the test results vs. the development of the cognitive functions

[shoeless]

so as you can see from the little doohickey in my signature, i test as an INTP. however, i have a low preference for I and T and a high preference for N and P. an inexperienced MBTI-guy might say they are, then, xNxP. let's ignore that guy for a while, he's a douche.

now, assuming the test is in any way accurate, what does results like this say about the development of my cognitive functions?

does the low I perhaps mean my introverted functions are less developed than another INTP? perhaps my relatively higher F means my Fe function is better developed than another INTP? is it that black-and-white?

what do you think?

(i'd elaborate but i've got to scamper off to school. le sigh.)

 

[bluesquid]

I think that there are an amazing variety of subsets.

It angers me that so many INTP's are happy to "just be". INTP's ostensibly discovered this entire field of typing, yet we dont use it to our advantage. I post all the time about what INTP's can be, only to be labeled another type. It is the INTP that figured out all the functions, cant an INTP learn how to emulate them?

I did. And it sounds like your on your way.

Bravo. Its my personal opinion that an INTP can do anything.

 

[Adymus]

No, it is definitely not that black and white, there is a countless amount of factors that could go into why your results are coming out the way they are:

*You are scoring yourself higher or lower than you actually deserve based on some precieved standard.
*You see yourself in a way that differs from how you are actually developed.
*You are answering based on your ideal self and not your actual self
*You have worked to develop your lower functions so you are answering the questions with a strong bias toward them.
*Your culture and/or upbringing demands a certain role or personality, so you begin to identify with that and answer your questions accordingly (ie: T women who answer questions in favor of F)
*etc, etc, etc.

But to answer your question, it is more likely that if you are acting more extroverted than you average introvert, don't look at it like your Dominant introverted function is less developed than others. Because how your Ti is developed in comparison to mine is irrelevant and a pissing contest that I damn sure wouldn't want to be a part of. Your functions are always proportional to the dominant in some way. The dominant function will be the strongest, and the other function's development could vary, but it would be optimal that they were all stronger than the one below it.
So it is not really possible to have a stronger Fe or Ne than you do Ti, and appearing more extroverted really only means that your extroverted functions are better developed, as opposed to your stronger Introverted functions as less developed.

EDIT: Not sure if I made myself very clear in that last paragraph. Basically what I am saying is, your Level of Introversion and extroversion will manifest depending on the extroverted function's proportional development to your dominant function. It has nothing at all to do with how it is developed in other INTPs.

 

[bluesquid]

Didnt i read somewhere that we are masters at mimicking people?

A long time ago I stopped allowing my personality to blow in the wind, or be determined for me. I chose a model, and emulated needed components.

So I think, to paraphrase Adymus, that we choose our non dominant yet still present functions. Maybe just not consciously.

 

[Adymus]

Didnt i read somewhere that we are masters at mimicking people?

A long time ago I stopped allowing my personality to blow in the wind, or be determined for me. I chose a model, and emulated needed components.

So I think, to paraphrase Adymus, that we choose our non dominant yet still present functions. Maybe just not consciously.

No, you probably didn't.

I don't think anybody in their right mind would claim that we are "masters" of mimicking people. We mirror the emotional "energy" of the person or people we are around but I would hardly call that being a master of mimicry.

Also, I never once said that we choose our non-dominant functions, because we certainly don't choose any of our functions. There was never a time in my life where I said "You know, I'm starting to get sick of this ESFP shit, I think I'll start being an INTP from now on."

Yeah, I already know your disagree with this. But since you are that one guy who is an INFJ who is convinced that he is an Evolved INTP, I just can't bring myself to take your opinion very seriously.

 

[bluesquid]

No, you probably didn't.

I don't think anybody in their right mind would claim that we are "masters" of mimicking people. We mirror the emotional "energy" of the person or people we are around but I would hardly call that being a master of mimicry.

Also, I never once said that we choose our non-dominant functions, because we certainly don't choose any of our functions. There was never a time in my life where I said "You know, I'm starting to get sick of this ESFP shit, I think I'll start being an INTP from now on."

Yeah, I already know your disagree with this. But since you are that one guy who is an INFJ who is convinced that he is an Evolved INTP, I just can't bring myself to take your opinion very seriously.

Now I think this is personal.

For you to say "But since you are that one guy who is an INFJ who is convinced that he is an Evolved INTP, I just can't bring myself to take your opinion very seriously" makes me not take you seriously.

I think your post is funny for two reasons. You believe yourself to a master at distinguishing "real" type. Half the time im being sarcastic, but you take yourself too seriously to notice. Also, you posted immediately after me, and couldnt stay on topic for more than two posts. You didnt have to respond to me. Or comment on me. That tells me worlds more than what you actually typed.

I honestly find your actions perplexing and very entertaining.

 

[Adymus]

Dude, you're an Ni dominant, you wouldn't take anyone who disagreed with you seriously.

Me responding right after you was actually a fluke. I would have been the first to respond but I took awhile and you ended up Ninja'ing me.

Also, you said in your post after mine that you were paraphrasing me making a statement that was a complete contradiction to my model. I just couldn't let that go, I wouldn't want people to think I would make such a ridiculous statement. I really don't want to derail this thread, but I just had to clarify your remark about what I said. So this will probably be the last thing I say on the issue.

 

[Infinite Regress]

does the low I perhaps mean my introverted functions are less developed than another INTP? perhaps my relatively higher F means my Fe function is better developed than another INTP? is it that black-and-white?

I interpret MBTI as our preferred tendencies, but depending on the environment we may act differently to our "type". I prefer to play lone ranger in my pursuits but due to family, social circle and activities I engage in, I find myself exhibiting more extroverted characteristics than I would choose.

Nothing wrong with that, and certainly not an indication that your "I" is not well developed.

 

[Zero]

I don't know that the online tests are the most accurate. The questions are sometimes a little tricky or too absolute.

Also, I don't see that your I or T are that weak. There's a "typical" pattern to development, but there are those who develop differently. It helps to be sure of your type and sometimes evaluating the descriptions of the types and functions is helpful.

If you're near the border line, good for you, you're more balanced and utilise that side more than most INTPs. Then again, it seems many INTPs are close to the borderline on the T/F... Suspiciously?

