Is function analysis useful?

[Tyrant]

You make no sense, I'm not sure if it's unintentional, or you're purposely trying to make me look bad. I never question the validity of function analysis, just a person's competence in doing so. And I said if you label yourself as INxP, you admit to being ignorant because both Ti and Fi are contradicting elements. INTx because INTP and INTJ share none of the same valued functions.

 

[Ginkgo]

To me it is the other way around, I think functional analysis is more useful in practical applications. For example, my friend is an INFP who also happens to be a philosophy student, her Ti score was near even to her Fi. If I were to ignore this function that is so strongly developed just because it wasn't "natural" but was rather trained, I would be pretty much ignoring a very large and important aspect of her personality.

By learning someone's functional order, you can deduce what they will respond to and what they will not respond to. Like I can't just say "Well I won't make a Ti argument to you because you will not understand or appreciate it". And development is varied with each individual, so I think having the knowledge of how to best communicate with a person is more valuable and practical than just knowing their mbti letters.

I think that, on a personal level I agree with you.

However, society usually doesn't give a shit about individual needs, and I'm taking the societal point of view.

Maybe I'm just bitter because I am constantly reconsidering my functional analysis results. Fi>Ne=Ni>Ti>Si... That's a lot of introversion...

 

[krunchtime]

You make no sense, I'm not sure if it's unintentional, or you're purposely trying to make me look bad. I never question the validity of function analysis, just a person's competence in doing so. And I said if you label yourself as INxP, you admit to being ignorant because both Ti and Fi are contradicting elements. INTx because INTP and INTJ share none of the same valued functions.

No. I'm not intentionally making you look bad. I don't understand where you're coming from, so its good that you are clarifying your stance. Edit: In this case, your stance would not be very much different from Xander. As a point of agreement, neither do I believe in cross-typing, which is why I spent time trying to clarify my own processes. This also leads me to the question of changing types, which I thought was impossible before, but am less sure of now.

 

[Eric B]

When comparing Functional Analysis with MBTI Tests, one can deduce that they are inconsistent for one primary reason

The MBTI Tests measure your preferences based on 50/50 questions, which are taken into direct account in summation of your functional preferences (Preset MBTI Archetype). Thus, the test taker is inevitably assigned an archetype on completion of the test.

On the other hand, Functional Analysis determines the measurements of specific functions regardless of direct coincidence with MBTI Archetypes. For instance, one could feasibly complete the Functional Analysis test and get a result like:

extraverted Sensing (Se) *
no use
introverted Sensing (Si) *
no use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) *
no use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) *
no use
extraverted Thinking (Te) *
no use
introverted Thinking (Ti) *
no use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) *
no use
introverted Feeling (Fi) *
no use

Actually, that test won't let you do that. Over on INTPc; a bunch of the guys reverse engineered it, and tried to get 100% on all the functions to see what would happen, and it said "reenter choices to reflect a more realistic preference" or something like that.

But I always felt the forced choice format was less than realistic.

(Realize this is an older post, but...)

Huh, this is exactly the same issue I'm having. Granted, I'm still struggling with it and trying to give the Archetype Model a very fair shake, but my experience with Ti is much like yours.

I really like the 8 functions and find them to be very useful concepts, but matching them up to the expected archetypal roles is causing me serious cognitive dissonance.

For me, the Archetype Model sounds nice on paper, but even if I think of myself as another type, it clashes with my experience of how I use the functions. Take Ti for example. This process isn't demonic for me, it isn't heroic, and it isn't childlike. It's simply a tool that I feel compelled to use on a regular basis. Sometimes I use it too much, and feel cold and dead, and sometimes I use it too little and lose the ability to communicate. It falls into one archetype, then into another, and sometimes it leaps out of them altogether.

