Ranking of Extraverted Functions ( Controversial)

[greenspace]

Warning: This might be controversial and maybe mildly insulting to non-INTPs.

I have been studying MBTI for a while now and although I have posted a bit on some forums, i have not been a member of an intpcentric forum until now so I feel safe to post this here.

I think that the Extraverted functions might have an hierarchy in order of Intelligence/efficiency. I believe the order is Ne > Te > Se > Fe.

Fe is all about doing what feels right now. Fe are able to function effectively because to most people what feels right is usually the right thing to do. Most animals operate on a Fe level. They feel threatened so they attack or they run, etc.

Se is about doing what the present conditions dictate. Its about looking deeper at the situation and getting some more data and then making that decision. Similar to Fe but with more openness to data and current situations. I believe the perceiving attribute plays a part in this.

Te is about trying to organise your Se. Instead of just reacting to the present, Te trys to predict and control the future. They try to put more power into their tasks. They make a judgement call and decisions early and then try to work to create that outcome.

Ne is about trying to organise thinking and intelligence. Ne wants to think of the smartest thing to do not just " a smarter thing to do". Ne wants to understand the world absolutely and do the thing that makes the most absolute sense. Thats why Ne designs and invents because they dont just want good, they want perfect and flawless. This leads to a lot of problems because as they say "The perfect is the enemy of the good"

I only wrote about extraverted functions but this "might" apply to intraverted functions as well. Also these are just my thoughts. I am not claiming them to be original, they have probably been extrapolated somewhere else. But I rarely see people that think of it this way. What do you guys think?

 

[TimeAsylums]

/yawn

if you want you should look at IQ scores of types, very fun

ENTP highest of the extroverts o course, but still only #3 in all ranking
but INTJs get highest collectively IQ over all
followed by INTP #2
Damn introverts.

and so on, you can extrapolate the rest, or just look it up

If you are using a scale by which you are applying this "ranking" (which you said intelligence/efficiency), this matter isn't controversial, it is trivial, because it can be measured. (inb4 BUT HOW DO YOU MEASURE INTELLIGENCe/EFFICNZY)


here i made it ez http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...a=X&ei=QBA8U7CeH8f4yAG6iIDICQ&ved=0CCcQgQMwAA

dis 2 of kourse http://personalityjunkie.com/09/openness-myers-briggsmbti-intuition-big-five-iq-correlations/

 

[Hadoblado]

But I rarely see people that think of it this way. What do you guys think?

People that try to organise a hierarchy with themselves residing at the top are a dime a dozen. You can't fire a railgun without monster-killing it up.

 

[greenspace]

/yawn

if you want you should look at IQ scores of types, very fun

ENTP highest of the extroverts o course, but still only #3 in all ranking
but INTJs get highest collectively IQ over all
followed by INTP #2
Damn introverts.

and so on, you can extrapolate the rest, or just look it up

If you are using a scale by which you are applying this "ranking" (which you said intelligence/efficiency), this matter isn't controversial, it is trivial, because it can be measured. (inb4 BUT HOW DO YOU MEASURE INTELLIGENCe/EFFICNZY)


here i made it ez http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...a=X&ei=QBA8U7CeH8f4yAG6iIDICQ&ved=0CCcQgQMwAA

dis 2 of kourse http://personalityjunkie.com/09/openness-myers-briggsmbti-intuition-big-five-iq-correlations/

I never said anything about IQ scores, I am talking about general Intelligence which is Thinking about a problem and finding a solution for it ( not neccessarily applying it though). Most people differentiate between the two. A well educated and experienced Se can ace most IQ tests. However, If I want to go according to your post, you have also confirmed my observations because INTP, ENTP, INTJ who all have high IQs all have Intuition as a dominant or auxillary function.

 

[greenspace]

People that try to organise a hierarchy with themselves residing at the top are a dime a dozen. You can't fire a railgun without monster-killing it up.

I disagree with you. I go to a couple of non-intpcentric forums and most people recognize the analytic abilities of INTPs. They decry our inability to apply our knowledge but they recognise we are one of the smartest ones.

 

[Jennywocky]

Warning: This might be controversial and maybe mildly insulting to non-INTPs.

