repetition when you can find ways to make life more interesting?"

Although their positive qualities are often grossly exaggerated by popular type profiles (you'll see them described as "unique", "clever", and "visionary"), ENTPs are characterized primarily by their desire to create this kind of impression on others. (Whether or not it's actually true will vary greatly from individual to individual, but apparently, it's worked well on most people who have written ENTP profiles.) The other primary aspect of their cognitive approach is one that's common to all four ExxP types: an exploratory attitude that focuses predominantly on taking in the greatest quantity of new external information possible. Learning and expanding takes priority over all else, often at the expense of important practical concerns. On typology forums, ENTPs often earn a well-deserved reputation as trolls, not because they want to hurt anyone (in most cases), but more often because their desire to experiment with their external environments in order to generate novel and interesting results outweighs their (often weak) concern for the feelings of others. Like ESTPs, they rarely take issue with poking and prodding others for reactions, especially when they think people are being too uptight, but Ne tends to focus more on putting people in unfamiliar situations in order to explore the patterns in their responses, as opposed to Se's focus on creating an immediate sensory spectacle. Needless to say, this tendency can result in some rather unfortunate social and interpersonal consequences, leading to the common difficulty xNxP types often face in deciding between introversion and extroversion. The more they experiment on people and receive negative results, the more ENTPs will learn to be more cautious in their early interactions with new people. Because dominant Ne can never really be sure if its peculiar brand of humor will entertain, upset, or simply confuse new people, Ne dominants (and especially ENTPs) often develop less immediate social ability than other extroverted types. In many cases, it can become a difficult chore to differentiate between ENTPs and INTPs in this regard, hence the ENTP reputation for being "the most introverted extrovert."

As with all Pe dominant types, many ENTPs face serious difficulty when it comes to accepting and dealing with anything they find boring or uninteresting. Most are not above cutting corners to avoid repetitive tasks, develop shortcuts to make practical responsibilities easier or less relevant, or simply experiment with methodology to look for new approaches. Whether or not these experiments produce any genuinely useful results is often a secondary concern behind whether they give the ENTP something new or otherwise novel to think about, some new system to toy around with and turn into something else. Dominant Ne operates most comfortably by casting a wide net out into the world and then sifting through whatever happens to come up. Like their ENFP brethren, ENTPs are typically most at home in environments where they can generate large numbers of new possible options, but they tend to falter and tire quickly when required to evaluate those options and select the most effective choice for moving forward. As long as something still exists primarily as an idea or concept, as long as it hasn't yet reached the concrete implementation stage, it's still open to any number of theoretical changes, rewrites, and unexpected positive developments. Often, the process of nailing down a precise course of action threatens dominant Ne's desire for infinite open-endedness and freedom to change its external approach abruptly on a whim. Young ENTPs, especially, may have chronic issues with the classic Ne dilemma: the real material world is rarely as exciting as the possibility of change contained in a theoretical problem that hasn't yet been nailed down. Once an idea takes concrete root in the real world of real things, its sense of infinite possibility for change is replaced by an impending sense of constrained creative freedom: the now-evident realistic limitations can quickly lead dominant Ne to lose interest and wander off to something less set in stone, where the promise of tackling something different still holds the allure of the unknown and unexpected.

It's important to remember that, despite relatively common social difficulties, ENTPs are still extroverts, and they still identify chiefly with the external object, thus leading them to require continual feedback and reassurace from others. While many ENTPs (especially the young ones) may fervently deny their dependence on using others as a springboard for their ideas, in truth they suffer the same problem that plagues many ENFPs: they often have no idea whether their ideas have any real merit until they receive feedback from others. On the plus side, this means ENTPs will rarely dismiss a problem until all possible avenues have been explored. ENTPs are often appreciated by others for their unusual approaches and refusal to do things the conventional way--this can have some incredible benefits in situations where creative freedom is rewarded, and it's important for most ENTPs to place themselves in situations where they can utilize this attitude for positive gain. They'll rarely dismiss potential approaches without at least trying them, and they often have a gift for helping others to explore the possibilities of their own new frontiers, which can often endear them to others and help to provide the continual positive feedback they thrive on. On the downside, the desire to explore every possibility for exploration's sake alone can often eclipse the more important goal of setting a concrete objective and determining the most effective methodology for completing it. It's no secret that many ENTPs have difficulty finishing things--the excitement of jumping into and intuitively exploring a new project often gets the better of them.

Auxiliary: Introverted Thinking (Ti)

It's easy for ENTPs to get caught up in the thrill of change and experimentation with no real clear objective besides binging on new information and imagining ways to create relationships between unrelated external information. When an experiment ceases to provide new or interesting results, it's all too often discarded in the ongoing search for the potential of something better. In this way, dominant Ne seems to epitomize the saying, "The grass is always greener on the other side." While dominant Ne may bestow many ENTPs with a number of creative gifts responsible for their reputation as exuberant innovators (not the least of which is the oft-vaunted ability to simplify complex ideas into much clearer terms by relating them to similar concepts), it's important to recognize the limitations on a mindset that depends essentially on throwing darts in random directions until something interesting happens. Without a clear structure, principle, or direction by which to derive meaning, the ENTP may lose himself in mindless wandering and neglect to complete the aspects of projects that don't excite his sense of possibility.

Here we enter the vital role of auxiliary Ti: a subjective, grounding sense of ordered meaning that grants form and conceptual purpose to Ne's insatiable taste for the unknown. On a basic level, Ti allows the ENTP to define and rationalize his own sense of causal reasoning, to decide upon the rules by which he will judge the presence of meaningful consistency in everything he attempts to grasp. As Ti develops its methodology and approach to systematizing and categorizing the constant inflow of information, Ne will begin to explore for a genuine purpose, to internalize the causality and implied meaning of its forays. Development of Ti is crucial to the ENTP's true self-actualization: though they may appear wildly confident (even overconfident) to outsiders, ENTPs develop most of their true self-confidence through Ti. It adds a sense of appreciation for grasping and fully categorizing the nature of self, creating an overarching sense of the reasoning and integrity of ideas and structural concepts. While it can suffer stubbornness when of its principles is violated, Ti serves the important purpose of reminding the ENTP that she can't always find every answer with another experiment. Continual analysis and correction of the "internal model" will occur as the ENTP gains more experience with an ever-growing number of new ideas and conceptual associations. Ti functions as an internal litmus test for the validity (and by extension, virtue) of any idea, person, design, or concept. Without it, the ENTP is utterly at the mercy of the opinions and perceptions of everyone on whom he depends for validation. He may cycle endlessly through different changes of environment only to find that the real change needed to come from within. With the development of Ti, the ENTP will develop a set of personal principles that, for once, do not depend on generating a reaction or response from the external environment. She will learn to do things for her own reasons instead of continually shifting with the tides of the approval and adulation of others.

