[INTP] Girls and women who have Asperger's syndrome

[Coriolis]

Inferior feeling does not automatically mean that people entirely lack the ability to feel empathy, create emotional connections or socially interact with people in a meaningful way. There can be a wide range of reasons as to why a person might experience themselves as socially inept that is completely unrelated to say, MBTI type.

While any type can come across as socially inept, the reasons for that will be strongly influenced by type. The same is true about any observable behavior. Any type can exhibit any behavior, it is why and in what manner they are doing so that will differ from type to type.

Fe has thus in such a sense necessarily little and nothing to do with a person's ability to socialize. Also, just because a function is rejected into the unconsciousness it does not mean the function must automatically be used poorly or not at all. It is the dominant-inferior relationship that is the most important relationship in a person's psyche, and as such, even if Fe is in the inferior psychological position it can still be utilized well or more than the dominant. It is just not done so consciously as in that the person in question is consciously aware that they are now performing an Fe evaluation. That makes the function inferior are thus two criteria:

1. It is repressed into the unconsciousness which leads to that
2. The ego has no conscious control of how the function comes across which can make it come across as very black and white.

It is important to understand that (2) does not mean the function is used poorly, but that the function itself does not come across as very nuanced when expressed.

Again, Fe will influence how one socializes more than whether one socializes. I would expect the E/I attribute to be most closely linked to predisposition to socialize.

The highlighted comments do not make sense. Yes, the inferior function lacks conscious control, operates without subtlety, but still may have effects that are very strong. By this description, though (with which I generally agree), it is at best a loose cannon. Why and how can someone use a function well when it is outside conscious control?

Just because you favor Fe in your functional stacking it does not mean you will actually be socially appropriate. It completely depends on how the Fe type understands social appropriateness to begin with. My grandmother is an ESFJ and I think most of my family would in fact consider her quite socially inappropriate, especially by today's standards, as her understanding of social appropriateness hinges on her Si experiences and none of those experiences are particularly relevant today.

A great example of my comment above, in how type influences the way in which someone manifests a common behavior, here social inappropriateness.

Depending on the severity of the autism itself, I am uncertain people with autism can even be properly typed, cognitively. This is because the way their brain works is fundamentally different to that of a "normal" person.

Yes, MBTI theory assumes a healthy individual. But what is "healthy"? How much/many of the qualities associated with autism (or depression or bipolar behavior, or . . . ) must one demonstrate in order to cross the line? That is an important part of this discussion.

[MENTION=16405]Why exactly do I need to understand this? And why is it your business to try to point it out to me? Especially as you are not "correcting" my understanding of the functions as they relate to this, because you're not explaining how or why. I actually did think about where to put it, and I put it in the place closest to my immediate purpose, which was to attract the attention of people who I thought might relate to it. I don't think that relates to poor use of thinking, we just don't agree about there being an association with type.

Yes, your thinking process was sound, based upon your stated goals. Someone who has a different goal in discussing the topic might have placed the thread elsewhere. In any case, posting something in the NT subforum does not exclude participation by other types.

Actually, I've read an a couple of articles lately on female aspies - they echoed this one but took it further. There's a recent theory that men tend to test more frequently for Asperger's syndrome because the diagnostic requirements are designed for a male brain. High Functioning Autism is often described as being very literal, to the point of lacking imagination entirely, and having no ability to read social cues. But the male brain generally (and I emphasis that word - generally) already leans towards a more literal, logical mode of thought, and parts of the brain related to social interaction (such as relating to communication) are less developed. So it could be said the (male) Asperger's is like extreme 'maleness'. With this, and the innate differences of the female brain in mind, it is not unexpected that there may be a female version that is being missed.

Simon Baron-Cohen has many worthwhile papers on this topic, namely the gender distribution in Aspergers/autism and possible reasons for it.

I also want to say that people should be very careful pulling the whole, "everyone has those problems" line when it comes to disorders. While I understand their suspicion of modern psychology (especially with the issues surrounding over-diagnosis), they must also realise how incredibly dismissive that is towards people with genuine issues - it can even be dangerous. Imagine telling a clinically depressed person that, "everyone feels sad now and then - it's not such a big deal". The point is it has little to do with whether other people may have similar problems; it actually comes down to whether someone is - in psychology language - "maladaptive". If the problems are having a persistent, intrusive impact on their life, then a disorder might be the cause.

Everyone does have problems. As I asked a couple pages ago, what is the dividing line between, e.g. feeling depressed now and then as many people do, and having true clinical depression? Too low a threshold leads to overdiagnosis; too high, and serious problems are unaddressed. Ability to function in daily life is the yardstick I suggested, with the important caveat that this is strongly influenced by external social factors. I would not say, though, that inability to function is caused by a disorder, but rather that it indicates the problem is significant enough to be a disorder. In other words, it is more a matter of degree.

 

[Entropic]

[MENTION=16405]LeaT[/MENTION], I guess we'll just have to disagree about this stuff. You see things from a strict Jungian point of view and I simply don't.

Fine, although of course it begs the question what system you are understanding and why you choose to understand it that way.

Why exactly do I need to understand this? And why is it your business to try to point it out to me? Especially as you are not "correcting" my understanding of the functions as they relate to this, because you're not explaining how or why. I actually did think about where to put it, and I put it in the place closest to my immediate purpose, which was to attract the attention of people who I thought might relate to it. I don't think that relates to poor use of thinking, we just don't agree about there being an association with type.