The types are really for self-help and discovery. I'm disappointed to find that I'm odd, even for an INTP in several instances. When it come down to it, there's not much point in comparing.

If I were to say you are unusual for an INTP, I would just say you're "borderline". Not to say you're an xNxP, but not as extreme as some INTPs. On a personal level, what does that end up meaning for you and what use is it?

 

[shoeless]

i wasn't talking about me specifically, necessarily -- just using me as an example. and i'm pretty sure i said in my first post, assuming the test was in any way accurate. so we're speaking theoretically here, if we could use the gradient to determine function development.

i dunno, i made this pretty early in the morning. was just a fleeting thought.

 

[Adymus]

i wasn't talking about me specifically, necessarily -- just using me as an example. and i'm pretty sure i said in my first post, assuming the test was in any way accurate. so we're speaking theoretically here, if we could use the gradient to determine function development.

i dunno, i made this pretty early in the morning. was just a fleeting thought.

I know, and I was just continuing the use of you as an example to make things easier. Pretty much everything I said in the second paragraph of my response is still valid, and can be applied to any other type and their corresponding functions.

 

[Jennywocky]

i wasn't talking about me specifically, necessarily -- just using me as an example. and i'm pretty sure i said in my first post, assuming the test was in any way accurate. so we're speaking theoretically here, if we could use the gradient to determine function development.

I think it's pretty common for introverts especially to have a developed auxiliary function. We need it in order to engage external reality. Extroverts already have an E function as their primary -- so they use their primary to engage.

This sort of introvert reality means we're going to have strong auxiliaries earlier in life than most extroverts.


I'll say I have always preferred N, not T, in my engagement of the outside world. N is flexy, T is more rigid; N can play in social environments, but T usually breaks things. Even now, I very commonly wear an N mask. Only people I trust or "safe situations" get a dose of my T... which is always THERE under the surface but sometimes not expressed. I sweat a bit when I'm forced to T things simply because the stances leave little room for flex; people can now fight with me and I just don't like conflict much even if I can handle myself okay within it.

Same thing with F. Growing up, I didn't have much choice... I was forced to learn F in order to survive. After years and years, I know how to play the game and even use F appropriately... so I tend to score higher than other T dominants in my F skills.

In this case, then, my cog function map might vary from my binary-function test scores. I go by cog function, it's more individualized... even if the binary-function test helps you figure out your general type.

 

[Adymus]

I think it's pretty common for introverts especially to have a developed auxiliary function. We need it in order to engage external reality. Extroverts already have an E function as their primary -- so they use their primary to engage.

This sort of introvert reality means we're going to have strong auxiliaries earlier in life than most extroverts.


I'll say I have always preferred N, not T, in my engagement of the outside world. N is flexy, T is more rigid; N can play in social environments, but T usually breaks things. Even now, I very commonly wear an N mask. Only people I trust or "safe situations" get a dose of my T... which is always THERE under the surface but sometimes not expressed. I sweat a bit when I'm forced to T things simply because the stances leave little room for flex; people can now fight with me and I just don't like conflict much even if I can handle myself okay within it.

Same thing with F. Growing up, I didn't have much choice... I was forced to learn F in order to survive. After years and years, I know how to play the game and even use F appropriately... so I tend to score higher than other T dominants in my F skills.

In this case, then, my cog function map might vary from my binary-function test scores. I go by cog function, it's more individualized... even if the binary-function test helps you figure out your general type.

You'd be surprised at how many introverts don't develop their auxiliary very quickly because of their reluctance to leave their comfort zone. "I don't go outside, people are outside, I don't like people, so I don't go outside."
The best way to develop your extroverted functions is through engaging the external with them, and if you are reluctant to do this because it's a little uncomfortable for you, it's going to be a very slow process.

At any rate Jenny, I'd still say you are on to something. I think INxx types have the biggest incentive to fully develop all of there functions. If you live in a culture that rewards Extroversion (Like the US for instance) then you are going to have to develop your extroverted functions just to keep up. Also since the world is about 75% sensor, you are also going to have to develop your Sensing functions to appeal to them in the world place or school, or pretty much anywhere else that they are.
If you are an ESxx type, you can pretty much just live off of your Extroverted and sensing functions your entire life and there won't really be any serious incentive to develop much further.

 

[bluesquid]

Now I like this.

What the "extroverts" want is the world as history sees it. Not me, but that is irrelevant.


I interpret the world as systems and subjective reality. Call that functions, but Im beyond that. I use whats needed for the "world". My "reality" is whats needed.

We have a culture that is wrong to me objectively. I see evidence every day. I believe I see culture and reality objectively, every day.

This leads me to a condition in which I have to overcome my instincts. I have to use my intuition to overcome what is spelled out to me. I have to overcome the subjective aimed at me.

If. You are anything less, you are setting yourself up for extinction.


and I am talking in the sense that, regardless of type.


Change is coming.

Adymus. Focus your energy on yourself. Even if Im wrong.

 

[Adymus]

Of course change is coming.

As long as we don't destroy ourselves, we are destined to continue evolving, that is just how the chips were set up.

I'd argue that the experience you, or rather we (as in all of us) are having, and the perspective we have come to is still a subjective experience. The only difference is it is your subjective perspective, and not perspective that is attempted to be turned into objective reality by the world/people around us.
This experience is completely visceral, it is in our instincts to intuitively perceive the world, and come to the understandings that we have. It is in our instincts to be driven to change the world.

INTP, INTJ, INFJ, INFP, the purpose of their existence is and always has been to fuck up the status quo.
The INs are the 4 rarest types, and they have changed, influenced, and over all progressed mankind in more ways than all other types combined.

Change, it's what we are here for.

 

[bluesquid]

You have just enough to say to remain relevant.

I went objective, and you went subjective.

You have shown your youth two consecutive posts, regardless of type.

You have exhibted youth without adding anything novel. Your not unique. Your average. average. average. average.

 

[Adymus]

Your not unique.

And neither are you Bluesquid.

Get.
The fuck.
over yourself.

