What's the point of typology?

[Reluctantly]

Seriously, what's the point?

 

[redbaron]

Ego-validation.

 

[Reluctantly]

Wow, one word. But I can't argue with it. Definitely seems that way.

ehhh, well that was a short thread.

 

[Lot]

Some people aren't self aware. It can help you learn about yourself and other people. It helped me to start to understand other people and see where they are coming from.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

develop inferor functen a hundred times and becomes a superhumen

 

[Reluctantly]

Some people aren't self aware. It can help you learn about yourself and other people. It helped me to start to understand other people and see where they are coming from.

Did it though, or did it justify how everyone is different? I mean, it's kind of lame in that regard. Yeah, people come from different points of view and philosophies and what not, but how is it helpful to justify it with a personality code? If anything that takes away from actually understanding people by generalizing and justifying concrete differences with abstract personalities.

seriously,

develop inferor functen a hundred times and becomes a superhumen

It feels insane to even talk about developing a "function". I mean yeah develop "yourself", sure. But the abstract notion of "function" sounds creepy when we pretend they are literal or actual things in ourselves.

 

[Lot]

Did it though, or did it justify how everyone is different? I mean, it's kind of lame in that regard. Yeah, people come from different points of view and philosophies and what not, but how is it helpful to justify it with a personality code? If anything that takes away from actually understanding people by generalizing and justifying concrete differences with abstract personalities.

seriously,

With the book Please Understand Me, I was able to see the perspectives and appreciate other people and the motivations and logic that compel them.

I noticed archetypes of people early on. MBTI served to give me word to help express what I had intuitively seen. Now, if you lack creativity it would be easy to see MBTI as black and white and taking away from people's individuality. It's just a tool, and one that doesn't help everyone. It's clearly not useful for you.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

To find what kind of work each type is best suited for and who they should be mated with, in the coming revolution. ☭

 

[Reluctantly]

With the book Please Understand Me, I was able to see the perspectives and appreciate other people and the motivations and logic that compel them.

I noticed archetypes of people early on. MBTI served to give me word to help express what I had intuitively seen. Now, if you lack creativity it would be easy to see MBTI as black and white and taking away from people's individuality. It's just a tool, and one that doesn't help everyone. It's clearly not useful for you.

hah, black-and-white; nice spin. No, type is general, it's abstract, archetypal. It doesn't tell you details. It doesn't tell you motivations and logic that compel people. That's different for everyone, including each person of a given type. That's the joke, that everyone seems to think type can be a substitute for actually knowing people. It's creepy; it's really creepy.

To find what kind of work each type is best suited for and who they should be mated with, in the coming revolution. ☭

Shit, when you say it like that, it definitely puts Socionics in a whole new perspective. It really is pretty communist.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Typology is a pseudo-scientific vague and always positive in its outlook supplementary illusion of self-validation or self-understanding following the Forer effect and a few other cognitive biases that was created in order to bring notoriety and profit to the Myers family and related individuals who offer "officially" approved psychological testing for companies, agencies and unrelated people for real money.

It is a niche market producing a few millions of revenue every year, even despite how dated and debunked the whole scheme is there are still people and companies paying and/or listening to its theorists. Effectively, it's no different from astrology or visiting an eloquent fortune-teller. The end result is the same, you'll feel better about yourself, or more at peace, and your wallet might be thinned out proportionally.

The only unique differing element I can point out to that has something positive going for it; is that being classified in mbti way; allows you to stumble (cluelessly as befitting of a misguided victim) upon similarly clueless individuals with whom you can then bounce a number of personal ideas back and forth before hitting a wall of tedious regurgitation of his holiness Jung and the cultism around it.

 

[Reluctantly]

Typology is a pseudo-scientific vague and always positive in its outlook supplementary illusion of self-validation or self-understanding following the Forer effect and a few other cognitive biases that was created in order to bring notoriety and profit to the Myers family and related individuals who offer "officially" approved psychological testing for companies, agencies and unrelated people for real money.

It is a niche market producing a few millions of revenue every year, even despite how dated and debunked the whole scheme is there are still people and companies paying and/or listening to its theorists. Effectively, it's no different from astrology or visiting an eloquent fortune-teller. The end result is the same, you'll feel better about yourself, or more at peace, and your wallet might be thinned out proportionally.

Sad, but I can't argue against it.

The only unique differing element I can point out to that has something positive going for it; is that being classified in mbti way; allows you to stumble (cluelessly as befitting of a misguided victim) upon similarly clueless individuals with whom you can then bounce a number of personal ideas back and forth before hitting a wall of tedious regurgitation of his holiness Jung and the cultism around it.

I think I get you. It does seem to get people (myself included) thinking about and talking about how people relate. That's not so bad; but the cultism about thinking of people in rigid categories does get really lame after awhile.

Well anyway, thanks for posting that.

 

[cheese]

What's the point of this *thread*? We've had so many of these already; there's nothing new about the idea that typology is complete bunkum. Are you expecting to make people suddenly realise that MBTI is a load of crap, after the last thousand attempts have failed to do so? There are 3 camps: typologyisuseful, idunnoabotutypology, and typologysucks. Everyone knows which camp they're in and everyone knows about the existence of the others (except noobs, but they'll learn - you're an old member). Is this a complaint-thread or an actual question?

Answer to OP:

Spoiler

Gives you the benefit of way more experience with people than you'd otherwise have, which allows you a much broader understanding of people.

- Community, validation, legitimacy - been explained at length multiple times by multiple people. Plus, stumbling across the INTP profile for the first time was a revelation of my entire life up to that point - explained core themes in my life that I hadn't been able to account for and was made to feel 'wrong' about, even though I felt driven to pursue them and felt more wrong ignoring them. That's pretty fkn impressive imo. And yeah, I read the other profiles too - didn't relate to most, and related by far the most to the INTP. How is this Forer effect? The test actually typed me as something else - don't remember what - I found the INTP one after looking around.

- I have more leeway to give for Fs now, and more forgiveness for myself (well, a little) for being relatively cold and detached. Previously I thought it was just a matter of one group being right and the other wrong (I alternated who was wrong). This is an extremely common human misconception.

- I can find people to talk about abstract, weird shit easier than before, by looking out for correlated markers that previously wouldn't have been a flag for anything other than general personality. Not all Ns are outwardly weird, cerebral, conceptual or anything - many interesting people present plainly and normally. But if you know what to look for there are tells. I've met some people I previously would've thought uninterested in typically N stuff, but because I see other traits, even mannerisms, associated with particular types, I get to know them and it's rewarding (specifically in the ways expected). It's just faster.

