• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] Ambiversion

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
reckful said:
why would you be inclined to give the functions any more serious attention than the zodiac?

Why are you ignoring my posts?
 

Saturnal Snowqueen

LL"s Atom Bomb Baby
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
5,307
MBTI Type
FELV
Enneagram
947
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Since she's been mentioned, [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION] looks visually like an ExFJ to me, and a quick post analysis suggests ESFJ. Fe is likely subdued.

--



J and P in the type code doesn't mean the judgment and perception functions (which is problematic, but it's how it is). J refers to Te, Fe, Si and Ni, whereas P refers to Ti, Fi, Se and Ne,

So you'd have to add up: Te+Fe+Si+Ni versus Ti+Fi+Se+Ne.

--

Regarding the general phenomenon of odd test scores: "function order" doesn't just mean order of strength, but rather a sequential ordering that the functions go in. The functions, in certain contexts, manifest one after another in a cycle. It also refers to the relative distance from the "seat of consciousness", or alternatively, how deep in the unconscious the functions are. The 5th function (Fe for INFP) is actually highly energising, whereas the 4th function (Te for INFP) is highly draining, so an INFP with good contact with their unconscious could score higher in Fe than Te as a result.

There is also the distinct possibility that people aren't purely one type or another, but rather have a primary type, some secondary types, and other types that are more unconscious. For INFP, INFJ is the only type which is a secondary type almost as a rule, so that can be the cause of higher scores in Ni and Fe.

Your point about there being 8! different types according to function orders ignores the point about function sequences, but seems reasonable to due to the various other factors involved, such as mistaken self-perception, relation to the unconscious, secondary types, sub-types, and modulation (over-using functions which are draining).

Could you elaborate on why you think ESFJ for me? I don't feel very E by dichtomies at least , I'm a hermit. :shrug:
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
Could you elaborate on why you think ESFJ for me? I don't feel very E by dichtomies at least , I'm a hermit. :shrug:

The visual thing I can't really explain. I've just done a bit of practice with identifying type with visuals, and ExFJ was what I was seeing. (I'd say based on visuals alone the chance of my read being correct is at least 50%)

As for function order, in your blog, you would often make a brief social response followed by details, for example:
Here .
And here .

That may indicate Fe-Si, with a particularly brief Fe. (although brief Fe can sometimes be non-function specific)

Here .

the first paragraph after the initial 2 words is Feeling oriented, and then you mention something definite, followed by a questioning indefiniteness in the third paragraph, perhaps indicative of Fe-Si-Ne-etc. function order.

Things like social anxiety (idk if you have that or not) can make an ExFJ seem introverted.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Why are you ignoring my posts?

???

If you're of the view that I should consider myself duty-bound to reply to any post that replies to one of my posts, or takes issue with one of my points, or whatever, I'm afraid we have substantially different perspectives on how internet forums work.

I'm currently active at four MBTI forums, and I have a minority perspective (as I think you know), and my posts get lots of replies, and I reply to lots of those replies, and there are also lots of replies I don't reply to, and there are a host of reasons why I may end up replying in one case and not another. Sometimes I don't think I have anything significant to add to the point(s) I already made. Sometimes the points I'd make in reply are ones I already made in another thread at the same forum in the recent past. Some days I'm busier than others. And on and on.

And I'm more likely to expound at length on my perspective in an exchange with a forum newcomer than in an exchange with an old-timer who I presume has already heard much of what I have to say on MBTI matters, some of it multiple times.

If you think I have something against you, or are otherwise making a point of not replying to your posts in particular, you really couldn't be more wrong.

You asked why I'm ignoring your "posts" (plural), but looking back over this thread, I only see one post of yours that was a reply to me. This is it:

I do type reads by identifying sequential manifestation of cognitive functions in forum posts. Noting that said phenomenon occurred is the reason that I endorse the Grant or Beebe or whatever it's called function stack (i.e. the one with INFJ as Ni-Fe-Ti-Se conscious, Ne-Fi-Te-Si unconscious). I've seen it manifest over and over, so, to me, it's essentially proven. Though, I don't expect others to just take my word for it, but to look for it themselves.

