Fudjack/Dinkelaker Functional Preferences Instrument

[slowriot]

What kind?

Like this:

Its only a few days old, Im pretty sure my mom still has some in their fridge. I may have to call them up to find out, so sorry no cake for you.

 

[Mal12345]

Like this:

Its only a few days old, Im pretty sure my mom still has some in their fridge. I may have to call them up to find out, so sorry no cake for you.

 

[guesswho]

I always seem to read Fuckjack instead of Fudjack

 

[slowriot]

you better be a woman with that sad face otherwise I may have to slap you with my fist

 

[Mal12345]

you better be a woman with that sad face otherwise I may have to slap you with my fist

Sorry, but I'm not into that gay kinky stuff.

 

[Mal12345]

I always seem to read Fuckjack instead of Fudjack

There was a time back in 1996 when I wanted to call him that.

 

[slowriot]

Sorry, but I'm not into that gay kinky stuff.

There was a time back in 1996 when I wanted to call him that.

wtf?

 

[Mal12345]

wtf?

??? Because I didn't like him then? It's that simple.

 

[slowriot]

you ruined it


Okay back to the topic, I may have to leave for that to happen, so kisses

 

[Mal12345]

you ruined it


Okay back to the topic, I may have to leave for that to happen, so kisses

Yeesh. What was I supposed to put up this time, the Wubbie emote?

 

[INTP]

That stuff [at op] is only trying to prove a little bit. But you see, that's the bit that matters, along with its empirical method which is wanting in the MBTI. And it alone says nothing about Fudjack's depth of penetration into this subject. But considering his proof of the MBTI's circular question-begging, I would say that he has traced it back to its source and uprooted the entire thing. And for me that points to a respectable genius who is no mere dilettante.

I guess from that you could say I am more the "depth-of-knowledge" rather than "breadth of knowledge" type. I am interested in gathering more knowledge if I am certain the foundation is secure. The MBTI's foundation is not secure, it rests on very shaky grounds.

But before I knew this, I thirsted for and read all the books on the subject that were available at the time. Then I quit because I began to realize that, on more than one level, the entire quest is fruitless. And at the time it had a detrimental effect on my personal growth. It distracted me from what was really important.

By the way, I am disappointed you did not call me on the Si inferior function comment at the end of my post. Maybe you didn't read the whole thing.

Edit - just a thought: I wonder if Myers and Briggs really intended people to take them so seriously, or to take their system so far?

why do you start talking about MBTI, when im talking about analytical psychology?

in order to understand analytical psychology, you need to go for breadth in order to understand the depth of things. MBTI rests on shaky grounds because its developed only by scratching the surface of analytical psychology, this test/theory on op is similar, but even lacks the research that has been done on MBTI.

i didnt care to debate about what you said about inferior Si.

btw here is quite interesting journal article:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5922.2007.00687.x/abstract

about quitting because the quest was fruitless. no wonder it was fruitless if you didnt go to depth and breadth on analytical psychology. or did you just study mbti or other stuff derived from jungs typology?

 

[Mal12345]

why do you start talking about MBTI, when im talking about analytical psychology?

in order to understand analytical psychology, you need to go for breadth in order to understand the depth of things. MBTI rests on shaky grounds because its developed only by scratching the surface of analytical psychology, this test/theory on op is similar, but even lacks the research that has been done on MBTI.

i didnt care to debate about what you said about inferior Si.

btw here is quite interesting journal article:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5922.2007.00687.x/abstract

about quitting because the quest was fruitless. no wonder it was fruitless if you didnt go to depth and breadth on analytical psychology. or did you just study mbti or other stuff derived from jungs typology?

You will never know how much I know about any topic. Even if you give me quizzes you will never know because I can always look up the answers. I gave you the reason for my quitting, although I didn't quit so much as back way off from it to make room for important things, and it had nothing to do with your a priori guesswork about my knowledge issues.

In fact, in order to treat logically with the MBTI the way Fudjack did requires little knowledge of functions, only knowledge of the method by which the MBTI was formed. But that he has knowledge of these things is evidenced by the FD44 and his other writings. They are freely available either online or through the Enneagram Monthly which is in bound copy format for a mere $35 per publication year.

The reason I continue to talk about the MBTI is that the topic was originally the MBTI. Is analytic psychology your field of specialty? I'm probably not prepared to debate that topic. I'll look at the link you posted. But my intellectual leanings are more toward philosophy than psychology.

 

[Lux]

intuiting =18
sensing =1
feeling =10
thinking =8

 

[Mal12345]

INTP: I couldn't read the article you linked me to, only the abstract. But I decided to look up my tertiary function on wikipedia. Here's quote from that entry:

Tertiary: Introverted sensing (Si)
Si collects data in the present moment and compares it with past experiences, a process that sometimes evokes the feelings associated with memory, as if the subject were reliving it. Seeking to protect what is familiar, Si draws upon history to form goals and expectations about what will happen in the future. Si gives INTPs the potential for keen observation. They use this function to gather empirical data, use physical tools, perceive physical relationships, and support their internal logic with a rich sense of space.

"Si gives INTPs the potential for keen observation." Potential? I thought it already existed. But what stands out for me is the part about gathering empirical data, a trait that has been missing from your posts and in fact you don't seem to consider it important. So it seems to me that you need to apply your knowledge of analytical psychology to yourself, as an INTP with tertiary Si, and that what I've been doing all along is correct.

 

[INTP]

INTP: I couldn't read the article you linked me to, only the abstract. But I decided to look up my tertiary function on wikipedia. Here's quote from that entry:


"Si gives INTPs the potential for keen observation." Potential? I thought it already existed. But what stands out for me is the part about gathering empirical data, a trait that has been missing from your posts and in fact you don't seem to consider it important. So it seems to me that you need to apply your knowledge of analytical psychology to yourself, as an INTP with tertiary Si, and that what I've been doing all along is correct.

why the heck are you talking about mbti again? jung > mbti > all > that thing in op

or do you think that mbti is part of analytical psychology?

 

[Mal12345]

why the heck are you talking about mbti again? jung > mbti > all > that thing in op

or do you think that mbti is part of analytical psychology?

Jung > MBTI > all - has no basis in reality.
Jung > MBTI > all - pretty much adds up to .

 

[lunalum]

intuiting =16
sensing =2
feeling =8
thinking =11

N-T-F-S = iNtj, iNtp, eNtp, eNtj

 

[Mal12345]

intuiting =16
sensing =2
feeling =8
thinking =11

N-T-F-S = iNtj, iNtp, eNtp, eNtj

I pondered your profile stats for a while, and that interesting pic of cats, and thought eNtp.

 

[CuriousFeeling]

t=16
n=12
f=6
s=3

closest pattern on the list here (since there isn't T-N-F-S) is: T-N-S-F = inTp, enTj, inTj, enTp

I'm surprised I didn't score higher for feeling on this, or at least have the T vs. F scores even with each other, which commonly happens with these assessments. Preference for thinking, followed by intuition.... quite interesting.

 

[Mal12345]

t=16
n=12
f=6
s=3

closest pattern on the list here (since there isn't T-N-F-S) is: T-N-S-F = inTp, enTj, inTj, enTp

I'm surprised I didn't score higher for feeling on this, or at least have the T vs. F scores even with each other, which commonly happens with these assessments. Preference for thinking, followed by intuition.... quite interesting.

It might be helpful to view the source of the test page, this will reveal which response matches which function. And then you can find the questions where you hesitated between choosing T and F.

I'm very close on T and N. It basically comes down to one question where if I answer one way or another my highest score comes out as either T or N. So I could be either (according to the theory behind the test) an iNtp or an inTp.