- I can read people faster, down to the particular things they'd be interested in and common ground we'd have, using sub-type categories experience has developed in my head. I would be a lot slower without the general framework to start me off. I'm sure some people can read people like this right off the bat, though it hasn't been my experience (people misread me and my interests all the time). I personally find a framework useful.

- I have words for describing, framing and better understanding what draws me to or repels me from particular people. For instance, there are some types which consistently draw me. Previously I might've been able to clumsily attempt explaining it by saying they're "charming" or "friendly", but now I know much more precisely exactly what it is I'm drawn to, because essentially typology has clustered their personality traits which allows me to see the patterns behind them. I also know what about the traits which draw me will also repel me, and what kind of lack is implied by what is present. Again, experience verifies this.

- Related to above: I can avoid the trap of idealising someone because I've never or rarely met someone like them. Typology allows me to see the finer picture (pinpoint the specific things that are causing an attraction) and the bigger picture (understand that there are many other people with these same qualities, that they are good in some ways and lack in others).

I like seeing the patterns around me, and typology helps me do it much faster. It's basically saying, "All these people exist. You'll meet some of them a lot more than others. Keep your hat on when you meet the rarer ones. There's a math behind everyone - none of it's magic."

I think there's some validity to the system because I can type people fairly accurately, even the first time meeting them. (Not 100% success, and should probably assume confirmation bias.) How do I check? I ask them questions (related to functions) about how they think, their general worldview/philosophy, their focuses and interests. I also ask them (attempting not to give indication) questions which relate to the opposite functions/types, which they shouldn't relate to at all or should even be repulsed by (function polarity). When they answer with increasing shock, "Yes - Yes! - YES! oh my god I'm freaked out!" to the questions specific to their type, and a disappointed, "No - not really - no, not at all" to questions which relate to other types, that seems like pretty good confirmation to me that it's not just the Forer effect. I've had multiple strangers tell me that no one has ever understood them that well (freaked me out too tbh).

I'm writing with the certainty I have *now* because of how often this has been verified. The other day I asked someone whose whole vibe felt NT if they have a compulsion to weed out cognitive biases - a weird question that Ti types would relate to but would be completely out of left field for most other types. This person's face lit up, mouth dropped and yelled, "YES!" It looks like insight to an outsider but it really isn't - I only know to ask these questions because typology tells you about trait clustering (which traits correlate, which traits indicate the absence of others, which traits each type feels is essential to their identity, etc). Otherwise, I would've described them as rational, no-nonsense, ambitious - but there's nothing in there that specifically indicates a need to eliminate bias, and I wouldn't have known to think of it that way, even though I know *I* think that way.

It sounds wanky, yeah, but ime it works. I can't just dismiss experience because a bunch of forumers are cynical about it and/or unobservant. Typology isn't a complete explanation of humanity by any means, and MBTI (and jungian shit) has gaping holes in it that I've seen time and time again, but what it does explain is useful and fascinating.

Of course it doesn't mean I understand anyone's deeper motivations.... The enneagram is better for that.

And I'll just head off any assumptions about typology creating presumption or false understanding right now:
No, I don't walk into social encounters assuming I'll be able to understand everyone. (In fact, I can say with no hesitation that I don't understand many people.) I might have an idea of what I think drives them but I have crippling uncertainty about nearly everything I think. The certainty you see here isn't even total certainty, and is only where it's up to because of repeated experience. (I still completely doubt the validity of anything in typology at times.) Also, when I end up in conversation with someone my aim isn't to type them but to get to know them because I'm genuinely curious about what makes people tick. I might occasionally ask questions related to type-things I'm privately thinking about, but not with the presumption that I'm right - I don't "tell people who they are" unless they ask me or the mood seems right. I don't openly type people who hate the idea of being typed, only those who request it as a party trick, or out of surprise that I seem to 'get' them. Most people in my experience love it when someone's curious enough to look into their minds - it makes them feel special and 'seen'. And it causes them to think about some of the deeper questions posed (like what they value, or how they operate under a crisis and *why*).

I talk to people because I enjoy it; I ask about them because I'm curious. Over time, patterns build up and I can't help that. And despite my love of categories, people tell me I advocate *too much* for taking every person on an individual basis and not making any assumptions. If I make false assumptions it's because I have congenital idiocy, not because of typology.

 

[Reluctantly]

I just wanted people to discuss the purpose of typology. Any discussion is perfectly valid. And I'm aware it's been discussed, but not succinctly and in one thread. And I am going to argue when I find fault with something. That should be a given.

But I'm at work on a cell phone, so I'll have to address your points later, but as far as the camp I'm in, I just post here because people are generally pretty intelligent and that's refreshing. Maybe that doesn't answer it directly, but it should give you an idea where I'm coming from in the camp business at least. So I'll have to get back to you later today.

 

[Reluctantly]

Gives you the benefit of way more experience with people than you'd otherwise have, which allows you a much broader understanding of people.

- Community, validation, legitimacy - been explained at length multiple times by multiple people. Plus, stumbling across the INTP profile for the first time was a revelation of my entire life up to that point - explained core themes in my life that I hadn't been able to account for and was made to feel 'wrong' about, even though I felt driven to pursue them and felt more wrong ignoring them. That's pretty fkn impressive imo. And yeah, I read the other profiles too - didn't relate to most, and related by far the most to the INTP. How is this Forer effect? The test actually typed me as something else - don't remember what - I found the INTP one after looking around.

I mean when I first learned about astrology, I thought it was impressive how it could explain core themes as well. But it was coincidental; I filtered it through what I felt about myself. Doesn't mean what was filtered wasn't true, but there were lots of other things my mind unconsciously glossed over or ignored. It's a Forer Effect because the mind highlights what is relevant and ignores what's not.

- I have more leeway to give for Fs now, and more forgiveness for myself (well, a little) for being relatively cold and detached. Previously I thought it was just a matter of one group being right and the other wrong (I alternated who was wrong). This is an extremely common human misconception.

Maybe you have different experiences than me, but the whole F vs T divide has been a false one for me. I've had just as many issues with people I'd consider T as I do with people I consider F. I mean just as an example, cold and detached can be good when the group atmosphere is negative, but bad when detaching from a positive one. It all really depends. I've always thought the T vs F divide is one of the dumbest, especially considering how emotional some self-typed thinkers are and how unemotional some self-typed feelers are. I mean some people fit the stereotypes here, but most people I know are somewhere on the borders.

