TiTe

[SteinitzGamgbit]

I think I'm a good user of both Ts. When introversing I'm using Ti and when in exrtaversion I'm using Te. That's how I see it anyway. Somehow I feel that, after excellent/very Te and Ti, I might have good Ne and Si, medium/bad Ni and Se and a very shitty pair of Fs.

I'm just lost at this. Im nearly giving up on finding out about my MBTI/Cognitive functions.If this is not it, I can't think of a ything else. I just don't fit.

Is it possible to have both Ts as Dom and aux?
If not, bow can I know which one is my true preference?

 

[Yama]

There is no type that uses both Te and Ti as their dom/auxiliary (nor does any type value both Ni/Ne, Fi/Fe, etc.)

If you think you have good Ne/Si and are a T of some sort, xNTP might be possible.

To figure out whether you use Te or Ti, it is best to do as much thorough researching of both functions as possible in order to truly understand both functions.

This thread is a good thread to read about Te doms/auxes and how they experience Te--you might be able to relate, or maybe not. There is also a thread for Ti in the same fashion as the Te thread, but it hasn't taken off much yet.

It is also possible that the longer you stick around, and the more you participate in threads across the forum through your own sort of natural style, other forumers will begin to get a "feel" for you and perhaps be able to give better insight as to your type.

I might also suggest seeking out some other TJs or TPs on this forum and asking them questions about those two particular functions, and see whether or not their experience of it resonates with you the same way--you can definitely find some of them in the threads that I linked, and I'm sure they would welcome any questions you might have.

I would try to be of more practical help, but I'm absolutely terrible at typing people. I'm sorry.

 

[SteinitzGamgbit]

There is no type that uses both Te and Ti as their dom/auxiliary (nor does any type value both Ni/Ne, Fi/Fe, etc.)

If you think you have good Ne/Si and are a T of some sort, xNTP might be possible.

To figure out whether you use Te or Ti, it is best to do as much thorough researching of both functions as possible in order to truly understand both functions.

This thread is a good thread to read about Te doms/auxes and how they experience Te--you might be able to relate, or maybe not. There is also a thread for Ti in the same fashion as the Te thread, but it hasn't taken off much yet.

It is also possible that the longer you stick around, and the more you participate in threads across the forum through your own sort of natural style, other forumers will begin to get a "feel" for you and perhaps be able to give better insight as to your type.

I might also suggest seeking out some other TJs or TPs on this forum and asking them questions about those two particular functions, and see whether or not their experience of it resonates with you the same way--you can definitely find some of them in the threads that I linked, and I'm sure they would welcome any questions you might have.

I would try to be of more practical help, but I'm absolutely terrible at typing people. I'm sorry.

Im also terrible at understanding, odds are that I didn't grasp what you meant in the first place, so if I'm even more clueless after all you typed, you might as well try that "practical help ".

 

[Yama]

Im also terrible at understanding, odds are that I didn't grasp what you meant in the first place, so if I'm even more clueless after all you typed, you might as well try that "practical help ".

If I've made you even more clueless with my last post, I'm worried that I'm just doing more harm than good and being completely unhelpful. But I can try...

Disclaimer: I don't have the best understanding or either Te or Ti, so if any TPs or TJs think that what I am saying is completely wrong, please stop me and say something rather than allow me to continue the spread of misinformation.

Ti and Te are two sides of the same coin. Both have to deal with logic, but they do so in different ways. Te being externally focused, and Ti being inwardly focused.

As far as I personally understand it, Ti would look at something and ask, "Does this make sense to me?" It would take in that information and filter it through itself, in its own subjective system, in order to interpret and analyze it. Te, on the other hand, would ask, "Does this make sense objectively?" It would take information, extract it from itself, and compare it to pre-existing systems of logic. Neither is "better" than the other, and both are going to have their own personal "flavor" (Se or Ne for the Ti-user, or Si or Ni for the Te-user).

I am not sure how accurate what I am saying is, as my understanding of the thinking functions is nowhere near as refined or clear as an actual thinking type's would be. I would appreciate it if anyone who thinks I am wrong could please correct me.