I think the problem hers again is not looking at the archetypes in terms of complexes. The processes are not "demonic" or "heroic"; it is complexes within your ego that you have to look for. The "hero" is simply the main ego, with its preferred functions. Demonic personality is its total opposite; something you tend to be destructive with. The child is an initially rejected aspect of the hero in which your vulnerabilities lie, and it tries to maintain the hero's dominant attitude. Outside of these complexes, you won't notice any particular roles for Fi or Ti.

Now for you, things might be more diffificult, since you seem to be inbetween on T/F. However, you do mention "feeling cold and dead" using Ti too much: while only "losing an ability to communicate" using it too little. That sounds like Ti might be associated with a demon complex, while the failure to communicate might be something else. Do you get annoyed when others use Ti, feeling they are being cold and dead, and then want to rip up what they say? That would be a sign of a demonic complex.

 

[Jeffster]

Xander is one of the people on this site that makes a ton of sense.

 

[PoprocksAndCoke]

The problem is that analysing all eight functions just seems to lead people off into a fairy land of theory. They argue that someone uses Ti primarily or Te, surely that has nothing to do with T and more to do with other areas.

The thing is from experience I've seen that people are typed more accurately and faster by observing their habits and having a holistic understanding of the types and how they interact and behave in various situations. I therefore wonder what purpose this analysing where Te is as opposed to Ti and going into reams of details. I have to conclude with the information at my disposal that function analysis as performed on this forum is simply bad practice.

Sometimes going off in to the land of fairies can't be helped in typology.
Not that I completely disagree with you, but I like to use every aspect while typing.

 

[Polaris]

I think the problem hers again is not looking at the archetypes in terms of complexes. The processes are not "demonic" or "heroic"; it is complexes within your ego that you have to look for. The "hero" is simply the main ego, with its preferred functions. Demonic personality is its total opposite; something you tend to be destructive with. The child is an initially rejected aspect of the hero in which your vulnerabilities lie, and it tries to maintain the hero's dominant attitude. Outside of these complexes, you won't notice any particular roles for Fi or Ti.

I'm not sure if I understand the distinction between a demonic process and a process used by a demonic complex. If your demon complex commands a process, wouldn't that process be demonic, for all practical purposes?

Now for you, things might be more diffificult, since you seem to be inbetween on T/F. However, you do mention "feeling cold and dead" using Ti too much: while only "loosing an ability to communicate" using it too little. That sounds like Ti might be associated with a demon complex, while the failure to communicate might be something else. Do you get annoyed when others use Ti, feeling they are being cold and dead, and then want to rip up what they say? That would be a sign of a demonic complex.

I often admire Ti; it can be used for wonderful analysis, and it has a great insight into logical structures. I do get annoyed, though, when I see people do that to the exclusion of their human, emotional side. What annoys me about this is that these people seem to distrust something that I think is very important.

I also feel bothered when I see people stick models onto reality with the attitude that these models are objectively true and that nothing can contradict them. It's fine to stick models onto reality, because this is how we make sense of the world, but it puts me off when people become so attached to a logical principle that they refuse to acknowledge any other possibility or interpretation.

One of the instances where I felt this most acutely was when someone on another website kept criticizing the MBTI, not because of anything wrong with the theory itself, but simply because the MBTI isn't loyal to Jung's original definitions. Morally speaking, I couldn't understand why this person wouldn't consider another interpretation, why it was they had this staunch loyalty to that one logical principle. So it's really not so much Ti in itself that bothers me (except where it's used to the exclusion of human warmth) as it is Ti + Si that bothers me. When I see people use these two functions together, I do feel a desire to rip their thoughts to pieces, just as you described. I'm much less likely, though, to feel that toward one of those functions by itself.

 

[musttry]

To more closely locate what it is that I'm on about...
Firstly since when does the context define the object?

Since always

Regards,

- your neighbourhood overly developed Ni user

 

[simulatedworld]

The context defines the object for Je. Pi can see things any number of different ways; there's no need to pick one until some external goal has been defined and Je takes over to get it done.