It pertains to the sentence I wrote above.

 

[Entropic]

While any type can come across as socially inept, the reasons for that will be strongly influenced by type. The same is true about any observable behavior. Any type can exhibit any behavior, it is why and in what manner they are doing so that will differ from type to type.

Yes, I never intended to imply otherwise.

Again, Fe will influence how one socializes more than whether one socializes. I would expect the E/I attribute to be most closely linked to predisposition to socialize.

I think we understand the I/E axis differently. What I described was not the MBTI understanding of the I/E axis but Jung's.

The highlighted comments do not make sense. Yes, the inferior function lacks conscious control, operates without subtlety, but still may have effects that are very strong. By this description, though (with which I generally agree), it is at best a loose cannon. Why and how can someone use a function well when it is outside conscious control?

Because we can practice using the function in an unconscious manner. You aren't consciously aware of most of your bodily processes but yet you are fully capable of walking, breathing and doing a number of other things with it. Look at my thinking. I utilize Te so much when I logically reason and think in general at all that most people mistake me for an ego-conscious Te type. I have no control or aware of my thinking in such a sense, but would you consider my thinking bad...? Is the reasoning necessarily weak and would you be able to tell I have inferior thinking based on these posts?

A great example of my comment above, in how type influences the way in which someone manifests a common behavior, here social inappropriateness.

Yes, but the definition of social appropriateness itself varies between individuals and their function preferences.

Yes, MBTI theory assumes a healthy individual. But what is "healthy"? How much/many of the qualities associated with autism (or depression or bipolar behavior, or . . . ) must one demonstrate in order to cross the line? That is an important part of this discussion.

I agree, although I am uncertain as to what your point is with this paragraph with regards to my comment whether it is useful to apply the MBTI theory on people with altered cognition.

 

[INTP]

Imo aspergers isnt over presented in INTPs, i dont think you can even fit people with aspergers to MBTI type.

If you look at traits of people with aspergers usually have, they are extremely organized, need routines etc, which are J traits. Also they tend to be extremely sensitive to sensory stimulation, which hints at S. They also tend to live much in their own heads, which is a sign of introversion. On top of that, all cases which i have seen, read or watched videos of seem more like ISTJ, but heavily malfunctioning, so much that i really dont think you can even call them ISTJs, but are more like Si Ni Fi Te. The thing with aspergers is that they have few areas of the brains that have really strong connections to some other particular area and high activity on those, but have really weak connections and activity in most of the brains. This is why you cant really put functions in normal way and cant really make MBTI type out of them.

We have this middle aged woman with aspergers in this job i started last week and she seems most like an ESTJ with poorly developed Te. While being quite outgoing and talkative, she does these weird things like the other day we were taking a coffee break and she sat next to me and some other people were having a conversation on other table, she responded to what those other people said and was like part of the conversation, but to me it was clear that those other people didnt even notice her talking and she didnt seem to understand it, because it lasted for like 5 minutes

 

[greenfairy]

Imo aspergers isnt over presented in INTPs, i dont think you can even fit people with aspergers to MBTI type.

If you look at traits of people with aspergers usually have, they are extremely organized, need routines etc, which are J traits. Also they tend to be extremely sensitive to sensory stimulation, which hints at S. They also tend to live much in their own heads, which is a sign of introversion. On top of that, all cases which i have seen, read or watched videos of seem more like ISTJ, but heavily malfunctioning, so much that i really dont think you can even call them ISTJs, but are more like Si Ni Fi Te. The thing with aspergers is that they have few areas of the brains that have really strong connections to some other particular area and high activity on those, but have really weak connections and activity in most of the brains. This is why you cant really put functions in normal way and cant really make MBTI type out of them.

We have this middle aged woman with aspergers in this job i started last week and she seems most like an ESTJ with poorly developed Te. While being quite outgoing and talkative, she does these weird things like the other day we were taking a coffee break and she sat next to me and some other people were having a conversation on other table, she responded to what those other people said and was like part of the conversation, but to me it was clear that those other people didnt even notice her talking and she didnt seem to understand it, because it lasted for like 5 minutes

Well, maybe a lot of them are untypeable. I do think though that if everyone or most people supposedly has a type which sticks with them their whole lives, then Asperger people would too; it just might be really atypical. Maybe they would start to look more like their true type as they develop and become more functional; but then they would look more like other types too, as their functions mature.

So if this is true, then maybe several people on here who have a lot of trouble typing themselves have Asperger's. So then they can safely just pick a type they think fits the best and not worry about all the ways it doesn't. If you're going to say people with mental disorders can't be typed, you'd have to allow for high functioning people who have not received a diagnosis.

I still think there are some types which have more of a predisposition towards certain conditions than others. I think every type is disposed toward one or more.

 

[Coriolis]

Yes, I never intended to imply otherwise.
I think we understand the I/E axis differently. What I described was not the MBTI understanding of the I/E axis but Jung's.

What differences do you have in mind? E usually indicates an orientation toward outside influences/stimuli, while I toward those that are internal. This is the distinction I was making.