To figure out which function you use, your best shot is to read as much about them as you can. Keep in mind that there are 16 types and 7 billion people, and no 2 people are exactly the same. There can be similarities, for sure, and MBTI categorizes those similarities. They can feel either freeing or restricting depending on the type of person you are. Very few people are a "clear-cut" stereotype of their type. Meaning, you can be a person who feels that they do resonate with some parts of Te and some parts of Ti; but in the end, the way Jungian Cognitive Functions work, you only "value" one of those two. That doesn't mean that you don't use the other one at all, but it means that it's not one of the top 4 functions that make up your type. So a type like TeTi or TiTe doesn't exist in the system.

The types that lead with a thinking function (either Ti or Te) are as follows:

Ti Ne Si Fe (INTP)
Te Ni Se Fi (ENTJ)
Ti Se Ni Fe (ISTP)
Te Si Ne Fi (ESTJ)

Reading about Te and Ti, such as in the links to threads about them that I included in my precious post, may be a good start. If you are certain you are a thinking dominant type above all else, I would also look into the types I mentioned above.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[reckful]

I'm just lost at this. Im nearly giving up on finding out about my MBTI/Cognitive functions.If this is not it, I can't think of a ything else. I just don't fit.

It's frustrating, isn't it?

Well, allow me to suggest that the problem may not be with you, but with the functions.

See this post.

 

[five sounds]

Thread title looks like it says TiTs

 

[SearchingforPeace]

It's frustrating, isn't it?

Well, allow me to suggest that the problem may not be with you, but with the functions.

See this post.

I have read a lot of your posts on the subject and find them very interesting.

I agree there seems to be exaggerated separation in function theory at times.

How do you explain the very real disconnect between Fe users and Fi users in how they interpret information and communicate? In no other area does the JCF seem to engender so much conflict and discussion.

There seems to be a fundamental difference between the two groups. And, as such, there seems to be anecdotal evidence for JCF in large part.

Are we just interpreting other differences and placing them into the JCF model?

I really would like you thoughts on this as you seem to have a firm grip on the subject.

 

[Bush]

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] points out that, on cognitive function tests, quite a few people score high on both 'attitudes' of their dominant function (i and e). I know it's true for me.

edit: god damn it you already posted in this thread.

 

[reckful]

I have read a lot of your posts on the subject and find them very interesting.

I agree there seems to be exaggerated separation in function theory at times.

How do you explain the very real disconnect between Fe users and Fi users in how they interpret information and communicate? In no other area does the JCF seem to engender so much conflict and discussion.

There seems to be a fundamental difference between the two groups. And, as such, there seems to be anecdotal evidence for JCF in large part.

Are we just interpreting other differences and placing them into the JCF model?

I really would like you thoughts on this as you seem to have a firm grip on the subject.

If I may quote myself (as I am wont to do ):

As I'm always pointing out, the modern function descriptions you'll find in Thomson, Berens, Nardi, etc. differ in many ways (large and small) from Jung's original concepts, and appear to be a set of descriptions more or less jerry-rigged to match up reasonably well with the MBTI types they purportedly correspond with. (As one dramatic example, and as described at length in this post, the description of "Si" you'll find Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk using bears little resemblance to Jung's "introverted sensation" and is instead a description made to match MBTI SJs.)

So... since "Ni" descriptions are set up to match NJs (extraverts and introverts both) reasonably well (since the EN_Js are "Ni-aux" types) and "Te" descriptions are set up to match TJs (extraverts and introverts both) reasonably well (since the I_TJs are "Te-aux" types), it's not surprising that INTJs and ENTJs both read those modern Ni and Te descriptions and feel like they relate reasonably well. (Although I can't help noting that, as discussed in the spoiler in this post, INTJs often relate pretty well to Ne and Ti descriptions as well....)

So, as a general matter... if you're looking at those modern cognitive function descriptions, and you're applying them to the types who purportedly have them as their dominant and auxiliary functions, you're likely to get quite a bit of piggybacked validity, because if an "Fe" description is largely made up of things that FJs tend to have in common, it's obviously going to be reasonably valid for FJs.

Myers' psychometric analysis led her to conclude (rightly) that it was the four dichotomies, rather than the functions, that appear to be the principal underlying components of type. But Myers also recognized that there were notable personality characteristics associated with various dichotomy combinations. Gifts Differing includes countless references to things that INs, ESs, NFs, STs, ITs, ESFs, ISTs and types with various other preference combinations tend to have in common, and the 1985 MBTI Manual (which Myers co-authored) included a brief description corresponding to each of the 24 possible two-letter combinations.

