The INFJ Divide "/"

[arbygil]

Adymus, don't think folks are ignoring you, or ignoring what you have to say; in fact, most of us do know how MBTI works, and how it's set into specific cognitive functions. We even know how it works - as much as anyone who doesn't have a psychology degree can know it, anyway.

But this is just all more, experimental talk. It doesn't mean people don't know how it works - it's just that we realize there are limits to it, and we're not 100% any cognitive function. We can't be. I know I'm an INFJ, but I see us as more on a graduating scale within the Ni, Fe, Ti, Se functions. When I take the cognitive function test, my Se doesn't even make the top four. But my Te function does. Apparently, I use Te more than I do Se. Ni and Fe are usually on top, but the remaining functions don't quite follow the order. And yet when I take official MBTI exams, I will come out as INFJ.

So how is that possible?

That, I think, is what's being explored today. It's fun to think in different directions about it, even though we know what it *should* be.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I often see the use of Si being equated with a good recollection of past; or people assuming that because they have a good memory they are a Si user.

Others have described Si as piecing things from the past together, or in some similar fashion where it serves as a way to "ground" information, and that really sounds like tert. Ti use to me.

Also, the assumption that Fe is always warm and affable. While in reality Fe can be just as "cold" and objective as Te.

Yeah this is an error I have made before. I very much use Fe in the absence of emotions and can be rather cold/heartless at times (although not mean vengeful). It's whats tricked me into thinking I was an INTJ or ISFJ before. I largely find emotions useless and irrational and try to make them go away in particular when I am trying to make a judgement call (again because I often find them unreliable). However, I still use the Fe in the way that it works (just without emotion, which is seen as odd). It just looks kinda like Te. I still do apply the usage of Te and Si, just not in the exact ways I thought before.

 

[Peppermint]

And what about the reverse? Can you conceive of a situation in which Te would be considerate and affable rather cold, terse, or blunt?

I am going to have to ask how you are defining what it means to be "Cold"? Completely emotionless? or are you saying Fe is just not necessarily always nice?

Not being people pleasing and conforming to politeness at all costs.

What I mean (and I think this answers the above too) is that the outside appearance of functions isn't really that one sided. I've noticed that both Te and Fe users have a "getting it done" mentality about them, what really matters is what they are getting done, not necessarily how they are doing it. (it can, but there are always more things to consider)

 

[Adymus]

Adymus, don't think folks are ignoring you, or ignoring what you have to say; in fact, most of us do know how MBTI works, and how it's set into specific cognitive functions. We even know how it works - as much as anyone who doesn't have a psychology degree can know it, anyway.

But this is just all more, experimental talk. It doesn't mean people don't know how it works - it's just that we realize there are limits to it, and we're not 100% any cognitive function. We can't be. I know I'm an INFJ, but I see us as more on a graduating scale within the Ni, Fe, Ti, Se functions. When I take the cognitive function test, my Se doesn't even make the top four. But my Te function does. Apparently, I use Te more than I do Se. Ni and Fe are usually on top, but the remaining functions don't quite follow the order. And yet when I take official MBTI exams, I will come out as INFJ.

So how is that possible?

That, I think, is what's being explored today. It's fun to think in different directions about it, even though we know what it *should* be.

I'm sure you do understand how it works, I'm just clarifying what we are working we here. I'm also addressing something that I see all too often in MBTI circles: the approach to MBTI suggesting the dichotomies and cognitive functions were two separate phenomenon.

You know, it is convenient that you would bring up the Cognitive functions test, because I just updated my criticism on it, so copy/paste time:


What the cognitive process test does is it questions you based on certain "symptoms" of each cognitive function. For example, if you structured a logical plan, you did it by using Te. This is actually not true at all, it is actually possible to create a structured plan by using Ti, Ne, Si, and then Fe, for the case of an INTP like me. We have priorities that are meant to serve certain purposes. Such as Ne taking in information in real time from the outside, but that does not mean it is the same thing as Se, even though it is serving the same purpose as Se.

The cognitive process test assumes that because you can relate to these questions enough to put check marks in them, you must have these function developed. There are four factors that are going into what you are selecting in the CP test: recognition, association, inspiration, and disassociation.

