Fudjack/Dinkelaker Functional Preferences Instrument

[lunalum]

Seriously, most people just post the link to the test and run

We're only picking on this more because you are engaging in the debate. A lot of the other tests are also pretty far off, as many of them are expected to be, and then the person usually comments something like "yeah right, silly test" and then moves on.

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.

I don't think anyone has claimed that there was an actual effort to distort results.

And what is this new typology theory that is being tested?

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.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Most of us know that that the types are about a general pattern of preferences rather than a fixed way of always being, and that a type is to be determined through many resources and self exploration rather than a single test.

And what is this theory anyway? How is this test more scientific?

Every test is filtered through the preferred function, there is no such thing as an objective lens.

You mean, like how my preferred function wants to learn more of these theories in order to find ideas for improvement or expansion? Yes, I am aware of my biases and you can ignore them as you wish

 

[Eric B]

Here's an interesting quote on Carl Jung's personality type:
http://www.therapyvlado.com/index.php?id=98&article=1724

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.

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.

The closest thing you can have to both Ti and Ni is an ISTP or INFJ with a strong "inflated" tertiary. I doubt he was an S, or an F, though.
However, the way he originally conceived the functions, it was not so much marked by function-attitudes (Xe/i). but rather the four separate functions, S, N, T, F, and dominant attitude. So he seems obviously an N and a T, and an introvert. So it's easy to see where he might look like he has both Ni and Ti. He's very internally focused, and what comes out of him is N and T.

I figured some of the confusion might have come from what has become the split between MBTI and Socionics. Is "INTp" TiNe, or NiTe, with "Ni the same as MBTI's Ne, and Te the same as MBTI's Ti", as I have heard.

This is the good thing about the Multiple Model, as we can use Interaction Styles to gain an additional angle. His language seems very "dry" to me, like a "directive" type. That suggests INTJ. INTP's are generally more "light" and even a bit "airy" compared to that. (Like people here even thought Solitary Walker was an INTJ, because of his writing style. It is possible for them to come off that way, but it is likely an "aloof" mask).

 

[Mal12345]

Seriously, most people just post the link to the test and run

We're only picking on this more because you are engaging in the debate. A lot of the other tests are also pretty far off, as many of them are expected to be, and then the person usually comments something like "yeah right, silly test" and then moves on.



I don't think anyone has claimed that there was an actual effort to distort results.

And what is this new typology theory that is being tested?



I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Most of us know that that the types are about a general pattern of preferences rather than a fixed way of always being, and that a type is to be determined through many resources and self exploration rather than a single test.

And what is this theory anyway? How is this test more scientific?



You mean, like how my preferred function wants to learn more of these theories in order to find ideas for improvement or expansion? Yes, I am aware of my biases and you can ignore them as you wish

My reply got lost somewhere. When I posted the reply it asked me to log on, then I got a blank screen. That's not the first time this has happened using this forum software which does not save edit box text when I back up the browser.

 

[Mal12345]

The closest thing you can have to both Ti and Ni is an ISTP or INFJ with a strong "inflated" tertiary. I doubt he was an S, or an F, though.
However, the way he originally conceived the functions, it was not so much marked by function-attitudes (Xe/i). but rather the four separate functions, S, N, T, F, and dominant attitude. So he seems obviously an N and a T, and an introvert. So it's easy to see where he might look like he has both Ni and Ti. He's very internally focused, and what comes out of him is N and T.

I figured some of the confusion might have come from what has become the split between MBTI and Socionics. Is "INTp" TiNe, or NiTe, with "Ni the same as MBTI's Ne, and Te the same as MBTI's Ti", as I have heard.

This is the good thing about the Multiple Model, as we can use Interaction Styles to gain an additional angle. His language seems very "dry" to me, like a "directive" type. That suggests INTJ. INTP's are generally more "light" and even a bit "airy" compared to that. (Like people here even thought Solitary Walker was an INTJ, because of his writing style. It is possible for them to come off that way, but it is likely an "aloof" mask).