 

[shoeless]

"Your asshole. asshole. asshole. asshole."

i've gotta side with adymus here.

bluesquid, you haven't contributed anything but borderline extremist viewpoints that don't appear to be particularly well thought out, an ego the size of a third-world country, and a whoooooole lot of condescending bullshit.

might want to take a step back and examine if what you're doing is truly "right". that's what an INTP would do, after all, and since you're so "evolved", you'd think you'd have done that already.

 

[bluesquid]

an INTP at heart, is better than anything!

DIE. crying.

You dont have to like me, but Im here. IM an INTP in full fucking bloom. You want to talk of functions? I forgot functions when I learned to deal with objectivity.

all you cloistered INTPS should listen and learn.


Your skills + your "tendencies" ='s lose

Your skills + added abilities and attitude ='s dominance.


Im asking all of you to wake the FUCK up and state your opinion.

 

[fullerene]

INTP, INTJ, INFJ, INFP, the purpose of their existence is and always has been to fuck up the status quo.
The INs are the 4 rarest types, and they have changed, influenced, and over all progressed mankind in more ways than all other types combined.

To be fair, we really don't know anything about how different types have progressed mankind. Cognitive functions are a very new idea, over the scope of man's history, and even now they're nowhere near enough popular that someone would get widespread enough recognition to make it into the history books by studying influential peoples' types. And if they did, it's likely they'd look at successful businessmen and come out saying ESTJs are the most powerful ones anyway, because people who do those kinds of "unimportant" studies are usually psych undergrad students who just want to say they got something published.

Really, though... judging by how philosophical, say, the Ancient Greeks were, I wouldn't be surprised if INxx's determined and maintained the status quo. Even around here, when someone tries to fuck up the status quo they're usually (and in general, rightly so) called trolls. We all seem to want to change the status quo in the world at large.... but when we have our own little world carved out for us, I think it's visible from forum activity that most people don't really want to change it.

Im asking all of you to wake the FUCK up and state your opinion.

I like that this comes after two people did just state their opinion, loudly and clearly. Funny irony is funny.

 

[Zero]

(accuracy nazi)

bluesquid, your argument is the subjective one. You're not making logical points, you're arguing from a defensive bias and trying to insult and bring the other poster down. That is subjective arguing, you're finding flaws that are your personal subjective opinion.

Objectivity is typically big picture and logical, while subjectivity deals with personal.

You argue that the culture is objectively wrong in a moral sense. Morals are subjective. The culture is subjectivity wrong to you. We can say, from an objective view point, that society has changed, we have proof of society and culture changing. This is a fact and that's why it's objective. Whether or not our culture is wrong is subjective as compared to times in the past and other cultures it could also be "right". Considering the larger picture, other cultures and times, is the more objective reaction as it puts things into perspective.

To say something is wrong to you objectively doesn't make sense. Unless you're trying to say that culture is subjective, which is true, but that's to everyone. Which makes the comment objective.

"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."

"I went objective, and you went subjective." This is a subjective comment as it's based on your bias and inability to reply to subject.

The objective reply to the post directly before this would be on the subject of change, as that was the subject.

An objective reply would be: "It's instinct to survive and the desire for change is a by-product of survival. Additionally, you probably overemphasize the importance of INs, as the revolutions in society have required many people, many of whom were extroverted and some of whom changed the world simply because they did something different or smart. IN(p)s are about change, but so are other people."

The reason this is objective is because it's a reply to the topic/subject matter. You attacked Adymus and he attacked back.

Also, we don't choose our types or our function as Jung's types are based off of observing people. There's not really an evolved type and it's easy to understand that if you actually understand the system.

It's important to note that the Feeling/Thinking axis is on decision making. If you make subjective decisions you're supposedly a Feeling type, if you make Objective decisions more often you're a Thinking type. We use both types of decision making, it's the one we favor most that determines our type. The other functions are our intake of the world around us. There's Sensing and Intuition. Sensing is detail oriented and taking in of the world through the five senses, obviously Intuitive types do this as well. If we're cut we (eventually) realize we have a cut. That input is not different from a sensors, once we observe it. It's the fact that stimuli can go ignored and we can be caught up in our own mind that makes us Intuitives.

I once had a conversation with my mother that illustrates the difference between N/S clearly. She looked out the window and said, "I want to go outside and feel the grass." My reply was, "I can imagine feeling the grass and it's almost as real to me as feeling the grass."

There's only one instance I can really recall a dramatic T/F effect. I was talking to a counselor and told her I hated living in the state we were currently living, I had a lot of complaints about it and I tend to rant. I need to vent to get rid of the rant and after that I can see things in a better perspective. To my surprise, she took offense to the fact that I disliked the state, as she loved it there and couldn't help, but take it personally.

The fact that you chose to take this personally and replied to it from a personal bias reveals your decision making (on this last page, at least) is from a Feeling standpoint. From what you've displayed I would think that you'd be happier considering yourself an INFP, exercising your Te.
http://typelogic.com/infp.html

Rather than being insulted, do consider it, as knowing your type as accurately as possible is to your benefit.

If you insist on being insulted, consider that: A- I'm one person giving my opinion on what I've observed. B- You're not the only one I'm suspicious of. My reason for butting in here is I don't want anyone thinking a legit argument went down.

The current debate is a stupid flame war and does not deserve to live.

---
Edit: Seriously, stop using the word "objective" and its variants, as you're not using it correctly. Stop, you're doing it wrong, you're get a fail sticker for this.

(Frustration+Vexation+Funny=?)

 

[Adymus]

To be fair, we really don't know anything about how different types have progressed mankind. Cognitive functions are a very new idea, over the scope of man's history, and even now they're nowhere near enough popular that someone would get widespread enough recognition to make it into the history books by studying influential peoples' types. And if they did, it's likely they'd look at successful businessmen and come out saying ESTJs are the most powerful ones anyway, because people who do those kinds of "unimportant" studies are usually psych undergrad students who just want to say they got something published.

Really, though... judging by how philosophical, say, the Ancient Greeks were, I wouldn't be surprised if INxx's determined and maintained the status quo. Even around here, when someone tries to fuck up the status quo they're usually (and in general, rightly so) called trolls. We all seem to want to change the status quo in the world at large.... but when we have our own little world carved out for us, I think it's visible from forum activity that most people don't really want to change it.