On the downside, if auxiliary Ti is overapplied, the ENTP may begin to resemble a more outgoing and inflexible INTP, insisting on the correctness of his own reasoning and evaluation, but lacking the level of discernment and introspection that makes Ti a viable dominant function for INTPs. ENTPs who overestimate the objectivity of their own sense of logic may often find themselves alienating potential social contacts with an overwhelming sense of self-righteous insistence on the validity of their own values and reasoning. Their insistence on deriving causal principles from individual experience instead of objectively validated methodology is something of a double-edged sword: while they may avoid errors in framework-oriented reasoning derived from group-think, they sometimes end up spending tremendous amounts of time and resources exploring methods and forms of reasoning that, for good reason, have already been explored and dismissed by the greater community. The desire to form an unorthodox method derives as much from Ne's need to be viewed by others as unique and creative as it does from Ti's need to formulate frameworks of structural reasoning from an individualized perspective. Ironically, the harder he works to create the impression that his style is unique and unexpected (Ne), the more he shuts out established convention (Ti) in an effort to generate a perspective and approach which stands out from the crowd (Ne). Ideally, these two primary functions should inspire each other toward a balanced form of personalized developmental progress: Ne casts a net to find as much new information as possible, Ti arranges and organizes this data into meaningful blocks which follow its principles, and then Ne goes to work building new formations of the most recently created data blocks. Mastering the balance between these two processes is a vital component of the ENTP's fully actualized personality.

Tertiary: Extroverted Feeling (Fe)

When developed in a productive way, tertiary Fe allows ENTPs to begin learning to relate to others in terms of externalized moral judgment instead of simply in terms of creating interesting impressions and experimenting on others for reactions. With the development of Fe, the ENTP's characteristic blunt insensitivity will gradually give way to a more significant sense of familial and cultural responsibility. The people on whom the ENTP has depended for validation and feedback her entire life (often without realizing the extent of their importance) may suddenly strike her as far more meaningful and worthy of respect and admiration. Childish insistence on always being right and constantly seeking novelty will move aside in favor of a more realistic sense of the responsibilities of adult life as the needs, desires, and cultural beliefs of important people in the ENTP's life begin to strike him as genuinely meaningful and worthwhile. With Ti and Fe in place, a balance can be reached between living up to individual principles and fulfilling real-world expectations and obligations. The Fe-savvy ENTP understands how to integrate into the social and moral fabric of the people he values most--though reconciling his personal desires with the needs of others when he finds their beliefs unreasonable may be one of life's more difficult challenges.

Ideally, Fe development should occur once Ti recognizes that there is a valid and inherently consistent reason for collectivized moral judgment to arise and guide the structure of interpersonal relationships. Earlier in life, it's all too common for ENTPs to expect continual validation, encouragement, and attention from the people they find interesting, but without the balancing influence of Fe, they rarely recognize the imbalance between how much they take and how much they give to the people closest to them. When confronted with this disparity, it's not uncommon for tertiary Fe to spring into action and promote feelings of guilt and self-criticism, but the process of learning to correct this disparity is a vital part of developing adult relationships where ENTPs are willing and able to give as much as they often unconsciously take. Giving up the logical high ground may prove difficult for the young ENTP's ego to swallow, but it's a vital step toward personal balance that's responsible for a great deal of the gradual movement from pure hedonistic exploration toward a more well-rounded outlook and a serious understanding of and respect for the needs and sentiments of those close to them. Though they do tend to mature slowly in general, it's not uncommon to see abrupt and unexpected leaps in perspective in this area, especially when the ENTP admires or strives to emulate a close friend or family member with strong Fe. While most ENTPs tend to idolize other NPs in their search for identity, it's often useful for young adult ENTPs to develop close relationships with xxFJ types, as a number of important and growth-inspiring perspectives and interpersonal strategies can be garnered from this sort of interaction.

The emergence of tertiary Fe occurs at a pretty young age for most ENTPs; however, without the balancing influence of Ti (which may come much later for many), it tends to result in mostly negative applications. The NeFe loop ENTP exudes tremendous false confidence, but in reality has very few internal principles by which to check the opinions and perceptions of others against his own value system. He does lip service to a philosophy of integrity of independent thought, but in reality is a slave to the perceptions and expectations of others. He appears confident because he recognizes that confidence tends to favorably color the perceptions of others--or at the very least, provoke some sort of reaction, which will provide some form of feedback. This desire for novel reactions often combines with weak Fe's rudimentary awareness of what sorts of approaches will upset or offend people: the drive to experiment with people's reactions is there, but it lacks the nuance to grasp the real implications of what it's doing. The result is the classic ENTP question: "Why does everyone get upset so easily?" In reality, this is only partially true: often, it is the ENTP's own Fe mistakes that result in her interpersonal difficulties.

Of course, young ENTPs may also overestimate their own ability to avoid emotional influence, as is typical for many T types. Poor Fe may often result in the distortion of reasoning that occurs when someone the ENTP respects and admires comes into conflict with someone she doesn't: suddenly, unconscious interpersonal loyalties may override Ti's better judgment, resulting in a form of conformity the ENTP may not realize is intended to uphold her positive image with people she finds interesting and worthwhile. In many ways, Fe can contribute both positively and negatively to Ne's dependence on the approval of others. When applied in excess, this can undermine any sense of legitimate self-confidence; when applied in the right proportion, it grounds the ENTP with a much-needed awareness of interpersonal, moral, and social norms and standards.

