• 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.

ENFP/INFP

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There's a description of how that test works in one of the papers on Dario Nardi's site (the cognitiveprocesses test). I still think some of the questions on that test are a bit misworded, and I told them so in the feedback form. My Ne score was low because I missed all the Ne questions that had the word "random" in them. (I told them, 'the whole point is that it's NOT random',)

I actually completely disregard that facet stuff, and ever since I read about the facets in a sample MBTI part II report, I've concluded that they're BS. And I keep wondering, What did they base those on? (I bet that it's some circular logic thing where they based it on how people answered step two questions.) Facets schmacets. (according to the step II, am I supposed to 'accomadate' you right now and pretend that I think the facets are for real? OMG, I must not be a real ENFP).

No, no, no! That's the whole point of subscales. This shows you can be "questioning" and not accomodating, yet still prefer F in other areas, thus still being an ENFP! In this case, it would be called an "out of preference subscale" (OOPS)
Here's the descriptions and exercises from Hartzler's book I used to clarify it for me:

Questioning
T9 I use questioning to uncover premises and logical thought patterns of others

-The next time someone makes a statement that seems illogical, ask questions until it does seem logical
-If something a person says is confusing, ask questions to clarify. Go deeper into the concept, challenge person's facts assumptions or logical connections
Accommodating
F6 I attempt to connect with other people's points of view in order to maintain relationships

-Look for areas of agreement. Show how you can modify your position to match their's.
-Gently correct in critiquing (e.g. "My experience is..." "Have you considered"?)
-In a conflict situation, look at what your values are and other person's values. Look for ones you both believe in, then talk about differences.
-Recall some people in your life with whom you have not had as much contact as you would like. Find out how to spend time together to reconnect

Breaking it down this way, it now looks more like a logical dichotomy. You either try to make sense of things by questioning what someone says, or by looking for areas of agreement; and possibly being more willing to modify your position. It does not even say you have to modify them or accept the other person's position.
This is the mistake I made just looking at the words (facet names and brief definitions) alone. But the book really showed that it does make sense. So if you preferred accomodating, then you would phrase your objection as something like "Have you considered that the facets are not real", or point out what you see in them you can relate to, even though you're still not sure about them.


from INFJ or INFP? a closer look
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

More with the stereotypes! Here's the latest: people assume Feeling types are touchy-feely warm and cuddly.

Nyuh-uh.

Once you learn about interaction styles, you will discover this image is not necessarily true!

I had an encounter with an INFJ girlfriend recently who insisted that her husband was more "effie" than she is, and ergo must be a feeling type. My take on the husband was that his preferences were more likely for INTP. But, ironically, INTPs regularly come across as more "effie" than many Fs do. Most of the INTPs I know seem like big cuddly bears, despite their Temperament!
And people should consider they might be making this mistake with me. (I still wonder what Xander meant by "e-mail like an INFP")
I've also met a number of INFPs who believe they are NTs because they don't think they are "effie" enough to be an F. But doesn't that make sense?! After all, their Feeling function is introverted, and they don't show it around to everybody. They prefer to feel harmony in their environment -- but that doesn't mean they're some font of outpouring love with everyone they meet! Their Feeling function is directed inwards, not outwards.

INFJs aren't very "effie" either, I regret to say. We can be rather harsh critics at times, thanks to our extraverted Feeling judgments. Put that in combination with our devotion to Time & Task and our directing style of communication, and it's no wonder so many INFJs believe they're INTJs instead!

For all Feeling types, Dr. Beebe says that people often make the mistake of assuming Feeling = caring, when in truth, it can sometimes be cold, ruthless, and calculating instead. So some Feeling types can be extremely nasty indeed!

This is one of those times when "trait" descriptions really get in the way of "pattern" descriptions. People would rather believe all Fs fit some kind of friendly stereotype without taking the time to realize the falsity of this belief. Don't make that mistake

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warning: The more I hear people spout feeling stereotypes, the bigger bitch I'll be. I suppose the whole forum knows that by now though, huh?

Yeah;
I always put directing/informing above the simple T/F dichotomy. For Sensors, T/F does follow D/Inf, but for Intuitors, it is J/P that determines that, and T/F is Structure/Motive, which also adds a measure of "criticalness" or "accomodation" to the type, but the outward social behavior will be determined by the Interaction Style factor. This page Achilles Tendencies: Exploring Human Frailty and Personality Type which helped me understand a lot of this stuff, put it best: The FP is the most friendly (informative), the TJ is the most directive, and the TP and FJ are "somewhere in between". The TP is the most pragmatic, the FJ is the most cooperative or empathetic, and FP and TJ are somewhere in between. (He doesn't even accept Keirsey and Berens models, but I realized, for instance, that FP's were Informing + Motive, TJ's were Directing + Structure, and the FJ's and TP's mixed those dichotomies).

So while "Feeling" will indicate that the person will tend to not be the most "critical" of the types, yet they can still be pretty directive (or structure focused, though not both), when the Feeling is extraverted.
 

Gabe

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
590
MBTI Type
ENTP
"Actually that's half the interest I find with ENFPs (half being a large large overstatement).. somehow the more I try to be extroverted and transparent [thereby trying to head off the paranoid "I wonder if he really meant that" response] the more toes I tread on. I never cease to wonder at what will be picked up and argued over... often things I didn't even consider. In a way my "interations" with ENFPs have taught me a lot about how other's emotions work... Sounds mean said like that but it's a side thing really. I subconciously learn and try to compensate if I think they may get upset... Also I should mention that this applies to all individuals to some degree and not just ENFPs whom I patronise endlessly. I patronise them as a conplete side quest [kidding])"

That actually sounds like trickster Fe.

"I never cease to wonder at what will be picked up and argued over...often things I didn't even consider". In other words you are...*wring hands*, "I just can't win"...which is a signature of the trickster. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you don't try to be tactfull, you offend people, if you try to be tactfull you offend people even more. Am I anywhere near the mark?

Young INTJs are usually way more socially inept than young INTPs. Trickster Fe, man, think about it!
 

Leysing

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
309
MBTI Type
FiSi
More with the stereotypes! Here's the latest: people assume Feeling types are touchy-feely warm and cuddly.

Nyuh-uh.

Once you learn about interaction styles, you will discover this image is not necessarily true!

I had an encounter with an INFJ girlfriend recently who insisted that her husband was more "effie" than she is, and ergo must be a feeling type. My take on the husband was that his preferences were more likely for INTP. But, ironically, INTPs regularly come across as more "effie" than many Fs do. Most of the INTPs I know seem like big cuddly bears, despite their Temperament!

I've also met a number of INFPs who believe they are NTs because they don't think they are "effie" enough to be an F. But doesn't that make sense?! After all, their Feeling function is introverted, and they don't show it around to everybody. They prefer to feel harmony in their environment -- but that doesn't mean they're some font of outpouring love with everyone they meet! Their Feeling function is directed inwards, not outwards.

INFJs aren't very "effie" either, I regret to say. We can be rather harsh critics at times, thanks to our extraverted Feeling judgments. Put that in combination with our devotion to Time & Task and our directing style of communication, and it's no wonder so many INFJs believe they're INTJs instead!

For all Feeling types, Dr. Beebe says that people often make the mistake of assuming Feeling = caring, when in truth, it can sometimes be cold, ruthless, and calculating instead. So some Feeling types can be extremely nasty indeed!

This is one of those times when "trait" descriptions really get in the way of "pattern" descriptions. People would rather believe all Fs fit some kind of friendly stereotype without taking the time to realize the falsity of this belief. Don't make that mistake

TRUE! TRUE!

I'm definitely not a warm person. I normally seem cold to others... no, I seem FREEZING.

I have never hugged anyone spontaneously. Well, I hug my pets, but not people. Never.

If someone is talking about his problems to me, the empathy and pain for the other person that I feel inside myself is immense, but the only thing I do is that I nod and say "Okay.". This makes me appear cold and emotionless.

The best thing is that my sister calls me logical, rational and objective. :shock:
 

Gabe

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
590
MBTI Type
ENTP
No, no, no! That's the whole point of subscales. This shows you can be "questioning" and not accomodating, yet still prefer F in other areas, thus still being an ENFP! In this case, it would be called an "out of preference subscale" (OOPS)
Here's the descriptions and exercises from Hartzler's book I used to clarify it for me:

Questioning
T9 I use questioning to uncover premises and logical thought patterns of others

-The next time someone makes a statement that seems illogical, ask questions until it does seem logical
-If something a person says is confusing, ask questions to clarify. Go deeper into the concept, challenge person's facts assumptions or logical connections
Accommodating
F6 I attempt to connect with other people's points of view in order to maintain relationships

-Look for areas of agreement. Show how you can modify your position to match their's.
-Gently correct in critiquing (e.g. "My experience is..." "Have you considered"?)
-In a conflict situation, look at what your values are and other person's values. Look for ones you both believe in, then talk about differences.
-Recall some people in your life with whom you have not had as much contact as you would like. Find out how to spend time together to reconnect

Breaking it down this way, it now looks more like a logical dichotomy. You either try to make sense of things by questioning what someone says, or by looking for areas of agreement; and possibly being more willing to modify your position. It does not even say you have to modify them or accept the other person's position.
This is the mistake I made just looking at the words (facet names and brief definitions) alone. But the book really showed that it does make sense. So if you preferred accomodating, then you would phrase your objection as something like "Have you considered that the facets are not real", or point out what you see in them you can relate to, even though you're still not sure about them.


