E,I,N,S,T,F,J,P don't exist

[Architect]

A theory I've been working on. The title is somewhat for effect, read on for a deeper understanding of this idea.

I think the letters cause the greatest confusion in MBTI, which more properly operates on the functions (Ti, Ne, Si, Fe). My premise is that for all practical purposes the letters don't exist. They are a form of an instruction that gets expressed through a function.

Analogy; consider DNA. Are you your DNA? No obviously not, DNA is simply a set of instructions of how to create a zygote. As such they're incomplete, it requires gene expression to actually create an organism. Consider Darwin's Finches. He studied the length of the beak of a bird on different islands, and how they all were different to optimize for the local environment. Some longer, some shorter, etc.

Now we know that the birds all have the same genome for "beak". The difference is due to the length of time a certain hormone is present during gestation. This is gene expression.

Another example would be source code and an executing program. Is the source code "the" program? Kind of. But it's basically nothing and useless unless it actually is executing. Again it is instructions for how to run, and is incomplete because it can't entirely account for the run time system it will be operating within. This is why we need debuggers.

Likewise ... the letters are simply instructions for psychic functioning that only manifest as functions. Thus everybody has N - "imagination" and everybody has "S", sensation. How they exist is purely through the functions.

 

[Paladin-X]

Essentially, Jung was describing an underlying principle to human thought and behaviour. We use visible behaviours as identifiers of trend to discern that underlying principle.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Can't you just say the same thing about the functions? No one is a set of functions, the functions are just different ways of thinking and acting that we've lumped together and drawn lines in between with some induction to back it up. The only difference is that we can't substitute functions, because they are what we have.

Furthermore, the issue with the letters feels more like something that strikes against those who don't know much MBTI at all, ie most other MBTI boards but not this one.

 

[Architect]

Can't you just say the same thing about the functions? No one is a set of functions, the functions are just different ways of thinking and acting that we've lumped together and drawn lines in between with some induction to back it up. The only difference is that we can't substitute functions, because they are what we have.

I don't think you are your functions in that sense. It's a problematic approach because it tries to identify ourselves. I'm taking the lesser approach which is to simply say that we express our psychic energies through our functions. The functions therefore are mechanisms, which is much easier to discuss (because they have cause and effect) rather than identity.

Furthermore, the issue with the letters feels more like something that strikes against those who don't know much MBTI at all, ie most other MBTI boards but not this one.

Agreed, the long term people on this board get it.

 

[Jennywocky]

I don't think you are your functions in that sense. It's a problematic approach because it tries to identify ourselves. I'm taking the lesser approach which is to simply say that we express our psychic energies through our functions. The functions therefore are mechanisms, which is much easier to discuss (because they have cause and effect) rather than identity.

A nuance, but a good one.

it's similar in some ways to people equating their identity with things they do.

("I'm an athlele/teacher/doctor/pole dancer/crabfisherman/proctologist/artist" etc.)

The things we do are ways we prefer to invest our psychic energy but aren't really our identities. Are we someone different if we are no longer able to practice a particular profession? But it's clear that some people DO identify overly as their occupation, just as some overidentify with the particular typings, and if they lose those, they experience loss and confusion.

In the last few years, I'm more and more getting to not even caring how I can be stereotyped, because I still know who I am regardless.

 

[Paladin-X]

A nuance, but a good one.

it's similar in some ways to people equating their identity with things they do.

("I'm an athlele/teacher/doctor/pole dancer/crabfisherman/proctologist/artist" etc.)

The things we do are ways we prefer to invest our psychic energy but aren't really our identities. Are we someone different if we are no longer able to practice a particular profession? But it's clear that some people DO identify overly as their occupation, just as some overidentify with the particular typings, and if they lose those, they experience loss and confusion.

In the last few years, I'm more and more getting to not even caring how I can be stereotyped, because I still know who I am regardless.

This might be a bad analogy, but here it goes anyway:

It's like a group of us went floating down a river. Each might use a different means to get there (tube, kayak, canoe, speedboat, etc) but we all get there in the end.

