It looks like the four days of posts lost when the site went down aren't coming back because they weren't backed up.
So I might as well just do a summary of the whole debate:
I've been defending the "Grant model" of function stacks from what appeared to be constant attacks against it, but beginning with this last remaining post (above), and then even reckful, eventually, right before the shutdown, I've been accused of misunderstanding their motives; they're not
really trashing Grant for "not being true to Jung", for after all, Myers differed from Jung (who did teach functions, and one person is advocating something that's supposed to be the original, "true" Myers model of dichotomies, and the other is advocating another model that uses functions, but allows for both the Grant and Gray-Wheelwright stackings [where the dominant and aux. are the same attitude]. This latter one didn't become more clear until later, when the name of the theory, "ObjectivePersonality" was finally mentioned).
Yet the issue keeps being brought up in order to "correct people" who follow "the HaroldGrantians" and associate the Grant model with Jung or MBTI. (I note the "us vs them" language resembling some sort of religious or political debate. Grant BTW, you hardly heard of, until these debates here, where he was essentially “isolated†as the source of the common function stack used).
I point out that people may loosely refer to the model as "JCF", but
I don't see anyone denying there's any difference. But
then, it's implied that's not the real issue. Perhaps it's people supposedly saying "Jungian/MBTI type is basically
all about the functions", or that Myers was simply Jung "simplified".
So what, really? People say all sorts of things. And the functions seem to explain things to them (fit their experience), so they see it as "all about" them, where a bunch of impersonal numbers is meaningless to them (more on this point below).
It's also supposedly not about James Reynierse, yet his name and article "The Case AGAINST Function Dynamics" is the main source cited, by everyone arguing against the Grant model.
It's all about "following the data", and dichotomies are the only thing "supported by the data". So then it is acnowledged "Myers-Briggs typology is basically where Jung's typology ended up after it was very substantially modified — not to mention expanded — to fit the evidence." So then, functions are simply "bunk" people later picked up on because they were "drunk" or thought dichotomies were "boring", different people have claimed.
But then,
what's the point then (in repeating this stuff over and over)?
No one here is saying functions have the same data as the dichotomies (regardless of how much they may "conflate" the models). Also,
it's not some scientific forum that only follows and discusses what's supported by "statistics". And all the arguing in the world won't make it so.
But they only do the statistical data with the established MBTI dichotomies, so then any other factors remain "unsupported". It's like a presupposition. We even see "the reason they've barely been studied is that, unlike the dichotomies, they've never been taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists." Why not? Would it be because they've "barely been studied" (i.e. verified by the data of the studies, which is the
whole case against them being taken seriously) to begin with?
Does anyone see a tautology there?
It should be pointed out that typology altogether (including the MBTI) still isn't "taken seriously by any significant number of academic psychologists". The only thing that is, is FFM.
So from there, another old debate surfaced between two others as to whether MBTI itself really has enough data support to begin with. The larger psychology field seems to think it doesn't. FFM is what they support. (And this ambivalence around statistical "data" is one reason I don't rely on it. It can be selectively cited or accepted, or misinterpreted. Sorry, but
it's not infallible. It's still subject to the human factor).
So I note that it seems we're trying to compete with FFM (such as others adding "Assertive/Turbulent", which is supposed to be the missing fifth factor corresponding to Neuroticism), and thus, apparently, this whole Reyniersian push for dichotomies only, supported by "data".
So the evidence that the auxiliary function is opposite in attitude from the dominant, or that functions exist at all, or that ESTJ's and INFP's have something in common, seems to end up purely anecdotal (like they both process logical objectively, and express having an aversion to a more subjectively determined logic, plus the fact that my thinking and theirs in this issue clearly differ along these same lines, just as predicted by function-attitude theory)*, and this is rejected in favor of statistical numbers (which are based on people who are just as prone to mistyping as anyone else).
