it would seem the obvious conclusion is the MBTI does not test very well for Se, because it is a
holistic function, which many people (MBTI test writers included) seem not to differentiate from
abstract.
i appreciate how the article's conclusions revolve around far less blatantly obvious conclusions than the test not actually testing for what it is supposed to test for
_Poki_ said:
Actually its pretty obvious...people putting things together that dont belong together.
yep.
--
i do like that matrix, describing Se as "experience the experience", Si as "images from the past / universal shared history", Ne as "conceive from the experience", and Ni as "images from the future / universal shared symbols". the more i learn about S functions the more i am understanding that they are not particularly different from N functions, just another mirror, much as Ni is to Ne. in particular the Ni/Se and Ne/Si double mirrors are fascinating to me. flipped on both the concrete/abstract and introverted/extraverted mind axis.
and this:
Extraverted Sensing - Notices the rich detail in the whole forest - the trees, their color and texture, their sounds, their smells, the pattern of light and dark...
Introverted Sensing - Notes that this forest has always been here and recalls being in a forest from childhood, smelling that smell and the fun of playing hide and seek behind the trees...
Extraverted iNtuiting - Thinks of the fractal patterns, the wide range of possibilities in the forest, how this forest is part of the ecosystem and is affected by polllution from the city...
Introverted iNtuiting - Recognizes that the forest is deeply symbolic of all of life in its interconnectedness and constant recycling and growth and foresees that this forest will soon be torn down for a housing development...
i like the implications of the universal in dealing with Si and Ni -
shared history and
shared future. introversion seems more than just the tapping in to the individual - but also the tapping into access to certain internal knowledge that we all share.
--
Also, it is well-established that the SN and JP scales are intercorrelated with those reporting preferences for S also reporting preferences for J and N preferences correlated with P preferences. Is the iNtuiting "preference" an artifact of the instrument?
actually wouldn't it be that P and J are artifacts of the instrument? to those of us who think mainly in functions, P and J are basically afterthoughts. anyway this seems a clear enough relationship... because S deals with
reality and the
present and J deals with
external decision and
task orientation, while N deals with
abstraction and the
future and P deals with
external seeing and
leaving options open... someone who is more realistic and present-focused is naturally going to be more likely to interact in the real world, as is someone with a J preference... whereas the N and P are more satisfied to see what life brings to them...
--
to answer your questions...
Why do you believe this article has been written?
mainly to note a discrepancy in testing, i assume. some SPs are testing N. what is amusing to me is that it's written in a "how interesting, let's study this" tone instead of a "well shit" tone. given, the temperaments sort of annoy me, because i think they're rather simplistic and arbitrary divisions.
Do you think it is helpful?
eh. kind of. i think it's good they're telling people, but honestly, anyone who's studied this stuff a bit could predict this sort of mixup. S for J ; N for P ; Se for N ; Ne for S ; Ti for J - the list goes on.
Does it make you wonder about your own type?
nope.
What can be done with this information?
personally i think we should dump the four-letter code and reduce to dom and aux function. it would result in less confusion.
Can it make babies?
http://www.makemebabies.com/