Another example is that an ENFP friend of mine is big into fitness. Is this because she is trying to express 'Se' in some way? No. It is a personal value that drives her, not a desire to experience her physical presence in the moment. However, the latter reason is exactly why an ESTP friend of mine does.

The outcome is the same, but the driving reason/desire/principle behind it is different. There is however, an observed tendency that Se types are more likely to be physical oriented, but I would not say that it is indicative of an Se type, only an increased probability.

 

[walfin]

One thing I do not understand is why people seem to take it for granted that, for example, INTP==Ti Ne Si Fe.

Surely this is also a fact that must be proved.
- Why can't the second function have the same orientation as the first?
- Why can't an INTP be Ti Ne Fi Se?
etc. etc.

To me, the letters are really a manifestation, the outward expression of your brain, measured on a sliding scale. If your brain makes you more likely to want the company of other people than not, you are an E, otherwise, an I. However, it does not explain what the confluence of factors is, that causes you to be that way. One may be an extrovert or introvert because of the simultaneous operation of more than one neurological function, which may or may not correspond to the Jungian functions (we do not know enough about the brain to say for sure).

What if it's possible for an ENTJ to be Ni Te Fe Se (for simplicity's sake I'll just assume that these functions exist in the brain, though they may not)? Perhaps a preponderance of multiple outwardly-oriented functions can make one an extrovert despite the presence of a dominant introverted function?

 

[ElvenVeil]

So you are just suggesting a change of notation rather than a new theory as far as I can read. I personally think that they serve the purpose that I imagine them intended. E.G that whether you are Ni or Ne dom, you are still N dom. The intuitives share common characteristica, which to me is why they are both named intuitives, albeit their focus so to speak, are different.

 

[own8ge]

Architect have you gone insane?
MBTI, the dichotomies, is the only thing that gives stability. The Dichotomies, are the whole theory. The functions are merely a visualization tool of MBTI. If the dichotomies confuse you, you simply don't understand the theory. The functions, THOSE are confusing. People don't understand their underlying principles, the principles, which are explained within the Dichotomies, which no one seems to understand properly. If you do not know how functions correlate to each other, your understanding of any function is insignificant.

If you know how the chess pawns look like, you still can't play the game if you don't understand the rules.

 

[Architect]

Architect have you gone insane?

Not that I'm aware of.

MBTI, the dichotomies, is the only thing that gives stability. The Dichotomies, are the whole theory. The functions are merely a visualization tool of MBTI. If the dichotomies confuse you, you simply don't understand the theory. The functions, THOSE are confusing. People don't understand their underlying principles, the principles, which are explained within the Dichotomies, which no one seems to understand properly. If you do not know how functions correlate to each other, your understanding of any function is insignificant.

Eh?

 

[Architect]

- Why can't the second function have the same orientation as the first?

Psychic imbalance probably. If you see how the type and mind is constructed it's all about forces balancing against each other.

Why can't an INTP be Ti Ne Fi Se?

Why can't a mouse have wings and fly? Because then it wouldn't be a mouse.

To me, the letters are really a manifestation, the outward expression of your brain, measured on a sliding scale.

That's the point. Intuition - N - isn't anything by itself, it has to manifest, and for that it requires introversion or extroversion, hence is a function Ni or Ne.

So you are just suggesting a change of notation rather than a new theory as far as I can read.

No I don't think you understand the point of the post. N is an idea, Ni & Ne are measurable psychic habits/powers/behaviors.

I personally think that they serve the purpose that I imagine them intended. E.G that whether you are Ni or Ne dom, you are still N dom. The intuitives share common characteristica, which to me is why they are both named intuitives, albeit their focus so to speak, are different.

I agree with that, I don't think that the letters have no purpose. You have to be crystal clear on that though. For example, by this I mean it is an error for somebody to say "I'll use my intuition here".

It is more true to say "I'll use my Ne here to answer your question ..."

 

[own8ge]

Eh?

If you don't understand the e.g. J/P dichotomy, you won't be capable of understanding why Ji and Pe make a pair, and why Je and Pi make a pair. You won't understand the dichotomy difference between JiPe and PiJe neither. Ergo, you won't be capable of understanding what those functions are all about. You MUST understand their principles, and why those functions exist. The Dichotomies explain that.