 

[BlueScreen]

Since always

Regards,

- your neighbourhood overly developed Ni user

Yep, context is everything.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I often admire Ti; it can be used for wonderful analysis, and it has a great insight into logical structures. I do get annoyed, though, when I see people do that to the exclusion of their human, emotional side. What annoys me about this is that these people seem to distrust something that I think is very important.

I also feel bothered when I see people stick models onto reality with the attitude that these models are objectively true and that nothing can contradict them. It's fine to stick models onto reality, because this is how we make sense of the world, but it puts me off when people become so attached to a logical principle that they refuse to acknowledge any other possibility or interpretation.

God, just settle on INFJ and be done with it.

 

[Eric B]

I'm not sure if I understand the distinction between a demonic process and a process used by a demonic complex. If your demon complex commands a process, wouldn't that process be demonic, for all practical purposes?

The distinction is that there is no "demonic process" The process is a process; an action we engage in. The whole "demon" thing can only be coming from within the ego (stuff that's been rejected into unconsciousness). Hence, a complex. You can call the resulting manifestation of the process "demonic", but if you take that too far, it will cause some ambiguity when you come to expect it to always fit that archetype. But it won't, because that complex is not always engaged in the ego.

I often admire Ti; it can be used for wonderful analysis, and it has a great insight into logical structures.

And that seems to be Ti that's not fitting into an archetype or complex. Hence, you can engage it, without it calling into question your type. As long as it's not coming off in a specific "heroic" connotation, and this doesn't sound like it. (Even Berens ends her shadow descriptions with "at times they may [experience the positive side of the function]...").

I do get annoyed, though, when I see people do that to the exclusion of their human, emotional side. What annoys me about this is that these people seem to distrust something that I think is very important.

I also feel bothered when I see people stick models onto reality with the attitude that these models are objectively true and that nothing can contradict them. It's fine to stick models onto reality, because this is how we make sense of the world, but it puts me off when people become so attached to a logical principle that they refuse to acknowledge any other possibility or interpretation.

One of the instances where I felt this most acutely was when someone on another website kept criticizing the MBTI, not because of anything wrong with the theory itself, but simply because the MBTI isn't loyal to Jung's original definitions. Morally speaking, I couldn't understand why this person wouldn't consider another interpretation, why it was they had this staunch loyalty to that one logical principle.

Now this sounds more like Fi being preferred over Ti. So you might enjoy something associated with Ti, but the "human, emotional" side clearly takes precedence, and will make you annoyed with Ti, then.

And then, "becoming so attached to a principle" and shutting out other things would be from someone for whom Ti is the ego's main achiever (even above the parental Pe that would pull them outward to explore other possibilities). If that bothers you, then that would seem to indicate that the heroic Ti complex does not resonate with you. So while you may have had some uncertainty about Ti vs Fi, it Fi is clearly in the more preferred role, even if you SEEM to use both. I also had NFP/NTP questions, but I'm the opposite way, tending to neglect the "human emotional" side, and never get tired of attachment to principles, even if I seem to use Fi (which I would be bothered by when others use it too much).

So it's really not so much Ti in itself that bothers me (except where it's used to the exclusion of human warmth) as it is Ti + Si that bothers me. When I see people use these two functions together, I do feel a desire to rip their thoughts to pieces, just as you described. I'm much less likely, though, to feel that toward one of those functions by itself.

I don't know if what you described is really Si. Si for any INxP is tertiary (child complex), and usually positive (though the "child" can be intimidated by others using it more strongly). So maybe it's really Se + Ti, which would be the two lowest functions? (Your irritation is in part clearly that he's not engaging Ne at that moment, and the focus on the facts of what's true to Jung or not sounds more like current perception than past recollection. If the person is INTP, then Se is trickster for both of you, and he's being like a bad child, arguing to get his ego's [Ti] own way, ignoring parent Ne. That's how that complex works in us!)