And people should consider they might be making this mistake with me. (I still wonder what Xander meant by "e-mail like an INFP")


Yeah;
I always put directing/informing above the simple T/F dichotomy. For Sensors, T/F does follow D/Inf, but for Intuitors, it is J/P that determines that, and T/F is Structure/Motive, which also adds a measure of "criticalness" or "accomodation" to the type, but the outward social behavior will be determined by the Interaction Style factor. This page Achilles Tendencies: Exploring Human Frailty and Personality Type which helped me understand a lot of this stuff, put it best: The FP is the most friendly (informative), the TJ is the most directive, and the TP and FJ are "somewhere in between". The TP is the most pragmatic, the FJ is the most cooperative or empathetic, and FP and TJ are somewhere in between. (He doesn't even accept Keirsey and Berens models, but I realized, for instance, that FP's were Informing + Motive, TJ's were Directing + Structure, and the FJ's and TP's mixed those dichotomies).

So while "Feeling" will indicate that the person will tend to not be the most "critical" of the types, yet they can still be pretty directive (or structure focused, though not both), when the Feeling is extraverted.


The accomadating facet is really just a Fe detector in my opinion. However, you should know, even then, once they're out of the social setting, Fe types don't do any of that stuff you described. If a friend is trying to explain the 'facets' to a Fe type, they'll probably pretend to be interested and pretend to agree. If a family member tries to introduce the facets to them and they don't find them relevant/meaningful, they'll criticize the facets. If they're boss is hiring a type consultant who might fire people based on MBTI, they'll probably criticize it every chance they get.

Most __FP types are probably out of preference on accomodating. Stupid dichotomy, stupid abbreviation- "OOPs, I didn't conform to some arbitrary facet".

I also don't buy the facets for any of the other dichotomies. It's not reaally related to the actual cognitive processes, and it doesn't match real life (If you want me to, I'll create another thread critiquing each of the facets. I mean, it's a well-intentioned effort by Quenk and Kummerow, but the result is, unfortunately, junk. So what were the step II facets based on? The step one? What did they do, interview people who took the step one? How could you get a random, statistically significant sample? The facets are really about*character*. How can you know enough about someone's character? Where they derived by conceptually stretching the type profiles? ??????

-Interest in motive has nothing to do with 'directive-ness'. What IS 'directive-ness'? It can't be directing vs. informing. What is it? You defined a new term, tell me what it means.

-FPs are not the most friendly type. I'm not sure there even is a most friendly type. Feeling types have bad days to, just like everyone else.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The accomadating facet is really just a Fe detector in my opinion. However, you should know, even then, once they're out of the social setting, Fe types don't do any of that stuff you described. If a friend is trying to explain the 'facets' to a Fe type, they'll probably pretend to be interested and pretend to agree. If a family member tries to introduce the facets to them and they don't find them relevant/meaningful, they'll criticize the facets. If they're boss is hiring a type consultant who might fire people based on MBTI, they'll probably criticize it every chance they get.
Maybe that facet does deal more with Fe, but where do you get these generalizations from? Why would Fe types in particular pretend or criticize?
Most __FP types are probably out of preference on accomodating. Stupid dichotomy, stupid abbreviation- "OOPs, I didn't conform to some arbitrary facet".
According to the study done by Roger Bissell (the same guy who did the Achilles Tendencies article linked above, and he's a big advocate of Step II, also called "E.A.R. Expanded Analysis Report), the FP's used in the study did edge out in favor of accomodating, though lower than other scales. FP's were highest in "affective", "compassionate", "casual" and "open-ended". Again, where do you get your claim that most FP's are out of preference in that scale? So maybe almost half might be, but then so what? They are still higher on those other scales, and maintain their "F" preference, and since they are unique from FJ's and other combinations, then they can be more out of preference in one giiven subscale.
I also don't buy the facets for any of the other dichotomies. It's not reaally related to the actual cognitive processes, and it doesn't match real life (If you want me to, I'll create another thread critiquing each of the facets. I mean, it's a well-intentioned effort by Quenk and Kummerow, but the result is, unfortunately, junk. So what were the step II facets based on? The step one? What did they do, interview people who took the step one? How could you get a random, statistically significant sample? The facets are really about*character*. How can you know enough about someone's character? Where they derived by conceptually stretching the type profiles? ??????
It seems the e-mail where Bissell was explaining that to me has disappeared. From what I remembered, the subscales, including those for an additional factor called Comfort-Discomfort, were once proposed by Myers, but then "suppressed". C/D was seen as too negative, and I forgot why the rest were suppressed, but C/D originally loaded onto some of the other subscales. But now with competition from the Five Factor Model (in such instruments as NEO-PI) which is like the four factors of MBTI plus Neuroticism-- which C/D is supposed to match; interest was renewed in the subscales.
You can see the factor analysis on this here:
http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/BessHarveySwartzSIOP2003.pdf
-Interest in motive has nothing to do with 'directive-ness'. What IS 'directive-ness'? It can't be directing vs. informing. What is it? You defined a new term, tell me what it means.
In that case, I was using it as a common category for both "directing" and "structure-focus".
Directing/Informing and structure/motive are mirrors of each other. Meaning that they have the same basic scale definitions on the other side of the S/N divide. For Sensing types, T=directing, F=informing, J=structure and P=motive. For iNtuiting types, T=structure, F=motive, J=directing and P=informing.

As such, the two factors have a lot in common, as they are both determined by the same scales: T/F and J/P, but in an alternating fashion.

Directing and informing indicates a person's social (i.e. "interaction") orientation. It is more than just about a person phrasing statements in the form of "direction" or "information". According to Berens: "Directing communications seem to have a task focus and Informing communications have a people focus. MBTI practitioners have long related task focus to a preference for Thinking and people focus to a preference for Feeling". "Descriptors of 'responsive' seem to go with the Informing style of communication and descriptors of 'less responsive' seem to go with the Directing style of communication." (Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles)

Likewise, structure and motive indicate a person's "conative" orientation. She defines "The Rational and Guardian patterns are characterized by a focus on structure, order, and organization to gain a measure of control over life's problems and irregularities rather than be at the mercy of random forces. The Idealist and Artisan patterns are characterized by a focus on motives and why people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying to force them into a preconceived structure". ("Essential Qualities of the Personality Patterns").

The motive-focused types can also be described as "responsive" to people (e.g. "work with people"), while the structure-focused types will be "less responsive" (use structures to gain a measure of control).
So "responsiveness" is the common element of both scales. It is also known as "people/task focus". (Notice how she links those terms to D/Inf, and then to T/F in general, though for N types, T/F is structure-motive). Since the terms responsiveness and people/task are not as well known as "directive", I sometimes use "directiveness" to refer to both, especially since Bissell picked up that the types that are both directing and structure (the TJ's) are "the most directive" as he calls it. (though he doesn't recognize structure/motive). Sometimes I say "critical (vs. Agreeable)" instead, but that sounds more negative. It makes sense, as we see, that directing and structure are two sides of the same coin. One indicated responsiveness in the area of social interaction, and the other indicates reponssiveness in the area of "action" or conation.

-FPs are not the most friendly type. I'm not sure there even is a most friendly type. Feeling types have bad days to, just like everyone else.
According to both the EAR data, as well as the general descriptions of the types, the FP's are more responsive than other types (informing plus motive). That's what "friendly" there means. It's not talking about "bad days"; and neither "shadows", "stress" or any other condition that affects behavior; it's talking about the general disposition.
 

arcticangel02

To the top of the world
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
892
MBTI Type
eNFP
Questioning
T9 I use questioning to uncover premises and logical thought patterns of others
-The next time someone makes a statement that seems illogical, ask questions until it does seem logical
-If something a person says is confusing, ask questions to clarify. Go deeper into the concept, challenge person's facts assumptions or logical connections

Okay, everybody does that bit. I don't know how you can assign that to T-types only.

Accommodating
F6 I attempt to connect with other people's points of view in order to maintain relationships
-Look for areas of agreement. Show how you can modify your position to match their's.
-Gently correct in critiquing (e.g. "My experience is..." "Have you considered"?)
-In a conflict situation, look at what your values are and other person's values. Look for ones you both believe in, then talk about differences.
-Recall some people in your life with whom you have not had as much contact as you would like. Find out how to spend time together to reconnect

The last one is very Fe, IMO. I'm not sure how accurate that would be in measuring Fi.

Can you really say that a person with that preference, even a strong one, will always behave that way? What about someone who tends to simply reject an idea they don't understand, and doesn't accommodate or enquire?

Breaking it down this way, it now looks more like a logical dichotomy. You either try to make sense of things by questioning what someone says, or by looking for areas of agreement; and possibly being more willing to modify your position. It does not even say you have to modify them or accept the other person's position.

Then how can you possibly tell the difference? If you consider changing your position but don't, vs. simply not changing position at all?

And people should consider they might be making this mistake with me. (I still wonder what Xander meant by "e-mail like an INFP")

We already have - that's why we're suggesting INFP even though we're pretty certain you're not a very cuddly person at all. :p
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Okay, everybody does that bit. I don't know how you can assign that to T-types only.
Can you really say that a person with that preference, even a strong one, will always behave that way? What about someone who tends to simply reject an idea they don't understand, and doesn't accommodate or enquire?
It's like the four main scales. Everybody does all of them, but they prefer one over the other.
The last one is very Fe, IMO. I'm not sure how accurate that would be in measuring Fi.
Yeah, the facets do seem to lean towards one attitude or the other.
Still, it's an aspect of the overall general "feeling" scale beign differentiated from others. So an FI type (such as FP's) may score lower on that. but they will be higher in other F areas.