 

[Architect]

If you don't understand the e.g. J/P dichotomy, you won't be capable of understanding why Ji and Pe make a pair, and why Je and Pi make a pair. You won't understand the dichotomy difference between JiPe and PiJe neither. Ergo, you won't be capable of understanding what those functions are all about. You MUST understand their principles, and why those functions exist. The Dichotomies explain that.

Sure, I'm not saying they're not useful. My title was provocative on purpose to get interest in the thread, but there is a little truth to it. I mean that N doesn't really exist by itself, other than as a raw psychic force. Only when it takes shape as a function and expressed does it become real.

 

[ElvenVeil]

Sure, I'm not saying they're not useful. My title was provocative on purpose to get interest in the thread, but there is a little truth to it. I mean that N doesn't really exist by itself, other than as a raw psychic force. Only when it takes shape as a function and expressed does it become real.

ah. Sorry it wasn't all clear what your point was (and for me there are still a few unknowns)

Either you think of Pi, Je (fx) as concrete, real and measureable, whereas you think of N, S, etc. as forms without meaning until they are manifested in either introversion or extroversion. If the above is the case, then I think you make a huge mistake by believing functions to be 'real'. If you do that then we have here a very big crossroad in understanding.

the second option I see, is that you are merely saying that the single letters S,N etc. do not serve a purpose on their own.

A general answer the cover both options:

Nothing in MBTI is to be taken as 'real'; that functions have a concrete and 'physical' form. Ni, Ne, Ti etc. are usefool metaphors to describe a certain process that we believe to either see, or believe useful in dividing people into groups. This is my MBTI premise. Therefore talking about Ti, Ni being wholy different from T, N would to me, be fundementally wrong. Following this is then that the only reason to add, or remove, things in MBTI is if it has a point and a purpose.

I have advocated for a long time of removing the idea of shadow functions completely simply because shadow functions do not serve any purpose whatsoever and it messes up the whole system and thought in a number of ways.

SO. This is a little elaboration I guess, on what I mean when I say that N,S,T etc. does have a purpose and point; It is a useful way to group personalities, as the intuitives, the thinkers etc. share many similar characteristica.

 

[ElvenVeil]

One thing I do not understand is why people seem to take it for granted that, for example, INTP==Ti Ne Si Fe.

Surely this is also a fact that must be proved.
- Why can't the second function have the same orientation as the first?
- Why can't an INTP be Ti Ne Fi Se?
etc. etc.

meh. It is taken for granted because that is the definition of an INTP. Personality types are not real or have a conrete form as such. You should (I think so at least) think of MBTI as a reflection or a way to mirror the real world, but not as the real world itself. You can obviously find people in the INTP catagory that are more prone to use intuition for instance. But the first step is really to accept that we are dealing with definitions and not concrete phenomena. If that is understood, then as I also say in my previous post, you can change, add, or remove definitions to make a better system.

 

[own8ge]

Sure, I'm not saying they're not useful. My title was provocative on purpose to get interest in the thread, but there is a little truth to it. I mean that N doesn't really exist by itself, other than as a raw psychic force. Only when it takes shape as a function and expressed does it become real.

And here is where I disagree.
My opinion follows that the Dichotomies take shape as functions, whereas the functions merely are hypothetical. "If 'these' dichotomies exist, then we would have 'those' functions" The functions are substantial to the theory, but represent no significance whatsoever if they are being detached from it's source, the dichotomies.

N does exist by itself. It is the principle of N/S. The descriptor of how thoughts are being developed perception wise.

The functions given to that dichotomy, are presented as fact; but they aren't. They merely, as you say, "really exist" because they are hypothetically assumed as factual in order to make a system; A wireframe; A worldview.
But they aren't factual. They are merely factual within the worldview. The worldview that is the phenomenon assumed of the dichotomies.

 

[nightstreaking]

I thought this interpretation was already implied? Designating the letters as "programming" is only problematic because their origin (and by extension their nature/function) is unclear.

the letters are simply instructions for psychic functioning

we express our psychic energies through our functions.

