Is function analysis useful?

[Xander]

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.

Unsure of themselves, I can associate with a typing theory being useful here. Not being honest with yourself however, that leads to miss-typing, reinforcing incorrect ideas and can lead to having "proof" that you're special.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Unsure of themselves, I can associate with a typing theory being useful here. Not being honest with yourself however, that leads to miss-typing, reinforcing incorrect ideas and can lead to having "proof" that you're special.

Nevertheless, the point stands that you can't really expect people to be honest with themselves all the time.

 

[Snow Turtle]

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?

Sort of...

MBTI just helps attach labels to their own feelings and processes. It's an additional tool for self-reflection/analysis. It doesn't really reveal anything new, but instead makes you think "Oh, that's definitely true. I'll use that term"

An example would be extraversion and introversion. People know how they are in terms of how they interact, but having these labels are additional help.

 

[Xander]

Nevertheless, the point stands that you can't really expect people to be honest with themselves all the time.

So how does a system which is as pliable as the user moulds it to be help?

Sort of...

MBTI just helps attach labels to their own feelings and processes. It's an additional tool for self-reflection/analysis. It doesn't really reveal anything new, but instead makes you think "Oh, that's definitely true. I'll use that term"

An example would be extraversion and introversion. People know how they are in terms of how they interact, but having these labels are additional help.

Wouldn't that be more using it in terms of communication then rather than introspection? Of course this is coming from someone who doesn't tend to use specific labels

 

[Eric B]

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.

Well, I think I've been providing the reasons why the evidence might not seem to support it in cases like yours. Like the unpreferred function being developed, or just plain "undifferentiated". I don't see how that's explaining it away. It's using the theory in a way that provides room for the anomalies like that. (I have seen people who make rigid rules out of it, and take one function they see you use, and force your whole type into a preference of it and bend everything else to fit. This sort of thinking even appeared earlier on in the "Mistyped Members" thread, and I've been specifically trying to counter or provide an alternative for it).

In reality, a type is determined by a dominant function & orientation, and an auxiliary. The rest of cognitive analysis is a guide as to how the remaining processes might play out. There really should be no hard rule about "strengths", and even with the archetypes, for every negative there is a positive side (and vice versa).

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.

What do you mean by "Se activities"?

Se is just a form of perception, that might lead one to certain kinds of activities, but then other factors (including the other function or orientation preferences) might modify that. So Se ends up being stereotyped, and I have seen ISFP's react to this, and think they might be more NF'ish because of it.
The typical Se/SP charateristics you are probably thinking of ("fast paced adventurer") would be more fitting for ESxP's. Because ISFP is an introvert, it will be less like that, and the Fi dominance will further mellow it.

All that type means is that this is a person driven by internal values, and supported by perception of current concrete reality, and that's what what you've been saying sounds like.

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.

ISFP's are very artistic, and then from there, they will delve into Ni, which sounds exactly like what you're describing.

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.

I guess this answers my question, above, and it is exactly what at least one ISFP I ran across complained about. But again, that is partly an Se stereotype, and then inasmuch as there is a grain of truth in it, the ISFP will be less like that because of the dominant introverted Feeling.

It's as I've been saying recently, regarding "acceptance/rejection". The function stacking order is based on accepting one thing and initially rejecting everything else (from the consciousness, that is; doesn't mean you never engage them), but then later accepting them, which we would call "developing" the functions.

For an ISFP, the main ego's acheiver is ethical judgments in the inner world of thoughts and emotions. Perception from the outer world initially interferes with this by trying to pull them out of their inner world, for one thing, but in childhood will soon come to be accepted as a supporting guide. At the same time, internal abstract perception (imagination, etc) will also soon develop as a counterbalance, to maintain the inner focus.

The typical Se stereotypes are based on those for whom that is their main ago achiever: sensory perception from the external world of people and action. So yes, that will be at odds with your ego's preference at times.

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.

That still sounds like Se preference; even more clearly articulated. It's what truth for you begins with. That's the language of preference. Then, as it filters through consciousness, it encounters the other functions, such as intuition, and "strength" has less to do with it.

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

Sometimes even profiles are loaded with stereotypes, and often based on part of the preference. Like people have had big problems with the way Keirsey supposedly colored all SP's a certain way (IIRC) based largely on one of its "variants" (i.e. types), and I believe ISFP is one of those people had problems with. (So again, it takes on more ESxP characteristics than it should have). And then, this spreads into main "MBTI" type profiles as people unofficially adopt the temperament groupings.

