• 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.

Fudjack/Dinkelaker Functional Preferences Instrument

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I've been studying personality for going on two years now. I also know some of these people getting these preposterous results perhaps a tiny bit better than you, so I see just how ridiculously wrong it is, while you don't.

And you clearly don't understand enough about Jungian function theory to see exactly what Jag and skylights exposed with that code.

You don't know me. And anyway, you should be thanking me for bringing to this forum, at least indirectly, evidence of a LIE that the MBTI has been perpetrating for decades now. That is, if one wants to call a logical fallacy a lie. Thank you Mr. Fud- fud- oh whatever!
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
You're right, I don't know you, but I see the evidence of your clear misunderstandings in this thread.

Enjoy your tin foil hat.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Fudge and Dink T

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvBatcJ5RNM].[/youtube]

i've noticed in my INTP dad that he has many "J" traits, as well. i've attributed those to being J-dom in MBTI.

In Jungian terminology, the Ti and Fi dominant are Introverted Rationals. In a sense, "IJ". And I think at closer inspection (like your father), you'll see that. Myers-Briggs thought Jung was examining (as best as possible) the internal viewpoint. They proposed that dominant Introverted Judgement is private - that when these introverts "externalize" themselves, they express it with Pe. Jung's Introverted Rational now becomes IP.

Although he occasionally refers to judging and perceptive types among extraverts, Jung never mentions that the JP difference can be seen in introverts and that it reflects the character of their extraversion. This omission is inevitable because he never discusses the introvert's extraversion.

Instead, Jung divides the types into rational and irrational: the "rational" types are those whose dominant process is thinking or feeling, and the "irrational" are those whose dominant process is sensing or intuition. This distinction is of little practical use in ascertaining a person's type. The rationality of the introverted feeling type, for example, is too interior and subtle for the observer to perceive with any certainty, or even for the subject to report. It is safer to depend on relatively simple and accessible reactions.

The JP preference does show itself in simple and accessible reactions. It serves admirably as the fourth dichotomy if one detail is borne in mind: It deals only with outward behavior and thus points only indirectly to the dominant process of the introvert.

[..]Inclusion of the JP preference in the theory came about as a result of unpublished personality research by Katherine C. Briggs before Jung's Psychological Types was published. The type categories she had devised were entirely consistent with Jung's, but less detailed. Her "meditative" type included all introvert types. Her "spontaneous" type corresponded to the perceptive extraverts, in whom perceptive behavior is at it's strongest. Her "executive" type exactly described the extraverted thinker, and her "sociable" type the extraverted feeling people.

When Jung's theory was published in 1923, she saw that it went far beyond her own, and she made an intensive study of it. Putting together sentences quoted earlier in this chapter, she interpreted them to mean that the auxiliary process run's the introvert's outer life. She looked at the outer lives of her"meditative" friends to see if this was true and concluded that it was.

Briggs also found that when the introvert's auxiliary was a perceptive process, it gave rise to a perceptive attitude and an outer personality that resembled, in a quiet way, the "spontaneous" personality of the perceptive extravert. When the auxiliary was a judging process, it produced a judging attitude and an outer personality that was the opposite of "spontaneous". -Gift's Differing p.42

Anyways, I don't mean to point out the obvious.

I think the basic temperment from MBTI pretty much remains the same, but there can be variation (like this test is trying to show) on when/where Judging or Perception shows up.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You're right, I don't know you, but I see the evidence of your clear misunderstandings in this thread.

Enjoy your tin foil hat.

Nobody learns anything by getting the answers right every single time.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Nobody learns anything by getting the answers right every single time.

You're not learning anything from the things we're saying to you.

Do you want to actually understand personality theory or not?
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You're not learning anything from the things we're saying to you.

Which personality ideas do you think I am in need of learning?

Do you want to actually understand personality theory or not?

I thought I did up until this Fudgy guy came along.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
If what he said never occured to you until just now, you still have a long way to go.

No, function theory doesn't always match the four dichotomies. This is common knowledge among people who study personality theory. It is not "brilliant."

And yes, getting NTFS as an Extrovert would = ENTP and as an Introvert = INTJ. You would have gotten that several pages ago in this thread if you understood Jungian theory.

Also, if you understood Jungian theory, you would have seen the glaring flaw in the test. It claimed to measure functionality, but was measuring neither Ne/Ni nor Se/Si nor Fe/Fi nor Te/Ti.