I haven't studied socionics but I found the relationships part to be both true and useful.

I moved on from the MBTI because of the sterility of that theory. But I see John Fudjack has explained, back in 1998, what exactly is wrong with the MBTI, and I'm grateful for that. And I'm grateful for this forum which led me to his paper on the subject.

 

[Mal12345]

The closest thing you can have to both Ti and Ni is an ISTP or INFJ with a strong "inflated" tertiary. I doubt he was an S, or an F, though.
However, the way he originally conceived the functions, it was not so much marked by function-attitudes (Xe/i). but rather the four separate functions, S, N, T, F, and dominant attitude. So he seems obviously an N and a T, and an introvert. So it's easy to see where he might look like he has both Ni and Ti. He's very internally focused, and what comes out of him is N and T.

I'm not one to say that a person can have two attitudes dominant at the same time. And the tests sometimes recommend that you think about how you are most of the time. But what if it's about half and half? What if, like disneygeek above, the test can't fully distinguish the T and F functions because they exist about equally and your test score reflects this fact? You say, "He seems obviously an N and a T, and an introvert. So it's easy to see where he might look like he has both Ni and Ti." From N and T introvert, it doesn't look like anything much without the J. Apart from that, it looks like it could be one or the other, but according to the MBTI, never both in the same individual.

Here's the issue. Once you use the MBTI formula and stick the J (or P) at the end of INT, you automatically have an INTJ with Ni dominant. All Fudjack is saying is that it is possible (although not according to MBTI theory) to find an INTJ with a dominant T function. It just so happens that the MBTI does not test for this, as it was not made to.

Furthermore, the MBTI claims that if you have Ni dominant, then Te must be auxiliary. But there is no reason, in reality, to believe that this is necessarily the case. It is possible that Jung had Ni dominant and Ti auxiliary. Or vice versa, depending. In this case we're talking about a person who has the ability to adjust his attitude either to his environment or to his internal needs of the moment.

In fact, I personally know an INTJ who is like this, which means he is not an INTJ at all times of the day and night.

I figured some of the confusion might have come from what has become the split between MBTI and Socionics. Is "INTp" TiNe, or NiTe, with "Ni the same as MBTI's Ne, and Te the same as MBTI's Ti", as I have heard.

This is the good thing about the Multiple Model, as we can use Interaction Styles to gain an additional angle. His language seems very "dry" to me, like a "directive" type. That suggests INTJ. INTP's are generally more "light" and even a bit "airy" compared to that. (Like people here even thought Solitary Walker was an INTJ, because of his writing style. It is possible for them to come off that way, but it is likely an "aloof" mask).

Part of what you're saying there whooshes over my head. But INTP as light or airy in communication is not unusual for those who are afraid to trample on a blade of grass. It's not because the grass might get hurt, but simply because this would affect reality. Some INTPs have gone so deep into the farthest reaches of their own psyches (Ti) that they are literally afraid to influence reality so much as to leave a footprint in the lawn.

 

[ThatGirl]

I'm not going to lie, it is a bit hard to understand some of your theories because it seems as though you jump into your thought process somewhere in the middle to describe one specific thing, of which I have no context.

Taking away the specifics, I think what you were talking about is that esentially you have a glass inside a glass. You can have functions which are pulled from at any given time, but looking deeper you can undercover more fundemental views into someones thought process, and ultimately, their true type.

Basically you are seeking a fool proof system for stripping down the results of the thought process to the instinctual thought process itself.

I also agree that being able to pull from one source or another at wil, or when the circumstance dictates is a very NI TE dominated attitude. To question what is, what needs to be, and bridge the gap in between. So rather than looking the dominance of a function in use, you look at the function that caused that function to be in use. A glass inside a glass.

I have my own theories regarding this, mostly they come down to a combination of input streams, instinct, and intelect. Nothing scietific though, and too raw to type out or try to explain.



Anyway, and to whoever said INTPs are light, that is a huge over generalization. I have found reading some intp stuff as the dryest, most overly articulated....well just read some of solitary walkers posts.