So what exactly about the "ISFP profile" do you not relate to? Because cognitively, you sounds just like it. (And this is the reason it is good to break things down Ti-style to their basic components and put them back together. Becaus a lot of stuff gets added to "holistic" perspectives that probably shouldn't be there.

Also, how can you say truth begins for you with Se, but then claim to be bad at "using it"? (I've also been trying to get away from the term "using" functions, as that I found from my discussion with Lenore Thomson is part of what makes this stuff confusing. However, it is engrained, and I did not catch what a better term would be).

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.

That's exactly what Technical (JF) was always saying, that I believe was part of what got him into trouble. That there were all of these ISTP's over there posing as INTP's. I never did get what the basis of that was.

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.

Well, do you find yourself processing perception the same way as them? Because INFP's will be on the same wavelength as INTP's there. I experienced this myself, but then it was on judgment we clashed, and it took a long time for me to learn why one seemed sympatico with me to some extent, but then would suddenly get tired of the logical analysis and demand more personal stuff.
If you don't sync with them in perception, then that would suggest you are different in that area as well.

 

[Eric B]

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.

Within the types, temperament and Interaction Style do provide some built-in alternative angles to weigh it by. Cognitive processes is more like the "advanced level", but temperament has been used by Berens (who accepts all three models) as sort of the introductory approach to type (and many who run across or try Keirsey first also end up using it as introductory to type).

Sometimes that might still not solve everything, but then no personality typing system is going to be perfect. But it seems this one, when fully understood, is pretty good at providing a basic guide of personalty.

The problem is, the simpler the view (such as temperament), the broader the categories, and the less it will explain or fit. The more advanced the view, the more it will explain, but the more complex it becomes, and harder to understand; and there are more smaller parts to nitpick and find that they don't completely fit. So it's whatever is most comfortable for each person.

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.

Something like that sounds like Interaction Styles can explain it. Both are directive, but one is extraverted and directive, while the other is reserved, so with the extravert, their lack of niceness will be more evidenced (extraverted/directive types are socially "Choleric", which tends to be focused on their own goals, whatever the function preference).

So that's another model, built into the sytem, that can explain some anomalies not covered by the cognitive model. Of course, I'm not discounting other possible reason, involving those particular individuals. Because the directive behavior can be controlled by the person, and then the question of why they do or don't rein it in will be determined by extra-typological stuff such as their upbringing, personal pains in life, the people they're dealing with, etc.

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.

That's true also. Noone here I don't think is saying that personal experience is not involved as well. This is something that should have been taken into consideration in all the "F's who think they're T's" types of discussions I used to see. I've also been mentioning the concept of "undifferentiation", meaning a function not consciously developed can still be manifested, without it affecting the type. So to me, the complexes or archetypes are just clues as to the role the functions might play when they do truly manifest.
Again, not about strengths.

I think most people who discuss this stuff mean to convey that the people have common traits rather than conforming to traits, but it is easy for the one to cross over into the other in discussion.

 

[Polaris]

Eric, after this, I think we'd better take this to PM or something, because we're starting to veer off from the main issue.

Well, I think I've been providing the reasons why the evidence might not seem to support it in cases like yours. Like the unpreferred function being developed, or just plain "undifferentiated". I don't see how that's explaining it away. It's using the theory in a way that provides room for the anomalies like that. (I have seen people who make rigid rules out of it, and take one function they see you use, and force your whole type into a preference of it and bend everything else to fit. This sort of thinking even appeared earlier on in the "Mistyped Members" thread, and I've been specifically trying to counter or provide an alternative for it).

In reality, a type is determined by a dominant function & orientation, and an auxiliary. The rest of cognitive analysis is a guide as to how the remaining processes might play out. There really should be no hard rule about "strengths", and even with the archetypes, for every negative there is a positive side (and vice versa).

Now you're speaking my language a bit more. I can certainly accept the archetypes as a rough guide, for every theory is at least that.

What do you mean by "Se activities"?

