You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
Actually, if you take INFP to refer to a Jungian Fi-dom with an N-aux (or for that matter, if you'd prefer, a Jungian Ni-dom with an F-aux), and ESTJ to refer to a Jungian Te-dom with an S-aux, Jung really wouldn't have expected those two to have significant type-related things in common.
In the one case, you're talking about a Jungian Fi-Ni-Se-Te stack (or again, if you'd prefer, Ni-Fi-Te-Se), and in the other case, a Te-Se-Ni-Fi stack.
So aha! you might say: they've got all four functions in common!
But the trouble with that perspective is that it was good old Harold Grant, not Jung, who associated similar aspects of personality with a function regardless of whether it was in the dom, aux, tert or inf position — because besides being devoutly religious, he was of the belief that all four of your functions, if suitably developed, were positive "endowments" from God.
To Jung, and in terms of its impact on personality, a function in the tert or inf position, besides being unconscious, was more like the opposite of that same function in the dom or aux position.
For example, Jung said that, whereas Ne-doms have a knack for sniffing out the latest trends and the ways things could be changed for the better, the inferior Ne of Si-doms tends to exhibit "an amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background" and has "a dangerous and destructive quality" — with the result that Ne-doms tend to embrace/cause change, while Si-doms tend to fear/resist change.
Similarly, in describing the ways inferior Fi tended to manifest in a Te-dom, Jung described several examples of unethical behavior and commented that "only an inferior feeling function, operating unconsciously and in secret, could seduce otherwise reputable men into such aberrations." He said a Te-dom's inferior feelings tend to have "a sultry and resentful character," and to lead the Te-dom to "make negative assumptions about other people."
Describing Fe-doms, Jung said that their inferior thinking tends to be "infantile, archaic [and] negative," and to take the form of "obsessive ideas which are invariably of a negative and depreciatory character," noting that "women of this type have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten on the very objects most valued by their feelings."
I suspect there's less shit in Jung's coffin than you may think.
A very direct manifestation of this, if you check out the models, is that to Jung, Se/Fe would characterize the SHADOW of the Ti/Ni type.
Notice how in the Beebe model, at least as I understand it, the shadow is marked as the opposite function-attitudes (e.g. TeNiSeFi for TiNeSiFe). Again, this kind of shows a focus on the 'axes' (versus on the e/i dichotomy itself, which Jung seemed to prize).
When a personality psychologist theorizes that a typological grouping has validity (i.e., corresponds to something real about the people grouped together), the burden is on that typologist to prove it by putting a questionnaire together or performing some other kind of studies that demonstrate that, yes indeed, those "Fi/Te types" (for example) really do have some aspect(s) of personality in common that tends to distinguish them (on average) from the "Fe/Ti types."
The burden isn't on other people to somehow disprove their proposed grouping.
You say, "perhaps the 'evidence' you and Reynierse are demanding ... isn't even being looked for in whatever studies are done."
And there are two reasons this "response" of yours fails miserably.
And the first is the point I already made. Berens and Nardi (among others) have been peddling the Grant stack for many years now, and peddling it without mentioning (in their books) that, unlike the aspects of the MBTI with respectable psychometric support, the supposed tertiary Si of an INFP has the same degree of established validity as the zodiac.
Allow me to note that a personality psychologist with what passes for intellectual integrity here at Casa Reckful would perform enough studies to establish some respectable level of validity for their model before they began selling books that talked about it as if it was in the same category as the (real) MBTI, instead of being honest about the fact that it was in the zodiac category.
If the "evidence I and Reynierse are demanding ... isn't even being looked for" (as you suggested), why not? That's how personality psychology works.
But wait! The psychometric status of the Grant stack is actually much worse than simply not proven but, uh, nobody's really tried.
We now have — as I've said umpteenjillion times — over 50 years of MBTI data pools. And they involve correlating the MBTI types with everything under the sun, including countless aspects of personality as separately measured by lots of other established personality instruments.
And the thing is... when anything gets correlated with the MBTI types, the correlational patterns that result are what they are. They don't depend on what whoever gathered the data might have been expecting, or thought they were testing for.
Assuming that Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Te, Ti, Fe and Fi correspond to significant aspects of personality — and if they're used to refer to stuff that NPs, NJs, SPs, SJs, TJs, TPs, FJs and FPs, respectively, tend to have in common, they certainly do — and given that we now have thousands of data pools correlating the MBTI types with a huge variety of things, if it was true that NJs and SPs are both "Ni/Se types," and that NPs and SJs are both "Ne/Si types" (for example), then there should be some significant body of data pools where Ne, Ni, Se and/or Si were the most significant MBTI-related influences on whatever the study was looking at — and where, accordingly, the NJs and SPs showed up on one side of the correlational spectrum and the NPs and SJs showed up on the other.
But that correlational pattern — like all patterns that are inconsistent with the Real MBTI Model — virtually never shows up. Instead, regardless of what aspect of personality it is that somebody's study may be focusing on, if the SJs show up at one end of the spectrum, look for the NPs to show up at the other end — just as the Real MBTI Model would lead you to expect.
Reynierse's articles caused quite a stir in the MBTI community, as I understand it. And all Berens or Nardi or any other proud HaroldGrantian needed to do to refute his assertion that the functions are just a "category mistake" — not to mention provide, at long last, some respectable support for the Grant stack — was to go through the vast stores of existing MBTI data and find a respectable body of results reflecting one of those HaroldGrantian patterns (TJs/FPs on one side and TPs/FJs on the other, or SJs/NPs on one side and SPs/NJs on the other). Because if either of those patterns — which are decidedly inconsistent with what Reynierse calls "preference multidimensionality" (i.e., the simple additive effects of the four preferences) — ever turned up in a respectable body of MBTI data, well, that's what validity is all about.
And instead, as I understand it, the response to Reynierse (as far as the validity issue goes) has been... *crickets*.
And the reason the response has been *crickets* is because 50 years of MBTI data pools are full of evidence in support of the correlations associated with the Real MBTI Model, and spectacularly lacking in evidence in support of the HaroldGrantian "tandems" — or any other aspect of "type dynamics" that goes beyond (or is inconsistent with) the Real MBTI Model.