Then how can you possibly tell the difference? If you consider changing your position but don't, vs. simply not changing position at all?

It's covering a particular T vs F approach to a problem.

Here are Hartzler's full definitions:

Questioning:
To come to a valid judgment about a problem, people using the questioning skills ask questions in order to check for consistencies, overcome obstacles, find common ground, or be convinced of the truth of another's argument. Questions are intended to make sure that the "argument" is fully understood and makes sense.
Accommodating:
When using the accommodating skills people handle differences of opinion by gently correcting, not by direct questioning. They place a premium on harmony, so they tend to find a way to let the other person's position stand rather than disagreeing. They believe compromises are more useful than disagreements.


So the same objectives are being met with both facets: to understand the other position, in order to be able to either find common ground, be convinced, or continue to reject it. It's just a "thinking" vs "feeling" approach to it.

(There was an MBTI Step II thread that fizzled out, and it seems this area of the discussion would be good over there).

We already have - that's why we're suggesting INFP even though we're pretty certain you're not a very cuddly person at all. :p
Well, if "not cuddly", then I still wonder what does appear so INFP then, besides "Te" (which is actually inferior for that type!) Both Fi and Ti are internal processes that won't be as readily seen by the outside; so I wonder what is appearing as a dominant Fi. People have mentioned stuff like "connecting" and "sharing", but those are what are usually thought of as "cuddly" features (and they would seem to be be compatible with a non-preferred Fe).
 

Gabe

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
590
MBTI Type
ENTP
Maybe that facet does deal more with Fe, but where do you get these generalizations from? Why would Fe types in particular pretend or criticize?
According to the study done by Roger Bissell (the same guy who did the Achilles Tendencies article linked above, and he's a big advocate of Step II, also called "E.A.R. Expanded Analysis Report), the FP's used in the study did edge out in favor of accomodating, though lower than other scales. FP's were highest in "affective", "compassionate", "casual" and "open-ended". Again, where do you get your claim that most FP's are out of preference in that scale? So maybe almost half might be, but then so what? They are still higher on those other scales, and maintain their "F" preference, and since they are unique from FJ's and other combinations, then they can be more out of preference in one giiven subscale.
It seems the e-mail where Bissell was explaining that to me has disappeared. From what I remembered, the subscales, including those for an additional factor called Comfort-Discomfort, were once proposed by Myers, but then "suppressed". C/D was seen as too negative, and I forgot why the rest were suppressed, but C/D originally loaded onto some of the other subscales. But now with competition from the Five Factor Model (in such instruments as NEO-PI) which is like the four factors of MBTI plus Neuroticism-- which C/D is supposed to match; interest was renewed in the subscales.
You can see the factor analysis on this here:
http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/BessHarveySwartzSIOP2003.pdf
In that case, I was using it as a common category for both "directing" and "structure-focus".
Directing/Informing and structure/motive are mirrors of each other. Meaning that they have the same basic scale definitions on the other side of the S/N divide. For Sensing types, T=directing, F=informing, J=structure and P=motive. For iNtuiting types, T=structure, F=motive, J=directing and P=informing.

As such, the two factors have a lot in common, as they are both determined by the same scales: T/F and J/P, but in an alternating fashion.

Directing and informing indicates a person's social (i.e. "interaction") orientation. It is more than just about a person phrasing statements in the form of "direction" or "information". According to Berens: "Directing communications seem to have a task focus and Informing communications have a people focus. MBTI practitioners have long related task focus to a preference for Thinking and people focus to a preference for Feeling". "Descriptors of 'responsive' seem to go with the Informing style of communication and descriptors of 'less responsive' seem to go with the Directing style of communication." (Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles)

Likewise, structure and motive indicate a person's "conative" orientation. She defines "The Rational and Guardian patterns are characterized by a focus on structure, order, and organization to gain a measure of control over life's problems and irregularities rather than be at the mercy of random forces. The Idealist and Artisan patterns are characterized by a focus on motives and why people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying to force them into a preconceived structure". ("Essential Qualities of the Personality Patterns").

The motive-focused types can also be described as "responsive" to people (e.g. "work with people"), while the structure-focused types will be "less responsive" (use structures to gain a measure of control).
So "responsiveness" is the common element of both scales. It is also known as "people/task focus". (Notice how she links those terms to D/Inf, and then to T/F in general, though for N types, T/F is structure-motive). Since the terms responsiveness and people/task are not as well known as "directive", I sometimes use "directiveness" to refer to both, especially since Bissell picked up that the types that are both directing and structure (the TJ's) are "the most directive" as he calls it. (though he doesn't recognize structure/motive). Sometimes I say "critical (vs. Agreeable)" instead, but that sounds more negative. It makes sense, as we see, that directing and structure are two sides of the same coin. One indicated responsiveness in the area of social interaction, and the other indicates reponssiveness in the area of "action" or conation.

According to both the EAR data, as well as the general descriptions of the types, the FP's are more responsive than other types (informing plus motive). That's what "friendly" there means. It's not talking about "bad days"; and neither "shadows", "stress" or any other condition that affects behavior; it's talking about the general disposition.

The Fe example is something that could very well fit a Fe type. The thing is, if I hashed examples like that out in more general terms, I'm sure I'd end up way more accurate than the stupid facets.

As for the five factor model, it doesn't relate to type theory in any real way.

From Wikipedia....

----------------------------------
The Big Five factors and their constituent traits can be summarized as follows:

Openness - appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience.
Conscientiousness - a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behaviour.
Extraversion - energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.
Agreeableness - a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
Neuroticism - a tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.
When scored for individual feedback, these traits are frequently presented as percentile scores. For example, a Conscientiousness rating in the 80th percentile indicates a relatively strong sense of responsibility and orderliness, whereas an Extraversion rating in the 5th percentile indicates an exceptional need for solitude and quiet.

Although these trait clusters are statistical aggregates, exceptions may exist on individual personality profiles. On average, people who register high in Openness are intellectually curious, open to emotion, interested in art, and willing to try new things. A particular individual, however, may have a high overall Openness score and be interested in learning and exploring new cultures. Yet he or she might have no great interest in art or poetry. Situational influences also exist, as even extraverts may occasionally need time away from people.
--------------------------------------

Again, a single discriptor word for each of the factors MAY give us function/preference information, but then the other words either contradict that, are about a DIFFERENT MBTI dichotomy, or are not about psychological type at all. There is no theoretical relationship between the MBTI and FFM models. The fact that some guy managed to squeeze some correlations between MBTI and FFM (already factually shaky, because people still argue about how to interpret the FFM dichotomies, who the hell knows how the person you mentioned interpreted them). And your theory about this is to assume that the data IS the theory? You are aware that correlation does not entail causation, right? Is global warming caused by the declining pirate population (a VERY strong correlation, if you ask the FSM people) , or is it caused by aliens (increasing number of UFO sightings)? By the way, assuming that the data IS the theory is a very Te thing do do.

On the other hand, Roger Bissels 'achilles tendencies' uses no data, twists the theory, and relies mostly on assumption. My theory about that stuff is that it's really about confidence. When feeling types are confidant, all of Roger Bissels work is relegated to irrelevent baloney. If only people would stop confusing the affect of our culture with a supposed trait of some type. Seriously. Think of a confident introverted feeling type....Rosie O-Donnel. Yeah. blows that other bullshit right out of the water, doesn't it?

Structure vs. Motive and informing vs. directing are different dichotomies, and you are mis-reading the definition. control over lifes problems does not mean control over other people. The thing is, even people pleasing is about having an addiction to control over other people. Idealists engage in people pleasing precisely when the lose truse of someone elses judgement, and they then must, for example, placate everybody whom they don't trust to come to the right conclusion/do the right thing. People pleasing ( one of the catylist stress responses) is just as much an addiction to control as anything else.

Besides, interest in structure does not inerently imply a greater interest in controlling other people. Basically, I don't remotely buy your concept of 'directive'-ness. Most importantly, the supposed behaviors of FPs and FJs (and every other type) do to that dichotomy is caricature-al and artificial.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The Fe example is something that could very well fit a Fe type. The thing is, if I hashed examples like that out in more general terms, I'm sure I'd end up way more accurate than the stupid facets.
You mean like your "Fe types would pretend or criticize" statement (which was the generalization I was referring to). Yeah, that sounds more accurate that those "stupid" facets, doesn't it?
As for the five factor model, it doesn't relate to type theory in any real way.

From Wikipedia....

----------------------------------
The Big Five factors and their constituent traits can be summarized as follows:

Openness - appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience.
Conscientiousness - a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behaviour.
Extraversion - energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.
Agreeableness - a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
Neuroticism - a tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.
When scored for individual feedback, these traits are frequently presented as percentile scores. For example, a Conscientiousness rating in the 80th percentile indicates a relatively strong sense of responsibility and orderliness, whereas an Extraversion rating in the 5th percentile indicates an exceptional need for solitude and quiet.