Recognition:
As you answer questions, you will recognize uses of the functions that you consciously use and associate with, for an INTP this is Ti and Ne. Now you consciously use more than just Ti and Ne, but those two are going to be the most apparent to you because of the fact that it is these two that create your sense of self. Unless you are completely oblivious to the workings of your mind, you top to functions should at least be in there, now here is the part where a bunch of extras go in as well.

Association:
There are many functions that we use that are similar to our recognition functions, but still very different. These are processes that we don't have, but we will associate with the ones we do have because of their similarity. Examples of these are Fi and Se. Fi and Ti actually come from the same brain quad, they are extremely similar in their functionality and serve the same purpose in one's psyche. They are both subjective discernment functions that serve as a compass of sorts, whether it be logical or moral. You could actually say there is a little bit of unconscious Fi in Ti, and a little bit of Ti in Fi. One must have convictions for logic in order to resonate with the purely logical, and one must have a logical reason for having convictions. Yet still, to suggest that you are using both is still missing the point, your priority is going to focus on Logic or morality, and that is what makes it a completely different process.
Everyone has emotions, and a feeling process of sorts, but because of the fact that we are introverts, and don't closely associate with the external, we will think of our feelings as introverted, even though they are not.
There could be a similar confusion with Se and Ne, because in order to grasp an Ne pattern in the first place, the starting point must be a detail (Se). But again, you are not looking for details, you are focusing on patterns, which is why it is Ne you are using, not Se.

Inspiration:
These are functions that we do not have, but not only could we associate with them more than what we do have, we are inspired by their usage. Examples of these are Te and Ni. Every personality must have a "worldview" function, for an INTP it is Si. But we don't really like to associate with details and sensing, that is just not how we see ourselves. Ni is the other worldview function, and when posed with something like the question of the CP test, we are going to resonate more with an Ni worldview more than we are an Si worldview. Whatever your top two functions are (ie: Ti-Ne), it is naturally that you would see the respective functions of opposite rationality (ie: Te-Ni) as inspirational and desirable. They are the functions that we don't have, but we look up to and kind of wish we did.

Disassociation:
The very definition of "the shadow" in Jungian psychology is all that is a part of us that we do not identify with, or just do not like. This is why your shadow functions (For an INTP they are Si and Fe) are going to fall into this category. Our shadow functions are present, they are less conscious than our dominant and auxiliary, but we do consciously use them. As intuitives and thinkers we don't really see ourselves as detail oriented, or gregariously feeling. We have this capacity, but it is not a part of us that we like to associate with. Ti is the opposite with Fe, as Ti dominant it is Ti that really identify with, sense Fe is Ti's opposite, then that means we will identify with Fe the least. Because of this your shadow functions are probably going to be way below other functions on a CP test do to the fact that we just don't see them as being a part of us, even though they effect your psyche is the most profound of ways.


Now then, if you combine all of these factors into a cognitive process test, you results could very well end up: Ti, Fi, Ne, Ni, Te, etc, despite the fact that you have neither Ni, nor Te, nor Fi.

You see, you cannot possibly measure one's psyche with a written test. It is ludicrous to think you can, and people really need to start questioning the tests they are taking instead of assuming it must be true because it is a test. Even the basic MBTI test, is not measuring what you use, but your awareness of what you use. This awareness can be biased by many things such as Idealism, culture, confidence, and level of growth. For instance, an ENFP who has worked really hard on their Te, might just start answering the questions as they would a strong thinker. They worked hard to develop that part of themselves, they are proud, and they deserve it. But that doesn't mean that they have Te as a preferred function and it is your innate preferences that truly decides what your personality type is, not what you could possibly use. It is not about what you have, or what you can do, it is about where you start and what you naturally prefer to do.

 

[AUM]

So Adymus, how then should we approach these kinds of assessments? How could we possibly know for sure what are our functions without being widely biased?

Because you're right in this respect, whenever I take the cognitive preference test I seem to go along with the functions that I know I use the most and tend to ignore the other ones, mainly because I don't know what they're talking about. I especially have trouble understanding Fi which is why I score so low on that function.