How would these tests pick up that you (TJ) and Turi (FP, possibly) demand an external (e) criteria for determining what's “correct†(T), while I (TP), and my wife (FJ) tend to determine it internally? Were these old studies even geared for that sort of data when they simply looking at you perferring T and J (separately), Turi F and P, me T and P, etc.? Did any of them look at how the dichotomies work together?
While the functions might affect behavior, they themselves are not really “traits†these tests often focus on. (I would also acknowledge Jung's point that the inferior will often come out in an opposine fashion, so that the dom. will favor the function's products, while the inferior will try to avoid it. Stil, when forced to deal with T products, Fi doms will tend to turn to an external focus. And let's also not forget the counterclaim that even the 50 year pool of data is not reallx valid for some reason).
I can't answer for Berens and Nardi, like why thay never tested for the functions themselves, and I see the little fight between you and him (which I thought was PerC, but was really here), where he answered was deleted. But you and your camp have got to come up with better motives for them “peddling†their models, than they were “drunkâ€, or thought dichotomies were “boringâ€. As I keep saying, there's more to typology than just pages of figures.
A long time Not that long ago, at a typology forum not that far away, you aimed this "MBTI-related" objection at me:
THAT's how an INFP and ESTJ can be opposite in two dimensions, and yet have something in common. ... (And you slip in the qualifier "MBTI-related aspects", but who really said "MBTI-related"? The commonality lies in the functions, which the MBTI is not measuring, so this is a red-herring.
And I replied thusly:
My "MBTI-related" qualifier was emphatically not meant to distinguish between dichotomies and functions.
When I note that the Real MBTI Model says that INFPs and ESTJs have "no MBTI-related aspects of personality in common," while the HaroldGrantians say that INFPs and ESTJs have "quite a lot of MBTI-related aspects of personality in common," I'm referring to any aspects of personality that can rightly (in terms of consistency with reality) be associated with people of the applicable MBTI types, whether they're purportedly attributed to dichotomy-based categories or function-based categories.
Thanks for listening, as always, Eric, and I look forward to you "misunderstanding" me again on this issue in another few months.
I had forgotten I had already addressed that point. But again it's easy to forget, the way you keep focusing on “MBTIâ€; even naming this theory of yours after it.
So what you're saying then, is you don't want us to associate TYPE at all with “functionsâ€. We can compare dichotomy opposites like TJ and FP, and even then, must realize the similarities are like the “zodiacâ€.
You still never addressed why you're on a hobbyist board forcing an issue about data pools and trying to control [as we see there] what nonprofessional type fans believe about the exact relationship between functions and MBTI or Jung.
Just curious, might you happen to be James Reynierse?
You seem to be very personally invested in promoting his arguments and it looks almost like some kind of competition with these dreaded “HaroldGrantiansâ€; especially Berens and Nardi. And then, this part: “Allow me to note that a personality psychologist with what passes for intellectual integrity here at Casa Reckful...†You have so much to say about stuff like that. So if you're not him, then who are you?
How would these tests pick up that you (TJ) and Turi (FP, possibly) demand an external (e) criteria for determining what's “correct†(T), while I (TP), and my wife (FJ) tend to determine it internally? Were these old studies even geared for that sort of data when they simply looking at you perferring T and J (separately), Turi F and P, me T and P, etc.? Did any of them look at how the dichotomies work together?
As I just told you, Eric, the patterns that show up in MBTI correlational studies are what they are. They depend on what the subjects' types are being correlated with, not what the people gathering the data might expect, or are looking for, or are "looking at."
And yes, they certainly (and often) reflect effects of two (or more) dichotomies in combination. And as I've also just told you, in cases where the TJ foursome turns out to be the one at one end of the correlational spectrum, you can reliably expect to find the FPs at the other end. You virtually never find those "Te/Fi" types (TJs and FPs) on one side and the "Ti/Fe types" (FJs and TPs) on the other.
You still never addressed why you're on a hobbyist board forcing an issue about data pools and trying to control [as we see there] what nonprofessional type fans believe about the exact relationship between functions and MBTI or Jung.
Just curious, might you happen to be James Reynierse?
You seem to be very personally invested in promoting his arguments and it looks almost like some kind of competition with these dreaded “HaroldGrantiansâ€; especially Berens and Nardi. And then, this part: “Allow me to note that a personality psychologist with what passes for intellectual integrity here at Casa Reckful...†You have so much to say about stuff like that. So if you're not him, then who are you?
It's a "hobbyist board," and I'm strictly a psychological hobbyist, and always have been — and you've asked me about my professional status before, and I've answered you before, and once again, you've forgotten.
But I'm a "hobbyist" who understands that there's a big difference between the zodiac, on the one hand, and the respectable districts of the MBTI, on the other.
And I think good MBTI sources have a lot to offer people in terms of self-understanding and a better understanding of people with different personality types.
But when a forumite is trying to type themselves, and they're led to do it by figuring out if they're a "Ti/Fe type" or an "Fe/Ti type," and if they're an "Ni/Se type" or an "Ne/Si type," they're being misled.
The "function axes" aren't a supplemental feature of the MBTI that adds additional insight. They're a validity-free heap of horseshit. They group together types that, in reality, have no MBTI-related aspects of personality in common. And their unreality interferes with self-understanding, and the understanding of others, just like zodiac-based "understandings" do.
Validating type groupings in accordance with the personality psychology standards that have been the norm for decades isn't really that difficult, Eric. And it isn't rocket science, either. And it doesn't require neuroscientific evidence.
According to the functionistas, extraverted thinking and introverted thinking are very different ways for someone's thinking function to approach the world. If the Grant stack has any validity, why hasn't Berens or Nardi or any other HaroldGrantian ever been able to put together a simple 10-item indicator where the alternative responses capture Ti and Te well enough that not only do the TPs (on average) favor the Ti choices and the TJs (on average) favor the Te choices, but on top of that, the FJs (on average) favor the Ti choices and the FPs (on average) favor the Te choices?
Why can't they do that with a single one of the eight functions, Eric?
As I've noted before, you will search in vain for any passage in Myers where she says that, if you start with a type foursome that shares two preferences (e.g., the SJs), and you flip both preferences, you'll end up with a foursome (in this example, the NPs) that has more in common with the original group — when it comes to some or all of the stuff affected by those preferences — than if you'd only flipped one preference. And the reason you won't find any such passage is that Myers didn't subscribe to that notion at all. Myers understood that if there's an aspect of personality where the SJs are the types with the most of it, you should expect the NPs to be the types with the least of it.
