Sixteen?

[Auburn]

The findings of Isabel Briggs Myers converted Jung's eight cognitive functions into 16 personality types. I agree with this mostly, however, I think this theory has a weakness in the way it labels anything outside of the 16 personalities as "exceptions" without really explaining those exceptions much.

The way I see it, is that in reality, there are NOT only 16 personality types, but there are 16 common patterns of cognitive development. This is a play of words more than anything, but I believe it is a more accurate way of looking at the theory.

Truly, cognitive functions can develop in many more than 16 patterns, but there just happens to be 16 patterns that follow a 'natural' flow. There are countless things that can alter the natural flow of a person and cause their cognitive development to take a turn somewhere.

***

​

Along the same lines, could it be possible to add to the 16 original personality types?

For instance, let's say there are the 16 patterns - but there are also 'unusual' patterns that are still patterns none the less. So let's say these 'unusual' patterns are studied, defined and given type descriptions. It may be possible to create an inventory of not only the 16 original patterns, but of the different branches of developments that can take place if the 8 cognitive functions develop in unusual orders, etc.

I believe such an addition would do more justice to the theory, and also more justice to those who don't truly fit in the 16 patterns outlined by Isabel Myers.

 

[Luzian]

That same argument can be made with 17, 18, 32, or 9999 types. The only thing we can say about this is that the more types, the more defined the type, or the more accurate we can get.

Realize that all that can be said for any one type, is more fitting for those who are of that type than those who are not.

So is this typology flawed, or are you just dissatisfied with the amount of types? If it's the latter, then it seems you're stating nothing more than an opinion.

 

[Dissident]

There would have to be some strong basis to do it, otherwise you would be drawing lines wherever. As for the orders I dont think the first pair can change, I bet a person with two percieving functions as primary and secondary could (if it was posible) hardly be "normal" (it would fit more into a pathology than a psichological type), the same goes for two introverted functions, etc. Maybe the lower functions could change but that wouldnt affect the personality much and it would be difficult to test (people sometimes have trouble figuring out their primary function, figuring out the 4th is more guessing than anything else)

What did you have in mind to base the differences in?

 

[Auburn]

What did you have in mind to base the differences in?

I really don't have much in mind, I was just curious.

One thing that popped into mind, which you are free to criticize, but I need not even tell you that for you to do so , is the idea of perhaps testing brain patterns.

This is a wild guess, but let's say that a person engrossed in a Ti state of mind displayed a different brainwave pattern than one engrossed, let's say, in external sensing (Se). Perhaps by examining someone's brain waves, one could see which cognitive functions they are using at the time?

If so, then perhaps volunteers can be hooked up to the wires for a day or so while the machine examines the different mental states that person goes through in a day, and from that, decode what type of mind they have.

That same argument can be made with 17, 18, 32, or 9999 types. The only thing we can say about this is that the more types, the more defined the type, or the more accurate we can get.

Realize that all that can be said for any one type, is more fitting for those who are of that type than those who are not.

So is this typology flawed, or are you just dissatisfied with the amount of types? If it's the latter, then it seems you're stating nothing more than an opinion.

I realize that it's just "narrowing down" more than anything. I'm not suggesting the theory is flawed, just wondering if adding 'unusual' patterns would make it a more complete theory.

(Truly, if it were possible, one could narrow down the specifics of personality types, adding more and more types as they are specified more and more, to the point of there being only one individual of every type. But that's just silly.)

 

[fullerene]

yeah... I was curious of the same thing. How specific did you want to get, and what kinds of questions did you want to ask? I developed Ne-Ti-Fi-Ni-Te-Si-(Se/Fe) (said the function analysis test)... so I'm definitely in your "weird" category. What else were you looking for, though?

 

[Luzian]

All information is based on perception. It will all come down to how much differential information a human is willing to store to differentiate between objects. The difference is only made when it concerns that person. For instance: An Indian would know the difference between themselves and a Pakistani, but the average American wont know the difference because it doesn't matter to us.

