Binary vs. Spectrum

[Arsal]

This is because everyone uses all of their cognitive functions at all times. More importantly, everyone uses the cognitive functions that are best suited for a task - even if that task isn't one of their primary functions. For example, in reading this, you're likely using more Ti than Ni or Fe if you're an INFJ.

No, functions are not skill-sets. You do not use any function when performing any task.

If you are an INFJ, you are Ni-Fe. Your cognitive function hierarchy mirrors your relation to the world. If you are an introvert, your relation to the world is primarily subjective; if you are Ni-dominant, your relation is primarily based around storing impressions and creating a worldview based around Fe or Te, and so on.

When you read, you are not particularly using any function. Reading is as much type-related as is walking.

If I am an INFJ who is scientifically inclined, I'm not overusing my Ti. I am simply a scientifically inclined Ni-Fe type. My preference is still based around creating a worldview; it's only not as blatant as some other people.

I would be Ti-Se if I were not concerned with this tendency to store impressions or lean towards being static. In contrast to Pi types, Pe types are dynamic and operate within a continuum. I frequently become like this when I'm depressed or stressed. However, this is not how I operate usually.

This has nothing to do with development, it has to do with assumptions and stereotypes and crappy typing methodology.

 

[acd]

Be nicer.

 

[Majesty]

Just give up. What you are saying is wrong. Your opinion may be right as far as you are concerned, but just because it is your opinion (and you think everyone else shares it - as you interpreted it like that), doesn't make it fact. This is besides the fact that the MBTI and related concepts are all theories, which by their nature, are unprovable and have no one truth

It's not an opinion.
"Twilight is awesome" is an opinion.
"This is what is written in a book" is a fact.

So what if it's a theory? It's like saying "Einstein's Relativity Theory is about marshmallows". It's not, and that's a fact. Same thing about function theory.
And anyways the theory is based on observation and not on random speculating, so it is real.

It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Next time, listen to your own advice. (Sounds cool, heh? =D)

 

[Trifoilum]

People:

From my own case, how do you explain :
a) ambivalence / 'X' in mbti (INTXs);
b) that amount of 'other functions', sometimes low and sometimes high, irregardless of the type. (taking it personal, I have unnaturally high Fi)

yes, yes, JCF and MBTI may be different, but still. Some questions are meant to be answered....not that my curiosity is that important, but nyeeeeeeh...

And I find it really, really funny that to the box or outside the box of MBTI/ennea/Socionics/blah, the overall message still are "you are special", does anyone here ever said, "look, your functions are exactly INFJ / fluid / [x], so you're just another one of those guys."

 

[Aya Glenn]

Question: If the point of these typologies is simply to help an individual know themselves better, or for an organization to better position those they are directing then why do these differences matter? Are they important when creating a team of people or is "using your gut" a better idea? Everyone thinks they are good at reading other people but do these typologies really help? I appreciate them as they give me another way to relate people's behaviors over time but arguing the specifics of it only seems useful to me if that is coupled with a specific result that can be used when making decisions...

I may be way out of line here and it is an interesting conversation but I am slightly lost to the specific point of it anymore... unless it is to argue for discussions sake because everyone is entertained by it... then I understand but I think you have come to a point where you two need to change up the plot line a bit to keep interest... I kinda hope you don't turn on me to "change up the plot line" but... maybe both of you can help me understand the use of these opinions one way or the other as you both seem to have a much firmer grasp on the specifics than I have. Thanks!

 

[Trifoilum]

Question: If the point of these typologies is simply to help an individual know themselves better, or for an organization to better position those they are directing then why do these differences matter?

As far as self identification, some people like to cling upon a type, or to be exact, what the type signifies. For instance, "I am an INFJ because INFJs are helpful to people and they have psychic-like ability and are a savior for moral causes and I do all that!" I have no idea for organization, but you would like to put the best person in the right place for your company, no?

Are they important when creating a team of people or is "using your gut" a better idea? Everyone thinks they are good at reading other people but do these typologies really help?

What do you mean, in the first sentence? Am I separating the sentence wrongly?
Again, the typology help establishing their identity. "I'm an INFJ(tm), so I'm DEFINITELY good at reading other people."

I appreciate them as they give me another way to relate people's behaviors over time but arguing the specifics of it only seems useful to me if that is coupled with a specific result that can be used when making decisions...

I may be way out of line here and it is an interesting conversation but I am slightly lost to the specific point of it anymore... unless it is to argue for discussions sake because everyone is entertained by it... then I understand but I think you have come to a point where you two need to change up the plot line a bit to keep interest... I kinda hope you don't turn on me to "change up the plot line" but... maybe both of you can help me understand the use of these opinions one way or the other as you both seem to have a much firmer grasp on the specifics than I have. Thanks!

Oh, definitely not for discussion's sake, as far as I'm seeing. Of course, I'd be glad to be wrong.
If I may fill in, the main difference on the two opinion seemingly lies on the information that is, shadow function / unused functions.