Inferior: Introverted Sensation (Si)

A peculiar relationship seems to occur between ENTPs and their inferior attitude of introverted sensation. Si appears quite often during stressful periods and depressed burnouts, both brief and lengthy. As its attitude appears on the surface to completely contradict the doctrine of Ne, its insistence on preparedness and its dislike for unexpected surprises seem quite at odds with the way most ENTPs prefer to lead their lives. The idea that one should restrain oneself for the purpose of avoiding unexpected negative effects of change and experimentation strikes young ENTPs as bizarre and confusing. The wisdom in the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" may take years to occur to the ENTP, who makes it his business to "fix" everything just to create more opportunities to discover something different, broken or not. The practical value in generating more certainty and focusing on more complete and specific sensory internalization can feel so repetitive and uninteresting that its actual value can seem nearly incomprehensible.

As with all types, the inferior function is most typically unconscious, poorly developed, and unable to operate on a competent adult level in most situations. One common manifestation involves the dreaded Ne dominant burnout: when too much exploration too fast results in a string of difficult failures, inferior Si may actually develop a painful aversion to dominant Ne's treasured sense of exploratory freedom. By overextending in too many different directions at once, the inferior function can actually step in as a defense mechanism against the negative experiences of trying new things and failing too many times in a row with not enough reassuring successes (note the general dependence on external validation) to balance it out. The effects on the depressed ENTP's worldview can be catastrophic: frozen in place by fear of failure, Si may push his entire lifestyle into a risk-averse and sedentary mindset that shuts off the area of cognition which makes him feel most fulfilled. Blocking out new external information as a result, so-called "blow-ups" of inferior Si may lead the ENTP to retreat into familiar experiences where she can avoid the sting of failure by dumbing down the external challenge until she knows it will fit within her drastically reduced comfort zone. It's not uncommon to see ENTPs engaging in repetitive and simplistic problem-solving of issues they've mastered years before: when the stress of consistent failure overwhelms Ne's desire for more experimentation, Si takes over and temporarily forces a return to the known and established, the consistency of certainty.

In other cases, inferior Si may undermine dominant Ne by gripping the ENTP with an overwhelming fear that his situation will become permanently and irreversibly static. If not enough opportunites for innovation and external stimulation are provided, Ne's predictive ability and eye for forward trends can sabotage themselves: suddenly, the worst case scenario--total absence of change and stimulation--becomes an impending fear. Ne's worst fear, of course, is simply the loss of creative freedom, of forced adherence to a repetitive and predictable set of non-stimulating information. The more the ENTP fails to create new and challenging situations for herself, the more she becomes bound to her own self-fulfilling prophecy of repetitive failure to progress, dooming herself to a life of mundanity and destroying the spontaneous inspiration under which she feels most fulfilled.

On the positive side, however, Si should eventually fall into place as a safe anchor for Ne's limitless explorations. It takes a long time for most ENTPs to accept their own limitations and find their niche in life, but when this occurs, it's almost certainly related to the difficult but important development of the inferior attitude. As cognition gradually centers around a coherent identity, the ENTP should eventually recognize that, somewhat counterintuitively, working to establish more permanance and predictability can actually help appease his desire for constant change and stimulation. Once he recognizes that his desire for constant change can actually be interpreted as a need for a consistent form of experience, he can begin to appreciate Si's role as a practical counterweight to the wild unpredictability of Ne as a constant lifestyle. If one fails to establish any predictable level of permanency in life, practical concerns ultimately circumvent Ne's ability to achieve the level of novel creation it most deeply desires: without at least some rudimentary attention to the world of consistent expectations and comfort in repetition, the ENTP sabotages his own ability to maintain the high-stimulation lifestyle in which he feels most at home. With a little more attention paid to preserving the good things about the experiences they're accustomed to, ENTPs will finally gain the one thing they need most: appreciation for the little things they take for granted, and all the genuine satisfaction and self-confidence that accompanies it.
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276

This guy looks like a friend of mine that I "can" get along very well and without much effort. I think he may really be an ENTP though I was wondering whether he was ENFP.

He also reminds me of Bruce Willis?
 

Metis

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,534
DAMN, this is fucking INSIGHTFUL!!!

It's long, but it's worth the read.

And while "the real change needed to come from within" would ordinarily sound like a glib and arrogant bromide, you OTOH used it in context and said what you meant by it:

Ti functions as an internal litmus test for the validity (and by extension, virtue) of any idea, person, design, or concept. Without it, the ENTP is utterly at the mercy of the opinions and perceptions of everyone on whom he depends for validation. He may cycle endlessly through different changes of environment only to find that the real change needed to come from within. With the development of Ti, the ENTP will develop a set of personal principles that, for once, do not depend on generating a reaction or response from the external environment. She will learn to do things for her own reasons instead of continually shifting with the tides of the approval and adulation of others.

I like it.

You came up with that whole description yourself?? It's shockingly awesome.

Dude -- :dalek: you exterminated it.
 

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Fun fact, for anyone who's interested: this is written by the same person who invented the idea of dom-tert loops.
 

Metis

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,534
Fun fact, for anyone who's interested: this is written by the same person who invented the idea of dom-tert loops.

That's interesting. In another of these threads, it said this person was banned?

I related to this type profile to a surprising degree. I guess at some point I'll try to look into the INTP, INFP, INFJ, ENFP profiles by SimulatedWorld, but I kind of looked at the INTP one, and it didn't sound like me. I was told I was an INTP as a kid because: (1) I tested as ENTP, twice, and (2) I was labelled as "shy", "quiet", and "introverted", so the E score was believed to be a fluke. I bought into the correction and fluctuated from INTP to INFP to INFJ to "fuck it" and back again, because none of those really made the grade, except maybe "fuck it". But this profile describes a lot of my personality, so I'm... surprised.

You (or someone) linked to the loop post on personalitycafe in another thread. I looked at that. I think you didn't agree with it or something, but who is this person? I've never even heard of SimulatedWorld. I don't keep up with newer stuff; I used to read a lot of it online back in the late '90s, like Keirsey, TypeLogic, and that one really awesome, in-depth, and poetic INTP profile that I think was related to Keirsey as well. SimulatedWorld is simply a particular person who posts on typology forums, or what/who is this? Has anyone else had any "aha" reactions when they've read a type profile by this person that described them better than expected?
 