- I can find people to talk about abstract, weird shit easier than before, by looking out for correlated markers that previously wouldn't have been a flag for anything other than general personality. Not all Ns are outwardly weird, cerebral, conceptual or anything - many interesting people present plainly and normally. But if you know what to look for there are tells. I've met some people I previously would've thought uninterested in typically N stuff, but because I see other traits, even mannerisms, associated with particular types, I get to know them and it's rewarding (specifically in the ways expected). It's just faster.

Yeah, this isn't a bad thing in my opinion. But you're not really typing people by doing this either. This is a much more natural human social behavior to find rapport with what matches with our personalities. It's not tied down to the idea of a type, but looking for various traits.

- I can read people faster, down to the particular things they'd be interested in and common ground we'd have, using sub-type categories experience has developed in my head. I would be a lot slower without the general framework to start me off. I'm sure some people can read people like this right off the bat, though it hasn't been my experience (people misread me and my interests all the time). I personally find a framework useful.

I think getting impressions is normal, but how do you know you are actually reading people and not writing them off based on a generalization? This whole notion of using MBTI to read people feels kind of silly to me in light of that. Why not give people a chance and if you don't like them, don't be friends? Does it take that much time?

- I have words for describing, framing and better understanding what draws me to or repels me from particular people. For instance, there are some types which consistently draw me. Previously I might've been able to clumsily attempt explaining it by saying they're "charming" or "friendly", but now I know much more precisely exactly what it is I'm drawn to, because essentially typology has clustered their personality traits which allows me to see the patterns behind them. I also know what about the traits which draw me will also repel me, and what kind of lack is implied by what is present. Again, experience verifies this.

Interesting. But again how do you know you are seeing the patterns behind them? Can't people have similar traits with different patterns underlying them? This has often been my experience. Maybe you could elaborate.

- Related to above: I can avoid the trap of idealising someone because I've never or rarely met someone like them. Typology allows me to see the finer picture (pinpoint the specific things that are causing an attraction) and the bigger picture (understand that there are many other people with these same qualities, that they are good in some ways and lack in others).

But this assumes all people of a given type are the same or have the same underlying psychological mechanisms. You can't know that unless you get to know them. Otherwise, you are writing people off or compartmentalizing them. How is this helpful?

I like seeing the patterns around me, and typology helps me do it much faster. It's basically saying, "All these people exist. You'll meet some of them a lot more than others. Keep your hat on when you meet the rarer ones. There's a math behind everyone - none of it's magic."

ah jeez. I'm starting to see how your responses are going to go now...

I think there's some validity to the system because I can type people fairly accurately, even the first time meeting them. (Not 100% success, and should probably assume confirmation bias.) How do I check? I ask them questions (related to functions) about how they think, their general worldview/philosophy, their focuses and interests. I also ask them (attempting not to give indication) questions which relate to the opposite functions/types, which they shouldn't relate to at all or should even be repulsed by (function polarity). When they answer with increasing shock, "Yes - Yes! - YES! oh my god I'm freaked out!" to the questions specific to their type, and a disappointed, "No - not really - no, not at all" to questions which relate to other types, that seems like pretty good confirmation to me that it's not just the Forer effect. I've had multiple strangers tell me that no one has ever understood them that well (freaked me out too tbh).

Maybe, but your criteria is sketchy by the fact that you don't find any people that are close or in between on some polarities. A lot of people have these issues and somehow you've magically managed to avoid all that...it does sound like confirmation bias.

I'm writing with the certainty I have *now* because of how often this has been verified. The other day I asked someone whose whole vibe felt NT if they have a compulsion to weed out cognitive biases - a weird question that Ti types would relate to but would be completely out of left field for most other types. This person's face lit up, mouth dropped and yelled, "YES!" It looks like insight to an outsider but it really isn't - I only know to ask these questions because typology tells you about trait clustering (which traits correlate, which traits indicate the absence of others, which traits each type feels is essential to their identity, etc). Otherwise, I would've described them as rational, no-nonsense, ambitious - but there's nothing in there that specifically indicates a need to eliminate bias, and I wouldn't have known to think of it that way, even though I know *I* think that way.

Excuse my French, but Bullshit. I've known people I've typed ESTP and they would answer "YES!" in a heartbeat. In fact, they tend to be some of the most opinionated and judgmental when it comes to analyzing other people's behavior or thinking. They can and do weed out other people's biases, though they seem to conveniently forget their own, but I've seen plenty of that here as well. It's a lot harder to acknowledge our own biases and someone that does is going to be a lot easier to get along with, regardless of type.

It sounds wanky, yeah, but ime it works. I can't just dismiss experience because a bunch of forumers are cynical about it and/or unobservant. Typology isn't a complete explanation of humanity by any means, and MBTI (and jungian shit) has gaping holes in it that I've seen time and time again, but what it does explain is useful and fascinating.

Of course it doesn't mean I understand anyone's deeper motivations.... The enneagram is better for that.

And I'll just head off any assumptions about typology creating presumption or false understanding right now:
No, I don't walk into social encounters assuming I'll be able to understand everyone. (In fact, I can say with no hesitation that I don't understand many people.) I might have an idea of what I think drives them but I have crippling uncertainty about nearly everything I think. The certainty you see here isn't even total certainty, and is only where it's up to because of repeated experience. (I still completely doubt the validity of anything in typology at times.) Also, when I end up in conversation with someone my aim isn't to type them but to get to know them because I'm genuinely curious about what makes people tick. I might occasionally ask questions related to type-things I'm privately thinking about, but not with the presumption that I'm right - I don't "tell people who they are" unless they ask me or the mood seems right. I don't openly type people who hate the idea of being typed, only those who request it as a party trick, or out of surprise that I seem to 'get' them. Most people in my experience love it when someone's curious enough to look into their minds - it makes them feel special and 'seen'. And it causes them to think about some of the deeper questions posed (like what they value, or how they operate under a crisis and *why*).

I talk to people because I enjoy it; I ask about them because I'm curious. Over time, patterns build up and I can't help that. And despite my love of categories, people tell me I advocate *too much* for taking every person on an individual basis and not making any assumptions. If I make false assumptions it's because I have congenital idiocy, not because of typology.

The enneagram statement aside, I don't even know what to say to this. You defended MBTI above with the idea of seeing people as an archetype and now you're claiming you treat people on an individual basis. I mean what are you saying then? It sounds like you don't really believe in seeing people as an MBTI archetype, so why post all this?

 

[redbaron]

So much ego-validation.