If, by "Fe users and Fi users," you mean MBTI FJs and FPs, there's no question that they tend to differ in various ways — including both ways that J's tend to differ from P's and more specific ways that FJs tend to differ from FPs.

But as noted in the first post I linked the OP to, that's not to say that a pair of "Fe" and "Fi" descriptions is even going to work well for FJs and FPs if it's poorly put together. It's not uncommon for INFJs and INFPs both to relate pretty well to typical "Fi" descriptions, for example, and for ENFPs to relate pretty well to both Fi and Fe descriptions (just like the OP's doubling-up on the two "T functions").

But where function-centric analysis truly runs off the rails is when — based on the popular-but-bogus Harold Grant function stack — somebody tries to apply FJ-typical and FP-typical characteristics to TPs and TJs, respectively (based on the notion that FJs and TPs are "Fe/Ti types" and FPs and TJs are "Fi/Te types"). It doesn't matter how respectable somebody's "Fe" and "Fi" descriptions may be in terms of appropriately lining up with FJs and FPs: the idea that those same descriptions will also correspond to typical TP/TJ characteristics, besides being inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, has no respectable validity at all — and for anybody who hasn't already read them, the bogosity of the Harold Grant function stack is discussed at some length in this post.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

If I may quote myself (as I am wont to do ):



Myers' psychometric analysis led her to conclude (rightly) that it was the four dichotomies, rather than the functions, that appear to be the principal underlying components of type. But Myers also recognized that there were notable personality characteristics associated with various dichotomy combinations. Gifts Differing includes countless references to things that INs, ESs, NFs, STs, ITs, ESFs, ISTs and types with various other preference combinations tend to have in common, and the 1985 MBTI Manual (which Myers co-authored) included a brief description corresponding to each of the 24 possible two-letter combinations.

If, by "Fe users and Fi users," you mean MBTI FJs and FPs, there's no question that they tend to differ in various ways — including both ways that J's tend to differ from P's and more specific ways that FJs tend to differ from FPs.

But as noted in the first post I linked the OP to, that's not to say that a pair of "Fe" and "Fi" descriptions is even going to work well for FJs and FPs if it's poorly put together. It's not uncommon for INFJs and INFPs both to relate pretty well to typical "Fi" descriptions, for example, and for ENFPs to relate pretty well to both Fi and Fe descriptions (just like the OP's doubling-up on the two "T functions").

But where function-centric analysis truly runs off the rails is when — based on the popular-but-bogus Harold Grant function stack — somebody tries to apply FJ-typical and FP-typical characteristics to TPs and TJs, respectively (based on the notion that FJs and TPs are "Fe/Ti types" and FPs and TJs are "Fi/Te types"). It doesn't matter how respectable somebody's "Fe" and "Fi" descriptions may be in terms of appropriately lining up with FJs and FPs: the idea that those same descriptions will also correspond to typical TP/TJ characteristics, besides being inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, has no respectable validity at all — and for anybody who hasn't already read them, the bogosity of the Harold Grant function stack is discussed at some length in this post.

Thank you for your response. Having read your arguments before, they always give me something to think about.

Let me go more precise. Per Myers and Gifts Differing, all NFs should share strong similarities, which I believe.

I do see the biggest difference between a INFJ and a ENFJ being introversion vs extroversion, especially as I compare my INFJ sister and I. Outside of me being more outgoing and her being more willing to hold back, we think remarkably the same. I am much quicker to judge and act, she is more reflective.

With my ENFP sister, the J/P switch results in what seems much different in many ways. There are some commonalities in outcome, but completely different in cognitive process.

In the forum, there are often ugly spats between NFPs and NFJs that largely seem to revolve around word choice, interpretation, and values. These spats seem to validate the Fe Ti vs Fi Te model and even the Grant stack. The words used by FPs often sound very harsh and judgmental in my ears, while I have been told that FJs' words and arguments can cause actual headaches and feel emotionally manipulative and controlling for FPs.

So, by practical application, the Grant model feels like it might be valid, for all that I think there is more overlap in the types than others.

