MBTI and functions.

[nexion]

Consider the cognitive functions... Se, Si, Ne, and Ni are "perceiving' functions. They gather or relate information without interpretation. Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi are considered "judging" functions. They take information gathered from perceiving functions and interpret them.

Okay... we are good so far. Now, think about "perceiving" and "judging." They are one of the dichotomies described in MBTI. If you had a little knowledge about the cognitive functions, you might now say that if you are perceiving, then a perceiving function would be dominant, and if you are judging, then a judging function would be dominant, correct? It seems logical enough.

You would be wrong. Extroverts are the only types that follow this rule. All IJ's have a perceiving function as dominant, and all IP's have a judging function as dominant. This because the E/I dichotomy in MBTI changes the order of the functions. Whereas one would suspect that being introverted or extroverted would only change the focus of the dominant functions (ENTP's would use Ne whereas INTP's would use Ni), this is not the case. MBTI actually posits that if you are an introvert, the order of your cognitive functions are flipped, so instead of an INTP using NiTe, he would use TiNe. Has anyone else ever noticed this?

I don't agree, and I think it should be apparent enough why I don't. It makes sense that judging types should have judging dominant functions, while perceiving types have dominant perceiving functions, and it does not make sense that being introverted or extroverted should affect this.

Therefore, I think it safe to say that introverted types should have their functions reversed. INTP's would be NiTe rather than TiNe, and INTJ's would be TiNe rather than NiTe.

I'm no expert, but...

thoughts on this?

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

On MBTI, a type is considered Judging or Perceving based on what function of their top two functions is used to deal with the external world - In other words, which one of them is extroverted.

That's why INTPs, despite being Ti dominants, happen to be P types, because their extraverted top-two function is Ne, a perception function.

What you said seems to be true in Socionics, that's one of the reasons for that supposed flip between P and J for introverts.

 

[nexion]

EDIT: That is pure semantics.

So then, MBTI places some sort of emphasis on introversion and extroversion which supersedes emphasis on the functions?

 

[InvisibleJim]

The definition of J and P is along these lines:

INTJ - Ni Te.... Why? It's perceiving first... oh wait Ni = Pi, Te = Je, therefore the Judging function is Extroverted thus forming the external judgement and thus the J.

Although I totally understand what you have suggested and it is one of these inconsistencies that make me cross when trying to use MBTI productively and that those just starting with typology can fall foul off.

 

[Latent]

So then, MBTI places some sort of emphasis on introversion and extroversion which supersedes emphasis on the functions?

I was just about to reply "Totally dumb - I know." when this occurred to me:

Judging and perceiving are, in their inventors mind, is something that is extroverted.

This got cooler still: I'm an ENFJ. Fe Ni Se Ti. I judge abstract things externally, and judge sensible things internally. I perceive abstract things internally, and perceive sensible things externally.

 

[Logic]

Judging and Perceiving terms actually have 2 different meanings associated with them.

First Meaning

The Perceiving functions are Ne Ni Se Si.
These take in raw data.

The Judging Functions are Te Ti Fe Fi.
These make evaluations from the data they are given.

Second Meaning

Perceiving = Ti Fi Se Ne

Judging = Ni Si Te Fe

This is actually not the proper wording to use for these functions however, (since it causes confusion).
The terms Judging and Perceiving were used by Carl Jung originally to distinguish the Thinking and Feeling functions from the Sensing and Intuition functions (which is the First Meaning).

Conclusion

The terms Judging and Perceiving when referring to MBTI letter choice J vs P is actually used to denote the "Structure" and "Free-Form" functions.

Perceiving = P = Free-Form

Judging = J = Structure

This is also related to the right and left sides of the brain. So the left side which is concerned with structure is going to have the structure functions in it. Where as the right side of the brain will have the Free-Form functions in it.

So the new way to look at it is by substituting those terms for these new ones:

Free-Form = Ti Fi Se Ne = Right Hemisphere of the brain

Structure = Ni Si Te Fe = Left Hemisphere of the brain

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in MBTI terminology an INTP has both Ti and Ne as there top 2 functions, and since they are both Perceiving functions, the INTP is a dominant Perceiving type, that prefers Free-Form.

 

[Bird]

The definition of J and P is along these lines:

INTJ - Ni Te.... Why? It's perceiving first... oh wait Ni = Pi, Te = Je, therefore the Judging function is Extroverted thus forming the external judgement and thus the J.

Although I totally understand what you have suggested and it is one of these inconsistencies that make me cross when trying to use MBTI productively and that those just starting with typology can fall foul off.

+1

 

[nexion]

Um...

Never mind this thread.

Run along now.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Um...

Never mind this thread.

Run along now.

 

[viche]

MBTI actually posits that if you are an introvert, the order of your cognitive functions are flipped, so instead of an INTP using NiTe, he would use TiNe. Has anyone else ever noticed this?

MBTI and socionics are the same thing but many of socionics sources got their profiles mis-matched to functions. There is no flip in functions actually as both systems are based on same jungian functions, same foundation. However, if you have typed yourself using a profile or test instead taking a close detailed looked at the function then you will mis-type yourself and eventually encounter the inconsistency, which it sounds like you have just found.

I don't agree, and I think it should be apparent enough why I don't. It makes sense that judging types should have judging dominant functions, while perceiving types have dominant perceiving functions, and it does not make sense that being introverted or extroverted should affect this.

MBTI labels types J/P with respect to observed behavior i.e. the extraverted functions. In this way it is more correct actually. Types who extravert judging function as one of their main ones, dominant and auxiliary as per MBTI or leading and creative as per socionics, tend to behave in the same manner outwardly. So under MBTI they are grouped together as Js. Thus it makes perfect sense.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

MBTI and socionics are the same thing but many of socionics sources got their profiles mis-matched to functions. There is no flip in functions actually as both systems are based on same jungian functions, same foundation. However, if you have typed yourself using a profile or test instead taking a close detailed looked at the function then you will mis-type yourself and eventually encounter the inconsistency, which it sounds like you have just found.