Although these trait clusters are statistical aggregates, exceptions may exist on individual personality profiles. On average, people who register high in Openness are intellectually curious, open to emotion, interested in art, and willing to try new things. A particular individual, however, may have a high overall Openness score and be interested in learning and exploring new cultures. Yet he or she might have no great interest in art or poetry. Situational influences also exist, as even extraverts may occasionally need time away from people.
--------------------------------------

Again, a single discriptor word for each of the factors MAY give us function/preference information, but then the other words either contradict that, are about a DIFFERENT MBTI dichotomy, or are not about psychological type at all.
Which? Let's look at all of those words:

appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience.
These can be found in S/N descriptions. It's about concreteness vs abstract.
a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behaviour.
These are found in J/P or Cooperative/Pragmatic descriptions
Energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.
These can be found in I/E descriptions
A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
These can be found in T/F descriptions, and by implication, directing/informing (when you look at definitions of alternate labels such as "responsive" or "people-focus"). Again, don't look at that word "cooperative" here and assume that is the "other" dichotomy. Cooperative can refer to different aspects of behavior.
A tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.
These are the definitions of Comfort/Discomfort

There is no theoretical relationship between the MBTI and FFM models. The fact that some guy managed to squeeze some correlations between MBTI and FFM (already factually shaky, because people still argue about how to interpret the FFM dichotomies, who the hell knows how the person you mentioned interpreted them).
What "guy" are you talking about? Bissell? If you look on the very Wikipedia page you pasted from, further down, you will see in a brightly colored template the MBTI-FFM correlation by Costa & McRae, two well respected theorists in the field. We did not make any of this up. Myers herself and others were involved in the subscales and Comfort/Discomfort factor (believed to be added to compete with NEO-PI). They made it up; you act like we just made it up.
And of course they're not perfect, as the different numbers show. Nobody ever said the correlations were perfect. Keirsey did the same thing by mapping his system to MBTI, using the same letters and 16 types (yet rejecting the functions undergirding those letters), and it is said to only have a 65% match. Yet we still use his letters and types and MBTI's interchageably.
And your theory about this is to assume that the data IS the theory? You are aware that correlation does not entail causation, right? Is global warming caused by the declining pirate population (a VERY strong correlation, if you ask the FSM people) , or is it caused by aliens (increasing number of UFO sightings)? By the way, assuming that the data IS the theory is a very Te thing do do.
What are you talking about? Who said the data IS the theory? The data is evidence of a theory (and the fact that it's called "theory" shows it's not absolutely proven, but we still use statistical evidence).
The way you're reading and responding to what I say is probably Te, so don't keep projecting that on me.
On the other hand, Roger Bissels 'achilles tendencies' uses no data, twists the theory, and relies mostly on assumption.
OK, he doesn't have the data on that page, but he has many other essays, some of them not published, some he plans to submit to the type associations, etc. His article "Lend Me Your EARS" has the data spreadsheet, but it's not published. You can request it if you like.

My theory about that stuff is that it's really about confidence. When feeling types are confidant, all of Roger Bissels work is relegated to irrelevent baloney. If only people would stop confusing the affect of our culture with a supposed trait of some type. Seriously. Think of a confident introverted feeling type....Rosie O-Donnel. Yeah. blows that other bullshit right out of the water, doesn't it?
What? Again; what are you talking about? Where in the world does this "confidence" concept come from? Where is your data and stuff you are demanding on that?
Structure vs. Motive and informing vs. directing are different dichotomies, and you are mis-reading the definition. control over lifes problems does not mean control over other people.
Besides, interest in structure does not inerently imply a greater interest in controlling other people.
I did not say that it did (and IIRC, you made this same mistake misreading something I said on this before). All I did was quote directly from Berens' own definition and say that it was a form of "less responsive" behavior. Why do you read this stuff into what I said that I did not say, and then get all annoyed at it? You're the one not only misreading what I'm saying, but also yourself doing what you are criticizing by misreading the concepts, like that "we have bad days too" statement to disprove [a too literal reading of] "friendliness"; and now, "control" (next).
The thing is, even people pleasing is about having an addiction to control over other people. Idealists engage in people pleasing precisely when the lose truse of someone elses judgement, and they then must, for example, placate everybody whom they don't trust to come to the right conclusion/do the right thing. People pleasing ( one of the catylist stress responses) is just as much an addiction to control as anything else.
But Berens is the one who says the Structure temperaments (NT and SJ) are the ones who need to gain a measure of "control" over situations (Nobody said "PEOPLE!") The kind of "control" you're talking about falls outside of that definition of "control", and if anything, is probably apart of the opposite pole, "Motive-focus". (And it's not the FIRO-based "Control" area I talk about either).
Most importantly, the supposed behaviors of FPs and FJs (and every other type) do to that dichotomy is caricature-al and artificial.
Now I can't understand you at all. Again, I did not make the dichotomy up; Berens drew it out of the Keirseyan temperament matrix.
Basically, I don't remotely buy your concept of 'directive'-ness.
Because you're reading something else completely different into it. You need to calm down. You're just reacting, and you don't even seem to know what you're saying, at times. Because you think you see people "playing with type" and you don't like it? Makes no sense to me. If your methods of interpreting my statements are puer Te, it is definitely a shadow (oppositional, or perhaps "witch") function for me!
 

Gabe

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
590
MBTI Type
ENTP
I don't know how to split up the quote, so for now "....." is what you wrote.

"You mean like your "Fe types would pretend or criticize" statement (which was the generalization I was referring to). Yeah, that sounds more accurate that those "stupid" facets, doesn't it?"

That was a likely example of a behavior, not a rule. For the accomadating vs. questioning dichotomy, I don't think that there IS a rule of behavior difference between Fs and Ts.

"Accommodating:
When using the accommodating skills people handle differences of opinion by gently correcting, not by direct questioning. They place a premium on harmony, so they tend to find a way to let the other person's position stand rather than disagreeing. They believe compromises are more useful than disagreements."

Whoever wrote that must pretend to ignore that introverted feeling's stance on dissagreements is 'my way or the highway' if an important value is at stake. If an important value is not at stake, an introverted feeling type MIGHT be very accomadating OR they might criticize through extraverted thinking. OR a million other options. There are real behaviors that you can relate to type, but 'accomadating' vs. 'questioning' is not one of them.

"Which? Let's look at all of those words:

appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience.
These can be found in S/N descriptions. It's about concreteness vs abstract.
a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behaviour.
These are found in J/P or Cooperative/Pragmatic descriptions
Energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.
These can be found in I/E descriptions
A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
These can be found in T/F descriptions, and by implication, directing/informing (when you look at definitions of alternate labels such as "responsive" or "people-focus"). Again, don't look at that word "cooperative" here and assume that is the "other" dichotomy. Cooperative can refer to different aspects of behavior.
A tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.
These are the definitions of Comfort/Discomfort"

Bullshit! In the *visceral realm* (can't think of a better way to describe it) __NPs are cautious and conservative, and have a tendency to seek familiarity. When they do play sports they are focused and technically conservative (I was on a ski team in high school, and the improvisors were the daredevils, and could also ski a much greater VARIETY of slopes than I could... obviously!). __NPs have very little oppenness to new sensing experiences. No, the first of the five factors is not even about S/N. I mean, c'mon! Everybody appreciates ART. How in the world does that have anything to do with any of the MBTI dichotomies?
Thinking types and directing types are not suspicious and antagonistic. That reminds me, I told you before that FFM is irrelevant because each of the dichotomies contains an obvious value judgement about which side is the better one to be on. is 'suspicious and antagonistic' enough evidence for you?
Oh, and yes, Extraversion obviously DOES relate to E.I SOMEWHAT. INtrovert's don't have less posative emotions than extraverts.

I don't give a shit what the results of the MBTI and FFM study were. It's obviously a coincidence and means nothing, and it's very easy to see how it could have been falsified. _SPs (very high on 'openness') are very likely to be mis-typed in the MBTI as having a preference for intuition. So the MBTI step II, through it's rediculous-and-untrue-to-the-reality-of-the-function-attitudes S/N 'facets', ends up mis-typing a big bunch of *high-open-ness* __S's as having a preference for intuition, and then also mis-types some of the more traditional N's as S's. Then that distortion shows up on the MBTI and FFM study. It's the perfect self-fullfilling prophecy.

Me, I'll stick to the 8 cognitive processes, thank-you-very-much.

The part about confidence is also easily backed up by information about the cognitive processes, and the qualities of the dominant function (and the other function-roles)... and by real life, if you arent' blind.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
"You mean like your "Fe types would pretend or criticize" statement (which was the generalization I was referring to). Yeah, that sounds more accurate that those "stupid" facets, doesn't it?"

That was a likely example of a behavior, not a rule. For the accomadating vs. questioning dichotomy, I don't think that there IS a rule of behavior difference between Fs and Ts.
OK; let's look again at Hartzler's exercises; now with different key words emphasized:

Questioning
T9 I use questioning to uncover premises and logical thought patterns of others
-The next time someone makes a statement that seems illogical, ask questions until it does seem logical
-If something a person says is confusing, ask questions to clarify. Go deeper into the concept, challenge person's facts assumptions or logical connections

Accommodating
F6 I attempt to connect with other people's points of view in order to maintain relationships
-Look for areas of agreement. Show how you can modify your position to match their's.
-Gently correct in critiquing (e.g. "My experience is..." "Have you considered"?)
-In a conflict situation, look at what your values are and other person's values. Look for ones you both believe in, then talk about differences.
-Recall some people in your life with whom you have not had as much contact as you would like. Find out how to spend time together to reconnect

Clearly, that is the language of Thinking vs Feeling.
Of course there is no absolute "rule" that it is always like that, and let's not forget that each person whill have both judging functions in the primary range (though with the attitudes reversed).