I think there is a similar issue with thinkers, where ISTJs and ISTPs seem to share some traits in common, but then interact with the world seemingly in very different ways. J and P describe some of it, but seem inefficient to getting the entire picture.

Likewise, the ENTJs and ENTPs I know have some very similar traits, but also very real differences. Again, the J/P seems to be ineffective to explain it all.

I know the Grant stack lacks supporting evidence. However, Naomi Quenk, who was very much involved with the MBTI folks, seems to support with her model of determining the dominant by looking at the inferior. Have you looked at her work and evaluated it?

 

[Poki]

Thank you for your response. Having read your arguments before, they always give me something to think about.

Let me go more precise. Per Myers and Gifts Differing, all NFs should share strong similarities, which I believe.

I do see the biggest difference between a INFJ and a ENFJ being introversion vs extroversion, especially as I compare my INFJ sister and I. Outside of me being more outgoing and her being more willing to hold back, we think remarkably the same. I am much quicker to judge and act, she is more reflective.

With my ENFP sister, the J/P switch results in what seems much different in many ways. There are some commonalities in outcome, but completely different in cognitive process.

In the forum, there are often ugly spats between NFPs and NFJs that largely seem to revolve around word choice, interpretation, and values. These spats seem to validate the Fe Ti vs Fi Te model and even the Grant stack. The words used by FPs often sound very harsh and judgmental in my ears, while I have been told that FJs' words and arguments can cause actual headaches and feel emotionally manipulative and controlling for FPs.

So, by practical application, the Grant model feels like it might be valid, for all that I think there is more overlap in the types than others.

I think there is a similar issue with thinkers, where ISTJs and ISTPs seem to share some traits in common, but then interact with the world seemingly in very different ways. J and P describe some of it, but seem inefficient to getting the entire picture.

Likewise, the ENTJs and ENTPs I know have some very similar traits, but also very real differences. Again, the J/P seems to be ineffective to explain it all.

I know the Grant stack lacks supporting evidence. However, Naomi Quenk, who was very much involved with the MBTI folks, seems to support with her model of determining the dominant by looking at the inferior. Have you looked at her work and evaluated it?

Biggest difference I see between me and ESTP is introversion. Seems like extroversion is what causes inferior Ni. Introversion inferior Fe. We seem so much alike other then that.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Biggest difference I see between me and ESTP is introversion. Seems like extroversion is what causes inferior Ni. Introversion inferior Fe. We seem so much alike other then that.

Right, what about between you and ISTJs?

 

[reckful]

I know the Grant stack lacks supporting evidence. However, Naomi Quenk, who was very much involved with the MBTI folks, seems to support with her model of determining the dominant by looking at the inferior. Have you looked at her work and evaluated it?

I'm not a Quenk fan, but FYI, and to Quenk's credit, she has never endorsed the Grant function stack. She says an INFP (for example) will have Sensing as their "tertiary function," but not introverted or extraverted sensing. And probably needless to say, without a tertiary attitude, the aspect of the Grant stack that makes INFPs and ISTJs both "Si/Ne types" and "Fi/Te types" goes away.

An awful lot of the bad "cognitive function" analysis on the internet (and not only on the internet) is based, to one degree or another, on those supposed "tandems" (or "function axes"), and as further discussed in my linked posts, the correlational patterns that would correspond to those tandems virtually never show up.

Talking about how an INFP "uses Si" — and therefore has "Si" stuff in common with an ESTJ that an ESTP (for example, as an "Se type") doesn't have in common with an ESTJ — puts a typologist in the same category as somebody talking about how the same INFP and ESTJ have significantly similar personalities because they're both Capricorns.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I'm not a Quenk fan, but FYI, and to Quenk's credit, she has never endorsed the Grant function stack. She says an INFP (for example) will have Sensing as their "tertiary function," but not introverted or extraverted sensing. And probably needless to say, without a tertiary attitude, the aspect of the Grant stack that makes INFPs and ISTJs both "Si/Ne types" and "Fi/Te types" goes away.

An awful lot of the bad "cognitive function" analysis on the internet (and not only on the internet) is based, to one degree or another, on those supposed "tandems" (or "function axes"), and as further discussed in my linked posts, the correlational patterns that would correspond to those tandems virtually never show up.