 

[arbygil]

Granted (responding to Adymus): we do have to take the MBTI tests with a grain of salt, because we know we take the tests based on a preference for who we are. We all know - most of us, anyway - that we have a preference for being who we are (personality tests are simply assessments of how we perceive ourselves to be).

If we're completely honest with ourselves, we'll have an accurate assessment. But like the Johari window, there's always one section of ourselves that others know that we don't (or something no one knows until we're tested in that area of our lives).

But there's nothing wrong with exploring other methods if you know what the "true" MBTI is about. I've read PUMII and nearly all the Best Fit type models by Beebe and Berens and so many other authors. I've definitely explored it. Still, I like to hear other takes that others have. Some I take with a grain of salt, while others are just fun to engage. They're theories, though, and I don't see the harm in exploring the fun aspects as well.

 

[sassafras]

@Questingpoet:

I think this is a very interesting theory, and I actually find myself agree with about 95% of who you listed under what category. I will say this, and I know Indy is going to throw the book at me, but I get an ISFJ vibe from him sometimes. I would put him on the ISFJ/INFJ list.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Granted (responding to Adymus): we do have to take the MBTI tests with a grain of salt, because we know we take the tests based on a preference for who we are. We all know - most of us, anyway - that we have a preference for being who we are (personality tests are simply assessments of how we perceive ourselves to be).

If we're completely honest with ourselves, we'll have an accurate assessment. But like the Johari window, there's always one section of ourselves that others know that we don't (or something no one knows until we're tested in that area of our lives).

But there's nothing wrong with exploring other methods if you know what the "true" MBTI is about. I've read PUMII and nearly all the Best Fit type models by Beebe and Berens and so many other authors. I've definitely explored it. Still, I like to hear other takes that others have. Some I take with a grain of salt, while others are just fun to engage. They're theories, though, and I don't see the harm in exploring the fun aspects as well.

This.

Also, take this into consideration. We INFJ's dont use Ti well. We won't have everything laid out exactly as it is like you INTP's will be able to. All of what we are saying makes sense to us, and it helps us understand the differences between all of us. It might not in acordance with the theories published, but it works for us, and to us that is what matters. It gives us deeper understanding. If the theory is wrong, but it gets us to the correct place in the end then that is what matters to us. We are understanding each other better, and our understandings are correct to us. You must remember Ni makes leaps of logic and information with no trace in the middle, that's what were doing, and we are totally ok with that. If we sense an error we correct it in our own way.

I think this is a very interesting theory, and I actually find myself agree with about 95% of who you listed under what category. I will say this, and I know Indy is going to throw the book at me, but I get an ISFJ vibe from him sometimes. I would put him on the ISFJ/INFJ list.

tee-hee

 

[Hiro]

This list is rather interesting. I myself would be an INTJ/INTP, which is very interesting when it comes to organization and such.

As for clearing up which type you are, I think the best way to figure it out is by taking many different tests to start. You then take those results, and do a little bit of research into the cognitive functions of each and look at descriptions.

Of course doing all of this won't change who you are, but at least you might be able to recognize your strengths and weaknesses easier. Actually, that's the reason I'm here.

 

[Adymus]

Granted (responding to Adymus): we do have to take the MBTI tests with a grain of salt, because we know we take the tests based on a preference for who we are. We all know - most of us, anyway - that we have a preference for being who we are (personality tests are simply assessments of how we perceive ourselves to be).

If we're completely honest with ourselves, we'll have an accurate assessment. But like the Johari window, there's always one section of ourselves that others know that we don't (or something no one knows until we're tested in that area of our lives).

But there's nothing wrong with exploring other methods if you know what the "true" MBTI is about. I've read PUMII and nearly all the Best Fit type models by Beebe and Berens and so many other authors. I've definitely explored it. Still, I like to hear other takes that others have. Some I take with a grain of salt, while others are just fun to engage. They're theories, though, and I don't see the harm in exploring the fun aspects as well.

The thing is, being honest with yourself is not enough. When people are getting inaccurate results it is not necessarily because they are lying to themselves, you can answer questions truthfully to how you see yourself and still be wrong about how you function. First of all, most people just don't know themselves to begin with, you relying on that is a big mistake in itself.
Even if you are honest with yourself, you are still only answer questions based on what you are aware of, the way you see yourself, and knowing yourself is very different from knowing how you function.