 

[Polaris]

The distinction is that there is no "demonic process" The process is a process; an action we engage in. The whole "demon" thing can only be coming from within the ego (stuff that's been rejected into unconsciousness). Hence, a complex. You can call the resulting manifestation of the process "demonic", but if you take that too far, it will cause some ambiguity when you come to expect it to always fit that archetype. But it won't, because that complex is not always engaged in the ego.

What does it mean when a process defies its complex a majority of the time? I sometimes tear up logical models (like I'm trying to do right now : P), but most of the time I use the process to analyze things and clarify my thoughts. It's generally so positive, in fact, that I feel like I'm trying to chain it down and stop it from getting carried away.

And then, "becoming so attached to a principle" and shutting out other things would be from someone for whom Ti is the ego's main achiever (even above the parental Pe that would pull them outward to explore other possibilities). If that bothers you, then that would seem to indicate that the heroic Ti complex does not resonate with you. So while you may have had some uncertainty about Ti vs Fi, it Fi is clearly in the more preferred role, even if you SEEM to use both. I also had NFP/NTP questions, but I'm the opposite way, tending to neglect the "human emotional" side, and never get tired of attachment to principles, even if I seem to use Fi (which I would be bothered by when others use it too much).

I have to explain myself--I don't mean to give you the impression that I think I could be an INTP. I know full well that I'm an NF after my experiences at INTPc and their IRC channel. I'm just using Ti as an example because it's the process where I most defy the expectations.

I don't know if what you described is really Si. Si for any INxP is tertiary (child complex), and usually positive (though the "child" can be intimidated by others using it more strongly).

Now see, this is another thing I can't relate to. Just as Ti is usually positive for me, Si is usually negative. I make very little use of Si except on a basic level, and in those cases when it does come to the fore, it's often in the form of memories that fill me with an almost sickening shame.

Your irritation is in part clearly that he's not engaging Ne at that moment, and the focus on the facts of what's true to Jung or not sounds more like current perception than past recollection.

That they won't use Ne is a small part of it. What bothers me more is that the person won't use Ni to shift their internal perceptions and Se to pay attention to physical reality.

If the person is INTP, then Se is trickster for both of you, and he's being like a bad child, arguing to get his ego's [Ti] own way, ignoring parent Ne. That's how that complex works in us!)

I always try to begin by taking things exactly as they appear, with as little judgment as possible, and then move on to drawing connections and making interpretations. So when I remember to use it, Se isn't really a trickster to me; it's more like my bottom line and starting point.

I don't know if what you described is really Si. Si for any INxP is tertiary (child complex), and usually positive (though the "child" can be intimidated by others using it more strongly). So maybe it's really Se + Ti, which would be the two lowest functions?

Again, I have to make a distinction between the use of logical principles, which I admire, and setting roots into a specific principle to the exclusion of all others. To me that would be Ti + Si, because it involves locking yourself onto a past interpretation and blinding yourself to new data and viewpoints.

 

[Eric B]

What does it mean when a process defies its complex a majority of the time? I sometimes tear up logical models (like I'm trying to do right now : P), but most of the time I use the process to analyze things and clarify my thoughts. It's generally so positive, in fact, that I feel like I'm trying to chain it down and stop it from getting carried away.

A process is not really wedded to a complex, so it's not a matter of "defying".
The archetypes also have positive sides, and maybe your Ti is developed enough that you can experience it that way, but since you speak of having to chain it down, then it does sound like it is not really favored by the ego. (I never feel a need to do that).

I have to explain myself--I don't mean to give you the impression that I think I could be an INTP. I know full well that I'm an NF after my experiences at INTPc and their IRC channel. I'm just using Ti as an example because it's the process where I most defy the expectations.

No, I just remember that you did use to wear INTP over there, but then changed over. And NFP always did seem more likely, but you felt you had strong enough Ti and weren't sure back then which was really preferred.

Now see, this is another thing I can't relate to. Just as Ti is usually positive for me, Si is usually negative. I make very little use of Si except on a basic level, and in those cases when it does come to the fore, it's often in the form of memories that fill me with an almost sickening shame.

