If you think my criticism of MBTI regarding the 100/51 example is odd,
it's one of the top criticisms of all professionals in typology who take issue with MBTI.
I am not a lone dissenter.
Even MBTI realized the err of their ways,
and updated their types to reflect subtypes within a type.
So if I saw the problem and they saw the same problem,
what's your excuse?
Appeals to authority aside, do you have any actual backing for that position besides "I dunno they seem real different to me"?
Your criticism is still logically invalid because the types are arbitrarily defined. Once again you want more precision than such a loose label can offer, and you've resurrected the same tired corpse of that straw man so many times now that I've grown tired of addressing it.
Being "N" just means that you prefer to use iNtuition more often than Sensing. There's no implied guarantee that this label will consistently place people together who happen to fit your arbitrary standards of congruity, but carry on pretending that MBTI claims to live up to this unrealistic standard if it gets you off. There's a huge margin of error when working with such Ne-heavy systems and you don't like that because you're outrageously J.
If using Sensing most often is 0 and using iNtuition most often is 100, anyone who falls on the spectrum from 51-100 is categorized as an N,
arbitrarily. You are not actually taking issue with the concepts of Sensing or iNtution here, just with the grouping because, according to you, there are not enough common behavioral threads between a 51% N ENTJ and a 100% N ENTJ to support a connection that is in any way useful or meaningful.
And it's because, in characteristic ExTJ fashion, you're trying to apply deductive reasoning to a long-term situation that requires the inductive kind. Of course you don't see the connections; you're staring up at the clouds and ignoring any shapes that don't fit the precise proportions of real objects.
Jaguar said:
We've been through this.
You already admitted how you are using MBTI,
isn't even really MBTI at all.
There's an entire underlying function order that you totally ignore.
MBTI is as "useful" and generalized as Sun sign astrology.
Chew on that awhile.
I don't really care to address your semantic concerns. I obviously don't think precise function orders apply to real people; the functions are useful for further understanding the
archetypes, which no one fits perfectly. It's all a question of which description you fall closest to, not which one you fit exactly. Once again they're just
general trends observed over time.
For the love of God, are you really so task-oriented that you don't understand the concept of inductive reasoning at all? You can't use MBTI for deductive reasoning problems because it works with fundamentally incomplete information, so no, it will not consistently provide scientifically verifiable data in any single particular case.
It's still hilarious to me that you brought up poker because it's apparent that you don't understand inductive reasoning/considering information as probability clouds. You're asking me to prove that loose aggressive players exist and then denying that the concept possesses any real utility because there's no precise falsifiable scientific definition of exactly what characterizes a loose aggressive player, and it's making you dreadfully myopic.
Learn to think inductively.
Jaguar said:
Now you are talking functions?
Weeks ago you basically gave the middle finger to functions.
And FWIW, I do see similarities, but I also see very big differences.
Each person could have their own highly individualized function order.
I contend, it's more than likely a very different order than MBTI allows.
Functions are
one interpretation from which to draw possible influence on my personal overall typology theory. They're useful, I've found, for examining one's own strengths and weaknesses, and they can help understand another's experience somewhat when that person explains firsthand which functions s/he is using.
I know you tend to find it more useful to pick whichever interpretation produces hard results and go with it, but I prefer considering as many different interpretations as possible to approximate objective certainty as closely as possible...though never completely. That "never completely" part annoys NTJs, so they don't bother searching for objective truth without an ulterior motive much at all--fair enough.
But I like exploration for its own sake.
At first the inability to truly know another's subjective experience led me to the conclusion that functional theory is just garbage, but I've since found that it does have certain limited uses.
Unfortunately, that doesn't stop tons and tons of people from misusing it by assuming they know exactly which functions are responsible for particular behaviors in others. Assuming that complex human behavioral interactions can be explained by single cognitive functions working alone is too simplistic--assuming these "drives" have even been mapped and labeled accurately, real interactions would have to be caused by numerous functions working simultaneously in varying strengths at all times.
This is why my typology system (call it whatever you want) examines only surface behaviors and does not encompass any sort of psychoanalysis.
I'm not the first person, by the way, to use surface-behavior-only adaptations of MBTI. I was introduced to the topic via a book that took this interpretation and perhaps this has something to do with why I see it as the obvious common sense interpretation. We frankly don't really care if we're not being faithful to the original Jung or MBTI or wtfever; we've just appropriated their terminology for a far more useful system.
You're probably right that functional orders can be much different than the basic 16 molds. That's why I use four independent sliding scales instead. I hereby disown iron-clad function order MBTI, you happy now?