And Myers was right. The HaroldGrantian double-flip — the goofball geometry underlying the so-called "function axes" — has no basis in reality, and that's why it's found no respectable validation in over 50 years of MBTI data pools, correlating the types with everything under the sun.
A forumite whose type understanding includes the notion that INFPs have "tertiary Si," and so have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that ISTPs and INTJs don't have (cuz they're both "Se types") is a forumite who has been misled. And calling out that kind of nonsense, and helping people understand what the MBTI is really about, is something that it gratifies me to do, without the need for any financial interest.
That's why I'm here.
ADDED:
I mentioned a previous exchange on the "who are you, reckful" issue. In the spoiler is a back-and-forth from last December, at PerC.
You said:
Something looks not right about this. However much "truth" or "validity" you may think you have, you are not being objective about this at all. What is your ego-investment in this? ...
I still don't understand what your investment in this is. Who exactly are you? Are you a mainstream psychologist, who feels threatened somehow by what you see as an "unorthodox" view of personality? (i.e. "we all devoted all our lives to studying mainstream psychology, and these hacks are coming in with their unsubstantiated functions", or something like that?) You're trying to put yourself out there as 100% "objective", but it's becoming more and more clear that you're not. You can argue anything, and argue it strongly, but it doesn't mean there's really anything to it.
And I replied:
I have no "ego investment" or other "investment" in the MBTI beyond a strictly-amateur intellectual interest in it. Is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?
And I have no interest in the zodiac, and one of the reasons I'm interested in the MBTI and uninterested in looking into the zodiac is that the respectable districts of the former involve type categories and groupings that have a respectable level of empirical support behind them.
And as I've said, anybody's free to believe in type categories that lack respectable levels of validity if they want to, and I don't much object to that in and of itself. But I strongly object when those people talk and write about their categories in a way that suggests that they're in the same category as the Real MBTI Model, rather than in the same category as the zodiac.
And I'll continue to make that objection in my forum posts, Eric, because I continue to have what you might call an "investment" in that kind of intellectual integrity.
Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant.
Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant. Harold Grant.
This does it for the Big 5. The point is a test that extracts 4 independent dimensions is not, by any circumstances consistent with the aims of extracting 4 independent dimensions (again, like 4 vectors as with space/time), going to produce results that suggest TJ SHARES things with FP. Rather, it's possible to have characteristics that have a partial-T correlation and a partial-J correlation and which are most common among TJ, and aren't as common among TPs. But still, the things TJ have most in common WILL BE the things that FPs have least in common.
This can be done for I/N -- as you notice, being reflective, in-your-head, meditative, and so on are most aptly seen as IN intersection things. That is, regions of intercorrelation.
What you're doing is defining TJ and FP differently from the stats-based idea, and saying NOW there are things in common---which is fine. To be clear, I actually like the idea of Te/Fi and calling some attitudes Te/Fi in nature. I do not think I require having statistics to do that. What I do think I need stats for is if I'm positing not a logical reason for grouping 2 characteristics, but an empirical reason. I can say X and Y personality attributes go together because they both are entailed by a broader category Z. But IF I want that Z to be a statistical variable, then X and Y must intercorrelate in the data, and that too, in most people, not just in small subcommunities.
As I just told you, Eric, the patterns that show up in MBTI correlational studies are what they are. They depend on what the subjects' types are being correlated with, not what the people gathering the data might expect, or are looking for, or are "looking at."
And yes, they certainly (and often) reflect effects of two (or more) dichotomies in combination. And as I've also just told you, in cases where the TJ foursome turns out to be the one at one end of the correlational spectrum, you can reliably expect to find the FPs at the other end. You virtually never find those "Te/Fi" types (TJs and FPs) on one side and the "Ti/Fe types" (FJs and TPs) on the other.
It's a "hobbyist board," and I'm strictly a psychological hobbyist, and always have been — and you've asked me about my professional status before, and I've answered you before, and once again, you've forgotten.
But I'm a "hobbyist" who understands that there's a big difference between the zodiac, on the one hand, and the respectable districts of the MBTI, on the other.
And I think good MBTI sources have a lot to offer people in terms of self-understanding and a better understanding of people with different personality types.
But when a forumite is trying to type themselves, and they're led to do it by figuring out if they're a "Ti/Fe type" or an "Fe/Ti type," and if they're an "Ni/Se type" or an "Ne/Si type," they're being misled.
The "function axes" aren't a supplemental feature of the MBTI that adds additional insight. They're a validity-free heap of horseshit. They group together types that, in reality, have no MBTI-related aspects of personality in common. And their unreality interferes with self-understanding, and the understanding of others, just like zodiac-based "understandings" do.
Validating type groupings in accordance with the personality psychology standards that have been the norm for decades isn't really that difficult, Eric. And it isn't rocket science, either. And it doesn't require neuroscientific evidence.
According to the functionistas, extraverted thinking and introverted thinking are very different ways for someone's thinking function to approach the world. If the Grant stack has any validity, why hasn't Berens or Nardi or any other HaroldGrantian ever been able to put together a simple 10-item indicator where the alternative responses capture Ti and Te well enough that not only do the TPs (on average) favor the Ti choices and the TJs (on average) favor the Te choices, but on top of that, the FJs (on average) favor the Ti choices and the FPs (on average) favor the Te choices?
Why can't they do that with a single one of the eight functions, Eric?
As I've noted before, you will search in vain for any passage in Myers where she says that, if you start with a type foursome that shares two preferences (e.g., the SJs), and you flip both preferences, you'll end up with a foursome (in this example, the NPs) that has more in common with the original group — when it comes to some or all of the stuff affected by those preferences — than if you'd only flipped one preference. And the reason you won't find any such passage is that Myers didn't subscribe to that notion at all. Myers understood that if there's an aspect of personality where the SJs are the types with the most of it, you should expect the NPs to be the types with the least of it.
And Myers was right. The HaroldGrantian double-flip — the goofball geometry underlying the so-called "function axes" — has no basis in reality, and that's why it's found no respectable validation in over 50 years of MBTI data pools, correlating the types with everything under the sun.