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
You (or someone) linked to the loop post on personalitycafe in another thread. I looked at that. I think you didn't agree with it or something, but who is this person?

Yes, that was me. The reason why I didn't agree with SimulatedWorld's loop theory is partially because of what you're saying: unlike someone like Myers or Keirsey or Augusta or Gulenko, this is just some random person online who no one knows anything about. I don't like to make the genetic fallacy, so I wouldn't reject the theory outright if SimulatedWorld backed it up with good reasoning, but he/she has a tendency to just make conjectures without explaining why these conjectures should be seen as valid in the first place. In the case of a single type profile (such as the one here) this approach makes more sense because the nature of the subject is more anecdotal than theoretical, but in the case of proposing an entirely new theory (i.e. the loop theory) it just doesn't work in my opinion. The issue I had in the other thread was with how people hold the dom-tert loop theory in such high esteem despite its dubious origins, while ignoring alternative function models if not rejecting them outright. But of course to each their own.
 

Metis

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,534
don't like to make the genetic fallacy

"a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context" -- Source: Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia

Oh, okay

In the case of a single type profile (such as the one here) this approach makes more sense because the nature of the subject is more anecdotal than theoretical, but in the case of proposing an entirely new theory (i.e. the loop theory) it just doesn't work in my opinion. The issue I had in the other thread was with how people hold the dom-tert loop theory in such high esteem despite its dubious origins, while ignoring alternative function models if not rejecting them outright. But of course to each their own.

The dom-tert loop idea is new to me. What are the other function models, or what's a source you recommend for reading about them?

I'm only familiar with the predominant function model, but when I first read about it back when, there was a "shadow" stacking as well, e.g. Ne-Ti-Fe-Si - Se-Fi-Te-Ni, so my "shadow" stacking, assuming I'm ENTP, should be ESFP-like. Or maybe I have it backward, and it should be INTJ-like, with Ni-Te-Fi-Se. I just read SimulatedWorld's ESFP profile, and I actually do relate to it on a certain level; it makes sense to me, and I can imagine it although I don't operate by it. Now, that's only the second of this author's profiles that I've read in its entirety, and maybe I'll have a similar response to other profiles by the same author. Plus, I have no idea whether an ESFP would be likely to see it in themselves or totally disagree with it, or what.
 

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Or maybe I have it backward, and it should be INTJ-like, with Ni-Te-Fi-Se.

Yes, this is the view held by a Jungian psychologist named John Beebe. I don't think I've seen the ENTP/ESFP shadow theory before, but I like it. It's just as valid in my opinion.

In terms of alternative function models, there's a fair bit of evidence that Jung believed the first two were oriented in the same direction and the second two were oriented in the opposite direction (e.g. Ne-Te-Fi-Si for ENTP). The user Reckful has discussed this before, so I'd suggest reading some of their posts if you're interested. There's also Model A in Socionics, which despite what some say is incredibly different from the MBTI stack to the point where a lot of people (myself included) are different types in both systems.

I know a user on another site who proposed a "4-tier" model of strongest to weakest functions. For ENTPs it would be:

  1. Ne
  2. Ti, Te, Se
  3. Fe, Fi, Ni
  4. Si

I like this model because it incorporates the "shadow functions" into the main stack instead of segregating them into their own section like a lot of models do.
 

iwakar

crush the fences
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,877
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
That's interesting. In another of these threads, it said this person was banned?

He was a prolific poster here years ago and yes he was banned.
 

Metis

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,534
Yes, this is the view held by a Jungian psychologist named John Beebe. I don't think I've seen the ENTP/ESFP shadow theory before, but I like it. It's just as valid in my opinion.

Cool, because I doubt that my shadow is INTJ, if I have one.

In terms of alternative function models, there's a fair bit of evidence that Jung believed the first two were oriented in the same direction and the second two were oriented in the opposite direction (e.g. Ne-Te-Fi-Si for ENTP). The user Reckful has discussed this before, so I'd suggest reading some of their posts if you're interested.

Thanks. I'll look into it.

There's also Model A in Socionics, which despite what some say is incredibly different from the MBTI stack to the point where a lot of people (myself included) are different types in both systems.

Socionics is like... I've done a couple of flybys of that planet, but I've never landed on it. It seems to have developed a lot since ~2000, when the ENTP profile had a sketch with horns growing out of the ENTP's head. :huh: It was hilarious, and I didn't think I was an ENTP at that time, but whatever website that was, it made it hard to take it seriously.
But anyways, I might give that another look.

I know a user on another site who proposed a "4-tier" model of strongest to weakest functions. For ENTPs it would be:

  1. Ne
  2. Ti, Te, Se
  3. Fe, Fi, Ni
  4. Si

I like this model because it incorporates the "shadow functions" into the main stack instead of segregating them into their own section like a lot of models do.

I like that too. What I like about it is that it looks like you could swap some of the values around and still get a generally ENTP temperament, similar to the way you can swap around particular physical attributes and still get a generally "endurance athlete" profile, or a generally "hourglass figure" or whatever. In other words, you can fit into a general family of attributes without having every specific detail match up. I don't know how precise the poster on the other site meant for that stacking to be, but as I see it, it allows for variety, while it still roughly defines a pattern.

:)
 

Turi

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
249
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
..I've got a question, how are these profiles by simulatedworld a "Jungian Cognitive Function analysis" considering the following:

Jungs 'stack' descends from conscious to unconscious, essentially creating something similar to an IIEE/EEII 'stack' once you understand his theory - and when the dominant function-attitude is taken too extreme it basically creates an IEEE/EIII stack, where the 'auxiliary' joins the inferior unconscious attitude to form a 'block' - the idea of an alternating pattern such as IEIE/EIEI is not Jungian.

Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Se, Si, Fe and Fi are not separate 'cognitive functions', there are only four functions, in two attitudes.

The idea these profiles are anything remotely close to a "Jungian cognitive function analysis" is misleading, to say the least.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Sim was very good, and I've even been influenced by him. So unfortunate that he got banned.

Jung's theory I would say was really not complete, and not always consistent. He laid the groundwork, and others like Myers, Grant and Beebe added more to it, according to observations.
Like I know I'm not "TiNi", as this "Jungian purist" kind of assumption would insist. Other INTP's usually have weaker Si, and even Ne may not be as strong as mine is. Since both Ne and Si are strong, then their shadows, Ni and Se are weakest. (The stack is not necessarily about relative strength, but it's all reflections; whatever is most conscious, its opposite will be more suppressed). That's what verified the Grant stack for me.

