X's do NOT exist!

[nightning]

Would you briefly describe this for me? I am not familliar with this.

Mendel... the monk who spent much of his life looking at pea plants? Have you heard of Mendelian genetics? Mendelian inheritance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To summarized his work... he found simple physical traits in peas are controlled by single genes within the plant. E.G If you have one form, you have yellow peas... if you have the other, you have white peas. It's dichotomized.

So what wildcat meant is another alternative would be for type preferences to be due to something similar as genes in a pea plant then it'll make sense that there is no X.

However that cannot be true. Because something as complex as personality will be pretty difficult to be controlled by a single gene. And you do see this in practice... For example introversion vs extroversion in a population follows a bell curve distribution... with most individuals falling in the middle rather than extreme ends. This goes completely against the notion that you can have dichotomy is personality traits.

 

[Into It]

MBTI and any other theory/model is only as good as they can be used to describe reality. Forced categorization is only useful for bureaucracy.

Then does it appear to you that the psychological functions are all shades of grey? That Fe is really just an extension of Fi?

Or that Te and Fe are essentially the same function varying in degrees of subjectivity? (What is a degree of objectivity anyway?)

Or stranger still, that intuition is some extension of sensing? This would be the hardest for me to grasp though all functions are dependent on sensing to some degree(consider Ti solving a math problem, which seems totally separate from sensing but actually relies on numbers that have been seen and heard), but as a rule, most people use either their five senses or just their sixth sense the vast majority of the time (70%+)

Forced categorization of people may only be useful for democracy, but the categorization of the functions is what I am most concerned with. While I do still stand by my original claim, I want to elucidate that although I believe all people can be relegated to a specific type, a taciturn, objective, tactical, sloppy ENFJ is not at all outside the realm of possibility, so it is the percieved boundaries of type that must be extended or in some cases ignored. Thus, the theory is tractable so that reality need not be.

I'm very interested in your take on the independence of functions.

 

[Into It]

However that cannot be true. Because something as complex as personality will be pretty difficult to be controlled by a single gene. And you do see this in practice... For example introversion vs extroversion in a population follows a bell curve distribution... with most individuals falling in the middle rather than extreme ends. This goes completely against the notion that you can have dichotomy is personality traits.

Aha, I remember Mendel now. Howie, right?

I don't entertain the notion that personality is controlled by a single gene, in fact it makes much more sense that personality is molded much more by an individual's environment and their personal considerations. Genetics accounts for neither of these, so NatureNurture

But I think that type is an indicator of the two dominant functions used. Four letters indicate "type" and nothing else. And "type" is only indirectly related to personality in that people of a certain type may have a higher probability of gravitating toward a particular set of behaviors for self-evident reasons, i.e., the introvert, which represents only 25% of the population, will likely be less sociable than the average person (50%).

I emphasize: an impregnable division stands between type and personality. When I say type, I am in no way alluding to a personality, but only to the functions that a person of this type will possess, and more specifically, only to the top two functions which are used without expending energy, since the function theory becomes inconsistent after this point.

 

[NewEra]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with the OP.

 

[the state i am in]

it just means we can not clearly discern the cognitive functions (which, i assume, is for all of us about 90% of why mbti is worth talking about and an interesting developmental model/tool). that we do not know enough to say, but we can at least apply very basic criteria like many of the mbti tests do to discern very broad spectrum preferences.

the difference between an introverted and an extraverted function is way more subtle than i think most people realize. like two sides of the same coin. the descriptive language most often in play in this particular language-game leaves a lot to be desired. some are better than others at getting at the essence or difference of a cognitive function, but it's just a little poem that disappears when you look away. the meaning of any example falls away when the seasons change. categorical language and structured understandings help and hurt with equal merit.

the differences for an infx means that NiFe and FiNe can look really similar in many many ways. until you get the clue that breaks the case, sometimes you're just stuck in the waiting room. people do not walk around inside out, and we get to know them by sketching and revising and slowly adding shades of color.

 

[nightning]

Then does it appear to you that the psychological functions are all shades of grey? That Fe is really just an extension of Fi?

Or that Te and Fe are essentially the same function varying in degrees of subjectivity? (What is a degree of objectivity anyway?)

Or stranger still, that intuition is some extension of sensing? This would be the hardest for me to grasp though all functions are dependent on sensing to some degree(consider Ti solving a math problem, which seems totally separate from sensing but actually relies on numbers that have been seen and heard), but as a rule, most people use either their five senses or just their sixth sense the vast majority of the time (70%+)

To keep it simple, yes. I've struggled to determine the boundaries of each cognitive function... Especially that for Ni and Ne. The more I talk to Ne dominants, the more I relate to their thinking style. Many of them are also of the opinion that I'm using Ne and not Ni... (I have one tell me he sees me as an INFP). At the same time I'm undeniably Ni dominant. I match all the descriptions given for the use of Ni.

