[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Introverted Intuition not Introverted thinking the primary\dominant function of INTPs

[simulatedworld]

What is a non-behavioral approach?

I really don't see this dichotomy as existing, but perhaps I am missing something.

I don't know; ask solitarywalker. His position is that the only relevant behaviors are "cognitive tendencies" which can only be determined by studying a person's most private and personal works.

According to him, any typological approach involving studying/categorizing any behaviors other than these private/personal cognitive tendencies constitutes "folk typology" and is therefore almost entirely worthless.

He justifies this by saying that people will often behave in ways contrary to their type due to external pressures, which is true, but you can still observe behavioral trends and make inferences about people's types that become increasingly accurate as you gather more information.

The fact is that each type really does tend toward certain behavioral patterns on average, so you can use induction to make reasonably good guesses--but this is unacceptable to SW because it doesn't focus exclusively on "cognitive tendencies" and requires induction/guesswork. (Basically, it requires induction via extroverted perception and doesn't fit squarely into his little Ti+Si box, so it's worthless.)

All the Wise Olde Fartes of MBTIville seem to be aware of certain factoids: that the tests are imperfect, should be answered as one would behave in an ideal world where outcomes did not matter, that type falsification is one of the most destructive things one can do as a human bean, and that types have certain behavioral characteristic when acting in both healthy and unhealthy ways. Jung certainly described behavioral characteristics as well as psychological metabolisms, as do all past and present writers, so...baby, it's like, all good....

I agree with you. SW maintains that Jung observed only cognitive tendencies, which are entirely unrelated to "everyday behaviors", apparently.

SW is kind of vague in explaining which behaviors qualify as relevant to typology--he says only a person's most private thoughts and writings about the nature of life can be used as legitimate typological data, and that using any other sort of behavior is inherently invalid and a total waste of time.

 

[paintmuffin]

Can I just say something to the OP?

You seek to prove that a type DEFINED by its dominant Ti is really Ni-Dom. You are making a new system here, not proving MBTI wrong.
There was something wrong with this thread BEFORE everyone started calling BS on something they hadn't read....

 

[Two Point Two]

its just not the truth. it's not that Ti folks are called INTP, its that INTP are accused of Ti. Ti folks are called INTJ and they are accused of Ni.

This seems odd. If I've got you straight - and I'm not sure that I have - you think that the people who currently believe they are, say, TiNe INTPs are actually INTPs, but they're using NiTe instead without realising it?

Given that so many people look to functions in order to work out their type to begin with, wouldn't you expect the majority of people thinking that they're TiNe INTPs to actually be TiNe 'INTJs'? Or, if not the majority, at least a decent chunk - all those who turned to functions in their typing, and managed to identify their strongest few?

This would make the distinction terminological. Call a TiNe whatever you want, it doesn't really change the theory. But, if you're not saying that - if you are indeed saying that all the so-called INTPs are NiTe and those who think they're INTJ are TiNe - then I'm wondering how so many people can have gotten it so wrong.

As for which terminology is better - they both have merits. Calling all P-doms Ps and J-doms Js would be conveniently straightforward, but then calling all people who use a combination of Pi with Je by one term nicely captures the easily observable commonalities associated with Je (and the same for Pe with those who use Pe and Ji).

 

[Polaris]

This seems odd. If I've got you straight - and I'm not sure that I have - you think that the people who currently believe they are, say, TiNe INTPs are actually INTPs, but they're using NiTe instead without realising it?

Given that so many people look to functions in order to work out their type to begin with, wouldn't you expect the majority of people thinking that they're TiNe INTPs to actually be TiNe 'INTJs'? Or, if not the majority, at least a decent chunk - all those who turned to functions in their typing, and managed to identify their strongest few?

This would make the distinction terminological. Call a TiNe whatever you want, it doesn't really change the theory. But, if you're not saying that - if you are indeed saying that all the so-called INTPs are NiTe and those who think they're INTJ are TiNe - then I'm wondering how so many people can have gotten it so wrong.

As for which terminology is better - they both have merits. Calling all P-doms Ps and J-doms Js would be conveniently straightforward, but then calling all people who use a combination of Pi with Je by one term nicely captures the easily observable commonalities associated with Je (and the same for Pe with those who use Pe and Ji).