You could replicate the same, "yes yes yes" and "no no no" pattern with astrology too. MBTI is good in that it points out that people think and operate differently and it makes people aware of this in an easy to digest manner.

Its true benefit is that it doesn't assume a 'correct' state of being, just difference in individual preference. Its predictive power beyond that is circular in nature.

But it makes people feel good and appeals to the ego - "I understand stuff now!" so people who're typically not good at underatanding others like it because it seems to make the understanding process easier. The concepts of MBTI aren't important, it's how its packaged - as a convenient way to accept and describe differences in personality between various people, not as an important predictive tool.

 

[Black Rose]

redbaron is correct, topology is a good way of understanding differences in people.

his ego must be the most best validated ego of us all

 

[scorpiomover]

To understand yourself and others.

What people use it for, is another matter entirely.

 

[Reluctantly]

Its true benefit is that it doesn't assume a 'correct' state of being, just difference in individual preference. Its predictive power beyond that is circular in nature.

Preference. Too bad so many people take that to mean their personality or true nature. Kind of ruins any discussion that could come from type.

But it makes people feel good and appeals to the ego - "I understand stuff now!" so people who're typically not good at underatanding others like it because it seems to make the understanding process easier. The concepts of MBTI aren't important, it's how its packaged - as a convenient way to accept and describe differences in personality between various people, not as an important predictive tool.

redbaron is correct, topology is a good way of understanding differences in people.

his ego must be the most best validated ego of us all

Differentiation, sure. I think that's the main point too.

But Kitty, not sure that summing people up as a collection of traits is a good way of understanding how people differ. Traits don't explain what under-rides them. Plenty of people of a given type have disagreements about what their traits mean to them.

To understand yourself and others.

What people use it for, is another matter entirely.

Very general. Could you elaborate?

 

[PmjPmj]

There is most certainly validity to the MBTI for a few very good reasons. It hasn't been debunked, btw. It has been misunderstood and attacked by poor but popular arguments, sure. As someone who has *mounts high-horse* been in the thick of the professional type communities however, seeing all the advancements in knowledge and validity in the various new assertions being made, I can say with confidence that it isn't BS as many people think. Quite the contrary is true: it is becoming increasingly relevant and evidenced. To compare it with astrology is a mistake.

I for one benefitted a lot from discovering my preferences for Ni and Te. Call it ego validation if you must (and yeah, some of it totally is) but the overall effect this knowledge has had on my life has been overwhelmingly positive. 'Cause I was a lost little lamb innit.

It's worth noting (and I have said this before) that there are effectively two (three actually, but for simplicity, two) versions of the MBTI. There's the 'internet' version which is the relentless predication of conjecture by mogos, and there is the actual MBTI which is an increasingly solid theory of how people view and react to the various stimuli in the world (internal and external), and how the differing types can better understand one another, etc.

There is value to be found. You just have to dig through the many, many layers of shit to get to the good stuff.

 

[Black Rose]

Differentiation, sure. I think that's the main point too.

But Kitty, not sure that summing people up as a collection of traits is a good way of understanding how people differ. Traits don't explain what under-rides them. Plenty of people of a given type have disagreements about what their traits mean to them.

At the moment I am at the library. Right now I have no internet, I need to pay my internet bill, but something I have noticed since I have been away from my computer is that I no longer have a constant urge to do anything. It might be because of my medications but I would always get anxiety because I felt like I needed to solve problems in my head. I think this could be an example of a trait difference.

Ti deals with its own ideas and the need to refine and perfect them. Te is satisfied that it has accomplished things in the real world because Te looks for ways goals are achieved and thus has more susses than Ti, Ti cares more that flaw in its ideas are seen and in constant revision. I get anxiety because I loose the ability to hold thoughts in my mind. But not only holding them but when I finish an idea I need a new Idea or I get tense and muffled. On wikipedia it says that anxiety comes from low skill level of a persons abilities and high skill level to accomplish a task. When my mind is black and I have no ideas to work with I feel stuck and anxious. Te I believe work in the environment, the obstacles Te faces is very objective. Te understands what needs to be done before they are finished. Ti needs to finish and then implement. I suck at implementation but I enjoy perfecting my thoughts. But once all thoughts are complete I get anxiety. That is why I constantly look for new ideas on the internet for something to think about. This could also be Ne related.

With the difference between Perception and Judgement. P is effortless and J requires effort. Se for example does not need to contemplate what to do next, it simply observes. This is what I am doing now. Instead of trying to "think" I am "observing" more. I have some music on my computer that I repeatedly listen to. It is difficult not to mentally comment on the personal meaning or objective meaning but half the time I "just" hear the music. So that is what I am doing without the internet. I focus completely on the music or I focus completely on seeing with my eyes. But it is still a little difficult not to make judgement. I really want to think about stuff all the time but since I can't I need a distraction like music or I get anxiety.

I think that differences have a cause but I can only go by my experience of what I have. Right now that is observing reality. Forcing myself to "think" really isn't good for me. Feelings I'd expect as a way of making Judgments would be awareness of the body. Feeling is one of the five senses. I mostly focus on my head region. Feelers would focus of the body and the body of others. I just focus on what people say and if it is logical. More and more I think "focus of attention"(orientation) could be a way of truly understanding what "Functions" are.

My time on the library computer is running out so I will come back tomorrow and see what you think.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Assuming we had 100% validity in typology:

We'd know more about our evolution as humans. How were the various cognitive traits helpful in surviving non-human threats and what biological/physical features were passed down as a result of sexual selection?

We'd be closer to excavating the full depth of the human psyche. What is the true potential of the human brain? How far back into our evolutionary lineage do our "psychological artifacts" predate homo sapiens?

We'd have an exhaustive, if not perfect, system of interpersonal (in)compatibility. Are there people who are truly futile for us? Can love really conquer all? Do some people just naturally get along? Are some relationships truly inspirational?

We could optimize employment and office positions. Are some people just naturally better than others in certain areas? At what point is education no longer a significant factor of competence and ability?

Of course knowledge is power so this understanding could be used for detrimental purposes.


Personally typology is a mental exercise for me, though I don't think about it every day like I used to years ago. I also recognize my social need of being surrounded by those who are familiar with it, so I enjoy discussing it, and sometimes arguing it, with others.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

What's the point of this *thread*? We've had so many of these already; there's nothing new about the idea that typology is complete bunkum. Are you expecting to make people suddenly realise that MBTI is a load of crap, after the last thousand attempts have failed to do so? There are 3 camps: typologyisuseful, idunnoabotutypology, and typologysucks. Everyone knows which camp they're in and everyone knows about the existence of the others (except noobs, but they'll learn - you're an old member).