You're right, what I am saying is purely theoretical. but if you just look at how Ni works, it's like it was meant to introduce new ideas into the world that completely change everything. Determining the status quo I'd say could very well be an INxx thing, but maintaining it is pretty much left to the SJs. Obviously, Si is all for leaving things the way they are.
You could be right about not wanting to change things if we had our world carved out for us, but when does that happen in the world at large?

 

[Adymus]

Zero, the guy is an INFJ, I have literally been saying this since he made his introduction post.

 

[Zero]

Zero, the guy is an INFJ, I have literally been saying this since he made his introduction post.

I see...

. . . .

*Pause*

*Long Pause*


Well, I only came back into this thread curious as to why it kept popping up and I'm quite upset to see such a ridiculous little flame battle.

First of all, why are you poking the lion with a stick?
Second, why INFJ and not INFP?

(Curious, embarrassed, confused)

 

[Words]

I wonder why so many takes him seriously. His current "delivery of command" is too flawed to be taken seriously imo.

 

[Zero]

Really? I can't tell he's joking.

Then again, I see what you mean.
"Im asking all of you to wake the FUCK up and state your opinion."

That comment seems too stupid to be real.

 

[Adymus]

I see...

. . . .

*Pause*

*Long Pause*


Well, I only came back into this thread curious as to why it kept popping up and I'm quite upset to see such a ridiculous little flame battle.

First of all, why are you poking the lion with a stick?
Second, why INFJ and not INFP?

(Curious, embarrassed, confused)

The first poke was quite uncalled for I'll admit, but I think it would have gone in this direction anyway, as it usually does.

His use Ni and Fe are just blatantly obvious, even in through text. Actually I am a bit confused as to how you could really think he was a P based on his attitude alone, but... anyway, let's move on to the analysis:

I interpret the world as systems and subjective reality. Call that functions, but Im beyond that. I use whats needed for the "world". My "reality" is whats needed.

This is a text book Ni dominant perspetive. "My reality is what is needed" Ni dominants go through life collecting patterns and seeing how the world should be run in their own ideal worldview. INFJs specifically use their Fe to move and sculpt societies into their own personal Ni design

We have a culture that is wrong to me objectively. I see evidence every day. I believe I see culture and reality objectively, every day.

Like I said before, the Ni dominant will see a world that is inadequate because they can perceive a world that is so much better in their Ni.

You have just enough to say to remain relevant...

...Im asking all of you to wake the FUCK up and state your opinion.

What he is basically saying here, is that I am weak being I am only adapting to the current topic, as you would expect from a P. This would be opposed to being directive and giving pieces of my worldview out, as you would expect with a J. He is essentially saying that we should stand and dump our Ni worldviews here, because he thinks we are all INFJs like him (since he thinks he is an INTP and all.)

 

[Zero]

I misunderstand what you think makes a "J". Are you saying it's his arrogance? With INTPs and INTJs that might be the case, but not with INFJ/Ps.

From my experience with INFJs they are incredibly nice, but almost offensive when it comes to time management. They have a desire to fully live their time. I can't imagine an INFJ using their time for this sort of conversation.

However, the INFPs I've known are a lot more up front and more self-interested. In their case the P allows them to not re-evaluate what they should be spending time on. Additionally, his arguing style seems right on with the inferior, extroverted Thinking function, as described by Typelogic.

It seems like INFPs and INFJs have different temperaments, based on the ones I've known. INFJs are very sensitive, but also very people oriented and romantic within context. INFPs are sensitive and romantic, but they tend to be more self oriented and more whimsical.

INFJs are very distinct. When I meet an INFJ I usually know they're an INFJ.

Of INTJs and INFJs I've known I would say both are more sensitive than INFPs and INTPs. I'm not sure why, I've just observed this having been friends with both.

Js tend to know they're Js. This would be one confused INFJ if they were thinking they were an INTP. NP types don't tend to know what the F is going on and INTPs are constantly questioning whether or not they are INTPs.

 

[Adymus]

Zero, stop using stereotypes to type people, it is going to fail more than any other technique. INFJ are by in large the most poorly stereotyped personality type there is, there is so much more to then that is not being explained in the type descriptions. Things that you would really have to know an INFJ really well to see (Preferably one who has a good understanding of their own cognitive functions and can explain to you how they use them).

Unfortunately being an Ni dominant means you pretty much always think you are right. Even when you are completely wrong, and this seems to be the case with Bluesquid.

 

[echoplex]

I wouldn't put much trust into the test results, because the tests I'm aware of all suck. That said, I can certainly see how well-developed Fe might yield a lower T %, because it may effect how you answer certain questions, but so can a million other things. Hell, watching a touching movie before one of those tests could do the same.

And as long as the tests keep thinking that Extroversion is simply a matter of how social you are, I'd almost ignore the E/I results, unless they are really close to 100% on either side.

In general, a test needs to be developed that determines which functions you're using, with questions that aren't so cookie-cutter and are instead more specific and situational. Questions like "what would you do if..." and other things I'm sure I'm forgetting. Then, once functions are determined, the test should then focus on the hierarchy using items that gauge how energizing they are. They also need more questions that aren't mere text. Illustrations, diagrams, sound clips, etc... -- these are the kinds of things I'd like to see incorporated into the test -- not just lame, boring questions.

We also need better type descriptions, because they could also be an effective way to determine type, especially when it's already been narrowed down.

 

[Zero]

The people I say were INFJs told me they were INFJs, as I asked them their MBTI type. To say for sure, I only know two, but they were very distinct to me. As for the others, the INFPs I knew did the online testing and I knew them as friends. The INTJ I had the most interaction with also found/revealed his type through online tests.

But on a regular basis I use MBTI to help me understand and communicate with people, as I don't have a natural knack for it.

Trait theory is about Stereotypes. If we were not able to make trait theories based off of people's behavior and groups of people's behavior we wouldn't have trait theory. All people would be so individual there would be no traits we could categorise. These stereotypes simply allow us a more objective approach as opposed to "highschool" stereotypes.

