Reckful!!
I'm glad you came. It's good to have both functional and dichometric perspectives available. And in your posts you seem to have a firm understanding of both.
I can definitely relate to what you said about being mistyped as an INFP, because it happened to me with INTP. The more I read INTP descriptions, the more I felt like I could relate to it. And I think that I knew in the back of my mind that I was twisting the idea I have of myself just to fit the characteristics of INTPs. I tried to imagine that the descriptions fit me well, so I could satisfy the description of INTPs that the type required.
Yeah. It's something painfully easy to do. Actually when I mistyped, I ended up twisting the idea of the functions and dichotomies to fit me. When I retyped as INFJ, everything sort of fell into place. Though it wasn't an initial click mind you. Many online descriptions are bad. It took me some time to find/develop an accurate understanding of the functions, and I did spend some period of uncertainty before settling down.
As for Ni.. sometimes I keep doubting even the fact that I am an N dominant type.. I can't exactly say why, but I just start wondering, after reading all the descriptions of what Intuition is in Typology, and just the general idea that Intuitives are always thinking of the future. It's kind of thrown me off.
Honestly, most of the online descriptions for functions really really suck. It's painfully difficult to dig your way through the riffraff. I'd recommend the original link that I linked above (
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=6582), as well as the Type in Mind descriptions of functions. Type in Mind is a function based typing system that uses the MBTI types for convenience(Generally they prefer to use NiFe, TiNe, and so on). Thanks to reckful I've come to associate official MBTI as purely dichometric based, but truly it's a bit of both (depending on who you ask). The internet community and some official practitioners seem to remain indecisive as to what it is truly based on. It makes communication rather difficult.
There are times where I get very caught up in the moment, and really just see nothing else, and when I think of those moments, I start questioning my 'Intuitiveness'. And it really doesn't help that Intuitives are generally considered to be the rarer ones in the population.
Definitely. Makes ISxJs difficult to type especially, because their descriptions seem to be peppered with undesired traits.
As for acting in the moment. It really depends. Depending on exactly how it's expressed, I'd say that it's less common for a Pi dom. It does still happen though. Back when I used to work fast food, there'd be times I'd have to let go of all unnecessary thoughts just to keep up. (Actually, I sucked at fast food. Would not recommend.)
In general, I'd expect "living in the moment" to be more common in dominant or auxilary Pe and some dominant Je users. For dichotomies I'd agree with reckful that there is a correlation between Es and Ps. Se seems to be especially apt to live in the moment.
Ni doms are typically focused on perception first. I've always describe my Se as having a pinkie hold on reality. I'm often surprised at how quickly I can react to things. However if I get too lost in my mind, I can all but completely let go of my surroundings. It's not uncommon for me to miss a turn and find myself taking a slightly longer route than I had intended.
And yes, I have in fact realised while typing this all out, that all this wondering that I've been doing about whether I'm Ni, ironically enough, points to the fact that I am Ni.
But I can never seem to completely trust only my opinion or judgement, so.. I always find that it is better to have a second opinion.
It's funny, this is almost exactly what I wrote(with different words) when I was unsure of my type:
I have a firm grasp on much of MBTI/Socionics. However, I may just think I have a firm grasp. It's possible that my understanding of the system is flawed.
I read through the entire link that you posted, and it was very interesting and insightful! And to think that an INTP knew so much about INFJs!
I may consider the description of the Ti INFJ that was described in the article...
I love INTPs! They seem to be able to put into words the thoughts that I never could. Ti-Ne truly is a killer combo for quantifying ideas. They're probably the main reason I joined this forum.
To add, on some more introspection, I've developed a new question. When I drift off into the world of my thoughts, I often find myself just remembering things that had happened maybe a few days ago, or even a few months ago, sometimes. I start by thinking of something, but my mind drifts off (as usual) and I end up thinking of past experiences. Does this indicate Si or is it something that an Ni would do too?
Of all the descriptions of functions out there, Si's description probably sucks the most.
Pi is reflective by nature. It mulls over past events and draws insight from them.
Conversely, Pe is more in the moment. I'd say that Pe is probably the functional set I understand the least. (hence I kept trying to link them with Pi. I've come to decide that it's a distinct function however.)
Also, I was wondering if you would be able to elaborate on why you scrapped the Si Ne idea.
My initial understanding was that Pe fueled Pi.
I ultimately changed my mind because I decided that the two functions are independent. Being a Pi dom, and not using Pe much, it can be difficult to distinguish one from the other. Pe might draw from Pi at times when acting in the moment, and Pi might draw from Pe at times when reflecting; but I don't think the link is as strong as I initially described. I'm not saying that what I expressed was necessarily inaccurate, I'm just attempting to indicate that the link is not necessarily as strong as I implied. I used to think that they were "dependent" on each other. Functions are methods of operation, and they naturally use information from each other. But they aren't mutually dependent by necessity.
