It appears that [MENTION=23846]Researcher[/MENTION] has come to the conclusion that I am INTP. The basis of which comes from a discussion that occurred in
this thread recently on the last few pages.
Would anyone care to inform him how far off the mark and wrong this analysis is? I've heard some ridiculous and silly type suggestions in my day, but this one really takes the cake.
The difference is between mechanical causal understanding and a semantic descriptive understanding:
If we define "A" as "fast digestive system" and "B" as "Slow digestive system", we could argue that you have a slow digestion but keep an active life style, so you can be a "B" but slim. On the other hand if we define those as descriptions rather then causes, "A" as "slim" & "B" as fat, then that inconsistency would be an oxymoron.
The core assumption with normative MBTI practices is that functions exist, and that assumption allow's us to envision and rationalize inconsistencies with competing conditions and factors influencing who you are - "You are an ENFJ, but the Fe isn't functioning normally because of Aspergers" - the idea is that your Fe & your asperger's are existing cognitive processes within yourself resulting in inconsistencies with either the Fe dom diagnosis or asperger diagnosis or both.
From what I've read of his posts, [MENTION=23846]Researcher[/MENTION] practices descriptive MBTI. If you do not assume that functions exist as actual cognitive "thing" within your mind, but are simply metaphors to describe who you are in total, then that MBTI description that fits you best would have to account for the aspergers.
Which understanding of MBTI wold be more correct is debatable: The purely descriptive version does not require anything to be proven, just a consensus of semantics of what words mean... Except that we don't really have such a consensus on applying them this way in the first place, and using etymology and applying to Jung as an authority tends to create more questions then answers (Frankly it brings Jung's own sanity and capacity for clear reasoning into question). The norm among those practicing and learning MBTI is to assume that cognitive processes are real, but that requires a leap of faith for assumptions that we have no definitive proof of.