Talking about how an INFP "uses Si" — and therefore has "Si" stuff in common with an ESTJ that an ESTP (for example, as an "Se type") doesn't have in common with an ESTJ — puts a typologist in the same category as somebody talking about how the same INFP and ESTJ have significantly similar personalities because they're both Capricorns.

I

Right. So would you argue that tert function is without direction? Or something else?

What direction do you think we can go in making typology more useful? Or is it possible?

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

A big help in determining MBTI type is finding your dominant function. Just suspend the rest for the moment....that comes later.

This is an "automatic" subconscious one. Being that it will be your strongest function it isn't going to be as obvious and a lot of people get stuck on their aux and tertiary. They think that one of those must be their dom function because they are aware of the usage of it. But finding your dominant function narrows down everything - you can only be one of two types in MBTI knowing your dominant function. Then it is much easier to go in depth between those two types. Then you can see the differences between Ti/Ne and Ti/Se. Much easier.

I always recommend reading the dry stuff but it is also really helpful to read first hand accounts from people who have X as their dom function. How they view it and see if you have an aha moment.

 

[entropie]

I had to respond to this thread, cause Titte in german means boob. Besides that, nothing comes to mind

 

[Poki]

Right, what about between you and ISTJs?

Look similiar on outside for most part, VERY different inside. I don't get them much at all. It's like we are coming from 2 different angles. I woud chalk it up to different Ti or something. But there seems to be a somewhat pretty consistant difference between them and me.

 

[reckful]

Right. So would you argue that tert function is without direction? Or something else?

What direction do you think we can go in making typology more useful? Or is it possible?

I don't believe in any kind of "functions" framing, so I don't believe the "direction" of the "tertiary function" is even a meaningful question. I agree with James Reynierse that the functions are best viewed as simply a "category mistake."

Not even Jung was nearly as function-centric as a lot of forumites seem to be. As I'm forever pointing out, he spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.

But in any event, and regardless of the specifics of his original type characterizations, Jung was also a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. And what her studies led her to (rightly) conclude — among other things — was that the four dichotomies (as she conceived them), and not the functions, were the main event.

You've asked how I think typology could be "more useful," and as discussed at more length in those linked posts, I think the MBTI would be much more "useful" to the average MBTI forumite if the great majority of forum discussions about the types revolved around what I call the Real MBTI Model, which looks like this:

INTP = I + N + T + P + IN + IT + IP + NT + NP + TP + INT + INP + ITP + NTP + INTP.

INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ.

ESFJ = E + S + F + J + ES + EF + EJ + SF + SJ + FJ + ESF + ESJ + EFJ + SFJ + ESFJ.

So... the Real MBTI Model says that INTPs and INTJs have a lot of MBTI-related aspects of personality in common — namely, all the aspects of personality that correspond to I, N and T, and to the IN, IT, NT and INT combinations — and that INTPs and ESFJs have no MBTI-related aspects of personality in common.

And again, many of the MBTI-related descriptions and discussions you'll find on the internet — based on the goofy Harold Grant function stack, championed by shining lights like Dario Nardi and Linda Berens — reflect a very different perspective that leads people to think INTPs and ESFJs have quite a lot of MBTI-related things in common, because they're both "Ti/Fe types" and "Si/Ne types," whereas INTJs and INTPs are more like opposites than cousins, because jeez, they have no functions in common.

And those typical function-based type characterizations err in two different directions, because they both (1) include elements of type that have no validity — e.g., an INFP's "tertiary Si," and the notion that an INFP's F plays a more important role than her N (and vice versa for INFJs) because dom/aux — and also (2) tend to exclude, or shortchange, aspects of personality that correspond to dichotomy combinations (like NF) that aren't matched with one of the functions (not to mention the dichotomies themselves).

And a final point that's worth emphasizing is that, contrary to the impression somebody's likely to get by reading forum discussions — and although, like Myers, the official MBTI websites continue to give a certain amount of lip service to the cognitive functions — official MBTI sources have always been, and continue to be, heavily dichotomy-centric, and to reflect the fact that virtually all the respectable psychometric support for the MBTI is support for the dichotomies and not the functions.