Also, this might be inconsequential, but the DNA analogy makes it seem like you start with a set of functions and then develop your psyche around that, whereas the term "express our psychic energies" implies that you have a storehouse of undirected energy that are then refined and channeled by the functions (functions as in N and T, not Ne and Ti).

 

[Pizzabeak]

I thought Pod'lair already proposed this.

 

[walfin]

Psychic imbalance probably. If you see how the type and mind is constructed it's all about forces balancing against each other.

That's the way the theory goes, but like I said it's not proven empirically.

I'd like to see a relation of Big 5 to brain scans one day (Big 5 being the more scientifically-derived version of MBTI since the factors were derived due to statistical correlation).

Why can't a mouse have wings and fly? Because then it wouldn't be a mouse.

Well I don't know about mice, but the age-old example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan

meh. It is taken for granted because that is the definition of an INTP. Personality types are not real or have a conrete form as such.

Is that really the definition? Or is that a hypothesis?

The MBTI allows for 16 types, but if you consider the number of possible arrangements of the functions (ignoring theories about balance in the brain etc.), you would have 8P4=8!/4!=1680 types.

How can one exclude, without empirical proof, the possibility of existence of the other 1664 possible types unaccounted for by MBTI?

 

[MMarcus]

Good observation. I agree the letters dont exist

 

[own8ge]

Good observation. I agree the letters dont exist

What is the value for sharing your opinion?
Based on my observations so far, I'm concluding that you are an INFJ.

For instance this post of yours. You are sharing your subjective opinion with the only possible objective purpose as acknowledgment of others by clarifying that their opinion is in line with your worldview. This indicates you being an INFJ. But let me brake it down for you.

This implies Worldview dominance as the purpose of thought to share this opinion must have been for the purpose of worldview. This implies you to be an IJ. Moreover it is being confirmed by the state that you value yourself objectively as equal or perhaps higher as any others. This is true as otherwise you wouldn't value your own opinion as much. This is also a sign of being N(>S).

It is your subjective interpretation that the opinion (which is thus subjective) that this objective perceptive data (/Expressed subjectivity) is valid and good. Your top function, is thus interpretive. N.

So what makes you an F>T? This is the utmost misunderstood dichotomy, so don't take it offensive being an F. I myself am an F too. It could be argued F to be more rational than T, so don't argue me on this dichotomy.
You are F as you are Acknowledging another for the sake of objective harmony. This implies Je. Fe is that of people, Te is that of structures. You are feeling worthiness without any objective structured information to indicate this. This can only be that of Fe.

INFJ. And I'm rather certain.

This also implies your misunderstanding of Si. You are classifying your Ni use to be that of Si whilst it is actually that of Ni.

 

[TimeAsylums]

lol own8ge that was literally the longest extrapolation of personality induction i've seen from one sentence! what the hell!

 

[MMarcus]

What is the value for sharing your opinion?
Based on my observations so far, I'm concluding that you are an INFJ.

For instance this post of yours. You are sharing your subjective opinion with the only possible objective purpose as acknowledgment of others by clarifying that their opinion is in line with your worldview. This indicates you being an INFJ. But let me brake it down for you.

This implies Worldview dominance as the purpose of thought to share this opinion must have been for the purpose of worldview. This implies you to be an IJ. Moreover it is being confirmed by the state that you value yourself objectively as equal or perhaps higher as any others. This is true as otherwise you wouldn't value your own opinion as much. This is also a sign of being N(>S).

It is your subjective interpretation that the opinion (which is thus subjective) that this objective perceptive data (/Expressed subjectivity) is valid and good. Your top function, is thus interpretive. N.

So what makes you an F>T? This is the utmost misunderstood dichotomy, so don't take it offensive being an F. I myself am an F too. It could be argued F to be more rational than T, so don't argue me on this dichotomy.
You are F as you are Acknowledging another for the sake of objective harmony. This implies Je. Fe is that of people, Te is that of structures. You are feeling worthiness without any objective structured information to indicate this. This can only be that of Fe.

INFJ. And I'm rather certain.

This also implies your misunderstanding of Si. You are classifying your Ni use to be that of Si whilst it is actually that of Ni.

Well sorry but your wrong im INTP. INTP's use Fe also. Why is everything INFJ with you? its a self fulfilling prophecy you have INFJ's on your mind so u apply them in the wrong situations.