Because we can practice using the function in an unconscious manner. You aren't consciously aware of most of your bodily processes but yet you are fully capable of walking, breathing and doing a number of other things with it. Look at my thinking. I utilize Te so much when I logically reason and think in general at all that most people mistake me for an ego-conscious Te type. I have no control or aware of my thinking in such a sense, but would you consider my thinking bad...? Is the reasoning necessarily weak and would you be able to tell I have inferior thinking based on these posts?

This still doesn't follow. Activities like walking may be unconscious now, but had to be learned in our early life. A truly unconscious bodily process, like breathing, swallowing, or circulating blood through our systems is never really practiced in the same sense. We don't get better at it, unlike the toddler whose steps become more firm and confident with each passing week. Most people who report using less preferred functions well describe bringing them under conscious control as the first step in improving their ability.

As for your thinking ability, you strike me as much more of a Ti-user. I assumed Ti-dom, reading your listed type initially as INTP which seems a good fit. Then I noticed the x (I'm currently using a poor monitor, with old eyeglasses). So - my apologies for the possible typing error.

Yes, but the definition of social appropriateness itself varies between individuals and their function preferences.

Social appropriateness usually is determined by a society or culture, or at least prevails within that context, independent of the preferences and opinions of those within it. Some types will be deemed more appropriate within certain cultures or contexts. All of this just increases the ambiguity of attempting to analyze people's motivations and behaviors, from a perspective of function theory, or otherwise. (It is why I find physical systems much more tractable to analyze.)

I agree, although I am uncertain as to what your point is with this paragraph with regards to my comment whether it is useful to apply the MBTI theory on people with altered cognition.

Again, theory vs. practice. We can all agree that MBTI is useless on someone with altered cognition. Now, can you identify who falls into that category with reasonable certainty?

 

[Southern Kross]

Simon Baron-Cohen has many worthwhile papers on this topic, namely the gender distribution in Aspergers/autism and possible reasons for it.

I've read some of his work before - he's quite good. He's the foremost authority on autism isn't he? I'll look those articles up.

Everyone does have problems. As I asked a couple pages ago, what is the dividing line between, e.g. feeling depressed now and then as many people do, and having true clinical depression? Too low a threshold leads to overdiagnosis; too high, and serious problems are unaddressed. Ability to function in daily life is the yardstick I suggested, with the important caveat that this is strongly influenced by external social factors. I would not say, though, that inability to function is caused by a disorder, but rather that it indicates the problem is significant enough to be a disorder. In other words, it is more a matter of degree.

Yes, it is difficult to know about where the line is. Even, "the ability to function in daily life" is a hazy definition, because what is considered sufficiently capable? You're still stuck having to define "normal". I mean a lot of people with serious disorders can get through the day pretty successfully but we can't see the struggle going on behind it. You also have people who have learned to cleverly skirt around things they find hard and people don't notice. On top of that it can be hard to tell the difference between unwillingness to do something and an innate difficulty with that task - compulsion can be disguised as bad choices. I don't even know myself which my problems fit into. They certainly feel like compulsions - I've spent so many years trying to resist and overcome them without much progress to show for it. But maybe I'm just weak minded or need some cognitive behavioural therapy.

Like I said, I understand the suspicion - it is such a subjective science.

 

[greenfairy]

I agree with [MENTION=16405]LeaT[/MENTION]'s assessment of herself as INFP with high Te; it has always seemed to me that she uses Te not Ti. She's very logical, but places more emphasis on facts (outcome) than process I think. Everything she says is based on meticulous research, not her own personal theories. Plus the tenacity with which she asserts things seems more like a less differentiated function. I can't really explain the connection there because it's intuitive. Another thing, the serial killer next door thing looks very misanthropic cynical Fi to me.

At least this is my assessment. We could both be wrong and she could be an extremely emotional INTP or INTJ.

Edit: I'm assuming you're female from your name. Sorry if I'm mistaken.

And you know what's funny? She's Socionics EII and I'm LII. If you believe the test results were accurate. And people think she's Ti and I'm Fi.

 

[Entropic]

What differences do you have in mind? E usually indicates an orientation toward outside influences/stimuli, while I toward those that are internal. This is the distinction I was making.

Yes, and to me E is the same as having an psychical objective bias and I a psychical subjective bias. So less to do with stimuli and more to do with how we ontologically understand the world.

This still doesn't follow. Activities like walking may be unconscious now, but had to be learned in our early life. A truly unconscious bodily process, like breathing, swallowing, or circulating blood through our systems is never really practiced in the same sense. We don't get better at it, unlike the toddler whose steps become more firm and confident with each passing week. Most people who report using less preferred functions well describe bringing them under conscious control as the first step in improving their ability.

I don't share their experiences. I understand your disagreement but how well we can utilize a function isn't necessarily related to conscious control. This becomes evident if you take two people together with the same function preferences and ask them to do the same tasks and you will find that they will be better and worse at performing it in various areas.

Similarly, one can be innately good at something without having to practice it or having control/awareness of what they do. You can also continually engage in activities that forces you to tap into the unconsciousness.

As for your thinking ability, you strike me as much more of a Ti-user. I assumed Ti-dom, reading your listed type initially as INTP which seems a good fit. Then I noticed the x (I'm currently using a poor monitor, with old eyeglasses). So - my apologies for the possible typing error.

Most people do.