I have been studying MBTI for a while now and although I have posted a bit on some forums, i have not been a member of an intpcentric forum until now so I feel safe to post this here.

I think that the Extraverted functions might have an hierarchy in order of Intelligence/efficiency. I believe the order is Ne > Te > Se > Fe.

Fe is all about doing what feels right now. Fe are able to function effectively because to most people what feels right is usually the right thing to do. Most animals operate on a Fe level. They feel threatened so they attack or they run, etc.

Se is about doing what the present conditions dictate. Its about looking deeper at the situation and getting some more data and then making that decision. Similar to Fe but with more openness to data and current situations. I believe the perceiving attribute plays a part in this.

Te is about trying to organise your Se. Instead of just reacting to the present, Te trys to predict and control the future. They try to put more power into their tasks. They make a judgement call and decisions early and then try to work to create that outcome.

Ne is about trying to organise thinking and intelligence. Ne wants to think of the smartest thing to do not just " a smarter thing to do". Ne wants to understand the world absolutely and do the thing that makes the most absolute sense. Thats why Ne designs and invents because they dont just want good, they want perfect and flawless. This leads to a lot of problems because as they say "The perfect is the enemy of the good"

I only wrote about extraverted functions but this "might" apply to intraverted functions as well. Also these are just my thoughts. I am not claiming them to be original, they have probably been extrapolated somewhere else. But I rarely see people that think of it this way. What do you guys think?

Functions typically get ranked by what is of priority to the ranker.

IOW, there is no "objective" ranking, you always have to provide context and then prioritize according to the ranker's values. It's not surprising that people end up usually ranking their own favored functions higher than other functions, even when trying to be impartial.

One even has to ask the value of bringing an "IQ" test into a discussion to decide which functions are "better," as the tests are created to appeal to a particular function or set of functions. If IQ was based on one's natural social/relational abilities, INTPs would probably be in the bottom four.

As far as impartial knowledge and thinking goes, sure, the combination of Ti + Ne is powerful, or anything involving an impartial logic coupled with some kind of intuition (which can do pattern-sensing without trying to latch onto specifics and thus limiting itself). Like you said, most people end up thinking that INTPs (and some other types) are generally "smart" -- at least in that area of problem-solving. But subjective or arbitrary knowledge (such as the ability to follow, respect, and use social systems), things involving the personal rather than natural law, they generally think INTPs don't do well at naturally.

 

[greenspace]

Functions typically get ranked by what is of priority to the ranker.

IOW, there is no "objective" ranking, you always have to provide context and then prioritize according to the ranker's values. It's not surprising that people end up usually ranking their own favored functions higher than other functions, even when trying to be impartial.

One even has to ask the value of bringing an "IQ" test into a discussion to decide which functions are "better," as the tests are created to appeal to a particular function or set of functions. If IQ was based on one's natural social/relational abilities, INTPs would probably be in the bottom four.

As far as impartial knowledge and thinking goes, sure, the combination of Ti + Ne is powerful, or anything involving an impartial logic coupled with some kind of intuition (which can do pattern-sensing without trying to latch onto specifics and thus limiting itself). Like you said, most people end up thinking that INTPs (and some other types) are generally "smart" -- at least in that area of problem-solving. But subjective or arbitrary knowledge (such as the ability to follow, respect, and use social systems), things involving the personal rather than natural law, they generally think INTPs don't do well at naturally.

You are Right. Its hard to put a ranking on it. I was definitely not trying to rank it according to IQ( or success or happiness etc). I was trying to rank it by general analytic abilities. The ability to analyze a problem and prescribe(not execute) a solution for it.

Also Its intriguing what you said about personal law. I have never really thought of that much but it makes a lot of sense. I guess i learned something good today which is what I am here for. Thanks.

BTW I am not trying to be disrespectful or hostile to other types. I am really just trying to learn more about the Ne function.

 

[Jennywocky]

You are Right. Its hard to put a ranking on it. I was definitely not trying to rank it according to IQ( or success or happiness etc). I was trying to rank it by general analytic abilities. The ability to analyze a problem and prescribe(not execute) a solution for it.

yes, that sounds more tailor-made to a "model-making" type like INTP. Models, simulations, constructs. That's what conceptual math/logic handles -- understanding and defining the general rules of how something works, which leaves flexibility in application and the ability to quickly compare and contrast, etc.