Se is just a form of perception, that might lead one to certain kinds of activities, but then other factors (including the other function or orientation preferences) might modify that. So Se ends up being stereotyped, and I have seen ISFP's react to this, and think they might b more NF'ish because of it.
The typical Se/SP charateristics you are probably thinking of ("fast paced adventurer") would be more fitting for ESxP's. Because ISFP is an introvert, it will be less like that, and the Fi dominance will further mellow it.

All that type means is that this is a person driven by internal values, and supported by perception of current concrete reality, and that's what what you've been saying sounds like.

My best friend in high school was an ISFP, so I'm in a somewhat privileged position to underline the differences. She was someone who I obviously related to on some levels or else we wouldn't have been friends: we were both creatures of emotion, for instance, and we had many of the same concerns in life. We had our marked differences, though, and the relevant ones touch on her use of Se.

To start with, she had what I would call an inner diva. In her imagination, she saw herself as something like a pop star in the making; she thought she was cool, and this sense of stylishness was very important to her identity. It was not for mine. To be sure, I had my own sense of style--who doesn't?--but mine did not involve trying new hairstyles, wearing unique clothing, or plastering things with stickers. My sense of style revolved around a unique outlook on life that transcended the physical in every way.

The other thing that set us apart was that, unlike me, she had a certain restlessness about her that it's hard for me to pin down. Part of this was a certain physicality that I've always lacked; she seemed to be on the go, wandering almost, and she was always interested in some physical activity, whether it was painting or playing sports or getting in an altercation with someone. This, and her overall there-and-now-ness, was something that always struck me as quaint, almost amusing. I think she must have felt the same way about my strange, almost alien take on everything.

ISFP's are very artistic, and then from there, they will delve into Ni, which sounds exactly like what you're describing.

I wouldn't call myself terribly artistic, so this is another thing that sets me apart from ISFPs. The only form of art I do is write, and my writing is easily some of the most abstract, intuitive stuff I've seen in print. When it comes to physical details, I struggle; I write in abstractions more than I do in details, and what details I do manage always take on a dreamy, otherworldly quality.

It's as I've been saying recently, regarding "acceptance/rejection". The function stacking order is based on accepting one thing and initially rejecting everything else (from the consciousness, that is; doesn't mean you never engage them), but then later accepting them, which we would call "developing" the functions.

Extraverted sensing is something I only recently learned to do, and even now I only use it on a shallow epistemological level. I relate to literally nothing else about the process except that I sometimes struggle not to go on binges or lose control of myself when angry. So negative is this other side of Se, that I would say I struggle to keep the process chained down almost as much as I do Ti.

For an ISFP, the main ego's acheiver is ethical judgments in the inner world of thoughts and emotions. Perception from the outer world initially interferes with this by trying to pull them out of their inner world, for one thing, but in childhood will soon come to be accepted as a supporting guide. At the same time, internal abstract perception (imagination, etc) will also soon develop as a counterbalance, to maintain the inner focus.

This doesn't sound like me at all. Number one, my main goal is always to achieve something in the outer world; ethical judgments are only a means to that end. Secondly, I've been extremely intuitive for as long as I can remember, whereas I've only accepted Se as my philosophical foundation in recent years.

That still sounds like Se preference; even more clearly articulated. It's what truth for you begins with. That's the language of preference. Then, as it filters through consciousness, it encounters the other functions, such as intuition, and "strength" has less to do with it.

So you're telling me that you believe Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre were SPs? What I've described is the phenomenological reduction, which was core to all three of those philosopher's methods.

So what exactly about the "ISFP profile" do you not relate to? Because cognitively, you sounds just like it. (And this is the reason it is good to break things down Ti-style to their basic components and put them back together. Becaus a lot of stuff gets added to "holistic" perspectives that probably shouldn't be there.

As you said, profiles are filled with stereotypes, so I'm somewhat reluctant to even answer this question. I'll do it anyway, just to illustrate. The profile below is taken from MyPersonality, and I've crossed out everything that contrasts with me:

ISFPs are artistic, creative, loyal and sensitive. They have a keen appreciation for beauty because of their highly developed senses. They are easy to get along with and live in the "here and now". ISFPs are adaptable, caring, independent and like to contribute to the well-being of others. They are typically hard to get to know.

"...first to hear the different drummer. Many eagerly plunge into new fashions, avant garde experiences, 'hip' trends--some even setting the trends. More in touch with the reality of their senses than their INFP counterparts, ISFPs live in the here and now. Their impulses yearn to be free, and are often loosed when others least expect it. The ISFP who continually represses these impulses feels 'dead inside'..."