One group (that is represented by VH here) believes that people actually uses all 8 function, your type only serves as a sign of what your top 4 used functions are. Implication includes that maturity / well-roundedness means developing those latent potential.

Other group (represented by Arsal, Majesty) believes that people only uses the 4 main function and the other functions are, essentially, blind sides. (in practice, people cope.) Developing opposite functions is almost impossible, unless you're thoroughly induced to heavy stress / psychologically scarred.

I might be wrong here. :] But if I'm not, there it is. It's best not to pick one and offend the other, and take it as you can xD

 

[VH]

My stance is that type is not in any way a static set of functions. As you put it, there is no such thing as INFJ(tm). That's what's called the Forer Effect. People assume that these labels are absolutes and bend their self perception (and their perception of others) to match these stereotypes. This usually happens when enough of a description matches up to convince the individual that the rest of the description must be true. We've seen this with Majesty's insistence than she is an ENTP, and therefore the ENTP pattern is how her mind works, which of course means that every other type model is perfectly accurate and inclusive.

My stance however, is that personality type is at best a general assessment. INFJ is not always Ni, then Fe, then Ti, then Se, and no two INFJs are perfectly alike in their development. Some INFJs have stronger Ni than others. That's just obvious. Some of them have stronger Fe than other INFJs. Also obvious. The same is true with all the other functions. To take it a step further, it's also obvious that some INFJs tend to use their Ni and Fe in certain ways while other INFJs tend to use those functions in different ways. For example, some INFJs tend to use their Fe to accommodate other people, while other INFJs tend to use their Fe to establish how they feel things should be.

There are a lot of variations in the human mind and personality, and at best the personality type model can somewhat describe us the majority of the time. The instant variables start to get thrown into the equation of the operation of the mind, its perceptions, and its reactions... the basic model begins to bend and adapt. Otherwise, stress would automatically cause people to be entirely ineffective or capable of overcoming the unexpected.

The cognitive functions are quantifiable. I don't have a system for doing so, and simply used the analogy of the IQ scale to make the point that some people have better developed functions than others, within the members of their own type, as well as without.

1. Most people exhibit a pattern that appears to coincide with the type models. For example, someone who is an INFJ will likely have perspectives that resemble Ni, Fe, Ti, and Se in varying measure. However, this doesn't mean that all of the people who are best fit by this type use those cognitive functions in the same way, or as well.

2. I believe that what we are calling the cognitive functions are actually "states of perspective" in the thought process. These states become more and more expansive as we use them, grow, and develop as people.

3. I think that these basic states of cognition eventually expand into one another as they grow. For example, as the perspective we would refer to as Ni develops in an INFJ personality, it will begin to perform in ways that also resemble Ne. As the INFJ personality develops Fe into what resembles Fi, Ti into Te, Se into Si, all of these functions begin to reinforce one another until eventually, and ideally the base personality type is very difficult to distinguish because all of the cognitive perspectives have integrated.

4. I believe that the mind adapts to any given stress by switching perspectives, or cognitive function preferences, temporarily. This is one of the best methods the mind has for developing the lesser functions.

5. Because the mind is adaptive, the only proof of personality type is the over time preferences. The cognitive functions we use most and prefer to use most, especially when not experiencing stress, are the natural or reflexive functions. These determine type, but type does not dictate anything to the individual outside of Forer Effect.

So, yes, I am very far from believing that the mind can be simply divided into 8 neat little parts which are then ordered sequentially. This assumption comes from misinterpreting what the model is attempting to represent - which is the most common state of operation. Without understanding this, there can be no true understanding of type because type happens in motion. Any snapshot of the individual parts is very short sighted because the mind is always in motion, and it is understanding the mind in motion that is the true understanding of type.

 

[ceri]

I've never known an ENTP who could resist the temptation to remove all doubt.

I know right?

Next time, listen to your own advice. (Sounds cool, heh? =D)

Nawwww cutie, look what you posted on my wall:

"your mom is stupid noob" quite cute for a young kid such as yourself.

It's not an opinion.

Ignorant too aye? I guess ignorance really is bliss.

"Twilight is awesome" is an opinion.
"This is what is written in a book" is a fact.

I'm sure most of us (you excluded) are well aware of the difference between a fact and an opinion, why bother bringing it up?

So what if it's a theory? It's like saying "Einstein's Relativity Theory is about marshmallows". It's not, and that's a fact. Same thing about function theory.
You stated that since it's written in a book/by someone (well, your interpretation), and as it's person's theory, it must be true. This is a ludicrous statement and if you fail to understand that, it's your own problem.

And anyways the theory is based on observation and not on random speculating, so it is real.
Have you actually gone through and read all the observation results and the methods used, and reasoned that the conclusion is fair; or did you just read that it was done. I am almost certain (given that you're a kid, as established earlier in my post) that it's the latter in your case. Oh and observations that support a theory do not prove that the theory is "real" (your word). You did know that, didn't you?