A forumite whose type understanding includes the notion that INFPs have "tertiary Si," and so have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that ISTPs and INTJs don't have (cuz they're both "Se types") is a forumite who has been misled. And calling out that kind of nonsense, and helping people understand what the MBTI is really about, is something that it gratifies me to do, without the need for any financial interest.
That's why I'm here.
ADDED:
I mentioned a previous exchange on the "who are you, reckful" issue. In the spoiler is a back-and-forth from last December, at PerC.
You said:
I still don't understand what your investment in this is. Who exactly are you? Are you a mainstream psychologist, who feels threatened somehow by what you see as an "unorthodox" view of personality? (i.e. "we all devoted all our lives to studying mainstream psychology, and these hacks are coming in with their unsubstantiated functions", or something like that?) You're trying to put yourself out there as 100% "objective", but it's becoming more and more clear that you're not. You can argue anything, and argue it strongly, but it doesn't mean there's really anything to it.
And I replied:
I have no "ego investment" or other "investment" in the MBTI beyond a strictly-amateur intellectual interest in it. Is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?
And I have no interest in the zodiac, and one of the reasons I'm interested in the MBTI and uninterested in looking into the zodiac is that the respectable districts of the former involve type categories and groupings that have a respectable level of empirical support behind them.
And as I've said, anybody's free to believe in type categories that lack respectable levels of validity if they want to, and I don't much object to that in and of itself. But I strongly object when those people talk and write about their categories in a way that suggests that they're in the same category as the Real MBTI Model, rather than in the same category as the zodiac.
And I'll continue to make that objection in my forum posts, Eric, because I continue to have what you might call an "investment" in that kind of intellectual integrity.
These debates have been so long and drawn out, I don't remember everything I've said. And so you claim to be just some super-objective "amateur", but then anyone can say anything.
So it still looks like more than some concern for poor misled hobbyists. You really seem to have animosity towards these “HaroldGrantians†(the fact that you even keep 'splitting' them off into some distinct 'group' like that), and people being “misled†(more likely, misunderstanding the concepts, if not their own type preferences), should not garner all of this invective.
Having an "investment in intellectual integrity" is no excuse. No one else is carrying on to the extent you have. Are you the only one around with intellectual integrity? You can try to inform everyone, but have to realize that not everyone is going to go along with it, and then move on.
But you're doing more than that. At one point years ago, you were trying to derail just about every discussion on function axes on these two forums (then you calmed down a bit, but by now have influenced others). You have your threads, and you even have a series of articles in the form wiki (why not include a link to those in your signature?) but that's not enough. You're really trying to control the discussion and belief. Lest you try to deny that, "I strongly object when those people talk and write about their categories in a way that suggests that they're in the same category as the Real MBTI Model, rather than in the same category as the zodiac." You're acting like this is your personal type data lab! That's what the problem has been. "That's why I'm here"? Sorry but that continues to beg the question "Who are you?", then.
Any time anyone says they have "THE TRUTH" and tries to just sweep out everything else based on that, it's a cause for alarm. (Wit, historical conquests, especially backed by religion). And people who claim to see where everyone else is blind are often delusional, even if they do some grain of truth, or "fact" they can appeal to. Look at all the ridiculous conspiracy theories, and they too always have all this "fact" everyone else "ignores".
You do seem more like someone more on their level or even higher (to be speaking in the name of “personality psychologists†and “integrity†and stuff like that), who is disgruntled that their models became more [relatively] popular and yours didn't; and no one else in the field listened either (so then, go after the “populaceâ€, directly, and try to “fix†them one by one).
You say Reynierse's study “caused quite a stirâ€, but all I can find on him online are your posts (or earlier advocates like Seymour), and his TWO capt esseys. (And the tap3x site has some e-mail dialogue of his).
So if you're not some professional, then why didn't you use your 'superior' knowledge of the “facts†to gain some credential in the field? (And you could still visit here and spread your knowledge, like Nardi and others did).
Or why even deal with MBTI at all, and just stick with FFM, which is the one more recognized for empirical validity (as Nardi suggested), and popularize that more? Instead, you really seem to have some real stock in this, (whether financial or not).
What really would you accomplish, if you could stamp out all discussion of function tandems on these boards and have only dichotomy discussions? (And are you going to deny that's what you're trying to do and say I'm misrepresenting you, “as always�) Do you really think that all of a sudden, some wave of perfect knowledge would sweep over everyone, and all these poor, misled souls would all become clear about their type or have perfect self-understanding or something? Would you be saving their lives? It's really that important?
It seems you're the one wasting everyone's time, (except for those inclined to be swayed by your impressive and authoritative rhetoric), and likely even your own. It's like you're trying to be the “Savior†of typology and all the poor little sheep from the big bad “HaroldGrantiansâ€. You're the one making a “religion†out of this. Sorry, but something just doesn't look quite right, (especially with what I saw here last December).
The function dynamics work (in self-understanding) for a lot of people here; not for everyone, but then nothing is perfect enough to work for everyone. Like as an INP, I can certainly attest to what's described for tertiary Si. Just because I'm an N and a P, doesn't mean all of my behavior is totally opposite of S and J. It has a less “mature" quality to it, and to some extent is opposite of a mature SJ type (like I'm not always good with memorized fact, though it certainly comes more to life in less serious instances as Beebe's model suggests). But where I'm really weak is Ni, which shouldn't figure in your view, because it's just the same "N". A lot of other INTP's taking Nardi's test may get high on both Ne and Ni, but they're always diametric opposites for me. (And I've from day one pointed out that the test is not perfect, but you took that and made that your whole starting premise back then).
Just like You and Turi clearly having a perspective (that's what these are) that matches Te descriptions, while I'm totally averse to that kind of thinking, even though it's all supposed to be the same T, while Turi is possibly an F.
But this simply doesn't exist, or is "horseshit" (And thus shouldn't even be discussed), because a big formal study hasn't been successfully done on it. (And the only “truth†in the universe is what man has formally studied). It's not simply that it needs more verification; you've made the ABSOLUTE declaration that it's horse manure because it's not studied because it's zodiac, because it's horse manure because it's not studied because it's zodiac...
You say "The burden isn't on other people to somehow disprove their proposed grouping", but as soon as you say ABSOLUTE stuff like that (based on a pure tautological fallacy), then you've taken on the burden!
"what the subjects' types are being correlated with, not what the people gathering the data might expect, or are looking for, or are 'looking at.'"