Social appropriateness usually is determined by a society or culture, or at least prevails within that context, independent of the preferences and opinions of those within it. Some types will be deemed more appropriate within certain cultures or contexts. All of this just increases the ambiguity of attempting to analyze people's motivations and behaviors, from a perspective of function theory, or otherwise. (It is why I find physical systems much more tractable to analyze.)

So then we're not in disagreement.

Again, theory vs. practice. We can all agree that MBTI is useless on someone with altered cognition. Now, can you identify who falls into that category with reasonable certainty?

I don't think that was quite the point I was making, whether we can identify such people. We can do it using external measures such as the DSM, but it comes back to what you write in the above as well and how noticeably dysfunctional an individual appears to be based on shared cultural social values.

 

[Entropic]

I agree with [MENTION=16405]LeaT[/MENTION]'s assessment of herself as INFP with high Te; it has always seemed to me that she uses Te not Ti. She's very logical, but places more emphasis on facts (outcome) than process I think. Everything she says is based on meticulous research, not her own personal theories.

Thank you for implying I cannot think and make my own theories. I could, but what's the point doing it here? By the way, I want to clarify I'm not offended in any way, I just found it mildly humorous you'd write it like that. Also, claiming my research is "meticulous" is also ironic considering that I've hardly read any official material at all about the subjects I wrote about...

Plus the tenacity with which she asserts things seems more like a less differentiated function. I can't really explain the connection there because it's intuitive. Another thing, the serial killer next door thing looks very misanthropic cynical Fi to me.

If you want to know, it's more of an old-time joke. I wouldn't try to derive too much meaning in the little titles and sentences like that without knowing the background behind them.

And you know what's funny? She's Socionics EII and I'm LII. If you believe the test results were accurate. And people think she's Ti and I'm Fi.

I honestly think you're more likely FeTi based on these posts from you. I also think you're SiNe. You do the math.

As for the comment in bold, I think there's a reason why that is - the way I come across is ultimately dispassionate and impersonal. Why is that? Reliance on T-reasoning. If people think you are Fi I think you ought to ask yourself why this is and why people ultimately seem to think you come across like a feeler in text. It suggests that people do not read the tone of your posts as dispassionate and impersonal that we associate with the T function.

Not because I'm saying that all thinking dominant types must come across as dispassionate and impersonal but T as a function doesn't consider emotional value and to convey emotional value, especially not when describing logic, logical systems and other things pertaining to T as a reasoning process. There are plenty of Fi types who also come across as what you could say, emotional, even though Fi is as a whole more subdued compared to Fe (although Fe dominant types can be pretty cold, too), and I think it's because they rely more on their F reasoning as a whole than T and this is reflected in how people write.

 

[Coriolis]

Yes, and to me E is the same as having an psychical objective bias and I a psychical subjective bias. So less to do with stimuli and more to do with how we ontologically understand the world.

So, E/I as objective/subjective. I remember reading this in Jung, and it does correspond better with your interpretation above.

I don't share their experiences. I understand your disagreement but how well we can utilize a function isn't necessarily related to conscious control. This becomes evident if you take two people together with the same function preferences and ask them to do the same tasks and you will find that they will be better and worse at performing it in various areas.

Similarly, one can be innately good at something without having to practice it or having control/awareness of what they do. You can also continually engage in activities that forces you to tap into the unconsciousness.

The highlighted is quite commonplace, but here we are, back to observable behavior again. The person who is better at the observable skill/task might be drawing on entirely different functions to accomplish it. Assuming one could isolate a specific function and show that it is better used by one person vs. another of the same type, that person might simply have made the effort to improve awareness and conscious control of that function. Yes, one can be innately good at something, as in having a natural talent, but without conscious developoment and use, little will come of it. It also seems that our natural functional "abilities" would coincide with our functional preferences, though that may be an unfounded assumption.

Most people do.

Most people do what? Mistype you?

 

[greenfairy]

Thank you for implying I cannot think and make my own theories. I could, but what's the point doing it here? By the way, I want to clarify I'm not offended in any way, I just found it mildly humorous you'd write it like that. Also, claiming my research is "meticulous" is also ironic considering that I've hardly read any official material at all about the subjects I wrote about...

If you want to know, it's more of an old-time joke. I wouldn't try to derive too much meaning in the little titles and sentences like that without knowing the background behind them.

I honestly think you're more likely FeTi based on these posts from you. I also think you're SiNe. You do the math.

As for the comment in bold, I think there's a reason why that is - the way I come across is ultimately dispassionate and impersonal. Why is that? Reliance on T-reasoning. If people think you are Fi I think you ought to ask yourself why this is and why people ultimately seem to think you come across like a feeler in text. It suggests that people do not read the tone of your posts as dispassionate and impersonal that we associate with the T function.

Not because I'm saying that all thinking dominant types must come across as dispassionate and impersonal but T as a function doesn't consider emotional value and to convey emotional value, especially not when describing logic, logical systems and other things pertaining to T as a reasoning process. There are plenty of Fi types who also come across as what you could say, emotional, even though Fi is as a whole more subdued compared to Fe (although Fe dominant types can be pretty cold, too), and I think it's because they rely more on their F reasoning as a whole than T and this is reflected in how people write.