"Highschool" stereotypes create a sort of good/bad and inferior to greater titles. The idea behind trait theory is that a hierarchy isn't created and all people are "equal" just different. I think MBTI meant to make it so that Jung's trait theory was seen in context of group, which gives everyone value.

I can only speak from experience (with people) and from what I've read on MBTI types over the years. And that is what I'll convey. Please don't take that the wrong way, I see this turning into a personal attack and I will not stay if you insist on being rude.

This is the topic, J or P? Do you have some kind of evidence or convincing argument to say that this person is an INTJ?

As a side note: it's somewhat unethical that we make this judgement for them, but I'm taking this as a topic for debate. We're not necessarily deciding for them, but based on what they've shown us trying to decipher which type would display this behavior. We can only tell them they are not an INTP and they re-evaluate their findings to find the best suited MBTI type.

Our discussion is trivial, but interesting. That is the only reason we should have this discussion. If you find it's upsetting you, we should halt this trivia immediately.

 

[Adymus]

I appologize if I am coming off as rude, I had no idea I would be perceived that way.

I'm not sure why you are stating that the INFJs you know are aware of their type. Are you suggesting that being an INFJ means you are incapable of being mistyped and mistaking your type for something else?

Typology unfortunately has become stereotyping, but that is exactly what has become wrong with it. Sure, the types will have far more common ground than they will differences, but the differences that they do have will be very apparent at times. The MBTI descriptions you see online essentially outlines what a type looks like if they have an average and balanced development. But it does not take into account the possibilities of how they will appear after they strengthen their tertiary and inferior functions, or other possible ways their functions can cause them to manifest. It only gives the description of kind of a certain personality type. Another problem with just creating an outline of how they act, you are not really seeing how they are using their functions; people can act an infinite amount of ways, but all of these ways could still point to the use of a dominant and auxiliary function. What it is exactly that they do with these functions is not relevant if you can see that they are using them.

As for J or P... Did you not see me just outline why I think he is an Ni dominant? You can't be anything but a J of you are an Ni dominant. Oh, and I didn't say INTJ, I said INFJ.
I suppose I could also point out how worldview driven he is over all. In the quotes that I listed he is talking about how he sees the world and all it's flaws, and can perceive and even better world that we should be living it. That is classic directive (J) worldview, as well as classic Ni-Fe. Basically an INFP would not outline an entire world in their mind (You know, since they don't have Ni and all), and be driven to push this model into the world.

Why exactly do you see P at all in this person?

 

[Zero]

I don't know that "rude" is the right word. But your argument was focused on me and not on the topic.

I don't seem to agree with you on what "stereotyping" is. From what I understand it's taking a number of traits/behaviors people display and making a title to describe the characteristics of that behavior.

" people can act an infinite amount of ways," If people could act in an infinite amount of ways we wouldn't be able to identify behaviors to put them into a trait theory. Additionally, people can't literally act in an infinite amount of ways. Infinite is not a true amount. Your wording would make me think you're flustered.

I understand trait theory as a kind of stereotyping. That is how I will approach the subject.

I do agree that Functions are important. However, we define how these MBTI types will act in profiles and how their functions affect their actions. Also, we're arguing about expression, not necessarily function. I don't think it would be unusual for someone with a strong N to express it in both e/i ways occasionally.

I think I express Ti and Te and I know my T is overall stronger than my N (and P and I- which appears to be my lowest). I think the actual expression might change more than the function. To say we can act in many ways is true, but supposedly our actions would be within a boundary. That boundary allows us to identify tendencies.

Anyway, my reason for suspecting this person is P instead of J is because of this being an expression. This is why I used the behavioral examples and my experiences with INFJs, as the J is expressed.

I don't think a J type would take time to argue in a thread and I don't think an INFJ would get the sort of feeling-accomplishment that seems characteristic of their type. I think you over emphasize the importance of this "J worldview", which comes off to me as a more subjective stereotype than how J/P is actually defined by many sources.

The P/J axis, alone, is primarily the organizational axis. Along with E/I it is the easiest axis to identify as it is expressed and manifests itself clearly in behavior. Judging is behavior that's identified as being scheduled, orderly and organized. Perceiving is behavior that's identified as being spontaneous, disorganized, and random.

This person identified themselves as an INTP. Assuming they have even a small amount of knowledge of the system, the J/P axis should be easy to identify. Are they messy and disorganized and random? Well then, that is very clearly the trait Jung called "Perceiving".

Since the functions N/S, F/T are more abstract it's not surprising when people confuse them. The expressions are not abstract. It would be odd for someone to confuse them.

 

[Adymus]

I don't seem to agree with you on what "stereotyping" is. From what I understand it's taking a number of traits/behaviors people display and making a title to describe the characteristics of that behavior.

I still have a problem with this this, because the exact traits are not as relevant as what functions they are using and being stimulated by. For instance an INTP typically does not enjoy being in large crowds, and has trouble articulating their thoughts; an INTP with well developed Fe will not have these problems to the extent of one with underdeveloped Fe. Further more the person's development and underdevelopment of other functions can cause traits are that are unusual to the average personality type in question. If you wanted to capture a personality type and all of it's possible traits in all forms of development, you will have contradictions. Wouldn't it just be easier and even more accurate to say "This person is stimulated by Ti and Ne"?

" people can act an infinite amount of ways," If people could act in an infinite amount of ways we wouldn't be able to identify behaviors to put them into a trait theory. Additionally, people can't literally act in an infinite amount of ways. Infinite is not a true amount. Your wording would make me think you're flustered.

No, you still would be able to. a personality is infinitely variable when exploring every nuance, but that does not mean it can't still be "rounded" off into a personality type.
Think of it like digital audio, amplitude and frequency are infinitely variable, but when sampled into digital data, they are be rounded off into discrete values that represent how something sounds with enough accuracy to sound right to our ears.
In the context of personality type, all that matters is what their top two functions are, and they precede, behavioral traits that come from culture, upbringing, etc.

I understand trait theory as a kind of stereotyping. That is how I will approach the subject.

That's your call, but again, bad move. You are just setting yourself up for a poor understanding.

I do agree that Functions are important. However, we define how these MBTI types will act in profiles and how their functions affect their actions. Also, we're arguing about expression, not necessarily function. I don't think it would be unusual for someone with a strong N to express it in both e/i ways occasionally.