 

[Thalassa]

Anyway, and to whoever said INTPs are light, that is a huge over generalization. I have found reading some intp stuff as the dryest, most overly articulated....well just read some of solitary walkers posts.

this. exactly.

I think this is how Fi/Te or Te/Fi users can feel at times confronted with Ti doms.

 

[skylights]

sometimes INTP writing to me feels like a wall of text, even if it's not. it takes a long time for me to understand the full implications of it. dry is a good word for it, more than airy - not in a negative sense, it's just not solid like NTJ nor "wet" like F writing. it's crispy. and often brilliant, when i take the time to decipher it.

 

[Mal12345]

I'm not going to lie, it is a bit hard to understand some of your theories because it seems as though you jump into your thought process somewhere in the middle to describe one specific thing, of which I have no context.

Taking away the specifics, I think what you were talking about is that esentially you have a glass inside a glass. You can have functions which are pulled from at any given time, but looking deeper you can undercover more fundemental views into someones thought process, and ultimately, their true type.

See "liminocentric" - "in which the center of the structure wraps back around on the structure's periphery - so that its innermost and outermost reaches are identical in their 'undifferentiated' vastness, while intermediary levels are discrete and distinguishable. The two incommensurable orders of existence are thereby reconciled, and the mandala could thus represent what Jung called the 'Self'."
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j4selfccc.html

Basically you are seeking a fool proof system for stripping down the results of the thought process to the instinctual thought process itself.

I don't know that there is such a thing as "instinctual" thought process.

I also agree that being able to pull from one source or another at wil, or when the circumstance dictates is a very NI TE dominated attitude. To question what is, what needs to be, and bridge the gap in between. So rather than looking the dominance of a function in use, you look at the function that caused that function to be in use. A glass inside a glass.

I have my own theories regarding this, mostly they come down to a combination of input streams, instinct, and intelect. Nothing scietific though, and too raw to type out or try to explain.

That source would be the subconscious, and I don't know if or how functions operate on that level.

Anyway, and to whoever said INTPs are light, that is a huge over generalization. I have found reading some intp stuff as the dryest, most overly articulated....well just read some of solitary walkers posts.

That depends on who is doing the writing. Some of us have adjusted our styles to the audience and don't just write for ourselves. When do you see me using any "big" words? I'm not a John Fudjack. I've been known to explain Kantian architectonic in plain English. At least I try, difficult as it is with Kant, and it's the thought that counts. I consider the over-use of big words to be showoffish. Maybe it's not, but it appears like it. I like INTPness's writing style, and the name and picture he uses are fun.

The reason I seem to jump into the middle of a thought-process is that I have already explained the basic point in a comment above. I wouldn't mind repeating myself but it gets to the point where I'm creating a wall o'posts here, and I don't like to do that. So it appears to me that the person I'm commenting to has jumped into the middle of the thread without studying the preceding comments.

Furthermore, since this is a typology forum, I feel that I am being stereotyped as an "INTP." I think maybe some will see my MBTI and their eyes just go all blurry in the expectation of undergoing a barrage of polysyllabilisms, such as that one. Many times, in fact, when I'm composing I will delete a simpler term and replace it, not with a big word, but with a "juicier" and more interesting one, because I do consider the aesthetic needs of my audience.

P.s., even "liminocentric" is a Fudgyism, and I don't pretend to know exactly what it means.

 

[Eric B]

I'm not one to say that a person can have two attitudes dominant at the same time. And the tests sometimes recommend that you think about how you are most of the time. But what if it's about half and half? What if, like disneygeek above, the test can't fully distinguish the T and F functions because they exist about equally and your test score reflects this fact? You say, "He seems obviously an N and a T, and an introvert. So it's easy to see where he might look like he has both Ni and Ti." From N and T introvert, it doesn't look like anything much without the J. Apart from that, it looks like it could be one or the other, but according to the MBTI, never both in the same individual.