The part about your own theories just refers to whether you prefer to give weight to outside sources or synthesize everything. Of course Te users will form their own theories, and Ti users will research and obtain outside information; it's a balancing thing, with one kind putting more weight on one side than the other. Just the distinction between the functions; Te prefers primarily induction and Ti is primarily deduction. If you use primarily deduction you will gather information from everywhere, even things written by idiots; if there's one grain of truth in it you can find it and use it as a piece of the puzzle. (Primarily) Inductive thinkers put importance on what is credible and what is not, take all of the facts, and see what conclusion they are pointing to. It's the science versus philosophy approach (not that Te users can't be philosophers and vice versa).

Well, you certainly come across as having done a lot of research. At least you seem to think about what you read in great detail, which looks the same. If not perhaps you aren't really a Te user and we're both wrong. But I can't presume to know your type better than you do. I just think it's probably more likely you are an emotional thinking type. I haven't really seen much Fi in you. What sorts of feeling judgments do you make?

I highly doubt I'm ISFJ, but interesting idea.

I agree with feelers usually having emotion in communication. Actually, I'm a lot more feeling when I write on here than I am in speech. Some people put emotion into their speech all the time. My mom is one of those people. Like they're always emotionally charged with some sort of meaning, whereas thinkers feel neutral most of the time about what they say. I think I actually lean toward the second one. It's hard for me to sound emotional, even when I am. I have a quiet kind of monotone voice, and even when I'm angry what I say and how I say it are very different. It could just be an Aspie thing. So I'm not sure why I put feeling into what I write. I'm not 100% sure I'm not a feeler. I do get frustrated seemingly more often than other thinkers on here. But I've also been through a lot of frustrating interaction.

 

[greenfairy]

Fine, although of course it begs the question what system you are understanding and why you choose to understand it that way.

I am synthesizing MBTI and JFC, and using my own understanding of how it fits with the world, human functioning, and the underlying principles. I am taking basic premises and making deductions from them. Nothing I think contradicts the original theory of either system as far as I am aware. I'm simply expanding upon it. I think holistically.

Also, claiming my research is "meticulous" is also ironic considering that I've hardly read any official material at all about the subjects I wrote about...

Then essentially we're doing the same thing? If you've hardly read anything, what gives you the authority to assert things as absolute fact which are just your opinions? It comes across as pedantic and condescending. One person's opinion is as good as another's. Is your opinion exactly the same as Jung's, no more and no less? If so I'd say there's no room for your own theories. If you do have your own, you can't use your own theories (interpretation) to assert that someone else has an incorrect interpretation of something you have read about the same amount on or less.

 

[Entropic]

The part about your own theories just refers to whether you prefer to give weight to outside sources or synthesize everything. Of course Te users will form their own theories, and Ti users will research and obtain outside information; it's a balancing thing, with one kind putting more weight on one side than the other. Just the distinction between the functions; Te prefers primarily induction and Ti is primarily deduction. If you use primarily deduction you will gather information from everywhere, even things written by idiots; if there's one grain of truth in it you can find it and use it as a piece of the puzzle. (Primarily) Inductive thinkers put importance on what is credible and what is not, take all of the facts, and see what conclusion they are pointing to. It's the science versus philosophy approach (not that Te users can't be philosophers and vice versa).

I really don't think it's as simple to say that Ti=deduction and Te=induction and then making an obvious value judgement claiming that Ti is the better and more critically independent logic between the two. Ti and Te can clearly be as scientific for different reasons.

Well, you certainly come across as having done a lot of research. At least you seem to think about what you read in great detail, which looks the same. If not perhaps you aren't really a Te user and we're both wrong. But I can't presume to know your type better than you do. I just think it's probably more likely you are an emotional thinking type. I haven't really seen much Fi in you. What sorts of feeling judgments do you make?

Not sure I understand this question. Pertaining to what context?

I highly doubt I'm ISFJ, but interesting idea.

Depends on how we understand the systems.

I agree with feelers usually having emotion in communication. Actually, I'm a lot more feeling when I write on here than I am in speech. Some people put emotion into their speech all the time. My mom is one of those people. Like they're always emotionally charged with some sort of meaning, whereas thinkers feel neutral most of the time about what they say. I think I actually lean toward the second one. It's hard for me to sound emotional, even when I am. I have a quiet kind of monotone voice, and even when I'm angry what I say and how I say it are very different. It could just be an Aspie thing. So I'm not sure why I put feeling into what I write. I'm not 100% sure I'm not a feeler. I do get frustrated seemingly more often than other thinkers on here. But I've also been through a lot of frustrating interaction.

Regardless of whether you type in the MBTI or Jung, feeling judgement has to do with whether your two primary ego conscious functions are based on thinking or feeling, i.e. whether your ego is oriented towards these perspectives and creates its worldview around them. A lot of people fail to realize their dominant function because they "live" in its perspective and become "home blind". Others over-identify with their shadow processes because they see the shadow processes more clearly in themselves so thus draw the conclusion their ego is oriented towards the shadow.

I am synthesizing MBTI and JFC, and using my own understanding of how it fits with the world, human functioning, and the underlying principles. I am taking basic premises and making deductions from them. Nothing I think contradicts the original theory of either system as far as I am aware. I'm simply expanding upon it. I think holistically.

And how does your model actually operate? How would you describe it?

Then essentially we're doing the same thing? If you've hardly read anything, what gives you the authority to assert things as absolute fact which are just your opinions? It comes across as pedantic and condescending. One person's opinion is as good as another's. Is your opinion exactly the same as Jung's, no more and no less? If so I'd say there's no room for your own theories. If you do have your own, you can't use your own theories (interpretation) to assert that someone else has an incorrect interpretation of something you have read about the same amount on or less.

