Okay, but then it is misleading for people to type based on the "dictionary" definitions of introversion and extroversion (which the MBTI tests do), since merely having a dominant introverted or extroverted function doesn't mean that the individual will display introverted or extroverted behaviors by the common definition.
Completely agree. Almost all tests are flawed in this way.
But at the end of the day, if you are an extrovert, then your judging or perceiving preference will be also be your dominant function. I don't see why being an introvert or extrovert should determine which set of functions (judging or perceiving) is dominant. It just seems like arbitrary detail that has little connection with observable reality.
I/E and J/P are just indicators of information about function distribution/orientation. That is all.
I personally think socionics codes make more sense than MBTI codes (they flip the J/P for all introverts). So an Ni dom with Fe is called an INFp, since their primary function is introverted and a perceiving function.
But that's a matter of aesthetics; it doesn't have to do with the information contained within the system. Jack's system contains less information than socionics.
Regarding "arbitrary detail with little connection" -- again, the letters themselves (I/E and J/P) don't directly correlate to observable reality. All that correlates to observable reality are the 4 cognitive functions and their orientations. MBTI type is NOT composed of four dichotomies -- it's just a code for the distribution.
(Someone suggested a few months ago that we don't even need 4 letters to contain all the information in MBTI, we just need 3. So an INFJ would be INF and an INFP would be IFN. This is also definitely a better code...)
If the introversion and extroversion of MBTI don't actually correspond to the observable behaviors typically ascribed to people who we call "introverts" or "extroverts", then I'd might as well call myself an ENTP, because I am positive that I use my perceiving function more often than my judging function. That is what makes me "indecisive" and "out-there". The only thing that stops me is that I don't think I'm an extrovert (by the MBTI test questions AND the type descriptions)...but you're saying that the E and the I don't actually mean what they are typically thought to mean.
Eh. I mean, I/E does correlate to observable behavior, just not directly. Plus, I'd attribute "indecisiveness" more to the fact that your first judging function is introverted -- it doesn't directly engage the outer world.
You seem like a quite clear Ti dominant to me. What we must remember, though, is that amount of usage of a function
is not correlated to ability with that function. An EFJ could have "better" Ti than an ITP; they just use it less often by definition. You could even have a "better" Ne than Ti (although I don't think you do) and still be an INTP as long as Ti is more often used.
So yes, if you've typed yourself according to the MBTI functions, which I see as difficult to do because I can very rarely identify my own behavior as, "look, I just used Ti", then you will have to change your type code. In other words, if you think you are an INTJ because you are positive that you're an I, that you are a thinker, and that you prefer judging, then you will have filled in the gaps to determine that Ni is your primary function. If that's how you view your type, if you are determined that you use Ni dominantly because MBTI says so (even if that wasn't one of the major traits that you observed of yourself), then of course it will be different in Jack's system.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but I think you have it backwards. I do not type myself as an INFJ because I know I'm an I, an N, an F, and a J. I type myself as INFJ because I know my Ni is dominant, leaving two possibilities, INTJ or INFJ. Then I look at the orientation of my thinking and feeling and find that Ti/Fe is a closer match than Te/Fi.
Typing people really isn't so hard. Just identify the dominant function (which is what Jung's book is all about anyway -- the dominant function), and then look at the orientation of the complimentary ones (if your dominant is a judging, look for orientation of perceiving and vice versa).
@"I can very rarely identify my own behavior as, "look, I just used Ti"," -- What you should be able to do at least is to identify when you are using thinking, feeling, sensing, or intuition. The orientation in one moment in time is pretty impossible to spot. Orientation comes from observing trends in your functions OVER TIME.
The thing is, though, that I think there is too much "filling-in of the gaps" when typing that way, and if you simply typed by determining the J/P, T/F, and then E/I, you'd be good to go in Jack's system...no counter-intuitive gap-filling by theory. It would be simpler to determine type based on behavior this way.
The problem is that J vs. P is a false dichotomy. Unless you want to change the definitions, but then you're losing some data and gaining other data, which means the system doesn't correspond to MBTI.
Yes, but you see, I don't think that having extra "data" is something to be desired when that data doesn't correspond to something that's real. The way that MBTI is set up doesn't really offer a framework that corresponds well enough to what I observe. And isn't that the whole point?
That's another thing. I'm not just blindly defending this function orientation thing...I've observed people for years and found this stuff to be the most interesting distinction of them all. Communication problems between Fe and Fi users, etc... it's really a useful framework.
It definitely takes some practice and some research to get working definitions for everything and to be able to spot these trends in people. But the trends are there.
If you want to give up on MBTI in favor of Jack's system, you'll never be able to see the cool distinctions that function orientation lets you see.
It's understandable; learning this all is quite frustrating. But you really can get to a point where it all clicks...and it would be too bad if you gave up on that path.
Also, not to sound like an asshole, but it's entirely clear that Jack has not gotten to that point with MBTI. He got frustrated before he figured out the system, so he made up a new one, that, yes, is easier to learn, but is also sort of a lobotomized version.
Again, his system works -- it's logically consistent and all. It just isn't as powerful. He's trading complexity for learnability.
No, it would be more flexible.
How does fewer variables lead to greater flexibility??????