If you're younger than your 20's, it might not have developed yet, and would probably be that way like any other unconscious function. Or, did you once inquire about ISFP? For them, Si would be witch/senex, and come across as negatively as you're describing. (Beebe: "blaming, shaming parent")

That they won't use Ne is a small part of it. What bothers me more is that the person won't use Ni to shift their internal perceptions and Se to pay attention to physical reality.

Now this sounds more like ISFP, as they will have Se as aux and Ni as tertiary. An INFP wouldn't likely be bothered by others not using those, and would more likely if anything be bothered by others using them instead, since they are his shadows.

I always try to begin by taking things exactly as they appear, with as little judgment as possible, and then move on to drawing connections and making interpretations. So when I remember to use it, Se isn't really a trickster to me; it's more like my bottom line and starting point.

Now this definitely sounds like Se preference (and the "moving to drawing connections" would be moving to tertary Ni working with the Se).

Sure you're not really an ISFP?

Again, I have to make a distinction between the use of logical principles, which I admire, and setting roots into a specific principle to the exclusion of all others. To me that would be Ti + Si, because it involves locking yourself onto a past interpretation and blinding yourself to new data and viewpoints.

Maybe so. If you want others to use Se and Ni, then they sound ego-syntonic, and then Si would be shadow, and Si and Ti together would be irritating.

(Maybe that's why you had such trouble on INTPc? ISFP and INTP are all eight processes in the reverse order; the most drastically opposite type cognitively; though the Interaction Style and sociablity temperament {IP} are the same!)

 

[Polaris]

A process is not really wedded to a complex, so it's not a matter of "defying".
The archetypes also have positive sides, and maybe your Ti is developed enough that you can experience it that way, but since you speak of having to chain it down, then it does sound like it is not really favored by the ego.

That makes sense to me . . . very loose sense. Now it feels like the Archetype Model is being used almost like magical thinking. When the evidence supports it, it corroborates the theory, and when the evidence does not, it gets ignored or explained away. I'm not trying to be argumentative here--I say this in friendly tones--but it feels like the Archetype Model was used to sweep the original issue (atypical function-use) under the rug, and now that I'm seeing problems with the archetypes, the issues are getting swept even further under the rug.

That kind of thing is one of the areas where I get frustrated with Ti. To me, it comes off as rather passive, like someone backing themselves into one corner after another instead of confronting the issue.

No, I just remember that you did use to wear INTP over there, but then changed over. And NFP always did seem more likely, but you felt you had strong enough Ti and weren't sure back then whoch was really preferred.

It wasn't so much that I couldn't decide as it was that I felt balanced. I still do, and hopefully I am.

If you're younger than your 20's, it might not have developed yet, and would probably be that way like any other unconscious function. Or, did you once inquire about ISFP?

I'm 22, and I'm positive I'm not an ISFP. I've always been spacey and out-of-this-world, and I take no pleasure in most Se activities. The one thing I really like to do with that process is experience sensory art like paintings and music. These things almost leave their sensory aspect behind, though, for the moment I immerse myself in them, I'm transported into a world of speculations and imaginings.

Now this sounds more like ISFP, as they will have Se as aux and Ni as tertiary. An INFP wouldn't likely being bothered by others not using those, and would more likely be bothered by others using them instead, since they are his shadows.

Any given process will bother me sometimes, depending on how it's used. This includes Se, which leads to a lifestyle of sensory pleasure and physical thrills that I don't personally go for.

Now this definitely sounds like Se preference (and the "moving to drawing connections" would be moving to tertary Ni working with the Se).

I probably didn't make myself very clear. When I called Se my starting point and bottom line, I meant that in an epistemological sense. In other words, truth for me begins with objective reality, exactly as it appears and as free of interpretations as possible. You'll find this same viewpoint expressed in the philosophical movement called Phenomenology . . . which I have a feeling was not founded by Sensors.

Sure you're not really an ISFP?