...And there. I'm confused again. I read through the ISFJ description, and there were a few things I could relate to there too. But on the other hand, I don't see myself as dutiful or organised at all. As for preserving traditions, I would consider myself the opposite of that. In fact, the career that I wish to pursue goes against everything conventional in society.
I don't believe at all in following traditions which I believe have no real sense behind them. Sounds a little harsh, but this is honestly how I feel.
Si isn't bound to traditions like many of it's description express it to be. TypeInMind has a more accurate definition for it I think: (borrowed from ISFJ description)
SiFe’s naturally use Si to catalogue experiences and information they deem important. In particular, they remember their impressions of experiences they’ve had. They have an organized internal world and their mind can easily put similar pieces of information into appropriate categories. They learn straightforward, practical systems, rules, and strategies with ease and grace. Si gives the sense of the SiFe being grounded and having a linear, black and white way of thinking about things.
The description is similar to Ni in many ways, because Si and Ni have the same purpose. They just go about there task in different ways. Si isn't actually tradition oriented. But Pi does learn from experience. Si in general is more reluctant than Ni to shift it's perspective, however. It does something a certain way, and when it thinks back on it's impression of doing that something it finds success and goodness. Why change what works? But if the impression is unfavorable, it tries to find a new method.
Si deals with objects and it's impression of them, Ni deals more with the ideas and connections that form an object. Because of this, Ni tends to be more reluctant to stick with something just because it works(giving it a Pish vibe, I think). Ni is quick to find the ideas that are unnecessary to it's intention. Why do something that doesn't actually help?
As a Ni dom, it's been my experience that I seem to take an almost algorithmic approach to getting things done. I don't follow instructions much, I simply figure out what I need to do when I do it. This also seems to apply to repeated processes. I almost unconscious reconstruct how to do something as I do it again.
Not to imply that Ni doesn't follow instructions or that Si doesn't tweak methods. When Ni sees a good design it is curious as to what about it makes it good. And when Si sees a flaw in a method, or simple desires to improve it, it attempts to find a new method or tweak that offers an improvement.
On the other hand, I can relate to some characteristics of ISFJs. For instance, the specific point about how ISFJs take little bits of everything that they have learnt, and put it together for a project, that point really resonates with something that I once did for a Chemistry project.
I'd say that's more indicative of Pi than Si or Ni specifically.
When I did some research and read about Ni.. I felt like I'm not that capable. I don't really know how good I am at pattern recognition or Intuitions like Ni types are said to be. Somehow, it seemed to me from the descriptions online that Ni types just know, somehow. I don't find in myself an Intuition that powerful. So, I'm not sure if I'm an Nx dominant or auxillary, or Sx dominant or auxillary.
I'm starting to wonder if I'm overthinking this...
Tales of Ni's otherworldly powers have been greatly exaggerated.
For Ni users, insights just makes sense. Typically, because those insights are not inherently logical(perception does not apply logic in and of itself) it can be difficulty for Ni user to articulate their thoughts. Especially because N is more focused on the ideas behind something and less with the physical reality that is perhaps more readily explainable.
Ni insights make sense to Ni users, even if they can't be expressed. But without understanding how the insight came up, they can seem almost psychic to outsider viewers. It doesn't help that Ni represents about 25% of the population last I checked.
Ultimately cognitive functions are really just a sort of modus operandi, a method of operation. "Strength" is going to boil down to a huge variety of factors. Things like age, aptitude, experience, and mental exercise. Having a preferred method of operation doesn't imply having strength in that method. Typically, however, strength is acquired from use. By virtue of being a preferred method of operations, strength tends to grow.
That being said, if Ni user you are, you do seem to be a very capable one.
Myers emphasized that there are a lot of personality characteristics that more than one of the MBTI dimensions can contribute to, and I'd say thinking before acting — as compared to shooting first, and asking questions later — is one of those.
In Gifts Differing, Myers noted that extraverts "often act quickly, sometimes without thinking," while introverts "like to think a lot before they act, sometimes without acting"; and separately referred to introverts' "characteristic pause before action, which extraverts carelessly call hesitation."
That's a really good distinction. I've never thought of it that way. Thanks!
Moving to a more general issue, Ucenna has posted:
~snip that didn't copy over.~
Imma start by noting that the dichotomy-centric and function-centric MBTI perspectives are hardly "mutually exclusive," and that both involve "theory" — which I'm also quite fond of.
No, you're right. There's definitely a theory behind dichometrics. At the time I wasn't very aware of it and had lapsed to the idea of it simply being data. My understanding of the theory has grown some but is still rather sparse, so I can't and shouldn't speak for it.
As far as mutual exclusivity, I meant to separate the idea of dichometrics from cognitive functions. Given cognitive functions, I'd say there is a relationship between them and dichotomies. But I wouldn't say it's an explicit link, not exactly anyways. I'll touch on it more when we get to the functional stack. Mainly, dochotomy-centric and function-centric are two different approaches to MBTI. I wanted to make that distinction.