The flexibility (or lack) is where I most notice it with S types. Once they've experienced something, they can be very quick to see an application, and they tend to have a better handle on the specifics of implementation once experienced (and preferences for it); N is better as seeing how two things that might not seem similar actually operate similarly in a particular context... the "intuitive leap." This is the kind of flexibility that tests often try to gauge.

Anyway, I typically don't think about "ranking" them in general terms, I have to qualify the category I'm considering if I want to rank them in terms of efficiency. It's more like choosing the tool based on the task, that's all.

 

[Cherry Cola]

It's kinda strange how in your description Fe sounds like a primitive version of Se whereas Te is described as working with Se, organizing its impressions, going beyond mere reactivity to predict and control the external world.

Thing is Fe can be described in precisely the same way. It organizes, predicts and controls. The only difference is that Fe organizes Se impressions into data in a form created to effectively predict and control by means of emotion, whereas Te organizes these impressions into a form functioning effectively using logic. Both take an unspoken standard for granted as they are extroverted functions. Both are goal oriented.

If you want to bash feeling at least put some effort in : /

 

[greenspace]

yes, that sounds more tailor-made to a "model-making" type like INTP. Models, simulations, constructs. That's what conceptual math/logic handles -- understanding and defining the general rules of how something works, which leaves flexibility in application and the ability to quickly compare and contrast, etc.

The flexibility (or lack) is where I most notice it with S types. Once they've experienced something, they can be very quick to see an application, and they tend to have a better handle on the specifics of implementation once experienced (and preferences for it); N is better as seeing how two things that might not seem similar actually operate similarly in a particular context... the "intuitive leap." This is the kind of flexibility that tests often try to gauge.

Anyway, I typically don't think about "ranking" them in general terms, I have to qualify the category I'm considering if I want to rank them in terms of efficiency. It's more like choosing the tool based on the task, that's all.

When I mean efficiency, I guess I could call it, the most efficient solution to a problem. The Se uses the most obvious answer and starts applying the solution quicker while the Ne trys to get the best answer/model/formula before he applys it reacting a bit slower and maybe never reacting at all.

 

[greenspace]

It's kinda strange how in your description Fe sounds like a primitive version of Se whereas Te is described as working with Se, organizing its impressions, going beyond mere reactivity to predict and control the external world.

Thing is Fe can be described in precisely the same way. It organizes, predicts and controls. The only difference is that Fe organizes Se impressions into data in a form created to effectively predict and control by means of emotion, whereas Te organizes these impressions into a form functioning effectively using logic. Both take an unspoken standard for granted as they are extroverted functions. Both are goal oriented.

If you want to bash feeling at least put some effort in : /

Sorry about that. To be honest, I wasnt really sure about Fe. Fe is a bit alien to me. But I meant no malice about and I am sorry.

 

[Cherry Cola]

It's cool dawg, I just get this alarm going off in me head when I see a description which implies that Feelers only feel and react whereas thinkers think and then react, when in fact both feel and think.

Because Fe requires Ti and likewise for Te in order for those functions to be a part of a persons type. Only when manifested as part of a persons type can a function have any bearing on reality (by influencing the actions of the person who is type xxxx). And only then can you really start saying well this or that function is good/bad because it causes this which is desirable/not desirable.

If we take the order of the extroverted functions the way you have ranked them but write their required introverted counterpart instead you get this list:

1. Si
2. Fi
3. Ni
4. Ti

Hmm I'm not sure where I am going with this anymore lol. But I think what I was supposed to say was that it's better judge functions in pairs and depending on whether they are in an dom/inf or aux/tert relationship.

Edit: Basically that in order to consider a function you also need to consider what is required apart from said function in all its incarnations, and that's it's opposite. No Te without Fi, though Te can work with either Se/Ni or Ne/Si.

 

[Jennywocky]

When I mean efficiency, I guess I could call it, the most efficient solution to a problem. The Se uses the most obvious answer and starts applying the solution quicker while the Ne trys to get the best answer/model/formula before he applys it reacting a bit slower and maybe never reacting at all.