I'd make a distinction between reading second hand and official sources. I never claimed I read official sources but clearly my information comes from somewhere and that source is secondary.

And how is it pedandic and condescending? I was being honest that I have read few official sources, this is true. I tried to read Psychological Types but Jung's prose and I don't quite get along, but it doesn't mean the information I present is less credible de facto. Secondary sources can be just as useful as primary or official.

And yes, my opinion has started to become pretty much the same as Jung's. I didn't agree with Jung initially, but I think as my understanding of Jung and Jungian theory has improved, I just really have to say that I agree more with him than I do with other MBTI theorists who build on him.

This is very different to say that I don't theorize, cannot create my own theories or apply Jung's teachings independently of Jung. That's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because someone agrees with a theory it doesn't mean they cannot theorize. I for example am interested in cross-comparing how Jung's theory applies of individuation to Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration because they describe similar phenomena but approach them very differently.

I reiterate, there is little reason for me to provide with my own personal theories in this thread.

 

[greenfairy]

I really don't think it's as simple to say that Ti=deduction and Te=induction and then making an obvious value judgement claiming that Ti is the better and more critically independent logic between the two. Ti and Te can clearly be as scientific for different reasons.

No, I don't think it's that simple either; that's just a big distinction between the two. Everyone no matter what their functions can use both types of logic; but depending on which function is higher in consciousness you would find one easier to consciously use and more reliable when used consciously. It seems to me from the way you write that your writing at least exhibits more Te based thinking than Ti. That's just my impression, which you should agree with if you type as Fi dominant. Then I was going on to explain how Ti and Te operate when forming and communicating opinions, according to what makes sense to me. But I could be wrong about you.

Not sure I understand this question. Pertaining to what context?

In general. Fi is a judging function, and so makes feeling judgments. I'm just asking how you use your judging function as I haven't observed what I would associate with Fi. I'm not 100% sure what it means to make feeling judgments; but in so far as you understand what people mean when they say that in connection to Fi, I was asking you to describe it in yourself.

Regardless of whether you type in the MBTI or Jung, feeling judgement has to do with whether your two primary ego conscious functions are based on thinking or feeling, i.e. whether your ego is oriented towards these perspectives and creates its worldview around them. A lot of people fail to realize their dominant function because they "live" in its perspective and become "home blind". Others over-identify with their shadow processes because they see the shadow processes more clearly in themselves so thus draw the conclusion their ego is oriented towards the shadow.

I would agree this is plausible. I don't quite understand how it relates to what I said. Do you mean that I would exhibit feeling based behavior and not be aware of it because I'm so used to it, and then identify more with my thinking functions?

And how does your model actually operate? How would you describe it?

I couldn't go into everything in one paragraph. It's just my own understanding of what makes sense.

I'd make a distinction between reading second hand and official sources. I never claimed I read official sources but clearly my information comes from somewhere and that source is secondary.
And how is it pedandic and condescending? I was being honest that I have read few official sources, this is true. I tried to read Psychological Types but Jung's prose and I don't quite get along, but it doesn't mean the information I present is less credible de facto. Secondary sources can be just as useful as primary or official.

Well that's about what I've done. I've read things on the internet from many different sites, observed people, watched videos, etc. Jung himself doesn't make much sense to me.

Maybe you don't mean to be, but that's my perception of your style of writing. More often than not it seems nitpicking on details which aren't important and just shooting down my theories while at the same time not addressing the core issues, on the basis of asserting that I don't understand something; which I don't think you are qualified to judge since we have about the same sort of education on the matter. Anyway. That's me trying to use my feeling function, whatever and wherever it is. Maybe I miss the mark. I've never claimed to be able to process emotions well, and I have an emotional reaction to the attitude I perceive in your writing. So this is me communicating it, along with some clumsy help from Ti trying to back up my feeling judgments with arguments. How it relates to research and theories is that you frequently tell people they are incorrect and don't understand things, and I don't think you have the authority to say that; at most you can say you disagree and provide reasons.

But it's not just you, a lot of people on here do this too. And it's annoying. For what it's worth it's usually Ti doms. I think very few things are certain enough to assert as absolute fact, and so I refrain from it.

And yes, my opinion has started to become pretty much the same as Jung's. I didn't agree with Jung initially, but I think as my understanding of Jung and Jungian theory has improved, I just really have to say that I agree more with him than I do with other MBTI theorists who build on him.

This is very different to say that I don't theorize, cannot create my own theories or apply Jung's teachings independently of Jung. That's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because someone agrees with a theory it doesn't mean they cannot theorize. I for example am interested in cross-comparing how Jung's theory applies of individuation to Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration because they describe similar phenomena but approach them very differently.

I also think JCF makes more sense than simply the MBTI spectrums.

I'm obviously not implying that you don't use deduction or form theories. I'm describing trends based on the functions. The way one distinguishes one from another is by differences in what they do in general. And in general, Te users rely more on empirical evidence when forming beliefs, while Ti users evaluate all information to sort of form their own evidence if that makes sense. I don't really know how to explain it at the moment. It's an impression I had which I've realized is hard to translate into words; but I've read other people describing the same phenomenon better than I just did.