Effectively it's a paradox that makes you wrong here. Not just on this matter, but on every controversy out there.

If you expect and assume that every veteran should avoid this topic, if this information isn't repeated and disappears from the public awareness then it will become increasingly impossible for newcomers to learn about all the less well-preserved perspectives.

Typology is a written down resource, it needs the least attention or defending as it will always be within reach for the newbies, what needs to be mentioned ad nauseam are all the alternative opinions that don't have their own library or easily reachable compendium, otherwise they need to be created from scratch again or won't get to the surface and it's a wholly less efficient process than presenting it from the outset.


(semi-random semi-digression)
People generally know that violence, tyranny or socialism are bad and destructive, but what happened and tends to happen in countries and cultures less exposed to those negative stimuli? They become excellent training grounds for sympathizers and daydreaming followers of said faulty ideas (or ideas effectively leading to aforementioned outcomes). ISIS in the middle east and ISIS sympathisers recruited from the west, communism in the east and far east and socialist sympathisers organising support in the west, etc. (Not to mention all the destructive trends that brew in the west and spread outwardly, or on the less macroscopic scale what happens between smaller groups or micro-cultures)

I'm talking specifically about the delay between the periods when a destructive idea is first created and criticised and the second period of reactionary and apologetic adoption of it away from the epicenter, if only the voice of the early critics could be more convincing and successful in reaching the not yet-inflamed areas, the fire would be put out with less casualties. Those two periods alternate in a cycle, when one idea vanishes into obscurity from the public discourse there's a fertile ground for its counter-idea to win over or mutate into another scholarly/media-fueled revolution.

Sure, my tangent is quite extreme and it could use some more paragraphs to make my point probably, I won't bother to expand on it. Let's just say that it's invaluable that there are speakers and activists or ordinary people out there that are willing to criticise and comment on old and new destructive or unnecessary elements of this world as to make others aware and reduce the potential impact or sway that such elements might have in shaping the present and future. If something is incorrect/wrong one should keep standing against it and saying no, not subjecting themselves to silence and hoping it will pass on its own. And if it's not to fight back, it's often useful to accelerate the information exchange and creation by going over the previously established theories.


And yeah, before there's a new strawman/query. I'm not saying typology is entirely negative and I'm not an activist nor I'm acting purely against that concept.

 

[cheese]

Blar:
I meant because there is at least one other active thread on the topic already ("What makes MBTI not complete bullshit"). I also wanted to know why Reluctantly started it because it seemed like a vent thread but maybe they were genuinely curious about people's opinions.

Otherwise, I agree with your points. I never said we should avoid the topic. I don't advocate that type of thinking.

I'll reply to Rel's post when I've got more time for the size.

 

[Sinny91]

*Shrugs*

Helps me figure out what I want to know about people... As a framework/model, whatever.

Yellows post in Yellow's Proclamation thread gave me the run down on it's validity or lack off, but I prefer it the big 5, which was packaged to be boring as fuck. (yea, that's what I'm basing this shit on, lol)

Suits my needs superficial needs.

 

[green acid]

Surprisingly enough, typology helps me deal with people better. A group of N types at a coffee hangout act differently than the ISTJ's at the office. Around strong Judging types I try to play it close to the vest, cause it's so easy to annoy them, but around certain individuals or cliques I can be myself. I tend to think typology (especially MBTI) is more accurate than it's critics believe.

 

[Reluctantly]

I took a little break from the forum.

It's worth noting (and I have said this before) that there are effectively two (three actually, but for simplicity, two) versions of the MBTI. There's the 'internet' version which is the relentless predication of conjecture by mogos, and there is the actual MBTI which is an increasingly solid theory of how people view and react to the various stimuli in the world (internal and external), and how the differing types can better understand one another, etc.

I mean I get what you are saying. And I found it really frustrating at first where people just try to put people in boxes and summarize them without knowing them.

I did want to know the functions more clearly from a more psychological standpoint and delved into Jung a bit. And I think it was kind of interesting from a clinical standpoint because he took philosophy and extracted different ways that people can fixate their egos and how that plays into their subconscious. But it was never something that's supposed to be an identity or explain how someone thinks about or approaches the world around them.

Then MBTI seems to create these identities from all that and I'm not saying it's wrong or that some people don't have these identities, but it is a fallacy to assume people naturally fall into one of them or that if someone does fit one that they will never change.

Assuming we had 100% validity in typology:

We'd know more about our evolution as humans. How were the various cognitive traits helpful in surviving non-human threats and what biological/physical features were passed down as a result of sexual selection?

We'd be closer to excavating the full depth of the human psyche. What is the true potential of the human brain? How far back into our evolutionary lineage do our "psychological artifacts" predate homo sapiens?

We'd have an exhaustive, if not perfect, system of interpersonal (in)compatibility. Are there people who are truly futile for us? Can love really conquer all? Do some people just naturally get along? Are some relationships truly inspirational?

We could optimize employment and office positions. Are some people just naturally better than others in certain areas? At what point is education no longer a significant factor of competence and ability?

Of course knowledge is power so this understanding could be used for detrimental purposes.


Personally typology is a mental exercise for me, though I don't think about it every day like I used to years ago. I also recognize my social need of being surrounded by those who are familiar with it, so I enjoy discussing it, and sometimes arguing it, with others.

I mean I think a lot of what under-rides the MBTI is an attempt to answer all those questions. And come to think of it, I vaguely remember reading about Jung telling Isabel Myers that wasn't what his psychological types was for (guess she did it anyway, heh). But honestly, those questions have a lot of grey area; answering in a black and white manner like MBTI seems to do is not helpful for understanding how people grow and change, though maybe as a statistical tool it's more often right than wrong.

At the moment I am at the library. Right now I have no internet, I need to pay my internet bill, but something I have noticed since I have been away from my computer is that I no longer have a constant urge to do anything. It might be because of my medications but I would always get anxiety because I felt like I needed to solve problems in my head. I think this could be an example of a trait difference.