The MBTI test was designed to only check for preferred use of your top two functions, and the descriptions of MBTI types are only describing a person that has proficient use of their top two functions, (which is pretty damn undeveloped). That means that a person who has development in more than their top two functions will more than likely test as something else, and they will contradict as well as not relate to the descriptions of types.

When a person begins to develop their lower and less preferred functions, they will begin to become more consciously aware of these functions. Essentially the functions will take up more "space" in the conscious mind than they had before, and they actually become closer to one's identity. This change shifts your perception of who you are (ego), and who you are not (shadow). Because of this, a well developed personality might just look at the MBTI descriptions (which are only describing the bare minimum of development), and say "Ewww, that's not me at all!"

And the thing is, they would actually be right, it isn't them. Let's say you are an ENFP who has very well developed Te. You have worked really hard on developing that Te, you are very proud of it and it has helped you throughout your life. Because of this, it is very likely you are going to answer questions in favor of thinking, because it has become a part of your own perception of self. You can very well think to yourself "Yes I prefer a logic based answer and solution" even if you are a feeler, and still not really be lying to yourself, because when said ENFP uses their Te, they get good results, which is why they think that they "prefer" it, even if it might not be a natural preference function for them.

Don't get me wrong now, I am all about innovation and looking at things from new perspectives. I'm no MBTI preservationist, I am actually the opposite, the world is in dire need of a new and better model. But if you don't know or understand what you are looking at in the first place, you are not going to get very far with your innovation. MBTI is addressing a very real pattern and phenomenon in human beings, but it has limited itself by it's own incompetent implementation.

 

[Adymus]

Also, take this into consideration. We INFJ's dont use Ti well. We won't have everything laid out exactly as it is like you INTP's will be able to. All of what we are saying makes sense to us, and it helps us understand the differences between all of us. It might not in acordance with the theories published, but it works for us, and to us that is what matters. It gives us deeper understanding. If the theory is wrong, but it gets us to the correct place in the end then that is what matters to us. We are understanding each other better, and our understandings are correct to us. You must remember Ni makes leaps of logic and information with no trace in the middle, that's what were doing, and we are totally ok with that. If we sense an error we correct it in our own way.

This is not about subscribing to the published theories of MBTI, because they have just as many flaws. This is not about logic, it is about accuracy, I have no problem with an Ni leap that appears irrational if it is works. Your way would be good and fine if it really was getting you to the correct place like you are saying it is doing. Sometimes it does, but there is a large hole cut right out of it. The MBTI is probably accurate maybe about 60% of the time give or take, but the remaining 40% represent not just a flaw in the test, but a huge misunderstanding of human functionality.
Current MBTI really does give us a somewhat deeper understanding than what we had without it, but we can go far deeper, and the mainstream MBTI has blocked off this deeper understanding with it's current understanding (or lack there of) and methodology, by the implementation of simplicities.

 

[IndigoSensor]

This is not about subscribing to the published theories of MBTI, because they have just as many flaws. This is not about logic, it is about accuracy, I have no problem with an Ni leap that appears irrational if it is works. Your way would be good and fine if it really was getting you to the correct place like you are saying it is doing. Sometimes it does, but there is a large hole cut right out of it. The MBTI is probably accurate maybe about 60% of the time give or take, but the remaining 40% represent not just a flaw in the test, but a huge misunderstanding of human functionality.
Current MBTI really does give us a somewhat deeper understanding than what we had without it, but we can go far deeper, and the mainstream MBTI has blocked off this deeper understanding with it's current understanding (or lack there of) and methodology, by the implementation of simplicities.

You just don't get it. We don't care if this is wrong, it works for us and that is what we care about. Let us have our fun.

 

[Feelings]

I think this is interesting. I identify as INFJ, but a friend who is much more familiar with MBTI says I actually don't come off as any of the types at all. I don't know enough about any of the other types to say whether or not I fit in any other category. Maybe ISFJ sometimes. Maybe ISTJ sometimes as well.

