[MBTI General] Ambiversion

[Pionart]

why would you be inclined to give the functions any more serious attention than the zodiac?

Why are you ignoring my posts?

 

[Saturnal Snowqueen]

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.

 

[Pionart]

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

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]

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.

 

[Pionart]

???

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]

(...)
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 ) 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]

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 ) 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.

 

[Pionart]

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 ) 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]

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!

 

[Pionart]

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]

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).

 

[Pionart]

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.

 

[Pionart]

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]

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)

 

[Pionart]

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.

 

[Pionart]

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.

Ne does have a tendency to view Ni as too narrow, and perhaps Ni views Ne as too shallow, but that's why they go well together. Ne diversifies and expands Ni's focus, and Ni unites Ne's disparate abstractions into an underlying philosophy.

 

[Vendrah]

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

Thanks very much.

As it is now, through my conversion is:

S/N
Ne+Ni>Se+Si
Very clear preference for intuition
(matches with 16p)

T/F
Fi+Fe>Te+Ti
Very clear preference for feeling
(error:mismatch. 16P shows no preference)
Although I would say that this error is quite desirable, since in 16p there is an X on this axis and the cognitive function test removes the x.

P/J
Te+Fe+Si+Ni=105 (J)
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne=135 (P)
Clear preference for perceveing
(matches with 16p)

You forgot to post your I/E. The turbulent and assertive thing, as far as I know, its not an MBTI, its just 16P aditional dimension (probably to enrich the system). I am going to predict your I/E, since you said its "I" but I dont know if it is close to 50% or if the introversion is clear. And this is the tricky part because of Ne.

I/E
Ne+Fe+Se+Te=105
Ni+Fi+Ti+Si=135
Clear preference for introverted
(matches with 16p)

Final result: INFP (verus INxP on 16P).

Now it would be the description, but your function stack is quite close to Grant Function Stack, so it would be quite similar to INFP (so there wouldnt be actually significant hybridizing, I would had a text that it would be like 80% INFP). I would even risk saying that you are a Fi and Ne-dom instead, however the difference between Ne and Ni is significantly lower than Fi and Fe. So, it wouldnt be unfair to say Fi-dom with very good secondary Ne. As tertiary (that is secondary in the point of view of double doms) are shared between Ni and Si. Thats a little bit different than GFS INFP, since GFS INFP is supposed to have a preference for intuition, but not a heavy preference for intuition because of tertiary Si alone. I was forgetting the extra:

Fi or Fe
Preference for Fi (as expected for GFS)

Te or Ti
Preference for Ti (GFS is unsure on this one)

Si or Se
Preference for Si (as expected for GFS)

Ne or Ni
Preference for Ne (as expected for GFS)

I say that in this case GFS fits quite good. Also, interesting that there was no ambivalence.
[MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION] I meant that the word rational has one meaning in terms of J and P and other meaning inside MBTI descriptions (NT The rationals, with INTP and ENTP being rational in this term and irrational in the other one).

The other context for support is what, its popularity? The theory looks pretty cool (it does!)? Well, look, maybe you had used it for years and you became attached to it, but I encorage you to get out of it, or at least starting using it very carefully. But I am glad that you are open to alternatives.

There is only one good news although. If this system that I am creating is right, then the function stack you described is one of INFJs variations. Considering all 8 functions, thats only one arrangement out of 40320, so its one INFJ possible in a sea of hundreds of INFJs possibilites (497 in an estimation since the math becomes complex for this calculation, although I could reduce that number because just swaping the 5th and 6th house, for example, wouldnt make much difference). Consider the alternative stack you mentioned, then thats two INFJs in the sea of hundreds INFJs possibilites.

Hmm.. now that I am stopping to thinkk about, Ni reduces the possibilities while Ne expands them, hmm....

 

[Pionart]

@Legion I meant that the word rational has one meaning in terms of J and P and other meaning inside MBTI descriptions (NT The rationals, with INTP and ENTP being rational in this term and irrational in the other one).

