[MBTI General] Just took a function test

[Salomé]

well there are a few scenarios in this:

Your logic is highly suspect and you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.
The disparity between test results and model can be explained very simply: either your model is faulty, or the test is. NOT THE PERSON!!

If a CF test fails to differentiate between Fi and Ti effectively (as some here claim), then it's worthless as a typing tool, to all intents and purposes. So why even discuss it? Come up with a better test.

I'm going to proceed on the basis that it is possible to distinguish between Fi use and Ti use fairly easily and the reason for the discrepancy is that you are working with the wrong model (there are at least 3 that I know of, none of them are theoretically watertight - and beyond the first two "functions" (which are all the MBTI purports to measure), the order is purely speculative.)

If you think about most MBTI-type tests, they don't measure Ti and Fi, they measure T vs F as an (arbitrary) dichotomy. What happens if you score as an INXP? Are you Ti-dom or Fi-dom or do you use both in equal measure? If you come down on the side of Ti-dom, does that mean you suddenly have Fe and no Fi? That makes no sense when you could just as easily have scored Fi-dom!
If you discount all testing then you have no means of empirically assessing the validity of your model. It's just one person's word against another's.

The huge theoretical gap between MBTI tests and CF interpretation is something I've never seen addressed on this forum. Jack Flak approached it, but never went there directly.

What you guys are trying to do here is dangerous: you're using an entirely unscientific model to tell people that what they think they know about themselves isn't true, people that you've never even met and know nothing about. That's crazy. It's like bulldozing a building because it's not on your map. Change the fucking map.

You're right about the last bit though, which I didn't take into account in my previous statement. Probably should have said "most" but that's almost a cop out.

I'm interested though, in how you manage the dissonance. How do you determine which function gets to decide?

It's pretty simple. They have different domains. Ti is only useful in situations that respond to logic. The rest belongs to Fi. Because I am strongly Ti-dom, sometimes I do try to solve personal problems with impersonal logic - that's almost always a mistake though. I'll even run Fi output through Ti - just because that's what I trust the most - I don't trust how I feel most of the time, unless my reaction is so violent that there is no room for doubt - actually even then, I don't always trust it. But often Ti has nothing to add other than criticism and endless stalling, looking for more data. If I rely too much on Ti, I procrastinate indefinitely on personal matters - which Ti has no sound means of evaluating.

It's funny, I'm similarly perplexed by the idea that a Ti dom could regard Fe with anything other than disdain and suspicion.

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

INFP

INFPs, more than other iNtuitive Feeling types, are focused on making the world a better place for people. Their primary goal is to find out their meaning in life. What is their purpose? How can they best serve humanity in their lives? (I don't put that much effort into the world as a cosmic whole or anything) They are idealists and perfectionists, who drive themselves hard (not too hard) in their quest for achieving the goals they have identified for themselves

INFPs are highly intuitive about people. They rely heavily on their intuitions to guide them, and use their discoveries to constantly search for value in life. They are on a continuous mission to find the truth and meaning underlying things. Every encounter and every piece of knowledge gained gets sifted through the INFP's value system, and is evaluated to see if it has any potential to help the INFP define or refine their own path in life. The goal at the end of the path is always the same - the INFP is driven to help people and make the world a better place. (Well, honestly, this whole paragraph is a little so-so for how I relate to it)

Generally thoughtful and considerate, INFPs are good listeners and put people at ease. Although they may be reserved in expressing emotion, they have a very deep well of caring and are genuinely interested in understanding people. This sincerity is sensed by others, making the INFP a valued friend and confidante. An INFP can be quite warm with people he or she knows well.

INFPs do not like conflict, and go to great lengths to avoid it. If they must face it, they will always approach it from the perspective of their feelings. In conflict situations, INFPs place little importance on who is right and who is wrong. They focus on the way that the conflict makes them feel, and indeed don't really care whether or not they're right. They don't want to feel badly. This trait sometimes makes them appear irrational and illogical in conflict situations. On the other hand, INFPs make very good mediators, and are typically good at solving other people's conflicts, because they intuitively understand people's perspectives and feelings, and genuinely want to help them.

INFPs are flexible and laid-back, until one of their values is violated. In the face of their value system being threatened, INFPs can become aggressive defenders, fighting passionately for their cause (I do this with values and also with hard facts). When an INFP has adopted a project or job which they're interested in, it usually becomes a "cause" for them. Although they are not detail-oriented individuals, they will cover every possible detail with determination and vigor when working for their "cause".