This is pretty much the same for most external and internal aspect of functions... the closer you look at them... the more ways you can see how they relate. One of the previous discussions of how Fi in INTJs can look like Fe is one sample.

On the other perspective, looking at Te vs Fe. Both of these are judging mechanisms. One is supposedly based on logics and the other values. Is there a middle ground where people can use a mixture of both? The answer obviously is yes. How these people do it though is of interest. What makes up the middle of your continuum?

This leads to the question to the nature of functions. Are all the functions independent from each other and therefore the spectrum is simply due to a mixing of function usage? I.e. Sometimes you use Te more, other times you use Fe? Or is that there is no "real" Te or Fe... the person is using some "function" it's better to call it judging parameter can falls along the whole continuum... and what we call Te and Fe are simply labels for the two extremes for the variation of this parameter usage. I don't know at all. I go with the convention and assume they at the very least provide useful labels for understanding people. Your thoughts on this issue?

Forced categorization of people may only be useful for democracy, but the categorization of the functions is what I am most concerned with. While I do still stand by my original claim, I want to elucidate that although I believe all people can be relegated to a specific type, a taciturn, objective, tactical, sloppy ENFJ is not at all outside the realm of possibility, so it is the percieved boundaries of type that must be extended or in some cases ignored. Thus, the theory is tractable so that reality need not be.

Theory is how you define it. In other words, it can be either way if it's just a theory... it's made up. My stance is that a theory is only as useful as it can be applied. If it bears little resemblance to reality than I pay no attention to it. However I do see your point in that we need a starting place to describe people. Afterall classification of things is how our minds process most information.

But I think that type is an indicator of the two dominant functions used. Four letters indicate "type" and nothing else. And "type" is only indirectly related to personality in that people of a certain type may have a higher probability of gravitating toward a particular set of behaviors for self-evident reasons, i.e., the introvert, which represents only 25% of the population, will likely be less sociable than the average person (50%).

I emphasize: an impregnable division stands between type and personality. When I say type, I am in no way alluding to a personality, but only to the functions that a person of this type will possess, and more specifically, only to the top two functions which are used without expending energy, since the function theory becomes inconsistent after this point.

Let us for a moment scrap "type" and just look at function pairing. We'll hit the major premises behind the pairing... I.e. a judging function must be paired with a perceiving function of the opposite orientation: JiPe or JePi. I think it's safe to say JiJe or PiPe doesn't work... but why opposite orientation? Many people who put X in their type do so because they feel either internal processing (JiPi) or external processing (JePe) is most natural for them...

 

[Into It]

On the other perspective, looking at Te vs Fe. Both of these are judging mechanisms. One is supposedly based on logics and the other values. Is there a middle ground where people can use a mixture of both? The answer obviously is yes. How these people do it though is of interest. What makes up the middle of your continuum?

This leads to the question to the nature of functions. Are all the functions independent from each other and therefore the spectrum is simply due to a mixing of function usage? I.e. Sometimes you use Te more, other times you use Fe? Or is that there is no "real" Te or Fe... the person is using some "function" it's better to call it judging parameter can falls along the whole continuum... and what we call Te and Fe are simply labels for the two extremes for the variation of this parameter usage. I don't know at all. I go with the convention and assume they at the very least provide useful labels for understanding people. Your thoughts on this issue?

I arrive at a paradox: The only variable within the theory that may determine or change "How" a person finds the "middle" of their continuum would be an F function. I do not believe that one can alter his unconscious, information-collecting systems to a notable degree (P), but his J may be quite variable. This conclusion begs the question: F is responsible for monitoring F & T. The only way this can make sense is to assume that his F/T spectrum has been changed iteratively by an ever-changing F judgement on whether it is more important to make decisions objectively or interpersonally. The course is cyclical. One would assume that as the T became more dominant, the F would become less important. Thus, the motivation for further change would be impeded by a rational decision-making process. If a critical point were passed, the desire to revert to F would be weak and inconsequential.

I have found many F's wishing they were T's, but not many T's wishing they were F's. In fact, I don't think I've met any.