Information is never absolute nor atomic. We can infinitely divide all perceived things infinitesimally.

Am I going on a pointless tangent? Let me know

 

[Auburn]

yeah... I was curious of the same thing. How specific did you want to get, and what kinds of questions did you want to ask? I developed Ne-Ti-Fi-Ni-Te-Si-(Se/Fe) (said the function analysis test)... so I'm definitely in your "weird" category. What else were you looking for, though?

You're a good example cryptonia.

Let's say for instance, than an analysis was done on people who also went through the same pattern of cognitive development (Ne-Ti-Ni-Te-Si-Se-Fe???) as you did/are. My guess is that a new profile could be formed for people like you crypt. This way, someone who doesn't exactly fit into the INTP or the INFP categories could look up these 'exceptional' types and may find that they fit "perfectly" into a category such as your own crypt.

 

[Jesin]

If psychology were calculus you could just turn up the precision to infinity and get an exact answer, but it isn't, and you can't.

I'm really not sure that cryptonia's such a great example.

Cryptonia, you have an interesting personal theology/philosophy, but I only have a fuzzy idea of what it actually is.

 

[Ogion]

hey cryp, could you give me the link for that test? I know iit was in some thread, but i paid no real attention then and perhaps it is interesting, so i can put it in my bookmarks? Or just point me to the right thread...Thanks.

Ogion

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Stealing cryptonia's spotlight:
http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/assessment/develop_old.html

If we examined how each of the 8 functions were developed, and then simply put them in order of primary to octonary (what's the right word here?) then we'd have 8! = 40,320 types.

DIBS on the name "Wizard" for the {Ti, Ne, Ni, Si, Fe, Fi, Te, Se} type.
(Wizard has always been my favorite name for INTPs.)

Heh, finding labels for all of those would be pretty unfortunate, since the average educated person only knows 25,000 words. And not all of those are nouns!
It'd also be pretty unfortunate, because on average there'd only be 7,500 people of each type in America. And since INTPs are already small, it'd be more like only 2,000 Wizards in America.

 

[Ogion]

Oh hey, thanks for the link.

Ogion

 

[Agent Intellect]

i think there are about this many different personalities.

 

[fullerene]

Cryptonia, you have an interesting personal theology/philosophy, but I only have a fuzzy idea of what it actually is.

As extremely obnoxious and pretentious and forced as this is going to sound, it's quite simple. Read bible. Interpret as closely as you can discern to the authors' intent. Use it for theology. Assume that reality reflects God. It's a trickle down effect.... but I don't want to hijack the thread.

So in the interest of keeping it on topic, why don't you think I'm a good example? Those function strengths aren't anywhere close to similar to any of the types, with all the introverted ones bunched up behind a dominant Ne... it would seem like I'd split between the ENP types, leaning towards ENTP, but with a bunch of slightly weaker introverted functions overwhelming the dominant one, to make me quite strongly introverted.

oh... and to Auburn, the reason I stuck Se/Fe in ( )'s was because there was a tremendous dropoff in function strength just before them, and they were hardly used at all. The difference in strengths between the two was so little that you couldn't come close to justifying saying Se was stronger at all.

 

[Auburn]

[Disclaimer: I do understand that this online cognitive functions test is probably not as accurate as we're assuming it to be. However, that doesn't mean a more accurate test doesn't exist, or can be developed to determine the cognitive functions most in use. This test just serves as a practical example for this thread.]

i think there are about this many different personalities.

lol, I agree. In fact, if you count all the dead, the number of personalities goes up dramatically.

If we examined how each of the 8 functions were developed, and then simply put them in order of primary to octonary (what's the right word here?) then we'd have 8! = 40,320 types.

Except, many of those 40,320 types probably would not be describing anyone alive; they would just be hypothetical. There may be some arrangements of the 8 cognitive functions that are close to impossible to produce.