"Accommodating:
When using the accommodating skills people handle differences of opinion by gently correcting, not by direct questioning. They place a premium on harmony, so they tend to find a way to let the other person's position stand rather than disagreeing. They believe compromises are more useful than disagreements."


Whoever wrote that must pretend to ignore that introverted feeling's stance on dissagreements is 'my way or the highway' if an important value is at stake. If an important value is not at stake, an introverted feeling type MIGHT be very accomadating OR they might criticize through extraverted thinking. OR a million other options. There are real behaviors that you can relate to type, but 'accomadating' vs. 'questioning' is not one of them.
But perhaps these definitions are not looking at when a value is violated. Most profiles and descriptions I see will give "basic descriptions" under normal circumstances, and stuff like "when a value is violated" (as well as shadows and such) are treated as "special circumstances". That is a basic description. It is not an exhaustive coverage of every aspect of the type under every circumstance.
"Which? Let's look at all of those words:

appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience.
These can be found in S/N descriptions. It's about concreteness vs abstract.

a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behaviour.
These are found in J/P or Cooperative/Pragmatic descriptions

Energy, positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others.
These can be found in I/E descriptions

A tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others.
These can be found in T/F descriptions, and by implication, directing/informing (when you look at definitions of alternate labels such as "responsive" or "people-focus"). Again, don't look at that word "cooperative" here and assume that is the "other" dichotomy. Cooperative can refer to different aspects of behavior.

A tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called emotional instability.
These are the definitions of Comfort/Discomfort"


Bullshit! In the *visceral realm* (can't think of a better way to describe it) __NPs are cautious and conservative, and have a tendency to seek familiarity. When they do play sports they are focused and technically conservative (I was on a ski team in high school, and the improvisors were the daredevils, and could also ski a much greater VARIETY of slopes than I could... obviously!). __NPs have very little oppenness to new sensing experiences. No, the first of the five factors is not even about S/N.
Well, NP's with their Ne preference also have Si at the other end of the arm or spine, and that will be where the desire for "familiarity" comes from. Se types will probably have less of a need for familiarity. But then that is still an S/N difference, and all that was said was the FFM "Oppenness" corresponded to the perception area.

I mean, c'mon! Everybody appreciates ART. How in the world does that have anything to do with any of the MBTI dichotomies?
Again, appreaciation of art is perception, and that would be covered in the "Openness" area. Everyone appreciates art, but some people's appreciation is concrete, some are abstract. It's still the same area being covered. They seem to be interpreting concrete focus as supicious of art, but then the FFM apparently does not differentiate between introverted and extraverted attitudes of the functions and recognize the spines and arms where each person uses both functions in one or the other attitude. Again, nobody said it matched perfectly. Still, the areas being covered (perception, judgment, etc) do correspond.
Thinking types and directing types are not suspicious and antagonistic. That reminds me, I told you before that FFM is irrelevant because each of the dichotomies contains an obvious value judgement about which side is the better one to be on. is 'suspicious and antagonistic' enough evidence for you?
Oh, and yes, Extraversion obviously DOES relate to E.I SOMEWHAT. INtrovert's don't have less posative emotions than extraverts.
That's not necessarily a "value judgment" there, though it may be phrased in a way that gives that appearance. Nothing is said about "better" That's perhaps your Fi projecting that. Though I'll grant you that the difference here is that FFM is apparently more like Enneagram and FIRO in having a bigger focus on the negative aspects of personality that MBTI, which I had always noticed focused almost purely on the positive. This is one thing that makes comparisons between MBTI with both FIRO and Enneagram so difficult. Likewise, Horney's scales (which the "directional theory of Enneagram" uses) and expanded Type A theory suggest "one healthy type out of four". These both use expressive-responsive type scales (similar to E/I-D/Inf) and conclude that only the "high" expressive and responsive (corresponding to a "Sanguine") are "healthy". They move "with" people, rather than "against" or "away". Likewise, Eysenck's "Neuroticism" in which only the Sanguine and Phlegmatic are considered low on Neuroticism. This is the last factor of FFM, and is imported into MBTI's Type Differentiation Indicator as "Comfort/Discomfort". In fact, the reason apparently C/D was suppressed was because the people working with Myers feared it was too negative.

So that doesn't mean there is no correspondence between the two systems. They are only looking at the same things from different perspectives. Directing indicates both "task-focus" (rather than people-focus) and [thus] "less responsive" (according to Berens), and antagonism and suspicion are the negative extremes of this. MBTI and KTT/BTT do not emphasize this as much, but the other instruments do.
And it is not a value judgment, because most of these theories that portray directives that way will also point out that if you want something done efficiently, the task-oriented person will more likely get the job done. People-oriented and/or extroverts will likely either get caught up in socializing, or allow themselves to be distracted or swayed by others. They are often tagged with "irresponsibility". That is the negative side of their personality. Unfortunately, some of the theories use terms that seem to favor one side of each scale. But properly understood, it is not really a value judgment against anyone, and the scales in the two systems are covering roughly the same areas of cognition and behavior.
I don't give a shit what the results of the MBTI and FFM study were. It's obviously a coincidence and means nothing, and it's very easy to see how it could have been falsified. _SPs (very high on 'openness') are very likely to be mis-typed in the MBTI as having a preference for intuition. So the MBTI step II, through it's rediculous-and-untrue-to-the-reality-of-the-function-attitudes S/N 'facets', ends up mis-typing a big bunch of *high-open-ness* __S's as having a preference for intuition, and then also mis-types some of the more traditional N's as S's. Then that distortion shows up on the MBTI and FFM study. It's the perfect self-fullfilling prophecy.

Me, I'll stick to the 8 cognitive processes, thank-you-very-much.

The part about confidence is also easily backed up by information about the cognitive processes, and the qualities of the dominant function (and the other function-roles)... and by real life, if you arent' blind.
So your first complaint is that these theories are without any sort of data; but then when the data is provided, you just dismiss it as "coincidence", "falsified", and "self-fulfilling prophecy". :rolli: Then how can we know any of this is true, then? Most of this stuff; the original MBTI included, are based on that sort of data. Oh, but then you keep repeating this other theory about some other factor, basically, that is supposed to be known from data (that is not even being given) plus personal experience.
You might as well just say you don't like Step II or FFM because you just prefer Step I and leave it at that.
 

Gabe

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
590
MBTI Type
ENTP
OK; let's look again at Hartzler's exercises; now with different key words emphasized:

Questioning
T9 I use questioning to uncover premises and logical thought patterns of others
-The next time someone makes a statement that seems illogical, ask questions until it does seem logical
-If something a person says is confusing, ask questions to clarify. Go deeper into the concept, challenge person's facts assumptions or logical connections

Accommodating
F6 I attempt to connect with other people's points of view in order to maintain relationships
-Look for areas of agreement. Show how you can modify your position to match their's.
-Gently correct in critiquing (e.g. "My experience is..." "Have you considered"?)
-In a conflict situation, look at what your values are and other person's values. Look for ones you both believe in, then talk about differences.
-Recall some people in your life with whom you have not had as much contact as you would like. Find out how to spend time together to reconnect

Clearly, that is the language of Thinking vs Feeling.
Of course there is no absolute "rule" that it is always like that, and let's not forget that each person whill have both judging functions in the primary range (though with the attitudes reversed).

But perhaps these definitions are not looking at when a value is violated. Most profiles and descriptions I see will give "basic descriptions" under normal circumstances, and stuff like "when a value is violated" (as well as shadows and such) are treated as "special circumstances". That is a basic description. It is not an exhaustive coverage of every aspect of the type under every circumstance.

Well, NP's with their Ne preference also have Si at the other end of the arm or spine, and that will be where the desire for "familiarity" comes from. Se types will probably have less of a need for familiarity. But then that is still an S/N difference, and all that was said was the FFM "Oppenness" corresponded to the perception area.


Again, appreaciation of art is perception, and that would be covered in the "Openness" area. Everyone appreciates art, but some people's appreciation is concrete, some are abstract. It's still the same area being covered. They seem to be interpreting concrete focus as supicious of art, but then the FFM apparently does not differentiate between introverted and extraverted attitudes of the functions and recognize the spines and arms where each person uses both functions in one or the other attitude. Again, nobody said it matched perfectly. Still, the areas being covered (perception, judgment, etc) do correspond.

That's not necessarily a "value judgment" there, though it may be phrased in a way that gives that appearance. Nothing is said about "better" That's perhaps your Fi projecting that. Though I'll grant you that the difference here is that FFM is apparently more like Enneagram and FIRO in having a bigger focus on the negative aspects of personality that MBTI, which I had always noticed focused almost purely on the positive. This is one thing that makes comparisons between MBTI with both FIRO and Enneagram so difficult. Likewise, Horney's scales (which the "directional theory of Enneagram" uses) and expanded Type A theory suggest "one healthy type out of four". These both use expressive-responsive type scales (similar to E/I-D/Inf) and conclude that only the "high" expressive and responsive (corresponding to a "Sanguine") are "healthy". They move "with" people, rather than "against" or "away". Likewise, Eysenck's "Neuroticism" in which only the Sanguine and Phlegmatic are considered low on Neuroticism. This is the last factor of FFM, and is imported into MBTI's Type Differentiation Indicator as "Comfort/Discomfort". In fact, the reason apparently C/D was suppressed was because the people working with Myers feared it was too negative.

