Typology for Dummies
Thanks to everyone who responded to me in this thread. I appreciate your time and input. I know there is something to be said for quote-response format, and that NTs seem to prefer it, which is highly understandable. But I don't do well chopping my thoughts into pieces, as I am afraid some tangential clinging nuance will get lost to the void that way (and that would be a tragedy
), so I will respond in essay format, and I invite you to read if you like.
The point I was trying to make, no doubt in a foggy way, was that a person can test INTJ, be a definite introvert, fit the INTJ MBTI archetype well, yet still test out on functions higher on his Te (or Ti depending on the person, although it would undoubtedly be rarer) than Ni. Yes, by function theory you would call him ENTJ, but if he's a definite introvert you are stuck between two systems. You see it on here quite often. Am I an XXXJ or an XXXP? Without function theory to save us, these peeps would be destined to Xville and ambiguity forever. *shudder*
Some people seem to fit well with the MBTI archetypes. Some don't. Yet we still rely on MBTI tests to tell us our type. Therefore, we rely on MBTI archetypes, which as Sim has pointed out, can get us close to understanding people, and with experience and induction, can even provide some useful means of interpreting people. Some take this to extreme and say you can even predict one's behavior based on their type, hence the Keirseyan followers.
SolitaryWalker has attempted to fill the pure typology gap between MBTI and Jung by merging the typical 16 archetypes with a truer function interplay exploration of the first 4 most accepted functions per type according to current function theories, and provided a sholastic desription of them, but he iterates vehemently that these studies must fall under the subject of philosophy, and not psychology. His descriptions are the best I've seen of each type, despite his lofty prose, but they are not very expansive comparatively, once you've gotten used to pop typology predictors.
To confound the situation further, there are function theories that have been put forth by some MBTI adherers that overshoot what actually happens with functions in observable real life. Beebe and Thompson being at least two that seem to have gotten caught up in some introverted thinking loop and haven't fueled their research with real people, but assumed an a priori justification for their propositions. This has added to much confusion surrounding function usage. Which brings me to my primary thrust, and the reason I got involved in this thread.
There needs to be a better conceptual model for function theory. Before an accurate model can be developed, however, there needs to be more research done regarding functions indepedent of the 16 MBTI archetypes, and in relation to them. The current linear model for functions is represented usually like this: Ni>Fe>Ti>Se>yadayadayada not only doesn't reflect accurate usage of some functions, but it loses validity the farther you get from the beginning.
Furthermore, regarding the nontypical INTJ--and reasserting what it appears is difficult for people to understand--current function theory does not take into account (Kalach did address this, but insufficiently) is that an INTJ with 20%Si (not Se, because if he is dominant introverted perceiver, and his primary function is less than 75-80% expression via testing, he will be Si along with Ni [that's my proposition anyway]) and 80%Ni, there will be more usage of Si than the linear model represents. Much more. I therefore see a more representative model for INTJ looking something like this:
Ni>Te>Fi *fill in two arrows connecting upper and lower levels*
Si>Fe>Ti
*i don't know where you would put the last two functions, i'm just playing here*
With the two lines intersecting more easily and more often than a linear model allows.
Evidently, the MBTI people are, and have, developed more descriptive tests called, "Step II and Step III," and it remains to be seen what depth of substance it will contribute to the subfield of personality type within its parent field, psychology. Unless they are turning back to understanding the actual cognitive functions, which seem to be the common denominators across time, it is unclear how useful this data will be.
In the meantime, personality followers mix up the different disciplines in their attempt to better understand and utilize personality archetypes. This is becoming more popular because it does lend some much needed, if vaguely reliable, indication of sub-type. For example, knowing a person's enneagram (which has an awesome conceptual model, btw), along with their type, can help bridge some of the very large chasm that exists intra-type. However helpful, using different theories and systems lacks a cohesiveness that, while might not be felt currently, will become obvious as our understanding of our minds and the expression of personality expands. It would be in our best interests, therefore, to combine our efforts and develop some methodology for assessing a person's cognitive functions. From there, qualitative studies could be performed, and from there more quantitative studies would follow. Then, finally, some more rigorous and true archetypes could be (re)defined, and personality type more positively used as a tool for interaction among individuals and societies.