Fudjack/Dinkelaker Functional Preferences Instrument

[/DG/]

There's no harm in asking.

Closure and non-closure are pretty basic to the MBTI. They are represented by J and P, respectively.

Now I'm confused at what we're arguing about (or are we not arguing?).

I don't really know whether or not I'm a J or a P (I may lean a bit more to the J side, but anyway...), but that's beside the point...

I was laughing at the order I received on the test, which was T-N-S-F. My N and T scores were outrageously high. If anything, I would place the N dead last. If I were to type myself, the order would go S-F-T-N (though the middle two letters may be switched). I'm one of the least intuitive people here.

 

[Mal12345]

Now I'm confused at what we're arguing about (or are we not arguing?).

I don't really know whether or not I'm a J or a P (I may lean a bit more to the J side, but anyway...), but that's beside the point...

I was laughing at the order I received on the test, which was T-N-S-F. My N and T scores were outrageously high. If anything, I would place the N dead last. If I were to type myself, the order would go S-F-T-N (though the middle two letters may be switched). I'm one of the least intuitive people here.

I hope you don't think I'm arguing, in fact I'm just bouncing ideas around in hopes that they will end up in a pattern that makes sense.

I'll just go with the knowledge you already have of yourself.

SFTN works out as iSfj, eSfp, iSfp, eSfj

This makes more sense for your MBTI sig which has SiFi.

So you just eliminate two of those four options and you're left with iSfj and iSfp.

If you think you're about even on j and p, then maybe you're a mixed type. And just maybe the test you took can explain this.
At least it allows for such a possibility, even if, as some claim, the test is skewed on the S scale. But now you're implying it's skewed on the N scale which goes against the other claims.

Carl Jung was allegedly a mixed type, intp and intj.

iSfj is the non-closure S. That is just strictly sensing, although internally, that is, storing information to be used for later judgments. (The ISFJ is likely to store information about people to use on them later, what we used to call "keeping books" on them.) This is the traditional MBTI ISFJ.

iSfp is the closure S. That is a non-traditional form of ISFP. The reason it differs is because ISFP is normally F dominant, but in this case it is S dominant, extraverted sensing seeking closure. For example, the purpose of creating a work of art is not found with the artwork itself, but with the sense of closure it brings when it is finished, iSfp.

 

[Mal12345]

iSfp is the closure S.

Scratch that. Something was bothering me about that last part. So after putting some thought into this, I'm going with my second intuition here and changing my call on this to iSfp non-closure. That correlates with the MBTI ISFJ (because the S is dominant) who seeks non-closure.

The Si still dominates the type. Introverted sensing communicates its inward presence via a type of difficult-to-describe feeling-impression which is not to be confused with emotion. If this type seeks closure, then the introverted feeling-impression reflects a state of satisfied closure as I stated in the above post. Instead, the iSfp type does not remain satisfied with closure but is dominated by the drive to experience more and more feeling-impression. As a result, the feeling becomes shallower.

 

[/DG/]

Uh....

You are such a Ti-dom.

 

[Thalassa]

This is why I prefer Te.

 

[Mal12345]

Uh....

You are such a Ti-dom.

I didn't expect you (by type) to like my post, but you're not the only one reading them so...

 

[/DG/]

I didn't expect you (by type) to like my post, but you're not the only one reading them so...

Don't let me stop your Ti from doing what it does best. Carry on!

I just get bored easily.

 

[Mal12345]

Don't let me stop your Ti from doing what it does best. Carry on!

I just get bored easily.

Saying that I am Ti seems rather Ti to me.

 

[NegativeZero]

gender= male
mbti type= INFP
ennea type= 5w4
why no types=NOTCHECKED
why no types=NOTCHECKED
intuiting =11
sensing =6
feeling =15
thinking =5
N-F-T-S = iNfj, iNfp, eNfp, eNfj
F-N-S-T = inFp, inFj, enFj, enFp
N-T-F-S = iNtj, iNtp, eNtp, eNtj
T-N-S-F = inTp, enTj, inTj, enTp
S-F-T-N = iSfj, eSfp, iSfp, eSfj
T-S-N-F = isTp, esTj, isTj, esTp
S-T-F-N = iStj, eStp, iStp, eStj
F-S-N-T = isFp, esFj, isFj, esFp

Interesting test, but my hunch is that it makes an effort to distort (or in some cases, balance) T/F.