And if you don't believe in functions but only believe in the four dichotomies, then why would you think this test is enlightening? Because it's surely not.

There are two people in this thread who consistently type as Sensors and identify as Sensors who got high Intuition scores. This probably means they have Se and the test only measures Si, which is more detail oriented.

Or like Jag said, it's dwelling in terrible stereotypes.

The test is simplistic and flawed, and it's quite easy to compare it to MANY MANY MANY MANY others.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
If what he said never occured to you until just now, you still have a long way to go.

Of course I sensed something wrong somewhere for a long time, decades longer than you've been studying this system. But unlike Fudgy, who was an old man back when I first heard about him 15 years ago, I don't have time to sit around all day pondering sterile theories that try to fit 5 or 6 billion personalities into 16 little squares and yet can't explain why everybody is so different.

No, function theory doesn't always match the four dichotomies. This is common knowledge among people who study personality theory. It is not "brilliant."

And yes, getting NTFS as an Extrovert would = ENTP and as an Introvert = INTJ. You would have gotten that several pages ago in this thread if you understood Jungian theory.

You're missing something important here. Before I started this thread, those were just three types strung out at random. Sure, they're objective scores on tests, assumed valid. But there is no systematic reason for them to exist unless someone brilliant like Fudgy explains it for us. And all you're doing here is explaining it to me as if you knew all along. Maybe there is some hints of it out there in MBTI land, but the brilliant part of all this does not require that John Fudjack re-invent the wheel. It does require that someone create the induction based on the bits of evidence scattered here and there (which even I was aware of), and find just one chink in its logic armor based on someone else's flawed ass-umption about Jungian functions made decades ago.

And anyway, this test has a 1998 copyright date on it, so there's no reason to believe there aren't now similar ideas out there based on his theory. Perhaps you've read some of those derivative viewpoints that came after, and now you're convinced that Fudgy didn't accomplish very much after all.

I found in an online search that Fudgy also invented other brilliant concepts.

Also, if you understood Jungian theory, you would have seen the glaring flaw in the test. It claimed to measure functionality, but was measuring neither Ne/Ni nor Se/Si nor Fe/Fi nor Te/Ti.

You're assuming this was not done on purpose. So far, I have been given plenty of reason to give old Fudgy credit for brains, even if back in 1996 he did write some silly off-topic rambling thing on Professionalism. I bet you didn't know about that? I did. I wrote for and subscribed to the same Enneagram journal that both of our articles were published in.

And if you don't believe in functions but only believe in the four dichotomies, then why would you think this test is enlightening? Because it's surely not.

I cut my eye-teeth on functions. :cheese: But I'm not terribly impressed with dichotomies.

There are two people in this thread who consistently type as Sensors and identify as Sensors who got high Intuition scores. This probably means they have Se and the test only measures Si, which is more detail oriented.

Or like Jag said, it's dwelling in terrible stereotypes.

The test is simplistic and flawed, and it's quite easy to compare it to MANY MANY MANY MANY others.

So far all the criticisms of this test have been based on the assumption that this test is like all the others. And so far, those assumptions have been blown out of the water. All it required is a little investigation that thankfully someone else took care of for me.

This is not a typical type indicator that you're aware of, it is not fair to judge it by those others which are based on flawed premises.

And it doesn't claim to be the complete test. It is a "Short Form 1.1(experimental)" yet very enlightening. This test has a different orientation than those others, it is setting out to accomplish a bit more than just determining your function preference. Now that I know what that goal is, and what it is intending to accomplish, I see that its heading down the right track, one that should have been taken 50, 60, 70 years ago.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
"There are two people in this thread who consistently type as Sensors and identify as Sensors who got high Intuition scores. This probably means they have Se and the test only measures Si, which is more detail oriented."

Don't get me wrong, I think this is worth looking into if true. But only to find out why this test was constructed in such and such a way - not to find out what's "wrong" with it.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
These are some of the S questions on the FD33. You tell me if they represent Se or Si.