 

[Entropic]

No, I don't think it's that simple either; that's just a big distinction between the two. Everyone no matter what their functions can use both types of logic; but depending on which function is higher in consciousness you would find one easier to consciously use and more reliable when used consciously. It seems to me from the way you write that your writing at least exhibits more Te based thinking than Ti. That's just my impression, which you should agree with if you type as Fi dominant. Then I was going on to explain how Ti and Te operate when forming and communicating opinions, according to what makes sense to me. But I could be wrong about you.

Then what's stopping you?

In general. Fi is a judging function, and so makes feeling judgments. I'm just asking how you use your judging function as I haven't observed what I would associate with Fi. I'm not 100% sure what it means to make feeling judgments; but in so far as you understand what people mean when they say that in connection to Fi, I was asking you to describe it in yourself.

Yes, I know feeling is about making feeling judgements but I have absolutely zero context to work with so it just becomes, describe myself in relation to what? And I think you are quite good at making feeling judgements, much better than you probably think you are. Your posts are full of feeling and by that I don't necessarily mean emotion, but feeling judgements.

I would agree this is plausible. I don't quite understand how it relates to what I said. Do you mean that I would exhibit feeling based behavior and not be aware of it because I'm so used to it, and then identify more with my thinking functions?

Generally speaking, I think it has to do with that how emotionally expressive you are has necessarily little to do with one's capability to judge according to feeling or make feeling evaluations. A lot of Fe dominant types can for example be quite cold, emotionally speaking, and easily be mistaken for a thinker or an Fi type.

And as an example, yes.

I couldn't go into everything in one paragraph. It's just my own understanding of what makes sense.

And I didn't expect you to summarize it in one paragraph but some kind of explanation would be appreciated since I'm interested in how your understanding differs from mine.

Maybe you don't mean to be, but that's my perception of your style of writing. More often than not it seems nitpicking on details which aren't important and just shooting down my theories while at the same time not addressing the core issues, on the basis of asserting that I don't understand something; which I don't think you are qualified to judge since we have about the same sort of education on the matter.

Having read the same sources does not mean we understand the sources the same way or even as well as each other. I am not even sure how I am shooting down your theories since you haven't even provided one, not tangibly anyway. What are these core issues that you speak of? Could you define them?

Anyway. That's me trying to use my feeling function, whatever and wherever it is. Maybe I miss the mark. I've never claimed to be able to process emotions well, and I have an emotional reaction to the attitude I perceive in your writing. So this is me communicating it, along with some clumsy help from Ti trying to back up my feeling judgments with arguments. How it relates to research and theories is that you frequently tell people they are incorrect and don't understand things, and I don't think you have the authority to say that; at most you can say you disagree and provide reasons.

Why would your Ti be expressed clumsily through Fe if your ego would be oriented towards Ti? And I do think facts or presentation of facts can be incorrect. Plus, if I am wrong I am very open to have someone challenge me similarly.

But it's not just you, a lot of people on here do this too. And it's annoying. For what it's worth it's usually Ti doms. I think very few things are certain enough to assert as absolute fact, and so I refrain from it.

And why would other Ti dominants bother you if you yourself would value Ti in your ego?

I also think JCF makes more sense than simply the MBTI spectrums.

Why?

I'm obviously not implying that you don't use deduction or form theories. I'm describing trends based on the functions. The way one distinguishes one from another is by differences in what they do in general. And in general, Te users rely more on empirical evidence when forming beliefs, while Ti users evaluate all information to sort of form their own evidence if that makes sense. I don't really know how to explain it at the moment. It's an impression I had which I've realized is hard to translate into words; but I've read other people describing the same phenomenon better than I just did.

And could you then perhaps cite such sources to help explain your point?

 

[Coriolis]

I reiterate, there is little reason for me to provide with my own personal theories in this thread.

Then what's stopping you?

Perhaps the same thing that is stopping you from sharing your theories. I can go and read Jung whenever I want. I cannot learn from the perspectives of others so readily (the people I know IRL have no interest in related discussion).

And I didn't expect you to summarize it in one paragraph but some kind of explanation would be appreciated since I'm interested in how your understanding differs from mine.

And could you then perhaps cite such sources to help explain your point?

You could start by explaining your own understanding and providing supporting references.

I understand what Greenfairy means about the Ti approach to such discussions. There are a couple of Ti dom/aux hereabouts who like to snipe at the theories presented by other members without providing any real supporting evidence, and without presenting any theories of their own. That is their right, of course, but it makes for a rather lopsided and trying discussion. It is much easier to tear down than to construct.

 

[greenfairy]

Then what's stopping you?

From what?

Yes, I know feeling is about making feeling judgements but I have absolutely zero context to work with so it just becomes, describe myself in relation to what? And I think you are quite good at making feeling judgements, much better than you probably think you are. Your posts are full of feeling and by that I don't necessarily mean emotion, but feeling judgements.

I don't see what I understand as Fi in you, but Fi is not a function I understand well, so I couldn't pinpoint what I'm looking for; since you type as Fi dominant, I'm curious as how you believe you manifest this. You can make up your own context, just an example or two would be good. What led you to type as INFP (with high Te hence the x I assume) rather than INTP or INTJ?

Generally speaking, I think it has to do with that how emotionally expressive you are has necessarily little to do with one's capability to judge according to feeling or make feeling evaluations. A lot of Fe dominant types can for example be quite cold, emotionally speaking, and easily be mistaken for a thinker or an Fi type.