Yes! I barely relate to the profile at all, and I may as well be blind for all the Se I use.

Maybe that's why you had such trouble on INTPc? ISFP and INTP are all eight processes in the reverse order; the most drastically opposite type cognitively; though the Interaction Style and sociablity temperament {IP} are the same!

The thing is, I get along really well with stable, mature INTPs. I have a couple of them on my friends list, and my best friend is an ENTP, which is a similar type.

I think most of the people I had problems with were in fact ISTPs. ISTP is a type I've always had trouble getting on with, and I saw a lot of that in the people who I had the real tension with. My point is more that I saw a sharp difference between my thinking style and that of INTPs. We process things in a different way, and that tells me we belong to different types.

 

[kelric]

The problem is that analysing all eight functions just seems to lead people off into a fairy land of theory.
...

I have to conclude with the information at my disposal that function analysis as performed on this forum is simply bad practice.

I have to agree with Xander on this one. Sure, you can categorize certain behaviors as "Fe" or "Ti", but I don't see any particular relevance to how these are supposed to be related -- certainly not in the case that's often presented in the "Ti user" vs. "Te user" being diametrically opposed, etc. It just doesn't seem to hold up.

For me, the theory in typology is really not the point. At best, it's vague, unmeasurable, and subject to a slew of personal experiences and history affecting any objective categorization. The important thing is that it gives a relatively simple mechanism for appreciating that different people have different priorities and ways of addressing each other and the world. The categories themselves are almost beside the point. Not to mention that many people don't identify with a category exclusively, and often in ways that don't adhere well to "function theory" -- I always get amused and/or annoyed when people profess to identify with more than one type, and they get told "you're wrong - you *can't* identify with both INTP and INFP". People identify with what they identify with -- some more strongly than others.

At best, typology is, to me, an oversimplification of personality, but one that, although vague, has some utility in providing perspective. It's not a system solid enough to impart predictability. But I do find it useful.

 

[Xander]

Ok, I've obviously missed out on a bit over the weekend so I'll summarise.

Function analysis as a stand alone tool wouldn't be so much of a problem. Yes I believe it to be too complex, too absolute and prone to people believing it as certain. But people don't seem happy with their function analysis and try to produce some cross breed with the MBTI. Now in theory this works well but in practice it seems to lead to getting it wrong, repeatedly and with confidence.

I am an INTP. I test regularly as an INTP but that does not mean that my function use sits perfectly as an INTP. This is not because the type is insufficiently detailed but rather that it's not intended to be all encompassing and that by trying to add detail people seem to be missing a larger part of the picture. Yes the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, yes in part you need to be a mystic to adequately understand and predict people but that does not mean that further investigation into MBTI will garner any further results. It is quite possible is it not that something runs in parallel to your cognitive functions which defines parts of who you are as a person. I would think that to believe that cognitive functions is the whole picture is simplistic at best. Therefore is it really a good plan to venture out into trying to further box the wind with function analysis or would it be better to investigate other areas such as the enneagram to add to the current understanding with a different perspective?

To give an analogy, if you found someone constantly getting something wrong and each time using the same approach then you'd probably suggest that they try a different approach right? Sure they may get the perfect set up in the end but if they have tunnel vision then it's unlikely as it's more probable that the answer they're looking for lies outside their current field of focus. I think it's the same with understanding people. I know an ISTP who's warmer than my ENFJ friend. Do I think this is because he's got better Fi or Fe or some such? No. He's still as T as any and is irreverent, incisive and can be hurtful and off handed but he genuinely cares as opposed to the ENFJ who can be very selfish and ignore other's to serve some inner desire. This has nothing to do with what they're using to work with the world and has everything to do with their motivations.

Now motivations can in part be explained through the MBTI or function analysis but they're insufficient to the task if any clarity is required. This is where you need to know the person not just the type of person.

As for the idea that people need to be understood or classified for proper understanding of human nature, this is proper poppycock as pretty much everyone quoted as understanding the human nature have been people relatively unconnected to psychology and certainly I've never heard of anyone claiming to have a system which explains people.