The best way to understand it, which is basically Beebe's contribution, is complexes bringing the functions into consciousness, and setting their attitudes. So, being dominant introvert, and dominant Thinking, then the overall attitude is introvert, and so the auxiliary may seem introverted too, because the overall preferred world-view (a term Sim used a lot) is introverted. The auxiliary is supporting the ego's dominant perspective, which is introverted.
But it's the "complex" carrying the auxiliary function (which Beebe called "Caretaker" or "Parent") that, for the sake of the complex's own agenda, which is that of "balance", then turns outside to the environment, coloring the auxiliary function with an extraverted orientation. Its reflection, the "Child" then takes the tertiary function (opposite of the auxiliary), and back in the dominant attitude. And so on.


So it's true that there aren't really eight "cognitive functions", but rather the four × two attitudes. But it's the eight complexes that organize them into eight function-attitudes.
 

Turi

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
249
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Sim was very good, and I've even been influenced by him. So unfortunate that he got banned.

Jung's theory I would say was really not complete, and not always consistent. He laid the groundwork, and others like Myers, Grant and Beebe added more to it, according to observations.
Like I know I'm not "TiNi", as this "Jungian purist" kind of assumption would insist. Other INTP's usually have weaker Si, and even Ne may not be as strong as mine is. Since both Ne and Si are strong, then their shadows, Ni and Se are weakest. (The stack is not necessarily about relative strength, but it's all reflections; whatever is most conscious, its opposite will be more suppressed). That's what verified the Grant stack for me.

I understand you haven't read Psychological Types, is that correct?
It wasn't as incomplete, nor was it as inconsistent as people would like to tout about - you can actually go through Jungs work post-Psychological Types, and find him expanding on some of the things he outlined in Psychological Types, and it all makes sense.

Now, considering you are an INTP via dichotomy - this isn't suggestive of "Ti" dominance, by way of the J, really (considering Myers basically made the P/J thing up due to not understandings Jungs theories on the general attitude of consciousness.
The functions-in-attitudes have never been clinically validated either - so, if we're playing the non-validated-science game, then INTP best reflects Ni-Ti-F-Se, Ni, as, the P indicates N/S is above T/F.

The best way to understand it, which is basically Beebe's contribution, is complexes bringing the functions into consciousness, and setting their attitudes. So, being dominant introvert, and dominant Thinking, then the overall attitude is introvert, and so the auxiliary may seem introverted too, because the overall preferred world-view (a term Sim used a lot) is introverted. The auxiliary is supporting the ego's dominant perspective, which is introverted.
But it's the "complex" carrying the auxiliary function (which Beebe called "Caretaker" or "Parent") that, for the sake of the complex's own agenda, which is that of "balance", then turns outside to the environment, coloring the auxiliary function with an extraverted orientation. Its reflection, the "Child" then takes the tertiary function (opposite of the auxiliary), and back in the dominant attitude. And so on.

Beebe's argument for the orientation of the auxiliary function being in the opposite direction to the dominant is terrible - hopefully you can clarify this a little, because, my understanding is as follows:
  • Beebe's psychologist let him just talk about his dreams etc, out loud, and somehow this made Beebe think his auxiliary function was Thinking.
  • Beebe decided he "crossed spines" with someone who types as ISFP via dichotomy, and uses circular reasoning to support his position on the auxiliary - he says, that since the ISFPs stack is Fi-Se-N-Te, then that means Beebe's own auxiliary is introverted - Ne-Ti-F-Si.
The above is absolutely horrendous - but notably, the second point - Beebe uses the current, after-the-fact type-dynamics the MBTI employs, to somehow, prove to himself that he follows the same stack.

As I'm sure you're aware, these type-dynamics have literally no credibility at the this point, there's absolutely nothing "Ti" about an INTP, for instance - not tested for in the MBTI, and if you've got some studies that split the INTJs from the INTPs, for instance, on account of completely different functions (in attitudes), I'd absolutely love to read it.

So Beebe does literally nothing credible whatsoever to determine the orientation of the auxiliary function - I note he doesn't explore or dive into the mistakes Myers made regarding her understandings of I/E, instead just accepting them, and supporting them with his own subjective take.
I mean I'm paraphrasing, but "My friends an ISFP and that means Fi-Se in MBTI so that means my auxiliary is definitely Ti" is beyond absurd.

If I'm missing something - let me know, because the guys reasoning scared the shit out of me when I considered how influential he's been.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
In meant "incomplete" as in terms of being well "developed". He put the ideas out there, but they weren't totally clear, and then he seemed to have wavered in places, which is why we have these endless debates as to what he meant, and even what his exact stacking would be. Like he's been cited as saying people aren't introverts or extraverts; only the functions. Which deviates from his earlier usage, and is what's picked up by those insisting on "eight cognitive processes".

So Myers, Grant and Beebe all came along and solidified which attitude should fall where. And it seems most people who know type can identify with their dominant-auziliary assignments. Like I said, I am in no way NiTi.
And what you're saying about J/P is simply the difference between Myers and Socionics, basically. I say Socionics and not Jung, because Jung didn't call the dichotomy "judging/perceiving"; he called it rational/irrational.
Myers determined that the most visible form of "judging" or "perceiving" (and therefore the most likely useful in interpersonal interaction) was extraverted judging or perceiving, and so denoted this with the J/P dichotomy. So it wasn't a "lack of understanding" of Jung; it was a determination of a more [externally] useful dichotomy. Someone in Socionics came behind, and decided it should be the dominant function to be truer to Jung, but instead of resurrecting his original terms, they took the J/P and just made it lowercase: "j/p".
So what you're calling "INTP" is really an INTJ, with the auxiliary assumed to be the same attitude as the dominant. It's still "Ni+T" ("introverted intuitive with Thinking"), to use Jung's terminology (or IN-T, or ILI, in the three letter versions of the codes).

