Jack Flak's Function System Adventure

[Moiety]

I'm not sure I get what is so different in your system, Flak. Apart from the merging of Xe and Xi, that is. My point being there isn't much to disagree with, apart from that (possibly).

 

[MacGuffin]

Is there a refined version, or is the OP how this system still stands?

 

[Jack Flak]

I say if you are really confident about this system then present it to INTPc

I might do that. I won't stick around to defend it though.

I have nothing interesting to add, but I think it's a good new perspective. It makes sense to me.

Thank you.

Is there a refined version, or is the OP how this system still stands?

It's been discussed and clarified in this thread. That's about all I can say. I'm not a good writer.

 

[redacted]

But isn't that precisely what he is addressing?

Who's to say that having two poles to each function is necessarily true, or better, or more useful? I don't personally think that it corresponds to reality to any greater degree than any other system (socionics, this one, Keirsey), and I find that it's certainly not helpful in terms of clarifying one's own type, or determining the types of others.

Your criticism seems to boil down to this: that jack's 'system' doesn't have introverted/extroverted functions like MBTI, therefore it is not any good.

My criticism is that Jack's system is equivalent to MBTI in every way except function direction.

The system is literally MBTI - function direction. I don't see why you'd trade MBTI for MBTI minus something when MBTI works fine.

Maybe not everyone can figure out how to make sense of the direction of functions, but I can. I see no reason to throw that away; it's not like Jack's system offers anything new...

To say that the N of NJs and NPs is the same is definitely missing something. And come on; Fe vs. Fi is just obvious -- and useful too.

 

[Jack Flak]

My criticism is that Jack's system is equivalent to MBTI in every way except function direction. The system is literally MBTI - function direction. I don't see why you'd trade MBTI for MBTI minus something when MBTI works fine.

No, it also reprioritizes J and P for introverts, and of course I think it makes more sense. It's (Jung+MBTT+Socionics)/6+Modifications.

Maybe not everyone can figure out how to make sense of the direction of functions, but I can. I see no reason to throw that away; it's not like Jack's system offers anything new...

I've found that my analysis technique has coalesced into something more effective than it ever was before, using my function system. Ymmv.

 

[mlittrell]

My criticism is that Jack's system is equivalent to MBTI in every way except function direction.

The system is literally MBTI - function direction. I don't see why you'd trade MBTI for MBTI minus something when MBTI works fine.

Maybe not everyone can figure out how to make sense of the direction of functions, but I can. I see no reason to throw that away; it's not like Jack's system offers anything new...

To say that the N of NJs and NPs is the same is definitely missing something. And come on; Fe vs. Fi is just obvious -- and useful too.

thats what i was saying but im half retarded.

 

[Jack Flak]

thats what i was saying but im half retarded.

Look at the value assignment operation of an ExFJ, though. In my analysis, I've observed just as much use of "Fi" as "Fe" in just about any decision.

Please consider this.

 

[redacted]

^Lol it's quite clear you don't understand the functions at all. You think you do, but your understanding is flawed, so it makes sense that you reject them. But you are just wrong, unfortunately.

The real problem is that 95% of the information about functions (especially what people talk about here) is complete crap. It's not really your fault that you haven't gotten good information I guess...

 

[mlittrell]

according to traditional function theory an EXFJ only uses Fe consciously. for the sake of argument lets assume your right, what does almost equal use of Fi as Fe imply exactly?

The real problem is that 95% of the information about functions (especially what people talk about here) is complete crap. It's not really your fault that you haven't gotten good information I guess...

win!

 

[Jack Flak]

Internal values of what's right and wrong. Prevalent in all Feeling Primaries.

 

[mlittrell]

then what is the point of the functions anyway? you might as well just use temperaments (which i would, as stated before, love)

 

[redacted]

Internal values of what's right and wrong. Prevalent in all Feeling Primaries.

Your usage of "internal" doesn't match up with the jungian definition of introversion. That's your problem.

 

[Orangey]

Here is someone from the socionics website who says something similar to what I am thinking.

INTP's and INTJ's. Based on their MBTI dominant functions, INTP's should correspond to Jung's Introverted thinking type, and INTJ's to Jung's Introverted Intuiting type. Here are brief summaries of Jung's description of those types:

Introverted Intuiting - ineffectual dreamers, mystics, fantasizers. Sometimes end up as the half-wit wise men in "psychological novels". Incredibly bad with communication (other people simply can't understand them, and they can't understand why), though not necessarily unsociable. Often attacked from the unconscious by a primitive extraverted sensing function which results in obsessions with visual images, places, faces, etc. Further, in the section on Introverted irrationals in general, they are described as good teachers who teach not with words but with their life.

Introverted Thinking - cold-blooded strategists, loners, theoretics. Arrogant, unsociable, having a certain disdain for others whom they consider stupid. Seem to others to be constantly angry, almost hateful. Completely certain in their opinions, strong will. Sometimes shamelessly exploited by strong women. Attacked from the unconscious by a primitive extraverted feeling function which makes them take every criticism, even fair, very personally (and later makes them seek revenge).

Note that MBTI would have INTP's as the latter type and INTJ's as the former! Surely the mistake should be bloody OBVIOUS!

-Tom

 

[Eileen]

Your usage of "internal" doesn't match up with the jungian definition of introversion. That's your problem.

haha. or maybe that's JUNG's problem.

(jk, I have no investment in this conversation... I'm just imagining what Jack would say...)

 

[Jack Flak]

haha. or maybe that's JUNG's problem.

(jk, I have no investment in this conversation... I'm just imagining what Jack would say...)

Yeah, people who happen to trust Jung's analysis, and have no reason to question it have it made already. You might as well post in Jung's Function Adventure Thread, because you're not going to convince me my system sucks.

 

[reason]

Jack, oh master typer, please can you help me discover my type? What type am I, and why?

 

[Jack Flak]

I typed you in one of my other threads. I'm starting to lose track.

 

[reason]

I typed you in one of my other threads. I'm starting to lose track.

Is that why you derail threads?

 

[Jack Flak]

Is that why you derail threads?

*BlueWing* You see, a thread cannot actually be derailed, because it is not a train.

 

[Frank]

I like it Jack! Nice work.