So that doesn't mean there is no correspondence between the two systems. They are only looking at the same things from different perspectives. Directing indicates both "task-focus" (rather than people-focus) and [thus] "less responsive" (according to Berens), and antagonism and suspicion are the negative extremes of this. MBTI and KTT/BTT do not emphasize this as much, but the other instruments do.
And it is not a value judgment, because most of these theories that portray directives that way will also point out that if you want something done efficiently, the task-oriented person will more likely get the job done. People-oriented and/or extroverts will likely either get caught up in socializing, or allow themselves to be distracted or swayed by others. They are often tagged with "irresponsibility". That is the negative side of their personality. Unfortunately, some of the theories use terms that seem to favor one side of each scale. But properly understood, it is not really a value judgment against anyone, and the scales in the two systems are covering roughly the same areas of cognition and behavior.
So your first complaint is that these theories are without any sort of data; but then when the data is provided, you just dismiss it as "coincidence", "falsified", and "self-fulfilling prophecy". :rolli: Then how can we know any of this is true, then? Most of this stuff; the original MBTI included, are based on that sort of data. Oh, but then you keep repeating this other theory about some other factor, basically, that is supposed to be known from data (that is not even being given) plus personal experience.
You might as well just say you don't like Step II or FFM because you just prefer Step I and leave it at that.

-So the questioning/accomodating facet describes the language of thinking and feeling...because it says it does. It isn't clear to me at all, and, as I've already explained, seems incredibly artificial. "normal circumsances" are almost nonexistant in real life, hence this facet-talk does such a lousy job predicting behaviors. Normal circumstances is a 1950s movie, and of course the male feeling type is usually ignored, or is very accomodating, even in conflict, while the female feeling type is some archetype of eros who is all emotion and sappy violin music plays in the background whenever she speaks. That was a time when america's extraverted feeling culture was its most glaringly obvious. Even then, In real life in the 1950s, those movie scenes were not normal circumstances. That is even more true now. That's why I mentioned Rosie O-Donell.

Whatever your type actually is (and I admit I don't know), you probably have some very false assumptions about people who prefer feeling. Please tell me everything that you think you know about a thinking vs. feeling preference.

And the FFM MBTI stuff IS a self-fullfilling prophecy. It makes perfect sense. And The FFM stuff has no real theoretical relation to psychological type. Who knows, maybe there is some theoretical relationship between the FFM and MBTI that nobody knows about yet. But the one you tried to invent is absolutely rediculous.

The FFM stuff and the Bissel Stuff is total bunk. It defies Berens interaction styles, it difies the 8 cognitive processes, and it defies real life. But you had a theory. You theory is that, although there are thinking and feeling types for each Berens interaction style, that thinking types must have a bit more of a preference for directing in general. And you base that off of the Bissel and FFM stuff. And you call you'r new sliding scale "directive" vs. "informative". But what came first for you. Did you research the FFM and Bissel stuff first, or did you have your theory first. And if you had your theory first, what was it based on then? At what point in all of this did you decide your type?
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
-So the questioning/accomodating facet describes the language of thinking and feeling...because it says it does.
Because "it" says it does? The terms it uses are right there. "It" doesn't "say" anything about what language it uses; it just uses it.
It isn't clear to me at all, and, as I've already explained, seems incredibly artificial. "normal circumsances" are almost nonexistant in real life, hence this facet-talk does such a lousy job predicting behaviors. Normal circumstances is a 1950s movie, and of course the male feeling type is usually ignored, or is very accomodating, even in conflict, while the female feeling type is some archetype of eros who is all emotion and sappy violin music plays in the background whenever she speaks. That was a time when america's extraverted feeling culture was its most glaringly obvious. Even then, In real life in the 1950s, those movie scenes were not normal circumstances. That is even more true now. That's why I mentioned Rosie O-Donell.
When I say "normal circumstances", I mean that type or temperament profiles/descriptions will usually give a basic overview of the typical behaviors, and in MBTI, it usually focuses on positive traits. That is what I mean by "normal circumstances". Because is anyone always like that? No. As you said; everyone has bad days. So then, the profile may add stuff like what comes out under stress, or what the shadows are like. More of the "negative" side of the type. All I'm saying is that other theories such as FFM focus more on those negative from the getgo. It is still there in the MBTI types, but not ususally mentioned right away, unless you dig really deep. (I could not find any negative sides of the types, until I found the PUM 1 and Hirsch & Kummerow profiles on Lifexplore, and the Team Technology profiles that mentioned the "shadow")
It seems we're always getting caught up on words and phrases. I guess that's supposed to be Te too, right?
And the FFM MBTI stuff IS a self-fullfilling prophecy. It makes perfect sense. And The FFM stuff has no real theoretical relation to psychological type. Who knows, maybe there is some theoretical relationship between the FFM and MBTI that nobody knows about yet. But the one you tried to invent is absolutely rediculous.
I didn't invent that; Costa & McRae did. You keep attributing all of this to me; all I'm doing is mentioning what these other theorists have come up with. And FFM may not have a "type" system. From what I've seen, they just score each of those factors separately and leave it at that. So noone said it related to "Type"; it's the factors that roughly correspond. And I'm not the one who invented the subscales or Comfort/Discomfort or any other further development of MBTI to compete with FFM. So I dont know why you seem to be blaming me for that. If you don't believe in it, then you've already said so. I'm not forcing you to accept it.
The FFM stuff and the Bissel Stuff is total bunk. It defies Berens interaction styles, it difies the 8 cognitive processes, and it defies real life.
How? You're making this up from your own misunderstandings about what FFM is about.
Whatever your type actually is (and I admit I don't know), you probably have some very false assumptions about people who prefer feeling. Please tell me everything that you think you know about a thinking vs. feeling preference.
But you had a theory. You theory is that, although there are thinking and feeling types for each Berens interaction style, that thinking types must have a bit more of a preference for directing in general. And you base that off of the Bissel and FFM stuff. And you call you'r new sliding scale "directive" vs. "informative". But what came first for you. Did you research the FFM and Bissel stuff first, or did you have your theory first. And if you had your theory first, what was it based on then? At what point in all of this did you decide your type?
I explained [the first part of] this to you before. I do not call the whole scale "directive vs informative", though I may sometimes use the terms as generic indicators of some parallel properties directing and informing share with structure vs motive. It's not that thinking types have "more" of a directing preference, despite the interaction styles. It's that a T will always be either structure, or directing, or, in the case of the TJ's, both. And this tied into what Bissell said, even though he does not even believe in any of Berens' dichotomies. He independantly of those made an observation of the TJ vs FP vs TP vs FJ groups, and I saw the pattern (you should understand this since you have dom. Ne) of how it came together.
The fact that T/F and J/P switch back and forth between indicating one of those dichotomies or the other, according to S and N hints that they have something in common. Thinking preference indicates something about the Interaction Style for S types, and it indicates something about the temperament for N types.

I actually found out about the Interaction Styles first, then came across Bissell's theory, which seemed to explain some things, and then finally saw Beren's Structure vs Motive, and then it all came together, and seemed to match the common dimension called Responsiveness or Wanted behavior, which is what I was familiar with before anything else.
I did look at a type based on this, and it seemed to fit, but then someone suggested something else purely by shadow dynamics, and I went along with it at first (yet still with serious questions about it), but as I studied the functions more, I saw that it did not really fit that type, and fit the first one I selected better after all.

I'm still curious as to why you seem so angry about all of this. People have all kinds of theories about type and everything else. Why is it like some sort of personal offense that others or other variations even exist?
 

Gabe

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
590
MBTI Type
ENTP
Because "it" says it does? The terms it uses are right there. "It" doesn't "say" anything about what language it uses; it just uses it. When I say "normal circumstances", I mean that type or temperament profiles/descriptions will usually give a basic overview of the typical behaviors, and in MBTI, it usually focuses on positive traits. That is what I mean by "normal circumstances". Because is anyone always like that? No. As you said; everyone has bad days. So then, the profile may add stuff like what comes out under stress, or what the shadows are like. More of the "negative" side of the type. All I'm saying is that other theories such as FFM focus more on those negative from the getgo. It is still there in the MBTI types, but not ususally mentioned right away, unless you dig really deep. (I could not find any negative sides of the types, until I found the PUM 1 and Hirsch & Kummerow profiles on Lifexplore, and the Team Technology profiles that mentioned the "shadow")
It seems we're always getting caught up on words and phrases. I guess that's supposed to be Te too, right?
I didn't invent that; Costa & McRae did. You keep attributing all of this to me; all I'm doing is mentioning what these other theorists have come up with. And FFM may not have a "type" system. From what I've seen, they just score each of those factors separately and leave it at that. So noone said it related to "Type"; it's the factors that roughly correspond. And I'm not the one who invented the subscales or Comfort/Discomfort or any other further development of MBTI to compete with FFM. So I dont know why you seem to be blaming me for that. If you don't believe in it, then you've already said so. I'm not forcing you to accept it.
How? You're making this up from your own misunderstandings about what FFM is about.