So forget INTP being "J"; and INTJ being "P". To insist upon that is to mix up Jung's fourth category with Myers'. Again, it's not her misunderstanding; it's those who don't realize those are deliberately two completely different factors and demand they should be treated the same.
The MBTI does measure Ti indirectly, because if you score highest on I and T, and then also P, the P is covering general behavioral preferences pointing [that's what the variable does] to the perception being extraverted, which accompanies an introverted judgment. So then the "T" must be introverted, and also dominant. So it's just as you said; they aren't separate 'cognitive functions', there are only four functions, in two attitudes.

And Beebe's "crossed spines" is not about the attitude of the auxiliary, as you have it; it's about the rationality (rational or irrational; or dominant judgment or perception). Ne is irrational, while Fi is rational, and that's why ENTP and ISFP would have crossed spines. So then the whole stack is denoted as having an 'irrational" or "rational" spine. The "spine" is the set of tandems formed by the dominant through its reflections and shadows, and so encompasses the dominant, inferior, Opposing and Demonic (stack positions 1, 4, 5, 8; Ne-Si-Ni-Se, or Fi-Te-Fe-Ti, respectively), and these will all have the same rationality as the dominant. The auxiliary forms the base of the "arms" (2, 3, 6, 7), which will all be the opposite rationality of the spine. So for an ENTP, it will be rational (Ti-Fe-Te-Fi), and for ISFP, it will be irrational (Se-Ni-Si-Ne).

What is supposed to happen when two people have "crossed spines", is that they will have misunderstandings in communication, where one is simply making a perception, which the other then takes as a judgment, or vice versa. I often wonder about this, and think that it could be affected by the other complexes, like we could both have rational spines, but if one of us switches to an arm complex, then one might still mistake a perception on the others' part for a judgment.

His way of putting together the ideas is simply an Ne approach, and so yes, he will take his dreams and other personal experience as setting the idea; Ne says "yes" (the connection exists), and if Ti also says yes ("true" according to logical principles I know), then he will put it out as a likely theory. (Weren't you an Ni type? That would be why this perspective makes no sense to you. Ni is more likely to say "no" to something, for an unconscious internal reason, and then Je backs it up with external analysis or authority, and then the overall reaction is just an all around "NO!")
 
Last edited:

Turi

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
249
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
In meant "incomplete" as in terms of being well "developed". He put the ideas out there, but they weren't totally clear, and then he seemed to have wavered in places, which is why we have these endless debates as to what he meant, and even what his exact stacking would be. Like he's been cited as saying people aren't introverts or extraverts; only the functions. Which deviates from his earlier usage, and is what's picked up by those insisting on "eight cognitive processes".

Can you provide your source regarding the claim that people are not introverts/extraverts and are "only the functions"?
I feel I know precisely the section you're talking about, but the way you've presented it doesn't actually reflect what Jung meant.

So Myers, Grant and Beebe all came along and solidified which attitude should fall where. And it seems most people who know type can identify with their dominant-auziliary assignments. Like I said, I am in no way NiTi.
And what you're saying about J/P is simply the difference between Myers and Socionics, basically. I say Socionics and not Jung, because Jung didn't call the dichotomy "judging/perceiving"; he called it rational/irrational.

It should be noted that Jung did indeed use both "judgment" and "perception" as ways to refer to his rational and irrational types.

Myers, Grant and Beebe didn't "solidify" the attitudes, they altered them based upon Myers own misunderstandings of introversion and extraversion.
For more information on that, and the ramifications of her misunderstanding - read this post.

Myers determined that the most visible form of "judging" or "perceiving" (and therefore the most likely useful in interpersonal interaction) was extraverted judging or perceiving, and so denoted this with the J/P dichotomy. So it wasn't a "lack of understanding" of Jung; it was a determination of a more [externally] useful dichotomy. Someone in Socionics came behind, and decided it should be the dominant function to be truer to Jung, but instead of resurrecting his original terms, they took the J/P and just made it lowercase: "j/p".
So what you're calling "INTP" is really an INTJ, with the auxiliary assumed to be the same attitude as the dominant. It's still "Ni+T" ("introverted intuitive with Thinking"), to use Jung's terminology (or IN-T, or ILI, in the three letter versions of the codes).

It was due to a lack of understanding, and is addressed in the post linked above.

So forget INTP being "J"; and INTJ being "P". To insist upon that is to mix up Jung's fourth category with Myers'. Again, it's not her misunderstanding; it's those who don't realize those are deliberately two completely different factors and demand they should be treated the same.
The MBTI does measure Ti indirectly, because if you score highest on I and T, and then also P, the P is covering general behavioral preferences pointing [that's what the variable does] to the perception being extraverted, which accompanies an introverted judgment. So then the "T" must be introverted, and also dominant. So it's just as you said; they aren't separate 'cognitive functions', there are only four functions, in two attitudes.

The MBTI does not measure "Ti" indirectly nor directly, and no, P = perceiving. Attempting to use "P" to support "Ti" indirectly being tested for within I+N+P is disingenuous and misleading to say the least.
Assuming any "accompaniment" if an introverted judgment is to fail to understand my point - this isn't true to Jung at all - which is why I responded to this topic - outlining the ENTP as Ne-Ti-Fe-Si is not true to Jung at all and therefore, this is *not* a "Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis".
It's an internet-MBTI one. It's not even a Myers-based one because she believed the tertiary was in the same direction as the auxiliary and inferior - this, and the others, should all be re-titled "A Grantian Cognitive Function Analysis" as they're misleading and spreading misinformation as it currently stands.

This belief that "the T must be introverted" is unfounded and again, comes back to Myers completely failing to understand and respect introversion and extraversion as their own complete temperaments - note, this is not suggesting that an introvert is 100% introverted, rather that introversion from a Jungian perspective does not require extraversion in order to perceive anything externally, nor in order to make judgments in accordance with external criteria - these aspects are simply non-preferred aspects of the introverted attitude.
Vica versa for the extraverted attitude.