Don't waste your time imagining unrealistic possibilities - learn how to use statistics to assess the viability of a strategy.
Isn't one better off learning how to make accurate observations than trying to honor mere hunches?
I am more intrigued by patterns
When I am in a leadership position I often find I am best as a good steward
I would least like being called an idealist
When I am conversing with someone, I get most annoyed when they speak in a way that is mystifying
I'd say that I'm most often concerned with what is
I am most likely to feel disoriented by too many choices
I am least offended when I am labeled an empiricist
Although I don't like it, I must admit that I can sometimes get superstitious and somewhat flakey
Although I may not brag about it, I can sometimes be perfectly precise and thorough
People with whom I am not compatible might misconstrue my actions as uptight
At this point in my life I probably need to learn how to be more creative
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Statistics, patterns, steward, disoriented by too many choices, precise and thorough, uptight, and learn how to be more creative could all be definitely more associated with Si than Se.

I say "patterns" with Si because it follows linear patterns, and Ne sees "patterns" as well and they feed into each other in both NPs and SJs to a degree.

The rest sound more generally sensor-ish.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
cba to make the test because questions need too much thinking needed. i wish who ever made this test learned the basics of psychological research :dry:
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
cba to make the test because questions need too much thinking needed. i wish who ever made this test learned the basics of psychological research :dry:

Fudj's a really smart nice guy but came across as an amiable "ivory tower" / cloistured intellectual when I talked to him (and if you read his papers). He just runs in more academic circles by nature, and his presentations aren't necessarily aimed at the mainstream.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Fudj's a really smart nice guy but came across as an amiable "ivory tower" / cloistured intellectual when I talked to him (and if you read his papers). He just runs in more academic circles by nature, and his presentations aren't necessarily aimed at the mainstream.

im just saying that its one of the basics in this kind of stuff that the questions NEED to be understood with anyone who can pretty much barely talk.. possible misunderstandings of people who are being assessed can cause tests reliability go down really much. so no matter how well(and intellectually) the test is done on other things, the whole thing can fail on this basic thing. i mean this was like the first thing they thought us on psychological research course.. this sort of stuff can cause bias towards some types because some types might be better at understanding this sort of 'hard to get' language and he will get more reliable results from those types -> other types are more random -> the test fails. or it might just be that there will be so many random answers from all types and it wont be just bias towards certain types, but failure on the whole thing.

im not saying that he doesent know anything about psychology or that he is dumb, just saying that he is missing one basic thing that can ruin the whole test(and theory of something if he wants to test it with this).
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
im just saying that its one of the basics in this kind of stuff that the questions NEED to be understood with anyone who can pretty much barely talk.. possible misunderstandings of people who are being assessed can cause tests reliability go down really much. so no matter how well(and intellectually) the test is done on other things, the whole thing can fail on this basic thing. i mean this was like the first thing they thought us on psychological research course.. this sort of stuff can cause bias towards some types because some types might be better at understanding this sort of 'hard to get' language and he will get more reliable results from those types -> other types are more random -> the test fails. or it might just be that there will be so many random answers from all types and it wont be just bias towards certain types, but failure on the whole thing.

I know you're saying that.
I was agreeing with you, wasn't I?

im not saying that he doesent know anything about psychology or that he is dumb, just saying that he is missing one basic thing that can ruin the whole test(and theory of something if he wants to test it with this).

I know.

I just had talked to him in e-mail a number of years ago -- so I was verifying that, yes, he's not trying to be enigmatic or elitist, he just has issues with talking in language that the average user can understand.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere in this thread (I didn't read the whole thing) but Fudjack has his own nomenclature. Although the same 4 letter codes are used, John Fudjack and Patricia Dinkelaker assign different meaning to their type definition.

This article gives a brief overview of their system. Using MBTI INFP as an example, Fudjack/Dinkelaker would code that personality type as inF (because F has highest preference). FD33 differs from MBTI in that they add 16 more type definitions. Each of the standard 16 types can be either closure/non-closure (or directive/non-directive). So, our INFP could either be inF (closure) or inF (non-closure).

My results look like this
N 13
S 5
F 9
T 10

N-T-F-S
iNtj (INTJ closure)
iNtp (INTJ non-closure)
eNtj (ENTJ closure)
eNtp (ENTJ non-closure)

My T/F is pretty much even - I could just as easily test as INFJ (closure/non-closure).