I think that what nanook is trying to say is that there's a difference between MB Ni and Jungian Ni, and if you were to take an Ni-dom from the MBTI you would find that this person is not an Ni-dom according to Jung. I disagree with that--I'm definitely an Ni-user, even by Jung's definition, and I would say that a lot, if not all other NJs are as well. But that's just me.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Typology for Dummies

Thanks to everyone who responded to me in this thread. I appreciate your time and input. I know there is something to be said for quote-response format, and that NTs seem to prefer it, which is highly understandable. But I don't do well chopping my thoughts into pieces, as I am afraid some tangential clinging nuance will get lost to the void that way (and that would be a tragedy ), so I will respond in essay format, and I invite you to read if you like.

The point I was trying to make, no doubt in a foggy way, was that a person can test INTJ, be a definite introvert, fit the INTJ MBTI archetype well, yet still test out on functions higher on his Te (or Ti depending on the person, although it would undoubtedly be rarer) than Ni. Yes, by function theory you would call him ENTJ, but if he's a definite introvert you are stuck between two systems. You see it on here quite often. Am I an XXXJ or an XXXP? Without function theory to save us, these peeps would be destined to Xville and ambiguity forever. *shudder*

Some people seem to fit well with the MBTI archetypes. Some don't. Yet we still rely on MBTI tests to tell us our type. Therefore, we rely on MBTI archetypes, which as Sim has pointed out, can get us close to understanding people, and with experience and induction, can even provide some useful means of interpreting people. Some take this to extreme and say you can even predict one's behavior based on their type, hence the Keirseyan followers.

SolitaryWalker has attempted to fill the pure typology gap between MBTI and Jung by merging the typical 16 archetypes with a truer function interplay exploration of the first 4 most accepted functions per type according to current function theories, and provided a sholastic desription of them, but he iterates vehemently that these studies must fall under the subject of philosophy, and not psychology. His descriptions are the best I've seen of each type, despite his lofty prose, but they are not very expansive comparatively, once you've gotten used to pop typology predictors.

To confound the situation further, there are function theories that have been put forth by some MBTI adherers that overshoot what actually happens with functions in observable real life. Beebe and Thompson being at least two that seem to have gotten caught up in some introverted thinking loop and haven't fueled their research with real people, but assumed an a priori justification for their propositions. This has added to much confusion surrounding function usage. Which brings me to my primary thrust, and the reason I got involved in this thread.

There needs to be a better conceptual model for function theory. Before an accurate model can be developed, however, there needs to be more research done regarding functions indepedent of the 16 MBTI archetypes, and in relation to them. The current linear model for functions is represented usually like this: Ni>Fe>Ti>Se>yadayadayada not only doesn't reflect accurate usage of some functions, but it loses validity the farther you get from the beginning.

Furthermore, regarding the nontypical INTJ--and reasserting what it appears is difficult for people to understand--current function theory does not take into account (Kalach did address this, but insufficiently) is that an INTJ with 20%Si (not Se, because if he is dominant introverted perceiver, and his primary function is less than 75-80% expression via testing, he will be Si along with Ni [that's my proposition anyway]) and 80%Ni, there will be more usage of Si than the linear model represents. Much more. I therefore see a more representative model for INTJ looking something like this:

Ni>Te>Fi *fill in two arrows connecting upper and lower levels*
Si>Fe>Ti

*i don't know where you would put the last two functions, i'm just playing here*

With the two lines intersecting more easily and more often than a linear model allows.

Evidently, the MBTI people are, and have, developed more descriptive tests called, "Step II and Step III," and it remains to be seen what depth of substance it will contribute to the subfield of personality type within its parent field, psychology. Unless they are turning back to understanding the actual cognitive functions, which seem to be the common denominators across time, it is unclear how useful this data will be.

In the meantime, personality followers mix up the different disciplines in their attempt to better understand and utilize personality archetypes. This is becoming more popular because it does lend some much needed, if vaguely reliable, indication of sub-type. For example, knowing a person's enneagram (which has an awesome conceptual model, btw), along with their type, can help bridge some of the very large chasm that exists intra-type. However helpful, using different theories and systems lacks a cohesiveness that, while might not be felt currently, will become obvious as our understanding of our minds and the expression of personality expands. It would be in our best interests, therefore, to combine our efforts and develop some methodology for assessing a person's cognitive functions. From there, qualitative studies could be performed, and from there more quantitative studies would follow. Then, finally, some more rigorous and true archetypes could be (re)defined, and personality type more positively used as a tool for interaction among individuals and societies.