I explained [the first part of] this to you before. I do not call the whole scale "directive vs informative", though I may sometimes use the terms as generic indicators of some parallel properties directing and informing share with structure vs motive. It's not that thinking types have "more" of a directing preference, despite the interaction styles. It's that a T will always be either structure, or directing, or, in the case of the TJ's, both. And this tied into what Bissell said, even though he does not even believe in any of Berens' dichotomies. He independantly of those made an observation of the TJ vs FP vs TP vs FJ groups, and I saw the pattern (you should understand this since you have dom. Ne) of how it came together.
The fact that T/F and J/P switch back and forth between indicating one of those dichotomies or the other, according to S and N hints that they have something in common. Thinking preference indicates something about the Interaction Style for S types, and it indicates something about the temperament for N types.

I actually found out about the Interaction Styles first, then came across Bissell's theory, which seemed to explain some things, and then finally saw Beren's Structure vs Motive, and then it all came together, and seemed to match the common dimension called Responsiveness or Wanted behavior, which is what I was familiar with before anything else.
I did look at a type based on this, and it seemed to fit, but then someone suggested something else purely by shadow dynamics, and I went along with it at first (yet still with serious questions about it), but as I studied the functions more, I saw that it did not really fit that type, and fit the first one I selected better after all.

I'm still curious as to why you seem so angry about all of this. People have all kinds of theories about type and everything else. Why is it like some sort of personal offense that others or other variations even exist?

I was angry because I think I'm looking at a continuing influence of feeling stereotypes- which is why I mentioned the 50s movie part. That's also why the 'heart of servent supines' thing set me off (way earlier).


Anyways. When Fi types live thier callings, they aren't in normal circumstances. For example My INFP roomate is planning on becoming a criminal defense attorney, and I bet there are tons of Fi type lawyers. The career can be incredibly satisfying for Domfis, both for thier herioc and inferior functions. I'm sure that they don't fit much of the feeling facets when they're living they're callings though.

So how did Bissel observe the groups. What was the exercise? (I'll warn you now, for other reason's I mentioned I won't believe his stuff anyway. And how did he know what types the people were?)

You're right about the FFM definitions. At first I had no idea what each factor really was. Then I read the stuff on wikipedia, and it turns out my initial reaction was right after all. Forget the studies. If ________ is what 'openness' is, and __________ is what we know about types who's type is actually confirmed. Also, in real life, when it comes to metaphysics, improvisors are into way wierder ideas than anything I'll buy- scientology (I keep thinking of Tom Cruise's character in Minority Report), quantum mysticism, numerology, etc. I also know ES_Js who brag about some supposed eccentricity of themselves.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I was angry because I think I'm looking at a continuing influence of feeling stereotypes- which is why I mentioned the 50s movie part. That's also why the 'heart of servent supines' thing set me off (way earlier).
Well, I'm not trying to make stereotypes. Sorry if I've given any kind of impression like that. But then it's not like anyone is saying Feeling types are wimpy or soft or anything. They just have somewhat different type/temperament patterns, giving them their unique identity. Sometimes they seem less "critical" than Thinking, which is about logic, and is often stereotyped as being "cold".
Supine is a fifth temperament only held by two instruments (and implicit in the original FIRO, plus TKI and a couple of others with five types), and all I was describing was its responsiveness, or "informing" characteristics. And I fall into the category, yet I believe I'm still a Thinking type.
Anyways. When Fi types live thier callings, they aren't in normal circumstances. For example My INFP roomate is planning on becoming a criminal defense attorney, and I bet there are tons of Fi type lawyers. The career can be incredibly satisfying for Domfis, both for thier herioc and inferior functions. I'm sure that they don't fit much of the feeling facets when they're living they're callings though.
Well, nobody's denying that.
(Forgot to ask, what is Rosie's full type supposed to be? And is that verified by her, or just speculation based on behavior?)
So how did Bissel observe the groups. What was the exercise? (I'll warn you now, for other reason's I mentioned I won't believe his stuff anyway. And how did he know what types the people were?)
What types which people were? He did not assess people, he uses statistical date of the comparitive types using a Mean Similarity Method (MSM) and noted the similarities of those type. TJ, TP, FJ, FP are known as the "Normative Temperaments" or "judging attitudes". Then he also mentioned the original "Myers temperaments" of function combinations (ST, NT, SF, NF), and the "cognitive temperaments" or "perceiving attitudes" (SJ, SP, NJ, NP). He and others like George Frisbie and Janet Germane prefers these "symmetrical" models over the Keirseyan and Berens groupings which are totally asymmetrical, at least when mapped to the MBTI's scales. He points out that any of the groupings mentioned above (and many others) may be "better" or the most useful for a particular purpose.
"If you want to see what aspects of personality relate to two specific dimensions, obviously the Germane "syncretic temperaments" or the analogous TJ, TP, FP, FJ (Judging Attitudes) combination, or the Myersian function combinations (ST, SF, NF, NT) all can serve admirably well.
If, however, you want to have maximum distinctiveness of each of the four groups of types from each of the other groups, the Keirsey temperaments (as well as other asymmetrical groupings) are clearly preferable.
"
I myself disagree with him on favoring symmetrical models (To me, symmetry is desired, but not expected when mapping an ancient temperamt system to a newer system with it's own framework, based on cognitive functions including perception, which was not covered in the older theory). But he still offers excellent insights.
You're right about the FFM definitions. At first I had no idea what each factor really was. Then I read the stuff on wikipedia, and it turns out my initial reaction was right after all. Forget the studies. If ________ is what 'openness' is, and __________ is what we know about types who's type is actually confirmed. Also, in real life, when it comes to metaphysics, improvisors are into way wierder ideas than anything I'll buy- scientology (I keep thinking of Tom Cruise's character in Minority Report), quantum mysticism, numerology, etc. I also know ES_Js who brag about some supposed eccentricity of themselves.

Well, one, none of these tests perfectly measure every aspect of a person, two we do not know if these out of preference behaviors are hardwired, or learned, or even if they've typed themselves correctly, or if they have typed themselves at all, and it is not just us speculating on what their type is based on their behavior. How can you use a fictional character to argue what a type should or should not behave like? Or because a person adopted a particular religion or philosphy? You will find all types in any given one of those groups.
 

Gabe

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
590
MBTI Type
ENTP
Well, I'm not trying to make stereotypes. Sorry if I've given any kind of impression like that. But then it's not like anyone is saying Feeling types are wimpy or soft or anything. They just have somewhat different type/temperament patterns, giving them their unique identity. Sometimes they seem less "critical" than Thinking, which is about logic, and is often stereotyped as being "cold".
Supine is a fifth temperament only held by two instruments (and implicit in the original FIRO, plus TKI and a couple of others with five types), and all I was describing was its responsiveness, or "informing" characteristics. And I fall into the category, yet I believe I'm still a Thinking type.
Well, nobody's denying that.
(Forgot to ask, what is Rosie's full type supposed to be? And is that verified by her, or just speculation based on behavior?)
What types which people were? He did not assess people, he uses statistical date of the comparitive types using a Mean Similarity Method (MSM) and noted the similarities of those type. TJ, TP, FJ, FP are known as the "Normative Temperaments" or "judging attitudes". Then he also mentioned the original "Myers temperaments" of function combinations (ST, NT, SF, NF), and the "cognitive temperaments" or "perceiving attitudes" (SJ, SP, NJ, NP). He and others like George Frisbie and Janet Germane prefers these "symmetrical" models over the Keirseyan and Berens groupings which are totally asymmetrical, at least when mapped to the MBTI's scales. He points out that any of the groupings mentioned above (and many others) may be "better" or the most useful for a particular purpose.
"If you want to see what aspects of personality relate to two specific dimensions, obviously the Germane "syncretic temperaments" or the analogous TJ, TP, FP, FJ (Judging Attitudes) combination, or the Myersian function combinations (ST, SF, NF, NT) all can serve admirably well.
If, however, you want to have maximum distinctiveness of each of the four groups of types from each of the other groups, the Keirsey temperaments (as well as other asymmetrical groupings) are clearly preferable.
"
I myself disagree with him on favoring symmetrical models (To me, symmetry is desired, but not expected when mapping an ancient temperamt system to a newer system with it's own framework, based on cognitive functions including perception, which was not covered in the older theory). But he still offers excellent insights.


Well, one, none of these tests perfectly measure every aspect of a person, two we do not know if these out of preference behaviors are hardwired, or learned, or even if they've typed themselves correctly, or if they have typed themselves at all, and it is not just us speculating on what their type is based on their behavior. How can you use a fictional character to argue what a type should or should not behave like? Or because a person adopted a particular religion or philosphy? You will find all types in any given one of those groups.


My type-'guess' for Rosie O-Donnel is not a guess. I have gotten very good at process watching, and it is much easier when you hear and see the person. Rosie is definately an __FP type, my *guess* is ISFP. I'm pretty sure she took the position of 'persecutor' in insulting donald trump, and last I checked, she never apologized.

Yes, I will have to agree to dissagree about the facets, FFM, and 'normal circumstances'.

And If Bissell wasn't even actually observing people, I have no faith in his ideas (admittadly, I would never believe them anyway, but the fact that he was just armchair-theorizing goes in my evidence-box). Furthermore, his theorizing looks to me to be just a chain of false assumption so that he can get a symmetrical theory (real people don't adhere to this kind of numerology!) I'll adress each one of his assumptions tommorow.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
My type-'guess' for Rosie O-Donnel is not a guess. I have gotten very good at process watching, and it is much easier when you hear and see the person. Rosie is definately an __FP type, my *guess* is ISFP. I'm pretty sure she took the position of 'persecutor' in insulting donald trump, and last I checked, she never apologized.
Is "persecutor" supposed to be an SP trait? With her feistiness, she always came off as an extrovert to me. (And I tend to associate "confidence", at least as an inborn trait, with extroversion). And she strikes me as more like a J. But then, I never watched her much, and just remember the news about her coming out of the closet, and then she had her own show, and then was briefly on the View. (And she likes my favorite, Drake's Cakes, which are mostly a northeast US thing, and now basically merged with Hostess and Dolly Madison) Much of it is a blur, and I just remember her as some hot-tempered person who has strong feelings or complains about a lot of things.