Yeah, the N tends to leave it abstracted, whereas the Se is more liable to apply it directly in the moment or be interested in a specific solution to be implemented versus a "correct methodology" that could be correct across the board.

 

[Hadoblado]

CC +1

 

[greenspace]

It's cool dawg, I just get this alarm going off in me head when I see a descriptions which implies that Feelers only feel and react whereas thinkers think and then react, when in fact both feel and think.

Because Fe requires Ti and likewise for Te in order for those functions to be a part of a persons type. Only when manifested as part of a persons type can a function have any bearing on reality (by influencing the actions of said person). And only then can you really start saying well this or that function is good/bad because it cause this which is desirable/not desirable.

If we take the order of the extroverted functions the way you have ranked them but write their required introverted counterpart instead you get this list:

1. Si
2. Fi
3. Ni
4. Ti

Hmm I'm not sure where I am going with this anymore lol. But I think what I was supposed to say was that it's better judge functions in pairs and depending on whether they are in an dom/inf or aux/tert relationship.

You sure are right. Fe can have Si or Ni as a auxillary and that gives it ability. Also I was never ranking functions as good/bad or desirable/undesirable. No function is greater or better than another. I was just ranking functions based on how they make decisions. There are some people that believe that simplicity is everything and there are some people that like to tackle complex problems. Some people like to climb mountains while some like to complete puzzles. They are different but both successful and warrant respect in my book.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

All extroverted functions are beneath Te.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You sure are right. Fe can have Si or Ni as a auxillary and that gives it ability. Also I was never ranking functions as good/bad or desirable/undesirable. No function is greater or better than another. I was just ranking functions based on how they make decisions. There are some people that believe that simplicity is everything and there are some people that like to tackle complex problems. Some people like to climb mountains while some like to complete puzzles. They are different but both successful and warrant respect in my book.

Okay this may be anal and pointlessly semantic of me to say but; nonetheless, functions do not make decisions, people do under the influence of functions. And if any given person makes decision by function xE then the same person will also make decision with the function xI. Regardless of that persons type, or what other 2 functions are in that type and in what order. What is the MBTI theory supposed to be for if not to describe actual behavior and thinking?

I think the considering of functions as separate units was a mistake to begin with. It make no sense because the morphology of MBTI goes against it. It even shows in the descriptions of the said functions, the most common being "Ni gets its insights by processing Se impressions", but it's pretty easy to see how the same holds true for the other functions as well imo. Instead of 2 sides of a coin we get two coins with only 1 side each.

 

[greenspace]

Okay this may be anal and pointlessly semantic of me to say but; nonetheless, functions do not make decisions, people do under the influence of functions.

A bit too semantic. We are saying the same thing here.

And if any given person makes decision by function xE then the same person will also make decision with the function xI.

I disagree. It depends on the persons extraverted function. A Ti ( for eg INTP) will not make the same decisions as Te ( for example ESTJ).

I think the considering of functions as separate units was a mistake to begin with. It make no sense because the morphology of MBTI goes against it. It even shows in the descriptions of the said functions, the most common being "Ni gets its insights by processing Se impressions", but it's pretty easy to see how the same holds true for the other functions as well imo. Instead of 2 sides of a coin we get two coins with only 1 side each

I dont think its a mistake. Sometimes we can understand something better by understanding its components better. Thats why physicists look at things in a vacuum. Also look at MBTI typology as an example. Most people know its not the absolute definitive description of someones personality but we still study it to understand ourselves and other people better.

 

[greenspace]

All extroverted functions are beneath Te.

In what ranking ?? What are your reasons for saying so?? Without expanding further, your statement just seems either arbitrary or self-serving.

 

[Spirit]

Interesting that an INTP would think intelligence is bound to one specific constructed box. I doubt that your recipe for your favorite dish was created by an INTP. Or if you get in an accident and the paramedic on the scene to save your life would be an INTP.

This thread screams Fe. You want to beat your chest about how Ne is the most intelligent but placed all the rules in your favor.


When, why where and how determines which "Aux" function is going to be the most successful "Intelligence".

 

[pernoctator]

Warning: This might be controversial and maybe mildly insulting to non-INTPs.

Surely you mean non-ENFPs.