Your avatar looks to have a strong Si component to it. I'd guess you were an ISFJ or ISTJ from it. Your facial expression and general vibe looks a lot like an ISFJ that was my secretary for a few years.

That's very typical of an INFJ, actually. Are you in your 20s? That's around the time when INFJs really start to develop their T functions.

Edit: Nevermind. It's listed on your info. *Si Fail and facepalm*

I also am going to agree with this. I two good friends of mine / co-workers (an ISFJ and an ISTJ) have a very similar vibe to you. Looking at your cognitive function results, I think ISFJ is a very distinct possibillity. Have you read the descriptons for this type before?

This Sandra is actually my IRL BFF. We haven't been intimate yet unfortunately (still working on it), so I'm not familiar with the full range of facial expressions that she may have She is most certainly NOT an ISFJ or ISTJ. She doesn't fall into any particular type category as far as I can see. My belief is that she is an INFJ though. She had a difficult adolescence, and when she was 18, there was actually a very distinct time when her feelings started becoming buried. I think that she just guards her feelings very VERY closely now, and has strong aversions to getting close to anyone.

I think that what you may see in the way that she interacts with people may be interpreted incorrectly. Most INFJs have a strong Fe and thus are able to understand people very well. Sandra's talent with this is actually on a completely different level. From what I've seen, she's absolutely incredible in ascertaining exactly what is going on in people's heads and figuring out what to say to make them do what she wants. This is likely due to her extensive experience talking with people who have "issues".

It sounds like I'm disclosing a lot of information about her, but I've actually gotten the go-ahead from her to post this.

 

[894tt3h9]

VH: I took a quiz that said that I was ISFJ. But most tests and quizzes that I take indicate I'm INFJ. I've read the descriptions of both and I think INFJ fits me the best. I'm 25 now as you've now seen haha. I think most of my emotions have subsided and I try to look at everything from a completely objective point of view. I think that's why I don't come off as being particularly feely.

IndigoSensor: I've read the ISFJ personality description and I definitely do fit with some of it. I can totally see how I may come off as ISFJ. But I feel that the INFJ description is what suits me 100%. But most of the things that would really identify my as INFJ I keep hidden to myself.

 

[IndigoSensor]

IndigoSensor: I've read the ISFJ personality description and I definitely do fit with some of it. I can totally see how I may come off as ISFJ. But I feel that the INFJ description is what suits me 100%. But most of the things that would really identify my as INFJ I keep hidden to myself.

*nod* part of the reason I asked is because I have tested as ISFJ on cognitive function tests before (and seriously considered it as a type, as I identified with many things in the description). In the end INFJ wins out for me as well. I have to keep reminding myself that that darn cognitive function test does not deserve as much stock as I put into it *shakes fist at test*.

 

[894tt3h9]

*nod* part of the reason I asked is because I have tested as ISFJ on cognitive function tests before (and seriously considered it as a type, as I identified with many things in the description). In the end INFJ wins out for me as well. I have to keep reminding myself that that darn cognitive function test does not deserve as much stock as I put into it *shakes fist at test*.

haha I try not to think too much on it. I don't even necessarily believe in concrete labels, but I figure if the same result keeps coming up then it must be true. I've also tested positive for INTJ (makes it sound like a drug test lol) and I'm definitely not INTJ at all. I guess majority rules!

 

[VH]

This is not about subscribing to the published theories of MBTI, because they have just as many flaws. This is not about logic, it is about accuracy, I have no problem with an Ni leap that appears irrational if it is works. Your way would be good and fine if it really was getting you to the correct place like you are saying it is doing. Sometimes it does, but there is a large hole cut right out of it. The MBTI is probably accurate maybe about 60% of the time give or take, but the remaining 40% represent not just a flaw in the test, but a huge misunderstanding of human functionality.
Current MBTI really does give us a somewhat deeper understanding than what we had without it, but we can go far deeper, and the mainstream MBTI has blocked off this deeper understanding with it's current understanding (or lack there of) and methodology, by the implementation of simplicities.

The theories behind this thread are actually being proven correct by MRI scans and testing conducted by a few psychological studies around the world right now. Areas of the brain are being defined as being associated with various cognitive processes, and no one has the exact same imprint of cerebral activity. There are trends, but signatures are always unique. The models are starting to show 'norms' for types but there is a lot of diversity among them. The best way to describe this is to make an analogy with fingerprints. There are distinct types and patterns, but each is unique and there are many that have elements of more than one type of fingerprint.