When I said "looking for/at"; I meant "correlated with"! If they're correlating with dichotomies only, then of course, the results will reflect dichotomies only (where they are completely opposite).
Then, there's "everything under the sun, including countless aspects of personality as separately measured by lots of other established personality instruments".
Like what else? FFM (NEO-PI)? Those are factors closely correlated with MBTI dichotomies, and thus will also turn out similar results. CPI? (A two-factor model also owned by CPP which is similar to classic temperament). Even less likely to say anything about function-attitudes or axes. FIRO-B? (which I have personally read several correlations of, as my long standing interest was how they might fit with the dichotomies). The same. It's a completely different framework that was "not looking for" something like that (hence, my phraseology. Though still, I did notice that N and P together correlated with "high Wanted Inclusion", which I predicted would match Keirsey/Berens' "informing communications", which is a common feature of "extraverted iNtuitive" types! But it would have no way of picking up anything called "Ne" directly, when you presume it must be proven separately from an N+P preference when all you're correlating it with are dichotomies, N, P and the others. And again, the people doing those studies obviously saw that high correlation with those two dichotomies, but if they were not "looking for" the function of "Ne" to correlate with anything, then they're not going to report it).
So yes, studies would need to be done directly of the functions, like you said. Why Nardi and the others didn't do them, I don't know. Maybe I'll ask. Since they're the professionals (and admittedly, not you), then they probably still know more than you (and your followers) do about why, or how to go about it.
But then since (for now) opposites can have nothing in common, then do T types even deal with F products, and vice verse, and an N deal with S, in this "real MBTI"?
What I should ask to begin with, is what really are S, N, T and F, then (since MBTI Manual, Gifts Differing, etc. still did recognize them as “functionsâ€, and you're saying completely otherwise)?
And why are there still people (including the whole larger field of psychology) who don't accept “the 50 years of MBTI dataâ€, if that's everything? Maybe you've answered that before, but those objections don't seem to be going anywhere either.
The little exchange between you and Jaguar on that point was lost, but I don't remember you really saying much of anything, but probably just reiterating the "50 years of MBTI data". But very few people outside of MBTI circles accepts it. In most psychology textbooks, MBTI is just a blip mentioned in passing.
No matter what you say (or even try to cite Myers as saying), the official MBTI publications and certification courses (not just “the HaroldGrantiansâ€) teach the eight function-attitudes, with dominant and auxiliary as opposite attitude, and the inferior as the opposite function and attitude from the dominant (regardless of whether the rest of the stack follows Grant [or Beebe] or not). This one man arises (from out of nowhere, it looks like, and disappears just as quickly) and calls it a “category mistakeâ€, and now you come seeking to change it to what you and[/or] him say is the “real†Myers model. Everyone else is wrong. They've all ignored all the data (or lack thereof). Those you've influenced claim they are all “drunk†or some other ridiculous, childish reason.
After Myers, you then turn to Jung, to prove he really taught the Gray-Wheelwright stack, but still being "functions", you don't believe in that either. So you seem to be only using it to establish your case against the "HaroldGrantians" (and then get mad that someone dares to misunderstand your real beliefs buried in all of these arguments you've packed together), and then finally bring out Reynierse and talk about the "data" which you admit would contradict both Jung and Myers. (And par for the course, you even denied it’s all about him, but it always comes back to him).
If I have to “go [only] by the dataâ€, then I could just follow mainstream psychology, which says the whole MBTI theory is like the zodiac.
To me, any data is like a “backupâ€, to add support to an idea. But as I keep saying, it can obviously be spun, selectively taken, deliberately misinterpreted, skewed, etc., including to discredit it (straw man fallacy). Any of the subjects used can be mistaken on their type and throw things off. The people holding different models can have their biases (as obviously, you must charge "the HaroldGrantians" with), but sorry, Reynierse isn't above that, and he apparently has not proven anything to anyone. He (and you] are like the one lone "scientist" doing some math and saying Relativity is wrong. (And they are out there. "Young earth creationists" do it too. Flat earthers try to appeal to "fact" as well).
Again, there's more to typology (and consciousness itself) than a bunch of "data" sheets. I didn't say they have no value. But they're not everything.
As I've noted before, you will search in vain for any passage in Myers where she says that, if you start with a type foursome that shares two preferences (e.g., the SJs), and you flip both preferences, you'll end up with a foursome (in this example, the NPs) that has more in common with the original group — when it comes to some or all of the stuff affected by those preferences — than if you'd only flipped one preference. And the reason you won't find any such passage is that Myers didn't subscribe to that notion at all. Myers understood that if there's an aspect of personality where the SJs are the types with the most of it, you should expect the NPs to be the types with the least of it.
I'm a little confused -- so Myers, as I understand, subscribed to an ESFJ having Fe and Si (but not necessarily Ne). The real question is how she viewed the inferior function, which I'm forgetting -- did she see, say, an ENTP as having Si, and thus having more Si in common with ESFJ, vs, say, an INTJ -- neither an NP nor a SJ -- might have NiTeFeSe, and thus clearly no Si?
Or, is her position on the inferior more like Jung's, where the inferior is viewed as more like the polar opposite? So that the ENTP really doesn't have Si in common so much as it's anathema to them?
(There is of course the subtlety that Jung probably would agree in one sense, a Se-inferior has something in common with an Se-dom, in that it's still appropriate to say their personalities are influenced by extraverted sensation as an attitude, just that this influence isn't conscious in one type's case, so in terms of what the type sees in themselves/their preferences, if Se is inferior, they'd certainly say by golly that REALLY isn't me...which after all is what the mbti measures as a test.)
Also, i feel this is getting into slightly theoretical territory -- do all Grant-ers actually think of the Si of an ENTP as something it "has" in the sense of their recognizing it and going "oh yeah, that's ME, for SURE!" Or, wouuld many of them agree it is more present in the sense of an ENTP running away from it? Beebe seems to suggest, for instance, that he loses awareness of his body gripping his chair in excitement while extraverting his intuition.
I mean, if he's saying he has Si because of seeing some lady in his dream, which is what I recall, that seems like he's diagnosing the unconscious, and not saying "by golly, I am Si-esque consciously!!"
The MBTI test seems to measure what would correspond to consciousness --- BTW, I'm not saying measuring the unconscious may not be BS as an idea, just, do all Grant-ers behave as if Si of an ENTP is really akin to identifying with it over Se, similar to how they identify with Ne?