And Beebe's "crossed spines" is not about the attitude of the auxiliary, as you have it; it's about the rationality (rational or irrational; or dominant judgment or perception). Ne is irrational, while Fi is rational, and that's why ENTP and ISFP would have crossed spines. So then the whole stack is denoted as having an 'irrational" or "rational" spine. The "spine" is the set of tandems formed by the dominant through its reflections and shadows, and so encompasses the dominant, inferior, Opposing and Demonic (stack positions 1, 4, 5, 8; Ne-Si-Ni-Se, or Fi-Te-Fe-Ti, respectively), and these will all have the same rationality as the dominant. The auxiliary forms the base of the "arms" (2, 3, 6, 7), which will all be the opposite rationality of the spine. So for an ENTP, it will be rational (Ti-Fe-Te-Fi), and for ISFP, it will be irrational (Se-Ni-Si-Ne).

Eric, fair call on the difference being rationality and irrationality, that's correct, my mistake.
Still has literally no credibility outside of Beebe's own "Ne".
I mean, did he actually test the theory on a broader scale?

What is supposed to happen when two people have "crossed spines", is that they will have misunderstandings in communication, where one is simply making a perception, which the other then takes as a judgment, or vice versa. I often wonder about this, and think that it could be affected by the other complexes, like we could bother have rational spines, but if one of us switches to an arm complex, then one might still mistake a perception on the others' part for a judgment.

Cool. I don't believe in any of this, and won't, until it's got some scientific credibility. But, Beebe's certainly "interesting", if nothing else.

His way of putting together thee ideas is simply an Ne approach, and so yes, he will take his dreams and other personal experience as setting the idea; Ne says "yes" (the connection exists), and if Ti also says yes ("true" according to logical principles I know), then he will put it out as a likely theory. (Weren't you an Ni type? That would be why this perspective makes no sense to you. Ni is more likely to say "no" to something, for an unconscious internal reason, and then Je backs it up with external analysis or authority, and then the overall reaction is just an all around "NO!")

I used to resonate with "Ni", however, I feel I'm simply too logical and factual to actually be an "N" - I could be "peacocking" my Sensation here, though, and downplaying my own "N" for reasons unknown - but, either way - I do prefer what you've deemed "Je" - at least, from a Thinking perspective - which is undoubtedly why I've even responded to this topic.

It's not true to the source, therefore, it's not Jungian - depicting ENTPs as Ne-Ti etc etc is "fake news" for multiple reasons - the only relevant one to this topic however, is that it's not true to Jung - so, not a Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis.

An actual JCF analysis, should follow Jungs theories on the general attitude of consciousness - which of course, points towards the ENTPs "stack" as being Ne-Te-Fi-Si.

I understand it's semantics - I'm all for a broader system than Jungs anyway - but, it spreads misinformation, and I think it's high-time we as a community stood up and fought against that.
Ne-Ti-Fe-Si is not true to Jung.

Therefore, this - and all other type descriptors that adhere to the Grant stack - are not Jungian Cognitive Functions analysis - that's all my point is here.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
You (and one or two others) make such a big deal about being "true to Jung", but this modern theory is not about total fidelity to Jung. As I said, his theory was very formative (that's a better term) and hard to completely decipher as it is, and not always consistent. When Myers, Beebe and others call their theories "Jungian", they mean that his concept was the foundation for their teachings; not that they are relaying his views 100%. For instance, this page, The Energy Factor – Wellness Resources of Vermont is the typical introductory way of putting the relation of modern theorists and Myers, to Jung:

When Jung originated the conceptual framework of psychological type, he did so in terms of the function-attitudes. Briggs and Myers simplified the “public face” of the model, but at the same time, they also expanded its scope. Beginning in the 1980s, analytical psychologist John Beebe began to reconcile the two frames. This enabled him to expand the model to encompass the entire territory of personality, including the part of us that is not conscious.
It's all about expanding the model, not reproducing it in some "fossilized" form.

Beebe uses his theories in his analysis on clients (He is an analyst, after all), and often uses them as examples in his writings, so that does seem to "test" his theory; though I guess you want some more formal testing. Don't know whether he's done that or not.

The quote is "Strictly speaking, there are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function-types." and this is from "Appendix: Four Papers on Psychological Typology, at 523" (and which as it is, is a very hard reference to find online).
This citation is again, often used by those who focus on "eight cognitive processes", but I would agree, keeping the functions and attitudes as separate variables is better at understanding what they really are.

You're probably an INTJ or ENTJ (seems like it), and being "logical and factual", obviously indicates T. You mentioned S, and I take it that was supposed to tie to the "factual" part of it, but "factual" is T as well. S is perception of facts, and T is judgment of facts. (Where N is perception of inferences, and F is judgment of human affect; both getting into "meanings" beyond the mere "facts").
So you can be N dom. or T dom. and still deal in "facts" (which for a J type are perceived internally and verified by external judgment, such as the demand for "empirical" research). If ENTJ, then Se will be tertiary, and fairly conscious, so that may make the focus even more "concrete", though Ni will still be auxiliary, and enough to draw you to a topic like this. If Ni is dominant, Te will be aux. and still create a "factual" approach, but it will be more about determining which abstract ideas (such as theories) are "correct", more so than dealing with more physical things.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You (and one or two others) make such a big deal about being "true to Jung", but this modern theory is not about total fidelity to Jung.

It's all about expanding the model, not reproducing it in some "fossilized" form.

I couldn't agree more . I can't understand why so many people can't understand this somewhat obvious thing.
 

Turi

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
249
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
You (and one or two others) make such a big deal about being "true to Jung", but this modern theory is not about total fidelity to Jung. As I said, his theory was very formative (that's a better term) and hard to completely decipher as it is, and not always consistent. When Myers, Beebe and others call their theories "Jungian", they mean that his concept was the foundation for their teachings; not that they are relaying his views 100%. For instance, this page, The Energy Factor – Wellness Resources of Vermont is the typical introductory way of putting the relation of modern theorists and Myers, to Jung:


It's all about expanding the model, not reproducing it in some "fossilized" form.

You'll find there's a reason for this, from my perspective - these models deviate too far and they're all built upon the same mistakes I outlined in the thread I linked - that's what led to the IExE and EIxI stacks, it's why there's a P/J divide etc etc they're all built upon a failure to understand introversion and extraversion - so, I don't view them as "expansions" I simply view them as spreading misinformation and falsities.

I'm not a hardcore Jungian myself. I don't use his methods to type people with. I prefer a broader, more expansive system that actually has the above issue solved - and therefore, is actually an expansion of Jungs work and not simply an elaboration on misinformation.

