Eric B
ⒺⓉⒷ
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,621
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 548
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
I'm still looking at the definitions of the functions, and which ones I use, and in which roles. I'm pretty sure I'm TiNe, though it is just a matter of continuing to make sure I'm understanding the descriptions of the functions, and working out things that don't seem to fit perfectly. Rather than just start threads asking others about my type (and it's clear here that the tendency is to "degrade" professing TP's with uncertainties down to F's or TJ's), I figured the blogs would be perfect for that.
For much of the year, I have been buying books on the types and functions from 16types.com (Linda Berens' site). The basic four from Berens herself (type, temperament, Interaction Styles, cognitive processes); Hartzler's Functions and Facets of Type, Nardi's 8 Keys To Self-leadership; and now, I finally decided to order Haas and Hunziker's Building Blocks of Personality Type. It is very good, though it didn't go into more details of Beebe's archetypes as I had hoped. (Beebe's copncepts are basically only published in his lectures). Yet it made me understand the different functions even more, further confirming my Ti preference.
Some descriptions:
•Gridlike system of categorization. If you magnify the labels at the grid coordinates, you might see that each of the intersections is made of a finer grid, which in turn is made of finer ones. Have to think on that one.
•Focuses on how task get accomplished. (While Te is focused on the goals, of course). This would seem to contradict Berens' new definition of Process vs Outcome for the Interaction Styles. INTP is behind the Scenes, which is Outcome focused, but it is Ti dominant, which is Process focused. I'm looking into how this harmonizes. Probably just a differentiation between interaction and cognitive processing. But I had acknowledged how I was truly Outcome focused when it came to things such as bills, but when it comes to technical stuff, I clearly like processes. Like chronicling the shift of subway cars as new cars come in. (Old cars are often pushed around, and end up on unfamiliar lines). I was wondering if that was Te, (arranging the external environment), especially as I and others then make our own suggestions and forecasts. But it seems it is just focus on an interesting process (which is actually being arranged by someone else).
•Use a cyclical, zeroing in process of thinking where thinking becoming more refined each cycle. I had noticed this a lot of times, over the years, up to these theories, now.
•The one that helped me the most was the illustration "All of my life I have thought I might have some kind of learning disability. Everything in school seemed to come much slower to me than to others. Elementary school rewards kids who raise their hands to answer first. Now I realize that I just needed time to let my internal logic do its thing".
Where my "struggling to understand the framework" of MBTI was once used as evidence of a "Trickster" role; it actually betrays the dominant role of the function. I was familiar with the FIRO model, and MBTI was totally different, and FIRO was the reference point I was trying to use to understand the 16types.
All the writing I do on the subject also seemed to contrast with the "precision" and "clarity" Ti demands. But I was basically learning as I put together and shared my correlation, and I certainly do seek precision and clarity, but while things are unclear and not yet refined, my output may still be long and drawn out. But the goal is to narrow it down to a short simple formula. (which is what I have attempted to do in the "MBTI Primer" box on my page.
One thing I have found that explains that illustration is that if I don't get the precision I want in a definition, the concept or framework does not register in my mind, and thus remains unsure, and I continue to struggle and stumble trying to understand it better through a more precise, and consistent definition, and won't be at rest in it until I "get it down pact". (which again may appear to others as poor Ti use. But Ti is not about instantly understanding all frameworks. Trickster Ti is not wanting to use frameworks yet misunderstanding them; but rather not normally being interested in or trusting them, yet trying to use them under stress).
I first began noticing this in high school and college, when I would fall behind in class and never be able to catch back up; and in the very subjects I had been most interested in and chose as majors.:blushing:
Either if my mind was elsewhere, or even if a class was not taught well*, some key elements of the subject would not register, and I would essentially be lost for the rest of the semester.
*(Like when the teacher would begin jumping into complex math formula aspect of Technical Electronics or computers, but without establishing the concepts well enough. In TE, when doing all of these formulas of circuits (voltage = current × resistance, etc) I would sometimes wonder "what is all of this stuff anyway?" I had already had an algebra class another period, as was more into that stuff then! Then the teacher mentioned that these were electric circuits, and it's like I had forgotten that. I chose that shop because I had liked playing with litle light circuits when I was younger (and thought
I wanted to go into that vocation, before computers came into NYC high schools my senior year), but now I was totally removed from anything I understood about electronics, and had nothing to ground all of the mathematical formulations on. No "framework"!
