Mal12345
Permabanned
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 14,532
- MBTI Type
- IxTP
- Enneagram
- 5w4
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
There are some who have tried to ruin the MBTI by attacking its proponents. Such attempts are unoriginal, non-creative, and are the products of very little minds. The problem with the MBTI is that it relies on a series of implicit theoretical unquestioned assumptions. They are implicit because of the failure of the system's creators to draw them out; they are theoretical because the logic upon which the system is based is circular - axioms are designed to produce results which justify the axioms; and it is unquestioned simply because it is so popular. Those critics who deride the system know that there has to be something wrong, but they consider the MBTI to be drivel not worthy of their attention, therefore not worth disproving.
One of the MBTI's assumptions came under attack almost 20 years ago when the observation was made that the J/P scale can just as well be considered an independent variable in the system. Originally, all four scales were considered independent of each other, each one simply tested for strength and then thrown together to create your four-letter type. If you scored higher in I than E, then I was the first letter. If you scored higher in N than in S, then N was the second letter. Etc.
Then a "new" development came along which brought Jungian typology back into the system. It was assumed that if your strongest function was Ni, then your secondary function had to be extroverted. But more importantly, this function order determined, via formula, whether or not the fourth letter in the type was going to be a J or a P. In other words, to use John Fudjack's geometry-like nomenclature, J and P are dependent variables.
Whether or not this formulaic type determination works in reality was never questioned. So let's go back a little way and see how the assumption can be formulated a different way.
Let's say your dominant function is Ni. If we drop the assumption that J and P are determined by some formula that may be true only in theory, it will be necessary to actually test real Ni-dominant people to see if they are more P than J or vice versa. Using the MBTI's rigid formula, an Ni dominant has to have J as the last letter. In reality, however, an Ni-dominant may test as a Perceiver. In other words, J and P are independent variables.
(For more information on how independent variables are established, see Parallel postulate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Euclid's fifth postulate.)
If this theory works out in practice, then it leads to a less wieldy 32-type system which (omitting auxiliary types) looks like this:
Ni with P
Ni with J
Si with P
Si with J
Te with P
Te with J
Fe with P
Fe with J
Ne with P
Ne with J
Se with P
Se with J
Ti with P
Ti with J
Fi with P
Fi with J
But assuming the tests bear it out, why does it exist psychologically?
There is at least no theoretical contradiction in saying that, let's say, an Fi-dominant person can have Judging characteristics. Perceiving and Judging are merely externally observable behavioral traits. But it has nothing to do with having a messy desk or not. Judging and Perceiving types of people (and these are types in themselves) prefer either spontaneity or control, and either closure or openness. They are externally either flexible or rigid in their life orientation. They either prefer to play it by ear or they want everything planned out in advance.
Traditionally, one would say that an Fi-dominant person prefers openness (remember, this is an external behavior set), flexibility, and spontaneity. Although Fi-dominance lends them internal closure (a set of unquestionable values), this is not made apparent in his or her behavior. So there is a cognitive split between the internal and external in that person (normally called an INFP). With the value-system, it is "my way or the highway," everything exists in black-and-white terms. But externally (in reality) this person doesn't match the ideal at all. It is all words. The concepts fail to match the reality. Their values exist only in theory; they may apply them to others but there is a struggle to attain the ideal for themselves.
No, I'm not just picking on the Fi type again because I can and will do the same for any other function. Also, there is a way out of this cycle of attempting to but failing to meet the ideal value-self. The problem for Fi, and for any other function type, is the loss of self-confidence in the primary value system. Confidence is the psychological trait which keeps us striving for something more in reality, to bring our reality into conformity with our ideals. When this confidence in our values is broken, we repress the loss, driving it back to the shadow level of consciousness where it then bedevils us with various compulsions. We become either extremely, unhealthily flexible, or extremely, unhealthily rigid and non-conforming. We either begin to pander to other people in the hopes that they will mirror for us those ideals we lack in ourselves; or we turn against other people feeling that all valuing is pointless; or we withdraw completely from them, not wanting to play the people game at all.
These three false alternatives are simply the way in which the shadow or repressed self attempts to manifest itself in the lives of those who have lost confidence in themselves. They are ways in which we attempt to feel self-confident again. And all three amount to the desire either to control and dominate others, either through explicit domination (kings/queens, bosses, dictators), implicit domination (manipulative behavior), or to control and dominate the self.
For the Fi-dominant, loss of confidence leads to a Perceiving lifestyle; never losing, or regaining, confidence means that the Fi-dominant leads a more Judging (or judicious) lifestyle. So now the P and J distinction becomes one of character, the manifestation of ethical values. However, the more extremely you are dominated by either P or J (depending on type), the more neurotic you are likely to be, and the lower your character.
A neurotic ESTJ type, for example, will have an extremely rigid and inflexible way of life that is forced on others. This manifests itself in a lifestyle that panders to the socially valued and traditional by playing a socially-acceptable role, while the repressed self casts a black-and-white rigid and judgmental shadow on people in the society. Such a person feels morally bad inside, but this is repressed into the shadow and then projected via the belief that everybody else is bad. This person exudes extremes of self-confidence, but inside doesn't really feel worthy and hates his or her life. This shadow self is projected into the world, and everywhere this person goes he or she is surrounded by badness, having failed to face the shadow within themselves.