Okay you seem to be missing a crucial part of this theory: If you are talking about how a personality type expresses themselves, you are talking about their functions, the two are insuperable. It is not possible to express both Ni and Ne, if you don't have Ni in your top four, you won't be expressing it. Your top four functions are the only ones you consciously use, in other words they are the only ones you will see expressed. Ni and Ne are completely different functions that serve completely different purposes in the psyche, having both would completely contradict why the 16 types exist in the first place.

I think I express Ti and Te and I know my T is overall stronger than my N (and P and I- which appears to be my lowest). I think the actual expression might change more than the function. To say we can act in many ways is true, but supposedly our actions would be within a boundary. That boundary allows us to identify tendencies.

Using Ti to form a plan of some kind is not Te, Te is a function that actually engages with the outside world and puts introverted Perceptual models into an external logical structure. You can go ahead and think you have Te all you want, but if you did, you wouldn't be an INTP, you would be a TJ of some kind.

Anyway, my reason for suspecting this person is P instead of J is because of this being an expression. This is why I used the behavioral examples and my experiences with INFJs, as the J is expressed.

Saying I know some INFJs who acted a certain way is not evidence no matter how you slice it. You essentially suggesting that all INFJs are going to act a certain way, that's just absurd.

I don't think a J type would take time to argue in a thread and I don't think an INFJ would get the sort of feeling-accomplishment that seems characteristic of their type. I think you over emphasize the importance of this "J worldview", which comes off to me as a more subjective stereotype than how J/P is actually defined by many sources.

All I can tell you is you clearly don't know INFJs well enough.

The P/J axis, alone, is primarily the organizational axis. Along with E/I it is the easiest axis to identify as it is expressed and manifests itself clearly in behavior. Judging is behavior that's identified as being scheduled, orderly and organized. Perceiving is behavior that's identified as being spontaneous, disorganized, and random.

This is just completely simplified elementary MBTI crap. All Js are not going to be the same, different types have completely different functions that are all ordered in different ways. The priority one directive type will not be the same as another, the only thing that they share is that they are both directive. A J that uses Si and Te is going to be a completely different kind of J than one with Ni and Fe.

This person identified themselves as an INTP. Assuming they have even a small amount of knowledge of the system, the J/P axis should be easy to identify. Are they messy and disorganized and random? Well then, that is very clearly the trait Jung called "Perceiving".

I'm sorry but this is just a completely ridiculous argument, you are leaving absolutely no room for the possibility that:
1.) People often don't have a very good understanding of how their psyche works, and will identify with certain traits that they have, but don't thrive off of.
2.) A person whose functions have developed in such a way that is out of the norm will very likely test as something that they are not.
3.) Everyone has a Sensing, Thinking, Feeling, and Intuition function, and everyone has adaptive (P) and Directive (J) functions. You can't really expect a person to know exactly which ones they are being stimulated by (Which would define their type.), or actually be aware that your type is defined by what two functions you are being stimulated by for that matter.

In what way has the P/J function ever been easy to identify anyway, I see people with x's on the fourth dichotomy all of the time.



In the case of Bluesquid, I think he is just too in love with the idea that he is an INTP who has magically transcended the restraints of introversion and Pness to come to terms with the fact that he was never an INTP to begin with.

 

[Zero]

I still have a problem with this this, because the exact traits are not as relevant as what functions they are using and being stimulated by. For instance an INTP typically does not enjoy being in large crowds, and has trouble articulating their thoughts; an INTP with well developed Fe will not have these problems to the extent of one with underdeveloped Fe. Further more the person's development and underdevelopment of other functions can cause traits are that are unusual to the average personality type in question. If you wanted to capture a personality type and all of it's possible traits in all forms of development, you will have contradictions. Wouldn't it just be easier and even more accurate to say "This person is stimulated by Ti and Ne"?

If someone has a function that overly developed to the point that they don't display the behaviors or traits that we'd associate with that type makes them a different type. I think we have a disagreement in view point. If someone isn't afraid of crowds and likes to speak in public and is energized by people that's not only a "developed" Fe, that person is an extrovert.

In mentioning the stereotypes, I'm clarifying my stance, so when I make an argument it can be understood in context. I don't think that warrants comments such as "You are just setting yourself up for a poor understanding". I find your comments overly judgmental and personal.

Okay you seem to be missing a crucial part of this theory: If you are talking about how a personality type expresses themselves, you are talking about their functions, the two are insuperable. It is not possible to express both Ni and Ne, if you don't have Ni in your top four, you won't be expressing it. Your top four functions are the only ones you consciously use, in other words they are the only ones you will see expressed. Ni and Ne are completely different functions that serve completely different purposes in the psyche, having both would completely contradict why the 16 types exist in the first place.

Using Ti to form a plan of some kind is not Te, Te is a function that actually engages with the outside world and puts introverted Perceptual models into an external logical structure. You can go ahead and think you have Te all you want, but if you did, you wouldn't be an INTP, you would be a TJ of some kind.

Please provide the source for this information, as I've read otherwise.

Please provide the source that has convinced you that people do not have all functions.

Saying I know some INFJs who acted a certain way is not evidence no matter how you slice it. You essentially suggesting that all INFJs are going to act a certain way, that's just absurd.

All I can tell you is you clearly don't know INFJs well enough.

Trait theory is based on behaviors that are common among groups of people. To assume that INFJs are going have tendencies is not at all outside of trait theory, as that is what it is based on. How do you propose this theory would otherwise arise?

You haven't provided any comments in regards if you've ever met an INFJ yourself. Not to mention observed them, which is easy enough to do by going to an INFJ forum. You should notice patterns.

This is just completely simplified elementary MBTI crap. All Js are not going to be the same, different types have completely different functions that are all ordered in different ways. The priority one directive type will not be the same as another, the only thing that they share is that they are both directive. A J that uses Si and Te is going to be a completely different kind of J than one with Ni and Fe.

It is elementary MBTI information. That's why I'm telling it to you as you seem to not know it.

I think you misunderstand Jung's types and the MBTI theory. While it is common critism for all trait theory that people are relying on their own knowledge of themselves, the expressions are not difficult to decipher.

