Jack Flak's Function System Adventure

[Jack Flak]

I like it Jack! Nice work.

Thank you, my good man.

 

[reason]

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

I am glad you have made a distinction between trains and threads. Soon you will be the greatest typologist there has ever been.

 

[Xander]

I think I get the system now. Your system is clearer on where the J/P comes in but it's less able to predict the subconscious elements as I said before.

The other thing is that it's not really defining where the person is looking when they make their decisions, I think.

Would it not be correct to say that an INTJ is focusing on the information they have gathered when making a decision where as an INTP is still gathering information whilst making the decision and hence one is focusing internally whilst the other is focusing externally?

Another thing is that INTJs are more prone to establishing systems for external things where as an INTP is more internally focused in their systems. Or is that just me?

 

[Jack Flak]

I think I get the system now. Your system is clearer on where the J/P comes in but it's less able to predict the subconscious elements as I said before.

Well, if I agreed with "less able" here, I would've invented a scheme for it. It is my position that Jung/MBTT theory is "unable" to predict the subconscious elements at all, and that at this point, with this knowledge, to try is to fail.

The other thing is that it's not really defining where the person is looking when they make their decisions, I think.

Subject/Object you mean? It doesn't define it, this is correct. I think it's too variable in every normal mind.

Would it not be correct to say that an INTJ is focusing on the information they have gathered when making a decision where as an INTP is still gathering information whilst making the decision and hence one is focusing internally whilst the other is focusing externally?

That sounds correct to me, if I take your meaning properly, because Thinking is Judgment, and internal, and Intuition requires past or present input.

Another thing is that INTJs are more prone to establishing systems for external things where as an INTP is more internally focused in their systems. Or is that just me?

I think to try to define whether INTP or INTJ is more internally focused is beyond the scope of psychological analysis. The INTJ's Judging nature will lead them to prefer control of their position in the world moreso than the input-oriented Perceiver.

 

[Xander]

Well, if I agreed with "less able" here, I would've invented a scheme for it. It is my position that Jung/MBTT theory is "unable" to predict the subconscious elements at all, and that at this point, with this knowledge, to try is to fail.

Perhaps so but should it not be possible to be able to define, at least in general, the most basic differences between the types subconscious processes?

That sounds correct to me, if I take your meaning properly, because Thinking is Judgment, and internal, and Intuition requires past or present input.

Okay to just concentrate upon Thinking. How does each type prefer to apply it's T preference? Do they tend to apply it to external things or to the internal world? Why is it that someone quoted as using Te seems to not come to the same conclusions as those quoted as using Ti?

As far as I understand the currently accepted system Ti and Te are both T and that the second lower case character applies to where they prefer to use it. Have you noted that an INTJ does not like us INTPs going through their thought processes with our fine toothed combs and applying our T to their internal processes? Would it not be reasonable to presume that perhaps our inward focus on T is not comfortable to them and hence would be accurate in saying that it is not preferred?

I would freely admit that I'm not entirely sure as to why one process is externalised and one internalised but it does seem to make sense that INTJs project their T where as we reflect with it. Matching such statements with what we accept about extraversion and introversion it would seem to make sense to note one as introverted T and the other as extroverted T regardless of whether the person is an introvert or an extrovert.

 

[Orangey]

Have you noted that an INTJ does not like us INTPs going through their thought processes with our fine toothed combs and applying our T to their internal processes? Would it not be reasonable to presume that perhaps our inward focus on T is not comfortable to them and hence would be accurate in saying that it is not preferred?

This is just a nitpick, but wouldn't the bolded part be an instance of T applied outwards?

 

[Jack Flak]

Perhaps so but should it not be possible to be able to define, at least in general, the most basic differences between the types subconscious processes?

I considered the differences to be implied based on comparison of Primary and Support functions among types. The reserve functions have less of an influence on mental processes in general than either of those.

Okay to just concentrate upon Thinking. How does each type prefer to apply it's T preference? Do they tend to apply it to external things or to the internal world? Why is it that someone quoted as using Te seems to not come to the same conclusions as those quoted as using Ti?

Let's compare INTP and INTJ again. The apparent differences (formerly described as Ti vs. Te, among other things) are due to the preference for either Judging or Perceiving, and all that entails. The difference is more important in this system than MBTT, because it's not only the "Dominant Extroverted Function" which is J for the INTJ for example, it's the Primary Function itself, which is neither Introverted nor Extroverted.