I considered that other function stacks, or none at all, might be correct, but my investigations led me to the conclusions they have.

I read it yesterday, probably not that long after you made it, and didn't feel like I had anything to add to what I'd previously said (and still don't), so I didn't reply. Does that surprise you?

I feel like I must be missing something.
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
???

If you're of the view that I should consider myself duty-bound to reply to any post that replies to one of my posts, or takes issue with one of my points, or whatever, I'm afraid we have substantially different perspectives on how internet forums work.

I'm currently active at four MBTI forums, and I have a minority perspective (as I think you know), and my posts get lots of replies, and I reply to lots of those replies, and there are also lots of replies I don't reply to, and there are a host of reasons why I may end up replying in one case and not another. Sometimes I don't think I have anything significant to add to the point(s) I already made. Sometimes the points I'd make in reply are ones I already made in another thread at the same forum in the recent past. Some days I'm busier than others. And on and on.

And I'm more likely to expound at length on my perspective in an exchange with a forum newcomer than in an exchange with an old-timer who I presume has already heard much of what I have to say on MBTI matters, some of it multiple times.

If you think I have something against you, or are otherwise making a point of not replying to your posts in particular, you really couldn't be more wrong.

You asked why I'm ignoring your "posts" (plural), but looking back over this thread, I only see one post of yours that was a reply to me. This is it:



I read it yesterday, probably not that long after you made it, and didn't feel like I had anything to add to what I'd previously said (and still don't), so I didn't reply. Does that surprise you?

I feel like I must be missing something.

Ok.

You asked why people would still believe in cognitive functions, and I posted that because I'd already explained my reason why.

(also, it could be an important post if you're on an honest truth seeking mission)

Oh, and I'm also drunk so I was more willing to voice my impatience. xD
 

Vendrah

New forum night mode looks cool!
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,744
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
(...)
J and P in the type code doesn't mean the judgment and perception functions (which is problematic, but it's how it is). J refers to Te, Fe, Si and Ni, whereas P refers to Ti, Fi, Se and Ne,

So you'd have to add up: Te+Fe+Si+Ni versus Ti+Fi+Se+Ne.

--

Regarding the general phenomenon of odd test scores: "function order" doesn't just mean order of strength, but rather a sequential ordering that the functions go in. The functions, in certain contexts, manifest one after another in a cycle. It also refers to the relative distance from the "seat of consciousness", or alternatively, how deep in the unconscious the functions are. The 5th function (Fe for INFP) is actually highly energising, whereas the 4th function (Te for INFP) is highly draining, so an INFP with good contact with their unconscious could score higher in Fe than Te as a result.

There is also the distinct possibility that people aren't purely one type or another, but rather have a primary type, some secondary types, and other types that are more unconscious. For INFP, INFJ is the only type which is a secondary type almost as a rule, so that can be the cause of higher scores in Ni and Fe.

Your point about there being 8! different types according to function orders ignores the point about function sequences, but seems reasonable to due to the various other factors involved, such as mistaken self-perception, relation to the unconscious, secondary types, sub-types, and modulation (over-using functions which are draining).

Well, first, you got it! It seems strange to me but I looked at my own case and it seems that J really refers to Te, Fe, Si and Ni, whereas P refers to Ti, Fi, Se and Ne, although I dont get exactly why but it fits best this way.

But the function orders, concepts of 5th, 6th... function, 4th function being draining or energizing, the so called Ni-Ti loop or any other one of these loops and the function sequences are all Grant Function Stack, some directly and some other derived from it. What [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] show us is that there are studies showing that these function sequences doesnt work (they were tested). So, the whole thing about INFP has to be being Fe-dom or INFJ has to be Ni-dom is, well, I think Ill have to be rude enough to say that it is wrong. If you go in the topics of Dario Nardi results that people post and the TypoC one I linked on my other post, you will notice that literally nobody has the functions right for their type from the 1st to 8th position. Considering the only first 3 functions, someone who actually has their Dom, Aux and tertiary on the right place are exceptions that should be the rule. There are people with the first 3 functions as a tie.