From a very basic standpoint, as I already said, it's unusual for a P to mistaken the manifestation of their "P" behavior.

In closing,
You have not made a strong argument.
You have tried to say I'm wrong in various ways.
It seems we don't even have the same understanding of the MBTI or Jung's types and if we don't have a similar basis we're practically arguing who's trait theory is better. I personally stick with the original theory and MBTI, from the basics to the more complex. Obviously, I can't make you adopt the original theory as it is presented. But there's no point in continuing this, as we don't even use the same theory.

 

[Infinite Regress]

In the case of Bluesquid, I think he is just too in love with the idea that he is an INTP who has magically transcended the restraints of introversion and Pness to come to terms with the fact that he was never an INTP to begin with.

I don't see why, of all personality types, he'd choose to be an INTP to start with

 

[Words]

No offense, simply sharing my guesses. From bluesquid's first three posts alone, I see J. Perhaps his "F" made the mistake of typing himself.

This world is being ruined by "us", and the majority of us not participating need to get our shit together.

Nice to be around others similar to me

Hurried conclusion. Perhaps Ni + Fe.

practice. practice with people you know, and people you dont.


I know this will sound trite. But dont be afraid of failure. Dont be afraid of judgment. Dont be afraid of condemnation. Just practice. Dont over think, just do it.

At some point you will realize you are good. Better than most in fact. Its pattern recognition, and managing the situation.

It will be a lot of practice. But put yourself out there and suck.suck bad. only way your gonna kick ass.

. Once after like 3 beers, and I messed up alot at something akin to breathing. While drunk, I have a few dishes down to an art.

I think we INTP's are arrogant. we have every right to be. But at a point you have to let it go.

we are afraid of anything that doesnt feel safe. We live in a country vastly safer than perhaps any other in history. At least outside certain milieus. I could go on, but suffice to say, we are brilliant at figuring out what we wont like about something, and dull at seeing a possible profitable outcome.

We have an ability like no other to utilize our third eye. But we let it interfere with our sleep. possibly put us out of touch in dangerous situations. Its an invaluable tool, but at certain tasks, i.e. a gunfight, not advisable.

we are terse even when we lose our reticence. I have been called a brainiac in like 3 languages. Have to learn to just talk. They like the metaphors though. be funny.

hm....

At first, his aggressiveness on his "ideals" was simple and not so "pushy" then I saw his posts felt becoming too consistently, overly "strengthen" so I thought he was just whimsical but I guess he really is serious.

Still, type isn't so important, everyone should be welcome to the forum. We're humans so we have the same needs but...then of course,
perhaps-insulting exaggerations are not necessary.

 

[Adymus]

Zero, you're right, this is going no where. The only way it could go somewhere is if I were to teach you advanced MBTI theory from a to z in this thread, which I am not patient enough to do. I'd highly recommend you did more research in the MBTI because your understanding is only at base level. Which is really only the tip of the iceberg. The reason I am not appealing elementary MBTI is because it simplifies it to a point where it misses out and misinterprets crucial details, as you are doing.

 

[Adymus]

I don't see why, of all personality types, he'd choose to be an INTP to start with

It is very common that an INFJ who has poorly developed Fe and better developed Ti will test as an INTP. I seen it happen quite often.

Because of his poorly developed Fe, he probably identified with the INTP as an anti-socialite persona. Eventually he grew up and developed his Fe to be at normal INFJ level, however, he still thinks he is an INTP. An INTP with really advanced powers of directiveness and Articulation.

 

[Zero]

I'm looking around for a description page of cognitive functions. I've always been under the impress they are somewhat influenced by type and not collective, so there aren't general descriptions of them.

I can gather all the resources I've used to understand MBTI, but it will take a little while.

* These are the main references I use. Though the ones I dislike I don't use.

Books:
Be what You Are
Introduction to Jung

Online:
http://typelogic.com/
http://www.personalitypage.com/home.html
http://www.mypersonality.info/
http://www.myersbriggs.org/
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html
Wikipedia for quick ref.

Disliked or wasn't same basis:
http://www.socionics.com/
http://www.humanmetrics.com/

 

[Adymus]

I'm looking around for a description page of cognitive functions. I've always been under the impress they are somewhat influenced by type and not collective, so there aren't general descriptions of them.

I can gather all the resources I've used to understand MBTI, but it will take a little while.

The types don't influence the functions, the functions not only influence the Types, they define them.

Cognitive functions precede Basic MBTI (And by that I mean the dichotomies like I-E, N-S, etc.) Carl Jung created the theory of the functions with his psychological types. The difference was he was defining the types by their dominant function only. INTP and ISTP were combined into the "Introverted Thinking type", and INFJ and INTJ were combined into "Introverted Intuition type" Etc. Back then there were only 8 types.

Meyers and Briggs perfected Jung's original theory by discovering that the types are actually defined by not only the dominant function, but the dominant and auxiliary function. Which then created the 16 types.
Basic Dichotomies still did not exist at this time.

The MBTI was created as a test that could quickly guess a person's top two functions, with an very easy formula:

Where do you get your energy? (I and E)
Where do you get your information? (N/S)
How do you process that information (F/T)
Do you lead an Adaptive of directive lifestyle? (J/P)

The MBTI was a way to yeild a short hand method of explaining what functions they use. It is easier to say INTP than to say Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.

All understanding of how the types function stem from understanding how the Cognitive functions work and their relationships to each other.

 

[Zero]

From what I'm reading about Fe is that it is more of a peaceful function. A sense of unity as a world view, but it is expressed through being peaceful.

It seems like, according to these descriptions, that Ne and Ni could be viewed in the posts bluesquid has left us to examine. At the same time I suppose we should consider that some are probably under emotional stress?

Source: http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/extravertedfeeling.html

 

[Infinite Regress]

It is very common that an INFJ who has poorly developed Fe and better developed Ti will test as an INTP. I seen it quite often.

Because of his poorly developed Fe, he probably identified with the INTP as an anti-socialite persona. Eventually he grew up and developed his Fe to be at normal INFJ level, however, he still thinks he is an INTP. An INTP with really advanced powers of directiveness and Articulation.