Ti deals with its own ideas and the need to refine and perfect them. Te is satisfied that it has accomplished things in the real world because Te looks for ways goals are achieved and thus has more susses than Ti, Ti cares more that flaw in its ideas are seen and in constant revision. I get anxiety because I loose the ability to hold thoughts in my mind. But not only holding them but when I finish an idea I need a new Idea or I get tense and muffled. On wikipedia it says that anxiety comes from low skill level of a persons abilities and high skill level to accomplish a task. When my mind is black and I have no ideas to work with I feel stuck and anxious. Te I believe work in the environment, the obstacles Te faces is very objective. Te understands what needs to be done before they are finished. Ti needs to finish and then implement. I suck at implementation but I enjoy perfecting my thoughts. But once all thoughts are complete I get anxiety. That is why I constantly look for new ideas on the internet for something to think about. This could also be Ne related.

With the difference between Perception and Judgement. P is effortless and J requires effort. Se for example does not need to contemplate what to do next, it simply observes. This is what I am doing now. Instead of trying to "think" I am "observing" more. I have some music on my computer that I repeatedly listen to. It is difficult not to mentally comment on the personal meaning or objective meaning but half the time I "just" hear the music. So that is what I am doing without the internet. I focus completely on the music or I focus completely on seeing with my eyes. But it is still a little difficult not to make judgement. I really want to think about stuff all the time but since I can't I need a distraction like music or I get anxiety.

I think that differences have a cause but I can only go by my experience of what I have. Right now that is observing reality. Forcing myself to "think" really isn't good for me. Feelings I'd expect as a way of making Judgments would be awareness of the body. Feeling is one of the five senses. I mostly focus on my head region. Feelers would focus of the body and the body of others. I just focus on what people say and if it is logical. More and more I think "focus of attention"(orientation) could be a way of truly understanding what "Functions" are.

My time on the library computer is running out so I will come back tomorrow and see what you think.

Well...this is kind of what I meant Kitty. You've got this understanding of what all these traits mean, but other people, including myself, don't hold the same understanding. So it's all kind of moot imo.

Surprisingly enough, typology helps me deal with people better. A group of N types at a coffee hangout act differently than the ISTJ's at the office. Around strong Judging types I try to play it close to the vest, cause it's so easy to annoy them, but around certain individuals or cliques I can be myself. I tend to think typology (especially MBTI) is more accurate than it's critics believe.

I mean yeah, but you're not reading into anything here or assigning identities either.

Mean if someone is judgemental, they are going to find fault with almost anything. Or if people talk about a lot of abstract thinking, they are going to be different to be around than people that don't care. It's not so much typology as it is recognizing traits and dealing with them the best way you know how.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The MBTI is more generalities and narratives rather than detailed day to day schedule of a blueprint.

So with that said: "but it is a fallacy to assume people naturally fall into one of them", well not exactly, we're talking about generalities. In a given situation a person would absorb information differently than from another person. The 'cog functions' so to speak. "If someone does fit one that they will never change": I don't think Jung says that (or does he?) either way I'm not really familiar with a dogma that says types are static and immovable. Like I've already said elsewhere, types are descriptive. If someone's cog stack malleates due to events/plasticity, then there's a descriptive of that state/type to go with it.

"MBTI seems to do is not helpful for understanding how people grow and change" True, the test itself doesn't provide you this, but rather, because similar types gather through it, they debrief others in how their life trajectory went. It's sort of like a mentor kind of thing at college. If you had a certain major and had a mentor, the chances are you'll learn something, as they've already gone through the experiences you're now currently trying to achieve/striving towards.

If you want an actual purpose, I dunno, people use this at companies? I'm familiar with people using this as a method for group cohesion if things aren't working out well. They place people in a room, bring in a practitioner, make them take the test and go: 'oh so you're just like me' or 'oh this is why we don't get along', and so on. It helps to create dialogue.

On a personal level I've gotten to read a lot more, gotten to watch a ton of interesting videos and been able to listen to more music due to type. Have I become a better person? Maybe, but I know for sure I've learned a lot more.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

It refers to an integral of the psyche along the dimensions of the irrational and rational.

It is useful in the modelling of such phenomena and others of similar mathematical and phenomenological structure.

It provides a psychological path of development by forecasting future milestone states based on the previous development.

It allows for zoning in on divided features in isolation to gain a greater perspective of the whole entity.

 

[Cherry Cola]

It allows metacognition about certain intuitive socio-psychological categories.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

On the downside it can result in becoming overanalytical regarding one's social contacts, as well as the populace at large. The result of this will often be that social interactions become more stilted. It adds extra variables into situations regarding people which were added optionally and it may become the case that they begin to become habitual, and that relations with others will suffer as a result.

It also has the tendency to result in a person (from what I have observed) becoming confused regarding their own identity and sense of self. It does of course have the ability to be used for self-development, for example by highlighting certain key faculties common to people.

 

[Reluctantly]

So with that said: "but it is a fallacy to assume people naturally fall into one of them", well not exactly, we're talking about generalities. In a given situation a person would absorb information differently than from another person. The 'cog functions' so to speak. "If someone does fit one that they will never change": I don't think Jung says that (or does he?) either way I'm not really familiar with a dogma that says types are static and immovable. Like I've already said elsewhere, types are descriptive. If someone's cog stack malleates due to events/plasticity, then there's a descriptive of that state/type to go with it.

Not sure what you mean. MBTI types aren't generalities, they are personality profiles. You fall into a set of general traits and are given a description that puts them all together to form a personality. Maybe you have experienced something different, but this is how it's used in business and how the MBTI is marketed. Isabel Myers created MBTI because she wanted a way to determine what personalities would be suited for certain things. It was never intended to be general; it was intended to tell people what they are best suited for, socially and career-wise. That's a pretty bold thing to do when it ignores how two people having the same type and thus same traits can have completely different motivations and reasons for having those traits. It's all very sketch.

But I don't think you read or understood part of what I said. Said that Jung told Briggs that his typology was not meant to be used as Myers and Briggs wanted. But hey, they did it anyway. That should present some kind of red flag. I can't find the exact correspond anymore as the page was taken down on the university site, but here's an article where somebody summarizes what he said to her.

http://www.newsleader.com/story/news/2016/02/21/breaking-personality-test-mbti/80669018/

...
First of all, Jung himself disagreed with Katharine Briggs’ use of his psychological types to pin people down like butterflies on a piece of cardboard. He wrote to her that what she was doing was dangerous in that it implied people did not have a will to change.
...
​

I mean that's pretty overt there. She used Jung's Psychological Types for something it was not meant for. I guess no one cares, but it speaks volumes to me anyway and does reflect the problem I see with people mistaking their type for an actual identity.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@Reluctantly

I agree that the MBTI shouldn't be used to shoehorn someone into one specific thing, socially or otherwise.