People always blame the test, the person who does the test, the unconscious, secondary types, sub-types, modulation (this one is new to me :D) and even the weather (it was raining, the rain boosted Se you know? Just kidding). And I had accepted that in the past, but [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] has shown studies on that field that proves that the flaw are not in all these things (they are actually excuses we create on "innocence") but the flaw is in the whole concept of a Dom, Aux and tertiary, and all that follows that, including shadow functions, dark functions (or evil function? I think thats how some sites calls the 5th or 8th function). [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] thinks its the functions themselves are wrong, but as I state the evidence against them are toward the function order, specially the Grant Function Stack (that we know as cognitive function stack). So, an INFJ does not need to be a Ni-dom to be INFJ neither does INFP needs tertiary Si to be INFP and so goes on.

He uses the term "category mistake" multiple times in that article, and with reference to several aspects of type dynamics. "Category mistakes are endemic within type dynamics," he says. And "type dynamics ... is fundamentally based on a series of category mistakes." And he discusses several of them.

But the most basic-level category mistake he points to is the fact that the cognitive functions themselves are a distorted mis-categorization of the underlying components of type. On page 3, he explains that it's a category mistake to frame someone's type in terms of dominant and auxiliary functions (never mind the tertiary and inferior) — not because "Fe" descriptions "tested and failed" (as you put it) to have (piggybacked) validity as applied to FJs, but rather because the reality of what's really going on is that people have hardwired preferences with respect to four dichotomies. And the article goes on to discuss (at length) the fact that 50 years of correlational data points to the conclusion that the personality effects that functionistas attribute to function dynamics have turned out to only be consistent with reality to the extent that they're limited to what you'd expect if type was the result — not just primarily, but exclusively — of what Reynierse calls the straightforward "additive" effect of the dichotomies. In other words, it has turned out that assertions about "Fe" (for example) have only ever found any empirical support to the extent of the simple piggybacked validity that you'd expect them to have if those assertions are (1) limited to things that FJs have in common (to a greater extent than the 12 other types), and (2) only applied to FJs.

As I said before, an INFJ (for example) is first and foremost an I and an N and an F and a J, and secondarily a product of the various dichotomies in combination — but there's no empirical support for the notion that there are some fundamental underlying things that correspond to the NJ and the FJ combinations and that make an INFJ an "NJ" type and an "FJ" type to a more meaningful/substantial extent than an INFJ is an IN type or an NF type — much less a "Ti" or "Se" type — or that involve an INFJ's N playing a more significant role than their F (and vice versa for INFPs).

So... if you agree that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to real, underlying (substantially hardwired) components of personality, and that there are many aspects of personality that are influenced by one dichotomy, or by two or more dichotomies in combination, and if there's absolutely nothing about personality that you can frame in function-centric terms that both (1) adds to, or is inconsistent with, the simple, additive effect of the dichotomies, and (2) has found any empirical support, then the $64,000 follow-up question is: why would you be inclined to give the functions any more serious attention than the zodiac?

Your answers seems like a no to my question.
His category mistake always refer about these specific order, the mistake about having a Dom and an Aux. You will only expect that INFJ is more FJ than other types if you consider a system with Dom and Aux. The system I described you, with the restriction I showed you (using logic equations instead of forcing a specific Dom and Aux at each type; If a person have truly a Dom or not varies through cases), have option for any ambivalence (x in the 4-letter code) and does not imply an INFJ being in average more FJ because it doesnt use the concepts of one single Dominant and neither specific auxiliarys. It depends on the cases. But thats not the only matter. I havent seen him criticizing the function by themselves, criticizing that a INFJ is not a Fe-dom is different than stating that the Fe function (or any other single function) is proven of being non-existent.