 

[visaisahero]

There was something wrong with this thread BEFORE everyone started calling BS on something they hadn't read....

It was painfully obvious from the start that the OP wasn't to be taken seriously. There were signs that he wasn't going to deliver on his promises and he didn't actually have anything substantial to contribute. Most people instinctively decide there and then that it would not be worth their time and energy to bother. If an established member of the community (say, SolitaryWalker) had posted something like that, I can promise you it would have been read.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

It was painfully obvious from the start that the OP wasn't to be taken seriously. There were signs that he wasn't going to deliver on his promises and he didn't actually have anything substantial to contribute. Most people instinctively decide there and then that it would not be worth their time and energy to bother. If an established member of the community (say, SolitaryWalker) had posted something like that, I can promise you it would have been read.

As for my part, I didn't care about the OP. I got involved because something Nanook said inspired me. I think it's kind of cool when threads meander other places. Sometimes it can be really great when that happens.

 

[visaisahero]

As for my part, I didn't care about the OP. I got involved because something Nanook said inspired me. I think it's kind of cool when threads meander other places. Sometimes it can be really great when that happens.

My Ne is so turned on right now

 

[simulatedworld]

The point I was trying to make, no doubt in a foggy way, was that a person can test INTJ, be a definite introvert, fit the INTJ MBTI archetype well, yet still test out on functions higher on his Te (or Ti depending on the person, although it would undoubtedly be rarer) than Ni. Yes, by function theory you would call him ENTJ, but if he's a definite introvert you are stuck between two systems.

It's impossible for him to be dominant in an extroverted function and be an introvert. By definition, being dominant in an extroverted function means your most preferred method of cognition involves interacting with the external environment.

Cognitive functions tests don't really accomplish much of anything because they depend on self-report, so it doesn't really matter if someone tests INTJ on an MBTI test but Te dominant on a cognitive functions test. It doesn't invalidate the model; it just means the person has inaccurately described himself somewhere along the way--the very definition of Te necessitates that introverts cannot be dominant in it. This is the problem with self-report tests--whatever the person erroneously believes about himself (or would like to believe about himself) comes out as "the truth" in his test result.

For instance, I know a blatantly obvious introvert who tested ENTJ because he'd like to believe he's more extroverted than he actually is. Does the bad test result make him ENTJ? No. If he tested Te dominant on a cognitive functions test, would that make him an ENTJ? No. Tests are almost meaningless and the best they can do is point you in the right direction for personal study.

If a person tests INTJ on an MBTI test but Te dominant on a cognitive functions test, it doesn't make him a Te-dominant INTJ. It most likely means that he erroneously believes his dominant function to be Te, when it's actually Ni. People frequently mix up their own function orders and it often takes a long time and a lot of study (and talk with others who know about the topic) to really accurately determine one's type. Taking a 20-minute internet test is not going to figure this out for you.

Many people identify most consciously with the secondary function because the dominant is often so ingrained into our perspectives that we don't even realize its effects on us.

And no, we don't rely on MBTI tests to tell us our type. You are vastly overestimating the predictive value of tests. Typology tests, at best, can give you a general idea of where to look, but the only way to know your type is to study the functions and determine which ones fit you best--all of the tests give blatantly inaccurate results to many people because psychological type cannot be empirically tested.

To confound the situation further, there are function theories that have been put forth by some MBTI adherers that overshoot what actually happens with functions in observable real life. Beebe and Thompson being at least two that seem to have gotten caught up in some introverted thinking loop and haven't fueled their research with real people, but assumed an a priori justification for their propositions. This has added to much confusion surrounding function usage. Which brings me to my primary thrust, and the reason I got involved in this thread.

No, they don't. Have you actually read Lenore? No one claims that the functions always occur in that exact order in practice; the function orders only represent ideal balances that offer the most well-rounded personalities.