If this makes any sense to you, I'm more taking in the 8 cog functions MBTI has created and coming back to Jung's interpretation of personality and seeing it through that. It's more an abstract understanding of it rather than prescription.

First of all, Jung himself disagreed with Katharine Briggs’ use of his psychological types to pin people down like butterflies on a piece of cardboard. He wrote to her that what she was doing was dangerous in that it implied people did not have a will to change.

I'm thinking the completely opposite of what you've interpreted about me, I'm in the camp that believes types are malleable, not static.

To add on, Jung is sort of right when he says what Briggs is saying might be implied one way, but that's up to the discretion of the user. I don't think Myers or Briggs ever said that types were static. I've never come across any literature like that.

 

[scorpiomover]

@Reluctantly

Very general. Could you elaborate?

Mostly, trying to make themselves feel good about their sense of lack of accomplishment.

In the past 6,000 years, there was a lot to do around the home. Parents and children would sit around the hearth in the evening, doing all sorts of useful things that needed doing around the home. There was far too much to do for even the elderly to not be useful.

Science developed machines, chemicals and processes to do 90% of it for us. In the last 150 years, the industrial system developed mass-production systems to make all of it for us. All we have to do these days, is buy and consume. Even our learning is now done by scientists, with them telling us their results and consequently what to think.

So largely, people have very little to do anymore, and very little to accomplish outside of work. However, as things are now industrial, most of those accomplishments are accredited to things like science, rather than the people involved, leaving most people feeling like they are just doing a job, and not actually achieving anything or contributing to society other than being a good little cog in the machine of industry.

This in turn gives them the impression that they are superfluous to humanity.

So, they look for other things to give them the impression that they have meaning and purpose for their existence.

 

[scorpiomover]

@Reluctantly

First of all, Jung himself disagreed with Katharine Briggs’ use of his psychological types to pin people down like butterflies on a piece of cardboard. He wrote to her that what she was doing was dangerous in that it implied people did not have a will to change.

Woah there, Nelly. That's a bombshell and then some.

I've seen MBTI afficionads say that Jung agreed with MBTI, because Jung sat at the back of a talk given by Isobel Myers about MBTI, and didn't speak out against it.

Now you're saying that Jung strongly disagreed with MBTI.

Can you provide some citations of this?

Not that I'm disagreeing with you. But if I cited this to them, they'd demand proof before agreeing. So I would like proof to present.

 

[Tannhauser]

Blar:
I meant because there is at least one other active thread on the topic already ("What makes MBTI not complete bullshit").

They are not necessarily the same though. You can discuss the utility of religion for example without discussing its epistemological status.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Its a framework by which one can look at people from personality point of view. One can see personality in everyone. A individual quality, but a collective quality too. Personality summarizes both individual and collective qualities. It is important to note that personality does not have a precise definition so depending on who is talking about personality the scope of personality may differ. Some say its about predicting behaviour while others look at it as collection of inner workings. Well all arrive at some result, but we all might get there using different thinking and different feeling and different observations. Sometimes I wonder too. Its like you can ask what is any of those observations to do with anything, but analyising ones own behaviour and contrasting it with others behaviour is very common way how we learn about social and work enviroment.

 

[sindri]

This is a small part from Schopenhauer's book The World As Will And Idea, that sums up why typology was developed.

Start at 16:33

http://ia801607.us.archive.org/32/i...ibrivox/worldaswill1_32_schopenhauer_64kb.mp3

 

[Architect]

Optimal living.

Take a small example, people frequently use their inferior to make poor job and relationship decisions. Just knowing that can help a person avoid major mistakes in their lives.

 

[nanook]

thanks for posting schopenhauer, wanted to read his book for so long, perhaps i can surrender to the audio, albeit the voice is absolutely reptiloid.

a dressed up clown and a handyman in full work gear meet at a bar. the clown says: "dude, i think coming into a bar with a hammer is totally creepy!" the handyman says: "yes, i see why that would be true for a clown"

Spoiler

 

[StevenM]

I've met people who behave similarly to others, so I wouldn't doubt we could form types. But I'm suspecting there's more than 16 of them.

 

[WhatWasThat]

I've met people who behave similarly to others, so I wouldn't doubt we could form types. But I'm suspecting there's more than 16 of them.

Of course you can't distill every person on earth down to one of 16 personalities. I don't think typology has ever pretended that this was possible. It is just used as a way to generally understand the way different people's brains work that isn't super complicated and can be broadly categorized. I have seen way too many examples of it describing people accurately for me to think it has no basis in reality whatsoever, but it of course has some serious limitations as well.

There are some people who think it is complete hogwash and some who strictly adhere to it and constantly try to apply it to every single situation in life and every person they meet, and also use it as an excuse to not address their own weaknesses/shortcomings. As with most things I think there is probably a middle ground there that is more useful.

It has genuinely helped me understand other people and their motivations better (something I have never been good at) but it's not the be all and end all of psychology/human interaction. I still may not agree with their decisions/viewpoint but I can at least start to understand how they get to them whereas previously I often would have just seen them as completely illogical/insane.

 

[nanook]

The main selling point of carl jungs dichotomies is that our reality is made up out of them, so we can look at reality/life/the human condition in a more differentiated manner. in particular, we can have a more differentiated understanding of what someone is saying about reality and use more differentiated language ourselves. i am not into math, but you do the math, how much more intelligent would humanity become, if it were to consistently add that many differentiations to their language or meta awareness of the human subjectivity that contains and creates all supposedly objective ideas about reality. its a real explosion of intelligence, but as always with perspective management, it is not something we can choose to do at will. rather our brain grows into higher levels of complexity all by itself, if it has what it takes, and then this higher level is capable of inventing language or concepts to represent the mind at this level. so jung was an example for that. and when you dumb down typology (mbti) so that everyone thinks they get it, but don't, that doesn't do a lot of good.

nailing individuals down to one static type is very hard to do and i can't even type myself. apart from the difficulty of objectifying oneself, there is the problem that our mind is dynamic and what we experience and speak of is different from how we end up manifesting our life through concrete action.

you guys think i am infp because i told you, but looking at physiognomy i always have major doubts that i am. there are both supposed intp and infp individuals who are so obviously utterly different from me, as biological structures, i know we must have different minds. this doesn't mean that i am not reaping a ton of benefits from typology, for the reasons explained above.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

nailing individuals down to one static type is very hard to do and i can't even type myself.

I saw you mention about how types are strategies; do you think we employ multiple type strategies in our behaviour? So instead it would be something like 20% INFP 15% INTP 15% ENFP...

I consider myself INFJ as a primary type, but with certain other types being a large influence.

