If what he said never occured to you until just now, you still have a long way to go.
Of course I sensed something wrong somewhere for a long time, decades longer than you've been studying this system. But unlike Fudgy, who was an old man back when I first heard about him 15 years ago, I don't have time to sit around all day pondering sterile theories that try to fit 5 or 6 billion personalities into 16 little squares and yet can't explain why everybody is so different.
No, function theory doesn't always match the four dichotomies. This is common knowledge among people who study personality theory. It is not "brilliant."
And yes, getting NTFS as an Extrovert would = ENTP and as an Introvert = INTJ. You would have gotten that several pages ago in this thread if you understood Jungian theory.
You're missing something important here. Before I started this thread, those were just three types strung out at random. Sure, they're objective scores on tests, assumed valid. But there is no
systematic reason for them to exist unless someone brilliant like Fudgy explains it for us. And all you're doing here is explaining it to me as if you knew all along. Maybe there is some hints of it out there in MBTI land, but the brilliant part of all this
does not require that John Fudjack re-invent the wheel. It does require that someone create the induction based on the bits of evidence scattered here and there (which even I was aware of), and find just one chink in its logic armor based on someone else's flawed ass-umption about Jungian functions made decades ago.
And anyway, this test has a 1998 copyright date on it, so there's no reason to believe there aren't now similar ideas out there based on his theory. Perhaps you've read some of those derivative viewpoints that came after, and now you're convinced that Fudgy didn't accomplish very much after all.
I found in an online search that Fudgy also invented other brilliant concepts.
Also, if you understood Jungian theory, you would have seen the glaring flaw in the test. It claimed to measure functionality, but was measuring neither Ne/Ni nor Se/Si nor Fe/Fi nor Te/Ti.
You're assuming this was not done on purpose. So far, I have been given plenty of reason to give old Fudgy credit for brains, even if back in 1996 he did write some silly off-topic rambling thing on Professionalism. I bet you didn't know about that? I did. I wrote for and subscribed to the same Enneagram journal that both of our articles were published in.
And if you don't believe in functions but only believe in the four dichotomies, then why would you think this test is enlightening? Because it's surely not.
I cut my eye-teeth on functions.
But I'm not terribly impressed with dichotomies.
There are two people in this thread who consistently type as Sensors and identify as Sensors who got high Intuition scores. This probably means they have Se and the test only measures Si, which is more detail oriented.
Or like Jag said, it's dwelling in terrible stereotypes.
The test is simplistic and flawed, and it's quite easy to compare it to MANY MANY MANY MANY others.
So far all the criticisms of this test have been based on the assumption that this test is like all the others. And so far, those assumptions have been blown out of the water. All it required is a little investigation that thankfully someone else took care of for me.
This is not a typical type indicator that you're aware of, it is not fair to judge it by those others which are based on flawed premises.
And it doesn't claim to be the complete test. It is a "Short Form 1.1(experimental)" yet very enlightening. This test has a different orientation than those others, it is setting out to accomplish a bit more than just determining your function preference. Now that I know what that goal is, and what it is intending to accomplish, I see that its heading down the right track, one that should have been taken 50, 60, 70 years ago.
