No J/P dicotomi

[Mustafa]

Wheither you are organized and prefer things settled, or you procrastinize and are open ended are results of evolution over time of a personality. Jung didn't mention P/J, that came with myers briggs, so really; instead of saying INFP, one should say IFN, for Fi first and Ne second. You even get a new and IMO realistic dimension, INF means introvert with Ne first and Fi second, not neccesarily extravert, and that is IMO a hard working INF alterbatively open ended and free.

What do you think?
Peace

 

[reckful]

What do you think?

What I think is that you're badly misinformed.

For a long, two-part roundup on — yes — the J/P dichotomy, see these Typology Central posts:

• Part 1
• Part 2

And if you've been bamboozled into believing that INTJs and INTPs (for example) are waaay different (because functions!) or that you can't possibly be an INTx (because functions!), I'd encourage you to read this Typology Central post (from the same thread as the other two).

 

[nanook]

your naming idea is like that of socionics. true, three letters are enough to specify 16 types.

EII = "ethical, intuitive, introverted" reads as: "feeling of introverted variety combined with intuition". its like "F (N) i"

but "FiNe" is much more easy for the mind to comprehend.
there is no point in saving ink/pixels/keypresses.

the mbti world is full of stupid cliches like P types are always late, these are all wrong, obviously, as P can mean both Se or Ne and those are clearly nothing alike, in terms of how they behave relative to schedules or orders.

if a name can be blamed for evoking cliches, then all letters are equally guilty. for instance N can mean both Ne and Ni, so it could potentially inspire cliches about Ni and Ne types being more similar, than they actually are.

again FiNe is the best labeling style for most purposes. but they are all useful at times, depending on what you want to say.

 

[Mustafa]

I'm also saying:
ITN= TiNeSiFe
INT = NeTiFeSi or just simply NT. The extrovert introvert dichotomy is not useful either, and much like J/P it revolves around how 'outgoing/enclosed'you are (P says how much effort and wisdom you have). I suspect Ni for example has nothing or next to nothing to do with introvertedness.

So you end up with the functions like NF or NT, the temperament, and cognitive functions randomly observed by Jung and not to be put into a system i.e. MB.

Peace

 

[Mustafa]

What I think is that you're badly misinformed.

For a long, two-part roundup on — yes — the J/P dichotomy, see these Typology Central posts:

• Part 1
• Part 2

And if you've been bamboozled into believing that INTJs and INTPs (for example) are waaay different (because functions!) or that you can't possibly be an INTx (because functions!), I'd encourage you to read this Typology Central post (from the same thread as the other two).

From only this post, i agree.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

"didn't mention it"

As soon as they(perception functions) reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.​

- Ch. XI, Psychological Types

Once again a person realizes the unnecessary complications of myers briggs.

I think you are right that the behavioral mbti J/P descriptions are dependent on a person's stage of maturation, but I guess you could argue that each of the types develop their personalities in unique ways.