To me the answer is fairly obvious, function analysis is trying to be what the MBTI is not. It's trying to answer questions where as the MBTI merely provides a platform for discussions and analysis without ever trying to pin people down.

As to the argument of using function analysis because it's what the MBTI is based upon, this is a rather simplistic and naive viewpoint IMO. The MBTI is based upon surveys and averages and bunches of people looking at correlations, the result of which is not then directly related to an individuals results. Ergo you may use Ti well and a lot, that does not mean it's a preferred function. People can be trained away from their personal preferences, "educated" to act differently. There are several examples on this forum alone. Where does function analysis lead you with such people? The MBTI has in built compensation (note this is inbuilt to the training of the testers not the test itself as far as I know) for such things. My most often used case example is my brother in law who was forced to organise from an early age, trained to be ordered and that things must be kept in order. Hence he tests as an ENFJ but he's actually an ENFP. The trained examiner who saw his test noticed a correlation which I think was he tested as "kind of" J which in the experience of the examiner mean't he was actually a P because Js tend to test much more certainly in terms of J/P (something for those who are INTx or whatever to think about).

It's one thing for a bunch of people to analyse a load of test results and find that those who have Ti as their highest used/ capable function and Ne as their second tend to have common traits, it's a whole other ball park though to say that someone with Ti, Ne as their highest functions conforms to those traits. Yes the same thing runs for the MBTI and yes the types do overlap to a certain extent but saying that function analysis is any more precise or capable is kind of like saying that the chassis you got off a Ford Escort is better than a Ford Escort because it allows you a more detailed approach. Sure it does but forgive me if I see it as an element of a Ford Escort and not an entire object in it's own right. Similarly forgive me if I seem to think you're trying to reinvent the Ford Escort with your superior approach.

Anyhow the purpose of this thread was to question the use of function analysis and it's validity as a typing tool. Basically you cannot show a direct and causal link between function use and the kind of person you're looking at without going through the MBTI or engaging in a bunch of terms like hero and witch and ending up sounding like Mystic Meg on acid. Trying to get to someone's MBTI type through function analysis seems similarly fraught with problems and seems most often used by those without enough experience of type in the real world to type people using just the MBTI types. Also even if you manage to employ function analysis to reach someone's type and the journey has given you additional details about how their type works on a more component level, you're still just looking at one facet of what makes a person's nature. You still have a long way to go before you understand them and more probably than not your decision to take such a precise approach probably means you're the kind of person who won't understand anyway.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Haven't read through this thread.

But I'd say Yes... It's just as useful as MBTI. It's a tool for self-exploration and the functions do describe certain aspects of myself. Even if it's not scientifically valid to assume that X function order indicates a certain type.

I can still get value out of the fact that I utilise Si, Fe alot and Ne less so. It's like Big 5, but based on introspection rather than observable behaviour. Yes, it's subjected to the whole problem about whether people can really analyse themselves properly, but that's one thing I believe is possible.

 

[Xander]

Haven't read through this thread.

But I'd say Yes... It's just as useful as MBTI. It's a tool for self-exploration and the functions do describe certain aspects of myself. Even if it's not scientifically valid to assume that X function order indicates a certain type.

I can still get value out of the fact that I utilise Si, Fe alot and Ne less so. It's like Big 5, but based on introspection rather than observable behaviour. Yes, it's subjected to the whole problem about whether people can really analyse themselves properly, but that's one thing I believe is possible.

Don't you think that if someone can analyse themselves honestly then they have no real need for the analysis? Surely someone who is honest with themselves has all the tools they need to develop?

 

[VagrantFarce]

Don't you think that if someone can analyse themselves honestly then they have no real need for the analysis? Surely someone who is honest with themselves has all the tools they need to develop?

People have a tendancy not to be honest with themselves (or if they are, they're unsure of themselves). In those cases, it helps to have a guide.