You're still mistaken, it gets even more confusing than that. INTP is a Perceiving type, but the dominant function is Ti which is rational, so they're a rational, and rational means judgment, so they're judgers. But a different definition of judger than is meant by J in the type code. And of course INTP is an NT, which is a rational, but INTJ is also an NT, and thus a rational, but the dominant function is a perception function, so they're irrational, but with a different definition, thus they're perceivers, but they're also judgers by a different definition.

The other context for support is what, its popularity? The theory looks pretty cool (it does!)? Well, look, maybe you had used it for years and you became attached to it, but I encorage you to get out of it, or at least starting using it very carefully. But I am glad that you are open to alternatives.

Are you referring to the Grant/Beebe function stack? I was agnostic about that until I learnt to identify function sequences, and that is the support I use for it. Likely there is other support as well, but I just go by whatever is sufficient for me to make up my mind, rather than collating all the evidence together, so it's hard for me to convince others, apart from saying "just look for it in the way I'm referring to, you might be able to see it too!".

There is only one good news although. If this system that I am creating is right, then the function stack you described is one of INFJs variations. Considering all 8 functions, thats only one arrangement out of 40320, so its one INFJ possible in a sea of hundreds of INFJs possibilites (497 in an estimation since the math becomes complex for this calculation, although I could reduce that number because just swaping the 5th and 6th house, for example, wouldnt make much difference). Consider the alternative stack you mentioned, then thats two INFJs in the sea of hundreds INFJs possibilites.

Hmm.. now that I am stopping to thinkk about, Ni reduces the possibilities while Ne expands them, hmm....

Sequences, sequences. The functions just tend to go in an order. If you look for it you'll see it. Dario Nardi used an analogy in his thread about anatomy. It's possible for the human anatomy to be totally different than what it is, but it just so happens that it tends to be the same for everyone, because that's what evolved based on functionality.

So certain orderings of functions (I mean sequential ordering, as well as distance from the "seat of consciousness") just happen to be functional, while others, while possible, are less functional.

Though, there are other contexts you can look at where the functions don't manifest in a set order, but can be used in any order. And there are plenty of variations to the function order even when it does appear in a sequence. But there are regularities to how it manifests, and that's why the Grant/Beebe function order is a useful approximation (and even the word "approximation" sells it short, given that we're talking about essentially discrete processes here).

 

[highlander]