"...easily disturbed, fears drawing attention to self, prone to confusion, private..."

"...excel in the "fine arts," having not only a natural grace of movement, but also an innate sense what fits and what doesn't fit in artistic compositions..."

"ISFPs live in the world of sensation possibilities. They are keenly in tune with the way things look, taste, sound, feel and smell. They have a strong aesthetic appreciation for art, and are likely to be artists in some form, because they are unusually gifted at creating and composing things which will strongly affect the senses."

I trust that my point is slightly clearer now.

Also, how can you say truth begins for you with Se, but then claim to be bad at "using it"? (I've also been trying to get away from the term "using" functions, as that I found from my discussion with Lenore Thomson is part of what makes this stuff confusing. However, it is engrained, and I did not catch what a better term would be).

"This is how things appear to be, now let's proceed from here." That simple attitude, which I often neglect to exercise, encapsulates almost the whole of my experience with Se. This is why I can say I'm bad at using the process.

That's exactly what Technical (JF) was always saying, that I believe was part of what got him into trouble. That there were all of these ISTP's over there posing as INTP's. I never did get what the basis of that was.

Mm-hmm . . . I think he was right for once.

Well, do you find yourself processing perception the same way as them? Because INFP's will be on the same wavelength as INTP's there. I experienced this myself, but then it was on judgment we clashed, and it took a long time for me to learn why he seemed sympatico with ome to some extent, but then would suddenly get tired of the logical analysis and demand more personal stuff.
If you don't sync with them in perception, then that would suggest you are different in that area as well.

I use plenty of Ne, but I don't take it quite as seriously as the typical NP. I like to be playfully imaginative, I enjoy being random, and I can easily sense patterns which clue me into the deeper meaning of things. I don't tend to use Ne as an arbiter of truth, though, and I'm not one to actively collect data and link it together. My connection-making, at least in its serious mode, is rooted inwardly, in the form of introverted intuition. It's about what is true from my point of view, not what is true based on a bunch of misleading external evidence. For this and other reasons, I would much sooner call myself an INFJ or even an INTJ than an ISFP.

 

[INTJMom]

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?

I tend to be honest with myself... brutally honest actually, but I still needed MBTI to tell me what was "normal"... like a plumb line.

 

[Xander]

I tend to be honest with myself... brutally honest actually, but I still needed MBTI to tell me what was "normal"... like a plumb line.

Nah... you needed to know what's normal cause the conformists got to you first... give me time... give me time...

 

[Xander]

The problem is, the simpler the view (such as temperament), the broader the categories, and the less it will explain or fit. The more advanced the view, the more it will explain, but the more complex it becomes, and harder to understand; and there are more smaller parts to nitpick and find that they don't completely fit. So it's whatever is most comfortable for each person.

This is hardly a responsible view though.

There seems to be a flood of people who discuss and debate the finer points of whether someone uses Ti or Te without reference to the actual structure they're on about which then leads to more misinformed people who say they're Ti Ni or some such nonsense. Sure they can theorise this but such is outside the system and would probably be indicative of mental problems more than a type.

I would accept the view that if you come from temperaments through the MBTI to function analysis then you've got some hope but there seems to be few who are that wise and a whole load who are assuming a lot.

Perhaps it is not the function analysis which is in error then but rather the common execution. Most times I see function analysis it is without reference to a type and this is not really the correct implementation. If function analysis is relevant to type then surely any analysis of the functions should be done in reference to type.

Perhaps if that was done then it'd "hang" better and you wouldn't get so many instances of people just blatantly ignoring what they're applying.

So for example instead of analysing someone's function preferences and declaring their type, instead type them, then use their preferences to refine the description of the manifestation of their type.

 

[Eric B]

Eric, after this, I think we'd better take this to PM or something, because we're starting to veer off from the main issue.

I don't think so. The topic is the usefulness of functional analysis, and now we're basically testing it out.

My best friend in high school was an ISFP, so I'm in a somewhat privileged position to underline the differences. She was someone who I obviously related to on some levels or else we wouldn't have been friends: we were both creatures of emotion, for instance, and we had many of the same concerns in life. We had our marked differences, though, and the relevant ones touch on her use of Se.