Here's the issue. Once you use the MBTI formula and stick the J (or P) at the end of INT, you automatically have an INTJ with Ni dominant. All Fudjack is saying is that it is possible (although not according to MBTI theory) to find an INTJ with a dominant T function. It just so happens that the MBTI does not test for this, as it was not made to.

Furthermore, the MBTI claims that if you have Ni dominant, then Te must be auxiliary. But there is no reason, in reality, to believe that this is necessarily the case. It is possible that Jung had Ni dominant and Ti auxiliary. Or vice versa, depending. In this case we're talking about a person who has the ability to adjust his attitude either to his environment or to his internal needs of the moment.

In fact, I personally know an INTJ who is like this, which means he is not an INTJ at all times of the day and night.

The problem is, you're still taking a very monolithic view of each of the eight function-attitudes. But the function attitudes are generated by a function, plus the inner or outer orientation the ego places it in at a given time. So the person does not "have" both Ni and Ti in preferred positions. If he's a J, then that means he by definition extraverts judgment, and introverts perception. If He's T dominant, with the J, then he's a Te type, or "thinking extravert". If the T is auxiliary, then he's an "intuitive introvert" or Ni dominant type. Again; he's an introvert, drawing on his internal world, and what you see coming out of it is colored by both N and T. So he might look like he "has" both Ni and Ti. My parents were ISTJ, and they (particularly my father) looked like Introverted Thinkers, and they definitely had strong Si. They were logical introverts, whose dominant sensory perspective colored their "output" so to speak.

I'm not going to lie, it is a bit hard to understand some of your theories because it seems as though you jump into your thought process somewhere in the middle to describe one specific thing, of which I have no context.

Taking away the specifics, I think what you were talking about is that esentially you have a glass inside a glass. You can have functions which are pulled from at any given time, but looking deeper you can undercover more fundemental views into someones thought process, and ultimately, their true type.

Basically you are seeking a fool proof system for stripping down the results of the thought process to the instinctual thought process itself.

I also agree that being able to pull from one source or another at wil, or when the circumstance dictates is a very NI TE dominated attitude. To question what is, what needs to be, and bridge the gap in between. So rather than looking the dominance of a function in use, you look at the function that caused that function to be in use. A glass inside a glass.

Not sure who you are addressing there (Me, or mal, who was right above you).

I have my own theories regarding this, mostly they come down to a combination of input streams, instinct, and intelect. Nothing scietific though, and too raw to type out or try to explain.

Anyway, and to whoever said INTPs are light, that is a huge over generalization. I have found reading some intp stuff as the dryest, most overly articulated....well just read some of solitary walkers posts.

I did mention Solitary as a counter example, but I find most INTP's are not like that. I don't know him enough to speculate on why. By "light", I don't mean not overly articulated. I mean peppered with lighter talk, such as humor, more relating to the reader, etc. Jennifer is an example of what I had in mind, and some of her posts are long in in depth like that. Some might not have the light stuff, but you can see overall in her presence that she is usually that way. I feel I'm usually the same way. Solitary seemed a bit more aloof and "unapproachable", but again, I don't know why, and of course, there will always be exceptions.

 

[Mal12345]

The problem is, you're still taking a very monolithic view of each of the eight function-attitudes. But the function attitudes are generated by a function, plus the inner or outer orientation the ego places it in at a given time. So the person does not "have" both Ni and Ti in preferred positions. If he's a J, then that means he by definition extraverts judgment, and introverts perception.

Sorry to cut you off so quickly, but nothing is true "by definition" until it is confirmed in reality and without bias toward the hypothesis. Or to put it another way, to be true "by definition" is analytic and empty when lacking a certain empirical basis, as with a scientific study.

 

[Eric B]

But this is an abstract construct, defined by someone with a particular meaning. The whole thing is criticized for lacking empirical science, but we can still employ in observing people.

I should also add that SW did have a bit of softness in his communication that TJ's tend not to have. The difference is very subtle, and hard to domonstrate, though.

 

[Mal12345]

But this is an abstract construct, defined by someone with a particular meaning. The whole thing is criticized for lacking empirical science, but we can still employ in observing people.