When it comes to the mundane details of life maintenance, INFPs are typically completely unaware of such things. They might go for long periods without noticing a stain on the carpet, but carefully and meticulously brush a speck of dust off of their project booklet.

INFPs do not like to deal with hard facts and logic. Their focus on their feelings and the Human Condition makes it difficult for them to deal with impersonal judgment. They don't understand or believe in the validity of impersonal judgment, which makes them naturally rather ineffective at using it. Most INFPs will avoid impersonal analysis, although some have developed this ability and are able to be quite logical. Under stress, it's not uncommon for INFPs to mis-use hard logic in the heat of anger, throwing out fact after (often inaccurate) fact in an emotional outburst. (My emotional outbursts are not particularly emotive seeming, I just seem frustrated)

INFPs have very high standards and are perfectionists. Consequently, they are usually hard on themselves, and don't give themselves enough credit. (I think I give myself the credit I deserve, though i suppose I wouldn't realise it if I wasn't) INFPs may have problems working on a project in a group, because their standards are likely to be higher than other members' of the group. In group situations, they may have a "control" problem. The INFP needs to work on balancing their high ideals with the requirements of every day living. Without resolving this conflict, they will never be happy with themselves, and they may become confused and paralyzed about what to do with their lives.

INFPs are usually talented writers. They may be awkard and uncomfortable with expressing themselves verbally, but have a wonderful ability to define and express what they're feeling on paper. INFPs also appear frequently in social service professions, such as counselling or teaching. They are at their best in situations where they're working towards the public good, and in which they don't need to use hard logic.

INFPs who function in their well-developed sides can accomplish great and wonderful things, which they will rarely give themselves credit for. Some of the great, humanistic catalysts in the world have been INFPs.

There you go. That's what I do and don't possess of the two types.

 

[slowriot]

The disparity between test results and model can be explained very simply: either your model is faulty, or the test is. NOT THE PERSON!!

Agreed

If a CF test fails to differentiate between Fi and Ti effectively (as some here claim), then it's worthless as a typing tool, to all intents and purposes. So why even discuss it? Come up with a better test

Because some people might think its valid as a test tool other than to determine the two dominant functions is. So we are helping people to see that they need to take caution to the test.

I'm going to proceed on the basis that it is possible to distinguish between Fi use and Ti use fairly easily and the reason for the discrepancy is that you are working with the wrong model (there are at least 3 that I know of, none of them are theoretically watertight - and beyond the first two "functions" (which are all the MBTI purports to measure), the order is purely speculation)

Yes I think it would be aswell, maybe the forum should make group that will try and redefine the questions and make a better cognitive functions test.

If you think about most MBTI-type tests, they don't measure Ti and Fi, they measure T vs F as an (arbitrary) dichotomy. What happens if you score as an INXP? Are you Ti-dom or Fi-dom or do you use both in equal measure? If you come down on the side of Ti-dom, does that mean you suddenly have Fe and no Fi? That makes no sense when you could just as easily have scored Fi-dom!

Noone uses two dominant functions. You dont use it in equal measure, thats psychologically hard to do, especially if you are to be seen as sane. (according to the basis of the discussion here, Jung's theory) That leaves the idea that the MBTi is only meant as what is in the name, an indicator and nothing more. So to say that the test should be able 100% can pinpoint your test is silly. And to be so accurate the test would have to take atleast 4 hours to complete and have over 1000 questions. (last was an exaggeration, one to try and get my point across as effectively as possible) I will speculate that 200 questions is not enough to fully determine a persons type. Especially a test trying to determine ones functions.

If you discount all testing then you have no means of empirically assessing the validity of your model. It's just one person's word against another's.

I disagree. As objective your test may be, there will always be a certain percentage that you will have difficulty measuring 100% accurate. If you on the other hand have taken this into account you have a measure that is as accurate as it can be. As I understand it this is something that most scientific tests take in to account.

The huge theoretical gap between MBTI tests and CF interpretation is something I've never seen addressed on this forum. Jack Flak approached it, but never went there directly.

What you guys are trying to do here is dangerous: you're using an entirely unscientific model to tell people that what they think they know about themselves isn't true, people that you've never even met and know nothing about. That's crazy. It's like bulldozing a building because it's not on your map. Change the fucking map.

 

[Jaguar]

That's right, she's got her double agents with their phasers set to stun, ready to beam me up to the mothership. That book was nearly impossible to get through for me. I've never read Beebe though, though if he's the senex/demon guy then I think he's full of shit too.

