Yeah,
@Vendrah , I know your opinion, but thanks anyway for posting it in this shared debate.
Thanks also for Jung's quote, I can't quite remember reading it, maybe because it sorts of leaves me cold.
As you said, it's more related to N-doms not having much affinity with the T/F function, being undifferentiated I mean.
However, in MBTI you MUST have an orientation in the T/F dichotomy. In that regard, I could argue against myself and say that T/F is actually well defined, it's just me being borderline T/F. An X would not be much of a trauma anyways.
But still, I have the "feeling" that there are many factors that T/F supposedly doesn't consider but that, in fact, are mixed up in a tangle: Neuroticism, Agreeableness and gender cultural stereotypes being just the first I can think of. Of course a clear T or a clear F (especially if IT or TJ or ST, and if EF or ES or EP) don't need any improvement in the definition. But for N-dom in general (both INJs and ENPs alike) I find the definition lacking.
I thought the same and Reckful did said I was wrong, the conversation was:
Reckful said:
Vendrah said:
for Myers-Briggs, ambiverts are not supposed to exist
This is incorrect. Isabel Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions, and in at least one of the early versions of the MBTI, it was possible to get an "x" on any dimension. The current version assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension, but that's a very different thing from saying that it
isn't possible for someone not to have a preference — and the MBTI Manual specifically notes that someone with a score near the middle is someone who has essentially "split the vote" rather than offered much evidence of a preference. What's more, the recent "Step II" version of the MBTI has five subscales for each dimension, and it's possible to come out on the E side (for example) of some of them and the I side of the rest.
I will reinforce my point that what you said (for N-doms the definition seems lacking) is also true for the N/S divide for those who are T-dom and F-dom, and this is entirely predicted by Jung (and natural for Jung). And I reinforce by pulling these quotes that are recents from the other forum we participate as well:
Aerix said:
(Aerix from another forum, just in case there is an Aerix here)
Si in Socionics, Ne in both "MBTI" and Socionics since they're basically the same, Se/Si in cognitive functions for "MBTI" are pretty scrambled, mixed, vague; probably depends on the source used. S in MBTI dichotomies.
Aerix said:
I hate theoretical discussion or contemplation, it annoys me. I prefer that which is more practical, concrete, solid, definable, answerable; I understand that there are benefits involved in theory, but I'd rather leave that to others to bother with. Yet, I see multiple possibilities everywhere--above average, for sure--and I perceive ambiguity, thus seek clarity, in the details where most would assume they already have certainty. In this way, I find myself more skilled at getting to the bottom of things accurately; I listen more, ask more, consider more options. Possibilities seeking (Ne) is in service of Accuracy seeking in things I'm figuring out, analyzing, etc. (supposedly Ti). I would type as ISTP in dichotomies, yet INTP in functions, according to current perspectives, therefore.
I also remember that I had analyzed
@Winter Memories test results, type etc... and she is pretty mixed on N/S as well, so for her N/S doesn't really exist much.
Also, T/F in an expanded version can become more problematic then it is already. Because if you connect Hexaco, you have Feeling->Agreeableness->HEXACO Honesty-Humility where you connect honest with feeling.
We are sort of forced to treat that all types are equally honest or can be equally dishonest even though I am pretty sure that is not true at all, and expanding the T/F definitions would start to make a clearer association with feeling and honesty. This gets even more problematic that the association with empathy with feeling that ends up pulling psychopaths to thinking (since they lack empathy by definition), and that increases the headache on this subject, and we can see that they try to always phrase as "Mercy vs Justice" in an effort to sort of remedy this (I hope you get what Im fully meaning here, direct and indirectly). I also think that, even with some correlation Feeling and Agreeableness should be separated entirely in order to try to remedy this.
And also another thing, I know that in private noname3788 from the other forum pointed us that the MBTI manual had an statistical argument using IQ in favour of differentiated types (kids and teens with higher IQs have higher test-retest rates), however I am not quite sure if this would apply to a specific secondary function. Personally, I am no longer bothering of picking Feeling or Thinking, even though environmental factors (like being male in a country with something like 70% of Thinkers) and historical factors (of my own history) are pulling me into Thinking, and they are also pulling me towards Fi and Te, because as a male I am not supposed to appear emotive, and in a country of thinkers that goes even worse, and that makes me to close my feelings, made them more private/secretive and makes them way less expressive, which makes F goes towards i attitude (or go Fi) rather than an e attitude (or go Fe). Also, since I am an intuitive and not in Japan, majority of people around me are sensors, so from N and T, there is a lot convenience for me to "show off" my thinking side which brings me to more of a Te attitude rather than Ti attitude. I am speaking in long terms, not the last months were I have been acting a lot more like a Thinker due to personal reasons that relates to my conditions. But, as you know, for Ns that is quite personal and depends in the environment as well.