Beebe uses his theories in his analysis on clients (He is an analyst, after all), and often uses them as examples in his writings, so that does seem to "test" his theory; though I guess you want some more formal testing. Don't know whether he's done that or not.

I do, and he should provide some actual credible research, really.

The quote is "Strictly speaking, there are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function-types." and this is from "Appendix: Four Papers on Psychological Typology, at 523" (and which as it is, is a very hard reference to find online).
This citation is again, often used by those who focus on "eight cognitive processes", but I would agree, keeping the functions and attitudes as separate variables is better at understanding what they really are.

..I don't know what copy of Psychological Types you've got, but mine's got these appendixs in the back, here's the quote:

Recapitulating, I would like to stress that each of the two general attitudes, introversion and extraversion, manifests itself in a special way in an individual through the predominance of one of the four basic functions. Strictly speaking, there are no introverts and extraverts pure and simple, but only introverted and extraverted function-types, such as thinking types, sensation types, etc. There are thus at least eight clearly distinguishable types. Obviously one could increase this number at will if each of the functions were split into three subgroups, which would not be impossible empirically.

One could, for example, easily divide thinking into its three well-known forms: intuitive and speculative, logical and mathematical, empirical and positivist, the last being mainly dependent on sense perception. Similar subgroups could be made of the other functions, as in the case of intuition, which has an intellectual as well as an emotional and sensory aspect. In this way a large number of types could be established, each new division becoming increasingly subtle.
Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 477). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

I bolded the part you quoted - as you'll see, it is not suggesting people are not introverts or extraverts and are instead functions - it's pretty obviously to do with *not* splitting I/E from the functions - it's suggesting that's not how the theory works - this ties into what I've outlined above, in that everyone post-Myers has been off-base from a "Jungian" perspective.
There's nothing Jungian about a separate I/E facet, and there's nothing Jungian about the P/J reflecting ones external behaviour - don't get me wrong, I appreciate what Myers has done - I'm just of the opinion that she deviated far too far from anything "Jungian" for the MBTI model to be considered as "Jungian" - which is my issue with the title of this thread, and many others.

They are not Jungian Cognitive Functions Analysis. They are "Grantian" function analysis, considering orientation of the tertiary function deviates from Myers.

You're probably an INTJ or ENTJ (seems like it), and being "logical and factual", obviously indicates T. You mentioned S, and I take it that was supposed to tie to the "factual" part of it, but "factual" is T as well. S is perception of facts, and T is judgment of facts. (Where N is perception of inferences, and F is judgment of human affect; both getting into "meanings" beyond the mere "facts").

I understand what all of the four functions are - but, getting into "meanings" ie, beyond "mere facts" is probably better aligned at introversion as opposed to N or F or any function in particular - all of the functions, in the introverted attitude, can see beyond the surface (E) level - even N, when in the extraverted attitude, is very much a surface-level intuition - to the point where actual "Ne" comes very close to "Se":

But since extraverted intuition is directed predominantly to objects, it actually comes very close to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude to external objects is just as likely to make use of sensation.
Jung, Carl. Psychological Types (Routledge Classics) (p. 339). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

That's not the whole section - in context, Jungs referring to Sensation in the extraverted attitude - and intuition is in the Extraverted attitude is being outlined in very much the same way, undoubtedly by way of extraversion.

See what I mean? You've pegged N (and F) in general as "getting into meaning beyond the mere facts" but that's not actually the case, it's only the case when in the Introverted attitude, the extraverted attitude means they are very much pertaining to the "mere facts" insofar as the facts are basically anything in the outer world.

So you can be N dom. or T dom. and still deal in "facts" (which for a J type are perceived internally and verified by external judgment, such as the demand for "empirical" research). If ENTJ, then Se will be tertiary, and fairly conscious, so that may make the focus even more "concrete", though Ni will still be auxiliary, and enough to draw you to a topic like this. If Ni is dominant, Te will be aux. and still create a "factual" approach, but it will be more about determining which abstract ideas (such as theories) are "correct", more so than dealing with more physical things.

Se is only tertiary in ENTJs in the Grantian and Beebe models - it's not in Myers model, and it's not accurate at all from a Jungian perspective as I've outlined - and this is honestly all my issue is here, that these descriptors are not Jungian anything.
They're Grantian.

Even Ni having to have Te or Fe "aux" is incorrect from a Jungian perspective - I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm all for Ni types being able to be Ni-Te, Ni-Ti, Ni-Fe and Ni-Fi and none of this pertaining to "loops" or any other such non-credible nonsense - but the fact remains that perspective is not Jungian.

That's why people complain about it - it's simply not "true" - it's not an accurate portrayal of Jungs work.
They should be renamed.

[MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] - it's got nothing to do with any failure to understand anything, it's only to do with wanting the truth represented - and the truth is, the Harold Grant stack is *not* Jungian, therefore these threads are misleading and spread misinformation - not only this, but it's somewhat disrespectful to Grant et al who only had the best of intentions at heart.

Grant wasn't trying to force this stack onto anybody, he just thought it seemed like that's how people developed so he threw it out there without a whole lot of research or studies behind it (a "plausible hypothesis", in his words) - so it's just sketchy from multiple angles to depict descriptors using the Grant stack, as anything remotely Jungian.

It disrespects Grant, and it's not true to Jung.

I know nobody cares about this kind of thing, but there are people out there who push for the truth - I believe you're one of them, hence why you put in the effort you do into refining the TypoC test etc.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
OK, I've just answered your other post.

I don't think anyone ever claimed J/P as "external behavior" was "Jungian". As for I/E being misunderstood and not splitting the attitudes from the functions, I addressed that in the other thread.

As for N/F "meanings", that was just my own way of distinguishing S and T as both dealing with "Facts". I know "meanings" may have been a rather weak term. You then throw the attitude into that, and there is so much cross-talk in these, like like "concrete/abstract" (can be S/N or i/e) or "subjective/objective" (can be either i/e or T/F). So yes an introverted function may be more into "meanings", since it involves an "internal model" of things, and thus extraversion may seem more factual. That basically parallels concrete/abstract in that respect. But Ne in some respects still deals in "meanings", ad Si in "facts".
 
Top