It would be more practical to take a decent size sample of the population, run through tests on them, and determine how their cognitive functions interact with each other. Those with similar patterns will be labeled as one 'type' (if they are a substantial group).

I would hypothesize that the 16 types would show up clearly in the test results, but I would also anticipate that many other clearly defined types, with substantial amount of people in the groups, would show up in the results as well. Then the tendencies of each of these groups can be studied and a type profile could be given.

EDIT: [where's Decaf?]

 

[Jesin]

I'm having some trouble figuring out what exactly Fi is. I keep getting it mixed up with Fe and/or Ti.

As for the function analysis test, I think when you try to take it to that level of precision the theory loses its meaning.

it's quite simple.

Thought it might be something like that. Combination of lazy evaluation and memoization, am I right?

 

[Auburn]

As for the function analysis test, I think when you try to take it to that level of precision the theory loses its meaning.

Then, are you saying the theory only applies on a surface level? If the theory cannot withstand being put under a microscope then it would just mean the theory is just an illusion based on abstract patterns to begin with.

For instance, if truly the eight Jungian cognitive functions are real, and not merely a set of observed patterns, then there must also be a scientific basis for them. If there truly is no scientific basis for them, then the theory holds little water.

This is why I hypothesize that, if Jungian psychology is indeed scientifically based, then, given enough research and brain analysis - one should be able to identify the functions either in brain wave patterns or in physical regions of the brain.

For instance, a neurosurgeon knows that there are specific literal sections of the brain responsible each for different bodily functions such as taste, smell, movement, eyesight, and so on. There are also sections responsible for memory, though processes, imaginations, etc.

Could there also be sections for the cognitive functions? Or perhaps they need not their own sections, but they are 'products' of the entire brain's function as a whole. If this is the case, then could they be detectable via brain wave patterns?

 

[fullerene]

Combination of lazy evaluation and memoization, am I right?

actually, theology is much deeper, harder conceptually, and requires less memorization than both physics and philosophy. I suspect more than the other disciplines as well. If it didn't, I wouldn't even give it a second thought. It's lazy evaluation that doesn't think the bible has any deep truths in it. Of the two of us, I'd imagine I've put more work into studying it than you have.

oh... and talk to snail about Fi sometime. It seems like it's just a very subjective version of logic... but it turns out quite accurate (or at least hers does) because it takes into account so many subjective perspectives that it finds objective things. Instead of separating themselves off from their own point of view like Ti does, they just embrace it and accept everyone else's as well.

 

[Jesin]

actually, theology is much deeper, harder conceptually, and requires less memorization

I said memoization. That wasn't a typo.

Memoization and lazy evaluation are concepts in computer science.

 

[fullerene]

lol! *smacks self in forehead*

thanks . I (obviously) thought you were just being a jerk. Er..... sorry about that

*goes to wikipedia to make himself less ignorant

 

[Jesin]

Then, are you saying the theory only applies on a surface level? If the theory cannot withstand being put under a microscope then it would just mean the theory is just an illusion based on abstract patterns to begin with.

Sorry. I said that wrong. I think I meant that the tests lose their usefulness. When you try to test at that level of precision, the margin for error just becomes too great for the results to be meaningful.

 

[grey matters]

Jesin, furthermore when there are too many types it becomes difficult for most people to understand and apply the theory. The purpose for MBTI was to help people understand each other and through this understanding help people get along better. It's supposed to be a tool for the outer world of human relations. Therefore the 4 temperments and the 16 types should remain. If typing becomes too complex people won't use it, and that would defeat the purpose of the test.

Typology has two purposes, one for the outer world of human relations, and the other for things like a deeper understanding of human behavior. Both are useful and important, and both can exist and develop at the same time. Just dont screw with one at the expense of the other.

I personally don't rule out the possibility of creating a test that can type the types with a reasonable ammount of accuracy. I don't know if we have the knowledge and ability to do that yet.

 

[Yozuki]