As far as I understand the currently accepted system Ti and Te are both T and that the second lower case character applies to where they prefer to use it. Have you noted that an INTJ does not like us INTPs going through their thought processes with our fine toothed combs and applying our T to their internal processes? Would it not be reasonable to presume that perhaps our inward focus on T is not comfortable to them and hence would be accurate in saying that it is not preferred?

Yes I have noticed that. I think it is due to the preference for coming to conclusions as opposed to perception. I have personally noticed that INTJs tend to have more factual knowledge in general (Decide on fact; Thinking; Judging; The matter is concluded), whereas INTPs tend to be better at applying logic with regard to abstract concepts (Intuition, perceiving the object; Continual).

I would freely admit that I'm not entirely sure as to why one process is externalised and one internalised but it does seem to make sense that INTJs project their T where as we reflect with it. Matching such statements with what we accept about extraversion and introversion it would seem to make sense to note one as introverted T and the other as extroverted T regardless of whether the person is an introvert or an extrovert.

It is my assessment that for the time being (I've stated this elsewhere on the forum, forgive me), it is acceptable to consider Introversion/Extroversion in individuals, and Function order, as stackable. They interrelate, but to develop a general theory of the combination at this point is moot. There are type descriptions already, regardless.

 

[Xander]

I considered the differences to be implied based on comparison of Primary and Support functions among types. The reserve functions have less of an influence on mental processes in general than either of those.

Just to throw your own thinking right back at you, if you cannot quantify the subconscious then you also cannot quantify it's impact on the conscious. One does not exist without the other.

Let's compare INTP and INTJ again. The apparent differences (formerly described as Ti vs. Te, among other things) are due to the preference for either Judging or Perceiving, and all that entails. The difference is more important in this system than MBTT, because it's not only the "Dominant Extroverted Function" which is J for the INTJ for example, it's the Primary Function itself, which is neither Introverted nor Extroverted.

If J and P are functions then what exactly do they describe? I don't see how coming to a conclusion as opposed to leaving things open to later alterations actually alters the process of let's say thought. It does describe how the process is left but does it have any impact upon how it is carried out?

I may decide to plan a trip to the alps but whether I leave it with open dates or whether I book sixteen months in advance has little or no impact upon how I begin to choose the destination or what I fancy doing when I get there.

Yes I have noticed that. I think it is due to the preference for coming to conclusions as opposed to perception. I have personally noticed that INTJs tend to have more factual knowledge in general (Decide on fact; Thinking; Judging; The matter is concluded), whereas INTPs tend to be better at applying logic with regard to abstract concepts (Intuition, perceiving the object; Continual).

They do seem to have a greater ability to link into actual information rather than just figurative data as we do. That much doesn't really make sense to me at the moment in terms of function use (use of T or N or so forth). The only thing this comparison concludes is that INTPs are Ps and INTJs are Js.

It is my assessment that for the time being (I've stated this elsewhere on the forum, forgive me), it is acceptable to consider Introversion/Extroversion in individuals, and Function order, as stackable. They interrelate, but to develop a general theory of the combination at this point is moot. There are type descriptions already, regardless.

So your function order disregards extraversion and introversion but takes into account of J and P which are defined as applying to the extraverted tasks?

I'm confused. If J and P affect the order in which people prefer to use functions then would not E and I also affect that order? If what you are saying is true then an INTP should be very similar to an ENTP except in where they like to apply their talents which doesn't really make sense as most INTPs I've spoken to are a mite more serious and dour in nature than ENTPs. That could be attributed to E vs I alone and that an INTPs makeup is identical but the person is introverted and hence is not displaying as much as the ENTP. However it doesn't really cover why INTPs seem more obsessed with the definition of what is where as ENTPs are more concerned with discovering what could be. Even internally I've seen this pattern so I'm inclined to rule it out as an E vs I thing.

Btw, do you ever think that you're building up to the commonly accepted system but just getting there via your own thinking rather than by accepting and testing the system as written?

 

[Jack Flak]

Just to throw your own thinking right back at you, if you cannot quantify the subconscious then you also cannot quantify it's impact on the conscious. One does not exist without the other.

You're asking me to define what I consider beyond definition, so I must refuse. I'm not here to provide people with a feel-good alternative to MBTT, by any means. It's meant to be more logical.

If J and P are functions then what exactly do they describe? I don't see how coming to a conclusion as opposed to leaving things open to later alterations actually alters the process of let's say thought. It does describe how the process is left but does it have any impact upon how it is carried out?