The 17-page report that an ENFJ (for example) receives after taking the relatively recent MBTI Step II test includes page after page of dichotomy-based analysis (including five separate subscales for each of the four dichotomies) and not a single mention of "extraverted feeling" or "introverted intuition" other than a diagram near the end that shows that "ENFJs like Feeling best, Intuition next, Sensing third and Thinking least," and one brief note about tending to use Feeling in the "outer world" and Intuition in the "inner world." All the rest of the ENFJ descriptions in the report — after the brief initial profile, which isn't broken down by components — are descriptions of N (not Ni or Ne), F (not Fi or Fe) and so on, and they're the same descriptions of N and F (and the five subscales of each) that ENFPs receive in their reports (notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are supposedly "Fe-Ni" and ENFPs are supposedly "Ne-Fi").

Here are the two official MBTI sources backing up the validity and reliability of the MBTI typology in its Step I and Step II incarnations:

Step I: MBTI Form M Manual Supplement
Step II: MBTI Step II Manual Supplement

Those sources refer (directly and indirectly) to a large number of studies providing scientific support for the MBTI, and display lots of the correlations and other relevant data. And there isn't a single mention in either of those sources of any "cognitive function."

But alas, Myers' lip service to the functions created what proved to be a significant marketing opportunity for a handful of MBTI theorists who've made names for themselves in the last 20 years or so by peddling a more function-centric version of the MBTI. And for better or worse (and I think it's unfortunate), both the CAPT and Myers-Briggs Foundation websites have long reflected the attitude that the MBTI "community" is basically all one big happy family, and — within certain limits — dichotomy-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be dichotomy-centric and function-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be function-centric, and everybody can sell their books and hold their seminars and it's all good.

As for me, though, I don't think there's any question that the MBTI would be more "useful" if Berens, Nardi and the rest of the HaroldGrantians conceded that Reynierse has their number, and stopped misleading people with an alternative version of the MBTI in which the dichotomies are largely framed as "letter codes" that need to be decoded to lead you to what type is really about.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Not even Jung was nearly as function-centric as a lot of forumites seem to be. As I'm forever pointing out, he spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.

I know. Jung largely started the framework. Others built on it.

My impression is that I/E seems to be mostly a matter of degree. NFJs seem to think very similar, as do STPs, NFPs, and the rest of the 8 groups separated by I/E. So, what Jung wrote mostly may be the least important aspect of typological differences.

And with many ENFPs, for example, being quite introverted socially, while many INFJs are very extroverted socially.

But in any event, and regardless of the specifics of his original type characterizations, Jung was also a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality. And what her studies led her to (rightly) conclude — among other things — was that the four dichotomies (as she conceived them), and not the functions, were the main event.

You've asked how I think typology could be "more useful," and as discussed at more length in those linked posts, I think the MBTI would be much more "useful" to the average MBTI forumite if the great majority of forum discussions about the types revolved around what I call the Real MBTI Model, which looks like this:

INTP = I + N + T + P + IN + IT + IP + NT + NP + TP + INT + INP + ITP + NTP + INTP.

INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ.

ESFJ = E + S + F + J + ES + EF + EJ + SF + SJ + FJ + ESF + ESJ + EFJ + SFJ + ESFJ.

So... the Real MBTI Model says that INTPs and INTJs have a lot of MBTI-related aspects of personality in common — namely, all the aspects of personality that correspond to I, N and T, and to the IN, IT, NT and INT combinations — and that INTPs and ESFJs have no MBTI-related aspects of personality in common.

I use that idea from Myers regularly. What do you say to Poki who says ESTPs are very similar to his ISTP nature, but that ISTJs look similar on the outside, but go about things completely differently?

And where I can see that INFJs process things very close to how I do it, but ENFPs get to similar places but think very differently than my ENFJ nature. Is J vs P just such a profoundly huge difference?

I get along great with my ENTJ friend, and we have great conversations, but T vs F is huge.....

The INTJ vs INTP divide seems real. They have some similarities, but seem guided and directed very differently. Those that type those two types seem on the forum seem very different.

And again, many of the MBTI-related descriptions and discussions you'll find on the internet — based on the goofy Harold Grant function stack, championed by shining lights like Dario Nardi and Linda Berens — reflect a very different perspective that leads people to think INTPs and ESFJs have quite a lot of MBTI-related things in common, because they're both "Ti/Fe types" and "Si/Ne types," whereas INTJs and INTPs are more like opposites than cousins, because jeez, they have no functions in common.