Ne is about trying to organise thinking and intelligence. Ne wants to think of the smartest thing to do not just " a smarter thing to do". Ne wants to understand the world absolutely and do the thing that makes the most absolute sense. Thats why Ne designs and invents because they dont just want good, they want perfect and flawless. This leads to a lot of problems because as they say "The perfect is the enemy of the good"

So you're saying optimization = intelligence (this sounds familiar).

 

[greenspace]

Surely you mean non-ENFPs.

Why would I mean non-ENFPs?

So you're saying optimization = intelligence (this sounds familiar).

I am not neccesarily saying that but I wouldnt disagree. However optimization tends to be achieved only through execution. You cant optimize a process without running it first, removing bugs and tweaking.

With Intelligence, I mean basically analyzing the problem and coming up with the best answer.

 

[PmjPmj]

Fe is all about doing what feels right now. Fe are able to function effectively because to most people what feels right is usually the right thing to do. Most animals operate on a Fe level. They feel threatened so they attack or they run, etc.

Shit, son.

Imma rey-tard.

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

inb4 BUT HOW DO YOU MEASURE INTELLIGENCe/EFFICNZY)


[/url]

xcuse me good sir, but how measure intelligence?

 

[Brontosaurie]

CC: the inferior is determined (epistemically not causally of course) by the dominant. nowhere does his post contradict this assumption. honestly i find your criticism unnecessary. maybe i missed something.

that being said i disagree with OP. i'd say Ne>Fe>Se>Te, but that's merely an unsolicited and spontaneous personal preference.

 

[Base groove]

unsolicited

... is it?

 

[Brontosaurie]

... is it?

it's not relevant to any of what's going on in the thread, so probably.

was that incorrect usage of the word?

 

[Cherry Cola]

I disagree. It depends on the persons extraverted function. A Ti ( for eg INTP) will not make the same decisions as Te ( for example ESTJ).

I've never claimed that tho! Or at least I didn't intend to, maybe I should have written "any person making decision with function xE will also make decisions with functions yI" instead.

Only that the INTP who primarily makes decisions with his Ti also but to a lesser degree makes decisions with Fe, just as an ENFJ will also make decision using Ti and not only Fe. They will not make the same decisions because their priorities differ, but they do not differ fundamentally. Being an INFJ and having aux Fe with tertiary Ti puts me somewhere in between the INTP and the ENFJ, I find myself getting along with both quite easily because they rely on the same principles as I do when it comes to decision making.

Te users like the ESTJ on the other hand do differ fundamentally in the way they make decisions.

I dont think its a mistake. Sometimes we can understand something better by understanding its components better. That's why physicists look at things in a vacuum. Also look at MBTI typology as an example. Most people know its not the absolute definitive description of someones personality but we still study it to understand ourselves and other people better.

Yes, but I'm kinda wondering if any of the 8 functions alone should really be labeled components seeing as none of them ever appear as single components within the MBTI system in any way. Be it in an ESFJ or an INTP both Ti and Fe will be there, they are never separated in any of their incarnations, the MBTI system does not allow them to be separated. Are they then truly different components?

This implies that they appear together by some form of necessity, but what that necessity is and how it works is rarely investigated since there is no need for that when you can just view them separately instead. This puzzles me, since there should be more to learn if you force yourself to consider one function and its counterpart working together in tandem to form a whole, and indeed that this is the way they do work shouldn't be news because it is known that Ni and Se work this way for ages.

But I should probably make a thread where I argue this case some other day instead of bringing it up here, it is after all an unorthodox view.

@Bronto: I am not understand.

 

[greenspace]

that being said i disagree with OP. i'd say Ne>Fe>Se>Te, but that's merely an unsolicited and spontaneous personal preference.

Its definitely not unsolicited. Thanks for your point of view. Can you please explain more about your hierarchy. I notice you grouped the perceiving functions higher than the thinking functions.

 

[pernoctator]

Why would I mean non-ENFPs?

They have the most efficient configuration of extroverted functions following your hierarchy.

 

[Cherry Cola]

CC: the inferior is determined (epistemically not causally of course) by the dominant. nowhere does his post contradict this assumption. honestly i find your criticism unnecessary. maybe i missed something.

that being said i disagree with OP. i'd say Ne>Fe>Se>Te, but that's merely an unsolicited and spontaneous personal preference.