This raises the question, as the point of interest on the continuum oscillates randomly, (it isn't random for each individual, but if we averaged the population as a whole or viewed the oscillation on a meter without understanding the feelings behind the movement, it would appear random)if we are correct in assuming there is a "point of no return" that can be reached, which would mean something different for everyone and would be located at different points for each person, we would see a correlation between T function and time passed.

Does this in any way account for maturity? A child would be more likely to follow his feelings without rational scrutiny than an adult. An adult would be more likely to check his actions. Perhaps there is a nugget of reality to be extrapolated from this messy conjecture.

 

[beyondaurora]

Completely agree with the OP.

I use "x" to let others know that I'm unsure of my preference on a particular dichotomy. A true "x" type is ludicrous.

I just switched my "x" to "?" because I didn't realize that people were really reading the "x" in any other way than "I don't have a clue where I stand on this".

 

[Salomé]

Thanks for the feedback. From my experience with people, I have only noticed P functions coupled with J functions. Do you at least agree that this must be the case in the two dominant functions of any given type? That is, NiSi,Te,Fe would not occur, even if an Ni has strong Si (which I would consider highly unlikely based on how difficult it is for me to use my inferior shadow function Se).

I don't understand the bit about the INTJ, but I agree with that quoted above. And I find this explanation satisfying.

Specifically:

research indicates that cross-hemispheric communication can't take place diagonally. This would suggest that cognitive products associated with these diagonally related quadrants can't be simultaneously conscious.

so Nature < Nurture

I would contend that brain/neurochemical differences are what lead to preferences and that those are innate. This is already recognized/proved to be the case for Extroversion/Introversion.

 

[wildcat]

I think the issue is the visual X. What lies before is a symbol. People want to know out of two which is most. But I am saying X is more significant to one who is very close to both preferences. One is most, but it doesn't matter because its not "primary." There are four other different preferences. J won't typically describe someone who is 55% J.

Look at the gray.

Is it particularly "black" to anyone? How about "white?" Its it particularly white?

This gray is defined much clearer because its not so dark.

Nothing is out of two.
Everything is out of one.

This is what Mendel discovered.
End is only after the fact.

The process is the fact.
Balance does not divide.
It is the idea of balance.

 

[527468]

Nothing is out of two.
Everything is out of one.

This is what Mendel discovered.
End is only after the fact.

The process is the fact.
Balance does not divide.
It is the idea of balance.

End is only after the fact? I agree with Mendel, but I still think that gray is not particularly anything but gray.

 

[Lasting_Pain]

Nothing is out of two.
Everything is out of one.

This is what Mendel discovered.
End is only after the fact.

The process is the fact.
Balance does not divide.
It is the idea of balance.

Nice read, I like that.

 

[Froody Blue Gem]

I do understand that an X throws off the functions and the X opens up multiple pathways with conflicting functions and weakspots. It switches up inferiors to a contradictory level. It gets even wonkier carrying this over the socionics which should be separate from MBTI and Jungian theory altogether. One type may not entirely fit a person, so on the functional level, someone may waffle around. This is where the X would NOT work.


But with letter dichotomies, Xs are valid in my opinion. It shows the variety of types someone could be. People have strengths on each letter preference, and this excludes the functions focussing on this aspect. It's a matter of finding a balance between both and clarifying if you are going with functions, letters, or both. X may not be in the original theory, sure, but I think the "X is invalid" thought process is way too limiting and shuts down opening possibilities, and shoves people in boxes. I do think the J vs. P dichotomy is where it can be messy because of the entirely different functions thing, but it depends on how well you know yourself, what functions you use, what you don't.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I don't have functions because I don't function.

 

[EcK]

It s as if someone is taking mbti a bit too seriously. If you want some accuratish psychometrics pick the big 5. The mbti is just an approximation that happens to work well enough for people with clear preferences. For anyone « on the fence » of a particular preference it s basically useless and it would be silly to even use it in these situations.

 

[Boogie man]

When someone places an 'x' in their type, I just assume that they are still exploring their type. Of course it doesn't exist, for the 'x' stands for 'unknown.' At least, that's what it should stand for... if someone uses the 'x' because they got a 50% score on some test, well that's just not how the MBTI operates. The MBTI has no 'x.'

edit: Oof old thread is old.

 

[Vendrah]

The big answer is that Xs does exist, although the thread is old, so Im not going to be much specific on my whys.

X is already accepted by MBTI official folks.
Jung didnt even had types for the beggining, he only described 8 pure types stating himself that they are not realistic, so for Jung Xs does exist.
X does exist even in my own special approaches through cognitive functions.

X happens when there is no clear preference.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

If an "X" is pressed on a keyboard, and no one is there to see it, does it make an appearance?