I'm not well versed with the distribution of development of MBTI in individuals. Considering he is ~ 35 y.o., and assuming he has at least tested himself within the last 5 years, is it feasible to be developing Fe to the extent suggested so late on?

 

[Zero]

The types don't influence the functions, the functions not only influence the Types, they define them.

Cognitive functions precede Basic MBTI (And by that I mean the dichotomies like I-E, N-S, etc.) Carl Jung created the theory of the functions with his psychological types. The difference was he was defining the types by their dominant function only. INTP and ISTP were combined into the "Introverted Thinking type", and INFJ and INTJ were combined into "Introverted Intuition type" Etc. Back then there were only 8 types.

Meyers and Briggs perfected Jung's original theory by discovering that the types are actually defined by not only the dominant function, but the dominant and auxiliary function. Which then created the 16 types.
Basic Dichotomies still did not exist at this time.

The MBTI was created as a test that could quickly guess a person's top two functions, with an very easy formula:

Where do you get your energy? (I and E)
Where do you get your information? (N/S)
How do you process that information (F/T)
Do you lead an Adaptive of directive lifestyle? (J/P)

The MBTI was a way to yeild a short hand method of explaining what functions they use. It is easier to say INTP than to say Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.

All understanding of how the types function stem from understanding how the Cognitive functions work and their relationships to each other.

Yes, I know this, as they've said as much in all the sources.

Obviously we approach actually typing from the basic MBTI. Whether or not the functions play a much more important part, they are more difficult to distinguish as characteristics.

The official CPP MBTI is pretty much the same as the rest, it asks questions regarding the difference between what we can evaluate. Which did not appear to be the cognitive functions as far as I could tell.

I took the CPP version Nov 08. I knew my type before that, but I couldn't convince my counselor.

 

[Adymus]

From what I'm reading about Fe is that it is more of a peaceful function. A sense of unity as a world view, but it is expressed through being peaceful.

It seems like, according to these descriptions, that Ne and Ni could be viewed in the posts bluesquid has left us to examine. At the same time I suppose we should consider that some are probably under emotional stress?

Source: http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/extravertedfeeling.html

To quote my INFJ friend "Fe comes in two flavors: Butter and Thunder."

That explanation of Fe is very incomplete and one sided. While it can be, and I suppose, usually is used for keeping social harmony. It is more importantly used to move and influence the social dynamics, in a not necessarily nice way. Moving people peacefully and with sympathetic consideration is the nice way of doing it. But if they resist or in some way threaten the social harmony or protocol, Fe can quickly turn into fury, don't forget it is still an emotional process.
Fe is meant to push, it is directive (Or a J function if you will), and it will use harsher emotions if the pleasant ones fail.
You can see this kind of behavior in bluesquid.

There is also something crucial you should note, there will be a huge difference between Domiant Fe and Auxiliary Fe. For an Auxiliary Fe user like an INFJ, the worldview will be more important than Fe. In other words, he doesn't actually care that much if he can't make everyone happy. In fact, he is aware that he won't make everyone happy, that is not his goal, his goal is to make people see his vision.

 

[Adymus]

I'm not well versed with the distribution of development of MBTI in individuals. Considering he is ~ 35 y.o., and assuming he has at least tested himself within the last 5 years, is it feasible to be developing Fe to the extent suggested so late on?

Well first off, I imagine he probably developed his Fe much earilier than his current age. Secondly, no I highly doubt he would be the kind of person who would take the test over and over again like an INTP would. If he refuses to second guess his type now, why would he do it then?

And lastly, yes it actually is possible to not develop one of you functions until way later in life.

MBTI claims that your functions naturally develop at certain ages, this is just not true. Functions are like muscles, if you don't use them, they don't develop. For instance I have seen middle aged INTPs on youtube who have far worse use of their Fe than me, or shoeless, or Irishpenguin, or Cavilier.

 

[Zero]

Will you not provide sources?

 

[shoeless]

even if he did provide sources, how do you know they can be trusted? how do you know his random internet article is a more accurate source than your random internet article?

i'm sure the knowledge he's providing is a collective of his own data that he's gathered over time, from multiple sources that he's picked through and accepted. things that fit with his own model. or whatever model he was working from.

that's the way to do it, as far as i'm concerned.

even if he made all this shit up himself, you should be deciding for yourself whether you agree or disagree. the theories themselves matter more than the people that came up with them.

...not to derail my own thread again or anything.

 

[Adymus]

What exactly are you asking for sources on?

Honestly the things I say are just so ingrained into my own personal model of understanding typology that I am really at a loss when people tell me to tie it to an authority. I am not just spitting out text book theory, the majority is out of my own experience and theorizing, even though It still coincides with MBTI and Jungian principles of function dynamics.

If you are asking me to find you a source on how Fe is not necessarily nice then... Well... Really? I'm pretty sure any INTP here who was raised by an ENFJ or ESFJ can tell you all about the angry side of Fe. Also, have you heard of "Being in the Grip"? (Naomi Quenk, there is your source) It is essentially how our shadow lashes out when under stress. INTPs typically lash out in Fe fits of fury, and no, it is certainly not peaceful.

As for a source of what age the functions develop at, this is just something I have come to understand from experience. First of all, MBTI's claim was not based on any real evidence either, it was all speculation based on how older types are usually more developed. Naturally the longer you live, the more time and experience you will have that will develop you functions. What they didn't know is that you don't necessarily have to be old to develop them, you just have to work on these functions.

I completely agree with shoeless though, having a theoretical knowledge of MBTI that you got from the books and internet sources will only take you so far. The real understanding of it comes straight out of experiencing the types for yourself. But at the same time you still should have a good understanding of the functions they are using so you can make sense of what you are seeing.

 

[Infinite Regress]

MBTI claims that your functions naturally develop at certain ages, this is just not true. Functions are like muscles, if you don't use them, they don't develop. For instance I have seen middle aged INTPs on youtube who have far worse use of their Fe than me, or shoeless, or Irishpenguin, or Cavilier.

I've no doubt it possible to develop later, interpreting MBTI claims as a general distribution, - but possessed doubts surrounding the curvature of growth [INFJ => INTP] and whether it is reasonable in the time frame discussed.