There is one more interesting thing to remind you, which is the statistical estimates I had done last year, using the Dario Nardi test, to show off these graphs:
"I had made a table of borderlines per type (there was only proper data for 9 types, all Ns but ENTJ plus ISFP and ISTP). Just remembering:
– This data is based on Dario Nardi test. Nardi test mostly, although not always, range from -50 to 50 on dichotomies, with some exceptions. It is impossible to convert this to percentages, but, sort of, a person that has +5 (on intuition, for example) is expected to have 55% on dichotomy, +15 is expected to have 65% and so on.
– In E/I dimension, I had estimated that about 23% of world population are on the -5 to +5 range, which partially corresponds to 45-55% range on dichotomy tests. I also had estimated that 57% of world population are on the -15 to +15 range, which partially corresponds to 35-65% range. This is the dimension with most people on the middle, and the middle is generally called Ambivert.
– In N/S dimension, I had estimated that about 15% of world population are on the -5 to +5 range, which partially corresponds to 45-55% range on dichotomy tests. I also had estimated that 36% of world population are on the -15 to +15 range, which partially corresponds to 35-65% range. People on the middle are called “realist” on 81 types.
– In T/F dimension, I had estimated that only about 4% of world population are on the -5 to +5 range (which is a very small number, almost negligible), which partially corresponds to 45-55% range on dichotomy tests. I also had estimated that 26% of world population are on the -15 to +15 range, which partially corresponds to 35-65% range. This is the dimension with least people on the middle. People on the middle of this dimension are called “balanced” on 81 types.
– In J/P dimension, I had estimated that about 14% of world population are on the -5 to +5 range, which partially corresponds to 45-55% range on dichotomy tests. I also had estimated that 31% of world population are on the -15 to +15 range, which partially corresponds to 35-65% range. People on the middle of this dimension are called “malleable” on 81 types.
So, here are these percentages per type. For example, on E/I dimension, 26% of INFJs are ambivert on the -5 to +5 range (compared to 23% of population in general), which I had marked as EI5, and 47% of INFJs are ambivert on the -15 to +15 range, which I had marked as EI15. Both cases counts, in one way or another, which % of INFJs are not clearly introvert. Notice that, except for INs and ENFP, my data is sort of limited, I had also tried to correct IN bias as well. So, this is it:
"
Also these graphs I had made earlier that are very important yet no MBTI article ever drawns them (even though most, if not all of them, have enough data to do so):
So, yeah, looking at these data, T/F is generally the clearest dichotomy, followed by N/S (for lots of people S will be the clearest of all functions), MBTI J/P, E/I, Jung J/P (that as I found out later it is not an actual dichotomy but it was good to put here to compare). It is funny that not much people question E/I as dichotomy yet it is the least clear dichotomy, and I also notice that the function MBTI dichotomies, T/F and N/S, are in general clearer than J/P and E/I, even though that could be a bias because I did made the estimations based on a cognitive function test.
So it's not at all the case that INFJs are not good 'thinkers'. I think it's more the process of their thinking - which is highly contemplative and symbolic - that is different from systematic/algorithmic approach that Thinking types prefer (at least Ti and Te doms).
I think you are probably already aware of this, but just for clarifying: Thinking and Feeling in Jungian sense have different meaning of the use we have for the 'Thinker' word. What you had describe as highly contemplative and symbolic is not Thinking in a Jungian sense, but rather intuition. I also remember from data connection that the affirmative: "I get lost on thought often" relates to Big 5 facet imagination (from Openness to Experience) which relates to MBTI intuition, so both thinkers and intuitives thinks (on a general sense) a lot.
There is also the feeling thing...
"I feel cold" (in Jung sense, this is sensing)
"I feel something bad is going to happen" (in Jung sense, this is intuition, and it is on an introverted attitude because this relates to Cautiousness, which relates to Jung Introversion)
"I feel sad" (if this is feeling or not it is debatable)
"I feel I don't like this"/"I feel something is good or bad" (this is Feeling on a Jungian sense, where both does have a judgment about something)
