The problem with that approach is that all you have access to is other people's surface level behavior. You can't see motivations at all. You can ask about them, but lots of times, people don't even understand their own motivations.
I don't agree with that. I think looking for underlying value systems provides a lot more depth than defining functions in terms of which single function is responsible for any given surface action. But I guess we're just not going to agree on this one.
I don't even seek to explain how. I use definitions that split cognition up as labels, and use them to describe what I'm seeing. Over time, I try to observe function distributions and come up with a best-fit type.
Well, I usually use the simpler surface behavior type of reads to get a first impression and decide what direction to go in dealing with a person, but after getting to know someone reasonably well I can piece together enough different situations to make a theoretical model of that person's value system, which I then revise if and when they do something to contradict it.
My approach relies on observation and hypothesis testing. Your approach relies on unfalsifiable hypotheses.
The thing is, you can assume ANY type, and explain ANY behavior you see as some interaction of functions in that type's arsenal. That's why I try to prove my hypotheses wrong, not prove them right.
Ok, nobody's approach to typology is anything beyond a pure thought exercise. I "hypothesize" and "test" on people the same way you do, but the entire thing is inherently unscientific so let's not pretend anyone actually has any kind of objective approach here, ok?
The whole thing operates entirely upon personal interpretation anyway. You can't prove any typology hypotheses right or wrong because it's a field of philosophy, not psychology...there's nothing empirical or quantifiable here at all.
Don't get me wrong. I'm extremely interested in other people's motivations and how they make sense of their actions and choose them. I just don't think a four dimensional tool is complex enough to give satisfactory answers. Sometimes I can describe what I think people's motivations are in terms of MBTI functions, or at least use that vocabulary to account for part of their motivation structure. But there are so many other dimensions that go into motivation that most of the time you'll miss hugely important factors by just using MBTI.
The point of MBTI is that it's simple and quick. If you want something deep, you have to realize that it will be slower and more complex. MBTI isn't a good tool for that stuff.
I don't think the four-dimensional dichotomies are all that great either, beyond a very quick surface analysis. It seems we do agree about that part.
But I've basically tried to compile Jungian functional theory and a number of ideas from different sources to come up with my own system for going beyond those basic surface MBTI reads to try and truly understand and identify with other people on a deeper basis.
I've appropriated Jung's functional labels and interpreted them as broader value systems rather than focusing on interpreting specific single actions as one function. I don't see why you'd want to do this anyway, since it seems intuitive to me that all four functions would combine into one fluid process, all having some influence on everything a person does.
So, in response to your last paragraph--I'm
not using MBTI to form deeper character models for people; I'm using some conglomerate of ideas from a number of different schools of thought on this topic, part of which involves the belief that MBTI's 16 molds provide the most utility (but are NOT the only function orders that exist in practice.)
Everybody keeps responding to me to talk about how bad MBTI is, but I've never said anything to indicate that I accept the MBTI as gospel. In fact, I pretty constantly point out my belief that psychological type can't be tested or empirically verified in any way, which outright negates the entire MBTI "test" approach.
If I think all "testing" of psychological type is inherently useless, how could I possibly have total faith in everything MBTI says?
I talk about functional orders a lot because I believe they are the most successful approaches. People approach life strategies in much the same way that they approach Chess, for instance--there are millions upon millions of
possible combinations, but most of them are ultimately meaningless because they perform poorly in practice.
You guys keep getting hung up on whether non-standard function orders exist, but that's not my point and never has been. I freely admit that they do exist, in fact, just that they're rather uncommon compared to the standard molds because they lack balance and symmetry.
So please, please stop telling me how bad MBTI is. I get it; I've acknowledged the flaws in MBTI quite a few times, but there are a few valuable ideas in it, and I will continue to use them.
I'm not automatically throwing out every idea Myers and Briggs had just because some of them were flawed. (I reject Christianity but still believe Christ had a number of good ideas--if it has to be all or nothing on any given theory, how could this viewpoint be possible?)
But hey, if Jaguar wants to burn straw men until the cows come home, be my guest. I just get bored repeating myself over and over to someone who's absolutely determined not to listen and would rather stuff the same bullshit words in my mouth again and again and again.