 

[/DG/]

Saying that I am Ti seems rather Ti to me.

>_>

Interesting test, but my hunch is that it makes an effort to distort (or in some cases, balance) T/F.

What do you mean by that? You results are consistent with INFP.

 

[NegativeZero]

Oh, I'm not sure if I'm asserting that entirely. Don't hold me to it. I was mostly waiting for someone else to agree. I find some minor cognitive dissonance because I've always valued myself as logical and reasonable rather than ethical and concerned. I also used to think I was an INTP. Basically, I just found it weird that my lowest function was thinking. Then again, maybe I should take it as a relative score.

 

[/DG/]

Oh, I'm not sure if I'm asserting that entirely. Don't hold me to it. I was mostly waiting for someone else to agree. I find some minor cognitive dissonance because I've always valued myself as logical and reasonable rather than ethical and concerned. I also used to think I was an INTP. Basically, I just found it weird that my lowest function was thinking. Then again, maybe I should take it as a relative score.

Well don't take any test seriously. The test has no ability to think for itself.

I get what you're saying. I used to think I was very T, until I started reading about the feeling functions. As of right now, I identify with the feeling functions more than the thinking functions, but then again, I could change how I feel later.

One of the reasons why it's difficult to type yourself is that you need to generalize. You see so many parts of yourself, but somehow you need to paste these parts together and see which type it looks like. IMO, it's much easier to type other people because you tend to notice the more obvious traits and discard the smaller traits.

I don't know if that made any sense. It didn't come out quite right.

 

[Thalassa]

Saying that I am Ti seems rather Ti to me.

I think it's wrong to misappropriate interest or skill in function theory exclusively to Ti. If that were the case, I wouldn't have just bitched about Ti in the Tertiary-Opposite thread.

 

[INTP]

Carl Jung was allegedly a mixed type, intp and intj.

people who knew him said that he is Ti type with intuition = intp. he gave a brief description of himself that pointed strongly to intp and out of intj. who claimed him to be an intj, some random person you saw posting on internets? i have heard from internet that he might be entp, isfj, infj, intp and intj, but that doesent make him a mixed type, mixed types doesent exist

 

[Mal12345]

people who knew him said that he is Ti type with intuition = intp. he gave a brief description of himself that pointed strongly to intp and out of intj. who claimed him to be an intj, some random person you saw posting on internets? i have heard from internet that he might be entp, isfj, infj, intp and intj, but that doesent make him a mixed type, mixed types doesent exist

During the course of his life Jung was said to have moved between types, that's what I mean by mixed type.

Who says mixed types don't exist?

 

[INTP]

During the course of his life Jung was said to have moved between types, that's what I mean by mixed type.

Who says mixed types don't exist?

mixed types goes against fundamentals of jungian psychology. show me some source where you heard that he moved between types. sure it wasnt that he went through eras where he got more deep into some functions? like when he had that anima era in his life

 

[Mal12345]

sure it wasnt that he went through eras where he got more deep into some functions? like when he had that anima era in his life

It wasn't the anima era, but a period of INTP reflection on basic intellectual principles. Afterward he went back to INTJ. Doesn't the idea of an anima and the rest of the mystical stuff come across as intuitive in general?

One can always debate endlessly about any celebrity's personality type. And I had the most difficult time overcoming the MBTI straitjacket which enforces a very rigid method of personality typing. Upon occasion when I consider someone's personality, after I've gotten to know them well enough, I am overwhelmed with too many conflicting traits to come to a conclusion. You just can't fit 6 billion personalities into 16 boxes, or even 32 Fudgy boxes.

The MBTI test occasionally comes up with someone who scores about evenly on all scales. How do you account for this? And what about ambiversion?