(Lenore is an INTJ, by the way--a self-described Ni dominant whose preferred mode of thinking is extroverted.)

There needs to be a better conceptual model for function theory. Before an accurate model can be developed, however, there needs to be more research done regarding functions indepedent of the 16 MBTI archetypes, and in relation to them. The current linear model for functions is represented usually like this: Ni>Fe>Ti>Se>yadayadayada not only doesn't reflect accurate usage of some functions, but it loses validity the farther you get from the beginning.

I have to wonder here if you actually read my post.

Once again, the function models offered by Lenore, Beebe, Berens, etc. do not necessitate that functions always occur in that precise order.

Looking at your INTJ example, if he prefers Ti over Te then he's not classified as INTJ in the first place, regardless of what he scored on hopelessly inaccurate MBTI or function tests. You are placing way, way, way too much stock in the tests. Testing as INTJ doesn't mean anything because tests are subject to errors in perception of the self, badly worded questions, etc.

If he relies primarily on Ni+Ti, for instance, then he's classified as a highly introverted INFJ who would probably do well to work on his Fe skills and will find Fe to be the most natural way of dealing the outer world.

Note that being INFJ does NOT necessitate that his function order be precisely Ni>Fe>Ti>Se; this order only represents a theoretical balance. Lenore describes all kinds of situations in her book where real people do NOT follow this precise function order, but suggests that they'd have more success in balancing their personalities and adjusting to life if they worked on the skills suggested by the orders.

I don't know how else to tell you that no one's model insists that this precise order is always how it works out in practice. That's just not the case and you need to read these authors before you declare that this is their position.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

It's impossible for him to be dominant in an extroverted function and be an introvert. By definition, being dominant in an extroverted function means your most preferred method of cognition involves interacting with the external environment.

Cognitive functions tests don't really accomplish much of anything because they depend on self-report, so it doesn't really matter if someone tests INTJ on an MBTI test but Te dominant on a cognitive functions test. It doesn't invalidate the model; it just means the person has inaccurately described himself somewhere along the way--the very definition of Te necessitates that introverts cannot be dominant in it. This is the problem with self-report tests--whatever the person erroneously believes about himself (or would like to believe about himself) comes out as "the truth" in his test result.

For instance, I know a blatantly obvious introvert who tested ENTJ because he'd like to believe he's more extroverted than he actually is. Does the bad test result make him ENTJ? No. If he tested Te dominant on a cognitive functions test, would that make him an ENTJ? No. Tests are almost meaningless and the best they can do is point you in the right direction for personal study.

If a person tests INTJ on an MBTI test but Te dominant on a cognitive functions test, it doesn't make him a Te-dominant INTJ. It most likely means that he erroneously believes his dominant function to be Te, when it's actually Ni. People frequently mix up their own function orders and it often takes a long time and a lot of study (and talk with others who know about the topic) to really accurately determine one's type. Taking a 20-minute internet test is not going to figure this out for you.

Many people identify most consciously with the secondary function because the dominant is often so ingrained into our perspectives that we don't even realize its effects on us.

And no, we don't rely on MBTI tests to tell us our type. You are vastly overestimating the predictive value of tests. Typology tests, at best, can give you a general idea of where to look, but the only way to know your type is to study the functions and determine which ones fit you best--all of the tests give blatantly inaccurate results to many people because psychological type cannot be empirically tested.




No, they don't. Have you actually read Lenore? No one claims that the functions always occur in that exact order in practice; the function orders only represent ideal balances that offer the most well-rounded personalities.

(Lenore is an INTJ, by the way--a self-described Ni dominant whose preferred mode of thinking is extroverted.)




I have to wonder here if you actually read my post.

Once again, the function models offered by Lenore, Beebe, Berens, etc. do not necessitate that functions always occur in that precise order.

Looking at your INTJ example, if he prefers Ti over Te then he's not classified as INTJ in the first place, regardless of what he scored on hopelessly inaccurate MBTI or function tests. You are placing way, way, way too much stock in the tests. Testing as INTJ doesn't mean anything because tests are subject to errors in perception of the self, badly worded questions, etc.

If he relies primarily on Ni+Ti, for instance, then he's classified as a highly introverted INFJ who would probably do well to work on his Fe skills and will find Fe to be the most natural way of dealing the outer world.