--

Now since I got P-J wrong the example I gave was not the best one, sorry, but it still an example of someone which is a INFJ with clear preference over Ne instead of Ni, so its a case of a INFJ which is not a Ni-dom. I dont think I need other examples, but, well, if I do I can show some later. But getting what I started done, [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION] in my analysis gets:

Sensing or intuition axis..
Ne+Ni=7
Si+Se=-6
Ne+Ni>Se+Si
Very clear preference for intuition

Thinking or feeling axis...
Fe+Fi>>Te+Ti (its visible)
Very clear preference for feeling

Introversion or extroversion...
Fe+Te+Ne+Se=3
Fi+Ni+Ti+Si=-3
Clear preference for extraversion

Perceveing or judging...
Te+Fe+Si+Ni=0
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne=0
No clear preference for perceveing or judging

Final results:ENFx
If she had done at that day a test in truity or 16personalities or any decent one with personality dimensions, she should had the same results I obtained (with the x meaning ambivalence/no preference), with the difference that with the cognitive functions we had these additional information:
Main functions: Ne and Fe
Achiles Heels functions: Ti and Te
Preference for Ne over Ni.
Preference for Fe over Fi.
No preference in Se/Si
No clear preference in Te/Ti
There is also the other positions, for somebody who is familiar with functions thats a good tone of extra information. There is so much information that some of these might even change overtime, because these are a lot of details.
 

Saturnal Snowqueen

LL"s Atom Bomb Baby
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
5,307
MBTI Type
FELV
Enneagram
947
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Well, first, you got it! It seems strange to me but I looked at my own case and it seems that J really refers to Te, Fe, Si and Ni, whereas P refers to Ti, Fi, Se and Ne, although I dont get exactly why but it fits best this way.

But the function orders, concepts of 5th, 6th... function, 4th function being draining or energizing, the so called Ni-Ti loop or any other one of these loops and the function sequences are all Grant Function Stack, some directly and some other derived from it. What [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] show us is that there are studies showing that these function sequences doesnt work (they were tested). So, the whole thing about INFP has to be being Fe-dom or INFJ has to be Ni-dom is, well, I think Ill have to be rude enough to say that it is wrong. If you go in the topics of Dario Nardi results that people post and the TypoC one I linked on my other post, you will notice that literally nobody has the functions right for their type from the 1st to 8th position. Considering the only first 3 functions, someone who actually has their Dom, Aux and tertiary on the right place are exceptions that should be the rule. There are people with the first 3 functions as a tie.

People always blame the test, the person who does the test, the unconscious, secondary types, sub-types, modulation (this one is new to me :D) and even the weather (it was raining, the rain boosted Se you know? Just kidding). And I had accepted that in the past, but [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] has shown studies on that field that proves that the flaw are not in all these things (they are actually excuses we create on "innocence") but the flaw is in the whole concept of a Dom, Aux and tertiary, and all that follows that, including shadow functions, dark functions (or evil function? I think thats how some sites calls the 5th or 8th function). [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] thinks its the functions themselves are wrong, but as I state the evidence against them are toward the function order, specially the Grant Function Stack (that we know as cognitive function stack). So, an INFJ does not need to be a Ni-dom to be INFJ neither does INFP needs tertiary Si to be INFP and so goes on.



Your answers seems like a no to my question.
His category mistake always refer about these specific order, the mistake about having a Dom and an Aux. You will only expect that INFJ is more FJ than other types if you consider a system with Dom and Aux. The system I described you, with the restriction I showed you (using logic equations instead of forcing a specific Dom and Aux at each type; If a person have truly a Dom or not varies through cases), have option for any ambivalence (x in the 4-letter code) and does not imply an INFJ being in average more FJ because it doesnt use the concepts of one single Dominant and neither specific auxiliarys. It depends on the cases. But thats not the only matter. I havent seen him criticizing the function by themselves, criticizing that a INFJ is not a Fe-dom is different than stating that the Fe function (or any other single function) is proven of being non-existent.