Here's an interesting quote on Carl Jung's personality type:

a few years ago there was a debate about whether Jung himself was an INTP or INTJ. It was fueled, in part, by a misunderstanding arising out of the MBTI premise that people inadvertently and mistakenly attribute to Jung: namely, that no individual could (on theoretical grounds) simultaneously have introverted intuition and introverted thinking as dominant and auxiliary functions. Ironically, Jung was just such a person 3 and thus did not fit well into either MBTI category - INTP or INTJ. And the possibility that introverted thinking and introverted intuition were Jung's dominant/auxiliary functions ironically never occured to those who sought to type him.

http://www.therapyvlado.com/index.php?id=98&article=1724

The general idea behind this is that all such claims as to the lack of mixed types are based only in theory, they are true only definitionally. And the MBTI test has the all-too convenient effect of filtering out any personalities that do not fall within bounds of the theory.

mixed types goes against fundamentals of jungian psychology.

That's just another way of saying that it can't happen by definition, in this case, Jung's definition.

Edit - I'm not sure that Jung had an opinion one way or the other on the subject of mixed types. It may be just the Myers-Briggs interpretation of Jungian typology.

 

[Mal12345]

Isn't anybody going to show me where I've gone wrong on my interpretation of the FD33 theory? Is it that nobody understands it, or that nobody wants to call me to the floor? For example, if I say that the isTj has a non-closure T function, is that true for the FD33 theory or not?

 

[Mal12345]

I think it's wrong to misappropriate interest or skill in function theory exclusively to Ti. If that were the case, I wouldn't have just bitched about Ti in the Tertiary-Opposite thread.

Looks like we have a new meme being generated on this forum: "mal12345 is wrong." Not that anybody can prove it, it's only a meme after all.

 

[Mal12345]

gender= male
mbti type= INFP
ennea type= 5w4
why no types=NOTCHECKED
why no types=NOTCHECKED
intuiting =11
sensing =6
feeling =15
thinking =5
N-F-T-S = iNfj, iNfp, eNfp, eNfj
F-N-S-T = inFp, inFj, enFj, enFp
N-T-F-S = iNtj, iNtp, eNtp, eNtj
T-N-S-F = inTp, enTj, inTj, enTp
S-F-T-N = iSfj, eSfp, iSfp, eSfj
T-S-N-F = isTp, esTj, isTj, esTp
S-T-F-N = iStj, eStp, iStp, eStj
F-S-N-T = isFp, esFj, isFj, esFp

Interesting test, but my hunch is that it makes an effort to distort (or in some cases, balance) T/F.

There are a lot of interesting comments about the test in this thread. Some comments point to a problem with the S function, this one concerned T/F, and an earlier comment was made about N. I see no reason why Fudgy would make an effort to distort when all he's doing is gathering empirical evidence to support his typology theory, something Myers-Briggs never bothered to do. Every test is filtered through the preferred function, there is no such thing as an objective lens.

At least one person stated that he couldn't make up his mind about which way to answer the questions. I would suggest this is because all options (if properly understood) bear equal weight for that person. These options are literally indistinguishable in value, whereas another tester will definitely prefer one answer over the others on the same question.

Why blame the test for one's indecisiveness? Why blame anything but the MBTI? It is the MBTI test and theory that influences you to think in terms of one type or one function preference per person. It is the MBTI that has converted typology into a rigid dogma not to be questioned. But if you have equal preference for two or more functions, whether high or low preference, that's just the way it is. Some people change from day to day, it's not the test's fault if the answers for those people vary from day to day, or even in the course of a single day.

The MBTI doesn't care about all this, however; it passes out one label, and that's the one you're stuck with for life. For some people I see it has become a task (or obsession?) to determine which is the one correct answer for them. And then if someone's preference for the label becomes set in stone like some religion, of course the FD33 is going to shake up their complacency toward the MBTI which causes us to seek out and eventually identify with a single answer, never straying far from the roost. And so in that case the response to the test is going to be a quick and decisive negative since the theory it is based upon takes down the MBTI along with its basic non-empirical, unscientific assumptions.

Edit - it is not indecisiveness over test answers that is the problem, but the idea that if I can't decide on an answer then there must be something wrong with the test. But in fact, it's because I have an equal preference for both answers and nothing is to blame for that. And anyway, the FD33 is hardly the only test that's like this.