To start with, she had what I would call an inner diva. In her imagination, she saw herself as something like a pop star in the making; she thought she was cool, and this sense of stylishness was very important to her identity. It was not for mine. To be sure, I had my own sense of style--who doesn't?--but mine did not involve trying new hairstyles, wearing unique clothing, or plastering things with stickers. My sense of style revolved around a unique outlook on life that transcended the physical in every way.

The other thing that set us apart was that, unlike me, she had a certain restlessness about her that it's hard for me to pin down. Part of this was a certain physicality that I've always lacked; she seemed to be on the go, wandering almost, and she was always interested in some physical activity, whether it was painting or playing sports or getting in an altercation with someone. This, and her overall there-and-now-ness, was something that always struck me as quaint, almost amusing. I think she must have felt the same way about my strange, almost alien take on everything.

She does sound like she has a stronger Se, and possibly an ESFP. Or perhaps, just strong E (since I believe that I/E can have varying degrees). Still, I belive an ISFP does not necessarily have to be like that. Though I do not know enough of them.

I wouldn't call myself terribly artistic, so this is another thing that sets me apart from ISFPs. The only form of art I do is write, and my writing is easily some of the most abstract, intuitive stuff I've seen in print. When it comes to physical details, I struggle; I write in abstractions more than I do in details, and what details I do manage always take on a dreamy, otherworldly quality.

Extraverted sensing is something I only recently learned to do, and even now I only use it on a shallow epistemological level. I relate to literally nothing else about the process except that I sometimes struggle not to go on binges or lose control of myself when angry. So negative is this other side of Se, that I would say I struggle to keep the process chained down almost as much as I do Ti.

Secondly, I've been extremely intuitive for as long as I can remember, whereas I've only accepted Se as my philosophical foundation in recent years.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. So you're saying that you only demand concrete facts when dealing with that subject?
Of course, I don't know the whole context of what you are saying, but then maybe it is playing a sort of trickster role (or more accurately, acting out a trickster complex) by childishly demanding hard facts? With me; it's usually pointing out current facts to beat someone in an argument or get them off my back.
Or maybe it's just undifferentiated. But it's just the way you are articulating it that makes it sound like it is differentiated.

I also love looking at richly colored LED lights. (Was just out in Times Square last night). But I know that is not Se preference, because I can never just look at things for what they are. It always has to be tied to some concept or something (like how all the colors are made from the three primaries; and the symmetries involved). I first saw this when reading Berens' books, and there was an exercise telling you to just look at a picture and not try to analyze or find meaning, etc.

This doesn't sound like me at all. Number one, my main goal is always to achieve something in the outer world; ethical judgments are only a means to that end.

But you're professing INFP now, and that would be the same as ISFP in being dominant with ethical judgment (Fi). If ego's main goal is the outer world, then you are by definition, an extravert.

However, the extraverted functions are generally more noticeable then introverted ones, so perhaps that's why you would see it like that.

So you're telling me that you believe Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre were SPs? What I've described is the phenomenological reduction, which was core to all three of those philosopher's methods.

I don't know who they are (probably heard of a couple of the names), so I can't say.

As you said, profiles are filled with stereotypes, so I'm somewhat reluctant to even answer this question. I'll do it anyway, just to illustrate. The profile below is taken from MyPersonality, and I've crossed out everything that contrasts with me:

I trust that my point is slightly clearer now.

And a lot of the stuff you crossed out sounds like it might be somewhat stereotypical, plus you have words in there like "many", allowing that not all are like this.

"This is how things appear to be, now let's proceed from here." That simple attitude, which I often neglect to exercise, encapsulates almost the whole of my experience with Se. This is why I can say I'm bad at using the process.

I use plenty of Ne, but I don't take it quite as seriously as the typical NP. I like to be playfully imaginative, I enjoy being random, and I can easily sense patterns which clue me into the deeper meaning of things. I don't tend to use Ne as an arbiter of truth, though, and I'm not one to actively collect data and link it together. My connection-making, at least in its serious mode, is rooted inwardly, in the form of introverted intuition.
It's about what is true from my point of view, not what is true based on a bunch of misleading external evidence. For this and other reasons, I would much sooner call myself an INFJ or even an INTJ than an ISFP.

Yeah, that's what this is sounding like now. So you would still be iNtuitive, yet Se would be a less mature function, but still nevertheless ego-compatible and would come up as you say. You would basically "aspire" to it (as Berens puts it), and this would manifest in your epistemological context.