I like the F/D nomenclature - it seems to address some of inconsistencies that I have experienced in attempting to pin down my own typing. If I were actually a non-closure version of an MBTI directive type (either INTJ or INFJ) then it would provide a better descriptor than the ill-fitting INTP.
Yeah, the new "j/p" is what they use for this new "closure" factor. (Even though "closure" is supposed to be apart of the MBTI J/P. I would say that when P's desire "closure, it's likely from being dominant Ji. This would explain my own identification with the notion of "closure" sometimes. They desire internal rather than external closure like a J. If this is so. then it is already implicit in the other letters).

This is actually part of what I was thinking about here:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13958&p=543872#post543872
I had forgotten that Fudjack's system was different from Socionics, so I was attributing it to Socionics. I was clearly thinking of that tap3x article you linked, but mis-remembered it as being on one of the Socionics sites.

Socionics doesn't "remove" J/P and put it back as something else; they just switch the meaning of J/P to dominant function (and they have a separate three letter system using different mostly letters). Fudjack is the one who converted the MBTI code to a three letter system, but then puts the fourth letter back with a new meaning.

In either case, I think they should at least use a new letter dichotomy for something like that.
See; just like with Socionics, we begin applying the type code to ourselves not realizing it's actually different from MBTI.

Also, if they wanted to integrate a fifth factor like that, why not use Comfort/Discomfort (The missing Neuroticism factor of the more psychologically respected FFM)?
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Statistics, patterns, steward, disoriented by too many choices, precise and thorough, uptight, and learn how to be more creative could all be definitely more associated with Si than Se.

I say "patterns" with Si because it follows linear patterns, and Ne sees "patterns" as well and they feed into each other in both NPs and SJs to a degree.

The rest sound more generally sensor-ish.

That's what I figured too. Here's what Fudgy has to say about his FD33:
But if it [the test] is flawed, and even if it is so tremendously flawed as to make the results arrived at by utilizing it absolutely useless, it would only mean that this particular test could not be used to identify iNfps and so forth. It would not effect the critique of the J/P designation that is generated by the alternative nomenclature, as described in our paper on that subject or in what we have said in this coversation, above. The argument associated with the nomenclature illustrates that the onus of proof is clearly on those who would use the J/P score to determine preference order.

The point you're missing here, by focusing on a mere test, is that Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers flubbed it big time. And since hardly anybody in the typology community is science-minded enough to spot these types of errors (which should have been easy for those trained at such investigations), and since the scientific community doesn't take typology seriously enough to investigate it, the error continued for about 60 years. This error trumps anything that might be wrong with the FD33.

Some people take logical fallacies seriously; but I understand there are others who don't, and never will, take them seriously. This one was big enough to drive a semi through, it just wasn't very obvious.

If I had trouble with the test (which gave me an answer I can work with), I would be digging deep to look into the issue. But for me it has only opened up a whole new range of possibilities.

I remember back in the day when I would sit down with pen and paper scribbling notes and making various type charts in a futile effort to fix the MBTI. But I see now I was focused too much on structure and not enough on underlying theory.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yeah, the new "j/p" is what they use for this new "closure" factor. (Even though "closure" is supposed to be apart of the MBTI J/P. I would say that when P's desire "closure, it's likely from being dominant Ji. This would explain my own identification with the notion of "closure" sometimes. They desire internal rather than external closure like a J. If this is so. then it is already implicit in the other letters).

Yes, I identify with that too -- the internal closure, the external openness (except for those times internal closure demands some external change).
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yeah, the new "j/p" is what they use for this new "closure" factor. (Even though "closure" is supposed to be apart of the MBTI J/P. I would say that when P's desire "closure, it's likely from being dominant Ji. This would explain my own identification with the notion of "closure" sometimes. They desire internal rather than external closure like a J. If this is so. then it is already implicit in the other letters).

Yes, the ultimate goal is closure, being expressed as unity within a system. But the system doesn't exist "out there." Not even INTPs (to use the old nomenclature) are forever open-ended, they are simply far-seeing in an intuitive sense. Closure may not even occur within the INTP's lifetime, but it exists somewhere over a horizon that has unknown limits. It's just a question of finding out what those limits are. The openness to possibilities is just a way of reaching toward and probing the potential extent of those limits. External reality can never provide enough data, most of the information is derived internally, and ultimately closure is not found through straight-arrow methodology but through flashes of insight.
 

FakePlasticAlice

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
403
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
intuiting =17
sensing =4
feeling =4
thinking =12

that really doesn't seem right.
 
Top