--

Now since I got P-J wrong the example I gave was not the best one, sorry, but it still an example of someone which is a INFJ with clear preference over Ne instead of Ni, so its a case of a INFJ which is not a Ni-dom. I dont think I need other examples, but, well, if I do I can show some later. But getting what I started done, [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION] in my analysis gets:

Sensing or intuition axis..
Ne+Ni=7
Si+Se=-6
Ne+Ni>Se+Si
Very clear preference for intuition

Thinking or feeling axis...
Fe+Fi>>Te+Ti (its visible)
Very clear preference for feeling

Introversion or extroversion...
Fe+Te+Ne+Se=3
Fi+Ni+Ti+Si=-3
Clear preference for extraversion

Perceveing or judging...
Te+Fe+Si+Ni=0
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne=0
No clear preference for perceveing or judging

Final results:ENFx
If she had done at that day a test in truity or 16personalities or any decent one with personality dimensions, she should had the same results I obtained (with the x meaning ambivalence/no preference), with the difference that with the cognitive functions we had these additional information:
Main functions: Ne and Fe
Achiles Heels functions: Ti and Te
Preference for Ne over Ni.
Preference for Fe over Fi.
No preference in Se/Si
No clear preference in Te/Ti
There is also the other positions, for somebody who is familiar with functions thats a good tone of extra information. There is so much information that some of these might even change overtime, because these are a lot of details.

16personalities and truity give me INFP though. But pretty cool analysis. Keys2cognition and other ones give me high Fi actually, but I don't if they are particularly better.
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
Well, first, you got it! It seems strange to me but I looked at my own case and it seems that J really refers to Te, Fe, Si and Ni, whereas P refers to Ti, Fi, Se and Ne, although I dont get exactly why but it fits best this way.

The reason why is because those are the functions that pair up together in the dominant and auxiliary positions. The reason it's confusing is because Myers and Briggs chose the terms "Judger"/J and "Perceiver"/P to describe this dichotomy, which is highly misleading because judgment and perception already refer to the rational and irrational functions... so I would say that it was a bad choice of terms, and one that has stuck around ever since.

But the function orders, concepts of 5th, 6th... function, 4th function being draining or energizing, the so called Ni-Ti loop or any other one of these loops and the function sequences are all Grant Function Stack, some directly and some other derived from it. What [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] show us is that there are studies showing that these function sequences doesnt work (they were tested). So, the whole thing about INFP has to be being Fe-dom or INFJ has to be Ni-dom is, well, I think Ill have to be rude enough to say that it is wrong. If you go in the topics of Dario Nardi results that people post and the TypoC one I linked on my other post, you will notice that literally nobody has the functions right for their type from the 1st to 8th position. Considering the only first 3 functions, someone who actually has their Dom, Aux and tertiary on the right place are exceptions that should be the rule. There are people with the first 3 functions as a tie.

People always blame the test, the person who does the test, the unconscious, secondary types, sub-types, modulation (this one is new to me :D) and even the weather (it was raining, the rain boosted Se you know? Just kidding). And I had accepted that in the past, but [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] has shown studies on that field that proves that the flaw are not in all these things (they are actually excuses we create on "innocence") but the flaw is in the whole concept of a Dom, Aux and tertiary, and all that follows that, including shadow functions, dark functions (or evil function? I think thats how some sites calls the 5th or 8th function). [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] thinks its the functions themselves are wrong, but as I state the evidence against them are toward the function order, specially the Grant Function Stack (that we know as cognitive function stack). So, an INFJ does not need to be a Ni-dom to be INFJ neither does INFP needs tertiary Si to be INFP and so goes on.

From what I understand, what the studies reckful referenced are showing, is that the dichotomy pairs like NJ and FJ have no more explanatory power than dichotomy pairs like IN and NF, so hence there seems no reason to think in terms of functions.