Note that being INFJ does NOT necessitate that his function order be precisely Ni>Fe>Ti>Se; this order only represents a theoretical balance. Lenore describes all kinds of situations in her book where real people do NOT follow this precise function order, but suggests that they'd have more success in balancing their personalities and adjusting to life if they worked on the skills suggested by the orders.

I don't know how else to tell you that no one's model insists that this precise order is always how it works out in practice. That's just not the case and you need to read these authors before you declare that this is their position.

Wow. bolded. k. Yes, I did read your posts before, but now since I'm perusing this and the bolded parts are catching my eyes, and your remarks sound a bit hostile (for lack of a better work atm), I'm finding I don't have enough time right now to deal with this. I will have to come back later to tiptoe through your diatribe.

Tell me something. Do entps have original thought? I may sound stupid to you, but I'm not that stupid. This is how I learn things and this is how I brainstorm. I will take care not to do it in your realm anymore, mkay?

 

[jenocyde]

If a person tests INTJ on an MBTI test but Te dominant on a cognitive functions test, it doesn't make him a Te-dominant INTJ. It most likely means that he erroneously believes his dominant function to be Te, when it's actually Ni. People frequently mix up their own function orders and it often takes a long time and a lot of study (and talk with others who know about the topic) to really accurately determine one's type. Taking a 20-minute internet test is not going to figure this out for you.

I'm confused because then you say this:

No, they don't. Have you actually read Lenore? No one claims that the functions always occur in that exact order in practice; the function orders only represent ideal balances that offer the most well-rounded personalities.

So, is function order important to typology or not? If so, then an INTJ is an Ni dom, end of story. If not, then an INTJ can have Te as a stronger preference, but still exhibit the traits of an INTJ.

Then we have the whole issue of whether functions can even stand alone to begin with. Can a perceiving function truly be independent of the judging function it is filtered through? If not, then you would be defined by at least 2 functions used in tandem, say Ne and Ti, for instance. And in some instances, you would prefer to lead with Ti and in others Ne, correct? Why does this have to be a zero-sum, all or nothing equation?

Tell me something. Do entps have original thought?

Yes, some of us do. And some of us don't. Just like any other person or any other type.

 

[Jaguar]

Tell me something. Do entps have original thought? I may sound stupid to you, but I'm not that stupid. This is how I learn things and this is how I brainstorm. I will take care not to do it in your realm anymore, mkay?

When it comes to ENTPs like Sim, no, he does not display original thought.
He is parroting Lenore Thomson.

Actually, he's stealing her thoughts and passing them off as his own.
How do I know? I recognize her comments coming out of his mouth.
It's like watching Provoker rip off René Descartes, in a different thread.

If I used only Lenore Thomson as a single source of information, I am not ENTJ.
What she claims is true of ENTJs in her book is frequently 180 degrees from how, and what, I think.

She's about as innovative in her thinking, as Minnie Pearl.
Perhaps Minnie is an ENTP, like Sim.

 

[simulatedworld]

Wow. bolded. k. Yes, I did read your posts before, but now since I'm perusing this and the bolded parts are catching my eyes, and your remarks sound a bit hostile (for lack of a better work atm), I'm finding I don't have enough time right now to deal with this. I will have to come back later to tiptoe through your diatribe.

Tell me something. Do entps have original thought? I may sound stupid to you, but I'm not that stupid. This is how I learn things and this is how I brainstorm. I will take care not to do it in your realm anymore, mkay?

Okay, I apologize for sounding hostile. Really that's not what I intended.

I got a little frustrated because your post repeated several ideas that I'd addressed in my last post and didn't seem to pay any attention to them.

I don't think you're stupid, honestly. And I'm sorry for sounding like I do. I just find it odd that you say you've read and considered all the information in this thread and then repeated several misconceptions (like the "function orders must always happen in exactly this order" thing) that no prominent authors on the topic really support.

It feels to me like you're criticizing some of the ideas based on misinformation about how they actually work, and then not responding to clarifications to the contrary. It made me a little irritated that I'd just spent time trying to clarify those ideas and you don't seem to have acknowledged them at all.