The reason why I have still been taking time to completely sort out the introverted vs extraverted judging functions is because of the difficulty different writers in clearly/precisely and consistently explaining the concepts. (Admittedly, in cases like Fi, particularly, which they all say is hard to define).
Like I had been getting hung up on what these "categories" and "frameworks" associated with Ti really were. On one hand, it is mentioned as understanding models and frameworks in general, such as the example used by Hartzler: the solar system, or in Nardi and elswhere, "how things work". So then, I say "Yeah; I do that", but then I have to wonder, since a lot of stuff I had thought was Ti had been called Te, whether my thinking was "focused on the object" (properties inherent in the thing being analyzed), and it became unclear again. then, I see the mention of subjective framework, and I wonder how is understanding the properties of things "subjective'. That's about the "object". So it looked like an inconsistent or ambiguous definition, and failed to completely register.
Then, on the F side, Hartzler had said that the Fi "Conscience", because of its grasp of "universal" values, might attempt to to get other people to operate according to them, and thus become a crusader for what is right, and may even impose its values on others. I was then looking into myself to see if I do this, and it seemed like it a lot. But then Haas and Hunziker say that Fi does not impose itself on others, but accepts others (only unless a value is violated, and then it is still more defensive). Assuming everyone else's values are universal, it is no use is disputing over or even trying to understand them. I had already been surprised to hear this when this same thing was earlier said here on MBTIc. Meanwhile, Fe is the one "crusading" for a "cause" is attributed to by H&H. Of course, crusading for a cause is also generally associated with all NF's (which will be either Fi or Fe preferring). But then the SFx's will have the same preference.
The ambiguity seems to lie in the issue of what's really "objective" or "subjective" to begin with. When values or principles are really yours, or were simply adopted from the outside. And if it starts outside, and you internalize it; whether it's still considered external or internally oriented.
I guess if it's only the "universal" values Fi crusades for and tries to impose on others? (Now I'm seeing that it seems when I do it, it is most likely projective Fe, evidenced by it being more focused on the object, then any "subjective emotional grid". For one thing, H&H point out that Fi "values" are non-negotiable, and they don't wont to argue over them. But I do tend to argue, debate, prove, defend, etc. mine.
As for Thinking, as I continued to try to identify the so called "grid" of "categories", I figured it might have something to do with the symmetries and parallelism I always use to try to understand things. If I'm presented with a concept with a bunch of elements to remember, I always find it hard to remember all of that stuff, yet I look for ways to group them in categories; often with parallels and symmetries, to narrow down the categories and make it easier to remember.
For much of the year, I have been buying books on the types and functions from 16types.com (Linda Berens' site). The basic four from Berens herself (type, temperament, Interaction Styles, cognitive processes); Hartzler's Functions and Facets of Type, Nardi's 8 Keys To Self-leadership; and now, I finally decided to order Haas and Hunziker's Building Blocks of Personality Type. It is very good, though it didn't go into more details of Beebe's archetypes as I had hoped. (Beebe's copncepts are basically only published in his lectures). Yet it made me understand the different functions even more, further confirming my Ti preference.
Some descriptions:
•Gridlike system of categorization. If you magnify the labels at the grid coordinates, you might see that each of the intersections is made of a finer grid, which in turn is made of finer ones. Have to think on that one.
•Focuses on how task get accomplished. (While Te is focused on the goals, of course). This would seem to contradict Berens' new definition of Process vs Outcome for the Interaction Styles. INTP is behind the Scenes, which is Outcome focused, but it is Ti dominant, which is Process focused. I'm looking into how this harmonizes. Probably just a differentiation between interaction and cognitive processing. But I had acknowledged how I was truly Outcome focused when it came to things such as bills, but when it comes to technical stuff, I clearly like processes. Like chronicling the shift of subway cars as new cars come in. (Old cars are often pushed around, and end up on unfamiliar lines). I was wondering if that was Te, (arranging the external environment), especially as I and others then make our own suggestions and forecasts. But it seems it is just focus on an interesting process (which is actually being arranged by someone else).
•Use a cyclical, zeroing in process of thinking where thinking becoming more refined each cycle. I had noticed this a lot of times, over the years, up to these theories, now.
•The one that helped me the most was the illustration "All of my life I have thought I might have some kind of learning disability. Everything in school seemed to come much slower to me than to others. Elementary school rewards kids who raise their hands to answer first. Now I realize that I just needed time to let my internal logic do its thing".