However, what I say is that just because the data isn't showing signs that cognitive functions exist, there is actually very good reason to use the cognitive functions model. As I've been mentioning again and again, looking for function sequences is a very useful way to type a person. I see it so often that the themes in the posts I write seem to go through a Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si function order. So cognitive functions might not be showing up in the questionnaire data, whether the test be based on dichotomies or cognitive functions, but since it's so useful in other contexts, there is good reason to use that model.
 

Vendrah

New forum night mode looks cool!
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,744
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Im starting to think that maybe my claims in the thread about Ne and Si being ambiverted functions should be taken on my sums, since robobot14 results would give an x on I/E without Ne and Si into account.

16personalities and truity give me INFP though. But pretty cool analysis. Keys2cognition and other ones give me high Fi actually, but I don't if they are particularly better.

Well, would you mind posting the results from 16personalities OR truity (with the percentages) AND keys2cognition from the same day? Or would you mind doing like recently?

It would be a start, I think I could in the future create a experimental thread. Depending on the results I can swap descriptions and you could tell me about if my swaped descriptions do seems accurate to you. Actually, this is me am trying to fix the cognitive functions stacking!

The reason why is because those are the functions that pair up together in the dominant and auxiliary positions. The reason it's confusing is because Myers and Briggs chose the terms "Judger"/J and "Perceiver"/P to describe this dichotomy, which is highly misleading because judgment and perception already refer to the rational and irrational functions... so I would say that it was a bad choice of terms, and one that has stuck around ever since.



From what I understand, what the studies reckful referenced are showing, is that the dichotomy pairs like NJ and FJ have no more explanatory power than dichotomy pairs like IN and NF, so hence there seems no reason to think in terms of functions.

However, what I say is that just because the data isn't showing signs that cognitive functions exist, there is actually very good reason to use the cognitive functions model. As I've been mentioning again and again, looking for function sequences is a very useful way to type a person. I see it so often that the themes in the posts I write seem to go through a Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si function order. So cognitive functions might not be showing up in the questionnaire data, whether the test be based on dichotomies or cognitive functions, but since it's so useful in other contexts, there is good reason to use that model.

The explanation is about rational and irrational functions them?
Which one is irrational, Ti side or Te side? Weird, because the INTP are supposed to be the most logical type but for other instance INTJs come second on that hand, it would be super weird if one was rational and other one irrational.

And, well, using a model that is proven to be wrong doesnt make any sense at all. It will make typing inaccurate, since the grant function stack doesnt work. Any intuitive type can be a Ni-dom, and yet while see Ni-dom you will think about INxJ. I know, maybe it looks quite comfortable staying like that but, well, at least I think I am done typing by GFS. However, I didnt gave up cognitive functions, actually, I think I already even started a project to fix it!
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
Im starting to think that maybe my claims in the thread about Ne and Si being ambiverted functions should be taken on my sums, since robobot14 results would give an x on I/E without Ne and Si into account.

You're confusing two different definitions of introversion/extroversion. For typing purposes, Ne, Se, Te and Fe are equally extroverted, and Ni, Si, Ti and Fi are equally introverted. The ambiversion that you're talking about comes into play when referring to behaviours typically associated with being an introvert/extrovert.

The explanation is about rational and irrational functions them?
Which one is irrational, Ti side or Te side? Weird, because the INTP are supposed to be the most logical type but for other instance INTJs come second on that hand, it would be super weird if one was rational and other one irrational.

Jung's original definitions are that S and N (perception) are irrational, and F and T (judgment) are rational. The association between rationality and the NTs or just Thinkers is a different definition of the term.

And, well, using a model that is proven to be wrong doesnt make any sense at all. It will make typing inaccurate, since the grant function stack doesnt work. Any intuitive type can be a Ni-dom, and yet while see Ni-dom you will think about INxJ. I know, maybe it looks quite comfortable staying like that but, well, at least I think I am done typing by GFS. However, I didnt gave up cognitive functions, actually, I think I already even started a project to fix it!