My stance is that type is not in any way a static set of functions. As you put it, there is no such thing as INFJ(tm). That's what's called the Forer Effect. People assume that these labels are absolutes and bend their self perception (and their perception of others) to match these stereotypes. This usually happens when enough of a description matches up to convince the individual that the rest of the description must be true. We've seen this with Majesty's insistence than she is an ENTP, and therefore the ENTP pattern is how her mind works, which of course means that every other type model is perfectly accurate and inclusive.

This is my understanding of a person's MBTI type too. I consider each person to have a "best fit type" based off Linda Beren's http://www.bestfittype.com/bestfittype.html

 

[VH]

This is my understanding of a person's MBTI type too. I consider each person to have a "best fit type" based off Linda Beren's http://www.bestfittype.com/bestfittype.html

Yeah, I've seen her work before. It's in the direction Beebe took things with cognitive function order. I like it. These folks are actually the ones that originated the cognitive function development and use quiz.

 

[Majesty]

From my own case, how do you explain :
a) ambivalence / 'X' in mbti (INTXs);
b) that amount of 'other functions', sometimes low and sometimes high, irregardless of the type. (taking it personal, I have unnaturally high Fi)

Ambivalence works only and only with dichtonomies. You're Ni/Te OR Ti/Ne, no such thing as Ni>Ti>Ne>Te
If you really have a high Fi, you're not INFJ. INFJs have Fe. Fe and Fi do not like each other so they don't want to live in the same person </3 (i explained why earlier in the thread)

"your mom is stupid noob" quite cute for a young kid such as yourself.

I'm 53 and a grandmother. I will throw my dentures to your house this night.

4. I believe that the mind adapts to any given stress by switching perspectives, or cognitive function preferences, temporarily. This is one of the best methods the mind has for developing the lesser functions.

lol

I'm sure most of us (you excluded) are well aware of the difference between a fact and an opinion, why bother bringing it up?

You quite obviously didn't understand.

You stated that since it's written in a book/by someone (well, your interpretation), and as it's person's theory, it must be true. This is a ludicrous statement and if you fail to understand that, it's your own problem.

No, what is true is that it is written in the book. Harry Potter is written in a book, but it's not real (but i hope it is)

Have you actually gone through and read all the observation results and the methods used, and reasoned that the conclusion is fair; or did you just read that it was done. I am almost certain (given that you're a kid, as established earlier in my post) that it's the latter in your case. Oh and observations that support a theory do not prove that the theory is "real" (your word). You did know that, didn't you?

Some people are more extroverted than others. That's real and it can be observed.
So the theory of some people being more extroverted than others would be real.

Your mom stinks, btw.

3. I think that these basic states of cognition eventually expand into one another as they grow. For example, as the perspective we would refer to as Ni develops in an INFJ personality, it will begin to perform in ways that also resemble Ne. As the INFJ personality develops Fe into what resembles Fi, Ti into Te, Se into Si, all of these functions begin to reinforce one another until eventually, and ideally the base personality type is very difficult to distinguish because all of the cognitive perspectives have integrated.

The only thing that could possibly sightly ressemble Ne is Se. Make your own yay vh system if you want, but at least don't call it mbti/jcf/etc. because that's not how they work.


(I'm done now)

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I'm not sure if it's binary or spectral, but I think a binary model does make sense.

Like, if you have a ball on the middle of a flat surface it will stay still, but if you tilt
that surface slightly, it won't just roll a little bit, it will roll right to the other end.

So it may be with type. If you start with an amorphous ball of functions, then just a
little variation will push everything into a very well defined system of dichotomies.

So we would have to show that a) the dichotomies selected are not arbitrary, and
that b) slight variations from the centre of these result in large variations.

 

[VH]

So we would have to show that a) the dichotomies selected are not arbitrary, and
that b) slight variations from the centre of these result in large variations.

Take a look at how few people score 100% on any dichotomy. Many people score 50% or less on all of them. More proof of the spectral model is the fact that everyone uses all functions to some degree. This couldn't be possible with binary dichotomies.

 

[Aya Glenn]

Thank you for the input. My question was mainly geared towards a company or organization as that was the purpose for the testing to begin with, when I first heard of it. It is of no real importance at this point in time, to me.

It seems as if both groups are saying similar things just using different terminology... Of course if people take any direction of "who they should be" too seriously from an external source they are setting themselves up for problems. Although people seem to like having things to use... otherwise horoscopes would not be so popular and fortune tellers wouldn't exist. People want to be told what they think (validation) and often seem to skip over what doesn't fit. Even people who are otherwise incredibly discerning.

I appreciate the testing though (or rather the descriptions of the types at the end) as it gives me a way to better communicate my natural tendencies and the natural tendencies of others to people I trust in a manner they are more likely to understand. It also shows me what areas of my personality I need to work on more. By defining certain tendencies it can be used as a tool for self improvement or to help another gain well-roundedness. That what everyone here seems to be saying. But in all things, some people take it too far and let it define their characteristics. Correct?