I don't understand

I did try to understand when I replied last time but I failed to and now I don't either. I think the criticism I brought up in my first reply was all valid but in the following ones I'm not sure.

 

[Base groove]

The only way I see Ni and Se working in tandem would be if they were two trucks welded together at the trailer hitch and driving in opposite directions.

The trucks gain little ground but sometimes manage to pull a few feet in one direction, only to be pulled back later by the other truck. It's a constant battle of revving engines and shifting gears, riding the wave. That's Ni and Se. That's function polarity understood in tandem.

 

[digitalbum]

I never said anything about IQ scores, I am talking about general Intelligence which is Thinking about a problem and finding a solution for it ( not neccessarily applying it though). Most people differentiate between the two. A well educated and experienced Se can ace most IQ tests. However, If I want to go according to your post, you have also confirmed my observations because INTP, ENTP, INTJ who all have high IQs all have Intuition as a dominant or auxillary function.

Uuumm, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading about intelligence tests and THE IQ test tests SPECIFICALLY for what you are talking about: the ability to solve problems.

SATs and ACTs, for example, are much more about knowledge. Some problem solving definitely, but if you don't know have the definition of a certain word, for example, you're going to get a lower score.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The only way I see Ni and Se working in tandem would be if they were two trucks welded together at the trailer hitch and driving in opposite directions.

The trucks gain little ground but sometimes manage to pull a few feet in one direction, only to be pulled back later by the other truck. It's a constant battle of revving engines and shifting gears, riding the wave. That's Ni and Se. That's function polarity understood in tandem.

That is because you have a narrow definition of the term. In this context it just means they work together.

Though if the trucks in your example are performing some strange ritual known only to truckers which are into MBTI, symbolizing Ni and Se working together then I guess that works as well.

Depending on the position of the functions one truck would have more horsepower than the other, though if the one with more horsepower stays in full throttle mode it may run out of fuel ending up being pulled by the weaker truck.

Yes that works.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Its definitely not unsolicited. Thanks for your point of view. Can you please explain more about your hierarchy. I notice you grouped the perceiving functions higher than the thinking functions.

there's not much to explain. it's my preference. i enjoy Ne-doms and especially ENFP's perhaps more than any other types (in general of course). i have a great affinity with and understanding for their stream of consciousness ways even though i'm not capable of generating that sort of thing in a social setting myself. Fe-doms are also very good, as i find myself having a lot of synergy with them since i'm slightly awkward and laid-back which makes them feel valuable, yet not socially oblivious enough to be a nuisance - and in reverse, their friendly and humble apparent receptivity to ideas and perspectives makes me open up. ESFJ's can be a little conservative and ENFJ's can be a little stingy/proud but overall they are great people. Se-doms and Te-doms on the other hand are not people i'm usually interested in, but Se-doms are easier to handle or cope with. Te-doms have something very obnoxious about them. their demeanor is often an eerily precise manifestation of what's wrong with society... selfish, devouring, opportunistic, machiavellian, what-have-you. and even if they're well-developed, that little glimpse of inferior Fi self awareness often just feels tacked-on, like an excuse.

I don't understand

I did try to understand when I replied last time but I failed to and now I don't either. I think the criticism I brought up in my first reply was all valid but in the following ones I'm not sure.

well, of course your first reply contained a valid opinion (i can see the merit to yours and OP's preference alike, although i acknowledge that yours likely has a greater theoretical support and displays more thorough understanding of MBTI).

i just don't think the "functions work in tandem" line of inquiry leads anywhere. it's sort of tautological.

 

[Cherry Cola]

They also get irritated easily tending to lack patience when it comes to communication ^

Though Te dom and Aux type who have their Fi under control and whose harshness you know for sure is not actually insult but just honesty and who will in turn not take offense easily, who know that it is pointless to try and rush whatever they want to convey only to end up irritated instead of just starting out a little slower; they can be a lot more interesting than Se types because they can be intuitives. Even if they aren't intuitives they can teach you about practical stuff which as an intuitive you typically fucking suck at, or get your ass out of a jam at work with decisive action.