That was my reaction, as well. I would read a few pages at a time, then frisbee the book across the room. The one time I threw it, it left a mark on the wall.
Beebe is indeed the demon guy - too rigid for my taste.

 

[Salomé]

Because some people might think its valid as a test tool other than to determine the two dominant functions is. So we are helping people to see that they need to take caution to the test.

You're not helping. You're religiously adhering to a model rather than listening to an individual. You're accusing people who don't conform to said model as being potentially insane or having had an abusive upbringing. Have you listened to yourself?

Noone uses two dominant functions.

That's a tautology. I didn't say you use 2 dominant functions, merely that it makes no sense (outside of pure theory) to suggest that the presence of Ti implies the absence of Fi. Go ahead and prove it if you think you can.

As I understand it this is something that most scientific tests take in to account.

MBTI isn't scientific. It's widely debunked, in fact.

 

[slowriot]

You're not helping. You're religiously adhering to a model rather than listening to an individual. You're accusing people who don't conform to said model as being potentially insane or having had an abusive upbringing. Have you listened to yourself?

Okay, did I even use the word insane? Im not trying to make people conform to a model or religiously adhering to a model, if so you are in your right to call the bullshit card on me, but thats not what I said. I was merely interpreting the "pure theory" of Myers and Briggs, not that of Jung.

That's a tautology. I didn't say you use 2 dominant functions, merely that it makes no sense (outside of pure theory) to suggest that the presence of Ti implies the absence of Fi. Go ahead and prove it if you think you can.

MBTI isn't scientific. It's widely debunked, in fact.

I can not and as I said in the first post there are ideas out there that suggest people might have different inferior functions. I can just say in my case that when I contemplate my own behavior and the proces of dealing with emotions, I have found that my own Fe is higher than that of Fi. Eventhought I scored higher on Fi in the cognitive functions test. Which I find lacking aswell as any test related to MBTi theory.

I find that people that think they have found their personality type by some test and some reading on the profiles on the internet and accepts MBTi as a genuine way to figure out your type as the real losers and as the sheep.

Again where did I say MBTi is scientific? As I described above I find it to be lacking, but I find Jung's ideas on the functions interesting and worthwhile in the sense of understanding human behavior and patterns in my own thinking. Do I find it to fully sum up my behavioral patterns? No, but it seems sufficient. On Myers Briggs, I have only read one book published by them but I can see some ideas in the book as being interesting and something I find true but other parts of it seems lacking. Eventhough Ive never taken the original test Im still wary of the test results accuracy. Or any cognitive function test.

 

[INA]

I just don't understand why people are so insistent on justifying the original theory when cases like these obviously point the other way.

Beats me too.

What you guys are trying to do here is dangerous: you're using an entirely unscientific model to tell people that what they think they know about themselves isn't true, people that you've never even met and know nothing about. That's crazy. It's like bulldozing a building because it's not on your map. Change the fucking map.

+1.
I've never approached the "classic" intp in function tests. As a matter of fact, it often tells me I'm ENTP although Ti always beats Ne. But I'd be more disturbed if I gave a bot-like conforming results. I know I'm not confused in having Te as my 3rd function either- for the same reason I've wondered if I'm a weirdly stacked INTj. Ti-Ne-Te-Fi makes sense.
Besides that, I often find myself in (silent) agreement with INFPs' views and self-expression, tho I'm supposedly a strong T. It's a resonance I don't find with many other INTPs.

Because I am strongly Ti-dom, sometimes I do try to solve personal problems with impersonal logic - that's almost always a mistake though. I'll even run Fi output through Ti - just because that's what I trust the most - I don't trust how I feel most of the time, unless my reaction is so violent that there is no room for doubt

It's funny, I'm similarly perplexed by the idea that a Ti dom could regard Fe with anything other than disdain and suspicion.

I identify with this a lot, with the difference that I've learned not to stifle the hell out of my own so much, perhaps because of the futility of Ti filtering.

But regardless of the strength of my Fi, at no point could I say it's weaker than Fe, whose concerns may make strategic sense at times but whose ways are often alien and sometimes hostile to my own values.

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

Besides that, I often find myself in (silent) agreement with INFPs' views and self-expression, tho I'm supposedly a strong T. It's a resonance I don't find with many other INTPs.



I identify with this a lot, with the difference that I've learned not to stifle the hell out of my own so much, perhaps because of the futility of Ti filtering.

This is the funny thing, because really, having strong ethics and moral and personal standards, if you think about it, doesn't HAVE to be in conflict with logic at all. In myself I find they run quite comfortably beside each other, and this is the point of confusion.