On the topic of hostility, asking if ENTPs have original thought doesn't come off as a little hostile to you? Sure we do, just like anybody, but I was trying to clarify what I see as misinterpretations on your part of the authors you're critiquing.

Anyway...I really would like to discuss this with you and I'll try to refrain from sounding hostile. My apologies.

I'm confused because then you say this:

So, is function order important to typology or not? If so, then an INTJ is an Ni dom, end of story. If not, then an INTJ can have Te as a stronger preference, but still exhibit the traits of an INTJ.

It's primarily the dominant function that matters. The concepts involved in profiles and functions are tied together closely enough that being dominant in an extroverted function precludes being an introvert, by definition...so if somebody shows the characteristics of an INTJ, that means by definition that he's Ni dominant, yes, but it doesn't necessitate that his other functions fall into a particular order.

The dominant is separated from the others because it has so much more influence on our perspectives. You can change around the order of the secondary/teritary/inferior and even throw in shadow functions without changing the type, but if you change the dominant function then you're talking about a different type entirely. The dominant really is just that--very dominant. It's the only function that's necessitated by a type category because it's so much more influential on our perspectives than the others.

Then we have the whole issue of whether functions can even stand alone to begin with. Can a perceiving function truly be independent of the judging function it is filtered through? If not, then you would be defined by at least 2 functions used in tandem, say Ne and Ti, for instance. And in some instances, you would prefer to lead with Ti and in others Ne, correct? Why does this have to be a zero-sum, all or nothing equation?

Personally, I think all actions/beliefs/thoughts are the result of numerous functions working in concert...but I think you can also observe a clear dominant attitude in everyone. The only real constant here is the dominant function. In some instances you might pay more attention to Ti's influence than Ne's, but everything gets filtered through the dominant attitude's lens to a much greater degree than most people realize.

I don't think it's an all or nothing equation. I just think the dominant function is the most crucial part of typology and that changing it moves the person in question into a different category. The rest of the functions will come in varying orders depending on how that particular person has developed, but the function orders for each type suggested in the literature aren't meant to be proscriptive; they simply represent theoretical ideals of balance.

 

[Kalach]

I'm confused because then you say this:



So, is function order important to typology or not? If so, then an INTJ is an Ni dom, end of story. If not, then an INTJ can have Te as a stronger preference, but still exhibit the traits of an INTJ.

Briefly recapping theory for my own entertainment:

I'm led to believe function order is important, at least inasmuch as the dominant is the dominant. The person will organise their life such that the demands of the dominant function are privileged. They will tend to ignore demands that reduce the freedom of the dominant function. And why? Well, because it is their preferred method for operating their brain and associated systems. And do they get to change their preference? It would seem not. It would seem that to change ones preference is to destroy ones personality. Why? How does "preference" get to be such a determinant? Only the evolutionary and cognitive biologists know?

Circumstances may screw with people, however, and force the development of skills more obviously associated with other functions. But their function order stays the same, and they are unhappy or stressed a lot of the time.

And while the dominant is the dominant, presumably just on a survival of the fittest idea the dominant isn't enough, and adaptive advantage says one kind of auxiliary is going to be easier and more effective for the person. So if the dominant is a perceiving function, the auxiliary will be a judging function, and vice versa. And the orientations will be different. If the orientations aren't different and the kind of function isn't different, the person has to use more than usual mental energy to sustain the system.

And so on down the function order.

It's not impossible for people to develop uncommon function orders but it would seem they need an unusual environment or a persistent kind of distress to cause it.

And then again there's the question of telling the difference between actual function order and what skills life has required one to develop. An ENFP, say, in a Te environment may well develop impressive extraverted thinking skills and look like a Ne > Te > Fi person, but is that their function order or their resume?


How strong a structural force is "preference" anyway? And why? Beats me. Apparently it's really, really strong. I guess.