Ironically enough, people who tend to score outside the established norms for type models (Beebe, Thomson, etc) on the cognitive process tests usually end up having synonymous activity in those areas. In other words, measuring individual cognitive function preference is proving to be much more accurate than the four axis MBTI approach (which was always very assumptive to imply direct correlation between 4 axis preferences and the levels of 8 cognitive functions' development). The 16 types are much less inclusive or structured than previously considered. While the trends of each type are apparent, the reality is that everyone really is unique, and the mind is far too adaptive to assume that it must follow any given pattern.

In other words, just like all the other times science and understanding have advanced, we're now stepping into another period of refinement and discovery with respect to these theories. First there was Jung, then Myers Briggs, then Thomson, then Beebe, etc. Each refined the understanding of the previous, and that's what is going on in the world right now. Of course, as always the Ni dominants are way ahead of the curve and see the pattern coming. In a few years, most of what we're discussing here will be considered standard theory once all the data from these studies have been compiled, and people will be looked at as backward for not subscribing to it. Most importantly, these discoveries are going to lead to greater unification between the various forms of psychological approach such as behavioral, abnormal, etc. but that's much farther down the road.

For now simply accept that there is a new axiom for cognitive process development and that is this. All cognitive functions develop as needed by the user. Even though there are trends and patterns in cause and effect of which functions are developed, the end result is always a unique cognition set that is often able to fit one of the 16 types better than others... just like a fingerprint.

 

[Adymus]

I think you are misunderstanding me entirely VH, I'm not saying there is a lack of evidence, or that using cognitive functions is a poor way to base type. The MRI scans proved that cognitive function uses are allocated to the four quadrants of the brain, but they didn't actually prove how they are being used in a structural sense which is the cause for all of this misunderstanding.

Here are the problems that I have:
1.) A cognitive functions test is not a brain scan, it is a written test. A very poorly designed written test, that does not actually quantify the complexities of the human mind. So please stop acting like you have the authorities on your side, because none of them are validating an internet cognitive functions test.
2.) You're right, the 16 types are less inclusive than previously considered, but I don't see you really applying these principles. I still see the same old attitudes: If you appear to have high levels of logic based judgment then you must be a thinker, if you talk a lot your must be an extrovert, etc. No one is really taking into consideration development, and not just development, but external factors like societal validation for using certain functions.
3.) I am going to have to disagree whole heartedly that there are no patterns in the human mind, if that were a true statement then nothing in Jung's work, MBTI, or any of the work that followed would be consistent, there would be no patterns in human behavior at all. If that were true than there would be no need to create 16 types at all.
4.) It is actually not becoming more refined, but more vague. You see saying that a person uses a handful of cognitive functions in no real structured order is actually not helping people. You can't use that to tell them how they can better themselves, how they can avoid problems, how they can maximize their abilities. There is no natural law in the current theory of functionality, no engineering to how the human mind is structured, it is just amorphous mush, your top 8 favorite functions that you think you use.

I actually think it is what we are discussing that is eventually going to be looked at as backward once the new model is released, which I have had the pleasure of being a part of developing.

But yeah, I guess I am done here...

 

[VH]

I think you are misunderstanding me entirely VH,

And I think your Ne is jumping to tangents before it is absorbing what is being stated here. I understand you just fine. You're clearly not understanding me.

I'm not saying there is a lack of evidence, or that using cognitive functions is a poor way to base type. The MRI scans proved that cognitive function uses are allocated to the four quadrants of the brain, but they didn't actually prove how they are being used in a structural sense which is the cause for all of this misunderstanding.

Actually, no. They assumed that the cognitive functions were associated with the four quadrants because of Thomson's theories. They are doing studies currently, and finding that each of the functions has strong correlation with activity in very specific regions of cerebral geography.