Mutual exclusivity isn't an accurate representation however. So it was a poor word choice.
I'd say the distinction between the dichotomy-centric and function-centric MBTI theories is better framed as the difference between a theory that can point to a respectable amount of empirical support and a theory that can't.
Carl Jung (mystical streak notwithstanding) was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality.
And it's reasonably clear that Myers, despite quite a bit of lip service to Jung and the functions, came to understand (based on her many years of data-gathering) that the dichotomies were the essential components of Jungian/MBTI type.
I would make note that the existence of dichotomies doesn't imply the nonexistence of functions or vice versa. Functions(in my understanding) are more of a modus operandi than anything else. Certain dichometric inclinations will influence which functions are used. I would agree that between the two, dichotomies are the more essential in nature towards an MBTI type(so as to say, functions are dependent on dichotomies. Dichotomies influence which functions are favored. etc.). Functions do, however, seem to be closer to the human psyche in my mind. That being the case, I find them an excellent way to further understand the conscious/unconscious mind.
I agree with James Reynierse, an MBTI practitioner who has rightly (IMO) concluded — in a 2009 article (
"The Case Against Type Dynamics") in the journal published by the official MBTI folks — that the eight faux-Jungian "cognitive functions" that people like Linda Berens love to talk about are best viewed as nothing more than a "category mistake."
I would agree that functions are a categorical mistake in so far as they are intrinsically different from dichotomies. However, I'd disagree that that aren't useful tools in understanding the human psyche.
After you did some looking into the functions, you said you were "pleased to see the variations in a personality type which the cognitive functions accomodate, rather than the very hard and fast rules system of the dichotomies" — but that reflects a misunderstanding of what a dichotomy-centric perspective involves. Contrary to the notion that a function-centric perspective offers more richness and depth than a (properly framed) dichotomy-centric perspective, and as Reynierse explains in that linked article, it's actually the dichotomy-centric perspective that's richer and more flexible.
I was actually thinking of mentioning you. You're posts are some of the best representations of the dichotomy-centric view that I've seen. I don't want to misrepresent dichotomies to be thought of as inaccurate or unuseful. I know that I can't do them the justice they deserve, so I'm glad you came along.
Naturally, I might disagree as to which understanding is richer or more flexible. Honestly though, both views are valid and informative. Both, given a proper understanding, offer deep insight into the human psyche. I favor functions, but I don't think that dichotomies necessarily offer a less insightful viewpoint. Indeed, I've never observed them to do so.
The notion that an INFP has "tertiary Si," and will therefore tend (probabilistically speaking) to have "Si" aspects of personality in common with a typical ISTJ that ISTPs tend not to exhibit
I can't really offer a contrast for those specific types, but I have observed this tendency in other types. I find that my "Tertiary Ti" relates to the INTP and ENTPs I know. I've also noted an ENFP's "inferior SI" to manifest itself in ways resembling ISTJ's. I've also observed similarities between an ENFP's "Auxilary Fi" and an INTJ's "tertairy Fi". Or an INTP's "Inferior Fe" and an INFJ's "Auxilary Fe".
On the topic, I was curious for what your understanding of how unfavored dichotomies are expressed. I suppose in an INFJ having a strong F is going to suppress T's expression. But when T is expressed does it typically express itself in INTJ ways, or does it have an accent from the other suppressed dichotomies. The former seems to make more sense, but your experience may say otherwise.
And before I leave that subject, allow me to point out that the forum-famous model that says that INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTP=Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (and ZOMG, INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common) is the Harold Grant function stack — and it's a model that's inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. More importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, that function stack has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but disproven at this point, given that the correlational patterns associated with it have stubbornly failed to show up in over 50 years of MBTI data pools.
The notion that, if you're a "Ti type," you're also an "Fe type" — and ditto for the Te/Fi, Ni/Se and Ne/Si pairs (the so-called "function axes," or "tandems") — is also a byproduct of the Grant model, and it's nonsense.
As promised.
I don't subscribe to any particular functions stack at this point. Though I have seen some signs of functional axes in people other than myself. I don't know that the relationship is explicit. It does seems to hold some ground in my observations. As such, I'm willing to accept it with a potential room for deviation. Yypically, I'd say strong Ni tends to suppress Si, Ti tends to suppress Fi, Fe tends to suppress Te, etc.
The typical axes, such as Fe supressing Ti, might also hold true (observation hasn't discounted them for me). However this would be crossing from Pe to Pi and from Je to Ji, and I'm not yet satisfied with my understanding of how those functions might counterbalance each other.
I can relate to that. When I was first introduced to MBTI I did a LOT of self analysis. I have a very annoying tendency to fit myself to any skin I find. Ni is perspective focused, and it can easily imagine alternative perspectives to view information. When I mistyped myself as an INFP I saw myself and my actions from the INFP perspective, for example. Ni makes mistyping real easy.