Thanks, WhoCares. I have wondered about extremes.
Wind-up Rex,
I think it's important to remember that the typical individual has some use of all the functions, but preference for a few
. This is actually a very good point.
I'm rather playful and emotive relative to most ENTJs, but that doesn't make me some other type.
In real life I only know one guy that I am sure he is an ENTJ. I wish I knew more so I could compare them.
remember reading somewhere that while there's natural intratype variation, all members of a type are going to conform to certain core similarities (there was a word for this core that I'm not remembering right now, unfortunately) or core archetype.
Now that really does make a lot of sense. That takes it much deeper than some generalized list of traits or occupations or possible relationships. To me that makes it applicable to real life. Any "type" may like or dislike anything, but at the 'core' we will have some...some deep rooted 'essence' or 'persona' of who we are or what we deem important.
If I had to describe myself "at the core," I'd say that it's important for me to see what is 'real', not just what is obvious, to look below the surface of ideas, circumstances, structures, organizations, systems, truths, people, life in general...I need to see how each spoke fits into the overall wheel of life and not only that, but I need to understand what the wheel itself is and why it turns in the first place. I desire to see not only the big picture, but how each piece makes up the big picture and how it all fits together. I suppose, that upon coming to understand a truth that is not obvious, then I would be compelled to at least try to share that truth with others because some of them may also be wanting to know and to understand. My core need...is...to understand all that I can understand, not just what I see around me, but also the root cause, and then, as much as possible, to communicate and share that understanding/discovery with others who might also want to know.
Those archetypes are generally the focus of generic type descriptions, and placing you closer to one type's mean or another is the purpose of most tests.
Yes, I agree with that.
I think MBTI types give the mistaken impression of a continuum when the reality is if you look at functions their usage is pretty discreet. Functions give you a way into someone's head and allow you to really parse out where the distinctions are.
This is a great way to break it down. Good explanation.
Your post has got me to thinking about this.
Do you happen to know anything about socionics, btw? I took a test today and came out as an ILI...intuitive, logical, introvert. I haven't had time to research it yet and see what the implications of that are, but I hear a lot of talk about socionics and thought I'd delve into it a wee bit.