There's a McCrae and Costa Big 5 article Reckful quotes from time to time, where these leading Big 5 psychologists seem to note that the problem with the MBTI being the zodiac IS with the assumptions that
a) it measures genuine dichotomies, not continuous dimensions like 4/5 Big 5 ones
b) that it really corresponds to Jungian functions
That is, the thing they are calling the zodiac IS what reckful seems to call the zodiac -- or at least particularly with point b).
With those extra assumptions, they seem to think you can just as well use it in a way akin to the Big 5 --- while they may prefer the Big 5, it's no longer zodiac-esque at all but in fact well-correlated with the Big 5, which OBVIOUSLY, to them, means it's not zodiac-esque.
But you're doing more than that. At one point years ago, you were trying to derail just about every discussion on function axes on these two forums (then you calmed down a bit, but by now have influenced others).
There has never been a period when I was posting in anything remotely close to the majority of cognitive function discussions at either TC or PerC.
Nor is it fair to say I was a derailer of most of the threads I did participate in.
Keep working on that integrity of yours, Eric. It needs a lot of work.
You say I'm trying to "stamp out all discussion of function tandems on these boards and have only dichotomy discussions." But on the contrary, and especially given how widespread "tandem" descriptions are outside the MBTI forums, I think it's great that the forums provide an ongoing opportunity to discuss their status — including, for example, their lack of any official MBTI endorsement — and for me to introduce forumites who are new to the MBTI (and there's a steady stream of those, as you know) to my perspective.
Disagreeing and derailing are two different things, Eric. Likewise disagreeing and "stamping out."
There's a McCrae and Costa Big 5 article Reckful quotes from time to time, where these leading Big 5 psychologists seem to note that the problem with the MBTI being the zodiac IS with the assumptions that
a) it measures genuine dichotomies, not continuous dimensions like 4/5 Big 5 ones
b) that it really corresponds to Jungian functions
That is, the thing they are calling the zodiac IS what reckful seems to call the zodiac -- or at least particularly with point b).
With those extra assumptions, they seem to think you can just as well use it in a way akin to the Big 5 --- while they may prefer the Big 5, it's no longer zodiac-esque at all but in fact well-correlated with the Big 5, which OBVIOUSLY, to them, means it's not zodiac-esque.
.
I was wondering if he was going to try to say that it's not respected because of the functions, and thus this is what he's trying to "save" the theory from by stamping functions and especially axes out of existence and trying to make it more like FFM.
And I was also going to mention that the Big Five are scales (or high to low), and not really dichotomies. (Even though "low extraversion" we would assume is "introversion", and low "Neuroticism" is called "stable". These were the original factors Eysenck used, which were later incorporated into the FFM, but they're really not presented as dichotomies.
And I was also going to mention that the Big Five are scales (or high to low), and not really dichotomies. (Even though "low extraversion" we would assume is "introversion", and low "Neuroticism" is called "stable". These were the original factors Eysenck used, which were later incorporated into the FFM, but they're really not presented as dichotomies.
Yeah, and my understanding is that's also part of the criticism. That the MBTI should be measured more like traditional psychometrics do, where it's seen as a scale with an in-between.
Apparently they used to let you get an "X" on one or more scale. I think if you want to go with the data, this is important.
But as far as I know, this isn't something reckful has a problem with. I haven't seen him criticize this aspect of the Big 5 psychologists' analysis.
There has never been a period when I was posting in anything remotely close to the majority of cognitive function discussions at either TC or PerC.
Nor is it fair to say I was a derailer of most of the threads I did participate in.
Keep working on that integrity of yours, Eric. It needs a lot of work.
You say I'm trying to "stamp out all discussion of function tandems on these boards and have only dichotomy discussions." But on the contrary, and especially given how widespread "tandem" descriptions are outside the MBTI forums, I think it's great that the forums provide an ongoing opportunity to discuss their status — including, for example, their lack of any official MBTI endorsement — and for me to introduce forumites who are new to the MBTI (and there's a steady stream of those, as you know) to my perspective.
Disagreeing and derailing are two different things, Eric. Likewise disagreeing and "stamping out."
You really don't see how you were coming off (and probably forgot), and haven't you ever heard of hyperbole? (whether you were literally in the "majority" of discussions, you certainly went after enough of them).
Do you remember following me from here to PerC when I first announced the Intentional Styles model on both forums, with all of your nearly identical (cut and paste?) posts and links, and such? And there were others after that. Those threads were derailed. Like I said in the deleted part, it then got really old, really fast. It was overdone. "The Case Against Type Dynamics" was really off topic. The Intentional Styles are obviously based on the dynamics (function-axes), and so they're presupposed in that topic, whether they were supported by data or not; and it was to announce "OK, everyone, now Western Type has groups similar to the Socionics quadras" (since many people were abandoning MBTI for Socionics for that reason). That was not the place to debate "for" or "against" functions and axes altogether; at least not to that extent, with those long posts. You could have just said, shortly, "well, I don't believe in axes, because the data only supports dichotomies", and with the link or two (then, if I wanted to debate that, I would have gone over there, where it would have been more on topic). That is to "disagree". You didn't do that. You essentially took over the topic, tying to completely tear down the whole subject. Yes, it's a difference.
You need to stop trying to manage someone else's integrity, and deal with your own. Need I mention again the horribly unprofessional way you went at Nardi? (So bad, they had to delete it). That's what all of this came to with you. (Some serious Shadow projection!) Yeah, just trying to maintain "intellectual integrity" and do some kind of good for everyone else, right?
I'm a little confused -- so Myers, as I understand, subscribed to an ESFJ having Fe and Si (but not necessarily Ne). The real question is how she viewed the inferior function, which I'm forgetting -- did she see, say, an ENTP as having Si, and thus having more Si in common with ESFJ, than with say, ENTJ, who has none?
Or, is her position on the inferior more like Jung's, where the inferior is viewed as more like the polar opposite? So that the ENTP really doesn't have Si in common so much as it's anathema to them?
Myers tended to talk about inferior functions in more dichotomous terms — e.g., with N's tending to view/experience S in negative terms. But the second edition of the MBTI Manual (which she co-authored) noted that the types with either form of N as their inferior function — the "ISJ and ESP types" — are prone to view "possibilities" in overly negative terms, and urged MBTI counselors to help them "develop strategies to counteract the 'black cloud effect.'"