 

[nanook]

the enneagram is about strategies. which means that it describes a basic idea about yourself and how something is wrong with your situation and what you ought to accomplish or change in order for everything to be all right. your cognitive functions may be involved in the creation of the original underlying perception that gave birth to this idea about yourself. they are certainly involved in any less abstract interpretation of this idea or feeling. which takes all sorts of forms as you develop. likewise your functions would be the tools through which you would try to accomplish any change. but unfortunately there is a mathematical incompatibility between the enneagram and jungs typology, so everyone who tries to understand how these typologies relate to each other is bound to loose his mind which is one of the ways i have lost my mind.

anyhow, if there were a correlation between enneagram strategies and functions i would say you would probably have one strategy or narrative for each of your functions.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Another question then @nanook, do you see the 8 cognitive functions (Ti, etc.) as more important, in a sense, than the 4 functions of N, S, F and T?

 

[nanook]

i usually imagine that introversion and extroversion are modulations applied to the dominant function (for example T) in the present moment. with time, neurology will have carved a world of associations out of doing one of those two things all of the time (for example Ti). the opposite modulation can never happen at the exact same time. hence there will be less carved associations of this manner. so version (I or E) is a strong habit that cant be unlearned. and somehow it affects the version of the other functions as well. so i think of version like a waveform, that travels through the four functions. the more you introvert your dominant function, the more its shadow (the inferior) is extroverted. the more you extrovert your auxiliary function, the more its shadow (the tertiary) is introverted. there must be other things that control this waveform. such as what happens around you. but this modulating waveform occurs dynamically. and produces a habit, a body of carved out associations. which is your conscious experience and familiar reality.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Ok, I definitely like the waveform picture.

So type could go like T N S F, with a wave form that makes the dominant especially introverted like ,,/''\,,/'' with I at the bottom and E at the top, but could also be other waves, to give other combinations?

 

[nanook]

combinations? how an event in one function affects the other four? it probably sends of some sort or stimulation into all of them. i dont know, its hard to think about it in such a generalized manner. what carl jung did was the opposite: he analysed a particular flow of associations and noticed the wave within it. for instance he noticed that when the ego becomes stubbornly fixated on one idea, the shadow would have his revenge by coming up with an equally powerful opposing idea. so he doesn't try to predict what might be possible, what a brain might be capable of, he only describes what he observed. do i have novel observations to contribute? i don't know. one thing that comes to mind is that in a dynamic meditation, there is probably a dissolution of the waveform and the functions come into a harmony of sorts. and this is apparently all pulled by the senses. because dynamic meditation means dancing. i don't know how it works, but it suggests that enforced activities may introduce all kinds of waves. but when you are left alone, you have your habit based default "circuit". the word circuit is actually commonly used in mbti talk.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Ok, I see what you mean I think, but how does it then follow that the auxiliary is extroverted if the dominant is introverted?

It would mean that for a dominant Feeling attitude, there is a shadow Thinking attitude, and if the first is introverted, then the second is introverted. So if Intuition is strong also, then Sensing will be present in a shadow form, and one being introverted means the other will be extroverted, but what's to decide which will be which?

 

[Black Rose]

The main selling point of carl jungs dichotomies is that our reality is made up out of them, so we can look at reality/life/the human condition in a more differentiated manner. in particular, we can have a more differentiated understanding of what someone is saying about reality and use more differentiated language ourselves. i am not into math, but you do the math, how much more intelligent would humanity become, if it were to consistently add that many differentiations to their language or meta awareness of the human subjectivity that contains and creates all supposedly objective ideas about reality. its a real explosion of intelligence, but as always with perspective management, it is not something we can choose to do at will. rather our brain grows into higher levels of complexity all by itself, if it has what it takes, and then this higher level is capable of inventing language or concepts to represent the mind at this level. so jung was an example for that. and when you dumb down typology (mbti) so that everyone thinks they get it, but don't, that doesn't do a lot of good.

nailing individuals down to one static type is very hard to do and i can't even type myself. apart from the difficulty of objectifying oneself, there is the problem that our mind is dynamic and what we experience and speak of is different from how we end up manifesting our life through concrete action.

you guys think i am infp because i told you, but looking at physiognomy i always have major doubts that i am. there are both supposed intp and infp individuals who are so obviously utterly different from me, as biological structures, i know we must have different minds. this doesn't mean that i am not reaping a ton of benefits from typology, for the reasons explained above.

E and I are the directions of psychic energy. Jung observed many people and the direction of their psyche. This is why people don't really get Jung. They think it's too subjective as to 'direction of psychic energy', you can't measure it so it's not real. And the functions are even more obscure. The whole problem is that they don't see that agents do not have properties of things without agency. Humans have minds. Minds are different than periodic tables and electric motors. Minds model the world and they model themselves. But they will focus on different aspects when doing so. So no Typology is not a taxonomy nor is it ego validation. Typology deals with Minds and where minds direct themselves. Understanding that minds direct themselves has helped me understand typology better. Here are my new notes.

Judgment

Ti - Organizes the inner world.
Te - Organizes the outer world.

Fi - Values the inner world.
Fe - Values the outer world.

Perception

Ni - Sees possible inner worlds.
Ne - Sees possible outer worlds.

Si - Sees the inner world as factual details.
Se - Sees the world as is in great detail.

---

INFP (Animekitty)

Fi - Values the inner world.
Ne - Sees possible outer worlds.
Si - Sees the inner world as factual details.
Te - Organizes the outer world.

On Judgment:

Fi pulls in the opposite of Fe. Fi builds a model of its values as a model of the self and compares others to its model. Fe builds models of others and chooses to best model to emulate. The best model becomes the self with Fe whereas Fi refines the model it created itself deciding what the model should be. Fe can also choose what to emulate in others if they are better in some areas and not others. Fi detects the differences between itself and others and understands if others have a self-model of themselves. This means Fi becomes the other person inside themselves rathers than be behaving as that person behavior copying their actions. Fe will copy actions to become someone else. Fi will simulate the inside of the other person into themselves.

Ti is much like Fi in its refinement of models yet instead of a self-model Ti is a model of logic. Ti created a logical model that never existed in the real world but is perfectly correct in that this model knows what is in the world it is just that this new model follows principles that are not negated by the real world and thus the model must be logically sound. Te builds models of things in the real world so it is empirical rather than theoretical. Te needs to test new ideas before making them part of the model. Ti can add multiple ideas to a model as long as they know in principle they do not negate the model and later verify if the entire model works.