But then, with INFJ you're losing Fi, in favor of Fe. With INTJ, you're going back to Thinking preference again of course).

 

[Polaris]

I don't think so. The topic is the usefulness of functional analysis, and now we're basically testing it out.

I feel that we've taken this more into the realm of "What type am I?" than functions analysis as such.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. So you're saying that you only demand concrete facts when dealing with that subject?

Not exactly. What I mean is that I'm careful to make a distinction between metaphysics and objective reality. Objective reality is that which can be seen and touched, while metaphysics deals with various schematics for interpreting that reality. When I say that objective reality takes priority over metaphysics, what I mean is that the observable world should serve as the foundation for any rigorous line of speculation. One must start by observing things exactly as they appear, as free of bias as possible, and from there move on to interpretations, taking care to remember that interpretations is all that they are. This is in contrast to the person who believes that his ideas are objectively true and thereby loses much of his flexibility and depth.

I also love looking at richly colored LED lights. (Was just out in Times Square last night). But I know that is not Se preference, because I can never just look at things for what they are. It always has to be tied to some concept or something (like how all the colors are made from the three primaries; and the symmetries involved). I first saw this when reading Berens' books, and there was an exercise telling you to just look at a picture and not try to analyze or find meaning, etc.

I always have an abstract response to sensory detail--always. The difference between us seems to be that I've taught myself to stay attuned on some level to the concrete reality against which that process plays.

But you're professing INFP now, and that would be the same as ISFP in being dominant with ethical judgment (Fi). If ego's main goal is the outer world, then you are by definition, an extravert.

I'm not sure if we have the same thing in mind with the word "goal." By calling the outer world my goal, I don't mean to say that it's there that I want to spend my time. I don't. It's simply that my goals in life revolve around achievements in that word. How it could be otherwise, I don't know, for my ethics have already been resolved; all they require is that I follow my leading, whatever it may be. On the other hand, the external world is filled with all kinds of things that I would like to achieve but which remain out of reach. And I have to believe that's the case for most people, even if they're strong introverts. I think everyone seeks to accomplish something external, even if it's only so they can sink back into the comfort of their cave.

I don't know who they are (probably heard of a couple of the names), so I can't say.

Really? You need to get busy, then, young man. And to think, you're an INTP.

Yeah, that's what this is sounding like now. So you would still be iNtuitive, yet Se would be a less mature function, but still nevertheless ego-compatible and would come up as you say. You would basically "aspire" to it (as Berens puts it), and this would manifest in your epistemological context.

But then, with INFJ you're losing Fi, in favor of Fe. With INTJ, you're going back to Thinking preference again of course).

This is where I feel we reach the limits of a personality model. No one is going to fit a personality type to perfection any more than a real instance of red is going to be purely "red." Just as red is always intermixed with other colors, people too are a mix of the seemingly contradictory.

 

[Eric B]

Not exactly. What I mean is that I'm careful to make a distinction between metaphysics and objective reality. Objective reality is that which can be seen and touched, while metaphysics deals with various schematics for interpreting that reality. When I say that objective reality takes priority over metaphysics, what I mean is that the observable world should serve as the foundation for any rigorous line of speculation. One must start by observing things exactly as they appear, as free of bias as possible, and from there move on to interpretations, taking care to remember that interpretations is all that they are. This is in contrast to the person who believes that his ideas are objectively true and thereby loses much of his flexibility and depth.

I always have an abstract response to sensory detail--always. The difference between us seems to be that I've taught myself to stay attuned on some level to the concrete reality against which that process plays.

Sounds kind of like an Ni/Se tandem.

I'm not sure if we have the same thing in mind with the word "goal." By calling the outer world my goal, I don't mean to say that it's there that I want to spend my time. I don't. It's simply that my goals in life revolve around achievements in that word.

It doesn't have to be about spending time, but rather more the "revolving around" part.

Really? You need to get busy, then, young man. And to think, you're an INTP.

But now that's getting into a stereotype of INTP's. Like they have to know all philosophers. My line of interest just has never pushed me towards those particular people and their subjects.

This is where I feel we reach the limits of a personality model. No one is going to fit a personality type to perfection any more than a real instance of red is going to be purely "red." Just as red is always intermixed with other colors, people too are a mix of the seemingly contradictory.