It wasn't proven wrong by what reckful said. Rather, there was no support for it in terms of the analysis of the questionnaire data. But there is support in other contexts, so in that case it's actually proven correct (from my point of view).
 

Vendrah

New forum night mode looks cool!
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,744
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
You're confusing two different definitions of introversion/extroversion. For typing purposes, Ne, Se, Te and Fe are equally extroverted, and Ni, Si, Ti and Fi are equally introverted. The ambiversion that you're talking about comes into play when referring to behaviours typically associated with being an introvert/extrovert.

No, I know they arent supposed to be ambivert, however I am already thinking about what could go wrong and this is one of the things. I really should not expect that these cognitive functions are defined very right, and the first weakness that it comes to my mind is how Ne can work introverted or how Si makes socializing easier. I know that maybe I could actually think in terms of energy and say that the extroversion/introversion in this case is energy but that wouldnt get in line with Official personal dimensions MBTI I-E.


Jung's original definitions are that S and N (perception) are irrational, and F and T (judgment) are rational. The association between rationality and the NTs or just Thinkers is a different definition of the term.
Different meanings for the same word in different contexts, huh? But that was the definition I was using before and it dindt seemed to work so well on the previous 3 cases I had a fast look.

It wasn't proven wrong by what reckful said. Rather, there was no support for it in terms of the analysis of the questionnaire data. But there is support in other contexts, so in that case it's actually proven correct (from my point of view).

The Grant Function Stack (and other 2 tight function stacks) was empirically tested and failed by 6 different papers, the article reckful mentions say it directly. To me thats enough to be proven wrong. What have no support are the functions themselves and the way I am tackling the stacking, since my "liberal" stacking has no support and I dont even expect it will, but Ill be glad if I can make it work in at least 2/3 times. Of course I do expect trouble while doing (Ne working in a introverted way significantly is one of the troubles that should be waiting), but I hope it works (and if it does its going to give a significant change how we see things).
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
No, I know they arent supposed to be ambivert, however I am already thinking about what could go wrong and this is one of the things. I really should not expect that these cognitive functions are defined very right, and the first weakness that it comes to my mind is how Ne can work introverted or how Si makes socializing easier. I know that maybe I could actually think in terms of energy and say that the extroversion/introversion in this case is energy but that wouldnt get in line with Official personal dimensions MBTI I-E.

Yeah the MBTI test items, facets etc. probably do apply differently for different types.


Different meanings for the same word in different contexts, huh? But that was the definition I was using before and it dindt seemed to work so well on the previous 3 cases I had a fast look.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

The Grant Function Stack (and other 2 tight function stacks) was empirically tested and failed by 6 different papers, the article reckful mentions say it directly. To me thats enough to be proven wrong. What have no support are the functions themselves and the way I am tackling the stacking, since my "liberal" stacking has no support and I dont even expect it will, but Ill be glad if I can make it work in at least 2/3 times. Of course I do expect trouble while doing (Ne working in a introverted way significantly is one of the troubles that should be waiting), but I hope it works (and if it does its going to give a significant change how we see things).

I already said... but if something has no support for its existence in one context, but does have support for its existence in another context, then the conclusion is that it likely does exist. You can call my reasoning too subjective if you want, but I've seen way too many things that fall really neatly within the Grant/Beebe function orders (though I disagree with Beebe's archetypes for the functions). So, based on my own interpretation, it's a very solid model. It just apparently doesn't show up in test data.

If you define order as strength, ease of use, or scores in a cognitive functions test, then the liberal function stack has things going for it. The reason I think this to be the case is largely because I suspect people are not purely one type, and hence the functions, when averaged across all sub-personalities, could end up being in any order as far as strength goes.

However, the INFJ cognitive configuration, for instance, is quite well-defined and has a standard sequencing of processes within it.

One of my interests in this is in determining ways that cognitive functions can be sequenced that aren't standard. For example, INFJ can use the functions in this order: Ni-Si-Fe-Te-Ti-Fi-Se-Ne, and a different signal emanates from the INFJ as a result. It's a topic with much ground to explore.
 