Bush is said to be ISFP, and an ISFP on another boars was greatly disturbed at the notion of being the same type as him. (Because of his policies). But neither of them strike me as having the same personality as Rosie.
Yes, I will have to agree to dissagree about the facets, FFM, and 'normal circumstances'.

And If Bissell wasn't even actually observing people, I have no faith in his ideas (admittadly, I would never believe them anyway, but the fact that he was just armchair-theorizing goes in my evidence-box).
He may have observed people too, for all we know. But then do all theorists who work with statistics observe people? I do think that observation would be more reliable, but you can only observe but so many poeple at a time, while statistics are all right there before you. And even with observing people, people can wear masks of learned behavior.
Furthermore, his theorizing looks to me to be just a chain of false assumption so that he can get a symmetrical theory (real people don't adhere to this kind of numerology!) I'll adress each one of his assumptions tommorow.
Well, his symmetrical models he did not make up himself. SP/SJ/NP/NJ are from Janet Germane. TJ/TP/FJ/FP, I forgot who they were from, but both sets are legitimate "function attitude" groups. And then, ST/SF/NT/NF were what were suggested by Myers herself, along with George Frisbie.

I hope what you plan to respond to is his page, and not just the partial info I have relayed to you. One of the pertinent articles, on the EAR data, is not even online. And he has more articles that are not on the "Achilles" part of his webspace.
 

Gabe

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
590
MBTI Type
ENTP
Now for the Bissel stuff.

"The concepts that best capture this basic J/P difference are engaged vs. disengaged, "engage" being thought of in the sense of "to mesh together; to interlock with," like the gears in an automobile. J types, when intimate, become relatively more engaged, blurring the boundaries between themselves and the other person, getting "hooked into" the other. P types remain relatively more disengaged, keeping personal boundaries more distinct, "sidling up to" the other."

Either Bissel, or someone (I really don't care who) made this up. It is not true. It is made up. J/P has nothing to do with intimacy desired in relationships, and relationships that are codependent and have boundary problems usually revolve around the auxiliary (parent) function of both parties, and that goes for every type. No type has any type tendency to be more or less 'engaged'

"FJs, who extravert Feeling, are the most empathetic types. More than the other types, they tend to project inwardly, into themselves the values, standards, and concerns of other people. They experience those values, etc., as though they were their own, and they judge their own actions and character on the basis of those internalized values. TJs, who extravert Thinking, are the most directive types. More than the other types, they tend to project outwardly, into others their own values, standards, and concerns. They experience those values, etc., as though they belonged to other people, and they judge the actions and character of others on the basis of their own externalized values."

That was really just an elaborate semantics game, and Bissel has no clue what might actually go on in the minds of these types. Both types demand that some other people behave according to thier rules, and leave other people completely off the hook. My favorite example of neurotic codependent auxiliary extraverted THINKING was actually the British film "Remains of the day". The Butler (an ISTJ ) became completely aware of what his boss was up too, but the butler code is to not interfere with that stuff, which he never did, even though others reminded him that he probably had the most influence on his master of anyone. Why? Because he used his extraverted feeling to campartmentalize and specify his job, restricting what he could do. Also, INFLUENCE is a MOTIVE thing that may gaurdians and rationals remain amazingly clueless of. NTJs often seem not to care if someone is listening to them, and they also can go on and on when nobody is listening. Also, TJ types have a tendency to adopt a few pieces of ettiquette and follow them rigidly and robotically, thinking that that will ensure that people will like them. I remember reading about the sociology of the string-theory community. Because it is impossible (and impractical in terms of time, task, and trying to build a career) to adress every potential problem with theoretical physics, young string theorists just take at face value how thier superiors answered these problems. They say "It is obviously ___", because that's what Ed Witten said at the last conference, or "It has been proven that ___" even if theorists of other fields doubt the validity of that proof. Basically, because of the vast amount of material, they let thier superiors think for them when it comes to tying loose ends in the theories. What a bunch of sucking up, right? And most of them are rationals!! Sometimes I'm amazed at how NTJs seem to arbitrarily restrict themselves to what they can and can't work on. This atmosphere was created, because the original experimental culture of the 1970s was an incredibly extraverted thinking culture- "Shut up and calculate". Well, now they still all shut up and calculate, but they don't do experiments. But really, think about it, that activity has become (and always sort of was) a way of sucking up. The field is dominated by theorists- political, brown-nosing theorists (including, maybe ESPECIALLY, the NTJs).

"TPs, who introvert Thinking, will tell you their opinions and ideas. They tend to do so, however, in a less emotional way. Emotions, in fact, are normally the last thing TPs will share with you. When they do, it tends to be more explosive and after a period of stuffing or gunny-sacking their feelings. TPs are the type most unlike FJs in this respect. Myers and McCaulley recognize this basic difference when they refer to TPs as "impersonal" and FJs as "expressive." While TJs are most likely to be directive and control-minded and FPs least likely so, most FJs and TPs are likely to be somewhere in the middle."

Um, being a robot is a survival game for all theorists. And what I notice is that it's usually the INTJs who go around bragging that they "have no F.", and are a 100% logical robot. In my experience, TPs are much more willing to share thier emotions then TJs.

"Similarly, FPs, who introvert Feeling, will talk about values and concerns, but they tend to do so more indirectly and less logically or critically than others. They tend to stuff their criticisms and are the type most unlike TJs in this respect. Again, Myers and McCaulley allude to this basic difference in calling FPs "gentle" and TJs "tough minded." And while FJs are most likely to be empathetic and ethical-minded and TPs least likely so, most TJs and FPs are probably somewhere in between."

Less critically, huh? People should really meet some I_FP children, here how they sound before they get dummed down by society. And forget the 'less logically'. That's just a sublte little insult. Blow it out your ass, Bissel. Any FP and TP that prefers informing will express themselves indirectly, but there's really no more or less. In other words, I think Bissel is playing his numerology here. TPs will be more precise in thier criticism, but FPs will be much more willing to use value judgement, such as "That's disgusting" and "I hate ...", and "Well he's a prick"


Now for the real baloney.



"(1) Blaming occurs when one is overly critical of another person, probably with aggressive posture and a harsh tone of voice. The "tough-minded" TJs can sometimes become Blamers, if they are feeling defensive. They prefer to extravert their Thinking -- to use their logical, critical faculty in dealing with the world -- which can easily turn into Blaming if taken too far. An STJ Sensing Blamer would tend to focus more on the concrete level. He would base his message that he disapproves of you on details and miss the overall trend of your goodness. An iNtuitive Blamer (NTJ), on the other hand, would use a more abstract way of proving that you have done something wrong. He would be so invested in his overall view of you that he would not be aware of details that contradict that overall view."

And again I'm feeling like I'm being forced to watch a 1950s movie. The Humphrey Bogarts are not the only people who blame, OK? Everyone has a tendency, through thier 6th function, to be blaming and vindictive.

"(2) Placating, in a certain respect the opposite to Blaming, occurs when one is being overly self-critical, with apologetic posture and tone of voice. The "expressive" FJs, when feeling defensive, are likely to become Placaters, based on their preference to use Feeling to deal with the world. This tendency to be empathetic with and accommodating to others can easily turn into Placating if taken too far. A Sensing Placater (SFJ) is more likely to be overly apologetic over specific actions and out of touch with his overall goodness. An iNtuitive Placater (NFJ) is more likely to be so invested in his overall negative view of himself that he overlooks details that contradict that view."

And he makes incredibly false assumptions about motives. Placating doesn't neccesary stem from self loathing. All types do a bit of placating with thier auxiliary function. The self-esteem problem is actually more of an introverted feeling type thing. They're the types that can become locked in a very negative self-image.

"(3) Computing or Super-Reasonable is the hiding of one
 

arcticangel02

To the top of the world
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
892
MBTI Type
eNFP
A couple random points:

Is "persecutor" supposed to be an SP trait? With her feistiness, she always came off as an extrovert to me. (And I tend to associate "confidence", at least as an inborn trait, with extroversion). And she strikes me as more like a J. But then, I never watched her much, and just remember the news about her coming out of the closet, and then she had her own show, and then was briefly on the View. (And she likes my favorite, Drake's Cakes, which are mostly a northeast US thing, and now basically merged with Hostess and Dolly Madison) Much of it is a blur, and I just remember her as some hot-tempered person who has strong feelings or complains about a lot of things.

Actually, extraversion and confidence really don't have much to do with each other. The extravert may appear more confident, but many of them can be really quite shy. Likewise, there are plenty of confident introverts. So try not to mix those two up. :)

Bush is said to be ISFP, and an ISFP on another boars was greatly disturbed at the notion of being the same type as him. (Because of his policies). But neither of them strike me as having the same personality as Rosie.

Actually, I've heard elsewhere that he's an ESTP. But I'm not really sure.

ISFPs always seem to come across quite soft and kind, to me. But of course the level-headed ISFP I know is certainly not the be-all and end-all of that type.
 
Top