 

[own8ge]

Well sorry but your wrong im INTP.

You disregard one's other worldview without consent. This is a trait of underdeveloped INFJ. An underdeveloped INFJ, particularly males, are learned to suppress their Fe. It comes until the age of 20+ before the average INFJ male starts to develop their Fe, yet until that time, Ti is that what is preferable and comfortable at all costs.
Your confidence, is thus in your worldview and subjective opinion surrounding this worldview. A subjectivist.

INTP's use Fe also.

As you disagree with me, you presume I must be inferior. Another trait, of underdeveloped INFJ. You imply my conclusiveness, which is unknown. And you do not just imply it, you do so with confidence. INFJ INFJ INFJ... It is extremely obvious.

Why is everything INFJ with you? its a self fulfilling prophecy you have INFJ's on your mind so u apply them in the wrong situations.

This is a thought sequence. A conclusiveness that creates a bigger picture. The conclusiveness is based around the concept of the unknown (which can only be Ni). You draw conclusions that are harsh and lack evidence (underdeveloped J).

It is certain. In an OBJECTIVE methodology, you are an INFJ. Now argue as you wish, but I won't help you any further. I've spend enough of my time already.

(In regards to my own ignorance. You could be an underdeveloped ISFJ.)

 

[John_Mann]

Architect
MBTI, the dichotomies, is the only thing that gives stability.

Exactly. It's based upon opposites like you can't be diving (in water) and flying (in air) at same time. But you can interchange the opposites several times in a small fraction of time (like a dolphin diving and "flying" along a boat), but in every instant time you'll be always in just one state. It's binary.

But I think there's must be more sub-functions inside the main functions. But they're are very subtle to describe in a stable (like own8age said) form.

 

[Rocco]

Architect have you gone insane?

Not that I'm aware of.

I have nothing to contribute to the discussion. I just don't think the ironic brilliance of this reply got enough attention.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

First Tier -> MBTI Dichotomies
Second Tier -> Jungian Functions
Third Tier -> Socionics Functions



ur mom doesnt exist

 

[QuickTwist]

Own8ge and I share a similar perspective on MBTI.

Since you can't prove it, I am speculative that it is true .

 

[Chad]

Well sorry but your wrong im INTP. INTP's use Fe also. Why is everything INFJ with you? its a self fulfilling prophecy you have INFJ's on your mind so u apply them in the wrong situations.

This is a common problem. I see this with all of are resident INFJ here.

 

[SpiralHacker]

I've felt the same way, Architect. I actually got into an argument with someone about this. The dichotomies are weak. There may be substance to them but that substance is superfical compared to the functions that they result in. These terms, E, I, N, S, T, F, J, P don't mean that much in themselves because introverted thinking and extraverted thinking are very different from one another. They are both impersonal but that's so little compared to the analytical psychological descriptions of the functions.

 

[RobdoR]

This confusion is why I like David Keirsey's system .

But really all these personality frameworks are trying to explain why predictable behaviors seem to keep emerging over and over. And more importantly, they try to give useful information about someone. If you are labeled INTP I can assume certain things about you that help me understand you better.

I think each personality system is like a 2-dimensional picture of a 3-dimensional object. You simply cannot express everything about it from one angle. Some systems see the object from the front, others from the side. Some are zoomed in on certain parts of the thing, other systems may include more than the thing itself.

My hope is that with advancing neuroscience, we will soon have a schematic of personality that explains exactly what is going on.

 

[QuickTwist]

A nuance, but a good one.

it's similar in some ways to people equating their identity with things they do.

("I'm an athlele/teacher/doctor/pole dancer/crabfisherman/proctologist/artist" etc.)

The things we do are ways we prefer to invest our psychic energy but aren't really our identities. Are we someone different if we are no longer able to practice a particular profession? But it's clear that some people DO identify overly as their occupation, just as some overidentify with the particular typings, and if they lose those, they experience loss and confusion.

In the last few years, I'm more and more getting to not even caring how I can be stereotyped, because I still know who I am regardless.

Good post.

Is MBTI theory based on behaviors of characteristics?