Ni - the lower and frontal cingulate gyrus
Ne - the cingulate gyrus and inner limbic system near the cingulate system
Fi - the middle limbic system (though a larger area than Ne)
Fe - the outer limbic system and the lower frontal lobes
Ti - the temporal lobes and the rear frontal lobes
Te - the upper frontal lobes
Si - the parietal lobes and temporal lobes
Se - the occipital lobes, parietal lobes, and inner limbic system

Here are the problems that I have:
1.) A cognitive functions test is not a brain scan, it is a written test. A very poorly designed written test, that does not actually quantify the complexities of the human mind. So please stop acting like you have the authorities on your side, because none of them are validating an internet cognitive functions test.

Obviously there are issues with any self assessment test, as it will only give a result based on who the individual thinks they are based on how well the test was designed in the first place, and of course factored by the individual's ability to understand the questions, etc. There are a host of other issues with self assessment tests. Obviously, they are taking these factors into consideration. However, this test is being used in conjunction with an extensive series of scans, and is proving to be rather accurate for pointing to map of someone's actual cerebral activity. The ballpark correlations are more accurate than the MBTI approach.

2.) You're right, the 16 types are less inclusive than previously considered, but I don't see you really applying these principles. I still see the same old attitudes: If you appear to have high levels of logic based judgment then you must be a thinker, if you talk a lot your must be an extrovert, etc. No one is really taking into consideration development, and not just development, but external factors like societal validation for using certain functions.

This is such a lateral leap of illogic that I don't really know ho to address it other than to say, please pay attention and stay on task. None of this has anything to do with what is being discussed here.

3.) I am going to have to disagree whole heartedly that there are no patterns in the human mind, if that were a true statement then nothing in Jung's work, MBTI, or any of the work that followed would be consistent, there would be no patterns in human behavior at all. If that were true than there would be no need to create 16 types at all.

I never said there weren't any patterns in the human mind. Again you make a tangental leap of illogic. I simply stated that the established patterns are not so clearly set as we've previously assumed. There are apparently other factors at work. This does not invalidate the existing works, merely refines it, unfortunately by making it broader and more relative.

4.) It is actually not becoming more refined, but more vague. You see saying that a person uses a handful of cognitive functions in no real structured order is actually not helping people. You can't use that to tell them how they can better themselves, how they can avoid problems, how they can maximize their abilities. There is no natural law in the current theory of functionality, no engineering to how the human mind is structured, it is just amorphous mush, your top 8 favorite functions that you think you use.

Actually, it is helping a great deal because it is helping us get to the core of how the mind actually works, even if that means resetting our microscopes to a greater magnification to focus on the individual parts that make up cognition. This greater degree of intricacy does in fact further refine our understanding.

I actually think it is what we are discussing that is eventually going to be looked at as backward once the new model is released, which I have had the pleasure of being a part of developing.

Only time will tell.

 

[JohnDoe]

2.) You're right, the 16 types are less inclusive than previously considered, but I don't see you really applying these principles. I still see the same old attitudes: If you appear to have high levels of logic based judgment then you must be a thinker, if you talk a lot your must be an extrovert, etc. No one is really taking into consideration development, and not just development, but external factors like societal validation for using certain functions.

We must be looking at different discussions.

4.) It is actually not becoming more refined, but more vague. You see saying that a person uses a handful of cognitive functions in no real structured order is actually not helping people. You can't use that to tell them how they can better themselves, how they can avoid problems, how they can maximize their abilities. There is no natural law in the current theory of functionality, no engineering to how the human mind is structured, it is just amorphous mush, your top 8 favorite functions that you think you use.

You overextend yourself here. Just because it may or may not correspond in a 1 to 1 fashion with neurological behavior does not mean that it can not be a valid tool. One to Oneness is not a prerequisite to be a useful tool. (And for whatever its worth I don't think there is any neurological basis to the theory at all, and I think attempts to assign it a neurological basis are misguided. There is no reason to expect an abstract theory to line up one to one with biological behavior in a nice way). But it can still be a useful tool).

Having said that, when thinking about how people think I don't use MBTI at all. It is just not a fine grained enough tool. But It is a useful enough approximation when I need to communicate with other people because extracting a many variable nonlinear model out of my head is difficult. I think that it is useful to think of MBTI as a model that is approximate most of the time. And sometimes it just horribly fails.