 

[ObliviousExistence]

It was painfully obvious from the start that the OP wasn't to be taken seriously. There were signs that he wasn't going to deliver on his promises and he didn't actually have anything substantial to contribute. Most people instinctively decide there and then that it would not be worth their time and energy to bother. If an established member of the community (say, SolitaryWalker) had posted something like that, I can promise you it would have been read.

fur real? its not my fault that you are neither perceptive or intuitive enough to have grasped my contributions to the topic. Like I said, you sound like a well trained parrot, hence I don't actually expect you to understand anything, how old are you btw? with a name like Visa is a HEro, you can't possibly be older than 12. I have delivered, in fact, for the last couple of posts I've basically been repeating myself, you just have your head stuck up your ass. Its not even something novel, there is a user by the name of technical on intpcentral who also addressed this in detail. Atleast one other person on this thread seems tcomprehends the essence of this thread. You have obviously been been spending a lot of time and energy on this thread and it was obviously not to contribute anything towards the subject. Not a single one of your posts on this thread has been about the subject, I doubt you would have the same courage to trash talk me IRL, so I wont waste time with you.

Lets see if you have actually been following this thread, whats the difference between myers cognitive functions and jungs function-types? what is the distinction between Jungs idea of perception and judgment and why does he refer to the former as irrational?

 

[ObliviousExistence]

Can I just say something to the OP?



You seek to prove that a type DEFINED by its dominant Ti is really Ni-Dom. You are making a new system here, not proving MBTI wrong.
There was something wrong with this thread BEFORE everyone started calling BS on something they hadn't read....

I realise I am in the wrong for attempting to associate two very differnt systems, but I have a hard time undestanding why Myers would take Jungs theories and redefine the meanings of his concepts while still using the same name. To me mbti is like a bastardised raped version of jungs theories.

or are you just saying that mbti j/p thing is wrong because jung did this differently and did it first?

something along those lines.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Sim: I mostly agree with everything you say.

It just bothers me that, for me, not enough legitimacy is given to the expression of the non-preferred functions as it regards perceiving and judging. I understand that Lenore and others say you can use all functions when needed, but that is not really good enough. There is a subtle, yet real, difference in saying, "Yeah, sure, an Ni dom uses Si sometimes; not often, because he would naturally default to his primary comfort zone using Ni, but, sure, as often as any other INTJ, give or take life circumstances, or stressors." While I am saying this: "An Ni dom might have inherited quite an inclination for S and N from both parents, and while Ni is dom, S (I think it gets converted into the dom attitude, so in this case Si vs. Se) shares some of Ni's dedication for perceiving; not just using Si occasionally, but perhaps quite often, as a part of his overall mind cognition." Or what if someone's parents were both strong N? Wouldn't the child of those two be more likely to have better usage of Ni and Ne? What would this person look like? How would he be different? Why?

You spoke about being balanced, and using the typical order to be a balanced person. I agree with that. But I would stop at calling out specific functions that would apply to, and just go with a person needing to balance out the attitudes of those functions. It's obvious a person needs introversion to be balanced with extraversion, and perceiving to be balanced with judging, etc. Until a person knows their predeliction for their own personal amounts of N/S and T/F, there can't really be a formula put to it, imo.

You're the knowledge whore (and i say that with utmost affection and respect ), has anyone looked into effects of genetics on personality type? After all, our personality stems from our genes, which comes from our parents, just like our physical characteristics stem from our genes and DNA> That's what I was trying to get at before when I used the phrase 'all or nothing.' If we have inherited a nearly equal amount of N and S, yet N shows dominance, S is still very much there, it's just masked. Yet because we don't really see it easily, we can assume we are much more N than we really are. Kind of like a brown eyed person can still carry a gene for green eyes. Yet with personality, I'm not sure that the recessive side would be obscured in the person. Would it manifest in prominent ways, or lie dormant in that person, only to be passed along in that person's DNA? I'm guessing it manifests somehow, but I don't know to what degree that would be so. And I'm interested in knowing what's behind the scenes, so to speak; getting more specifically down to what makes us us.

 

[Poki]

Sim: I mostly agree with everything you say.

It just bothers me that, for me, not enough legitimacy is given to the expression of the non-preferred functions as it regards perceiving and judging. I understand that Lenore and others say you can use all functions when needed, but that is not really good enough. There is a subtle, yet real, difference in saying, "Yeah, sure, an Ni dom uses Si sometimes; not often, because he would naturally default to his primary comfort zone using Ni, but, sure, as often as any other INTJ, give or take life circumstances, or stressors." While I am saying this: "An Ni dom might have inherited quite an inclination for S and N from both parents, and while Ni is dom, S (I think it gets converted into the dom attitude, so in this case Si vs. Se) shares some of Ni's dedication for perceiving; not just using Si occasionally, but perhaps quite often, as a part of his overall mind cognition." Or what if someone's parents were both strong N? Wouldn't the child of those two be more likely to have better usage of Ni and Ne? What would this person look like? How would he be different? Why?