Also, i feel this is getting into slightly theoretical territory -- do all Grant-ers actually think of the Si of an ENTP as something it "has" in the sense of their recognizing it and going "oh yeah, that's ME, for SURE!" Or, wouuld many of them agree it is more present in the sense of an ENTP running away from it? Beebe seems to suggest, for instance, that he loses awareness of his body gripping his chair in excitement while extraverting his intuition.
I mean, if he's saying he has Si because of seeing some lady in his dream, which is what I recall, that seems like he's diagnosing the unconscious, and not saying "by golly, I am Si-esque consciously!!"
The MBTI test seems to measure what would correspond to consciousness --- BTW, I'm not saying measuring the unconscious may not be BS as an idea, just, do all Grant-ers behave as if Si of an ENTP is really akin to identifying with it over Se, similar to how they identify with Ne?
There probably isn't much that "all Grant-ers" agree on, but the Grant-stack perspective reflected in the majority of forum discussions — and in Berens and Nardi, for example — is that extraverted thinking and introverted thinking (for example) are two very different flavors of thinking, and that ENFPs, by virtue of their "tertiary Te," tend to exhibit the "extraverted" form of thinking, making their thinking more like ISTJs (with whom they share no preferences) than ENFPs' thinking is to ENFJs' thinking (or than ENFJs' thinking is to ISTJs' thinking).
It's maybe worth noting that at a reddit AMA in February 2013, Nardi said that the brain activity he was seeing in midlife INFJs and ISTPs was so similar — because there was so much tertiary Ti and inferior Se activity in the INFJs, and tertiary Ni and inferior Fe in the ISTPs — that you "could hardly tell" which type was which.
And in his recent interview here, Nardi praised Berens for her "Intentional Styles" model (original name: "Cognitive Styles"), which groups INFPs, ENFPs, ISTJs and ESTJs together (like the socionics quadras), and asserts that those four types exhibit a common cognitive "pattern" that causes them to approach/view the world in similar ways.
Do you remember following me from here to PerC when I first announced the Intentional Styles model on both forums, with all of your nearly identical (cut and paste?) posts and links, and such?
Why did you post the same OP at both TC and PerC? Because there are lots of people who are active at one forum and not the other, right? Of course — and there was nothing wrong with your posting the same OP in both places, as far as I was concerned.
Why did I post the same reply to your OP at both TC and PerC?
Take your time. I know it's a toughie.
I "followed you" from here to PC? Like, I was stalking/harassing you or something? Really, Eric?
And how did my criticisms "derail" those threads, Eric? My criticisms were very much on-topic, and any other interested posters were free to disagree with me, or disagree with you, or post their own takes on Intentional Styles.
Once again... there's a big difference between disagreeing with an OP and some kind of off-topic "derailment" of a thread.
And any other posters who want to review the exchange we had, and judge for themselves whether my posts were off-topic, will find it here.
Since you've hurled no small amount of invective in my direction to the effect that ZOMG, reckful goes around planting his dichotomies-vs-functions perspectives in every darn thread, I can't resist noting that I moseyed into this thread simply to correct you on an issue of what Jung thought about something. Nothing about dichotomies-vs-functions.
You're the one, for reasons that (as I noted) puzzled me, who decided he wanted to argue about my views on the functions, and you continued your rant here, and then here, before I finally took the bait and responded.
There probably isn't much that "all Grant-ers" agree on, but the Grant-stack perspective reflected in the majority of forum discussions — and in Berens and Nardi, for example — is that extraverted thinking and introverted thinking (for example) are two very different flavors of thinking, and that ENFPs, by virtue of their "tertiary Te," tend to exhibit the "extraverted" form of thinking, making their thinking more like ISTJs (with whom they share no preferences) than ENFPs' thinking is to ENFJs' thinking (or than ENFJs' thinking is to ISTJs' thinking).
Yeah, and I guess what I'm wondering is if at least a substantial portion of Grant-ers would say the Te that is related to by ENFPs and that related to by ISTJs look substantially different. That it's appropriate to call them both Te for some reason you can spell out using definitions, but it's not appropriate to call them Te playing an influence in the same way -- that is, the two types aren't going to recognize themselves in the same kinds of portraits (the ISTJ might recognize itself more in the standard Te-dom portraits and the ENFP more in the Te-inf ones).
Someone with this attitude strikes me as closer to Jung's slant on the meaning of Ni-dom / Se-inferior, meaning, if you show a Ni-dom the portrait of Se-dom, you'd better find they're appalled/have a NOT-ME reaction.
One of the things I've been interested in tentatively/speculatively (and this is more in the Jung than Grant direction) is this idea that for a dichotomy to even form, you need to in some sense acknowledge the dichotomy in your mind. So just to give an example close to me, let's try something like conservative vs liberal. I am more likely to say I don't want to deal with the opinionatedness of taking either side. I'd rather say it's a non-issue, and say I make my decisions by supporting neither side, and merely weighing arguments and counterarguments for each and say maybe it depends on the circumstance you're in and so on.
Or even better something like rationalism/empiricism..
On the other hand there are people who think that dichotomy is important and natural, but in a sense, they're the ones who become most polarized along it. And it's safe to say some of the moderate conservatives are moderate precisely because they adopt some liberal tendencies. If they simply didn't acknowlede either side is well-defined, they couldn't do this.
OTOH, maybe the dom-conservatives, so to speak, are really closer in some ways to people who say the dichotomy isn't real - that there's just a right side and a wrong side.
Now this is the issue of whether there's any truth to the idea that being on one side of a dichotomy implies some presence of the other side, in a different sense from if you weren't on said side of the dichotomy.
Obviously in one sense, the presence is tautology: if you're a strong TJ, you probably frame this in terms of opposition to FP. The question, a-la Jung, is really if there's any truth to the idea that you're giving some concession to FP by choosing TJ at all -- vs a TP who says TJ vs FP issues are both missing the point, so to speak, and the reason the dichotomy arises is both sides are confused in some parallel way, just they take those confusions in very different directions.
There is, of course, the totally different issue that Grant stuff seems to prioritize some dichotomies-combinations over others.