I believe I read somewhere INTJs and ISTJs are the most irritable of all types.

Bronto: Yes it is structurally tautological yet it is not treated as if though it were. No one goes around discussing what imaginary types with impossible function stacks would be like as if though they had something to do with reality. Yet discussing functions in a way in which they cannot manifest themselves is and has always been okay. I believe that hinders progress and further understanding.

 

[Jennywocky]

I believe I read somewhere INTJs and ISTJs are the most anal of all types.

fixed!

 

[Base groove]

That is because you have a narrow definition of the term. In this context it just means they work together.

Though if the trucks in your example are performing some strange ritual known only to truckers which are into MBTI, symbolizing Ni and Se working together then I guess that works as well.

Depending on the position of the functions one truck would have more horsepower than the other, though if the one with more horsepower stays in full throttle mode it may run out of fuel ending up being pulled by the weaker truck.

Yes that works.

The last time I stood against the tandem argument was with Redbaron and he made a similar argument to yours, initially, if I recall correctly... only it was about Ti and Fe.

I took the stance that the functions do not work in tandem as they oppose each other directly.

His response was that I do not understand what tandem is. When I noticed you made the same/similar argument about opposing functions working in tandem I made sure not to betray the earlier precedent as to the typical interpretations of what tandem is and is not.

I assure you; I do not actually believe Ni and Se work in tandem, especially now that you have clarified what you mean; it is baloney.

They also get irritated easily tending to lack patience when it comes to communication ^

Though Te dom and Aux type who have their Fi under control and whose harshness you know for sure is not actually insult but just honesty and who will in turn not take offense easily, who know that it is pointless to try and rush whatever they want to convey only to end up irritated instead of just starting out a little slower; they can be a lot more interesting than Se types because they can be intuitives. Even if they aren't intuitives they can teach you about practical stuff which as an intuitive you typically fucking suck at, or get your ass out of a jam at work with decisive action.

I believe I read somewhere INTJs and ISTJs are the most irritable of all types.

Bronto: Yes it is structurally tautological yet it is not treated as if though it were. No one goes around discussing what imaginary types with impossible function stacks would be like as if though they had something to do with reality. Yet discussing functions in a way in which they cannot manifest themselves is and has always been okay. I believe that hinders progress and further understanding.

This post, was interesting. I thought the first paragraph was most insightful, however the second part was rather suspect. I am aware that this was a response to Brontosaurie suggesting there is not much to be gained from pursuing this line of thought of 'tandem polarities'.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Well what if they are supposed to oppose each other and fulfill their purpose by doing so? I mean couldn't you still call that working together. Though TBH I don't think they oppose each other even if they do at times pull on different ends of one rope. However, I should rest my case because I am not making a strong one.

 

[greenspace]

there's not much to explain. it's my preference. i enjoy Ne-doms and especially ENFP's perhaps more than any other types (in general of course). i have a great affinity with and understanding for their stream of consciousness ways even though i'm not capable of generating that sort of thing in a social setting myself. Fe-doms are also very good, as i find myself having a lot of synergy with them since i'm slightly awkward and laid-back which makes them feel valuable, yet not socially oblivious enough to be a nuisance - and in reverse, their friendly and humble apparent receptivity to ideas and perspectives makes me open up.

I think you totally missed the point of the topic. It was not a ranking of who you like best or worst. It was a ranking of just analytic ability. Not IQ or success or congeniality or anything like that. Just straight analytic abilities. Ne types like to think on an abstract theoretical level. Which is why I ranked them at the highest. Not saying they will make the best engineers or scientists because as Einstein said " Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration". Just saying that they might be better at thinking about complex problems.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I think you totally missed the point of the topic. It was not a ranking of who you like best or worst. It was a ranking of just analytic ability. Not IQ or success or congeniality or anything like that. Just straight analytic abilities. Ne types like to think on an abstract theoretical level. Which is why I ranked them at the highest. Not saying they will make the best engineers or scientists because as Einstein said " Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration". Just saying that they might be better at thinking about complex problems.

hence why i called it unsolicited.

 

[greenspace]

They have the most efficient configuration of extroverted functions following your hierarchy.

Its funny. I thought exactly the same thing was a possibility but its amazing you deduced that so quickly.