MBTI labels types J/P with respect to observed behavior i.e. the extraverted functions. In this way it is more correct actually. Types who extravert judging function as one of their main ones, dominant and auxiliary as per MBTI or leading and creative as per socionics, tend to behave in the same manner outwardly. So under MBTI they are grouped together as Js. Thus it makes perfect sense.

You still think this? I thought you were taking all that time to study Socionics more.

I am disappoint.

 

[viche]

You still think this? I thought you were taking all that time to study Socionics more.

I am disappoint.

Yeah I come back and see that after all these months you're still here trying to make sense out of it. You know it will go easier on you if you just admit the possibility that certain socionics sources that you trust actually didn't get it right.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yeah I come back and see that after all these months you're still here trying to make sense out of it. You know it will go easier on you if you just admit the possibility that certain socionics sources that you trust actually didn't get it right.

I do love empiricism, you should try it sometime.


Admit the possibility? Anything is possible. But it is probable? Definitely not.

At any rate, you should ask yourself: If Socionics and MBTI perfectly correlate on a 1:1 basis what is there for Socionists to get wrong? Can you answer that? If the two systems have the same types and functions and the same semantics, why are the Socionists so confused? Especially after all these years and so many minds?

You know what? I bet you still have not joined the16types.info. As such your opinion is self-absorbed and ignorant. Further discussion is futile.

 

[nexion]

At the very least, Socionics is consistent with Jung, but I cannot say the same for MBTI.

 

[Puffy]

Jung is cool. I enjoy his writing. But he is not God, and I don't think he would have liked to be treated as such either.

 

[nexion]

I can understand where you are coming from, Puffy, but I fear that you have completely misinterpreted what I have said.

But let me ask you this: does not MBTI claim to be directly based on Jung's work?

Besides, if the difference is purely semantic, why bother? It would make more sense to me to go with the theory which is consistent with its foundations...

 

[Puffy]

It was not so much in response to your post Nil - I am just reminded in the past of discussions where Socionists have treated its correlation to Jung as some sort of authority.

My only experience with typology so far has been that it is a very subjective process. It doesn't really matter to me which is more consistent with its foundations - it is about what I can personally recognise in my interactions with people/ how it helps understand certain phenomena. Irregardless of how they are translated I do believe there are certain recognisable archtypes you can note in people, and these have only helped me understand as long as I don't treat the archtype as if it is the person. Typology, for me, is just one language to communicate it (;

 

[nexion]

I see, we just have a different interpretation of what typology should do. But I do prefer to have a foundation to stand on.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Jung is cool. I enjoy his writing. But he is not God, and I don't think he would have liked to be treated as such either.

It was not so much in response to your post Nil - I am just reminded in the past of discussions where Socionists have treated its correlation to Jung as some sort of authority.

It's unavoidable, the reason being that there are two aspects to typology(and many other subjects). The theoretical and the practical.

Because it is so complicated to objectively prove or show evidence for theories in practice, many are quick to point out that MBTI is less consistent with Jung's original theory and that Socionics is more consistent. This gives Socionics more theoretical consistency. This doesn't make Socionics true or correct in practice, it makes Socionics theory more likely to be applicable.

My only experience with typology so far has been that it is a very subjective process. It doesn't really matter to me which is more consistent with its foundations - it is about what I can personally recognise in my interactions with people/ how it helps understand certain phenomena. Irregardless of how they are translated I do believe there are certain recognisable archtypes you can note in people, and these have only helped me understand as long as I don't treat the archtype as if it is the person. Typology, for me, is just one language to communicate it (;

I agree, especially on the bold parts. The thing is - some people are focused on the integrity of information being spread around. Psychological types can be used as a casual self-help tool or it can be taken critically as a theory of phenomena. People who do the latter have much more concern and consideration for consistency, correlation and application.

 

[SkyWalker]

I have asked this question many times:
Where did this idea of alternating extravert/introvert over the functions come from anyway?? And WHY are all theories using this restriction??? WHY CANT IT BE DIFFERENT? WHY NOT 2x E-functions and then 3x I-functions for example? Why always alternate? And who started that? Is there a certain first book about it? In the books of Jung and of Meyers-Briggs there is NO DEEPER MEANING about it. OK Meyers-Briggs say it is like that in their model, but nowhere can I read WHY?
Anybody knows where this originated and WHY??
Is it secret or what???
Drives me crazy!! Why does everybody assume this alternation by default???

Jung said E/I had to be in balance or the psyche would not function, so you guys will also repeat something like that, but also: WHY? WHY NOT IMBALANCED?

--

And big deal if the 4letter-combo represents a non-sensible order, I suggest to stop using the damn confusing 4letter-combo from now on and just write the full order of the first 4 functions (TeNiSeFi for example)
(while the first 2 would be sufficient actually if you're into this MBTI system)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Everything works in a duality SkyWalker, that's not just typology.

You basically have answered it yourself. "Why not inbalanced?" Because it wouldn't be balanced and therefore not functional.

Everything is either True or False. 1 or 0. They don't have to be True/False in the same space at the same time, but they do need to be.

 

[Black Rose]

Everything works in a duality SkyWalker, that's not just typology.

You basically have answered it yourself. "Why not inbalanced?" Because it wouldn't be balanced and therefore not functional.

Everything is either True or False. 1 or 0. They don't have to be True/False in the same space at the same time, but they do need to be.

[BIMG]http://www.bokiwallpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Yin-Yang.jpg[/BIMG]​