I have to disagree here; I think the emotion expresses is simply very subtle. Maybe this is what you mean. But I think it will always be present to some extent, as opposed to a thinking type, which would express the same emotional quality in a different way.

And I didn't expect you to summarize it in one paragraph but some kind of explanation would be appreciated since I'm interested in how your understanding differs from mine.

It would be entirely contextual. I think it was related to a post in which you questioned something I said, and I don't remember what it was, so I have no context; and quite frankly I don't feel like putting in the effort to find it. From the thread title though I'm sure it had to do with me making a claim of relationships between cognitive functions and mental states which could be classified as disorders, with which you disagreed. I meant something along the lines of this post for example:
http://personalitycafe.com/articles/25205-dominant-tertiary-loops-common-personality-disorders.html
I don't know what you think about it. I don't 100% subscribe to the theory, but it's possible. If it were true I can see how it would make sense.

Having read the same sources does not mean we understand the sources the same way or even as well as each other. I am not even sure how I am shooting down your theories since you haven't even provided one, not tangibly anyway. What are these core issues that you speak of? Could you define them?

It would be within the context of several posts. My experience is that I post something and then it gets nitpicked to death, people arguing against an extreme position I never took (like that having a characteristic means you have Aspergers, Te users can't form their own theories, such and such a person always does this, all NT's have social problems, etc), just basically dismissing it based on a straw man fallacy. There is a lot of saying I'm wrong without correspondingly saying what the other person actually believes is right. That's just my perception.

Why would your Ti be expressed clumsily through Fe if your ego would be oriented towards Ti?

Because when I'm using a feeling function with Ti to back it up, I'm switching the hierarchy, which doesn't work that well. According to my understanding of theory. This is commonly agreed upon, as Coriolis pointed out. you might have a different opinion. I think functions which are lower in consciousness aren't so much dysfunctional when used, but rather primitive and immature when used consciously; lack of practice and differentiation means the person is less skilled with its conscious use.

And I do think facts or presentation of facts can be incorrect. Plus, if I am wrong I am very open to have someone challenge me similarly.

Sometimes this is true. But determining whether this is true and on what grounds is tricky business, if the "facts" are not scientific in nature, only theoretical.

And why would other Ti dominants bother you if you yourself would value Ti in your ego?

It's not the Ti which bothers me; I enjoy discussion and debate. I don't like when it's applied in places it doesn't belong, missing the big picture and completely neglecting the quality of human interaction. Which now that I think about it is a very F(e) thing to say. I think NTP's can be concerned about this though. Surely they find each other annoying at times, and most would consider it unhealthy and not preferable to ignore feeling related issues when they are relevant. Basically, I think debate should be respectful of the other's dignity and intelligence.

Why?

Why do you? I think it has greater explanatory power, is more complete, and is easier to use because relies less on vague generalities. The more distinction the better.

And could you then perhaps cite such sources to help explain your point?

No, that would take too much time. I'd have to dig through a bunch of posts. Here's one which says just a little bit which is similar:

Also posts people have made which I thought made sense. Probably one by [MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION].

 

[Coriolis]

The speaker in this video makes contradictory statements. He claims at the outset that INTJ has much more information available than he can process, while the INTP takes in only the information he needs. Toward the end, he claims that INTP takes in information indiscriminately, while INTJ is more focused and selective in the information collected. There are other problems with this analysis as well, but this stood out most.

 

[greenfairy]

The speaker in this video makes contradictory statements. He claims at the outset that INTJ has much more information available than he can process, while the INTP takes in only the information he needs. Toward the end, he claims that INTP takes in information indiscriminately, while INTJ is more focused and selective in the information collected. There are other problems with this analysis as well, but this stood out most.

I don't actually think this is contradictory. Taking in information indiscriminately doesn't necessarily mean taking in more. Although I think you're right in that he doesn't make clear what kind of information he is referring to. I think in the case of INTJ, Ni takes in information which is more unconscious and abstract- it is not all propositional. Intuition is all the information from all the senses put together in a meaningful fashion. This is intuition; Ni makes sense of (focuses) it, where Ne relates it to ideas; it takes an idea and then applies it to everything it can think of, or it takes a stimulus and relates it to another and another until all stimuli point to some idea. This sounds like Ni but it isn't because it hasn't really attached meaning to it, just grouped it together. Maybe I'm not explaining it too well; but they are opposite processes. Ni focuses and Ne expands. So INTP would take in information indiscriminately because Ti already focuses information, so it needs all kinds of seemingly unrelated things which can be grouped together, to work with Ti; Ti provides relevance to ideas and organizes information, and Ne provides the information and related ideas. Te takes in information rather indiscriminately and organizes it, while Ni focuses it and provides meaning. So INTJ appears more focused. They haven't processed all their intuitive information yet, but they still take in a lot. INTP appears more unfocused unless they are actively engaging Ti toward a conclusion. Ti needs time to process conscious propositional information; it converts intuitive information into propositions, then evaluates and integrates it. This takes some time, during which it can't take in more. But it still doesn't discriminate with the information it takes in; it evaluates information after it receives it, after it integrates everything else, according to how well it coheres with the framework it already has.

I hadn't noticed any problems. But I'd be happy to try to analyze any others you think are there. They might be.