IMPORTANT: I quoted some people not in the intention to involve them on the discussion but rather to just mention them for some reason. I dont know if you got what I said on my post ending. I meant someone tackling the 8 cognitive functions without any specific order stacking and dismissing concepts of "leading", "secondary" and "tertiary function"/ "4th function". Ill give a much longer explanation by using an example in order to be less abstract. After your post I took a look at people results in the two tests that I consider the best ones that uses both cognitive functions and 4-letter code, but it looks like they do the typing using Gran Function Stack (GFS). Actually, I dont think there is a single test in the internet that uses ditchonomies (personality dimensions) and the cognitive functions in paralel or combined. Here it is the TypoC one, managed and created (I believe) by [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION]: New Version of Forum Personality Test And the Dario Nardi test: Cognitive Processes Test (Dario Nardi's 48 Question Test) When I looked the results of several people tests, I saw GFS failing sometimes. More failing than succeding actually. I saw things like INTP with higher Ni´s than Ne (unusual but possible). I saw a lot of people which didnt seem to have any preference between Te or Ti, Ne or Ni, Fi or Fe, Se or Si, actually, thats seems to be common. And in that matter comes an interesting family of cases. Some INFPs displayed a huge preference for Fi over Fe, and, well that it is what it should happen since Fi goes for FP and Fe goes for FJ. But there was some INFPs which didnt seem to have a particular preference between Fi over Fe. And yet, they were still scoring as INFP in a stable manner. This pattern happens in several other types. I even found one INFP that scored preference for Fe over Fi [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION]). Link: https://www.typologycentral.com/for...on-forum-personality-test-22.html#post3112859 She should be INFJ by Fe-Fi FP-FJ conversion, but then you look a preference for Ne instead of Ni. Ne goes for NP while Ni goes for NJ. So far, you could say that Im actually stating that the cognitive functions are broke, but thats not the case. My point here in this example is this: The Fe-Fi FP-FJ, Ne-Ni-NP-NJ and other alikes conversions would only be valid if GFS was valid either. When you do these conversions (Fi=FP), you are assuming GFS as valid. And my second point here, is that there should be a big difference between the regular INFP which preferes Fi over Fe between the INFP with equal preference for Fi and Fe or the INFP that has a preference for Fe over Fi which is the present case. And yet, they still get the same codes: INFP. Thats what I meant by the potential to expand and make MBTI deeper, since cognitive functions could not only distinct different INFPs but to do the same in every personality type. Note that I am not saying that personality dimensions are wrong because of this, I am actually expanding them. I am giving one example where I am expanding and giving depth and variety for INFPs (I could do it with any type) using cognitive functions, so they arent useless nor direct conversions from the personality dimensions MBTI. But I am claiming that the Fi-->FP and all these kind of conversions are wrong if GFS is wrong, which is the case. Actually, I am already dismissing GFS entirely, because in GFS INFPs should have Fi preference over Fe. I am talking something new here, but this could not be new (am I the first to think and rephrase cognitive functions this way? I am asking because I usually never the one who came with ideas first). Now, ideally it would be nice if we actually had an personality dimensions results either from her and from the other cases, but we dont. So, how the decision of INFP and not INFJ was made here? Well, only [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] could explain from his software side, but Im going to display you my hypothesis - which is that the cognitive functions are free to move without any specific order but they have to obey some restrictions in order to match the personality dimensions preferences. Remember, its an hypothesis, I never had the opportunity to test it. It is neither proven entirely/partially right or wrong, unless you could point me out someone which did the same and tested, which is exactly what I was asking last post. Continuing, these restrictions come from the simple equations I stated above. Just remembering: If someone has preference in Intuition over Sensing, then Ne+Ni>Se+Si. = sign (relatively close) if there is no clear preference. Same for thinking and feeling. For extraversion or introversion, we compare how extraverted functions are compared to introverted functions. In Judging or perceveing functions is what I think there is a possibility that I am wrong, but Fi, Fe, Ti and Te are judging functions while Se, Si, Ne, Ni are perceveing functions. In [MENTION=38618]robobot14[/MENTION] case, I will explain why P and not J by using this principle. In her case, Se+Ne+Ni+Si=7 while Fi+Fe+Ti+Te=-3. So, since the sum or judging functions are -3 and the sum of perceveing funtions are 7 we have a clear preference for perceveing, and, yet we have high Fe over Fi (which should translate by being FJ but it doesnt). Also note that there is no dominant function on this case. I used example so I hope you catch the concept. It doenst matter if she hard these results only that day or if the [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] test made mistakes, it matters the concept which I am trying to explain here. There are literally at least hundreds of possible cases with the same issue in INFP case. So I ask again: Is there anyone on the "functionista nonsense" that have ever thought of this? Wouldnt the "functionista nonsense school" always been tied by dominant and specific order of functions or anyone of them thought a function stack that doesnt follow specific tight patterns? Well, GFS doesnt work but that doesnt mean that it is impossible to make the cognitive functions work. Even if I dont actually dominate the concept between these functions since my sources about it should be poor, I think the system I described could not only bring the cognitive function usefullness but could expand the MBTI system, into something that not only categorizes you but describes your personality (even if it is kind of akward). I didnt noticed any parts where Reynierse stated that the cognitive functions themselves tested and failed. He states that type dynamics and the dynamical interpretation (Dominant and aux, as they appear in table 1) are a mistake, but I didnt see him stating that the functions themselves are a mistake (for example, that Si Sensing Introverted is a mistake in itself).

The simple answer is I changed it to be more dichotomy based. It evaluates functions and it heavily weights introversion vs extraversion in determining type. The reason I did this is to improve accuracy. Evaluating temperament turned out to be more harm than benefit and relying on cognitive function order alone was far too unreliable. That's what the data told me anyway.

 

[highlander]

As an aside, I still do believe in functions. I am just not sure a list of questions that determine strength of preference of those functions is a reliable way to determine types. So I dont agree with @reckful about the category mistake and all that. Functions as a concept are very intuitively appealing to me and I believe then to be quite helpful. I just think this stuff is a bit more fluid or possibly hard to test for.