Where my "struggling to understand the framework" of MBTI was once used as evidence of a "Trickster" role; it actually betrays the dominant role of the function. I was familiar with the FIRO model, and MBTI was totally different, and FIRO was the reference point I was trying to use to understand the 16types.
All the writing I do on the subject also seemed to contrast with the "precision" and "clarity" Ti demands. But I was basically learning as I put together and shared my correlation, and I certainly do seek precision and clarity, but while things are unclear and not yet refined, my output may still be long and drawn out. But the goal is to narrow it down to a short simple formula. (which is what I have attempted to do in the "MBTI Primer" box on my page.
One thing I have found that explains that illustration is that if I don't get the precision I want in a definition, the concept or framework does not register in my mind, and thus remains unsure, and I continue to struggle and stumble trying to understand it better through a more precise, and consistent definition, and won't be at rest in it until I "get it down pact". (which again may appear to others as poor Ti use. But Ti is not about instantly understanding all frameworks. Trickster Ti is not wanting to use frameworks yet misunderstanding them; but rather not normally being interested in or trusting them, yet trying to use them under stress).
I first began noticing this in high school and college, when I would fall behind in class and never be able to catch back up; and in the very subjects I had been most interested in and chose as majors.:blushing:
Either if my mind was elsewhere, or even if a class was not taught well*, some key elements of the subject would not register, and I would essentially be lost for the rest of the semester.
*(Like when the teacher would begin jumping into complex math formula aspect of Technical Electronics or computers, but without establishing the concepts well enough. In TE, when doing all of these formulas of circuits (voltage = current × resistance, etc) I would sometimes wonder "what is all of this stuff anyway?" I had already had an algebra class another period, as was more into that stuff then! Then the teacher mentioned that these were electric circuits, and it's like I had forgotten that. I chose that shop because I had liked playing with litle light circuits when I was younger (and thought
I wanted to go into that vocation, before computers came into NYC high schools my senior year), but now I was totally removed from anything I understood about electronics, and had nothing to ground all of the mathematical formulations on. No "framework"!
The reason why I have still been taking time to completely sort out the introverted vs extraverted judging functions is because of the difficulty different writers in clearly/precisely and consistently explaining the concepts. (Admittedly, in cases like Fi, particularly, which they all say is hard to define).
Like I had been getting hung up on what these "categories" and "frameworks" associated with Ti really were. On one hand, it is mentioned as understanding models and frameworks in general, such as the example used by Hartzler: the solar system, or in Nardi and elswhere, "how things work". So then, I say "Yeah; I do that", but then I have to wonder, since a lot of stuff I had thought was Ti had been called Te, whether my thinking was "focused on the object" (properties inherent in the thing being analyzed), and it became unclear again. then, I see the mention of subjective framework, and I wonder how is understanding the properties of things "subjective'. That's about the "object". So it looked like an inconsistent or ambiguous definition, and failed to completely register.
Then, on the F side, Hartzler had said that the Fi "Conscience", because of its grasp of "universal" values, might attempt to to get other people to operate according to them, and thus become a crusader for what is right, and may even impose its values on others. I was then looking into myself to see if I do this, and it seemed like it a lot. But then Haas and Hunziker say that Fi does not impose itself on others, but accepts others (only unless a value is violated, and then it is still more defensive). Assuming everyone else's values are universal, it is no use is disputing over or even trying to understand them. I had already been surprised to hear this when this same thing was earlier said here on MBTIc. Meanwhile, Fe is the one "crusading" for a "cause" is attributed to by H&H. Of course, crusading for a cause is also generally associated with all NF's (which will be either Fi or Fe preferring). But then the SFx's will have the same preference.
The ambiguity seems to lie in the issue of what's really "objective" or "subjective" to begin with. When values or principles are really yours, or were simply adopted from the outside. And if it starts outside, and you internalize it; whether it's still considered external or internally oriented.
I guess if it's only the "universal" values Fi crusades for and tries to impose on others? (Now I'm seeing that it seems when I do it, it is most likely projective Fe, evidenced by it being more focused on the object, then any "subjective emotional grid". For one thing, H&H point out that Fi "values" are non-negotiable, and they don't wont to argue over them. But I do tend to argue, debate, prove, defend, etc. mine.
As for Thinking, as I continued to try to identify the so called "grid" of "categories", I figured it might have something to do with the symmetries and parallelism I always use to try to understand things. If I'm presented with a concept with a bunch of elements to remember, I always find it hard to remember all of that stuff, yet I look for ways to group them in categories; often with parallels and symmetries, to narrow down the categories and make it easier to remember.