You spoke about being balanced, and using the typical order to be a balanced person. I agree with that. But I would stop at calling out specific functions that would apply to, and just go with a person needing to balance out the attitudes of those functions. It's obvious a person needs introversion to be balanced with extraversion, and perceiving to be balanced with judging, etc. Until a person knows their predeliction for their own personal amounts of N/S and T/F, there can't really be a formula put to it, imo.

You're the knowledge whore (and i say that with utmost affection and respect ), has anyone looked into effects of genetics on personality type? After all, our personality stems from our genes, which comes from our parents, just like our physical characteristics stem from our genes and DNA> That's what I was trying to get at before when I used the phrase all or nothing. If we have inherited a nearly equal amount of N and S, yet N shows dominance, S is still very much there, it's just masked. Yet because we don't really see it easily, we can assume we are much more N than we really are. Kind of like a brown eyed person can still carry a gene for green eyes. Yet with personality, I'm not sure that the recessive side would be obscured in the person. Would it manifest in prominent ways, or lie dormant in that person, only to be passed along in that person's DNA? I'm guessing it manifests somehow, but I don't know to what degree that would be so. And I'm interested in knowing what's behind the scenes, so to speak; getting more specifically down to what makes us us?

What if we are born with all 8 functions, but since our brain is organic, some of them get burnt out. This would be the equivalent of over powering a transistor and burning out a direct path. What if an over current type of theory tends to deaden parts of our functions and we have to access them in a round about way. So while they are still part of us and affect us the direct path has been seared. Possibly from pain, etc. Like a desensitization.

 

[Totenkindly]

I realise I am in the wrong for attempting to associate two very differnt systems, but I have a hard time undestanding why Myers would take Jungs theories and redefine the meanings of his concepts while still using the same name. To me mbti is like a bastardised raped version of jungs theories.

I think that stuff sort of happens all the time, in many different disciplines. So I try not to get caught up emotionally when things like that happen, it's just how it works.

You're the knowledge whore (and i say that with utmost affection and respect ), has anyone looked into effects of genetics on personality type? After all, our personality stems from our genes, which comes from our parents, just like our physical characteristics stem from our genes and DNA> That's what I was trying to get at before when I used the phrase all or nothing. If we have inherited a nearly equal amount of N and S, yet N shows dominance, S is still very much there, it's just masked. Yet because we don't really see it easily, we can assume we are much more N than we really are. Kind of like a brown eyed person can still carry a gene for green eyes. Yet with personality, I'm not sure that the recessive side would be obscured in the person. Would it manifest in prominent ways, or lie dormant in that person, only to be passed along in that person's DNA? I'm guessing it manifests somehow, but I don't know to what degree that would be so. And I'm interested in knowing what's behind the scenes, so to speak; getting more specifically down to what makes us us?

There is no real known gene for a particular traits... and the real consensus is that an organism and its behavior is an interactive process between a variety of factors (genetics, physiology, environment, upbringing, social pressures, etc.)

There is some correlation between neural patterns and introversion/extroversion (it seems based on neural stimulation/wiring, which results from genetics and how the neural system develops early on)... but what you seem to be asking for seems far more complicated than even a "gay gene" concept... which has never been shown to exist. There have been isolation of some combinations for a handful of traits, but it's hard for it to be descriptive except in the grossest sense (i.e., "these people who show <this behavior> have a larger brain structure or gene combo than these other people who do not as often show that pattern of behavior")... but it's very very hard to tell what is derived directly from something else. There are just way too many factors involved.

These personality theories seem to be done in the reverse. Behavior is analyzed, theories are made based on the behaviors, then people try to tie it back to biology in some way... which seems to have perils of its own.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I think we are born with all cognitive functions (and who knows, there might be more than 8). It's just that some would be dominant and some recessive, just like everything else we inherent from our parents.