True. That's why it's supposed to be simplified into a preference of two functions. But of course then, what if both are introverted, or both are judgment, etc. That's when the archetype model will help, because the order won't be based on strength, but rather role. But then, that's making it less simple, and that might not fit either, (or at least the person might be aware of the roles). After that is when you try to take into consideration experience and stuff like that.

 

[INTJMom]

Nah... you needed to know what's normal cause the conformists got to you first... give me time... give me time...

I meant... I needed to know what was normal for an INTJ.

For instance, one of the things my husband used to complain about to me was the way I would get involved in a project and let all my other responsibilities slide. When I learned that was an INTJ trait, I was able to not be so self-condemning for being that way. And interestingly, once I realized WHY I was doing it, I was able to counter-act the behavior by forcing myself to learn to put a project down and go back to it later... even though I hate doing it that way... because I lose momentum. I still struggle with that, but it's just an example. Self-acceptance has always been very difficult for me... I think because of my enneagram... I've always struggled with believing I was "defective". Anyhow, MBTI profiles have helped me to learn to accept those things that are part of being an INTJ while at the same time not necessarily using that as an excuse for bad behavior.

 

[Polaris]

Sounds kind of like an Ni/Se tandem.

It does, doesn't it? But if we're putting weight on the archetypes, might this not be within the bounds of my professed type? Might these not be Ni and Se coming out as a shadowy (as it were) duo?

It doesn't have to be about spending time, but rather more the "revolving around" part.

Perhaps so, but I'm not an extravert, Eric. Not in any way, shape, or form.

But now that's getting into a stereotype of INTP's. Like they have to know all philosophers. My line of interest just has never pushed me towards those particular people and their subjects.

Well yes, of course. It was only a joke.

True. That's why it's supposed to be simplified into a preference of two functions. But of course then, what if both are introverted, or both are judgment, etc. That's when the archetype model will help, because the order won't be based on strength, but rather role. But then, that's making it less simple, and that might not fit either, (or at least the person might be aware of the roles). After that is when you try to take into consideration experience and stuff like that.

This turns the whole thing into a chaotic hodgepodge for me. Preference of two functions. That doesn't work, so we look at the archetypes. Archetypes. That doesn't work, so we look at my experience. But where does that leave me? What can I learn from my experience, vague, varying, and variegated as it is? And where does that leave the MBTI, which by now has done every kind of backtrack and sidestep without ever pinning me down?

 

[Eric B]

It does, doesn't it? But if we're putting weight on the archetypes, might this not be within the bounds of my professed type? Might these not be Ni and Se coming out as a shadowy (as it were) duo?

What you had said doesn'tsound shadowy. Shadows; even in their good sides, are usually associated with stressful situations somehow. Or, you could just be someone for whom they have developed. My wife is another one who seems ESFJ, but also seems to use functions a lot that contradict that, such as Te, Fi, Se and Ni (all four shadows, in fact). So they could be generic undifferentiated functions, or who knows. Still, Fe dominant is definite, and I say that Si as parent really fits.

Perhaps so, but I'm not an extravert, Eric. Not in any way, shape, or form.

But if the extraverted function is auxiliary, it would still be attached to the ego enough for you to describe it in terms of "revolving around"

This turns the whole thing into a chaotic hodgepodge for me. Preference of two functions. That doesn't work, so we look at the archetypes. Archetypes. That doesn't work, so we look at my experience. But where does that leave me? What can I learn from my experience, vague, varying, and variegated as it is? And where does that leave the MBTI, which by now has done every kind of backtrack and sidestep without ever pinning me down?

Well, none of this is set in stone, like some concrete absolute. It's just a classification of general preference, and it might not have even been intended to be "perfect fits".

 

[Thalassa]

I think functions analysis is not only useful, but necessary. I understand the 16 types better because of it.

 

[Polaris]

Shadows; even in their good sides, are usually associated with stressful situations somehow. Or, you could just be someone for whom they have developed.

Apparently so, for no matter what you call my type, I'll have healthy use of at least one or two of its shadow functions.

But if the extraverted function is auxiliary, it wouls still be bound to the ego enough for you to describe it in terms of "revolving around"

I see, that makes sense.

Well, none of this is set in stone, like some concrete absolute. It's just a classification of general preference, and it might not have even been intended to be "perfect fits".

I agree with you even more than you agree with yourself.