But it's not necessary to accept and merge with the shadow self. One can simply acknowledge its existence so that it no longer stays in the shadows, and gain in self-confidence because doing so takes much strength. The power that the ESTJ acquires in reality is a reverse image of the weakness that the ESTJ fears to feel in him- or herself, the inferior function (Fi with P).
One of the MBTI's assumptions came under attack almost 20 years ago when the observation was made that the J/P scale can just as well be considered an independent variable in the system. Originally, all four scales were considered independent of each other, each one simply tested for strength and then thrown together to create your four-letter type. If you scored higher in I than E, then I was the first letter. If you scored higher in N than in S, then N was the second letter. Etc.
Then a "new" development came along which brought Jungian typology back into the system. It was assumed that if your strongest function was Ni, then your secondary function had to be extroverted. But more importantly, this function order determined, via formula, whether or not the fourth letter in the type was going to be a J or a P. In other words, to use John Fudjack's geometry-like nomenclature, J and P are dependent variables.
Whether or not this formulaic type determination works in reality was never questioned. So let's go back a little way and see how the assumption can be formulated a different way.
Let's say your dominant function is Ni. If we drop the assumption that J and P are determined by some formula that may be true only in theory, it will be necessary to actually test real Ni-dominant people to see if they are more P than J or vice versa. Using the MBTI's rigid formula, an Ni dominant has to have J as the last letter. In reality, however, an Ni-dominant may test as a Perceiver. In other words, J and P are independent variables.
(For more information on how independent variables are established, see Parallel postulate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Euclid's fifth postulate.)
If this theory works out in practice, then it leads to a less wieldy 32-type system which (omitting auxiliary types) looks like this:
Ni with P
Ni with J
Si with P
Si with J
Te with P
Te with J
Fe with P
Fe with J
Ne with P
Ne with J
Se with P
Se with J
Ti with P
Ti with J
Fi with P
Fi with J
But assuming the tests bear it out, why does it exist psychologically?
There is at least no theoretical contradiction in saying that, let's say, an Fi-dominant person can have Judging characteristics. Perceiving and Judging are merely externally observable behavioral traits. But it has nothing to do with having a messy desk or not. Judging and Perceiving types of people (and these are types in themselves) prefer either spontaneity or control, and either closure or openness. They are externally either flexible or rigid in their life orientation. They either prefer to play it by ear or they want everything planned out in advance.
Traditionally, one would say that an Fi-dominant person prefers openness (remember, this is an external behavior set), flexibility, and spontaneity. Although Fi-dominance lends them internal closure (a set of unquestionable values), this is not made apparent in his or her behavior. So there is a cognitive split between the internal and external in that person (normally called an INFP). With the value-system, it is "my way or the highway," everything exists in black-and-white terms. But externally (in reality) this person doesn't match the ideal at all. It is all words. The concepts fail to match the reality. Their values exist only in theory; they may apply them to others but there is a struggle to attain the ideal for themselves.
No, I'm not just picking on the Fi type again because I can and will do the same for any other function. Also, there is a way out of this cycle of attempting to but failing to meet the ideal value-self. The problem for Fi, and for any other function type, is the loss of self-confidence in the primary value system. Confidence is the psychological trait which keeps us striving for something more in reality, to bring our reality into conformity with our ideals. When this confidence in our values is broken, we repress the loss, driving it back to the shadow level of consciousness where it then bedevils us with various compulsions. We become either extremely, unhealthily flexible, or extremely, unhealthily rigid and non-conforming. We either begin to pander to other people in the hopes that they will mirror for us those ideals we lack in ourselves; or we turn against other people feeling that all valuing is pointless; or we withdraw completely from them, not wanting to play the people game at all.
These three false alternatives are simply the way in which the shadow or repressed self attempts to manifest itself in the lives of those who have lost confidence in themselves. They are ways in which we attempt to feel self-confident again. And all three amount to the desire either to control and dominate others, either through explicit domination (kings/queens, bosses, dictators), implicit domination (manipulative behavior), or to control and dominate the self.
For the Fi-dominant, loss of confidence leads to a Perceiving lifestyle; never losing, or regaining, confidence means that the Fi-dominant leads a more Judging (or judicious) lifestyle. So now the P and J distinction becomes one of character, the manifestation of ethical values. However, the more extremely you are dominated by either P or J (depending on type), the more neurotic you are likely to be, and the lower your character.
A neurotic ESTJ type, for example, will have an extremely rigid and inflexible way of life that is forced on others. This manifests itself in a lifestyle that panders to the socially valued and traditional by playing a socially-acceptable role, while the repressed self casts a black-and-white rigid and judgmental shadow on people in the society. Such a person feels morally bad inside, but this is repressed into the shadow and then projected via the belief that everybody else is bad. This person exudes extremes of self-confidence, but inside doesn't really feel worthy and hates his or her life. This shadow self is projected into the world, and everywhere this person goes he or she is surrounded by badness, having failed to face the shadow within themselves.
But it's not necessary to accept and merge with the shadow self. One can simply acknowledge its existence so that it no longer stays in the shadows, and gain in self-confidence because doing so takes much strength. The power that the ESTJ acquires in reality is a reverse image of the weakness that the ESTJ fears to feel in him- or herself, the inferior function (Fi with P).