I should also add that SW did have a bit of softness in his communication that TJ's tend not to have. The difference is very subtle, and hard to domonstrate, though.

All religion is an abstract defined by someone. That 'someone' is considered to be God, and then the religion is interpreted and reinterpreted by man. You can see that Jung plays the role of God here, Myers and Briggs play the role of interpreting Jung's word. There is even a schismatic branching off from the main branch, known as Socionics.

I'm certain that the MBTI can be and is applicable, at least for about (let's say) 50% of those being typed. The rest kind of fall into the "Hmmm, I dunno" category, and mistyping is very common because the MBTI forces a choice that may be wrong for you.

If you're not curious to know why, and if you're satisfied with the results so far, that's up to you; but I like to trace a theory to its source and determine its limits. (Edit - thanks to John for doing all the digging and tracing for us!)

 

[JocktheMotie]

What a great name for a test. Was this guy the creator?

intuiting =14
sensing =6
feeling =3
thinking =14

 

[Mal12345]

What a great name for a test. Was this guy the creator?

intuiting =14
sensing =6
feeling =3
thinking =14

Another mixed dominant function.

 

[Eric B]

All religion is an abstract defined by someone. That 'someone' is considered to be God, and then the religion is interpreted and reinterpreted by man. You can see that Jung plays the role of God here, Myers and Briggs play the role of interpreting Jung's word. There is even a schismatic branching off from the main branch, known as Socionics.

And the schismatic claims to be the real branch! Yeah; perfect analogy!

 

[Mal12345]

And the schismatic claims to be the real branch! Yeah; perfect analogy!

Damning an analogy for failing to be perfect does nothing to the analogy itself. Because an analogy does not need to be perfect, only strong enough to bring the point into focus. It obviously worked because you drew the analogy somewhat further to point out the imperfection. You could also say that the MBTI doesn't require prayer to its deity and make the same point.

And that point is not proven by analogy anyway, it is proven by the fact that the MBTI is a dogma based on Prophet Jung's intuitions about a collective unconscious. That's a better analogy anyway. Jung = prophet; collective unconscious = God.

 

[Eric B]

I'm not damning the analogy; I was affirming it. (The banghead was aimed at the fact of what was said; not the analogy itself).

 

[entropie]

intuiting =17
sensing =6
feeling =6
thinking =8

 

[Mal12345]

I'm not damning the analogy; I was affirming it. (The banghead was aimed at the fact of what was said; not the analogy itself).

Thanks for explaining. A perfect analogy is fairly rare, I can't think of any without looking up examples.

A friend of mine recently asked me why the MBTI is so popular. I simply answered, "It came first." But I don't think that's the entire story. There is an addictive ritualizing element. It is an intellectually addicting dogma. And I noticed someone's sig on this forum stating that overuse of the MBTI can lead to some kind of dependency problems. As a type 5 inTp, the last thing I need is to become intellectually attached to a dogma.

This is something I went through over 25 years ago. The saving grace of it all is that the MBTI led to the Enneagram, which taught me about integrating to 8. Ever since then I have been dedicated to interacting with the real world (e.g., work and relationships) in a meaningful manner instead of just pondering the universe or other people's personality types. That doesn't mean I don't dabble in intellectual matters, but now it's a hobby that has occasional application, it's not a way of life. Typology helped me understand my present marriage situation, thus helping me over the hurdle of understanding the other person so I can properly attune my responses, and I'm grateful to typology for that.

At first I wrote "adjust" instead of "attune," but adjusting is something people do just to get used to something. Attuning is very different from adjusting. It bears a stronger connotation of harmony and even empathy, and in order to accomplish this I have to fully understand what (or who) it is I am attuning with.

Back to the intellectually addicting dogma: I am not primarily interested in Fudjack's accomplishment of spelling out the basic problem with the MBTI, as in finding out once and for all why the MBTI affected me so much 25 years ago. I can't do anything about the part of me attracted to dogmas like the MBTI, but once I learn to identify the system as a potentially harmful dogma it is effectively vanquished, for me anyway.