*psychoanalysis* You may be holding on to Jungian definitions. I recommend reading the Glossary in the OP and inferring what I mean with all these terms. You will have to infer a bit, because I'm vague.

J and P are types of functions, not functions themselves, such as T and N are. It's a matter of preference, sticking to INTP/INTJ. INTJs have a preference for Thinking, and INTPs have a preference for intuition. T and N work in tandem for both types, but one has priority.

I may decide to plan a trip to the alps but whether I leave it with open dates or whether I book sixteen months in advance has little or no impact upon how I begin to choose the destination or what I fancy doing when I get there.

Too specific for me to relate it to the theory.

They do seem to have a greater ability to link into actual information rather than just figurative data as we do. That much doesn't really make sense to me at the moment in terms of function use (use of T or N or so forth). The only thing this comparison concludes is that INTPs are Ps and INTJs are Js.

That had already been concluded. What I've done is given more relevance to J vs. P with regard to data collecting and processing.

So your function order disregards extraversion and introversion but takes into account of J and P which are defined as applying to the extraverted tasks?

"Extraverted" task is undefined as such. It is a task, and the object of the task is variable, and it could theoretically be the subject.

I'm confused. If J and P affect the order in which people prefer to use functions then would not E and I also affect that order? If what you are saying is true then an INTP should be very similar to an ENTP except in where they like to apply their talents which doesn't really make sense as most INTPs I've spoken to are a mite more serious and dour in nature than ENTPs. That could be attributed to E vs I alone and that an INTPs makeup is identical but the person is introverted and hence is not displaying as much as the ENTP. However it doesn't really cover why INTPs seem more obsessed with the definition of what is where as ENTPs are more concerned with discovering what could be. Even internally I've seen this pattern so I'm inclined to rule it out as an E vs I thing.

It IS my claim that every difference between the hypothetical INTP and ENTP is a result of Introversion vs. Extroversion.

 

[MissMurder]

Jack, the only thing that's holding this thing back from being great is your insistence on saying that it's a 'better' version of MBTI.

Set the system free. Don't make it live up to something that it can't. It can stand on its own merit, if it had any in the first place.

Indeed! So on behalf of all MBTI fanatics who regard it with religious fervor I say to you, silence infidel! Either you're with us, or against us. /sarcasm

^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...

Have you ponied up your knowledge somewhere? If so, link me up.

 

[Jack Flak]

@"Ni is mostly output" -- you are right (although I have no idea why you're saying Ni specifically instead of just Intuition). Sensing is mostly "output" too (the way you're using the word at least).

Input/Output is a silly distinction to make anyway, so little is actually input. Input isn't interesting. Cognitive processes are about processing!

This system is so simple it's silly, and if you use my definitions, it's an aid. Under it,

Intuition and Sensing are always input (Defined as Perceiving).

Thinking and Feeling are always output (Defined as Judging).

The preference for Input or Output is what defines P/J. For example, INTPs prioritize input, INTJs prioritize output.

 

[redacted]

This system is so simple it's silly, and if you use my definitions, it's an aid. Under it,

Intuition and Sensing are always input (Defined as Perceiving).

Thinking and Feeling are always output (Defined as Judging).

The preference for Input or Output is what defines P/J. For example, INTPs prioritize input, INTJs prioritize output.

Enlighten me -- how is intuition input?

 

[Jack Flak]

Enlighten me -- how is intuition input?

I'm defining cognition as a two-stage process. Input can be processed instantaneously, or stored (To be processed later by what Jung would call Si/Ni, and what I call Thinking/Feeling)

 

[redacted]

I'm defining cognition as a two-stage process. Input can be processed instantaneously, or stored (To be accessed later by what Jung would call Si/Ni, and what I call Thinking/Feeling)

Instantaneously?

How is intuition instantaneous? You're saying ideas/hunches are generated instantaneously?

 

[entropie]

Instantaneously?

How is intuition instantaneous? You're saying ideas/hunches are generated instantaneously?

Sure, that's called Ne mister know-it-all

 

[mlittrell]

this thread is actually quite humorous

 

[entropie]

this thread is actually quite humorous

I like your arrogance

 

[mlittrell]

I like your arrogance

though i appreciate your reply i was actually serious lol

 

[entropie]

ouh, I did not know...

 

[Lady_X]

^^^ haha...that's funny