*
These debates, to repeat, are the clearest illustrations of the differences —and conflicts between an extraverted and introverted Thinking perspective. It's not just “J-orderly approach to learning vs P- lax approachâ€; that dichotomy clearly points to a difference in the “thinking†itself. To the point I'm sure that my opponents think my not “going with the facts†is basically a LACK of “thinking†(logic) altogether (RIGHT?), and in turn, I see letting stuff like some page of numbers “do all the thinking for you†(i.e. determine what is "truth" or "fact" to begin with) in the same way! But we're not producing a formal study from it, so it for all purposes isn't real; it basically doesn't exist.
So I want to apologize to Turin for dragging this thread down this path. But I saw the Grant model being criticized yet again, as it has been now for several years, and felt it needed a defense sometimes. Just because it doesn't have the same level of statistics doesn't mean it needs to have everyone steered away from it, or whatever the aim is.
But in any case, the functions are another "angle" of typology, that deal with how we split reality. This split is what gives "opposites" something in common, because whatever we suppress from consciousness is compensated in the unconscious, where it "collects" and forms an "image" of the opposite preference.
But then this is all abstract, and thus probably
hard to really verify through a purely concrete scientific method. (So we might as well reject all of typology and say an S/N difference is bunk, for what we call the concrete "S" perspective is the RIGHT one, and any abstract "N" perspective is just "head-in-the-clouds" fantasy or something).
To repeat the point made so well by Drenth:
Beyond Scientific: The Case for Jungian / Myers-Briggs Typology
The first problem, is that studying human beings, including consciousness in general, is apt to require a different tools and methods than those employed in the physical sciences. To conceive and approach human beings as a mere set of physical processes (i.e., reductionism) will undoubtedly result in a failure to understand the things we cherish most about human life, namely, its qualitative elements.
Second, when critics limit truth to only a narrow version of empirical science, they fail to give credence to our everyday experiences of truth and meaning, including that derived from the arts and humanities. Can we not find truth in art, fiction, music, or religion? When these things resonate with us deeply, we often use terms such as “true†or “real†to describe them. Thus, there are at least two ways we determine truth: through science / intellect and through experience. These dual modes of knowing are nicely illustrated in Seymour Epstein’s Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST), as well as in the vast body of research enumerating left vs. right brain differences.
I love Perrin’s notion that something is beautiful when “its characteristics are all appropriate to its purpose.†This is why, when evaluating a theory like Jungian typology, we are behooved to first consider its purpose—what it aims to accomplish and what we expect from it.
Of course, we can’t really measure elegance in the same way we can measure something like the speed of light. This is because elegance is in large part assessed holistically or qualitatively rather than quantitatively; in many respects, we “know it when we see it.†It is through this sort of qualitative assessment that we have come to recognize, among other things, great works of art and literature.
As for the ObjectivePersonality site, it's interesting, and seems to rename a lot of stuff in the familiar models (in addition to adding the XXYY stack, with such types called "jumpers" if I read correctly) but otherwise makes sense. Turi did an analysis of my type using its steps, and I could identify with it; especially the "issues around Fe" or something like that. Since I believe it's the complexes (of Beebe's model) that set the stack, then a "jumper" would simply be someone whose tertiary seems stronger than the auxiliary. When activated, the associated complex with "inflate" itself, and if something is causing this to happen a lot, it may seem to be the auxiliary. To me, the term "jump" even goes along with this. Like I might at times seem like TiSi. But I know Ne is the truly preferred function (and thus what holds the dichotomy position. And not Ni either).
But it seems a jumper is seen as a permanent variation of type (creating a total of 32), and he seems to disagree with the site as to whether TiNi is a variation of ISTP or INTP, if I remember correctly. If ISTP, then that's congruent with what I would believe, and we'd only differ as to which is really the auxiliary or tertiary. If INTP, then that would partly go along with a dichotomy approach, because all that really matters is that I, N and T are preferred.
I also asked if this theory addresses the four "shadow" functions.