Obviously, you'd need something totally different from the standard test to test all this, because the test basically only asks you how much you relate to the equivalent of dom-Si and dom-Ne (ie SJ/NP).
But is there any research on whether, for at least some dimensions involving some kind of cognitive preference, there are things that people who go strongly one direction or another have in common with each other--not within the dimension, but some other variable?
I think that would be interesting.
Why did you post the same OP at both TC and PerC? Because there are lots of people who are active at one forum and not the other, right? Of course — and there was nothing wrong with your posting the same OP in both places, as far as I was concerned.
Why did I post the same reply to your OP at both TC and PerC?
Take your time. I know it's a toughie.
I "followed you" from here to PC? Like, I was stalking/harassing you or something? Really, Eric?
And how did my criticisms "derail" those threads, Eric? My criticisms were very much on-topic, and any other interested posters were free to disagree with me, or disagree with you, or post their own takes on Intentional Styles.
Once again... there's a big difference between disagreeing with an OP and some kind of off-topic "derailment" of a thread.
And any other posters who want to review the exchange we had, and judge for themselves whether my posts were off-topic, will find it here.
Since you've hurled no small amount of invective in my direction to the effect that ZOMG, reckful goes around planting his dichotomies-vs-functions perspectives in every darn thread, I can't resist noting that I moseyed into this thread simply to correct you on an issue of what Jung thought about something. Nothing about dichotomies-vs-functions.
You're the one, for reasons that (as I noted) puzzled me, who decided he wanted to argue about my views on the functions, and you continued your rant here, and then here, before I finally took the bait and responded.
Because your anti-Grant rhetoric is influencing others, who don't even completely agree with you (they still accept functions), yet still use the same arguments, so then I decided to challenge that for a change. Just one thread I entered (I was considering that "Jung Mayhem" thread on PerC, but felt this was enough for now), and you really think it compares to what you've been doing! (and I wasn't trying to bait you; I had gotten the impression you and Turi had some sort of falling out over on PerC, and so I didn't think you would come to his thread here. But still, he was spouting your anti-Grant jargon).
You really don't realize how far you've gone with this; with the multitude and volume of posts, PLUS all the condescending language in them; again, like you're the all knowing, almighty Savior of type; and all us stupid "HaroldGrantian" fools just get out of the way. "horseshit"? "zodiac"? "Intellectual integrity...That's what I'm here for". "Take your time. I know it's a toughie." "work on your integrity". You really see no problem with any or all of this? THAT's what I mean by "invective". "No small amount" from me? Are you kidding? Name one time I have ever said anything like this about your "Real MBTI".
Yeah, most of us can endure having things we like insulted like that, but it's all of this together (not just one thing by itself) that have made you plain annoying after awhile. (And the mighty Emperor doesn't see he has no clothes! Especially, again, with last December's little episode. And that is not my own personal beef, as you made yourself look pretty bad. I was almost embarrassed for you, but at the same time was like "damn; just what's with this guy?" and it was clear that there is some serious problem. You really expect people in the type world to take you seriously like that?)
I remember I used to annoy Jaguar sometimes years ago, when he would do DISC threads, but for one thing, I wasn't tearing down the DISC or calling it horseshit or zodiac. I was doing what I always do, and showing how it fits together with type. But I actually considered that maybe I was pushing too much, and figured, some people have gotten my ideas, and so I don't have to try to keep drumming it into everyone's heads. (Inferior Fe is slow to pick up people's wishes, but as it matures, it begins to take notice, where tertiary Fi is "this is important to me, and I know what's better for everyone", but should later be able to put itself into others shoes! This different from a more mature preferred Fe or Fi, for yet another real life example of the tandems for you).
If you're going to criticize, then leave all the condescending talk off. Be more constructive, rather than destructive. I would have been more likely to listen to you better, then, instead of being put on the defensive, given I'm supposedly believing in "horseshit". Learn how different communication affects others!
Yeah, but the thing is, are those things really controversial? Is there truly any better reason to associate INTP a-la the test to TiNeSiFe than to accept the zodiac?
There is a marked tendency, as I've said, in the personality community to present empirical claims without empirical evidence. THAT is my only problem. If you stick to logical/philosophical claims, there's no problem.
There's also a marked tendency to present various things about functions theory in a snarky know-it-all way when they're highly controversial, nuanced things that the person claiming usually doesn't know enough about. Examples include "But feeling ain't emotion!" or "don't ya know it, if you think you're a Ni-dom with Ti-aux, you're likely a confused INFJ who isn't aware how the model works."
If there isn't a lot of statistical support for a model that makes claims about real people, it is at the stage of 'rule of thumb' and nothing more. It may have extremely cool insights about hypothetical psychological tensions that COULD occur in people, but what is irresponsible is claiming that the average person entering a forum ought to be typing themselves by looking for certain configurations.
For the benefit of any thread reader who's made it this far but wisely refrained from reading Eric's and my exchange in all its grisly detail, I can't resist pointing out that Eric has just confessed that he willfully derailed this thread because he was in the mood to bitch at me about (among other things) the fact that I allegedly derail threads.
You have your threads, and you even have a series of articles in the form wiki (why not include a link to those in your signature?) but that's not enough. You're really trying to control the discussion and belief.
I "even have" articles in the forum wiki? Does that make me uppity or something?
I don't really see why it matters, but just for the record, since you mentioned them, turning several of my posts into forum wiki articles was something that the powers that be did on their own initiative, without any suggestion (or input) from me.
If you want less condescension directed at you, you should up your standards — and I've been able to offer multiple justifications for that recommendation just based on your posts in this thread.
It's been quite a performance, Eric. And as I noted earlier, I think disrespectful is an apt characterization of way too many of your posts — disrespectful both to me, and to anyone else who takes the time to read them with the expectation that you'll be making a good faith effort to fairly characterize the facts, and to read and understand the sources you're either citing as support or purporting to debate.
I'd say I have a much better handle than you do on what I have and haven't done with my MBTI forum posts. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that some of them have "influenced others," and to the extent that that's true, I'd respectfully suggest that one of the main reasons is that I consistently and conscientiously — are you ready for the reprise? — make a good faith effort to fairly characterize the facts, and to read and understand the sources I'm either citing as support or purporting to debate.
I thought about sending you a framed picture of me to hang on your wall for inspiration, but alas, if I did that, it might assist you in unmasking my true Reyniersian identity.