Methylene

Now with less salt.
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,821
MBTI Type
LGBT
Enneagram
639
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
One of my interests in this is in determining ways that cognitive functions can be sequenced that aren't standard. For example, INFJ can use the functions in this order: Ni-Si-Fe-Te-Ti-Fi-Se-Ne, and a different signal emanates from the INFJ as a result. It's a topic with much ground to explore.

One word: socionics.
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
One word: socionics.

Yeah, socionics uses a different function order, and if someone habitually used the socionics function order, it may result in the intertype relations that socionics proposes, because the 5th and 6th functions then become Se and Ti for an NiFe.

What did you have in mind?
 

Saturnal Snowqueen

LL"s Atom Bomb Baby
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
5,307
MBTI Type
FELV
Enneagram
947
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Im starting to think that maybe my claims in the thread about Ne and Si being ambiverted functions should be taken on my sums, since robobot14 results would give an x on I/E without Ne and Si into account.



Well, would you mind posting the results from 16personalities OR truity (with the percentages) AND keys2cognition from the same day? Or would you mind doing like recently?

It would be a start, I think I could in the future create a experimental thread. Depending on the results I can swap descriptions and you could tell me about if my swaped descriptions do seems accurate to you. Actually, this is me am trying to fix the cognitive functions stacking!



The explanation is about rational and irrational functions them?
Which one is irrational, Ti side or Te side? Weird, because the INTP are supposed to be the most logical type but for other instance INTJs come second on that hand, it would be super weird if one was rational and other one irrational.

And, well, using a model that is proven to be wrong doesnt make any sense at all. It will make typing inaccurate, since the grant function stack doesnt work. Any intuitive type can be a Ni-dom, and yet while see Ni-dom you will think about INxJ. I know, maybe it looks quite comfortable staying like that but, well, at least I think I am done typing by GFS. However, I didnt gave up cognitive functions, actually, I think I already even started a project to fix it!

Here ya go. Got INTP on 16p today actually but very balanced T/F.(93% introversion)

GpdlNHd.jpg


oWYamRI.jpg
 

Methylene

Now with less salt.
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,821
MBTI Type
LGBT
Enneagram
639
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Yeah, socionics uses a different function order, and if someone habitually used the socionics function order, it may result in the intertype relations that socionics proposes, because the 5th and 6th functions then become Se and Ti for an NiFe.

What did you have in mind?

In model A, functions in the Id block are well developed and can be summoned as needed, but they're just seen as boring compared to the ones in the Ego block (exactly how I value Te- with Ni my relationship is more complex).
For instance, an INFJ/INFp/IEI would have Ni-Fe in the Ego block and Ne and Fi in the Id block. Here it is your problem solved.
 

Legion

complete
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,420
MBTI Type
INF
Enneagram
945
In model A, functions in the Id block are well developed and can be summoned as needed, but they're just seen as boring compared to the ones in the Ego block (exactly how I value Te- with Ni my relationship is more complex).
For instance, an INFJ/INFp/IEI would have Ni-Fe in the Ego block and Ne and Fi in the Id block. Here it is your problem solved.

I'll consider this. I don't view my Ne and Fi as "boring", I find them the fun part of the process because it's where new ideas and implications come to my mind.
 

Methylene

Now with less salt.
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,821
MBTI Type
LGBT
Enneagram
639
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I'll consider this. I don't view my Ne and Fi as "boring", I find them the fun part of the process because it's where new ideas and implications come to my mind.

That's also part of the process of growing up, integrating the other functions. For me, that I'm younger, Te can be useful during discussions and I got a decent grasp on it, but my primary approach of reasoning is definitely Ti. Te mostly is obvious business to me. Same with Ni, apart that I really rarely use it because my Ne perceives it as too narrow.
But give it a read, I think it can solve most of your problems.
 
Top