ESFJs and INTPs would be very opposite in spite of the common functions under JCF.

My ENFP friend has a ISTJ bf. She's fairly well versed in all of Jung and MBTI. They are both middle-aged. She says sees in him areas that are clearly undeveloped in her and vice versa. It is a fairly typical experience it seems those with an apparently opposite type.

Of course, this could just be a Forer effect type thing.

As to INTJ vs INTP and similar issues, they appear to share a temperament, but not thinking process. It isn't just J vs P. Just like Poki says, ISTJs look like ISTPs, but thinking wise, very different.....

And those typical function-based type characterizations err in two different directions, because they both (1) include elements of type that have no validity — e.g., an INFP's "tertiary Si," and the notion that an INFP's F plays a more important role than her N (and vice versa for INFJs) because dom/aux — and also (2) tend to exclude, or shortchange, aspects of personality that correspond to dichotomy combinations (like NF) that aren't matched with one of the functions (not to mention the dichotomies themselves).

I think you are onto something. Dichotomy-based models definitely seem very valid. They completely violate much of the JCF model. Yet there is, as you noted, more scientific validity for dichotomy-centric typology.

Is there perhaps a combination of the two that could explain things better? Again, there are things that JCF seems to explain and dichotomy-centric theories don't.

And a final point that's worth emphasizing is that, contrary to the impression somebody's likely to get by reading forum discussions — and although, like Myers, the official MBTI websites continue to give a certain amount of lip service to the cognitive functions — official MBTI sources have always been, and continue to be, heavily dichotomy-centric, and to reflect the fact that virtually all the respectable psychometric support for the MBTI is support for the dichotomies and not the functions.

The 17-page report that an ENFJ (for example) receives after taking the relatively recent MBTI Step II test includes page after page of dichotomy-based analysis (including five separate subscales for each of the four dichotomies) and not a single mention of "extraverted feeling" or "introverted intuition" other than a diagram near the end that shows that "ENFJs like Feeling best, Intuition next, Sensing third and Thinking least," and one brief note about tending to use Feeling in the "outer world" and Intuition in the "inner world." All the rest of the ENFJ descriptions in the report — after the brief initial profile, which isn't broken down by components — are descriptions of N (not Ni or Ne), F (not Fi or Fe) and so on, and they're the same descriptions of N and F (and the five subscales of each) that ENFPs receive in their reports (notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are supposedly "Fe-Ni" and ENFPs are supposedly "Ne-Fi").

Here are the two official MBTI sources backing up the validity and reliability of the MBTI typology in its Step I and Step II incarnations:

Step I: MBTI Form M Manual Supplement
Step II: MBTI Step II Manual Supplement

Those sources refer (directly and indirectly) to a large number of studies providing scientific support for the MBTI, and display lots of the correlations and other relevant data. And there isn't a single mention in either of those sources of any "cognitive function."

But alas, Myers' lip service to the functions created what proved to be a significant marketing opportunity for a handful of MBTI theorists who've made names for themselves in the last 20 years or so by peddling a more function-centric version of the MBTI. And for better or worse (and I think it's unfortunate), both the CAPT and Myers-Briggs Foundation websites have long reflected the attitude that the MBTI "community" is basically all one big happy family, and — within certain limits — dichotomy-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be dichotomy-centric and function-centric theorist/practitioners are free to be function-centric, and everybody can sell their books and hold their seminars and it's all good.

As for me, though, I don't think there's any question that the MBTI would be more "useful" if Berens, Nardi and the rest of the HaroldGrantians conceded that Reynierse has their number, and stopped misleading people with an alternative version of the MBTI in which the dichotomies are largely framed as "letter codes" that need to be decoded to lead you to what type is really about.

Has the research into JCF not been done in your opinion or have the research not proved to justify the validity of the model?

It seems as though the MBTI folks don't come out against JCF for a reason. And not just to avoid losing money.

Perhaps they do have more conclusive data on functions, but they don't want to go forward with that. Quenk used their data and found some patterns that seem to support functions.

 

[reckful]

Quenk used their data and found some patterns that seem to support functions.

What is this in reference to?